Candidates for Alderman Discuss Affordable Housing at Forum

By Kimberly Geronimo

Nine candidates for city office discussed their positions on affordable housing Wednesday, Oct. 24, in a forum sponsored by the Affordable Housing Organizing Committee and the Somerville Community Corporation. All six candidates for alderman-at-large appeared and the challengers in Ward 5 and Ward 7 also appeared, although the incumbents for those seats did not. Ward 6 Alderman Rebekah Gewirtz also appeared at the forum.

Ideas overlapped as the candidates consistently presented themselves as proactive supporters of the creation and protection of affordable housing, reformers of condominium conversion regulations, and opponents of displacement and discrimination. Yet despite the repetition, the discussion did circulate a variety of different approaches to the issues at hand. 

The forum’s first question asked candidates to describe the steps they would take to expand existing efforts to create and protect affordable housing.

“We need to work with Harvard University” said Alderman-at-Large John M. Connolly,. Harvard “is working themselves up Beacon [Street]. Everyone can feel Harvard’s presence, why shouldn’t we be partnering with Harvard to provide affordable housing?” he said.

Universities were also on the mind of Gewirtz. She voiced concern about the impact of university students on affordable housing in Somerville. “There are landlords who’d rather rent to students than to families because they can get more money,” she said.

Fred Berman, first-time candidate for alderman-at-large, was on the same page as Gewirtz. “The more we can get universities to house their students on campus...there will be less of a demand” and housing prices will lower, he said.

Directing his attention to the other side of the affordable housing equation, Berman spoke of a need for job matching and skills development programs to help people “boost their incomes.” Alderman-at-Large William A. White Jr., summed up the ‘two-sides-to-the-problem’ approach. “We need to coordinate the creation of good paying jobs and affordable housing,” he said.

White also voiced interest in exploring investment tax credits as a means of lowering
housing prices.

All the candidates supported, or were open to, an increase in the percentage of units required to be affordable in the current Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.

“The easier road is 12 percent. The harder road is 15 percent. This property is extremely valuable, [the developers] can give us 15 percent,” said Gewirtz.

Joseph Lynch, candidate for Ward 5 alderman, took a tough stance towards developers. “If you want to build in our city, if you’re going to profit from the Green Line expansion...you’re going to have to give back more,” he said.

Despite his support for inclusionary housing, Alderman-at-Large Dennis Sullivan, said he was not opposed to offsite housing. “If we can get good affordable housing, we should consider offsite housing,” he said.

The forum’s second question asked candidates to describe the steps they would take to address the problems associated with the recent surge in condominium conversions in Somerville.

The responses revealed parallel approaches to tackling the issue. “Tenants and landlords need to know their rights under land laws,” said Berman. His statement summed up the general position of the candidates.

But despite this general consensus, smaller nuances in their plans differentiated the candidates.

Tony LaFuente, candidate for alderman-at-large, advocated for a more individualized oversight of condominium conversions regulations, such as the period of protections for tenants and relocation expenses. “If people can’t find [a new place] in two years, then we’ll look at it case by case,” he said.

“We need to put safeguards on things and allow movements,” he said. “If we put a time frame on things, there’s no movement.”

But Berman disagreed with LaFuente’s plans. “Flexibility makes everybody nervous because landlords don’t know what they have to do, tenants don’t know what they have to do,” he said. “Clarity is helpful.”

As the focus of the forum turned to preventing displacement, other ideas surfaced.

Rachel Heller, who is challenging incumbent Robert C. Trane in ward 7, advocated increasing the inclusionary zone percentage as well as trying “a few new things” like employer-assisted housing, in which businesses would help with their employees’ down payments, she said.

The final topic discussed at the forum was discrimination against tenants. Candidates placed themselves squarely against discriminating landlords and advocated enforcement as the primary means to combat it.

“We need to become very aggressive as a city to identify those landlords” who discriminate, said LaFuente. “We should give them funding to get rid of lead paint so they don’t have that excuse,” he said, referring to the tendency of some landlords to cite lead paint concerns as a reason not to rent to families with small children or to accept Section 8 vouchers.

“The issue is always enforcement,” he said.

Sullivan’s approach to discrimination was also enforcement-heavy. “I advocate that they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” he said, speaking of discriminating landlords.

On a more cooperative note, Gewirtz encouraged the city to “figure out ways that landlords and renters can communicate better.” She also proposed that Somerville take advantage of the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston, an organization that tests for lead paint.

Comments

[why no show?]

Why did some of the alderman not show up to this event? Do they not care about affordable housing?

[Harry Miller]

Why did some of the alderman not show up to this event? Do they not care about affordable housing?

Posted by: why no show? | November 03, 2007 at 01:26 PM

$10 says the other candidates were actually out working for their ward and not jut bloviating like these fools. What actually got accoplished at this meeting? NOTHING.

I love this bright idea from Heller (we should call her Heller Keller from now on): "...employer-assisted housing, in which businesses would help with their employees’ down payments...". Why would any business locate into Somerville knowing that they would have to subsidize employee's homes? What happens if the employee becomes a bad employee and needs to be fired. It's ideas like this that one just has to scream "How stupid can one person be?!?!?". This woman Heller needs to go back to being a secretary is some flunky's statehouse office. She is way, way, way over her head.

[Susan Day]

Oh my! Did I just read that Heller wants to try “...a few new things like employer-assisted housing, in which businesses would help with their employees’ down payments,..."? Oh my God. She is more uninformed and silly than I feared.

Why would anyone starting a business or thinking of moving a business to Somerville do so now? We need to increase the commercial tax base to help reduce the residential tax burden and "new things" like this will not help. It will not help at all.

Can you imagine a small business, already over burdened with high rents, taxes, employee health benefits, UI now having to come up with down payments for their employees to buy houses. I don't know if I have ever heard of a more bizarre proposal. Has this woman ever been involved in any transaction more complicated than buying a latte at starbucks? It sure doesn't appear that way with these types of "ideas". The PDS may need to drag her off the stage for a while and reprogram her to not talk. At all.

[Ron Newman]

I'm not familiar with Heller's proposal, but a Google search for "employee-assisted housing" finds many references to it, including the Illinois office of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. It sounds like something that is accomplished through tax incentives and certainly not by any kind of municipal mandate.

[Susan Day]

Ron, do you own here? If so, did someone "hand" you your down payment? Do you know what the average down payment for a house in Somerville is? You have to assume that banks are only going to lend to people with 10% down now (bad loans, high risk - they've been burned recently). A condo in this city is at least ~$400K, so you need $40K DOWN. Heller's "great idea" would be that the businesses would get tax credits of .50 cents on the dollar. However, they still need to fork over the $40K PER EMPLOYEE that wants this free down payment. Assume 10 employees and you are OUT OF POCKET $400K on employees who may or may not be with you a year later.

It's a stupid idea and the only companies touting it were banks/contractors and others who benefit by shoving people - who can't afford it - into houses. What happened to saving money for a down payment? If someone needs to be given money for a down payment then they're not going to be "invested" in that house. For them to let the house run down and not make payments is a given. All we need is more foreclosures and this genius of an idea would most certainly lead to that.

Thanks, Rachel! Any other bright ideas? How about we start Jihadi schools here in Somerville (fund them with tax dollars), so the terrorists will like us? Maybe we can all hold hands with them, form a human chain up to Bunker Hill and sign "Kumabya"?? Or how about we subsidize housing for illegals - oh....Yikes.

[nobody]

People need to live below their means and work hard in order to save up money to buy a house. These wacko liberals need to awaken to the idea of personal choice.

[mrg]

Who in the hell is talking about "Jihadi" schools in Somerville? Some of you people (read: Susan Day) are seriously unbalanced. Take a deep breath - if you are confident in your argument you should be able to get it across without interjecting irrelevant nonsense.

[Meetings, meetings, and more meetings]

I am so tired of this new way of dealing with problems.....let's have a meeting! It is endless hours of talking, accomplishing nothing. Yet we allow (mostly Progressives) to demand meetings to discuss everything under the sun. It is also scary when people start throwing out their 'ideas'.....
~“We should give them funding to get rid of lead paint"
~"period of protections for tenants and relocation expenses"
~"businesses would help with their employees’ down payments"
~"cite lead paint concerns as a reason not to rent to families with small children or to accept Section 8 vouchers"
I think they're all crazy!
As far as Section 8 vouchers goes, there are many many reasons landlords do not accept them, the least of which is 'discrimination'. Actually, my most progressive acquaintances, who can well afford to de-lead their downstairs apartment have told me openly that they won't do it because they don't want to rent to children, and this is their 'out' (oh and by the way, they are also the ones who won't send their kids to SHS). I won't even comment on the other wacko ideas. All I know is that as a landlord I own my home and I will rent to whom I wish, and I will 'condoize' if I wish. When you start messing with landlords' 'rights' you're on a slippery slope.

[Susan Day]

Meetings, meetings and more meetings. I agree with you 100%. These "progressives" like to meet and then pontificate on how they're going to save the world (with our tax dollars - of course). All they do is create more headaches and redtape for everyone.

I rent to who I want to. I condoize if I decide to. I OWN THE DAMN HOUSE - NOT YOU MORONS.

The worst part is the people who ought to know better (working and middle class) in this city go along with the progressives. They do so mainly because they're too stupid and lazy to read that the progressive platform says. Anyone who takes the time to read and understand the PDS platform would be as repulsed as I am. The PDS candidates need to be defeated in this election. They're criminals the way they spend OUR money.

[Just wondering]

Susan Day = Our MIA I-friend?