When too Many Forces Collide

Yet another article on the housing debacle in Florida. This article is clearly worth reading. It actually reinforces many of my thoughts on the contrasts between the Land Use Partnership Act and the Community Planning Act. The former, along with Chapter 40B, really espouses growth everywhere at all costs. While the latter espouses proper planning for local resources and capabilities.

The article is important in that it points out that, even in the greatest real estate failure on record, proper development in the urban core of Dade County, things are not so bad. However, in the uncontrolled sprawl areas disaster is a kind word when talking about the conditions.

Just something to think about

Proper Planning Is Making Some Progress Against All The Pushback

Recently with all the discussions about the Zoning Act reforms, the entire discussion of whether planning is improving, and lasting reforms are being made. The Mass Audubon Society has released its latest report on land use which you can find here: Mass Audubon report.

The report illustrates that gains are being made to protect the state's critical resources. Even the Boston Globe has published a positive review of this report, Boston.com story, on the report. Given all the rhetoric recently, much of it covered far more extensively than the state's need to protect its resources, about how the state is not meeting its housing growth needs, it was actually a breathe of fresh air to see the Globe not make negative comments about how protecting open space will hurt the state's housing market.

Before the naysayers jump onto this report, or at least use the findings to attack communities on housing policy, it is important to look at this shift towards increased land protection as having occurred while the state housing supply has grown by 0.55%, a rate faster than its population growth, and added twice the number of housing units of any other New England state.

As a planner, I applaud my fellow planners for realizing that housing and open space preservation do work together, and, in spite of the ideas being espoused at the state level, planning and zoning in the state is not broken.

More Housing Information To Think About

The focus for the past several months has been how cities and towns need to do more to spur housing.  One particular area of the housing market that has brought much criticism of cities and towns has been the multi-family market.  It seems that those who have been leading this discussion feel that cities and towns are discouraging the construction of multi-family housing.

Recently I asked my colleagues around the state for information on stalled housing projects.  The results was that there were thousands of approved housing units, many in multi-family configurations, waiting for the applicants to request building permits.  Even one builder acknowledged that units were approved, but the mortgage market was stalling the ability to construct the approved housing.

The following article, from Boston.com illustrates that this problem is not just a planner's wild imagination:

New rules on condo loans hindering some buyers

As the article relates, there are homes.  There are buyers.  The access to mortgages are not there.

While the article has many things to consider, one particular passage really illustrates a point I have been hearing from the home building community:

"Peter Milewski, an official at MassHousing, the state's afford able housing bank, said condos are considered more problematic to lenders because a few foreclosures can affect property values for an entire complex. Also, he said, they carry monthly fees and special assessments that can create massive collective debts if individual unit owners fall behind on payments."

Simply put, lenders are not willing to lend to home buyers due to the threat of foreclosures in other units.  Thus constructed housing is going unoccupied.  This unoccupied housing increases strains on builders and on the condominium complex.  Carrying these empty units impacts the developers ability to make a profit off of the project, and limits their ability to undertake other permitted projects.  Essentially, stretching the builder beyond their means.  When the builder defaults, the banks expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Many who are pushing for local planning and zoning to include housing construction annual targets, seem to forget that it is a much larger picture.  What we really need is good land planning (as put forth in the Community Planning Act), good financial planning by the building community (which many I deal with seem to follow), and proper support for housing from the banking community (which means eliminating the risky mortgage practices of the past decade while not bailing out completely on the housing market).

The Latest on Using Recycled Tires for Play Areas

Driving to work today I heard a radio news story from ABC Radio News on one of the local radio stations regarding on going concerns about the use of recycled tires on synthetic playing fields. In the following story concerns are raised about the ingestion and inhalation of rubber dust on synthetic fields which use crushed rubber.

Synthetic Turf Fields Kicking up Safety Concerns

Looking this story up, also led to finding the following archived news story I had heard about last summer, also on ABC Radio News.

Hot Park Equipment No Child's Play

I have to admit, while I was keenly aware of the risks associated with inhaling rubber dust, and had considered the fumes that might be generated by hot rubber surfaces, I had never thought about just how how these surfaces could get.

Just to wrap it up, here is one more ABC News story on Latex. Read the comments, they are eye opening.

Latex Lurks in Unexpected Places

Smart Growth or Not So Smart Growth?

As we continue the discussion of the Land Use Partnership Act (LUPA) and Community Planning Act II (CPA II) there are many issues to think about.  Here is one article that needs to be considered.   A key quote to consider is "Just having the ability to walk or bike to recurring destinations, such as a food store, school or workplace, makes it more likely people will be more active...."  Is Chapter 40B smart?  Can LUPA make the grade?  What about CPA II?

Are specified housing targets smart growth?  Is a program to construct housing in every community to achieve 10% affordability promoting sprawl?  Is setting a target for 5% housing growth in every community, every ten years smart growth, or is it promoting more automobile  travel? 

Is placing restrictions on a community's ability to require sidewalks as mitigation for development impacts improving people's health or promoting driving? 

Just some things to think about.

Housing And State Consistency

So the Land Use Partnership Act believes that communities are not supporting state goals for housing and economic development. The state establishes a 5% housing growth target over a 10 year time frame. The belief is that cities and towns are blocking the states ability to meet this goal. However, if the state believes that 5% housing growth over 10 years is the appropriate target, what do the numbers really illustrate?

The U.S. Census reports that housing has increased by 3.8% between the 2000 Census and 2007, for an average of 0.55% annually, exceeding this target set by the state.

Looking at the Northeast Region (New England/New York/New Jersey) the Census shows the following growth figures:

.........................7 Year Growth..Average Growth ..Units Added
Massachusetts .......3.8%.................. 0.55% .................100,201
Connecticut ............3.8% ................. 0.54% ..................52,461
Rhode Island ..........2.5% .................0.36% ..................11,047
Vermont ..................5.8% .................0.83% ..................17,052
New Hampshire .....8.6% .................1.23% ...................47,028
Maine .......................6.9% .................0.98% ..................44,710
New York ................3.4% .................0.48% .................260,539
New Jersey .............5.7% .................0.82% .................189,131

As the chart above illustrates, Massachusetts added nearly twice the number of housing units of the other New England states. The rates of growth are larger in those other states due to the smaller starting base. Another interesting figure compares housing growth to population growth.

....................................Housing to Population
.............................................Rate of
.....................................Growth Ratio
Massachusetts ..................2.4:1
Connecticut .......................1.3:1
Rhode Island ....................2.8:1
Vermont ............................2.8:1
New Hampshire ................1.3:1
Maine .................................2.1:1
New York ..........................2.0:1
New Jersey .......................1.8:1

Again, Massachusetts is around the high end for this analysis as well. However, California, Arizona and Florida have been held up as the yardstick for comparison. California has experienced a 1.28% annual increase in housing which relates to a 1.13:1 rate of growth ratio. For Arizona the relevant numbers were 3.12% and 0.92:1. Finally for Florida the numbers were 5.37% and 2.6:1.

So, what does all this mean? Housing growth in Massachusetts is not all that out of character with these other regions. Our housing growth rate in comparison to population growth rate is higher than in these other areas. While our population growth may be slower than some other region's, we are actually providing far more housing opportunities than Arizona or California for our population growth than these rapidly growing states.

Of course, numbers can be manipulated to support any cause. I personally look at these numbers and say things look pretty good. Others will try to say the numbers illustrate that somehow we are holding back growth. Draw your own conclusions.

Back on the Land Use Partnership Act

The Citizen's Housing and Planning Association provides the following summary for the Land Use Partnership Act - it should be noted that in December the entire act was referred to as the Land Use Partnership Act, in the January submittal that has changed with Section 18 and later being known as the Land Use Partnership Act.


Sections 1 - 17 establishes changes to the existing zoning and subdivision regulations. Changes that are intended to make planning, zoning and subdivision control more difficult for communities. While organizations like CHAPA may feel that these changes will, in and of themselves, create more housing and more affordable housing, there are historically no examples of home builders building and selling at levels below what the market will support. Really, in the early 2000's did any of them sell homes for their asking prices when offers were exceeding asking price?

"CHAPA has participated in an 18-month process to identify land use statutes that require updates to make it possible to build housing through local zoning at the necessary densities to accommodate affordability and to prevent environmental degradation and sprawl. The proposal would create a local option for municipalities to create growth districts that include prompt and predictable permitting for housing and additional tools to manage growth in areas they prefer to restrict from development. It also includes modest changes to statewide laws to update land use and planning statutes that haven’t been modified in thirty-five years."


This summary requires an itemized response.


...land use statutes that require updates to make it possible to build housing through local zoning at the necessary densities to accommodate affordability....



The zoning act, Chapter 40A, allows communities to establish densities based upon a variety of local needs. Communities with central water and/or sewer are capable of accommodating development at greater densities than communities without central water and/or sewer. There is nothing about the changes in Sections 1 - 17 of H. 3572/S. 765 which will modify density. There are devices in the act that will make it more costly for towns to provide some of the protections that were recommended they adopt in the 1960's and 70's to protect groundwater resources. However, given the nature of today's drinking water protection requirements, without significant state funding for increased water and sewer services, zoning lot sizes are unlikely to change due to the changes in this legislation.


...to prevent environmental degradation....

H. 3572/S. 765 provides very little new for the protection of the environment. Section 9 on Transfer of Development Rights clarifies existing standards, but provides no truly new devices. Similarly, Section 10 on Cluster Development simply restates the current state of the practice for these types of development. The words may change, but the intent and practice will not.

...and sprawl....

There are a number of items in H. 3572/S. 765 that will not only not stop sprawl but might actually increase it. One of the easiest examples is to look at the Cape Cod Commission Act. Development on the Cape either triggers Commission review which increases review time and cost, or stays below the review threshold. Most seek to stay under that threshold. This has led to the Cape model for several larger chain stores. Off Cape they have a particular sized building for a particular market area. On Cape they have a smaller model for a smaller market area. The end result is more of these retail stores. H. 3572/S. 765 will lead to some similar knee-jerk reactions. Changes to Site Plan Review for instance, in Section 8 of the act, when coupled with the Impact Fee provisions in Section 12 restricts a communities ability to make by-right development ensure that they do not create off-site problems that are immediately assignable to that project. There are similar provisions for subdivisions. The immediate reaction will be to modify zoning controls for towns to recover what these sections take away from them. By these, I would suggest that communities will change zoning such that more projects will trigger Special Permit requirements, thus increasing local control by reducing "by-right" development opportunities. As long as communities remember that a land owner needs to be able to do one thing on their property by-right, Special Permit Control is wide open. This would be a tremendous anti-development reaction to an act that purports to promote development in the state. However, since the cities and towns need to protect themselves, and this act makes that quite difficult, cities and towns will need to react.

Relative to subdivisions, when I worked in NH we worked quite hard on matching land densities to a variety of carrying capacities. In MA most of this effort has focused on groundwater resource protection. In NH after the Lewis Builders case many communities asked their Regional Planning Agencies to look closely at their roadway network, existing traffic volumes, roadway width, and traffic capacity for those roads. Given the number of narrow, winding country roads in most towns, roadway carrying capacity became a limiting factor for development. A factor which triggered recommendations for reducing density to ensure that the towns were not required to widen roads. It was not unreasonable in NH to have a development project on Route 1 in Hampton or Portsmouth turned down as "premature and scattered" an important term in the NH Planning Statute which ensured that communities and developers were on equal footing.

By removing the balance that is present in the subdivision and site plan review efforts of communities, which ensure that by-right developments must be approved, but may be approved based upon conditions that prevent adverse impacts on cities and towns, down-zoning and increased sprawl is almost predictable.

The proposal would create a local option for municipalities to create growth districts...

The Land Use Partnership Act, Section 18 and beyond in H. 3572/S. 765 are beyond the reach of many communities. Communities can create growth districts today. Many have. The growth districts today represent desirable opportunities for communities seeking to promote particular forms of development. Many communities on Cape Cod are working with the Cape Cod Commission on such districts. Off-Cape there are numerous such examples. The "Partnership" aspect of H. 3572/S. 765 is that after cities and towns have been penalized the state will offer back a half a loaf to communities, and ensure that the half a loaf is well outside the reach of those communities.


...that include prompt and predictable permitting for housing...

Ah, the concept of prompt and predictable, as if communities are not prompt and predictable. This is really the starting point for the entire proposal. Communities are not implementing statewide goals for housing, communities are blocking the state's economic development goals, etc. The lobby of a particular conservative think tank that believes cities and towns are bad, cannot be trusted and work against the greater good. It is quite interesting that MA has been relatively insulated from the general market collapse that has taken place in areas such as Arizona, Florida and California to name a few. In part it is because the state did not overdevelop for the past eight years. In fact, housing growth for the past eight years has met the stated goal of 5% housing growth over a ten year time period, and has exceeded that target. At present thousands of approved housing units are unable to be constructed due to the economic meltdown caused in large part by mortgage companies seeking to find creative ways to finance homes as they made their profits off of the mortgage fees. Had banking been more controlled, there would have been a far less drastic economic collapse than we have experienced. The bubble was due to burst, it was just set up to be too big a bubble to begin with.

Housing is now even more out of the reach of many people. Houses are being foreclosed upon due to these creative financing devices which made costs far lower than the realistic costs associated with them. The over-development of the market, yes even here in MA, has led to decreased housing values, leaving real estate developers and home owners with homes and properties valued at less than outstanding mortgages.

...and additional tools to manage growth in areas they prefer to restrict from development.

Honestly, I have not found a single one. The statute seeks to clarify or place into statute tools we currently use. These tools are limiting upon what towns can do presently under Home Rule. For instance, Site Plan Review is a tool that the courts have recognized as evolving from Home Rule powers. Site Plan Review mirrors Chapter 40A Section 9 and simply allows a review to protect health, safety and welfare for otherwise by-right development projects. The proposal will reduce community powers under Site Plan Review, restrict the review period available to a community and basically tie the community's hands. Hardly an additional tool. Similarly there is a provision to specifically explain the restriction on zoning's reach into the interior of a home. This particular provision originally came about to ensure that cities and towns were not making requirements that only expensive homes were being built. While the courts have consistently interpreted this statute to allow significant leeway to communities, the change proposed will reopen the entire litigation question all over again.

...It also includes modest changes to statewide laws...

There is little that is modest about the changes that take place in Sections 1 -17 of H. 3572/S. 765. Modesty is clearly dependent upon what side of the fence you are on.


...to update land use...

The act does not require communities to update land uses, the Community Planning Act makes far more of a direct connection between local comprehensive plans and land use than H. 3572/S. 765. If the desire is to update land use plans and provide a direct connection between these plans and zoning, then the Community Planning Act is the correct too.

...and planning statutes that haven’t been modified in thirty-five years.

The overall planning statute has not been updated in 35 years, however, piecemeal changes have been made almost annually. This proposal provides a new piecemeal set of changes to the statute. It is not comprehensive, but is quite punitive. The best part of the provisions are placed outside of the zoning act and out of reach of most communities. If CHAPA wants to get behind true zoning reform, the Community Planning Act is the correct mechanism.

Something That Really Bothers Me

Sitting watching Town Meeting. One presenter raised the question on an affordable housing issue about keeping out "illegals." This seems to be a recurring issue here in this, the Oldest Town On Cape Cod. I cannot help but wonder what the discussion would have been had the Pilgrims been met with such hostility?

Personally, I can trace my roots back to the marriage of Martin Prevost, a French explorer, and Marie Olivier Manitouabeouich, an Indian, in 1644 the first documented marriage between a European and a Native American. Europeans were welcomed 365 years ago. Many European settlers, economic and political refugees, have been welcomed since then.

Now we have Latin Americans needing the same opportunity that these Europeans needed, yet we have become far less welcoming. We hardly live up to the slogan most European settlers traveled past on Lady Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Are Land Use Policies Really To Blame For The Mortgage Meltdown?

I will start out by agreeing that, yes, land use policies can weigh into the high price of housing. However, there seems to be many who want to blame land use policies for all of our housing woes. Read the following article, Urban Land-Use Controls and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management, to gain one concept. The author is of a clear belief that low density housing caused the current housing crisis. This is a rather specious argument when one considers much of the real world literature that is out there, and works from other real estate research groups.

First, there is this story from the Chicago Tribune, Dreams turn into a dump; Builder vanishes, leaving a community in disarray, here we have a case where a project of significant density, with rather reasonable prices has failed. The problems seem to be much more in dealing with the availability of money to lend than with land use density.

Second, the High Tide for Housing, from Texas A & M's Real Estate Center provides an interesting counterpoint to the Northwestern University paper. The Texas A & M paper points out a number of "causes" of the mortgage meltdown. The idea that housing is an investment rather than shelter, land speculation, strong second home demand, all drive up demand. Simply Google the concept of people offering to pay for homes at higher than the asking price, and one sees numerous news articles from the early 2000's of the phenomenon happening. In my previous post on the Florida Foreclosure Disaster, the article cited reference homes being flipped in a single day for exceedingly higher prices.

In the mid-cape area, many communities have 40% or more of their housing units owned as second homes, seasonal rentals or other investment properties. If all these second homes were available to the local employee, with no out of region or out of state influences, there would be little or no need for subsidized affordable homes.

The current housing crisis is far too severe to to oversimplify the answer. Those who would like to place the blame solely on land use policies are doing just that. Too many want to believe that a trickle down housing plan will meet all of our housing needs. Personally, I believe that the trickle down concept does not work. An increased housing supply will not simply equate to lower housing prices. In fact, an out-of-control housing boom has in the past, and once again, contributed to the current housing crisis.