December 16, 2025 • 39 mins
Massachusetts is considered one of the hardest states for young adults to buy a home. Only 36.4% under the age of 35 are homeowners, according to the National Association of Home Builders. What can be done to help make housing more affordable in the Greater Boston area? What do you think will help you with housing affordability in your community? Andrew Mikula, who is a senior housing fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research and chair of Legalize Starter Homes joined us to discuss housing affordability and take calls on housing in your community.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Well, welcome back everybody. Thank you very much, Dan Watkins.
We had a guest during our eight o'clock hour a
couple of weeks ago, Andrew mccoola. Did I hopefully have
pronounced that name correctly? Andrew? Is it mccoola?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
It is? Thank you.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
Dan.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
You're a senior Housing Fellow at the Pioneer Institute for
Public Policy Research and chair of the Legalized Starter Homes group,
and that is a group that has is attempting to
get a question on the ballot on next November, in
November of twenty twenty six. What is the purpose of
(00:48):
the ballot question in order to legalize starter homes? I
guess first of all, we'll let's talk about the ballot question,
what it purports to do, and then we can start
talking about starter homes homes and I think we're going
to have an interesting conversation and hopefully a lot of
questions from our listeners. So what is the deal with
the ballot question? Why is it necessary?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Yeah? So, well, first of all, the ballot initiative is
for a law that would make it legal to build
single family homes on smaller lots that are typically allowed
in most Massachusetts suburbs today, as long as the lot
is served by public sewer and water services and has
an adequate amount of frontage along the street. It's necessary
because I.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Think it's fifty feet along the street. Is that it?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Yes, that's correct, Okay, Yeah, And it's necessary because you know,
we have a harrowing housing shortage in Massachusetts that's especially
acute for smaller homes. Right as of twenty twenty three,
only forty four percent of our housing stock has two
or fewer bedrooms, but sixty three of our households have
(01:55):
two or fewer people. And I understand that there are
certainly some scenarios in which you'd want to have more
bedrooms than people in your house, But for the typical
first time home buyer, it's daunting enough to save up
for a down payment without having to save up to
buy a house that's much larger than what you actually need.
And more broadly, active home listings in the market in
Massachusetts have declined by thirty four percent since shortly before COVID.
(02:19):
Residential vacancy rates are far below with housing economists considered
to be healthy. This is a crisis that touches all
aspects of our economy and our society. As you know,
our communities have trouble accommoding the next generation of homeowners.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Okay, so when you talk about residential vacancies again and
a lot of that, you're familiar with it. My audience
may not be as familiar. So I'm going to just
pressure on that. What do you mean by residential vacancies?
And I assume that, well, assume that means homes, and
that would include condominiums. And I don't know if we
(02:53):
have any co ops in Massachusetts. I'm not sure if
we do or not. But homes, condominiums that are currently vacant.
How what's the number? Small number?
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Yeah, So, residential vacancy rate is the share of homes
that are unoccupied as at a given time relative of
the total number of homes. Typically, it's broken down by tenure,
so whether it's an owner occupied home or a rental property. Generally,
economists think, you know, a healthy fatilitating a healthy amount
(03:27):
of turnover in the market requires about six to eight
percent vacancy rate in rental properties. Right now, it's about
three percent in Massachusetts, and a healthy vacancy rate would
be about one and a half to two percent in
owner occupied properties. Right now, it's about zero point five
percent in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
So it's tougher to find a home that is vacant,
and I assume that is an indicator that is even
tougher for the buyer to find potential homes that people
are putting on the market. Is there a correlation between
the vacant vacant home rates uh in homes that are
currently on the market.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Those numbers I assume are different.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
So the way I'm getting my data from the American
Community Survey, which is a you know, self reported number
used you know by housing researchers, economists.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I'm sure you're giving us good numbers, no problem. I
don't speak numbers, right.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
My understanding is, I mean, home is going to be
vacant for a number of reasons. Maybe they're up for sale,
Maybe they've been sold and the new occupant hasn't come
in yet, you know, maybe there's a weak market and
it's tough to find a new tenant. Maybe they're used
as a vacation home and unoccupied for most of the year.
But typically especially in major metropolitan air low vacancy rates
(05:01):
are an indicator that the market's very tight and it's
hard to match people who want a home with homes
that they can afford and that are available.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
And the lower you know, availability. And I was trying
to distinguish between homes that are genuinely vacant and what
I assume is a larger subset of homes that are
currently on the market. I assume, and if I'm wrong here,
that vacant homes is not the same as homes on
(05:33):
the market, that homes on the market would be somewhat
higher than vacant homes. It might subsume the vacant homes.
But I assume that if I am still living in
my home and I want to sell it, maybe moving,
I think you understand what I'm.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Trying to say.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Correct, Yeah, so that yes, yeah, okay. But at the
same time, the number of vacant homes probably is an
indicator of the number of homes that are available, either
to purchase outright or to purchase through negotiations with a seller.
So this is a problem that all of us see
that exists. We will agree it exists. The question that becomes,
(06:15):
what's the solution to the problem, And your solution. Your
group solution is to basically, I guess, override the zoning
laws in communities, which is where you and I are
going to probably have a little bit of a disagreement.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Yeah, I mean, we're giving a nudge to communities that
for a long time I made it very difficult to
accommodate new growth in the areas that you know, can
do so without requiring huge expansions of infrastructure. And I understand,
I mean, zoning is a very you know, a lot
(06:53):
of communities hold it near and dear to their hearts.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
But principle, I would argue.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Yeah, the same time, you know, it's not a bloodoth set.
The zoning's going to stay the same. It's a series
of laws, and laws can and should change when in
their current form, they're responsible for pricing, you know, hundreds
of thousands of people out of the same opportunities for
home ownership that their parents had. I'm not asking for
(07:19):
it to be any easier to buy a home in
a nice suburb than it was forty years ago. I'm
just asking for it to not be so much harder.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
So what about the counter argument that everybody who wants
to buy a house, you know, Obviously they have limited
everyone is well, virtually everyone has limited money available, Okay,
particularly younger people. But what about the countervailing argument that, look,
for you know, the most reasonable price. Let's assume we're
(07:49):
talking about three hundred thousand or four hundred thousand dollars,
which once was a big number. Now is is is
you don't get as much these for three hundred thousand
or four hundred thousand as you could that what about
the argument that, hey, you can't live in Wellesley, you
can't live in Whaleen, you can't live in Weston for
those numbers. You got to start off a little bit
(08:12):
further away from the city, just as your parents did
when when they were first entering the housing market. Or
is that just a crazy you know, it's just.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Yeah again, Dan, I'm not I'm not asking for it
to be any easier than it was for you know,
people forty years ago. But right now, I mean, nationally,
we've gone from a ratio of home price to incomes
of three to one in the seventies or so to
six to one today, and by the way, in Greater
(08:48):
Boston it's more like eight to one. So I think
this the escalating affordability problem. You can draw a pretty
clear line from you know, a lot of communities downzoning
and this seventies or so, once they were initially kind
of built out at what I would call relatively you know,
suburban densities to the problem we have today where the
(09:10):
land values have exploded and so it's really difficult to
build homes that are affordable on the same lot sizes
that are you know, allowed in these communities today.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Oh, we're going to we're going to take a break
and we'll invite people to call. My guest is Andrew mccoola,
Senior Housing Fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy
Research and chair of the Legalized Starter Homes. Have been
no communities in Massachusetts now where starter homes are legal?
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Andrew, Well, I would say that there are communities where,
you know, they are legal, but they are not viable
to build or very very rarely are they viable to build,
right because again, it's the land prices, it's the cost
of construction, and it's the interest rates. There are a
(10:02):
lot of factors. But I think the way we solve
this without you know, at a state or local level,
is by focusing on what you can build and wear
and because that's been a huge barrier for many decades.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Okay, we'll pick up on that point when we come
back from the break. If you'd like to join the
conversation six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty six
one seven, nine three, one ten thirty, feel free to
give us a call. Coming back on night.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Side, It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
We're talking with Andrew mccoolo. He's a Senior Housing Fellow
at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research. He also
chairs to Legalize Start at Home initiative petition, which may
very well be on the ballot next November. I think
there's still a round of signatures that you folks have qualified,
(10:59):
I think for the first round of signatures, but then
you've got to get nicks may a few more thousand signatures.
So how do you see this working. You're going to
go into a community the law, if the law passes,
it will say that starter homes have to be allowed
in every community in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
That's not quite true. I mean, if the community has
some areas where there are public sewer and water services, yes,
but in practice there are dozens, if not one hundred
or more communities. I'm not exactly sure that don't have
any you know, public sewer or water services at all.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So I assume that those folks, those communities would probably
be in western Massachusetts, fair to say.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Western mass but there are certainly some here in eastern
mass Carlisle, Sherburne, Weston, Boxford.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Okay, So if you have a water and sewer system connection,
you then would be impacted by the law if it passes.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Correct or your area might be Yes, what.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Do you mean, your area the part of the community
that has water and sewer connections.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Yeah, I mean yes. I don't want anyone thinking that
anyone is forcing them to read about their properties. But
in your neighborhood there might be some homeowners who do.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Okay, you've confused me on that one. So what's what
I'm trying to say is that if the law were
to pass as proposed, and let's say you live in
a community, well, let's take Boston where you have water
and sewer connections, I assume for virtually everyone that lives
in Boston. Is that true?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
I'm sure virtually everyone. I actually, Dan, can I confuse
you a little bit?
Speaker 4 (12:57):
More.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I'm not sure if you confuse me a little bit, well,
but go ahead, try go ahead.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Yeah. So Boston actually also isn't subject to this law
because it's not a part of Chapter forty A, which
is the part of state law that we'd be amending
bypassing this initiative. So for the same reason Boston isn't
subject to the MESA Communities Act, it will't be projected.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
So pretty much the same communities that are impacted by
the MBTA Communities Act, which are either contiguous or next
to a community that is contiguous. Most of the I
think it's one hundred and seventy seven if I'm not mistaken,
was the most recent number I read that are subjects
of the MBTA Communities Act, where if they do not
allow a certain increase of housing units, they're then going
(13:47):
to be penalized by the state, which is, you know,
I think pretty nasty as well. The impact the impact
of this is that in a community that has zoning
laws and does have a you know, a sewer water
and sewer connection, they then are going to be impacted. Uh,
(14:13):
and there will be a number of houses which will
be built relatively inexpensively. Will that have the impact of
bringing down the value of other homes in the communities
where this would go into effect. Or is there no
impact on property values?
Speaker 3 (14:32):
I think when we look at you know, modest scale
new construction, the impact on property values is going to
be very small. And that's even true in the academic
literature of multifamily housing that's built near other single family homes.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Empirically, what sort of I'm sorry, I mean to indrop.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Go ahead, Yeah, it's okay. At the volume of homes
we're talking about, you know, in the case of the
starter homes reform, likely building four, six, or maybe eight
homes at a time. The overall kind of loosening of
the market that comes from that, those increments doesn't really
show up on your you know, tax assessment form or
(15:16):
your your market value of your home when it goes
to sale. It's barely perceptible.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Well, if all of a sudden, on your street or
in your neighborhood there were five or six of these
smaller starter homes built, there'll be an impact in the
value of your home. Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Potentially in small ways. But I think the housing market operates,
you know, largely at a regional level and is relatively fluid,
So it could if you're really if you're trying to
sell a home that's very, very similar to these starter homes. Maybe,
but I think the most likely outcome in a lot
of places is you are going to get neighborhoods full
(16:02):
of half acre estate size lots with potentially a state
size homes that are redeveloped to include several smaller homes,
and so you know, maybe there's a different client tell
between who wants to move in to those starter homes
and who can afford the homes that are there already.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Okay, And then the other question is I assume there
will be an impact, particularly on the number of children
who would be attending schools in those communities. So there
would be an impact on your tax bill if starter
homes are being built in your community, because you're gonna
(16:43):
have more kids probably attending your school system, your public
school system.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
Right or wrong, there could be. But a strong majority
of traditional public school districts in Massachusetts have seen declining
enrollment in the last few years, especially since before COVID,
So that's not to say there won't be any impacts
potentially to school capacity. But again, by the virtue of
the reform we're doing here, we expect this development to
(17:10):
be incremental and allow communities to adapt and manage that
growth over time.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Okay, So then the last question I have for this hour,
for this half hour, and then we're going to go
to break. If the law passes next on November, how
many starter homes in the state do you project or
be built? Would this be like fifty starter homes across
the state or would be a number much higher than that.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
That's not something we've quantified internally, and it really depends
on how it's implemented.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
I bet you yeah, because that number will work against you.
You know that.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Well, it really depends how it's implemented. But we do
know from prior zoning reforms and people who've studied those
reforms that generally speaking, in a given year, only one
to two percent of the e that are subject to
the zoning change turnover and actually redeveloped.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
I love, by the way that everything like something like
this it's characterized as a reform, because the reform is
a word that that is a very positive word. Some
people might not see this as a positive, and they
might see it simply as a change anyway, Andrew, you're
a great sport here to have the conversation. We'll get
to some phone calls and see what people think. Again,
(18:27):
I think that if I was a young person in
the home market trying to get out of my rent check,
this might be something that I would really be interested in. If,
on the other hand, I live in a community that
would be impacted by it, I might be a little
bit concerned about the lack of specifics in terms of
the impact of this, either reform or zoning change, however
(18:51):
you want to characterize it. We'll take a break. Phone
calls six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty, six, seven,
nine thirty and back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Night Side God with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
We are talking with my guest Andrew mccoolough. He is
a senior Housing Fellow at the Pirate Institute for Public
Policy Research who we're talking about what's called starter homes.
Most of these homes you said would be on one
eighth of an acre lot, if I'm not mistaken, correct,
so five.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Thousand square feet will be a new lot side threshold.
It's dressable. I mean, there are going to be topography
issues something else that prevents them from being that it's about.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
An eighth of it. It's about an that's an acre
is about forty two forty three thousand square feet, so
five thousand. It's about an eighth of an acre. But
it has to have a frontage or street frontage of
fifty feet. And let's go to phone calls. Let's see
what people have to say, what questions they might have
to ask, because this will be a hot topic, I
(20:00):
think when all of the ballot questions are finally approved
imprinted sometime in twenty twenty six, Bill and Weston joins
US first. Bill, welcome you a first tonight on Nice
Side with Andrew McCollough of the Pioneer Institute for Public
Policy Research. Go right ahead, Bill.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
Good Evening, Dan Good evening, Andrew. I have to speak
plainly here because I really I'm trying to in my
mind trying to consider how this could possibly be a
well thought out or even possibly well thought out or
vetted idea, because from an economic standpoint, it makes zero
(20:43):
economic sense for anybody with a valuable property to vote
for this. Okay, Moreover, I would submit to you that
there are fundamental economic problems with our society, student loans,
private firms buying residential homes. Those two individual problems in
(21:06):
and of themselves are driving the prices of homes upward.
In addition, we have inflation, right, because with inflation, the
cost of goods goes up. So guess what, the cost
of building goes up. So there are so many fundamental
flaws with this idea that we really need to go
(21:29):
back to the drawing board here, Dan.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Well, let's get Andrew to respond to that. I mean,
there are factors over which none of us probably have
as much control. Some of the facts as you mentioned. Andrew,
say hello to Bill from Western and your response to
some of the fundamental issues that he's raised.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Yeah, Hi, and Bill. So, first of all, I mean
you can look at other states that have implemented very
similar reforms and how they've shaken out, from Maine to Texas.
You know, they have lots thresholds that are the same
or smaller than ours in a kind of preemptive manner,
especially in you know, larger communities or places that have modern.
Speaker 4 (22:08):
Like Dallas, right or or typical you know blue blue
held type of political environments where where the desire to
to implement this thing to push urban sprawl out to
the suburbs. Correct.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
I think a lot of the politics of this are
very different in Texas right where you have a you know,
a coalition of business model in Dallas people who are Bill.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Give give him a chance to respond, and then you
we're not going to catch you off. Don't worry. Give
him a chance to respond, Okay, go ahead, go ahead, Andrew.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
And you know, it was passed by Republican led legislature
where you know, they're making arguments that are more based
in you know, expanding property rights for homeowners and anything
to do with you know, kind of progressive rhetoric here.
And I'll also say that I do think homeowners who
you know, live in some of these communities have a
(23:06):
very strong reason to support it in at least some context.
I understand, you know a lot of folks don't want
their neighborhoods to change. But you know, it raises it
potentially raises the value of land when you increase the
development potential of it. So you know, if you're you're
planning on having a comfortable retirement and you know, or
(23:27):
you just want more flexibility for you know, accommodating, you know,
the next generation directly on your property. If you're can't
afford to hire a contractor yourself. I think that's that's
there's certainly an alignment of interest there. And lastly, I
think you know you've brought up there are a lot
of other issues with the property market that are raising costs.
(23:48):
I think they're you know, potentially out of the hands
of certainly localities to do much about. But there is vigorous.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Okay, give him a chance, Andrew, give him a chance
to jump in, because I I can hear that the
Bill wants to respond.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
Bill, go ahead, Well, I was just going to say.
What I was going to say was is if if
the uh, the economic factor is very paramount here, because
the fact of the matter is is that if I
build a starter home in a community where the value
(24:22):
of my property is substantially higher than what would be
in say an urban area, Okay, what's that gonna do.
That's gonna do two things. That's going to lower the
value of my property, and it'll defeat your idea which
will raise the value or the purchase price of these
starter homes. What are you going to do cap the
price of the starter home when you're when you're you're,
(24:43):
you're you're building it next to a McMansion.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
So the way the value comes down is we're spreading
the cost of the land across you know more hard
Why do.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I want with property value to come down?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
It's not coming down, it's the it's the overall value
could go up. But the value of an individual home
because it's tied to the development potential of the land, right,
it's it's more valuable because you can do more with it.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Well, you mentioned Sherborne, right, So if the value average
value of my home in Sherborne is one and a
half million dollars and I build a on a five
thousand square foot property, a starter home that sells for
three hundred and fifty grand, how does that not drive
the value of my home down?
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Well, first of all, I mentioned Sherborne because the law
wouldn't like Shriborn, wouldn't be subject to the lobby.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
That doesn't matter the town as an example, any any
town that's not subject to m WI water will will
suit your endeavor. I'm assuming.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yes, so, but you're I mean, I don't think it's
realistic to say that you're going to be building a
starter home in Sherborn for three hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Even with this that's a very specific that's a very
specific argument. But you know, you get a builder who
wants to build in a certain community, they and you've
you've made the zoning laws, you've basically overtaken the zoning
(26:18):
the local zoning laws. You're you're certainly going to get
those homes built. I mean, you could if the economics
support it. But again, because construction costs are so high
and the land costs are so high, you really need
to do, you know, in really high cost communities, probably
a lot more than build modest single family homes.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
If I could jump in, if I could jump in,
gentlemen and ask a question, and that is this Andrew,
when a bill could comment in it as well. The
baby Boomer generation was born between nineteen forty six and
nineteen sixty four, so that means the youngest baby Boomers
at this point are in their late fifties. That means
(27:02):
that the baby Boomer generation, which owns a lot of homes,
is passing from the housing market. Maybe they're going to
assist that living maybe they're just passing generally, If we
wait a few years, won't we have a glut of
homes andrew that will be coming on the market, which
(27:26):
might make of homes much more affordable for people who
are looking to get into our first time home ownership.
Isn't there something that if we wait here, you know,
just generationally, this problem is going to solve itself.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Well, Increasingly older folks are choosing to remain in independent
living arrangements well into their seventies and eighties as opposed
to living in nursing homes or the relatives. So that
tends to you know, increase demand for housing. And at
the same time, the millennial generation is starting to form
families at a pretty rapid clip, now delayed though it
(28:05):
was relative to generations past. And despite you know, relatively
slow population growth overall in Massachusetts, the rate of household
formation is still pretty high, and so housing demand is
really strong even despite this you know, potential demographic clip
that may or may not play out how you anticipate.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Well, but okay, all I'm just saying is that if
you moved down two or three years this this this
issue won't even be voted on until next November when
it might be implemented, et cetera. All of a sudden,
you might find yourself that that this might have been
a better idea ten years ago than it would be today.
Build final quick comment from you is that I gotta
I gotta wrap it up.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
A couple of points. First off, you're absolutely correct, Dan,
there is a demographic shift going on. The Generation X
is substantially smaller than both the millennials as well as
the baby mover, so so there will be a lot
of homes. And there's and there's another adage in economics,
which is the cure for high prices is high prices,
(29:11):
and and that will ultimately economics one oh one will
solve this issue.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
All right, Bill, appreciate your carl. We got to take
a quick break, Andrew, we got more phone calls six
one seven two five Ford. Thank you, Bill. Six one seven,
five four ten thirty, six one seven, nine thirty. I
think this is a fascinating discussion for every age group.
So whatever your age, if you feel that this is important,
(29:38):
please ask a question. Andrew knows this issue inside and out.
He is as we've mentioned, he is the leader of
an initiative petition which will be on the ballot. I
suspect legalized starter homes here in Massachusetts. Be right back
on nightside, Kathleen and Tingsboro, you're next, say right there,
coming back on nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
You're on night side, Dan Ray, un done you Bzy
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Back to the phones we go, going to go to
Kathleen and Tingsboro. Kathleen, welcome. You're with my guest Andrew
McCullough Pioneer Institute, talk about starter homes. Go right ahead, Kathleen.
Speaker 5 (30:15):
Hello, Hello Dan. As always, I love how you bring
up new topics. And this is a very interesting topic
in Kingsboro. When forty B came in, I don't know
and Andrew talks about this. So is this supposed to
change the forty B laws that we have right now?
Where for instance, and I'm going to use Tingsboro because
(30:38):
that's where I live. It's pieces of land which some
of us would find undesirable, and they are undesirable for
a number of reasons. We're allowed to be sold to
a developer and then townhouses, slash condominiums and a very
(30:58):
dense set up were allowed to be built or you know,
are in the process of being built in very congested areas,
and those very congested areas do have tour lines and
they do have water lines, and the impact of traffic
in those congested areas got worse, for instance, and it's
(31:23):
created an impact on our school system as well. And
the school systems, you know, couldn't say no to these projects.
And the for instance in Kingsboro and I know a
lot of the other cities, they were told that they
had to have a certain percentage of these foodyb houses
(31:44):
placed in their communities that they weren't going to be
eligible for state funding. And then the state funding, you know,
got cut back. And also these developers found out that
they couldn't you know, the amount of money that they
could charge for the affordable housing is, you know, even
though they were doing the same building for instance, for
(32:06):
say a fair market you know, or on the market pipe,
for whatever it is, they couldn't recoup that and they
weren't getting funding for it.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So I want to Kathy, I want to drive you
to a question if you can't here, because you've certainly
laid out a lot of problems, But what is your
question for Andrew?
Speaker 5 (32:26):
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is are
these are these starter homes going to be geared towards
you know, low to moderate income residents, and what impact
will that have on a quarter acre with such high
density as far as the traffic is concerned?
Speaker 2 (32:48):
A police just just do you favor? Okay, I love
you your enthusiasm, but just drive to a question because
you're making a speech. Okay, just drive to a question.
Speaker 5 (32:59):
So I guess I want to know.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
I guess what I'm asking is, is the high density
on a quarter acre if Andrew used the example of
five or six houses for instance, what impact and has
anyone studied the impact it's going to have on the
traffic and on the density and the number of residents
now that weren't normally on that land, and.
Speaker 5 (33:23):
What will it have to the other people who live
in that community?
Speaker 3 (33:29):
Right? Yeah? I mean, so the starter Homes proposal is
a little bit different from forty B because forty B
is trying to, you know, circumvent local zoning under certain scenarios.
But it's the kind of opt in on the part
of the developer to pursue that this is setting a
baseline in kind of the zoning itself. Whereas and importantly,
(33:55):
you know, the density we expect from this sort of
proposal is going to be less than is typical and
most forty B developments. There's no requirement in the Starter
Homes law that these homes cost a certain amount or
are reserved for people making below a certain income. More broadly,
building more homes in general, even if they are relatively
(34:15):
high end, tends to reduce the amount of competition among
buyers for a given home and therefore cause home values
to appreciate slower over time, albeit not necessarily property values
to go down in absolute terms, like Bill was talking about.
But on traffic, we've tried to minimize the impacts by
not only applying this reform to areas with public sewer
(34:37):
and water services, so disproportionately they're going to be close
to major job centers and transit stops, et cetera, shorter commutes,
keep some cars off the road, et cetera. But also,
you know it's taking place in bite size pieces of
for or six homes of a time, so that again
the towns have the ability to adapt over time when
(34:59):
issues crop up.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
Okay, but I also want to know what the impact
is going to be. In your example, you gave like
a quarter acre, and there could be four or five
six houses. If these if these starter homes attract young
families and they have you know, an average of say
two children, whatever the statistical data is, what is that
(35:22):
impact going to be on that school system? And that
is of concern as well.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Yeah, well, in a typical single family home in twenty
twenty five, I think there's you know, one school of
child for every three homes or so. And I think
Ben and I got into this a little bit earlier,
where you know, seventy percent or so of traditional public
school districts in Greater Boston have seen declining enrollment, especially
(35:53):
since you know the COVID lockdowns, So you know there
might be some impacts in school districts that are growing.
But again we've tt it to be incremental enough to
allow the town to accommodate that growth over time, just
like you know, any growing community does with proper planning.
(36:14):
So the law isn't doing that work on behalf of
these towns, but it is you know, allowing for that
planning to take place in a thoughtful way.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
Now are you going to uh this, does this law
waiver certain lots or certain areas that they are undesirable
because they have wetlands or they have, you know, or
they're upland from a ripe earing zone and they can
flood or are those Uh does this law bypass that
(36:46):
or will the towns have to take that into consideration
during the review process with their constant vet kitchen commissions
or their planning boards.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
So the only thing we're changing in this law is
the lot size on which you're allowed to build a
home under you know, certain parameters, including that you have
public sewer and water services on the lot and an
adequate amount of you know, land fronting the street. But
everything else, height requirements, you know, the distance of the
(37:17):
home can be to the property line, wetlands protections, all
of that is still fully in the control of the towns,
with the caveat that we've given the state the ability
to determine what counts as so called reasonable regulations in
the new law for the purpose of implementing it, so
that towns can't you know, circumvent it entirely by enacting
(37:40):
requirements to make it impossible to you know, build a
starter home anywhere. Essentially.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
Okay, folks, we're flat out of time, Kathleen, good questions.
I think we'll shopping up the questions next time a
little bit. But thank you very much for calling.
Speaker 5 (37:55):
I appreciate it, Dan, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
All I talk to you so Andrew, I'm sure will
be talking about this some more often. If folks want
to get in touch with you or your organization, what's
the best way they can do that?
Speaker 3 (38:08):
Yeah, I mean legalized starterhomes dot com is our website,
and let me just say, you know, over the holidays,
I'll try to perm up some numbers on impact and
maybe you know, once we're officially on the ballot, I
can report back.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Yeah, you won't get officially in the ballot, I assume
until sometime next summer. I believe that the second round
of signatures are collected in May. But we can talk
about this beforehand, because again I see this as well
as the the the the MBTA Communities act As is
(38:43):
really undermining local zoning laws, which I think on the
backbone of communities. And this is one that you and
I probably are never going to agree on. But I
do appreciate your demeanor, and I appreciate the conversation we
had tonight, and I hope we can add more. Really, yeah,
really mean that. I hope anytime we'll get you back, Okay.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Yeah. Conversating is, you know, the bedrock of our democracy
and I appreciate that absolutely.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate it very much. Okay, good night.
When we get back, we're going to talk about a
problem that most of us have dealt with, and that
is bad customer service. We have an author, amas to Numa,
coming up. He's written a book, Hold, The Suffering Economy
of Customer Service and the Revolt that's long overdue. I
(39:36):
am so with him on this. We'll talk to him
right after the ten o'clock News
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Well, welcome back everybody. Thank you very much, Dan Watkins.
We had a guest during our eight o'clock hour a
couple of weeks ago, Andrew mccoola. Did I hopefully have
pronounced that name correctly? Andrew? Is it mccoola?
Speaker 3 (00:24):
It is? Thank you.
Speaker 4 (00:25):
Dan.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
You're a senior Housing Fellow at the Pioneer Institute for
Public Policy Research and chair of the Legalized Starter Homes group,
and that is a group that has is attempting to
get a question on the ballot on next November, in
November of twenty twenty six. What is the purpose of
(00:48):
the ballot question in order to legalize starter homes? I
guess first of all, we'll let's talk about the ballot question,
what it purports to do, and then we can start
talking about starter homes homes and I think we're going
to have an interesting conversation and hopefully a lot of
questions from our listeners. So what is the deal with
the ballot question? Why is it necessary?
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Yeah? So, well, first of all, the ballot initiative is
for a law that would make it legal to build
single family homes on smaller lots that are typically allowed
in most Massachusetts suburbs today, as long as the lot
is served by public sewer and water services and has
an adequate amount of frontage along the street. It's necessary
because I.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
Think it's fifty feet along the street. Is that it?
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Yes, that's correct, Okay, Yeah, And it's necessary because you know,
we have a harrowing housing shortage in Massachusetts that's especially
acute for smaller homes. Right as of twenty twenty three,
only forty four percent of our housing stock has two
or fewer bedrooms, but sixty three of our households have
(01:55):
two or fewer people. And I understand that there are
certainly some scenarios in which you'd want to have more
bedrooms than people in your house, But for the typical
first time home buyer, it's daunting enough to save up
for a down payment without having to save up to
buy a house that's much larger than what you actually need.
And more broadly, active home listings in the market in
Massachusetts have declined by thirty four percent since shortly before COVID.
(02:19):
Residential vacancy rates are far below with housing economists considered
to be healthy. This is a crisis that touches all
aspects of our economy and our society. As you know,
our communities have trouble accommoding the next generation of homeowners.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Okay, so when you talk about residential vacancies again and
a lot of that, you're familiar with it. My audience
may not be as familiar. So I'm going to just
pressure on that. What do you mean by residential vacancies?
And I assume that, well, assume that means homes, and
that would include condominiums. And I don't know if we
(02:53):
have any co ops in Massachusetts. I'm not sure if
we do or not. But homes, condominiums that are currently vacant.
How what's the number? Small number?
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Yeah, So, residential vacancy rate is the share of homes
that are unoccupied as at a given time relative of
the total number of homes. Typically, it's broken down by tenure,
so whether it's an owner occupied home or a rental property. Generally,
economists think, you know, a healthy fatilitating a healthy amount
(03:27):
of turnover in the market requires about six to eight
percent vacancy rate in rental properties. Right now, it's about
three percent in Massachusetts, and a healthy vacancy rate would
be about one and a half to two percent in
owner occupied properties. Right now, it's about zero point five
percent in Massachusetts.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
So it's tougher to find a home that is vacant,
and I assume that is an indicator that is even
tougher for the buyer to find potential homes that people
are putting on the market. Is there a correlation between
the vacant vacant home rates uh in homes that are
currently on the market.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Those numbers I assume are different.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
So the way I'm getting my data from the American
Community Survey, which is a you know, self reported number
used you know by housing researchers, economists.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I'm sure you're giving us good numbers, no problem. I
don't speak numbers, right.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
My understanding is, I mean, home is going to be
vacant for a number of reasons. Maybe they're up for sale,
Maybe they've been sold and the new occupant hasn't come
in yet, you know, maybe there's a weak market and
it's tough to find a new tenant. Maybe they're used
as a vacation home and unoccupied for most of the year.
But typically especially in major metropolitan air low vacancy rates
(05:01):
are an indicator that the market's very tight and it's
hard to match people who want a home with homes
that they can afford and that are available.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
And the lower you know, availability. And I was trying
to distinguish between homes that are genuinely vacant and what
I assume is a larger subset of homes that are
currently on the market. I assume, and if I'm wrong here,
that vacant homes is not the same as homes on
(05:33):
the market, that homes on the market would be somewhat
higher than vacant homes. It might subsume the vacant homes.
But I assume that if I am still living in
my home and I want to sell it, maybe moving,
I think you understand what I'm.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
Trying to say.
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Correct, Yeah, so that yes, yeah, okay. But at the
same time, the number of vacant homes probably is an
indicator of the number of homes that are available, either
to purchase outright or to purchase through negotiations with a seller.
So this is a problem that all of us see
that exists. We will agree it exists. The question that becomes,
(06:15):
what's the solution to the problem, And your solution. Your
group solution is to basically, I guess, override the zoning
laws in communities, which is where you and I are
going to probably have a little bit of a disagreement.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Yeah, I mean, we're giving a nudge to communities that
for a long time I made it very difficult to
accommodate new growth in the areas that you know, can
do so without requiring huge expansions of infrastructure. And I understand,
I mean, zoning is a very you know, a lot
(06:53):
of communities hold it near and dear to their hearts.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
But principle, I would argue.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
Yeah, the same time, you know, it's not a bloodoth set.
The zoning's going to stay the same. It's a series
of laws, and laws can and should change when in
their current form, they're responsible for pricing, you know, hundreds
of thousands of people out of the same opportunities for
home ownership that their parents had. I'm not asking for
(07:19):
it to be any easier to buy a home in
a nice suburb than it was forty years ago. I'm
just asking for it to not be so much harder.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
So what about the counter argument that everybody who wants
to buy a house, you know, Obviously they have limited
everyone is well, virtually everyone has limited money available, Okay,
particularly younger people. But what about the countervailing argument that, look,
for you know, the most reasonable price. Let's assume we're
(07:49):
talking about three hundred thousand or four hundred thousand dollars,
which once was a big number. Now is is is
you don't get as much these for three hundred thousand
or four hundred thousand as you could that what about
the argument that, hey, you can't live in Wellesley, you
can't live in Whaleen, you can't live in Weston for
those numbers. You got to start off a little bit
(08:12):
further away from the city, just as your parents did
when when they were first entering the housing market. Or
is that just a crazy you know, it's just.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Yeah again, Dan, I'm not I'm not asking for it
to be any easier than it was for you know,
people forty years ago. But right now, I mean, nationally,
we've gone from a ratio of home price to incomes
of three to one in the seventies or so to
six to one today, and by the way, in Greater
(08:48):
Boston it's more like eight to one. So I think
this the escalating affordability problem. You can draw a pretty
clear line from you know, a lot of communities downzoning
and this seventies or so, once they were initially kind
of built out at what I would call relatively you know,
suburban densities to the problem we have today where the
(09:10):
land values have exploded and so it's really difficult to
build homes that are affordable on the same lot sizes
that are you know, allowed in these communities today.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Oh, we're going to we're going to take a break
and we'll invite people to call. My guest is Andrew mccoola,
Senior Housing Fellow at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy
Research and chair of the Legalized Starter Homes. Have been
no communities in Massachusetts now where starter homes are legal?
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Andrew, Well, I would say that there are communities where,
you know, they are legal, but they are not viable
to build or very very rarely are they viable to build,
right because again, it's the land prices, it's the cost
of construction, and it's the interest rates. There are a
(10:02):
lot of factors. But I think the way we solve
this without you know, at a state or local level,
is by focusing on what you can build and wear
and because that's been a huge barrier for many decades.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Okay, we'll pick up on that point when we come
back from the break. If you'd like to join the
conversation six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty six
one seven, nine three, one ten thirty, feel free to
give us a call. Coming back on night.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Side, It's Night Side with Dan Ray on w Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:39):
We're talking with Andrew mccoolo. He's a Senior Housing Fellow
at the Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research. He also
chairs to Legalize Start at Home initiative petition, which may
very well be on the ballot next November. I think
there's still a round of signatures that you folks have qualified,
(10:59):
I think for the first round of signatures, but then
you've got to get nicks may a few more thousand signatures.
So how do you see this working. You're going to
go into a community the law, if the law passes,
it will say that starter homes have to be allowed
in every community in Massachusetts.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
That's not quite true. I mean, if the community has
some areas where there are public sewer and water services, yes,
but in practice there are dozens, if not one hundred
or more communities. I'm not exactly sure that don't have
any you know, public sewer or water services at all.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
So I assume that those folks, those communities would probably
be in western Massachusetts, fair to say.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
Western mass but there are certainly some here in eastern
mass Carlisle, Sherburne, Weston, Boxford.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Okay, So if you have a water and sewer system connection,
you then would be impacted by the law if it passes.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
Correct or your area might be Yes, what.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Do you mean, your area the part of the community
that has water and sewer connections.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Yeah, I mean yes. I don't want anyone thinking that
anyone is forcing them to read about their properties. But
in your neighborhood there might be some homeowners who do.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Okay, you've confused me on that one. So what's what
I'm trying to say is that if the law were
to pass as proposed, and let's say you live in
a community, well, let's take Boston where you have water
and sewer connections, I assume for virtually everyone that lives
in Boston. Is that true?
Speaker 3 (12:53):
I'm sure virtually everyone. I actually, Dan, can I confuse
you a little bit?
Speaker 4 (12:57):
More.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I'm not sure if you confuse me a little bit, well,
but go ahead, try go ahead.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
Yeah. So Boston actually also isn't subject to this law
because it's not a part of Chapter forty A, which
is the part of state law that we'd be amending
bypassing this initiative. So for the same reason Boston isn't
subject to the MESA Communities Act, it will't be projected.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
So pretty much the same communities that are impacted by
the MBTA Communities Act, which are either contiguous or next
to a community that is contiguous. Most of the I
think it's one hundred and seventy seven if I'm not mistaken,
was the most recent number I read that are subjects
of the MBTA Communities Act, where if they do not
allow a certain increase of housing units, they're then going
(13:47):
to be penalized by the state, which is, you know,
I think pretty nasty as well. The impact the impact
of this is that in a community that has zoning
laws and does have a you know, a sewer water
and sewer connection, they then are going to be impacted. Uh,
(14:13):
and there will be a number of houses which will
be built relatively inexpensively. Will that have the impact of
bringing down the value of other homes in the communities
where this would go into effect. Or is there no
impact on property values?
Speaker 3 (14:32):
I think when we look at you know, modest scale
new construction, the impact on property values is going to
be very small. And that's even true in the academic
literature of multifamily housing that's built near other single family homes.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Empirically, what sort of I'm sorry, I mean to indrop.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Go ahead, Yeah, it's okay. At the volume of homes
we're talking about, you know, in the case of the
starter homes reform, likely building four, six, or maybe eight
homes at a time. The overall kind of loosening of
the market that comes from that, those increments doesn't really
show up on your you know, tax assessment form or
(15:16):
your your market value of your home when it goes
to sale. It's barely perceptible.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
Well, if all of a sudden, on your street or
in your neighborhood there were five or six of these
smaller starter homes built, there'll be an impact in the
value of your home. Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 3 (15:38):
Potentially in small ways. But I think the housing market operates,
you know, largely at a regional level and is relatively fluid,
So it could if you're really if you're trying to
sell a home that's very, very similar to these starter homes. Maybe,
but I think the most likely outcome in a lot
of places is you are going to get neighborhoods full
(16:02):
of half acre estate size lots with potentially a state
size homes that are redeveloped to include several smaller homes,
and so you know, maybe there's a different client tell
between who wants to move in to those starter homes
and who can afford the homes that are there already.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Okay, And then the other question is I assume there
will be an impact, particularly on the number of children
who would be attending schools in those communities. So there
would be an impact on your tax bill if starter
homes are being built in your community, because you're gonna
(16:43):
have more kids probably attending your school system, your public
school system.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
Right or wrong, there could be. But a strong majority
of traditional public school districts in Massachusetts have seen declining
enrollment in the last few years, especially since before COVID,
So that's not to say there won't be any impacts
potentially to school capacity. But again, by the virtue of
the reform we're doing here, we expect this development to
(17:10):
be incremental and allow communities to adapt and manage that
growth over time.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Okay, So then the last question I have for this hour,
for this half hour, and then we're going to go
to break. If the law passes next on November, how
many starter homes in the state do you project or
be built? Would this be like fifty starter homes across
the state or would be a number much higher than that.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
That's not something we've quantified internally, and it really depends
on how it's implemented.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
I bet you yeah, because that number will work against you.
You know that.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Well, it really depends how it's implemented. But we do
know from prior zoning reforms and people who've studied those
reforms that generally speaking, in a given year, only one
to two percent of the e that are subject to
the zoning change turnover and actually redeveloped.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
I love, by the way that everything like something like
this it's characterized as a reform, because the reform is
a word that that is a very positive word. Some
people might not see this as a positive, and they
might see it simply as a change anyway, Andrew, you're
a great sport here to have the conversation. We'll get
to some phone calls and see what people think. Again,
(18:27):
I think that if I was a young person in
the home market trying to get out of my rent check,
this might be something that I would really be interested in. If,
on the other hand, I live in a community that
would be impacted by it, I might be a little
bit concerned about the lack of specifics in terms of
the impact of this, either reform or zoning change, however
(18:51):
you want to characterize it. We'll take a break. Phone
calls six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty, six, seven,
nine thirty and back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Night Side God with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
We are talking with my guest Andrew mccoolough. He is
a senior Housing Fellow at the Pirate Institute for Public
Policy Research who we're talking about what's called starter homes.
Most of these homes you said would be on one
eighth of an acre lot, if I'm not mistaken, correct,
so five.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Thousand square feet will be a new lot side threshold.
It's dressable. I mean, there are going to be topography
issues something else that prevents them from being that it's about.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
An eighth of it. It's about an that's an acre
is about forty two forty three thousand square feet, so
five thousand. It's about an eighth of an acre. But
it has to have a frontage or street frontage of
fifty feet. And let's go to phone calls. Let's see
what people have to say, what questions they might have
to ask, because this will be a hot topic, I
(20:00):
think when all of the ballot questions are finally approved
imprinted sometime in twenty twenty six, Bill and Weston joins
US first. Bill, welcome you a first tonight on Nice
Side with Andrew McCollough of the Pioneer Institute for Public
Policy Research. Go right ahead, Bill.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
Good Evening, Dan Good evening, Andrew. I have to speak
plainly here because I really I'm trying to in my
mind trying to consider how this could possibly be a
well thought out or even possibly well thought out or
vetted idea, because from an economic standpoint, it makes zero
(20:43):
economic sense for anybody with a valuable property to vote
for this. Okay, Moreover, I would submit to you that
there are fundamental economic problems with our society, student loans,
private firms buying residential homes. Those two individual problems in
(21:06):
and of themselves are driving the prices of homes upward.
In addition, we have inflation, right, because with inflation, the
cost of goods goes up. So guess what, the cost
of building goes up. So there are so many fundamental
flaws with this idea that we really need to go
(21:29):
back to the drawing board here, Dan.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
Well, let's get Andrew to respond to that. I mean,
there are factors over which none of us probably have
as much control. Some of the facts as you mentioned. Andrew,
say hello to Bill from Western and your response to
some of the fundamental issues that he's raised.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Yeah, Hi, and Bill. So, first of all, I mean
you can look at other states that have implemented very
similar reforms and how they've shaken out, from Maine to Texas.
You know, they have lots thresholds that are the same
or smaller than ours in a kind of preemptive manner,
especially in you know, larger communities or places that have modern.
Speaker 4 (22:08):
Like Dallas, right or or typical you know blue blue
held type of political environments where where the desire to
to implement this thing to push urban sprawl out to
the suburbs. Correct.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
I think a lot of the politics of this are
very different in Texas right where you have a you know,
a coalition of business model in Dallas people who are Bill.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Give give him a chance to respond, and then you
we're not going to catch you off. Don't worry. Give
him a chance to respond, Okay, go ahead, go ahead, Andrew.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
And you know, it was passed by Republican led legislature
where you know, they're making arguments that are more based
in you know, expanding property rights for homeowners and anything
to do with you know, kind of progressive rhetoric here.
And I'll also say that I do think homeowners who
you know, live in some of these communities have a
(23:06):
very strong reason to support it in at least some context.
I understand, you know a lot of folks don't want
their neighborhoods to change. But you know, it raises it
potentially raises the value of land when you increase the
development potential of it. So you know, if you're you're
planning on having a comfortable retirement and you know, or
(23:27):
you just want more flexibility for you know, accommodating, you know,
the next generation directly on your property. If you're can't
afford to hire a contractor yourself. I think that's that's
there's certainly an alignment of interest there. And lastly, I
think you know you've brought up there are a lot
of other issues with the property market that are raising costs.
(23:48):
I think they're you know, potentially out of the hands
of certainly localities to do much about. But there is vigorous.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Okay, give him a chance, Andrew, give him a chance
to jump in, because I I can hear that the
Bill wants to respond.
Speaker 4 (24:02):
Bill, go ahead, Well, I was just going to say.
What I was going to say was is if if
the uh, the economic factor is very paramount here, because
the fact of the matter is is that if I
build a starter home in a community where the value
(24:22):
of my property is substantially higher than what would be
in say an urban area, Okay, what's that gonna do.
That's gonna do two things. That's going to lower the
value of my property, and it'll defeat your idea which
will raise the value or the purchase price of these
starter homes. What are you going to do cap the
price of the starter home when you're when you're you're,
(24:43):
you're you're building it next to a McMansion.
Speaker 3 (24:47):
So the way the value comes down is we're spreading
the cost of the land across you know more hard
Why do.
Speaker 4 (24:54):
I want with property value to come down?
Speaker 3 (24:57):
It's not coming down, it's the it's the overall value
could go up. But the value of an individual home
because it's tied to the development potential of the land, right,
it's it's more valuable because you can do more with it.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Well, you mentioned Sherborne, right, So if the value average
value of my home in Sherborne is one and a
half million dollars and I build a on a five
thousand square foot property, a starter home that sells for
three hundred and fifty grand, how does that not drive
the value of my home down?
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Well, first of all, I mentioned Sherborne because the law
wouldn't like Shriborn, wouldn't be subject to the lobby.
Speaker 4 (25:43):
That doesn't matter the town as an example, any any
town that's not subject to m WI water will will
suit your endeavor. I'm assuming.
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yes, so, but you're I mean, I don't think it's
realistic to say that you're going to be building a
starter home in Sherborn for three hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
Even with this that's a very specific that's a very
specific argument. But you know, you get a builder who
wants to build in a certain community, they and you've
you've made the zoning laws, you've basically overtaken the zoning
(26:18):
the local zoning laws. You're you're certainly going to get
those homes built. I mean, you could if the economics
support it. But again, because construction costs are so high
and the land costs are so high, you really need
to do, you know, in really high cost communities, probably
a lot more than build modest single family homes.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
If I could jump in, if I could jump in,
gentlemen and ask a question, and that is this Andrew,
when a bill could comment in it as well. The
baby Boomer generation was born between nineteen forty six and
nineteen sixty four, so that means the youngest baby Boomers
at this point are in their late fifties. That means
(27:02):
that the baby Boomer generation, which owns a lot of homes,
is passing from the housing market. Maybe they're going to
assist that living maybe they're just passing generally, If we
wait a few years, won't we have a glut of
homes andrew that will be coming on the market, which
(27:26):
might make of homes much more affordable for people who
are looking to get into our first time home ownership.
Isn't there something that if we wait here, you know,
just generationally, this problem is going to solve itself.
Speaker 3 (27:43):
Well, Increasingly older folks are choosing to remain in independent
living arrangements well into their seventies and eighties as opposed
to living in nursing homes or the relatives. So that
tends to you know, increase demand for housing. And at
the same time, the millennial generation is starting to form
families at a pretty rapid clip, now delayed though it
(28:05):
was relative to generations past. And despite you know, relatively
slow population growth overall in Massachusetts, the rate of household
formation is still pretty high, and so housing demand is
really strong even despite this you know, potential demographic clip
that may or may not play out how you anticipate.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Well, but okay, all I'm just saying is that if
you moved down two or three years this this this
issue won't even be voted on until next November when
it might be implemented, et cetera. All of a sudden,
you might find yourself that that this might have been
a better idea ten years ago than it would be today.
Build final quick comment from you is that I gotta
I gotta wrap it up.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
A couple of points. First off, you're absolutely correct, Dan,
there is a demographic shift going on. The Generation X
is substantially smaller than both the millennials as well as
the baby mover, so so there will be a lot
of homes. And there's and there's another adage in economics,
which is the cure for high prices is high prices,
(29:11):
and and that will ultimately economics one oh one will
solve this issue.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
All right, Bill, appreciate your carl. We got to take
a quick break, Andrew, we got more phone calls six
one seven two five Ford. Thank you, Bill. Six one seven,
five four ten thirty, six one seven, nine thirty. I
think this is a fascinating discussion for every age group.
So whatever your age, if you feel that this is important,
(29:38):
please ask a question. Andrew knows this issue inside and out.
He is as we've mentioned, he is the leader of
an initiative petition which will be on the ballot. I
suspect legalized starter homes here in Massachusetts. Be right back
on nightside, Kathleen and Tingsboro, you're next, say right there,
coming back on nightside.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
You're on night side, Dan Ray, un done you Bzy
Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (30:05):
Back to the phones we go, going to go to
Kathleen and Tingsboro. Kathleen, welcome. You're with my guest Andrew
McCullough Pioneer Institute, talk about starter homes. Go right ahead, Kathleen.
Speaker 5 (30:15):
Hello, Hello Dan. As always, I love how you bring
up new topics. And this is a very interesting topic
in Kingsboro. When forty B came in, I don't know
and Andrew talks about this. So is this supposed to
change the forty B laws that we have right now?
Where for instance, and I'm going to use Tingsboro because
(30:38):
that's where I live. It's pieces of land which some
of us would find undesirable, and they are undesirable for
a number of reasons. We're allowed to be sold to
a developer and then townhouses, slash condominiums and a very
(30:58):
dense set up were allowed to be built or you know,
are in the process of being built in very congested areas,
and those very congested areas do have tour lines and
they do have water lines, and the impact of traffic
in those congested areas got worse, for instance, and it's
(31:23):
created an impact on our school system as well. And
the school systems, you know, couldn't say no to these projects.
And the for instance in Kingsboro and I know a
lot of the other cities, they were told that they
had to have a certain percentage of these foodyb houses
(31:44):
placed in their communities that they weren't going to be
eligible for state funding. And then the state funding, you know,
got cut back. And also these developers found out that
they couldn't you know, the amount of money that they
could charge for the affordable housing is, you know, even
though they were doing the same building for instance, for
(32:06):
say a fair market you know, or on the market pipe,
for whatever it is, they couldn't recoup that and they
weren't getting funding for it.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
So I want to Kathy, I want to drive you
to a question if you can't here, because you've certainly
laid out a lot of problems, But what is your
question for Andrew?
Speaker 5 (32:26):
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is are
these are these starter homes going to be geared towards
you know, low to moderate income residents, and what impact
will that have on a quarter acre with such high
density as far as the traffic is concerned?
Speaker 2 (32:48):
A police just just do you favor? Okay, I love
you your enthusiasm, but just drive to a question because
you're making a speech. Okay, just drive to a question.
Speaker 5 (32:59):
So I guess I want to know.
Speaker 6 (33:02):
I guess what I'm asking is, is the high density
on a quarter acre if Andrew used the example of
five or six houses for instance, what impact and has
anyone studied the impact it's going to have on the
traffic and on the density and the number of residents
now that weren't normally on that land, and.
Speaker 5 (33:23):
What will it have to the other people who live
in that community?
Speaker 3 (33:29):
Right? Yeah? I mean, so the starter Homes proposal is
a little bit different from forty B because forty B
is trying to, you know, circumvent local zoning under certain scenarios.
But it's the kind of opt in on the part
of the developer to pursue that this is setting a
baseline in kind of the zoning itself. Whereas and importantly,
(33:55):
you know, the density we expect from this sort of
proposal is going to be less than is typical and
most forty B developments. There's no requirement in the Starter
Homes law that these homes cost a certain amount or
are reserved for people making below a certain income. More broadly,
building more homes in general, even if they are relatively
(34:15):
high end, tends to reduce the amount of competition among
buyers for a given home and therefore cause home values
to appreciate slower over time, albeit not necessarily property values
to go down in absolute terms, like Bill was talking about.
But on traffic, we've tried to minimize the impacts by
not only applying this reform to areas with public sewer
(34:37):
and water services, so disproportionately they're going to be close
to major job centers and transit stops, et cetera, shorter commutes,
keep some cars off the road, et cetera. But also,
you know it's taking place in bite size pieces of
for or six homes of a time, so that again
the towns have the ability to adapt over time when
(34:59):
issues crop up.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
Okay, but I also want to know what the impact
is going to be. In your example, you gave like
a quarter acre, and there could be four or five
six houses. If these if these starter homes attract young
families and they have you know, an average of say
two children, whatever the statistical data is, what is that
(35:22):
impact going to be on that school system? And that
is of concern as well.
Speaker 3 (35:31):
Yeah, well, in a typical single family home in twenty
twenty five, I think there's you know, one school of
child for every three homes or so. And I think
Ben and I got into this a little bit earlier,
where you know, seventy percent or so of traditional public
school districts in Greater Boston have seen declining enrollment, especially
(35:53):
since you know the COVID lockdowns, So you know there
might be some impacts in school districts that are growing.
But again we've tt it to be incremental enough to
allow the town to accommodate that growth over time, just
like you know, any growing community does with proper planning.
(36:14):
So the law isn't doing that work on behalf of
these towns, but it is you know, allowing for that
planning to take place in a thoughtful way.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
Now are you going to uh this, does this law
waiver certain lots or certain areas that they are undesirable
because they have wetlands or they have, you know, or
they're upland from a ripe earing zone and they can
flood or are those Uh does this law bypass that
(36:46):
or will the towns have to take that into consideration
during the review process with their constant vet kitchen commissions
or their planning boards.
Speaker 2 (36:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (36:56):
So the only thing we're changing in this law is
the lot size on which you're allowed to build a
home under you know, certain parameters, including that you have
public sewer and water services on the lot and an
adequate amount of you know, land fronting the street. But
everything else, height requirements, you know, the distance of the
(37:17):
home can be to the property line, wetlands protections, all
of that is still fully in the control of the towns,
with the caveat that we've given the state the ability
to determine what counts as so called reasonable regulations in
the new law for the purpose of implementing it, so
that towns can't you know, circumvent it entirely by enacting
(37:40):
requirements to make it impossible to you know, build a
starter home anywhere. Essentially.
Speaker 2 (37:45):
Okay, folks, we're flat out of time, Kathleen, good questions.
I think we'll shopping up the questions next time a
little bit. But thank you very much for calling.
Speaker 5 (37:55):
I appreciate it, Dan, thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
All I talk to you so Andrew, I'm sure will
be talking about this some more often. If folks want
to get in touch with you or your organization, what's
the best way they can do that?
Speaker 3 (38:08):
Yeah, I mean legalized starterhomes dot com is our website,
and let me just say, you know, over the holidays,
I'll try to perm up some numbers on impact and
maybe you know, once we're officially on the ballot, I
can report back.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
Yeah, you won't get officially in the ballot, I assume
until sometime next summer. I believe that the second round
of signatures are collected in May. But we can talk
about this beforehand, because again I see this as well
as the the the the MBTA Communities act As is
(38:43):
really undermining local zoning laws, which I think on the
backbone of communities. And this is one that you and
I probably are never going to agree on. But I
do appreciate your demeanor, and I appreciate the conversation we
had tonight, and I hope we can add more. Really, yeah,
really mean that. I hope anytime we'll get you back, Okay.
Speaker 3 (39:04):
Yeah. Conversating is, you know, the bedrock of our democracy
and I appreciate that absolutely.
Speaker 2 (39:12):
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate it very much. Okay, good night.
When we get back, we're going to talk about a
problem that most of us have dealt with, and that
is bad customer service. We have an author, amas to Numa,
coming up. He's written a book, Hold, The Suffering Economy
of Customer Service and the Revolt that's long overdue. I
(39:36):
am so with him on this. We'll talk to him
right after the ten o'clock News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.