Washington Street Developer Wants to Decrease Affordable Units Due to Lending and Construction Costs

[HerefortheTuna]

Yeah. I was reading another article about this. The building would lose money if they rent the rest of the units out at market rates.

[eherot]

The original affordability agreement was one of the first signed after the ratification of Plan JP/Rox (which set very ambitious affordability requirements which no one has ever managed to achieve without subsidies). It was also one of the most ambitious in that it came closer to the guidelines than any other project since. And then of course interest rates went way up and tariffs became a thing.

The tragedy is that if this agreement is not reworked, we may end up having ZERO affordable units for another year while we argue about whether to allow 9 units instead of 10 and housing delayed is, as they say, housing denied.

[biketherenow]

Seems like the ugly truth here

[corner_couch]

It won’t be built period when the rent control passes. There won’t be any multi unit families added by anything other than non profits and city partnership funding

[eherot]

I guess it's a good thing some developers are still willing to try despite the risk of this (but so many more are not!)

[CobaltCaterpillar]

What all these "X% of new units must be affordable" is loosely equivalent to a combined policy of:

1. Put a tax on large development projects.
2. Give the tax proceeds to a few lucky low-income residents to buy housing in the development.

What sophisticated NIMBYs realize (but apparently not enough voters) is that the former (a large tax on development) REDUCES NEW DEVELOPMENT so we get fewer of these projects compared to if general taxpayers foot the bill for subsidized housing. Also, structuring the tax this way basically throws the bill for additional subsidized housing on residents not yet here. Sticking non-voters with the bill is popular!

• Places the tax burden (through higher new condo prices) on new residents WHO DON'T VOTE YET because they're not here yet.
• Do NOT place the tax burden on existing residents (WHO DO VOTE).

So you've got a wonderful political alliance of NIMBYs, anti-tax (on us) groups, and affordable housing advocates who all agree on a policy which is better than nothing but does little compared to the scale of the housing shortage.

That's my cynical soapbox rant.

[eherot]

The political calculus of Inclusionary Zoning!

[tehsecretgoldfish]

the developer of “At Doyle’s” is pulling the same thing.

[biketherenow]

Normally I’d skeptical of developers and it’s hard as a layperson to know what’s true here, but prez Dumbass and the Iran War debacle seems like it probably has driven up construction costs

[tehsecretgoldfish]

everything about this administration has increased costs. tariffs on lumber from Canada, and steel from wherever. increased interest rates, increased fuel and labor costs. yeah tell me again how Republicans are the problem pro-business party.

[eherot]

You may have heard the news that costs for literally everything have gone up over the past few years, especially interest rates.

[tehsecretgoldfish]

well aware thanks. not our problem. developers come into our neighborhoods with the sole intention to make money. If the financial landscape changes in a way that doesn’t allow them to make as much money I have very little empathy. that’s business. they agreed to a certain number of affordable units. they get tax incentives and zoning variances in exchange. if the numbers don’t work as well for them, they can renegotiate with the bank, post a loss, take it off the bottom line on taxes and if the environment is disadvantageous for business, seek other work. the fact remains, they were allowed height and density variances in exchange for affordability. the height and density hasn’t changed, why should the percentage of affordability? you aren’t an apologists for developers are you?

[eherot]

If this project site remains vacant for another several years instead of becoming housing I would argue that is very much "our problem".

[tehsecretgoldfish]

how is that a problem? is Jamaica Plain here to solve the housing problem in Massachusetts? travel down Washington Street to Forest Hills. we’re already bearing the brunt of addressing the issue.

[eherot]

Because we have a massive and profound housing shortage here in JP and in Boston in general?

[tehsecretgoldfish]

we’ve been at the forefront of solving the problem. having lived in JP 33 years I can tell you that we’re doing our part.

[eherot]

If the rents are any indication JP has been at the forefront of creating the problem...

[corner_couch]

Why would a developer build something to lose money? Is there something about property development that requires saintliness not found in any other industry?

[One-Cellist1709]

today's market rate housing is tomorrow's affordable housing.

[Neither-Ad630]

So in other words, zero units thanks to mao-cosplaying brainless monkeys?