Reform and resistance
Professor Sharon Krefetz's research
By the late 1960s, metropolitan areas in the United States had become segregated by income and race. Most lowincome, non-white households were concentrated in cities, while most suburbs were composed almost entirely of white, middle and upper middle class households.
Challenging the status quo: the "Anti-Snob Zoning Law"
In 1969, in a pioneering effort to combat this pattern of segregation, the Massachusetts legislature passed Chapter 40B*--sometimes referred to as the 'Anti-Snob Zoning Law.' The law was designed to encourage Massachusetts cities and towns to ensure that at least 10% of their housing stock would be affordable for low and moderate income households.
The law contained a controversial provision whereby, if a municipality's zoning board denied a permit to a qualified housing developer with a government subsidy to build low and moderate income housing, the developer could appeal to a state-level Housing Appeals Committee. The Committee could override the municipality's decision, except in cases where the town or city could show that at least 10% of its housing stock was already affordable for low and/or moderate income households. In a state characterized by a long and strong tradition of local government autonomy, the law was highly controversial because it reasserted the state government's authority to have the "final say" in local land use and zoning.
The impact of the new law
Based on many years of research beginning in 1977, government professor Sharon Krefetz has concluded that the law has been instrumental in opening up the suburbs to some affordable housing. Over the years, municipal resistance to affordable housing has declined somewhat, as communities have learned to work with developers to arrive at mutually acceptable plans.
Nonetheless, Krefetz notes that the need for affordable housing is still acute. While some towns have approved proposals for affordable housing under the law and a small number have achieved the 10% threshold, resistance to including low- and moderate-income housing in many communities has remained strong.
No statewide monitoring
When Krefetz began her research, she discovered that no state agency had been charged with monitoring local responses to development proposals made under the new law. With assistance over the years from many Clark undergraduates interested in housing issues, she set out to gather that information. She and her assistants were able to compile information on 290 (out of 351) Massachusetts cities and towns, gathered from a variety of sources, including:
- a survey that she created and sent in 1997 to the zoning boards of appeals in all 351 cities and towns,
- records from the Housing Appeals Committee in the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, and
- interviews with state and local officials.
Research findings
Krefetz's research showed that
- Between 1970 and 1999, proposals for the development of affordable housing had been submitted in at least 221 (out of 351) Massachusetts cities and towns.
- Affordable housing was actually built in 173 cities and towns (especially in the Boston metropolitan area), although as of 1997 only 23** had met the 10% goal (a somewhat arbitrary target, as Krefetz explains).
- Proposals were more likely to be made in towns in the eastern part of the state--where local zoning and land use regulations were most restrictive and housing most expensive--than in the much less densely populated west.
- The majority of the housing actually completed was designed for families, with other developments being targeted for the elderly, mixed family and elderly, and persons with disabilities.
- Private developers submitted sixty percent of the proposals, with local housing authorities and non-profit organizations making up the rest.
Municipal resistance
Over the years, municipalities have offered various reasons as to why they turned down proposals under 40B. One concern was that low and moderate income residents would not contribute their fair share of tax dollars to support the increased burden their presence would impose on town services, especially education. But underlying expressed objections, Krefetz suggests, were perceptions, based on stereotypes, that an influx of low or moderate income persons, especially minorities, would result in a decrease in property values and the presence of undesirable neighbors with unruly children.
Krefetz agrees that compliance with the law is hindered in part by the widespread reliance in Massachusetts on local property taxes to fund municipal services. She recommends that state and federal funding to local governments be expanded to subsidize the cost of housing and to cover increased service costs in towns willing to accept affordable housing.
* Chapter 40B refers to a section in the Massachusetts statutes. The official name is the Comprehensive Permit and Zoning Appeals Act.
**Now over 30.