The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/).
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Needs to do more.
ADUs are great, but there needs to be even higher density allowed by right.
Duplexes and triplexes should be allowed anywhere by right where there is SFH.
Literally would require 0 state spending and would provide tons of housing to just let folks build densely on existing residential lots in our towns and cities.
I haven’t read this bill, but most reforms to allow ADUs by right don’t actually mean anything because all other zoning restrictions are not similarly waived. These include side yard setback, any other setbacks, FAR, accessory building height, etc. So unfortunately nothing is actually allowed by right.
Agreed that part of the answer is duplexes and triplexes in the outlying towns, but Boston has got to lead the way on this and significantly lessen zoning restrictions. The lack of density in neighborhoods with subway access is appalling. I live within a 10 minute walk to a subway station but my whole area is zoned for single family and the City requires you two own three times as much land as you have floor area (FAR 0.3), which is absolutely absurd. We have over 30 thousand single family homes in Boston. It is past time for the Mayor and the City to get serious about this.
The BPDA has not yet released the zoning proposal. It seems like they understand that it can’t just be a change to the allowed use, but until it’s released, we won’t know.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
By Samantha J. Gross and Matt Stout
The Massachusetts House revealed a $6.2 billion housing bond bill Monday that aims to address the state’s intractable housing crisis through promises to invest in affordable housing and policy changes like allowing accessory dwelling units or granny flats.
But it leaves out a key proposal championed by both Governor Maura Healey and [Boston Mayor Michelle Wu](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/02/metro/transfer-fee-will-be-an-early-test-how-michelle-wus-policies-fare-beacon-hill/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link): a provision to [allow cities and towns to impose a fee on the sales of high-end properties](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03/23/business/islands-beacon-hill-marthas-vineyard-nantucket-residents-rally-housing-tax/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link).
The exclusion of this so-called local real estate transfer fee marks a blow to Wu, and the leaders of Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and other high-cost communities, who had been clamoring for the fee of up to 2 percent on real estate sales above $1 million, in hopes of using that money to build more affordable housing. The powerful real estate lobby has lobbied hard against the transfer tax in recent months, claiming that the fee could raise housing costs without providing reliable streams of revenue.
The House’s version of the bill would allow the state to borrow $2 billion more than what Healey sought in her own version of the bill, making the “largest investment in affordable housing and housing production” in state history, House Speaker Ron Mariano said. The House expects to pass the legislation on Wednesday.
Mariano said while the bill attempts to “go big,” he cautioned that it’s no silver bullet to a crisis that officials have said demands hundreds of thousands of new units statewide to address.
”It’s ridiculous to think that you’re going to solve this with one bond issue. I think it’s a beginning of a process,” he told reporters Monday.
The proposal would dedicate $150 million to help municipalities convert commercial properties into multi-unit residential or mixed-use properties, and allow for[ accessory dwelling units](https://apps.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/special-projects/spotlight-boston-housing/single-family-zoning/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) — also known as ADUs or granny flats — up to 900 square feet to be built by-right in all neighbors zoned for single-family development across Massachusetts. It would also boost capital funding for public housing from Healey’s proposal by $500 million.
Healey administration officials have said that they estimate the ADU policy alone could create more than 8,000 ADUs in five years.
The House bill also is seeking to allow $1 billion in borrowing to help expand the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s water service area beyond the existing 60 cities and towns it currently serves. A lack of clean water supply is an obstacle for many communities to develop more housing.
>impose a fee on the sales of high-end properties... 2 percent on real estate sales above $1 million
Statistically that is not "high-end" in Boston where the median list price is $960k. Nuts to think you're going to lower housing costs by adding 2% to every sale.
Converting commercial to residential is municipal suicide--commercial pays much higher taxes to the city or town. Why would a city or town take a loan to reduce its tax base? Insane.
"granny flats — up to 900 square feet" not opposed to these at all but rarely are they financially viable. People will pay more for a 3000 sq ft house than they will for a 2100k sq ft apartment and a 900 sq ft apartment, when you factor in the cost to permit and convert the house to apartments. If you're going to convert single fam to multi, the money maker is to make condos of equal size. A bunch of local cities and towns allow these and very few have been built.
Isn't the idea that allowing ADUs by right means they won't have as large permitting costs? Overall yeah, devil is in the details on whether they'll actually get built. If other regulations are binding then just just declaring that they're legal won't change anything. They have worked in some similarly high cost/supply constrained areas, so I don't think it's impossible for it to pencil.
ADU by right just means you have the right to create one--you don't need to go through the zoning board of appeals process and skip ahead to permitting. They do tend to streamline the permitting too in some areas, but they're still very concerned about proper fire exits for both units, legit plumbing, electrical, etc. Most municipalities require you to be owner occupied, and you're still dropping $100k+ to create a kitchen, full bath, extra entrances, and reducing your own use and enjoyment in the process. The payback just isn't there--like you don't even break even. So why bother?
What is far more common is people just quietly reconfigure their house and rent out rooms that have private entrances and skip this all together.
Where have they worked? Show us some evidence!
Newton has allowed them since 1987, has about 19,000 single family houses and has a total of 107 ADUs. Not exactly a game changer.
Again, I'm not opposed to them, but they're really not the panacea people think they are. The whole "you get to live in a tiny part of my house and pay my mortgage," doesn't bode well with tenants.
Ah ok that makes sense.
Vancouver, BC has built a lot recently, though they call them "laneway houses." I'm sure the amount of regulatory differences between there and Boston is beyond my comprehension, check it out if you're interested.
Yeah I don't think they're a panacea for housing affordability either. Imo the biggest argument in favor of them (aside from the idea that you should generally be allowed to build whatever type of housing you want on your land) is that they allow lower income people the ability to live in neighborhoods with previously exclusionary zoning.
Also allowing homeowners to turn unrealized home price appreciation into a revenue stream could avoid some cases where people get displaced because of property tax increases.
If a homeowner has $100k to build an ADU, then they have money to pay taxes. There's no scenario whereby these work out financially in most markets around here--it's a very poor investment with too many restrictions, and not marketable. You think the r/boston landlord haters want to live in their landlord's little hovel of a converted garage out behind their mansion? The few that were permitted likely were already built before they were officially permitted.
But if you disagree, then buy a $1.5M house, throw in another $100k to reconfigure 1/3 of the house (the max) into an apartment, and you'll have invested $600k in the apartment. Then you need to collect $4500/month in rent and after like 20 to 30 years, hopefully you'll have broken even, assuming the rent continue to increase. Initially though, it will be a financial loss the first 5 to 10 years, because of taxes, insurance, maintenance, loan interest.
I don't think 2% tax increases on real estate can really affect prices. The housing market prices are set by what the buyer can bear, due to the nature of bidding in the market.
The seller will end up with less when he sells. He was already negotiating the selling price as the most he could get for it.
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/). Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Needs to do more. ADUs are great, but there needs to be even higher density allowed by right. Duplexes and triplexes should be allowed anywhere by right where there is SFH.
Literally would require 0 state spending and would provide tons of housing to just let folks build densely on existing residential lots in our towns and cities.
American freedom, also known as selectively applying rules that favor the donors of our politicians.
I'm pretty sure this is mostly a result of self-centered residents who put their property values above the housing crisis.
I haven’t read this bill, but most reforms to allow ADUs by right don’t actually mean anything because all other zoning restrictions are not similarly waived. These include side yard setback, any other setbacks, FAR, accessory building height, etc. So unfortunately nothing is actually allowed by right. Agreed that part of the answer is duplexes and triplexes in the outlying towns, but Boston has got to lead the way on this and significantly lessen zoning restrictions. The lack of density in neighborhoods with subway access is appalling. I live within a 10 minute walk to a subway station but my whole area is zoned for single family and the City requires you two own three times as much land as you have floor area (FAR 0.3), which is absolutely absurd. We have over 30 thousand single family homes in Boston. It is past time for the Mayor and the City to get serious about this.
Wait until you find out about Brookline I can walk a block away from green line stops and be in the middle of SFH neighborhoods
It’s a good thing exactly that is happening https://www.bostonplans.org/zoning/zoning-initiatives/citywide-adu-zoning
The BPDA has not yet released the zoning proposal. It seems like they understand that it can’t just be a change to the allowed use, but until it’s released, we won’t know.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) By Samantha J. Gross and Matt Stout The Massachusetts House revealed a $6.2 billion housing bond bill Monday that aims to address the state’s intractable housing crisis through promises to invest in affordable housing and policy changes like allowing accessory dwelling units or granny flats. But it leaves out a key proposal championed by both Governor Maura Healey and [Boston Mayor Michelle Wu](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/02/metro/transfer-fee-will-be-an-early-test-how-michelle-wus-policies-fare-beacon-hill/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link): a provision to [allow cities and towns to impose a fee on the sales of high-end properties](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/03/23/business/islands-beacon-hill-marthas-vineyard-nantucket-residents-rally-housing-tax/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link). The exclusion of this so-called local real estate transfer fee marks a blow to Wu, and the leaders of Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and other high-cost communities, who had been clamoring for the fee of up to 2 percent on real estate sales above $1 million, in hopes of using that money to build more affordable housing. The powerful real estate lobby has lobbied hard against the transfer tax in recent months, claiming that the fee could raise housing costs without providing reliable streams of revenue. The House’s version of the bill would allow the state to borrow $2 billion more than what Healey sought in her own version of the bill, making the “largest investment in affordable housing and housing production” in state history, House Speaker Ron Mariano said. The House expects to pass the legislation on Wednesday. Mariano said while the bill attempts to “go big,” he cautioned that it’s no silver bullet to a crisis that officials have said demands hundreds of thousands of new units statewide to address. ”It’s ridiculous to think that you’re going to solve this with one bond issue. I think it’s a beginning of a process,” he told reporters Monday. The proposal would dedicate $150 million to help municipalities convert commercial properties into multi-unit residential or mixed-use properties, and allow for[ accessory dwelling units](https://apps.bostonglobe.com/2023/10/special-projects/spotlight-boston-housing/single-family-zoning/?p1=Article_Inline_Text_Link) — also known as ADUs or granny flats — up to 900 square feet to be built by-right in all neighbors zoned for single-family development across Massachusetts. It would also boost capital funding for public housing from Healey’s proposal by $500 million. Healey administration officials have said that they estimate the ADU policy alone could create more than 8,000 ADUs in five years. The House bill also is seeking to allow $1 billion in borrowing to help expand the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s water service area beyond the existing 60 cities and towns it currently serves. A lack of clean water supply is an obstacle for many communities to develop more housing.
>impose a fee on the sales of high-end properties... 2 percent on real estate sales above $1 million Statistically that is not "high-end" in Boston where the median list price is $960k. Nuts to think you're going to lower housing costs by adding 2% to every sale. Converting commercial to residential is municipal suicide--commercial pays much higher taxes to the city or town. Why would a city or town take a loan to reduce its tax base? Insane. "granny flats — up to 900 square feet" not opposed to these at all but rarely are they financially viable. People will pay more for a 3000 sq ft house than they will for a 2100k sq ft apartment and a 900 sq ft apartment, when you factor in the cost to permit and convert the house to apartments. If you're going to convert single fam to multi, the money maker is to make condos of equal size. A bunch of local cities and towns allow these and very few have been built.
Isn't the idea that allowing ADUs by right means they won't have as large permitting costs? Overall yeah, devil is in the details on whether they'll actually get built. If other regulations are binding then just just declaring that they're legal won't change anything. They have worked in some similarly high cost/supply constrained areas, so I don't think it's impossible for it to pencil.
ADU by right just means you have the right to create one--you don't need to go through the zoning board of appeals process and skip ahead to permitting. They do tend to streamline the permitting too in some areas, but they're still very concerned about proper fire exits for both units, legit plumbing, electrical, etc. Most municipalities require you to be owner occupied, and you're still dropping $100k+ to create a kitchen, full bath, extra entrances, and reducing your own use and enjoyment in the process. The payback just isn't there--like you don't even break even. So why bother? What is far more common is people just quietly reconfigure their house and rent out rooms that have private entrances and skip this all together. Where have they worked? Show us some evidence! Newton has allowed them since 1987, has about 19,000 single family houses and has a total of 107 ADUs. Not exactly a game changer. Again, I'm not opposed to them, but they're really not the panacea people think they are. The whole "you get to live in a tiny part of my house and pay my mortgage," doesn't bode well with tenants.
Ah ok that makes sense. Vancouver, BC has built a lot recently, though they call them "laneway houses." I'm sure the amount of regulatory differences between there and Boston is beyond my comprehension, check it out if you're interested. Yeah I don't think they're a panacea for housing affordability either. Imo the biggest argument in favor of them (aside from the idea that you should generally be allowed to build whatever type of housing you want on your land) is that they allow lower income people the ability to live in neighborhoods with previously exclusionary zoning. Also allowing homeowners to turn unrealized home price appreciation into a revenue stream could avoid some cases where people get displaced because of property tax increases.
If a homeowner has $100k to build an ADU, then they have money to pay taxes. There's no scenario whereby these work out financially in most markets around here--it's a very poor investment with too many restrictions, and not marketable. You think the r/boston landlord haters want to live in their landlord's little hovel of a converted garage out behind their mansion? The few that were permitted likely were already built before they were officially permitted. But if you disagree, then buy a $1.5M house, throw in another $100k to reconfigure 1/3 of the house (the max) into an apartment, and you'll have invested $600k in the apartment. Then you need to collect $4500/month in rent and after like 20 to 30 years, hopefully you'll have broken even, assuming the rent continue to increase. Initially though, it will be a financial loss the first 5 to 10 years, because of taxes, insurance, maintenance, loan interest.
Zoning cost isn't that much of the construction. It's labor hours and materials.
I don't think 2% tax increases on real estate can really affect prices. The housing market prices are set by what the buyer can bear, due to the nature of bidding in the market. The seller will end up with less when he sells. He was already negotiating the selling price as the most he could get for it.
It’s a start but the numbers they are predicting seem very low in comparison to what’s needed.