I was profoundly disappointed that the housing affordability crisis was not addressed in the City Manager’s Budget Presentation at the City Council meeting on April 8.
Although Mr. Proakis is open to and advocates for a range of solutions to our housing affordability crisis, during his presentation he did not acknowledge the crisis and did not prioritize housing affordability – as a City and for the new Human Services Director.
At the meeting, City Manager Proakis correctly positioned the City Council, the community, and staff to consider how economic uncertainty and likely far-reaching government cuts will impact municipal funding. It will also impact residents’ ability to remain housed.
In light of the current economic threats, we should make sure that we’re giving serious thought to priorities for Fiscal Year 2027; and talking to our City Councilors about it.
Watertown needs an eye on two things: spurring new growth (for both tax revenues and needed housing) and protecting the most impacted Watertown residents.
The Fair Housing study Recommendations confirm this. Aside from zoning for more low-income and workforce housing, the report suggests the most impactful investment to tackle discrimination and to prevent homelessness is to create programs and policies benefiting low-income households and landlords willing to rent to them.
Watertown has taken some important steps and is soon to take more on both fronts – zoning and attention to housing services and stability. We passed the MBTA-Communities Act, began creating new ADU building ordinances, and hopefully will fund the hiring of a new Human Services Director. And, we will soon be considering the recommendations from the Fair Housing report and our planned affordable housing study.
I hope, in the future, Watertown can hire staff focused on housing affordability and services. Until then, let’s seek financially feasible opportunities.
Would the City consider creating a Watertown Affordable and Fair Housing Task Force to function as the City’s problem-solving team and to join other communities to share resources and ideas?
Would it consider recommending a percentage of Community Preservation Act funds be awarded annually to the Affordable Housing Trust – as many communities are doing – to help fund a pilot program that assists low-income residents and incentivizes landlords?
I hope the City Council supports Housing Affordability as a Watertown 2027 Budget Strategic Priority. Discussion for that budget starts this fall. Let’s be ready for it.
Sincerely,
Jacky van Leeuwen
(Note: I am writing as a resident of Watertown, not as a Housing for All Watertown’s Steering Committee member. But, please do consider joining HAW if you would like to help with this mission)
Townspeople and their elected representatives can decide their shared priorities, but it’s not too much to ask that they be consistent and make sense. I’m not sure the goals set forth here are or do.
Low-income housing may be a laudable goal to many people, but the income it generates for the town is minimal, and is offset by the support many low-income residents might likely need. It would do the opposite of “spurring new growth [and] tax revenues”, which is one of the stated aims in the letter above. Watertown is already committed to low-income units among the several thousand units called for by the MBTA; also, I presume, with the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). I guess ALL new developments can be low income, if that’s what the town decides, although the tax revenues “spurred” would be a pittance. I suggest a more measured approach, beginning perhaps with finalizing the design and density of new housing planned for Watertown Square before committing to more.
Another letter here notes that Watertown (along with neighboring communities) FAILED its recent survey on housing discrimination. Before we hire more staff, before we siphon funds to subsidize more affordable housing, ought we not have a serious answer to actionable discrimination in our midst? As I recall, the Town does little or nothing more than steer those with complaints to state entities. Adding thousands of new residences, with multiples of that number of new residents, would argue for a “gently, gently” approach to any other headstrong developments without the time for consideration and discussion. And for affordable and effective solutions to the burdens the town will need to bear.
As for the Community Preservation Act, I, for one, want to see it benefit “open space, historic sites, and outdoor recreation”—which benefit all—as I do affordable housing. Watertown is already the eighth most densely populated town in Mass. Our ranking will likely rise, and we’ll need at lot—a whole lot—of Trees for Watertown and other green spaces to go along with the building boom.
The only way to promote affordability in Watertown in the short to mid-term is to consciously build affordable housing. The City must figure out best routes to this goal. I suspect that land acquisition through Community Preservation funds would be a piece of that.
We must make this our goal in order to have workforce housing in our borders. Market rate projects will bring very little in the affordable range within our lifetimes due to externalities such as demographic shifts and notoriously sticky real estate prices. Increasing corporate ownership of rental real estate heightens the stickiness factor due to the size of corporate portfolios and resources.
HAW should do a study of corporate ownership trends in Watertown and the attendant impacts. I believe that our once fairly insular market is changing steadily due to outside influences.