To the editor:
The “Housing Lynn” plan is being debated at a critical moment: Rents continue to rise dramatically in our city (Item, Jan. 25) and the COVID-19 pandemic has made the crisis of unaffordability and overcrowding even more urgent. A growing number of residents are outraged that one big development after another includes only luxury apartments far out of reach for most Lynners.
The plan intended to guide development for the next five years must be amended to address those concerns.
The plan does include useful information and some good policy suggestions. Unfortunately, the one part of Housing Lynn that requires a specific commitment from the city completely misses the mark. The draft commits Lynn to making 15 percent of new housing affordable for households with incomes at 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI). That means a new apartment renting at $2,400 a month – reserved for a household of four with an annual income over $95,000 – would count as “affordable.”
That kind of “affordability” based on a median income of $119,000 for a huge area that lumps Lynn together with places like Newton and Marblehead, would be no help at all to the vast majority of renters here.
Using that definition of affordable housing in the city’s commitment is completely at odds with the plan’s own data, which show median income for all Lynn residents as $53,513 and median income for Lynn renters as $34,096.
Instead, the affordability commitment should match the incomes and needs of Lynn residents. The city should commit to making 20 percent of new units in private developments affordable to Lynn households, including a mix of units affordable at 60 percent AMI; 50 percent AMI (around $60,000/year for a household of four), and 30 percent AMI.
That should be coupled with a commitment to making a majority of units in public sector developments truly affordable, with at least half of those affordable units available for households at 30 percent AMI.
All big developments – whether private or public – should be required to include homes for a range of family sizes, in contrast to current rules that virtually ban apartments for larger families from downtown.
Housing Lynn must also do more to counter segregation, disrupt institutional racism, and protect vulnerable groups as more development comes to Lynn. The Equity Impact Assessment proposed in the plan could be an excellent step, providing city officials and residents a tool to ensure development helps rather than harms people of color, working class residents, and lower-income households.
But the plan proposes that the Equity Impact Assessment would only apply to the very small number of projects built on city-owned land. Developments on privately owned land would be exempt, despite being most likely to cause displacement, segregation, and other negative impacts. This has got to change – the city should commit to an equity standard that applies to all developments and a policy of taking affirmative, proactive steps to end housing discrimination.
Finally, the plan suggests zoning changes to encourage a more diverse range of development options in additional areas of our city. To ensure this has a positive impact for current residents and does not touch off gentrification and displacement in new parts of Lynn, the city should make a commitment that upzoning will move forward only after key reforms are in place: anti-displacement protections for tenants and homeowners; inclusionary zoning; and amendment of current zoning’s overly permissive dimensional rules, to ensure developers must negotiate community benefits as projects are approved.
If Housing Lynn includes these critical amendments, the plan could help to prevent displacement and segregation while enabling new development that helps our city by creating green space, good jobs with benefits, safe worksites, and much-needed housing that’s truly affordable.
Without these changes, the plan could become a smokescreen to enable more of the segregated luxury development that puts developer profits before the needs of Lynn residents and the safety of workers.
I hope the authors of Housing Lynn and city officials will build on the strengths of the draft, make these critical changes, and put forward a final proposal that can win support from the majority of our city that needs reasonably priced housing, not luxury towers and gentrification.
Isaac Simon Hodes
Lynn