SALISBURY — It’s a law that was meant to make housing more affordable, but in Salisbury and in many other places across the state, there’s a growing movement to change it.
Salisbury Town Manager Neil Harrington, Selectman Jerry Klima and about 50 other officials from across the state attended a recent seminar organized by the Municipal Coalition for Affordable Housing.
The group’s mission is to put towns and cities in control of how affordable housing is developed in their communities, instead of following the rigid rules of the state’s Chapter 40B housing law, which essentially gives state agencies total authority.
After listening to those who attended the recent seminar, Harrington said most officials agreed 40B isn’t working as intended in their communities.
“That biggest gripe with 40B is that it’s a one-size-fits-all law and it ignores the local concerns and needs of the cities and towns,” Harrington said.
Towns that don’t have at least 10 percent of their housing stock at an affordable price are subject to the most controversial aspect of 40B — developers are given considerable power to ignore local zoning laws if the project includes 20 percent to 25 percent affordable housing with profit capped at 20 percent. Locally, only Amesbury and Georgetown have more than 10 percent affordable housing.
One of the things Salisbury would like to see changed in the current 40B regulations is the ability to count mobile homes as part of the town’s inventory of affordable housing, Harrington said.
“We don’t currently get credit for the affordable housing that we have in town,” Harrington said. “The state won’t count as affordable housing the 200 or more mobile homes we have in Salisbury, and that housing really does serve the housing needs of Salisbury’s low- to moderate-income families. If the mobile homes were counted, we’d have more than 10 percent affordable housing. It’s ludicrous.”
In Salisbury, the liberties allowed developers under Chapter 40B go far beyond what is acceptable to officials and residents. In addition, the housing created by 40B developments in town doesn’t meet the financial needs of those in the community who are without affordable year-round housing, Harrington said. In Salisbury, the price must be low enough to be affordable to a local family of two earning $52,950.
“I think our main concern with 40B is it does not serve the needs of Salisbury’s indigenous low- to moderate-income families,” Harrington said. “The 40B developments built here are not being purchased by Salisbury residents who need affordable housing. They can’t afford them. Nearly all of the (affordable) 40B housing units sold in Salisbury go to residents from other cities and towns.”
If Salisbury were to deny 40B developments on that or any other basis, he said, state housing agencies can overrule it.
“The law does not allow for much in the way of getting things back,” Harrington said. “If developers are denied, they have the right to appeal to the state. (State housing officials) almost unilaterally agree with the developers, no matter the concerns of the community. Consistently, (state housing officials) think any new affordable housing is good affordable housing.”
Many think some developers are padding their expenses to show a profit margin of not more than 20 percent, while providing little or no real evidence backing up their figures.
Gregory Sullivan, the state inspector general, is investigating the profit cap aspect of the regulation, which he believes has “widespread abuse” and is “the biggest scandal in state history.”
Meanwhile, a group called The Coalition for the Repeal of 40B is trying to collect about 66,000 signatures to get a repeal proposal on next year’s statewide ballot. Salisbury officials don’t want to go that far.
The Coalition for the Repeal of 40B is about halfway to its goal.
“I think the idea (of the ballot initiative) is to put pressure on the legislators to finally do something about 40B,” Harrington said. “The same thing was done about rent control about eight years ago when the Legislature wouldn’t reform it. A question was put on the ballot to repeal rent control, and the voters passed it.”
State House News Service contributed to this report.
Not affordable
Cities and towns must have at least 10 percent of their housing set at “affordable” levels to avoid the controversial affects of the state law Chapter 40B. Here are the local percentages:
Community Affordable units
Amesbury 11.1%
Georgetown 13.9%
Groveland 3.5%
Merrimac 6.5%
Newbury 3.6%
Newburyport 8.4%
Rowley 4.4%
Salisbury 8.3%
West Newbury 1.8%
SOURCE: State Department of Housing and Community Development
