Overriding Exclusion: Compliance With Subsidized Housing Incentives in the Massachusetts 40B Program

ABSTRACT

Exclusionary land-use policies implemented by local governments over decades have contributed to the spatial concentration of publicly subsidized housing in central cities and the development and preservation of affluent, racially homogeneous communities elsewhere. Various policy responses have been developed to overcome local regulatory barriers. In this article we examine one of the longest-standing initiatives, the Chapter 40B permit override policy of the State of Massachusetts, and the pattern of subsidized housing development across all municipalities in the state. Between 1997 and 2017, the subsidized housing stock in Massachusetts increased by 58,975 units, rising from 7.8% of the housing stock statewide to 9.2%. Within the Boston metropolitan area, the subsidized stock increased by 37,417 units over this time period, increasing from 9.2% to 10.3% of the metro area’s housing. Cities and towns in Massachusetts made steady progress in subsidized housing production over these years but did so unevenly. Boston metro area cities made the most progress. Multivariate analysis indicates that cities with higher percentage white population produced the least subsidized housing over the study period.

KEYWORDS:

• low-income housing
• regulation
• municipalities

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Not all housing units counted in the SHI are affordable for low- to moderate- income families. In rental projects, Chapter 40B designates that all the housing units in a given development built through the comprehensive permit process count toward the 10% goal if at least 25% of them are affordable to households earning 80% or less of the area median income (AMI) or at least 20% of them are occupied by households earning 50% or less of the AMI. If the percentage of affordable units in a development is below those thresholds, only the affordable units are counted in the SHI. In homeownership developments, only the income-restricted units count toward the 10% goal (DHCD, 2017, pp. II-4–II-5).

2. Own-source revenues include taxes, service charges, licenses and permits, special assessments, fines and forfeitures, and miscellaneous sources. The general fund expenditures include police, fire, public safety, education, public works, human services, culture and recreation, fixed costs, intergovernmental assessments, other expenditures, and debt service.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Edward G. Goetz

Edward G. Goetz is professor of urban planning at the University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, and director of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. His research focuses on housing policy as relates to issues of race and income inequality.

Yi Wang

Yi Wang is a PhD student at the University of Minnesota, Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Her research focuses on affordable housing policy and housing inequalities both in the United States and in China.