To inform voters of candidates' views on local housing issues, members of Housing Medford's Elections Working Group designed this questionnaire for candidates that highlights several housing issues currently relevant to Medford.
The questionnaire was sent on Tuesday, September 19th, and candidates were invited to answer these questions and submit their answers via Google Form by midnight on Tuesday, October 3rd 2023 (Mayoral candidates by Tuesday, October 10th). All candidates except George Scarpelli confirmed receipt of the questionnaire.
Some questions were open-ended, and some had multiple-choice options where candidates could indicate their support. For the multiple-choice questions they were also given the option to explain more in a follow-up.
Housing Medford will not endorse any candidates this election cycle, but we hope this information can be useful for Medford voters. We extend our sincere thanks to all candidates who took time to complete the questionnaire!"
1a. For decades, cities and towns in the Greater Boston Area (including Medford) have failed to produce an adequate supply of housing to meet increasing demand. Do you believe Medford has an obligation to address this by supporting the creation of additional housing stock within the city?
1b. Please explain more (optional):
2. There is currently a housing crisis across Massachusetts, as sale prices and rental costs rise far beyond what many people can afford, and Medford is no exception. In general, what approach will you take to address housing affordability in Medford?
3a. Have you personally known anyone who was forced to leave Medford due to the high cost of housing?
3b. How can the City support households who are struggling with the escalating cost of housing and displacement from their homes?
4. How would you serve Medford residents and families who are experiencing housing instability or homelessness?
5a. Have you personally known anyone who has encountered housing discrimination in Medford?
5b. What can the City do to promote and enforce fair housing?
6a. Low income housing in Massachusetts has historically been under-resourced, and some of Medford’s public housing is in substandard condition. How would you support public housing residents?
6b. Would you support zoning changes or special permits to facilitate development of new public housing or low-income housing?
6c. Please explain more (optional):
7. In 2023, Medford established an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. How would you support its funding?
8a. Would you support the dedication of City-owned property to create affordable housing?
8b. Please explain more (optional):
9a. Following the completion of the Comprehensive Plan and the recent zoning recodification process, the Medford City Council has announced their intention to overhaul Medford’s zoning ordinance.
Do you support updating zoning so every neighborhood can grow moderately denser, taller, and more mixed-use than it is today?
9b. Please explain more (optional):
9c. As an example of a zoning change that could increase density and lower the cost of housing, do you support eliminating parking minimums city-wide?
9d. Please explain more (optional):
9e. What other zoning changes do you support, and why?
10. Some nearby cities and towns have proposed or plan to propose Home Rule Petitions to enact new housing policies, such as a real estate transfer fee, rent control or stabilization, and a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase program. For each policy, please indicate your agreement with the following statements by checking all that apply.
10a. Real estate transfer fee
This is a one-time fee levied on high-end real estate transactions above a certain amount. The fee percentage, sale amount threshold, and any exemptions can be determined by the City.
10b. Please explain more (optional):
10c. Rent control or rent stabilization
This encompasses a range of possible policies that aim to restrict how much landlords can increase rent. The level of allowed increase, exemptions, and many other factors can be determined by the City.
10d. Please explain more (optional):
10e. Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA)
A typical TOPA law will inform tenants in multifamily buildings of the owner's intent to sell and provide them the first opportunity to collectively purchase the building before it is put on the open market.
10f. Please explain more (optional):
11. Do you have anything else you would like to highlight or add regarding housing in Medford?
1a. For decades, cities and towns in the Greater Boston Area (including Medford) have failed to produce an adequate supply of housing to meet increasing demand. Do you believe Medford has an obligation to address this by supporting the creation of additional housing stock within the city?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1b. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
There needs to be adequate higher density housing that works with other development goals such as workspaces, parks, nightlife and historical preservation while not destroying the integrity of neighborhoods.
There needs means for neighbors in lower density housing and higher density buildings to engage with community. Lastly this needs to be through a balance of top-down and bottom-up measures to make sure things are neither too controlled nor too chaotic.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
Medford is a wonderful community. It is no wonder that people with deep roots here want to remain here, and that people from other places, near and far, wish to move here to work, study and put down roots. Embracing both current and future Medford residents means increasing the number of places to live in Medford.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
I believe Medford can and should provide enough housing to meet the demand in the city. Our proximity to Boston's jobs and attractions means that our city is appealing, and it is in our interest to provide affordable housing - that is one of many things that contributes to a thriving municipality. It is also environmentally responsible to have affordable housing close to places where people work, to cut down on travel obligations.
2. There is currently a housing crisis across Massachusetts, as sale prices and rental costs rise far beyond what many people can afford, and Medford is no exception. In general, what approach will you take to address housing affordability in Medford?
Housing is a human right, and municipalities must do whatever is within their power to make that right a reality for everyone. I strongly support zoning reforms to increase density, eliminate exclusionary zoning provisions, require more deed-restricted affordable housing, and incentivize further construction of deed-restricted affordable housing where requirements aren’t feasible or allowed under the law.
I also support a number of home rule petitions to the MA Legislature to give municipalities significantly more power, particularly to implement rent control, tenant right to counsel, just cause evictions, transfer fees on high-wealth homes, and ideally, an end to the restrictive Prop 2.5 property tax regime.
My general take on housing is to think about root problems, and to think beyond policy to an understanding of how real change actually happens. Many of the things we want to pass in Medford, like transfer fees or tenants' opportunity to purchase, require state approval (via Home Rule Petitions or state enabling legislation). How can we pass these laws if the state won’t let us? Through a statewide organization, I have helped with the formation of a pro-bono legal team whose mission is to help cities across Massachusetts pass progressive legislation with the goal of passing similar legislation in many cities at once. This will allow us to put pressure on the state and get enabling legislation passed more quickly. In the meantime, we take action on everything we can do today. As far as root problems go, housing as a for-profit commodity is a root problem which we can begin to tackle through ideas like social housing and rental/landlord licensing programs.
I will emphasize ideas that look at the issue more than one step ahead and not exclusively head-on.
Development of housing units on Mystic Ave and Mystic Valley Parkway are two options which would address the shortage. But if any lower cost housing is to be built in this area it must also be accompanied by regulations and resources which prevent deterioration into a slum tenement.
Medford must work with management of any buildings and management must work with tenants to address their issues or if necessary, evict them. Compassion is important but too much is as poisonous as too little.
On another note, I see the combination of rent control and prop 2.5 override as being a shortsighted but understandable response to inflation, which I ultimately disagree with.
What some don't realize is that it will squeeze homeowners on fixed budgets into selling and moving elsewhere, while new residents will be less interested in buying. This will consolidate property in the hands of large commercial developers and therefore accelerate the gentrification process that many supporters are hoping to prevent.
My response is a diverse revenue package that doesn't overly rely on taxes but also bonds, grants, donations and improvements such as addressing outstanding lawsuits that which hang over the city.
I believe that not all problems are addressed directly so I also advocate coming to the table with Medford's large institutions such as Tufts and Chevalier. It's in their interest that the community around them thrive and that their students don't feel that their education is at the expense of their surroundings.
In Medford as elsewhere in the region, we are seeing historic escalations in housing costs and housing scarcity. Solving this problem requires action on many fronts.
In my first term I was proud to support and help pass a number of policies that address housing. I supported our Housing Production Plan, which is a wonderful guide for actions we can (and must) take at the City level. We have already begun a number of measures identified in the HPP. This term the City Council amended zoning to allow accessory dwelling units in more residential areas. This term we also passed the City’s new Affordable Housing Trust. To make this new Trust meaningful, the City must now develop dedicated funding streams, transfer in City-owned properties, and have adequate staff to recruit and work with affordable housing developers in our City. Affordable housing is notoriously difficult and expensive to build, and it will not happen in Medford at the rate we need it to unless we put real resources towards positioning ourselves for affordable housing development and recruiting the partners to build it.
The City Council will soon begin a decades-in-the-making zoning overhaul, which I have been a strong advocate for. This will be our opportunity to amend zoning to encourage multi-family housing, mixed-use development, an affordable housing overlay, and amend our zoning map to encourage denser housing in certain neighborhoods and corridors. This is one of the more impactful ways that we can zone our City for the type of housing that current demand requires, and that will dovetail with commercial development to create vibrant neighborhoods.
Many local housing affordability mechanisms are controlled (and prevented) at the State level. Throughout my term I have been a vocal advocate for State legislation that would enable mechanisms like rent stabilization and TOPA through testifying to the State Legislature and working with community groups such as City Life/Vida Urbana to advocate for needed changes that will give us more latitude at the local level to preserve our community and improve affordability.
I am proud of Medford’s public housing, and especially of the MHA’s investment in expanding and improving existing public housing. I have taken every opportunity to support MHA initiatives to renovate and expand its stock of public housing units and I will continue to advocate for expanded, high-quality public housing to better serve our community.
I would support building higher density housing close to public transit. We need more housing, first and foremost, and it must be available at a variety of price points, not only luxury housing. I would also support ADUs and exceptions to parking space requirements as opportunities to increase housing supply.
With regards to the private housing market, I'm open to any policies that discourage speculation by private equity forms and ownership by absentee landlords, without affecting renters, homeowners, and small, local landlords. The specific initiatives I would like to pursue are:
The housing crisis is shaking Medford, and it is urgent that we act swiftly and seriously to ensure that folks who want to come to Medford or stay in Medford can afford it. This is a problem that we know through stories of friends and family (and myself) wanting to stay in our city and through statistics, average rents for units are sky-high.
In acting swiftly and seriously, we must give ourselves all the tools in the toolbox. We must treat housing production as key, and my plan is to use the second phase of zoning reform as our main instrument in this upcoming term. Some of the goals I believe we should work on, and believe we can pass, in our next term include: 1) allowing for more mixed-used development and housing density, particularly in transit corridors and underdeveloped spaces like Route 16 and Mystic Ave; 2) allowing folks to have the freedom to choose whether to subdivide their single family houses into more units; 3) re-legalizing triple-deckers; 4) reducing (or even eliminating) parking minimums; 5) reviewing height and setback restrictions; 6) put in an affordable housing overlay; 7) allow for more units to be created with environmental/energy-efficient incentives; 8) review our affordable housing requirements and study the creation of a system where we might have different options with different AMIs for developers to choose from. Outside of zoning, I would continue to support efforts at the state level to return power to municipalities to help renters and new prospective homebuyers and to provide support for city staff to maximize grant application and funding for affordable housing.
3a. Have you personally known anyone who was forced to leave Medford due to the high cost of housing?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
3b. How can the City support households who are struggling with the escalating cost of housing and displacement from their homes?
First and foremost, the city needs to take a strong position and demand that state government fully fund rental assistance, pass tenants rights legislation, and pass local option laws to allow rent control, transfer fees, and right of first refusal. The lack of funding for city services and affordable housing is one of the biggest negative impacts on people who are being pushed out by the displacement crisis. Truly supporting people who are being displaced means: (1) funding an Office of Housing Stability to provide direct services and manage cases, (2) surging funding to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund by finding new revenue sources, (3) building strong connections and relationships with non-profit affordable housing developers, and (4) bringing a one-stop location for social service organizations into Medford to help people access all forms of private, city, state, and federal assistance programs and resources.
A robust Office of Housing Stability can provide information for tenants on their rights, assist them in finding legal counsel, support tenant unions, assist with foreclosure prevention, provide help with section 8 housing applications, and help residents access any available rental assistance funds.
Throughout the various projects I've worked on I continuously find a lack of centralized information repository and/or poor advertising for it.
There needs to be a local paper distributed to a key location in each precinct. This will get critical information together alongside Medford's website. It's here that these resources for various groups can be expressed rather than scattered across website, social media and City Hall departments.
The city can also do a better job of encouraging civic participation among those who can afford. Incentivizing them to seek and compile resources into sections which can be added to the paper for those who are more focused on their day-to-day survival.
Currently, the City has incredibly scarce resources for households that are struggling with housing costs or displacement. To our shame, the City has to refer residents struggling with these problems to regional nonprofits and NGOs, which near-constantly have incredibly long waitlists of people who need this type of aid. The City must bring housing stability services in-house instead of referring residents to nonprofits that are already overburdened. I advocate for developing and allocating resources towards an Office of Housing Stability so that when residents facing housing issues or displacement find themselves in those situations, there is actually somewhere in City Hall where they can find help.
Medford should establish an Office of Housing Stability, like Boston and Somerville. This office's focus will be providing services to residents to keep them in their homes.
Different tax exemptions and programs to help with this; the funding of rental assistance and legal aid programs; greater advertisement of the property tax deferral program for seniors; and more dedicated housing staff in city hall.
Over the long-term, I believe that the most important thing we can do to this end is to use zoning reform to boost housing production and to create a bigger tax base, with which we can provide more comprehensive, in-house social support to help residents afford housing and help prevent them against displacement. In the shorter term, I would continue to vote to fund nonprofits that help tenants and to provide funds to prevent displacement (be it through rental assistance, legal aid, etc.). I would vote to fund the Affordable Housing Trust which we passed this council term and would ensure that the Housing Stability Notification Ordinance which we passed this term as well is well-executed. I would support efforts to create an Office of Housing Stability and would continue to push our City to do better at communicating resources and rights, exploring different channels and languages.
4. How would you serve Medford residents and families who are experiencing housing instability or homelessness?
Much of my above plan for preventing displacement also assists people facing homelessness. But, people who are going unhoused face different circumstances and require more resources. The city needs to work with our neighbors to bring a warming center and shelter into Medford. Pairing this with the one-stop shop for social service organizations would significantly improve our ability to help people find permanent housing.
I would have information available for people about nearby shelters and assistance centers like the Somerville Homeless Coalition and the Malden Warming Center. I also want Medford to have something like the Somerville Workforce and Talent Development program where people looking for work in our city can access training and job openings.
Considering their needs would be more immediate than what can be addressed with longer-term housing policies I'd consider presenting them with a package consisting of access to a soup kitchen and homeless shelter, a ticket to get there and some hygiene products.
Also referral to a social worker who are more equipped to handle deeper root causes and recommend areas of lower cost housing. I'd advocate that this tie in with state grants and national immigrations policies so that no one area becomes an attractant for accumulation of a homeless population.
Knowing that the City does not itself hold sufficient resources to meaningfully assist residents encountering housing instability, I work with residents to connect them with local nonprofits, organizations, and experts that offer emergency rental assistance, legal assistance, or organizing support. When residents do not know where to turn or who to ask for help, I seek to serve as a liaison who can connect them with the right people and resources based on what they need at that moment.
In my first term I have (unfortunately) had a few opportunities to work with Medford households who are experiencing housing instability. For example, when notices to quit were issued en masse to residents of a Bradlee Road apartment building, I helped the tenants in their efforts to stay in their homes and negotiate a just resolution – because in a moment of unprecedented housing costs and scarcity, having to get out in 30 days assures displacement from the community. I helped connect the tenants with a housing justice organization, and liaised and supported their year-plus-long efforts to negotiate with their property owners and achieve a just resolution. When we run into the end of our local jurisdiction to affect housing outcomes, at the very least it is our responsibility to be there for our constituents, and assert that they belong here and their presence in our community must be protected. At the same time, we must advocate for State-level legislative changes that will strengthen local protections and resources for tenants and people facing housing instability.
This term, I helped pass a Housing Stability Notification Ordinance to ensure that more tenants across Medford are informed of their housing rights and local resources – before they need them.
The establishment of the Office of Housing Stability would help with this, but I also have many ideas as the Assistant Director of the Malden Warming Center, a seasonal homeless shelter in Malden. People dealing with homelessness or the threat of homelessness need both short-term and long-term assistance. This often is related to substance use disorder and addiction treatment/counseling, but not always. There are barriers to accessing housing if a person has a history of incarceration, for example, or they may be someone who is simply dealing with deep poverty. No matter the situation, wraparound services are useful. There are many wonderful non-profit organizations in our area, but a way to access a collection of services via the city would be a great starting point. Job listings, short term assistance (such as hotel vouchers), connections to places like Eliot Community Human Service, and recovery coaches are all useful. We need to give this issue the attention it deserves and recognize that there isn't a quick fix. We need to work at it, and we need to be stubborn until we have all the services in place that our community needs.
Getting more revenue into the city so that we can have nonprofit/homeless support. Currently, Medford's go-to policy is referring people experiencing homelessness to neighboring municipalities.
I would work with our Board of Health, city social workers, and the Office of Planning, Development, and Sustainability to tackle these issues and to provide support, be it legal or practical. I think we should dedicate more resources to reaching out to term and seeing what their needs are, which could range from food and clothing to connecting with legal and housing non-profits and job training. I would continue to vote to fund nonprofits that fight against displacement and homelessness and provide food and basics. I also plan to work to establish cooling and warming centers, particularly relevant given extreme weather and climate change and to build more, more accessible public toilets. I would advocate against hostile architecture. I would encourage the Mayor’s office to dedicate a small pool of money that we can use to make sure that food pantries are stocked. I also recognize that a bulk of these actions are geared more at the short-term, and I believe that it’ll take a regional effort – with cities like Medford taking the lead – to create the necessary housing and social protections for a more long-term fix.
5a. Have you personally known anyone who has encountered housing discrimination in Medford?
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
5b. What can the City do to promote and enforce fair housing?
Once again, the City of Medford's lack of financial resources significantly limits active enforcement of fair housing. We need to invest in Medford by creating an Office of Housing Stability with case managers to support residents dealing with fair housing.
Families with small children are often discriminated against, as well as people of color, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and others. All landlords should be reminded of the laws and that these laws will be enforced. I support providing “test” renters when this comes up, people who apply with the same basic application details except for the quality in question, to see if the landlord is discriminating (potentially facilitated through the Office of Housing Stability).
Seek participants then convene a publicly viewable forum with well-informed representatives for homeowners, landlords, renters and developers. There must be intelligent, well-balanced moderation for a thoughtful conversation. The trust, funding and enthusiasm for all the above ideas is downstream from such a meeting.
The engaged portion of the Medford public must be made more broadly aware of each perspective so that a mutually agreeable definition of 'fair' can even be brought forth.
Section 8 voucher holders are particularly susceptible to violations of fair housing choice. The City’s Housing Production Plan recommends conducting an updated analysis of barriers to fair housing in Medford to better understand local obstacles for voucher holders finding rentals in our community. Certainly, improved communication and enforcement would help – making sure that all voucher holders know their rights, and that landlords know the consequences for rejecting voucher holders as tenants – and the City has a demonstrated need for better communication and enforcement across the board. In addition, the City should restart the federally-funded housing rehabilitation program and target that funding at units that do not yet comply with HUD Housing Quality Standards, so that those properties may be brought up to eligibility for Section 8 rentals. We currently have a lot of untapped potential in the form of rental units that are not up to HUD standards and are held by landlords that would be happy to accept Section 8 vouchers if they could afford to make their rentals eligible.
I would need to look more deeply into this issue. I would recommend that undercover inspectors can pose as renters or perhaps section 8 recipients and see if landlords are willing to rent to them, but I am not sure if the city is already engaging in this type of work. I do not want to assume they are not.
The very first thing we would need is hire more city inspectors (we have eight at the moment) to enforce our current ordinances, which are often ignored entirely.
We need to do more research as a city government into how housing discrimination manifests itself and how deeply it does so in our city today. I’ve been pushing our city to review its social justice roadmap, and I believe this would fit right into that roadmap. By knowing the facts, we can have a more targeted approach, particularly at a time of low resources. We should work with our Medford Housing Authority and local social justice/civil rights groups to be self-critical. We should also enhance mechanisms by which residents who have encountered housing discrimination can work with city staff to report and rectify the situation. We also have to realize that housing discrimination and the question of fair housing can be subtle and require much listening, nuance, and creativity to solve the problem.
6a. Low income housing in Massachusetts has historically been under-resourced, and some of Medford’s public housing is in substandard condition. How would you support public housing residents?
The city needs to continue and expand our partnership with the MHA to access more LIHTC funds for rehabilitation and expansion of MHA properties. Walkling Court and Saltonstall Building are great examples of where we need to go. Significant new density at Laprise Village and Exchange Ave could help public housing communities become anchors of larger redevelopments of the Mystic Valley Parkway and Mystic Ave corridors.
Our public housing is in need of renovation and sound-proofing. Public housing residents I have talked to also request more activities for youth. We need to use federal, state, and local funding to renovate, expand, and improve our public housing. And we should expand the library and Medford Rec activities for pre-teens and teens.
Proper waste disposal infrastructure including dumpsters and barrels that are emptied regularly. This must be tied to a precondition of residence along with the requirement of passing a drug and alcohol test and a behavior code as would befit the occupant of any group housing.
Residents must be able to take pride in their living space and eventually feel empowered to move beyond it. However, there exists a pathological form of support that acts as if any judgment or expectation is cruel and demeaning. This must be avoided so that low-income housing can truly be a hand up and a foundation for order in otherwise chaotic lives.
These residents must also be encouraged to give back to the Medford community by helping to enforce the rules on their own premise and attend local governance. Civic engagement will give them the sense of purpose and dignity which they might lack and a chance to show the skeptic residents of Medford that they are capable of being stable adults and families beyond their hard times.
I am proud of the amount of public housing in Medford, and acknowledge that it must be expanded and much of it must be renovated, made accessible and otherwise improved. In my first term, I have consistently supported MHA projects to expand public housing Medford and consistently voted to appropriate CPA and other grant funding to support and enable these projects. I am happy to see Medford on a trajectory of making its public housing more available, more accessible, and more diversified – we must become a leader for the rest of the state in how to sustain abundant, accessible, and modern public housing.
The Medford Housing Authority, like many departments in Medford, is under-funded. MHA needs more funding, and that can be accessed with an increase in property taxes via Property 2 1/2 override.
Leverage soft power to get funding at the state/federal level invested into Medford. There's a big push in Massachusetts at the moment to fund public housing. In the short-term, we would need to make sure that the Walkling Court redevelopment is implemented, and ensure that residents know about their options for temporary relocation to other public housing in Medford.
This is an issue which I hear from constituents about and which I see on sites like See Click Fix. I have been supporting efforts to upgrade and expand existing public housing at Walkling Court, the Saltonstall Building, and LaPrise Village, including dedicating monies from the Community Preservation Act Fund for this. I would continue to put residents in touch with authorities on these matters and to see what we can do to find the funding or urgency to deal with these issues. In the next term, I’d also want to push the City and City Council to hold more meetings and listening sessions in these spaces, so that we can hear and engage with residents directly.
6b. Would you support zoning changes or special permits to facilitate development of new public housing or low-income housing?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
6c. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
This entirely depends on what the ripple effect of unintended consequences would be in each specific case. It also depends on the quality of the support that exists to go through with the zoning changes and special permits. Intentionally handicapped efforts are sometimes worse than none at all.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
I am strongly in favor of zoning and permitting measures such as an Affordable Housing Overlay that will make it more frictionless to build public and affordable housing in Medford. These are some of the most desperately-needed types of housing in our community, and also some of the most cumbersome and expensive to build. We have a responsibility to make it as easy as possible to build affordable and public housing, so that we may more quickly achieve our goals of housing community neighbors of all backgrounds and income levels.
7. In 2023, Medford established an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. How would you support its funding?
Right now, our major tools are permit fees, CPA funding, and contributions from development projects. I would like to see the State House pass a local option transfer fee bill to allow Medford to fund the AHT through a fee on sales of high priced houses. Additionally, I would support using the general fund operating budget to fund the AHT, and would like to see this contribution grow overtime as the city grows and we see increases to the property tax levy.
Funds for the trust can come from a variety of sources: Community Preservation Act, linkage fees and transfer fees, short-term rental fees, and state and federal funds (like Community Development Block Grant funds).
I'd like to learn more about it in a context where I can ask questions. If I felt that it was thoughtfully assembled I'd support it by 1) making sure that applications for grants were annually submitted on its behalf 2) keeping the four stakeholder groups (homeowners, landlords, tenants and developers) informed at a bi-annual forum 3) make sure the donation process is easy and 4) provide well-advertised public updates on how the funds are used on the website or in print
I would support funding the Affordable Housing Trust through appropriations from Community Preservation Act funding, and permitting/mitigation fees from the Condo Conversion Ordinance, should it pass (currently being worked on in subcommittee). I support inclusionary zoning, linkage, and short-term rentals fees being dedicated to the AHT. I am a strong proponent of real estate transfer fees and if the state enables us to enact one, that would be an appropriate and meaningful funding source. I believe our current PILOT agreements with Tufts University and other area nonprofits are insufficient; among other benefits, directing payments into the AHT would start to level the balance.
I would prioritize funding an Affordable Housing Trust Fund via any revenue streams we have in Medford, but we desperately need more revenue. Ideas to explore include a real estate transfer fee and funding from the community preservation committee.
Initially from ongoing funds from the Community Preservation Committee. We would also need to submit a home-rule petition to the state for a real-estate transfer fee that does not impact homeowners living in their homes.
The Affordable Housing Trust is one of the most substantial wins of my first-term on the City Council and something I was proud to support and help pass. To support its funding, we should ensure during the budget process that there is money in the municipal budget that goes into this fund and dedicate Community Preservation Act funds to it. I’d also support seeing what we can dedicate to it with Community Development Block Grant funds. I would also be supportive of creating additional streams of funding dedicated to solving the housing crisis here in Medford, such as with transfer fees and linkage fees.
8a. Would you support the dedication of City-owned property to create affordable housing?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
8b. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
I support the city of Medford creating mixed-income housing that has large proportions of affordable housing at multiple levels. City-owned (or owned by a non-profit affiliated with the city), mixed-income housing can encourage current homeowners to sell to owner-occupants, and free up some of our older housing stock.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
Only if it were accompanied by thoughtful zoning considerations and clear expectations from City Hall, property managers and any prospective resident
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
The City currently has many underutilized properties of different types that would serve a huge community benefit if they were developed as affordable housing. It is important to create affordable housing in general, and permanently affordable housing specifically. By developing public lots into affordable housing and transferring these into the Affordable Housing Trust, we can create and protect affordable housing for the long term.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
I would be in favor of leasing land long-term for this purpose, though I understand that a few knowledgeable people in the city have favored selling the land entirely, so I would need to educate myself more on the pros and cons of each.
9a. Following the completion of the Comprehensive Plan and the recent zoning recodification process, the Medford City Council has announced their intention to overhaul Medford’s zoning ordinance.
Do you support updating zoning so every neighborhood can grow moderately denser, taller, and more mixed-use than it is today?
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
9b. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
Please head over to zacbears.com/platform and click the "Transform Zoning" button to see more detailed thoughts on this subject.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
I support growing taller and more mixed use, and allowing more multi-family housing in areas currently zoned smaller (one- or two-unit areas become three-unit areas, for example). Density should not come at the cost of trees and parks – we have plenty of room to grow without sacrificing green space.
[ Answer to main question: No ]
It really depends what is meant by 'moderately' but I think when neighborhoods become too mixed with types of housing it will create infrastructural issues and heighten tension among forcefully-integrated neighborhoods.
While I think that cultural integration has been a noble and worthwhile goal, there are altogether different considerations when it comes to infrastructural integration.
I could be wrong and I am open to hear more but I'd like to see an organized overview of the zoning changes that isn't laden with legal jargon.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
Each neighborhood in Medford is different, but I think that there is room for appropriate evolution in each part of the community. There are some neighborhoods in Medford that are clearly calling out for bold densification and mixed-use development – for example, the underutilized commercial zones including Mystic Valley Parkway, as well as in South Medford, Medford Square and Hillsides. In our more straightforwardly residential areas, we can make it easier to augment existing infrastructure with affordable units, infill development on city-owned properties, and accessory dwelling units.
9c. As an example of a zoning change that could increase density and lower the cost of housing, do you support eliminating parking minimums city-wide?
Yes
City-wide elimination with occasional exceptions based on data
Not sure what eliminating parking minimums means
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
9d. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: City-wide elimination with occasional exceptions based on data ]
Blanket parking minimums are detrimental because they mandate wasted space in many parts of the city that do not need these minimums, space that could be used for green space or housing. I believe in eliminating parking minimums throughout most of the city, but I do believe there can be micro-neighborhood exceptions. I want to base decisions on data, and there may be parts of the city where high density and lack of other transit options might mean that a micro-neighborhood parking minimum makes sense. Any parking minimums should be the exception, not the rule.
[ Answer to main question: Not sure what eliminating parking minimums means ]
Parking already has enforcement and volume issues. Anything requiring more cars per street is going to require building additional spillover lots for days with street sweeping, plowing and construction.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
Existing parking minimums are often out of step with actual need, tying up prime real estate that could be put to uses that are more aligned with community goals and needs like residential and business development, road redesign for better safety and walkability/bikeability, and green space. It is important that we reevaluate this current aspect of zoning and reduce/eliminate parking minima citywide to free up land use for these important other uses.
[ Answer to main question: Yes ]
This city has been prioritizing car travel for many decades and it is time to update our city to where our culture and society are moving: toward more environmentally friendly modes of transport and more opportunities for housing.
9e. What other zoning changes do you support, and why?
Please head over to zacbears.com/platform and click the "Transform Zoning" button to see more detailed thoughts on this subject.
Zoning should allow for higher density closer to transit hubs and also higher density near Tufts University; relaxed zoning for 100% affordable housing; allowance of ADUs throughout the city.
I'm not yet educated enough on zoning matters to present an informed stance, so I'll withhold for now.
I support reevaluating current standards for permitted uses, density requirements, and height restrictions so as to allow smoother development of denser, taller residential buildings. These current zoning rules keep us from increasing our housing supply, and from densifying our housing supply in a way that hews to our climate goals and our goals of creating vibrant, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods. I support an Affordable Housing Overlay to make creation of affordable housing easier citywide; and zoning to allow affordable infill development on vacant public lots in SF districts that can then be transferred into the Affordable Housing Trust. I’m currently at work on a Condo Conversion regulation which would create a mitigation structure when for-profit flippers take rental units off the market.
I support zoning changes that will allow apartments to be built above existing businesses in Medford. I would also support building more high density high rise housing. We are an urban center and should have housing that reflects that.
Allowing accessible dwelling units, re-zoning specifically for Walkling Court, and allowing, in more areas, the building of more residential properties on top of commercial, with the added incentive of allowing higher building if more affordable units were included. These are specific policies that would allow for denser affordable housing in Medford.
My responses to questions 2 and 9A essentially capture my goal: upgrade our neighborhoods to allow for more density and housing units, particularly around our transit corridors, empty/under-utilized industrial spaces, and business districts. Tied in with this, I would relegalize buildings that have been made illegal in past rounds of zoning reform, like triple-deckers, give folks the freedom to decide whether or not they want to subdivide a large house into smaller units (for example after all their children move away), look at loosening up ADU regulations even more, take advantage of the intersection with environmental work (for example, incentivize developers to electrify by offering building incentives if they reach certain targets and densifying in less flood-prone area), and study the intersection of zoning with economic justice, looking at how we can adjust our affordability requirements and AMI targets to reach folks who are currently being left out because AMI is too high, perhaps creating a tiered system where developers have different options to reach affordability.
10. Some nearby cities and towns have proposed or plan to propose Home Rule Petitions to enact new housing policies, such as a real estate transfer fee, rent control or stabilization, and a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase program. For each policy, please indicate your agreement with the following statements by checking all that apply.
10a. Real estate transfer fee
This is a one-time fee levied on high-end real estate transactions above a certain amount. The fee percentage, sale amount threshold, and any exemptions can be determined by the City.
☑ I personally support a real estate transfer fee
☑ I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support a real estate transfer fee
☑ I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes
☐ I personally support a real estate transfer fee (N.B.: Candidate Charles Patrick Clerkin did not select this option)
☐ I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature (N.B.: Candidate Charles Patrick Clerkin did not select this option)
☑ I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support a real estate transfer fee
☑ I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support a real estate transfer fee
☑ I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support a real estate transfer fee
☑ I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support a real estate transfer fee
☑ I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes
10b. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: I personally support a real estate transfer fee;I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature;I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes ]
I run a podcast on state politics; please see our episode on housing: https://youtu.be/ojkvGveIiiU
Small transfer fees, especially when levied on buyers who are not owner-occupants, are good for increasing funding for an Affordable Housing Trust. If the state would allow it, I would support higher transfer fees on “flippers” who purchase a house, renovate, and then sell for a much higher price in an effort to dis-incentivize this behavior (and also fund the trust).
[ Answer to main question: I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes ]
It depends how the fee is distributed between the seller and buyer
[ Answer to main question: I personally support a real estate transfer fee;I would advocate for real estate transfer fee policy to the state legislature;I would support enacting a real estate transfer fee locally if legislation passes ]
Real estate transfer fees target high-end sales – where private money is being made off of the value of land in our community. When for-profit companies profit off of community assets, the community should profit too. So when high-value real estate changes hands in Medford it is only fair that a commission should go to the community to help pay for vital and historically underfunded community assets and programs. As a City, we would have the authority to tailor the specifics to enact a fee structure that is fair to the community and reasonable for transactors operating at this level.
10c. Rent control or rent stabilization
This encompasses a range of possible policies that aim to restrict how much landlords can increase rent. The level of allowed increase, exemptions, and many other factors can be determined by the City.
☑ I personally support rent control or rent stabilization
☑ I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support rent control or rent stabilization
☑ I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes
☐ I personally support rent control or rent stabilization (N.B.: Candidate Charles Patrick Clerkin did not select this option)
☐ I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature (N.B.: Candidate Charles Patrick Clerkin did not select this option)
☐ I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes (N.B.: Candidate Charles Patrick Clerkin did not select this option)
☑ OTHER: I don't support rent control because it's a blunt instrument with unintended consequences where market intervention needs to be more surgical
☑ I personally support rent control or rent stabilization
☑ I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support rent control or rent stabilization
☑ I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support rent control or rent stabilization
☑ I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support rent control or rent stabilization
☑ I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes
10d. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: I personally support rent control or rent stabilization;I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature;I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes ]
I run a podcast on state politics; please see our episode on rent control: https://youtu.be/BCJ_sMvDfPU
[ Answer to main question: I personally support rent control or rent stabilization;I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature;I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes ]
The ban on rent control renders it illegal for local governments to enact meaningful and reasonable housing stability policies. Massachusetts’ failure to legalize rent control signals that commercial landlords’ profits are more important than residents’ financial and physical security. Failing to enact rent control condones leaving renters to the whims of an uncaring market. With wages lagging far behind gentrification and inflation, the lack of reasonable caps on rent increases causes displacement and homelessness.
[ Answer to main question: I personally support rent control or rent stabilization;I would advocate for rent control or rent stabilization to the state legislature;I would support enacting rent control or rent stabilization locally if legislation passes ]
I highly doubt that rent control/stabilization measures would pass at the state level before a real estate transfer fee, so most of my energy would be dedicated to the transfer fee.
10e. Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA)
A typical TOPA law will inform tenants in multifamily buildings of the owner's intent to sell and provide them the first opportunity to collectively purchase the building before it is put on the open market.
☑ I personally support this
☑ I would advocate for this to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support this
☑ I would advocate for this to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes
☐ I personally support this (N.B.: Candidate Charles Patrick Clerkin did not select this option)
☐ I would advocate for this to the state legislature (N.B.: Candidate Charles Patrick Clerkin did not select this option)
☑ I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support this
☑ I would advocate for this to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support this
☑ I would advocate for this to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support this
☑ I would advocate for this to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes
☑ I personally support this
☑ I would advocate for this to the state legislature
☑ I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes
10f. Please explain more (optional):
[ Answer to main question: I personally support this;I would advocate for this to the state legislature;I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes ]
TOPA is an incredibly important way to keep tenants in their homes and create permanently affordable housing.
I run a podcast on state politics; please see this episode for more on TOPA: https://youtu.be/ojkvGveIiiU
[ Answer to main question: I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes ]
I'd support this only if the tenant is made to show interest within 2 weeks of notification of the landlord's intent to sell.
On top of that, the tenant must be able to provide their creditworthiness for a loan from three financial institutions within a week of formally showing interest. If they aren't creditworthy or if the landlord would prefer to sell to a more worthy buyer the landlord may proceed on the open market.
[ Answer to main question: I personally support this;I would advocate for this to the state legislature;I would support enacting this locally if legislation passes ]
Yes, I’m strongly in favor of TOPA and have testified in favor of it at the State level. It is a positive thing for individual households and the community overall when buildings remain in the hands of owner-occupiers instead of being gobbled up by large corporate landlords and for-profit flippers, which are increasingly encroaching upon our housing supply. Cities should be empowered to encourage and enable individual households to collectively purchase buildings so that residents are better able to remain in this community and not be displaced when buildings change hands. This is also an exciting way to encourage homeownership. I am working on including a tenant First Right of Refusal provision in the Condo Conversion Ordinance that is currently in subcommittee.
11. Do you have anything else you would like to highlight or add regarding housing in Medford?
(NO ANSWER)
(NO ANSWER)
Only that balance will be critical and that the ultimate goal is for residents and investors to have mutual respect for neighborhood needs and overall Medford harmony.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I encourage anyone to reach out to me with further questions at kitformedford@gmail.com or to read more about my platform and accomplishments at kit4medford.com.
(NO ANSWER)
(NO ANSWER)
(NO ANSWER)