波士顿住房报告卡

,Click to edit Master title style,Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,*,Click to edit Master title style,Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,*,The Greater Boston Housing Report Card 2002,Center for Urban and Regional Policy,(CURP),Northeastern University,Citizens Housing and Planning Association,(CHAPA),Boston Indicators Project,The Boston Foundation,September 2000,New Paradigm for Housing in Greater Boston,Faced with a limited supply of existing housing,extremely low vacancy rates, and a decade of inadequate housing production, the,New Paradigm,report concluded that in the next five years an additional,36,000 housing units,would need to be constructed in the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),over and above existing production levels, in order to help moderate future price and rent increases.,New Paradigm for Housing in Greater Boston,a,“moral imperative”,for all those who need decent housing at affordable prices,an,“economic necessity”,in order to sustain Bostons renaissance economy,How Have We Done?,Household Growth vs. New Housing,The 1990s:,# of New Households:,129,265,# of New Housing Units:,91,567,As a result, housing vacancy rates in Greater Boston plummeted,Vacancy Rates,1990,2000,Rental Housing,6.7%,2.7%,Owner-Occupied,1.7%,0.6%,Source: U.S. Census,Most of the decline in vacancy rates occurred after 1995, following the 1991-92 recession,Rent Paid by Existing Tenants,1995,2000,% Change,Median Rent Paid,$744,$1,035,+39%,Source: IREM Data,Median Rent Increase for Existing Tenants vs. Median Renter Household Income Increase,+,54%,25%,39%,Median Household Income,Monthly Rent,Median,Advertised Rents 1998-2001,By 2001,Median Advertised Rent,for a Two-Bedroom Apartment in City of Boston was,$1,700,Between 1998 and 2001, advertised rents increased by as much as,64%,in surrounding cities and towns,In,12 of 19,municipalities surrounding Boston, advertised rents increased by at least,30,percent between 1998 and 2001,Advertised Rents for Two-Bedroom Apartments in,Boston-Area Cities and Towns,City/Town,1998,1999,2000,2001,% Change 1998-2001,Winchester,$1,050,$1,300,$1,350,$1,750,67%,Revere,$788,$950,$1,250,$1,288,63%,Everett,$775,$863,$1,000,$1,200,55%,Medford,$950,$1,100,$1,200,$1,400,47%,Melrose,$950,$1,200,$1,250,$1,400,47%,Malden,$850,$1,000,$1,200,$1,250,47%,Quincy,$850,$1,100,$1,350,$1,250,47%,Waltham,$975,$1,100,$1,250,$1,350,38%,Cambridge,$1,400,$1,475,$1,688,$1,750,25%,Watertown,$1,200,$1,250,$1,400,$1,500,25%,Newton,$1,300,$1,400,$1,500,$1,600,23%,Chelsea,$1,100,$1,050,N/A,$1,350,23%,Boston,$1,500,$1,550,$1,600,$1,700,13%,Source: Sunday edition of,The Boston Globe, the Department of Neighborhood Development, City of Boston,Affordability of Rental Housing,Housing is “Affordable” when a household must pay no more than,30%,of annual income for rent or mortgage,Households earning the median income of renters can now afford to pay the median advertised rent for a two-bedroom apartment in only,2 out of 20,towns and cities in the heart of Greater Boston.,Median Selling Price 1998-2001,1998,2001,% Change,Median Selling Price,$198,500,$298,350,+50.3%,By 2001, households earning the median income in their,city or town could not afford the median priced,single-family house in,112 of 161,towns and cities,in the region.,Percent Change in Median Home Price (1998-2001),Vs. Estimated 2001 Median Household Income,On average, median housing prices rose fastest,in lower income municipalities,Building Permits Issued in Greater Boston, 1980-2002,(161 Municipalities),25,000,11,000,Fastest Growing Cities/Towns,% Change in Year,Round Housing,Units (1990-2000),Hopkinton,38.1%,Bolton,35.5%,Berkley,34.5%,Franklin,34.1%,Kingston,31.7%,Mendon,31.4%,Salisbury,29.9%,Dunstable,29.6%,Boxborough,28.9%,Mansfield,27.5%,Southborough,26.9%,Rowley,26.7%,Westford,26.4%,Wilmington,26.2%,Slowest Growing Cities/Towns,% Change in Year,Round Housing,Units(1990-2000),Watertown,1.6%,Framingham,1.0%,Wellesley,0.7%,Boston,0.1%,Medford,0.1%,Manchester,0.0%,Lynn,-0.2%,Arlington,-0.2%,Belmont,-0.2%,Essex,-0.4%,Melrose,-0.7%,Winthrop,-0.8%,Brockton,-1.5%,Lowell,-2.2%,Single Family vs. Multi-Family Housing Building Permits Greater Boston,New Paradigm Report Production Goals Boston MSA,(127 Municipalities),Annual,Expected Projected,5-Year,Requirement,Annual Annual,Projected Needed,Production Shortfall,Additional Production,Market rate,9,860 7,160 2,700,13,500,Subsidized,4,300 1,300 3,000,15,000,Student,1,500,1,1,500,7,500,TOTAL,15,660,8,460,7,200,36,000,1,3,450 dormitory units were identified as planned or under construction at the time the Paradigm Report was released. It was expected that these units would count toward the five-year 7,500 unit production target.,Building Permits Issued Boston MSA1968-2001,Category,Total Needed per Year,1995-99 Avg. Level of Production,1999,2000,2001,2002e,Market Rate,9,860,7,160,7,416,6,766,6,005,6,375,Subsidized - new construction,4,300,1,300,931,1,478,1,651,1,213,Dorm Units,1,500,*,256,165,704,606,Total Production Levels including Dorm Units,15,660,8,460,8,603,8,409,8,360,8,194,Housing Production in Boston MSA vs. New Paradigm Goals,Category,1999,2000,2001,2002e,% of total goal met,55%,54%,53%,52%,% of goal met (,Market + Subsidized,),59%,58%,54%,54%,% of goal met (,Dorm Units,),17%,11%,47%,40%,% of goal met,(,Market,),75%,69%,61%,65%,% of goal met,(,Subsidized,),22%,34%,38%,28%,Housing Production in Boston MSA,vs.,New Paradigm Goals,Affordable Housing Greater Boston,Most of the states subsidized units were added between 1965 and 1980, the heyday of federally supported low income housing production,Total subsidized units:,146,096,Number of units built,since 1972,63,761,Subsidized units built under the,Comprehensive permit (40B),11,810,Affordable Housing Greater Boston,Subsidized Housing,represents,9%,of total stock of Greater Boston Housing,Since 1969,Chapter 40B,responsible for,15%,of new affordable housing,Boston, Cambridge, Lowell, Lynn, Brockton, and,Lawrence,are responsible for,half,of all subsidized housing in Greater Boston,Boston,alone represents,one-third,Community,2000 Census Year Round Units,Percent Subsidized 2000 Base,State Subsidized Housing Inventory (40B Units),Boston,250,367,19.63%,49,146,Chelsea,12,317,17.03%,2,098,Cambridge,44,138,15.60%,6,884,Lawrence,25,540,14.96%,3,821,Lowell,39,381,13.49%,5,312,Lynn,34,569,12.73%,4,400,Salem,18,103,12.50%,2,262,Brockton,34,794,12.24%,4,258,Malden,23,561,12.20%,2,875,Beverly,16,150,10.33%,1,669,Framingham,26,588,10.17%,2,705,Revere,20,102,10.07%,2,025,Communities With the Highest Percentage of,Affordable Housing, October 2001,Meeting the 10% Affordable Housing Goal,Only,12,communities out of the regions,161,have achieved the 10% threshold for affordable housing, up from,8,in 1990.,These 12 communitiesmostly citiescontain,1/3,of the regions housing supply but account for,60%,of the total assisted inventory.,In 1990,13,communities in Greater Boston had no publicly assisted housing. Now there is just,1,.,Funding Affordable Housing,Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC),HOME Investments Partnership (HOME) Program,Housing Innovations Fund,Housing Stabilization Fund,Facilities Consolidation Fund,Housing Development Support Program,Massachusetts Affordable Housing Trust Fund,Mass Housing,Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund,Mass Development,Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation,Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation,Funding Affordable Housing 1999-2001,150,developments in,36,Greater Boston communities received nearly,$100,000,000,3,400,units of housing,72%,of which are affordable,1,700,additional units were preserved,Multiple funding sources (2 or more) were identified in nearly,40%,of these cases,Loss of Affordable Housing,Nearly,3,000,rental units in 15 Greater Boston communities have been lost to the subsidized inventory over the past decade as the result of,expiring-use restrictions,Most of these losses occurred prior to 1998.,But an additional,11,000,units are,“at-risk”,between now and 2005,Subsidized Housing Production 1999-2001,1,Preservation Only,Substantial Rehabilitation,New Construction Adaptive Reuse,Total,Total projects with state grant support and tax credits,40%,18%,42%,100%,By Development Entity:,For Profit,32%,12%,26%,26%,Non Profit,68%,70%,54%,63%,Joint,Venture,0%,17%,20%,12%,Total,100%,100%,100%,100%,1,Programs reported include LIHTC, Massachusetts Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Housing Innovations Fund (HIF),Housing Stablization Fund, HOME, and Facilities Consolidation Fund (FCF). HIF and CFC are limited to non-profit developers, skewing the development in their favor.,Community,Year 2000 Units,1997 40B Units,Ch 40B Units 2002,Change in Number of 40B Housing Units 1997-2001,Percent,Increase,1997-2001,Plympton,865,0,40,40,N/A,Sherborn,1,449,0,34,34,N/A,Boxborough,1,900,0,12,12,N/A,Berkley,1,870,0,4,4,N/A,Plainville,3,088,40,128,88,220.0%,Wilmington,7,141,159,490,331,208.2%,Shirley,2,140,24,57,33,137.5%,Abington,5,332,112,250,138,123.2%,Hull,4,679,68,151,83,122.1%,Lakeville,3,385,4,8,4,100.0%,Marlborough,14,846,592,1,180,588,99.3%,Holliston,4,861,78,153,75,96.2%,Weston,3,796,76,126,50,65.8%,Danvers,9,712,279,428,149,53.4%,Ayer,3,141,77,118,41,53.2%,Communities Demonstrating Progress in the,Provision of Affordable Housing, 1997-2001,All Reported Changes by Type of Initiative,Units Eligible for Inclusion on Subsidized Housing Inventory (40B List),Comprehensive permit,31%,Homeowner and rental rehab programs,30%,All other,13%,Programs to qualify existing units,1,and first time homebuyer,programs,10%,DMH/DMR group homes,7%,Special permits, rezoning and other local initiatives,9%,TOTAL,100%,1,This category includes existing units that communities have been allowed to qualify on a case-by-case basis.,Tools Used to Construct,Affordable Housing,Excluding DMH/DMR group homes and,units qualified by rehab or first-time,homebuyer status,Units Eligible for Inclusion on Subsidized Housing Inventory (40B List),Comprehensive permit,77%,All other,23%,TOTAL,100%,Tools/Programs Used to Create Qualified Affordable Housing in Communities with Subsidized Housing Below Ten Percent,Source: State Housing Inventory (1997; 2002) supplemented by DCHD and CHAPA,DHCD Spending (State and Federal Funds),1989-2001 (Current Dollars),DHCD Spending (State and Federal),1989-2001,(Inflation Adjusted 2002 Dollars),State Housing Operating and Capital Budgets,1989-2003,Fiscal Year,State DHCD Spending,Share of Total State Spending,1989,410,2.9%,1990,380,2.5%,1991,275,1.7%,1992,224,1.4%,1993,207,1.1%,1994,172,0.9%,1995,183,0.9%,1996,202,1.0%,1997,201,0.9%,1998,212,0.8%,1999,219,0.8%,2000,223,0.7%,2001,237,0.7%,State-funded Spending as Share of Total State Spending,Fiscal Year 1989-2001,Source: MA Office of the Comptroller Annual Statutory Basis Financial Reports,State vs. Federal Funding Levels,for Massachusetts Housing Programs,Federal Block Grant Allocations in Massachusetts,(CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA) 1993-2002,Summary,Housing Production has failed to meet the New Paradigm Goals,Vacancies have fallen well below “normal” levels,Rents and Prices have therefore skyrocketed,Production of Student Housing is up, but more is needed,Affordable Housing production is well below goal,Comprehensive (40B) is helping to fill need,State funding for housing is declining as a percent of total state spending,