As with many issues on Beacon Hill, Jim understands the legitimate concerns on both sides of this debate. In fact, he gave his maiden speach in the House of Representatives on this very issue.  Jim is not against affordable housing as he knows a healthier housing stock in the Commonwealth will lead to less expensive housing costs for all, which will in turn make the state more affordable for workers and businesses alike.  Still, Jim can attest that the 40B statute has been abused by a number of developers who see the statute as a weapon to threaten local officials with legitimate local concerns.   Using 40B as a weapon local zoning ordinances are circumvented, tremendous profits are reaped, and adequate affordable housing units are not provided.  As such, Jim continues to watch several pieces of his Chapter 40B reform legislation.   In his October 2011 testimony to the Joint Committee on Housing, Jim outlined the following three areas of immediate action he believes need to be addressed:

1)      Determining a statutory definition of allowable density for 40B projects:  Currently there is no definition of what is allowable, which results in developers asking for 200 units on 12 acres when they understand from the beginning that the property can only sustain less than half the units requested.  Jim proposes a cap on density where developers are told they can vary from local zoning and build up to a maximum of eight units per acre in return for a community “fast tracking” the development.  Jim has asked the Housing Committee to analyze past 40B developments to determine how many units have actually been constricted per acre in each proposal to determine what a rational density ceiling can be set.

2)      Remove the recently enacted so-called “5% rule”:  The state Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) recently promulgated regulations that provide that if a local Zoning Board reduces the developer’s requested size of a development by more than 5% there is a rebuttable presumption that the local decision of the ZBA is per se invalid for making the project unaffordable.  This regulation has unfairly handcuffed local authorizes from making reasonable restrictions on proposed 40B developments, and provides unjust bargaining power to the developer over a local regulatory body.

3)      Strengthen the cost certification polices in place now – and audit past projects dating back from the year 2000:  As many folks are aware, the state’s Inspector General, Gregory Sullivan, has conducted several audits of projects constructed under the 40B statute to determine if they complied with cost certification requirements (in return for varying for local zoning regulations the developer must return any profits in excess of 20% to the community where the development is built.)  The Inspector General has found widespread abuse of the 40B cost certification process and estimates the communities will reap tens of millions of dollars if a full audit is done of all projects constructed since 2000.