Top

Do your local codes allow LID?

Written by

Low Impact Development: Do Your Local Codes Allow It? 

A checklist for regulatory review

Low Impact Development strategies can reduce the “environmental footprint” of new housing and businesses. However, outdated local codes and standards may prohibit the use of LID techniques or may discourage developers by requiring special permits or variances.

Simple modifications to local codes can encourage builders and property owners to apply low impact techniques, while also ensuring high quality development, adequate access, and public safety. Some communities may also wish to enact a stormwater/LID bylaw, but a comprehensive review of local codes should happen before writing a bylaw; the emphasis of both efforts should be on creating a predictable, streamlined process that encourages developers to try LID techniques.

This checklist is a tool that citizens, officials, and developers can use to review their local codes for consistency with LID principles. It is important to remember that conditions are different in each community. Some of the recommendations here may not be appropriate for your city or town. A careful review may also identify other opportunities not listed here; be sure to consider local area plans, redevelopment authorities, groundwater protection districts, planned unit developments, and other local policies or entities.

Finally, the best way to ensure the success of a regulatory review is to make it a collaborative effort. Be sure to involve representatives from all relevant boards and departments, public works officials, emergency response officials, watershed advocates, and developers, so that their concerns are heard and addressed early in the process.

Zoning Bylaw and Site Plan Review Standards

Dimensional Requirements

  • Permit the location of bioretention areas, rain gardens, filter strips, swales, and constructed wetlands in required setback areas and in buffer strips.
  • Minimize setback distances in residential districts in order to increase flexibility with regard to house location.
  • Permit reduction in frontage (and corresponding road length/paved area) where appropriate, such as in open space residential developments, at the outside sideline of curved streets, and around cul-de-sacs.
  • Establish limits on the extent of lawn area on residential lots, either area or percentage of lot.
  • In rural, low-density areas, establish limits on impervious lot coverage (e.g., 15%.) This strategy is not appropriate for town centers, transit-oriented districts, and moderate density neighborhoods, where compact development should be encouraged.
  • Should establish regulatory controls over tree clearance and removal of mature trees/forest stands.

Open Space Developments

  • Permit open space residential developments (cluster development or conservation subdivision design) as a “by right” form of development (no special permit required.) Permit flexible site design criteria such as reduced setbacks and smaller lot sizes. See model Open Space Residential Development bylaw for further recommendations (www.greenneighborhoods.org.)
  • Permit construction of LID stormwater management techniques (bioretention, swales, filter strips) on land held in common.

Parking Requirements

  • Permit use of permeable paving for parking stalls and spillover parking areas.
  • Do not require more than 3 off-street parking spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area in professional office buildings.
  • Do not require more than 4.5 off-street parking spaces per 1000 square feet gross floor area of shopping centers.
  • Do not require more than 2 off-street parking spaces per single family home.
  • Establish parking maximums.
  • Establish formulas for the utilization of shared parking for uses with different peak demand periods (e.g., office peak demand period 9am – 5pm; housing peak demand period 6pm – 8am.) Allow reduction of parking requirements if shared parking is proposed. Provide model shared parking agreements that can be included as deed restrictions or permit requirements.
  • Allow reduced parking for homes and businesses near major transit stops.
  • Permit stall width of 9 feet or less for a standard parking space.
  • Permit stall length of 18 feet or less for a standard parking space.
  • Recommend or require smaller stalls for compact cars, up to 30% of total number of parking spaces.
  • Establish landscaping requirements for parking areas that include vegetated islands with bioretention functions.

Common Driveways

  • Permit the use of common driveways to serve up to four houses, including OSRD lots that do not meet standard dimensional requirements.

Site Plan Requirements

  • Allow bioretention areas, filter strips, swales, and constructed wetlands to count towards to fulfillment of site landscaping/open space requirements.
  • Require driveway width no more than 9 feet.
  • Permit use of pervious material for single family driveways (porous pavers, paving stones, pervious asphalt or concrete), and/or use of ‘two-track’ design for residential driveways.
  • Allow discharge of uncontaminated rooftop runoff to lawn areas and buffers, with level spreader or other velocity reduction mechanism.
  • Allow temporary (72-hour) ponding of stormwater prior to infiltration.
  • Require development of a stormwater management and erosion control plan for construction activities. Ensure that standards comply with NPDES Phase II requirements (see https://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm for more information about the NPDES program.) Be sure that the plan includes a maintenance program and provides for inspection by local authority.

Subdivision Rules and Regulations/Roadway Design Standards

Street Location

  • Considerations for street layout should include reducing street length and minimizing total paved area (including cul-de-sacs), with the goal of protecting site hydrology. Identify the need to reduce cut and fill, do not run streets across steep hillsides, route streets along ridgelines, protect important natural features.

Street Cross Sections

  • Permit a minimum pavement width of 18-22 feet on low-traffic local streets in residential neighborhoods. Allow narrower pavement widths along sections of roadway where there are no houses, buildings, or intersections, and where on-street parking is not anticipated. It is especially important to involve public works officials and emergency response officials in this discussion.
  • Permit the use of “open section” roadways with roadside swales. Do not require the use of conventional curbs for the full length of all streets in residential neighborhoods. Where curbs are deemed necessary to protect the roadway edge, allow the use of perforated curbs (that allow runoff to flow into swales) or “invisible curbs” (flush with the road surface.)
  • Establish criteria for the design of roadside swales to ensure adequate stormwater treatment and conveyance capacity.
  • Permit placement of utilities under the paved section of the right of way or immediately adjacent to the road edge (so that the land adjacent to the roadway can be used for swales.)
  • Permit use of permeable paving for road shoulders/parking lanes in residential neighborhoods, with use of conventional paving for travel lanes only.
  • Permit the use of permeable paving for sidewalks.
  • Permit sidewalk placement on one side of the street only in low-density residential neighborhoods.
  • Provide flexibility with sidewalk layout; e.g., alternative pedestrian circulation layout that uses common areas, rather than street rights of way.
  • Sidewalks should be designed so that the runoff is disconnected from the stormwater system. e.g, place a green strip

Site Work

  • Encourage developer to limit clearing within the right-of-way to the minimum necessary to construct roadway, drainage, sidewalk, and utilities, and to maintain site lines; do not require clearing and grubbing of entire right-of-way.
  • Require contractors to reestablish permeability of soils hat have been compacted by construction vehicles. For example, contractor can rototill lawn areas prior to seeding to re-establish void space (hence permeability and infiltration) of the soils.

Dead Ends

  • Minimize the required radii for cul-de-sacs. A radius of 35 feet is optimal, depending on emergency vehicles.
  • Allow the creation of landscaped island (and bioretention cells) within cul-de-sacs.
  • Permit use of one-way loop streets to eliminate turnarounds.
  • Permit “hammerhead” turnarounds instead of cul-de-sacs.

Board of Health Bylaw and Regulations

  • If the Board of Health has standards for drainage/infiltration systems, rely on setback distances established in Title 5 and the MA Stormwater Policy Manual Volume 2. Do not require additional setbacks or classify stormwater structures so as to increase the minimum setback distances (e.g., some local codes require dry wells and bioretention areas to meet the same setbacks as a septic system.) Such requirements hamper the use of small, decentralized stormwater management techniques.
  • If current codes require oversized or “double capacity” systems (as compared to Title 5 requirements), evaluate the presumed water quality benefits of such requirements against the landscape/stormwater impacts associated with the clearing and excavation involved in building these oversized systems.
  • Do not require reserve septic fields to be cleared of trees at the time of development.

Wetlands Bylaw and Regulations

  • Permit the use of low impact stormwater structures (such as bioretention areas, infiltration trenches, or grass swales) within the buffer zone of (state or local jurisdictional) wetland resource areas, provided the location of these structures is not in conflict with any other setback criteria required by Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act regulations or the MA Stormwater Management Policy Handbooks.
  • Provide opportunities for staff and Commission members to participate in LID workshops or conferences.

Department of Public Works/Building Inspector

  • Ensure sufficient funding for DPW to perform maintenance of existing stormwater management facilities.
  • Create mechanisms for enforcement of maintenance agreements; establish regulations/fines for property owners who fail to maintain stormwater facilities.
  • Determine if local building codes prohibit use of permeable paving, narrow driveways, green roofs, and other LID techniques.
  • Local plumbing codes should permit the use of harvested rainwater for interior non-potable uses such as toilet flushing.
  • Provide opportunities for staff participation in LID workshops or conferences.
  • Implement LID demonstration programs at city or town hall, schools, DPW, etc.
Continue reading...

External Links and Resources on LID

Written by

National Organizations and Research Centers

Massachusetts Stormwater Resources and Policy Documents

Other New England Resources and Publications

State and Regional Stormwater Manuals and Guidance Documents

  • State of Maryland Stormwater Management Program. Look for links to the Maryland Stormwater Design Manual and the Stormwater Management and Urban Redevelopment fact sheet.
  • The Maryland Office of Smart Growth published a paper on Parking Best Practices (PDF), which includes LID techniques to minimize impervious surfaces and distribute stormwater management structures throughout parking areas.
  • New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual—a comprehensive design manual that includes sizing criteria, cold climate considerations, and other details for BMP designers and reviewers.
  • The Pennsylvania DEP Stormwater Manual Oversight Committee is in the process of developing a stormwater manual with many LID techniques.
  • The Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) publishes Start at the Source – Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protections, an excellent guidance document for site design and stormwater management. Additional reports and outreach materials can be found on the BASMAA web site.
  • The California Stormwater Quality Association publishes comprehensive BMP handbooks for development, municipal operations, and industrial and commercial activities.
Continue reading...

Fact Sheet: Cisterns and Rain Barrels

Written by

Cisterns and rain barrels are simple techniques to store rooftop runoff for reuse for landscaping and other nonpotable uses. They are based on the LID approach that treats rooftop runoff as a resource that should be reused or infiltrated. In contrast, conventional stormwater management strategies take rooftop runoff, which is often relatively free of pollutants, and send it into the stormwater treatment system along with runoff from paved areas.

The most common approach to roof runoff storage involves directing each downspout to a 55-gallon rain barrel. A hose is attached to a faucet at the bottom of the barrel and water is distributed by gravity pressure.

A 400-gallon, partially buried cistern at a house in Ipswich, MA. Photo courtesy of Charles River Watershed Assocation.

Management Objectives

  • Reduce water demand by providing an alternative source for irrigation needs.
  • Reduce peak discharge rates and total runoff volume.

A more sophisticated and effective technique is to route multiple downspouts to a partially or fully buried cistern with an electric pump for distribution. Where site designs permit, cisterns may be quite large, and shared by multiple households, achieving economies of scale. Stored rain water can be used for lawn irrigation, vegetable and flower gardens, houseplants, car washing, and cleaning windows. When rain barrels or cisterns are full, rooftop runoff should be directed to drywells, stormwater planters, or bioretention areas where it will be infiltrated.

Applications and Design Principles

Cisterns and rain barrels are applicable to most commercial and residential properties where there is a gutter and downspout system to direct roof runoff to the storage tank. They take up very little room and so can be used in very dense urban areas. Rain barrels and cisterns are excellent retrofit techniques for almost any circumstance.

Rain barrels are 50-100 gallon covered plastic tanks with a hole in the top for downspout discharge, an overflow outlet, and a valve and hose adapter at the bottom. They are used almost exclusively on residential properties. Since rain barrels rely on gravity flow, they should be placed near, and slightly higher than, the point of use (whether a garden, flower bed, or lawn.) The overflow outlet should be routed to a dry well, bioretention area, or rain garden. It is important for property owners to use the water in rain barrels on a regular basis, or else they fill up and no additional roof runoff can be stored. It is recommended that each house have at least two rain barrels; a one inch storm produces over 500 gallons of water on a 1000 square foot roof.

Construction of an underground cistern

Construction of a large underground cistern at a commercial site; this vault consists of a weight-bearing skeleton wrapped in a waterproof membrane. 

Cisterns are partially or fully buried tanks with a secure cover and a discharge pump; they provide considerably more storage than barrels as well as pressurized distribution. Cisterns can collect water from multiple downspouts or even multiple roofs, and then distribute this water wherever it needs to go through an electric pump. Property owners may use one large tank or multiple tanks in series. Either way, the overflow for the systems should be a drywell or other infiltration mechanism, so that if the cistern is full, excess roof runoff is infiltrated, and not discharged to the stormwater system. Some cisterns are designed to continuously discharge water at a very slow rate into the infiltration mechanism, so that the tank slowly empties after a storm event, providing more storage for the next event.

Benefits and Effectiveness:

  • Rain barrels and cisterns can reduce water demand for irrigation, car washing, or other nonpotable uses. Property owners save money on their water bills and public water systems experience lower peak water demand and less stress on local water supplies.
  • Property owners who have cisterns and rain barrels can use stored water for landscape purposes, even during outdoor watering bans.
  • If installed and used properly, rain barrels and cisterns can reduce stormwater runoff volume through retention, and will also help to reduce the peak discharge rate through retention.

Limitations:

  • The stormwater volume/peak discharge rate benefits of cisterns and rain barrels depend on the amount of storage available at the beginning of each storm. One rain barrel may provide a useful amount of water for garden irrigation, but it will have little effect on overall runoff volumes, especially if the entire tank is not drained in between storms. Greater effectiveness can be achieved by having more storage volume and by designing the system with a continuous discharge to an infiltration mechanism, so that there is always available volume for retention.
  • Rain barrels and cisterns offer no primary pollutant removal benefits. However, rooftop runoff tends to have few sediments and dissolved minerals than municipal water and is ideal for lawns, vegetable gardens, car washing, etc.
  • Rain barrels must be childproof and sealed against mosquitoes.
  • The water collected is for nonpotable uses only.

Cost:

The cost of rooftop runoff storage varies widely, from a homeowner-installed rain barrel to a commercially constructed underground cistern vault. Most rain barrels and cisterns do not retain enough stormwater to downsize the site’s stormwater management system, but can provide cost savings because they reduce the demand for potable water for landscaping and irrigation. The cost-benefit ratio will depend on how much landscaping/irrigation water the property owner uses, and the unit cost of water from the local public water supply.

Commercially available rain barrels begin at approximately $60 for a 55-gallon barrel. Larger barrels may be available at correspondingly higher prices. Most rain barrels can be installed by homeowners. Rain barrels can be assembled by homeowners for lower cost but some of the parts may be hard to find. Some watershed associations or municipalities offer rain barrels at a discount or provide rebates.

Cisterns are more expensive due to the larger size and multiple “moving parts.” Installation of buried cisterns can also be expensive. One system available in Massachusetts (SmartStorm) costs $3000 for an 800 gallon two-tank system complete with pump and drywell structure. A common cistern shared by multiple properties may result in considerable economies of scale because there is only one excavation, one tank or set of tanks, and one pump.

Design Details:

  • Because of the low pressure of the discharge, rain barrels are most effectively used with a drip irrigation system.
  • Rain barrels should be childproof and secured against disturbance by people or animals. Any openings should be sealed with mosquito netting.
  • If present, a cistern’s continuous discharge outlet should be placed so that the tank does not empty completely, ensuring water availability at all times, while also providing at least some storage capacity for every storm.
  • A diverter at the cistern inlet can redirect the “first flush” of runoff which is more likely to have particulates, leaves, and air-deposited contaminants washed off the roof.
  • Minimize leaves and debris in the storage tank by placing a screen at the top of the downspout.
  • Screen rain barrels and exposed cisterns with shrubs or other landscaped features.
  • Direct overflow from rain barrels and cisterns to a dry well, infiltration trench, rain garden, bioretention area, or grassed swale sized to infiltrate the overflow volume. Use pond routing to account for retention of early runoff in the storage tank. MA Stormwater Policy does not require treatment of most roof runoff prior to infiltration.

Additional information:

Continue reading...

Flexible Parking Requirements

Written by

Parking Requirements That Fit Your Community

Most communities have standards for the minimum amount of parking required for new developments written into their zoning code. These minimums are generally based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Handbook and/or other communities’ parking requirements. But the ITE Handbook was always intended to be used in conjunction with information about local conditions, and the local conditions will vary from one community to another, so generic standards may be a poor fit for local needs.

One way to improve on generic parking requirements is to allow flexibility based on certain considerations, such as:

  • access to transit (the frequency and quality of the transit service will also be a factor);
  • presence of nearby complementary destinations within walking/biking distance and/or potential for shared parking;
  • expected demographics for residential developments (age, income, other auto-ownership factors);
  • overall auto ownership rates in the community;
  • implementation of programs to reduce demand for parking, such as parking cash out, unbundled parking, priority parking for carpools, bike parking spaces, or car sharing; and
  • parking studies providing data to support requests to reduce or increase parking.

Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute offers some guidelines for the level of parking reduction appropriate based on the factors above and others in the table below [1].

Table 1 - Parking Demand Adjustment Factors

Providing flexibility in minimum parking requirements can be accomplished either by allowing the relevant permitting authority discretion to reduce the number of spaces required based on those factors, or by establishing more specific criteria that will allow for reductions in required parking by right. The advantage of setting out the criteria specifically and allowing reductions automatically is that developers will know up front how many spaces they will be expected to provide.

Another option is to allow on-street parking spaces to count towards off-street parking requirements in certain situations.

Local examples:
  • The City of Somerville allows a 20% reduction in required parking spaces for any non-residential use located within 1000 feet of a rapid transit station, or a reduction of up to 20% if it can be demonstrated that the use will need fewer spaces than required in the bylaw, such as for facilities serving the handicapped or where auto ownership is especially low (Somerville’s regulation).
  • The City of Newton has lower minimum parking requirements for state or federally subsidized low-income or elderly housing developments (see regulation).
  • The Town of Braintree allows reductions in required parking as part of a special permit or site plan review based on completion of a parking study meeting the given requirements and determination that the parking to be provided will be adequate (see regulation).
  • The Town of Belmont allows the Planning Board to reduce parking requirements based on age or other characteristics of site users and on implementation of parking demand mitigation strategies, and allows projects in one Local Business district to count on-street parking in some circumstances (see regulation).
  • The Town of Norwood allows reductions based on the same criteria, allows on-street parking to count towards requirements in some Special Districts, and has reduced requirements for residential uses in the CBD
  • The City of Weymouth allows non-residential uses in the Neighborhood Center District to count nearby on-street parking towards minimum off-street requirements in some cases
National examples:
  • Los Angeles allows a reduction of 0.5 spaces per unit for deed-restricted affordable units and additional reductions for units within 1500 feet of a transit line [3].
  • Eugene, Oregon allows reduction of parking requirements on a case-by-case basis subject to a parking study documenting that the reduced amount of parking will be sufficient [4].
  • Seattle, Washington grants reductions in minimum parking requirements for affordable housing (down to 0.5 to 1 space per unit, depending on income, location, and unit size); housing for seniors or people with disabilities; multi-family developments with car-sharing programs; and developments in dense, mixed-use neighborhoods [4].
  • Santa Monica, California reduces parking from 2 spaces per unit to 1.5 for two bedroom affordable housing units [3].
  • Hartford, Connecticut allows reductions of up to 30% of required parking in exchange for implementing TDM programs such as discounted carpool parking, rideshare promotions, subsidized transit passes and shuttle services to off-site parking [2].
Additional Resources:
  1. Todd Litman, Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation, and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, April 2006; p. 14. Download pdf
  2. Maryland Governor’s Office of Smart Growth, Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices, March 2006; p. 3-5. Download pdf
  3. Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, Parking Requirements Guide for Affordable Housing Developers, February 2004. Download pdf
  4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, January 2006; p. 14-16. Click here to view
  5. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, “More Accurate and Flexible Standards”, Online TDM Encyclopedia.  Click here to view
  6. Georgia Quality Growth Partnership, “Flexible Parking Standards”, Quality Growth Toolkit. Click here to view
  7. American Planning Association, PAS 377: Flexible Parking Requirements (1983), APA Planning Advisory Service. Available for purchase
  8. Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc., Northwest Connecticut Parking Study – Phase II: Model Zoning Regulations for Parking for Northwestern Connecticut, Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments and Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials, September 2003. Download pdf
  9. Christopher V. Forinash, et al., “Smart Growth Alternatives to Minimum Parking Requirements”, Proceedings from the 2nd Urban Street Symposium, July 28-30, 2003. Download PDF
Continue reading...

Trail Implementation Toolkit

Written by

MAPC has developed a Trail Implementation Toolkit with the goal of empowering local planners and trail advocates to help grow the network of biking and walking trails in Massachusetts.

Building a trail with state or federal transportation funding is the preferred option for many cities and towns, and Reno DeLuzio of Milford has created an excellent step-by-step primer on how to build a trail with funding from any of the MassDOT-administered programs, such as CMAQ and Transportation Enhancements. This primer is a great place for anyone to start.

View or download Milford’s trail development primer.

However, building a trail with MassDOT funding may be a very long and costly process. The Toolkit below outlines strategies to help move the process along — or to help communities determine a different way to move forward altogether — by highlighting some of the more creative strategies that municipalities in the MAPC region have used for development, construction and maintenance of walking and bicycling trails.

View the entire toolkit here or click on individual sections below:

I. What You Can Do Without Funding

1. Trade the rails for a trail

Iron Horse Preservation Society is a nonprofit organization that converts abandoned railroad corridors into recreational trails at little to no cost to the communities with which they work.Find out more about how to partner with Iron Horse.

2. Volunteers

Volunteers are a crucial part of any successful trail project. From trail cleanup, to website design, to serving on the Trail Committee itself, there are many different jobs for volunteers to do.See tips for recruiting groups of volunteers, and making volunteer days a success.

iI. Hitch a Ride on a Funded Project

1. Road and public works projects 

A number of communities have had parts of a trail successfully funded, designed, or built by piggybacking on other road or public works projects. Make sure your trail is in the right place at the right time.

2. Development projects and mitigation fees

Several trails in the region have moved forward as part of development project, either built by the developer or funded by mitigation fees. Learn how to take advantage of development projects. 

iii. Strategies for Private Fundraising

1. Grants

Many trails are developed with grants from federal or state agencies, nonprofits or foundations, or local civic organizations. Even for MassDOT-funded trails, grants are often crucial for funding feasibility studies and design. Get ideas on where to look for grants, and how to make your application stand out.

2. Grassroots fundraising/sponsorship

Fundraising is often a crucial part of making trail plans into reality. Some trails are built completely without taxpayer dollars, but even trails funded by MassDOT often require the design and a percentage of the construction costs be funded locally. Learn from successful fundraising campaigns in the region.

iV. Lesser-known Sources of Public Funding

1. Community Preservation Act

The Community Preservation Act is a Massachusetts law that enables cities and towns to raise special funds in order to preserve open space, develop outdoor recreational facilities, and build affordable housing. Find out how the CPA works and if your community has opted in.

2. State grant programs

There are many well-known federal and state grant programs that are administered through MassDOT. Several other state agencies also have grant programs that have helped build trails.Get details on a few of the state grant programs that have helped build trails.

Don’t Forget to Spread the Word!

No matter what stage the project is in, it is absolutely essential to publicize your project. Positive press will raise awareness and build community support for the project, and you may be surprised by how many donors and volunteers approach you, rather than the other way around.

The Danvers Rail Trail is one example of publicity paying off. Early in the development of the trail, a local programmer approached the Trail Committee and volunteered to build a website, which has been crucial for fundraising and recruiting volunteers. More recently, a persistent drainage issue on the trail was fixed by resident near the trail who approached the town to offer his landscaping company’s time, equipment and materials to fix the problem.

Resources

Funding and advocacy resources:

Local trail groups:

Continue reading...

Foreclosure Advocacy

Written by

Many legislative and policy initiatives at the state and federal levels have been introduced to address foreclosures. They provide support, resources, and assistance to residents, local governments, and the mortgage industry to address different aspects of foreclosures.

Below, please find a summary of state and federal legislation to protect borrowers and homeowners from the affects of foreclosure.

Additional information on Massachusetts and federal legislation can also be accessed by entering the specific bill number at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts General Court website.

House Bill 1232 An Act to protect tenants in foreclosed properties from evictions
Sponsor: Rep. Elizabeth A. Malia

House Bill 1510 An Act to establish a temporary moratorium on foreclosures in the Commonwealth
Sponsor: Rep. William Lantigua

House Bill 1682 An Act relative to mortgage foreclosure and active duty service members
Sponsor: Rep. John F. Quinn

Many legislative initiatives are being proposed and discussed on the state and federal levels. MAPC’s Legislative Committee will track these bills and significant legislative updates regarding foreclosures will be posted on this page. For additional resources or questions concerning foreclosure legislation, contact Government Affairs Manager Lizzi Weyant

Continue reading...

Managing Neighborhood Change Toolkit: Local Project Work

Written by

Applying national and other best practices at the local level, MAPC has completed work for several metropolitan area municipalities to address the impacts of major local investments. Projects range from technical analysis of anticipated neighborhood change prompted by the Green Line extension in Somerville to an anti-displacement plan for the Shirley Avenue neighborhood in Revere. Projects include an analysis of strategies to prevent displacement and harness the positive impacts of neighborhood change for a broad spectrum of residents.

Chelsea Silver Line Corridor Transit-Oriented Development Action Plan

The City of Chelsea could undergo significant neighborhood change with the extension of the Silver Line and adjacent shared-use path. The city and the region will benefit from five additional stations connecting people to jobs in the Seaport and Downtown Boston (through the East Boston Blue Line connection). Service is expected to begin in 2016, while the greenway will be constructed in 2017.

In 2015, the City partnered with MAPC to develop an Action Plan that will ensure the forthcoming Silver Line and the investment it spurs promote fair access to housing, jobs, and other amenities in alignment with city and community values. The plan will outline short- and long-term steps for advancing equitable transit-oriented development (TOD) along the corridor, and draft zoning language to be presented for adoption by June 2016. It will be informed by a robust public process, including forums, focus groups, interviews, and other engagement.

In addition to analysis of existing conditions, land use, transportation infrastructure, residential and commercial markets, and health impacts, the plan will include an assessment of how the corridor might change with the Silver Line extension and strategies to manage that change so as to more equitably distribute the benefits of new investment among people of all walks of life.

Housing a Changing City: Boston 2030

Jenny Raitt, Assistant Director of Land Use Planning and Chief Housing Planner of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, sat on Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh’s Housing Task Force 2014. In that role, she guided development of the city’s housing strategy, Housing a Changing City: Boston 2030. In accordance with a vision for an equitable and diverse city, the plan aims to establish housing policies and programs that will support housing preservation and production of 53,000 new housing units by 2030. This includes housing for low-income and middle-income households, for seniors, and for students.

Salem Point Neighborhood Commercial Corridors Revitalization Plan

The Point neighborhood in Salem is characterized by its accessibility, vibrancy, ethnic diversity, significant supply of affordable housing, and immigrant-owned small businesses. In 2014, MAPC and the North Shore Community Development Corporation undertook a Salem Point Neighborhood Commercial Corridors Revitalization Plan to advance the housing and economic development vision outlined in the Salem Point Neighborhood Vision and Action Plan (2013). The Revitalization Plan evaluates the retail market, housing, and mixed-use redevelopment potential of parcels in the Congress and Lafayette Street corridors. It aims to boost economic activity, inclusivity, and connectivity in the Point. Towards that end, the plan outlines a set of goals and strategies to encourage greater public and private investment in the corridors while mitigating the displacement of current residents and businesses.

Everett Housing Production Plan

In January 2014, the City of Everett engaged MAPC to develop a Housing Production Plan (the HPP) that will help address need and demand over the next five years. Everett is a dense city with a growing population and number of households and increasing household size. Since 2000, the white population has declined from 75% to 50% of the total, while the minority population has proportionately increased. The housing stock is predominantly single-family homes, majority rental, and among the oldest in the Inner Core. More than half of households are cost-burden and more than half of households are categorized as low income. Meanwhile, sale prices are increasing and rental rates, though relatively low for the sub-region, exceed HUD-calculated fair market rents (except for efficiency units). The city does not meet the State-mandated 10% target of affordable housing.

The HPP establishes eight goals and myriad strategies aimed at preserving and increasing the city’s housing stock accessible to low- and moderate-income households. This includes achieving preservation and production goals; directing funding and programs to address unmet need; minimizing the displacement of lower-income Everett households and businesses; promoting healthy housing and living; ensuring adequate zoning regulations and policies to advance housing development; building community awareness of housing issues and activities, and engaging community development partners; improving existing and building new infrastructure to facilitate housing development; and leveraging new funding sources for affordable housing development.

Managing Change in Somerville: Impacts of the Green Line Extension

The Green Line Extension (GLX) through the City of Somerville will dramatically improve transit mobility in the area. New growth attracted to Somerville may expand housing opportunities, increase ridership and fare revenue, and bolster municipal finances with new tax revenue. However, previous experience in Somerville and across the country suggests that the creation of new transit service may also result in unintended negative consequences if rising rents and land values cause the displacement of the low- and moderate-income residents who comprise the “core users” of public transit.

To better understand this phenomenon, MAPC completed an analysis on the neighborhood changes that may occur in Somerville as a result of the GLX. Rent increases and the conversion of rental units to condominiums are the most significant mechanisms of potential displacement; but the greatest threat to overall affordability is slow housing production. MAPC estimates demand for 6,300 to 9,000 new housing units in Somerville by the year 2030; if new supply cannot keep up with this demand, prices may rise even further, making it more difficult for low-income families to move to or stay in Somerville.

This work was informed by a month-long discussion series co-hosted by the City of Somerville, the Somerville Community Corporation, and MAPC. Participants explored housing needs, affordability, gentrification, and strategies for an effective housing agenda to promote housing for all in the city. Community members discussed topics ranging from family housing to gentrification and displacement.

The first forum began with a talk by Rachel Bratt, a professor emeritus at Tufts University, about what constitutes family-friendly housing. Affordable, good quality, safe, comfortable, transit-oriented, and accessible to good schools were some attributes attendees agreed on. The second half of the night was spent discussing how the City and its community partners can develop more housing that matches this description.

The next meeting included a presentation by Tim Reardon, Assistant Director of Data Services at MAPC, on the “Dimensions of Displacement” report, which explores anticipated impacts of the Green Line extension on the Somerville housing market in new station areas. Participants discussed what gentrification is and why it happens, and how the community can work together to ensure changes coming to Somerville benefit all segments of the city’s population.

At the third and final forum, community leaders shared the housing themes that emerged during discussions at the previous two meetings, and then attendees participated in small groups to prioritize those issues. Discussion later explored how the City and its partners can use various strategies and best practices to tackle them, from inclusionary zoning to acquisition of land near new Green Line stations for developers to create affordable housing.

The series revealed the community’s fervent desire to maintain Somerville’s diversity, vibrancy, and sense of community in the face of current and future neighborhood change. By acting early and assertively, Somerville is positioned to welcome change in transformative areas of the city without sacrificing what makes it so desirable in the first place. And a vocal and invested constituency, including those who came out to shape Somerville’s housing agenda, must see that it does.

The final report estimates the magnitude of the displacement risk through a variety of mechanisms so that the City and community partners can focus efforts on mitigation strategies likely to be most effective. This work intends to provide local officials, leaders, and community members in Somerville with a set of indicators of neighborhood change, a mechanism to track change over time, and the appropriate tools to mitigate change. The indicators measure the city’s demographic diversity, housing cost burden, auto ownership and usage, and livability.

Healthy Neighborhoods Equity Fund Health Impact Assessment

MAPC conducted a health impact analysis (HIA) to examine the potential health effects that could result from investments made by the Healthy Neighborhoods Equity Fund, a $30 million private equity fund created by the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and the Massachusetts Housing Investment Corporation (MHIC). The model considers the community, environmental, and health benefits of a proposed project, as well as the financial risks and returns. The HIA examines three transit-oriented development projects in the City of Boston as case studies, and considers anticipated social and economic changes in a community as a result of new investment, such as those prompted by HNEF work.

Community Investment Tax Credit Health Impact Assessment

In collaboration with Health Resources in Action (HRiA) and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), MAPC conducted a health impact analysis (HIA) to assess the effects of a new funding opportunity for community development corporations (CDCs). As the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) developed the Community Investment Tax Credit Grant Program (CITC Grant Program), it sought to better understand connections between community development activities and health. The HIA explores these connections and identifies health metrics (health outcomes that result from the investment of tax credits in communities) that can be evaluated with information provided by CDCs to assess the impacts of new investment over time.

Shirley Avenue Housing & Economic Development Analysis

The Shirley Avenue neighborhood in Revere is a diverse low-income community located in close proximity to Revere Beach, an area where the City is aggressively pursuing development. In order for this neighborhood to benefit from new development, it was critical for the community to come together to put an action plan in place. The plan includes many anti-displacement strategies, especially related to the maintenance and preservation of affordable housing and the stabilization of the local business corridor.

With funding provided by grants from the District Local Technical Assistance program, the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Gateway Cities Housing Planning Grant, and the Herman and Frieda L. Miller Foundation, MAPC worked with The Neighborhood Developers (TND), the City of Revere, and Madden Planning Group to conduct a housing and economic development analysis as part of a neighborhood action plan led by TND. All project partners participated in a community planning process through the facilitation of meetings and community outreach and conversations. Over 120 residents participated in five community meetings where they helped devise an action plan for the Shirley Avenue neighborhood that improves the community in four key topic areas: housing, economic development, quality of life, and infrastructure. Many other residents participated in the process through Steering Committee membership and Task Force membership, as well as through surveys and online comments.

In May of 2014, the final community-driven action plan was presented. Mayor Daniel Rizzo and all participating organizations and residents signed onto the plan, affirming their commitment to implement it. This plan will serve as the guide for neighborhood improvements going forward. The housing and economic development analysis included in this plan outlines existing conditions in the Shirley Avenue neighborhood and includes preliminary recommendations for action steps based on key data findings and input from the community. The research and recommendations provided in this analysis will be incorporated into the forthcoming community plan.

Mystic Valley Parkway Green Line Extension Community Visioning Process

MAPC led a community visioning process to examine how a future Mystic Valley Parkway station could foster transit-oriented development in the area, while minimizing negative impacts on the local community. Chapter 5 of this report specifically addressed displacement mitigation strategies that would enable current residents to benefit from the Green Line Extension.

Local Community-Based Organizations Working on Neighborhood Change

Other community-based organizations working to address neighborhood change in and around Boston include:

Continue reading...

Managing Neighborhood Change Toolkit: Long-Term Affordability Strategies

Written by

Municipalities can implement multiple strategies to create and preserve long-term affordability. In so doing, thye promote opportunities for lower-income residents of neighborhoods where investments are being made to stay and access the benefits of neighborhood change, such as improved housing and job opportunities and access to transit.

MAPC’s Managing Neighborhood Change: Selected Anti-Displacement Strategies in Practice toolkit provides an overview of approaches utilized by various practitioners throughout the country. Here, example strategies for consideration by cities and towns interested in managing neighborhood change. Brief descriptions of each anti-displacement strategy are accompanied by links to full explanations of the tools and case studies where they’ve been employed.

Development without Displacement

PolicyLink and the Chicago Rehab Network have published online resources that promote the adoption of “development without displacement” (D w/o D) policies in order to equitable manage neighborhood change. These policies, also referred as anti-displacement policies, intend to find ways to include the costs of displacement in redevelopment.

Community Benefits Agreements

Community Benefits Agreements are contracts executed between community-based organizations and one or more developers. Similar to Developer’s Agreements, they are intended to outline the developers’ commitment to provide a range of benefits to the community to offset the potential impacts associated with the proposed development.

Condominium Conversion Ordinances in Massachusetts

Massachusetts General Law (M.G.L.) 183A enables cities and towns to adopt local ordinances and bylaws that regulate condominium conversion more strongly than the statewide law. MAPC contacted several communities that have passed local condominium conversion ordinances to learn more about how local ordinances have been enforced and/or modified over time.

One for One Affordable Housing Replacement Ordinances

In researching one for one affordable housing replacement ordinances, MAPC identified a number of instances in which the legality of the ordinances has been contested. Several states have passed enabling legislation and/or policies that support these ordinances.

Workforce Development Strategies

Workforce development strategies can be used to support neighborhood revitalization and the retention of small and local businesses. MAPC assembled a summary of two organizations’ track records in fostering and retaining local businesses.

District of Columbia Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA)

TOPA stipulates that owners of residential properties must “give the tenant an opportunity to purchase the accommodation at a price and terms which represent a bona fide offer of sale”¬ before they may transfer the property to a third party. D.C. is the only city in the United States with this type of ordinance.

Continue reading...

Managing Neighborhood Change: How To Measure Neighborhood Change

Written by

Communities where neighborhood change is anticipated can prepare by identifying the appropriate indicators and measuring them over time to determine which strategies or interventions are needed to manage change that has an adverse impact on lower-income populations or neighborhoods. First, municipalities must establish a current demographic and residential baseline. Second, they must observe and monitor any changes to this baseline. This can be done, as it was in Somerville, by tracking data that measures the municipality’s demographic diversity, housing cost burden, livability, auto ownership, and travel behavior. Importantly, these indicators aim to distinguish between natural housing turnover and displacement as a result of decreasing affordability, both of which can be a consequence of neighborhood change. Together, the following indicators can help position municipalities to better understand how they are changing and, in doing so, plan to capitalize on new investment and mitigate any negative impacts.

Demographics & Migration

Economic Diversity

Number and share of low-income households in the municipality, and share relative to the sub-region and/or region

A decrease in economic diversity as a result of increasing rents and a restricted rental supply, for example, would be a negative impact of neighborhood change. Tracking the number and share of low-income households can help gauge the degree to which displacement or replacement is occurring and whether existing mitigation strategies are effective. A stable or increasing number of low-income households indicates a low rate of displacement or replacement by higher-income households; a declining number may mean such processes are underway. A stable or increasing share of low-income households means that the municipality has created new affordable housing opportunities.

Data Source: Estimates of the number of low-income households (earning 80% of area median income or below) are published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy dataset (CHAS).

Racial and Ethnic Diversity

Municipality’s population of color (number and share), and share relative to the sub-region and/or region

While displacement is largely driven by income disparities, the fact that higher-income households are disproportionately white and lower-income households are disproportionately non-white means that displacement risk also carries implications for the racial diversity of a community. A stable or increasing number of residents of color in a municipality indicates a low rate of displacement or replacement by white residents; a declining number may mean such processes are underway. An increasing share of a municipality’s population of color indicates increasing diversity; a decreasing share means that relatively fewer residents of color have access to the municipality.

Data Source: US Census

Migration

Lower-income households as a share of all out-migrant households and as a share of all in-migrant households; non-white individuals as a share of all out-migrants and as a share of all in-migrants

The composition of in- and out-migrants to a municipality has a substantial impact on its demographics. Changes in the characteristics of in-migrants could cause a rapid demographic transition, even if the pace of outmigration remains constant. If low-income households and people of color begin moving out of a municipality at a higher rate, then those populations will dwindle. An increasing share of moderate-to-high-income households or white, non-Hispanic people among in-migrants—and in particular a greater share relative to the current population—indicates that demographic replacement is occurring. Conversely, an increase in the share of low-income households and people of color among the out-migrants is a clear indication of displacement.

Data Source: Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS)

Housing & Households

Housing Cost Burden

Percent of low-income households with high housing cost burden, number of low-income households not cost burdened, and rate of cost-burdened low-income households relative to the sub-region and region

The size of the population most vulnerable to displacement could itself change over time, perhaps due to rising local housing costs or broader economic shifts. If the share of lower-income households who are cost burdened (meaning they pay 30% or more of their annual household income on housing costs) rises, then this population is facing increasing difficulty finding housing that is affordable to them. If the share declines, it could mean that lower-income households are more easily managing to secure housing they can afford. However, it could also mean that such households have left the municipality. Consequently, we suggest also tracking the number of non-cost burdened low-income households. An increase in this number means that more low-income households can stay in the city without being unduly strained by high housing costs. It is also revealing to compare incidence of cost burden to the sub-region and region in order to determine if the municipality is following regional trends or becoming more of an outlier.

Data Source: American Community Survey

Families with Children

Number of families with children; municipality’s share of sub-region and region’s families with children

Real estate trends in transit-oriented areas can make it difficult for families to secure housing that meets their needs and that they can afford. Development of smaller units and subdivision of large homes into multiple condominiums may result in a limited stock of family-friendly housing. While smaller units can be an appropriate and desirable choice for single people, young professionals, and seniors, they often do not provide enough space for households with children. Meanwhile, larger housing units in these areas tend to be high-cost options. Tracking families with children increases understanding of how the changing housing stock is accommodating this subset of the population.  A smaller number of families with children in the municipality means that this population is on the decline. Since the number of such households is likely to decline region-wide as a result of broader trends towards shrinking household size, it is also useful to compare figures at the municipal level to those at the sub-regional and regional to see if the local decline is occurring at a faster rate.

Data Source: Decennial Census

Equitable Homeownership

Homeownership gap between white and non-white households, and relative to the sub-region and/or region

Renter households are particularly vulnerable to displacement as housing markets experience inflation. Since people of color make up a disproportionate share of renter households, they are at a greater risk. Therefore, homeownership rates should be calculated for white and minority households, followed by the gap between them (for example, subtract the percentage of Hispanic householders who own from that of white, non-Hispanic householders). A greater parity in homeownership rates between whites and people of color means that this inequity is on the decline, while an increase in the discrepancy means it is increasing.

Data Source: Decennial Census

Designated Affordable Housing

Number and share of deed restricted affordable housing units in the municipality, and number and share of affordable units that could expire (i.e. are not affordable in perpetuity)

Designated affordable housing is a critical resource for low-income households. If the absolute number of deed-restricted affordable units in a municipality is rising and that figure as a share of total units is stable, then the municipality is at least keeping pace with, if not reducing, the scale of the affordability challenge relative to its overall population growth. If the absolute number of subsidized units is growing but its share of total units is declining, then the municipality should consider strategies to increase affordable housing production. If the number and share of affordable units are both decreasing, major efforts are needed. Such a decrease could be a consequence of expiring affordable units; municipalities should be forward-thinking and take note of units that are not affordable in perpetuity.

Data Source: MA Department of Housing and Community Development Chapter 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory, Census housing unit count

Transportation

Vehicle Ownership and Mileage

Registered vehicles per household and vehicles miles traveled per household

If neighborhood change is prompted by investment in public transit infrastructure, then a decrease in the rate of vehicle ownership per household would indicate reduced dependence on automobiles and an increase in attractive alternative transit modes. Meanwhile, an increasing vehicle ownership rate indicates that transit options are not sufficiently meeting resident need, or that high-income, less transit-dependent households make up an increasing share of the population. Estimated daily mileage per household indicates actual vehicle usage; a decline over time would indicate improved alternative transit modes.

Data Source: Massachusetts Vehicle Census (MAPC)

Commute Mode Share

Percent of workers commuting by car, transit, bike, and foot

An increase in the share of workers commuting by transit, bike, or foot indicates that people are able to reduce their dependence on private vehicles for commuting to work, which is the trip purpose that accounts for the largest share of unique riders on public transit. Commuting via public transit has vastly outweighed commuting by bike or foot for the last several decades, and all three modes tend to rise and fall in tandem because the conditions that support transit usage are strongly related to those that support biking or walking to work. This indicator should be evaluated in conjunction with an awareness of broad economic conditions, however, as events such as a recession or a spike in gasoline prices can also result in modal shifts.

Data Source: American Community Survey

Transit Commute Times

Average commute time for municipality’s transit commuters; percent of transit commutes 30 minutes or longer; percent of transit commutes to jobs within the municipality 30 minutes or longer

Often, areas with rail transit are served by public buses. Because of longer wait times and more frequent stops, bus commutes typically take more time than rail commutes. In theory, the introduction of rail transit would shorten commute times for residents in close proximity to station areas. Commute time to employment within the municipality indicates whether transit is a viable option for job-holders.

Data Source: American Community Survey

Continue reading...

Managing Neighborhood Change Toolkit: Anti-Displacement Literature Review

Written by

MAPC’s first phase of neighborhood change research included a literature review of academic and non-academic reports released in the past decade that outline anti-displacement polices and strategies grounded in successful case studies. This information was organized into a matrix that catalogues the research by geographic scale (neighborhood, city/town, or regional), by recommended methods, and by recommended policies and strategies employed in case studies. The matrix appears below; follow the links for more information.

For more information about the research, specific recommendations, and case studies, click on a given title and refer to the annotated bibliography of this literature review.

Research

Overview

Recommendations
Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and PolicyLink (April 2001). This report explores recent gentrification dynamics in Atlanta, the San Francisco Bay Area, Cleveland, and Washington, D.C. The authors recommend strategies to address high metropolitan housing prices, short supply of housing compared to job growth, and the need for housing near jobs.
Development without Displacement Task Force Background Paper. The Chicago Rehab Network, The Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement (1995). In this paper, researchers outline approaches, policies, strategies, and programs addressing the issue of development without displacement at the federal and city levels, with a focus on Chicago. Researchers explore municipal programs and strategies to prevent displacement and preserve affordable housing.
Equitable Development Tools to Mitigate Residential Displacement Due to Gentrification: Case Studies of Three Atlanta Neighborhoods. Kaycee Elizabeth Mertz (2008). This study uses Policy Link’s Equitable Development Toolkit (2008) as a model for evaluating the City of Atlanta’s efforts to reduce residential displacement due to gentrification. The author’s strategies range from enacting inclusionary zoning to establishing community land trusts.
In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement. Levy, Comey, and Padilla for the Urban Institute (2006). This report outlines anti-displacement strategies pertaining to housing and asset building in St. Petersburg, FL, Sacramento, CA, Atlanta, GA, Los Angeles, CA, Seattle, WA, and Chicago, IL. The author analyzes tools for the production and financing of affordable housing and tools to build assets for low- and moderate-income residents.
Managing Neighborhood Change: A Framework for Sustainable and Equitable Revitalization. Mallach, Alan (2008). This report outlines strategies for managing neighborhood change to achieve sustainable and equitable revitalization. Strategies to increase neighborhood stability, preserve and expand affordable housing, and prevent involuntary displacement are recommended.
Maintaining Diversity In America’s Transit-Rich Neighborhoods: Tools for Equitable Neighborhood Change. Pollack, Bluestone, and Billingham (2010). The study team identified indicators of neighborhood change and applied them to new transit stations to explore gentrification and displacement. The authors analyze municipal planning tools, such as community benefits agreements and transit corridor planning; and housing market tools, including Housing Trust Funds and TOD Tax Increment Financing Districts.
Mixed-Income Transit Oriented Development Action Guide.  Reconnecting America and the Center for Transit-Oriented Development. The goal of this guide is to help practitioners identify the most appropriate and effective planning tools for achieving MITOD in transit station areas. Recommended tools include transfer taxes, limited equity co-cops, land banking, and incentive-based zoning.
Neighborhood Renewal. D.C. Heath and Company. Clay, Philip (1979). The author provides an overview of the characteristics of key actors in and emerging issues pertaining to gentrification and upgrading neighborhoods. Recommendations include strategies to preserve existing housing stock for low- and moderate-income families include municipal subsidies for renovation, delay of tax assessment increases, and sanctions and incentives to realtors and bankers.
Preserving Affordability and Access in Livable Communities: Subsidized housing opportunities near transit and the 50+ population. AARP Public Policy Institute. Harrell, R., Brooks, A. & Nedwick, T. (2009). This report identifies the policy and program interventions that influence the trajectory of community development, transportation planning, and investment. Research focuses on subsidized affordable housing properties serving older persons.

 

 

 Recommendations include national and state strategies to preserve affordable housing, integrate transit and land use planning in funding criteria for affordable housing and transportation investments, and approaches to senior populations.
Preventing Displacement Policy Fact Sheet. Great Communities Toolkit (2007). This fact sheet identifies four types of displacement—direct and indirect residential displacement and direct and indirect commercial displacement—and discusses mitigation measures.

 

 Tools for preventing displacement include rent control, condo conversion ordinance, real estate transfer tax, jobs/housing linkage fees, and tax increment financing from redevelopment funds.
Promoting Neighborhood Diversity: Benefits, barriers and strategies. The Urban Institute. Turner, M. A. & Rawlings, L. (2009). This report makes recommendations pertaining to federal enforcement to monitor real estate practices at the local level, public education, affordable housing development incentives, and reinvestment. Recommendations include enforcement to combat persistent discrimination, affordable housing development to open up exclusive communities, and reinvestment to equalize the quality of minority neighborhoods.
Discourses and Experiences of Social Six in Gentrifying Neighborhoods: A Montréal Case Study. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. Rose, Damaris (2006).

 

 This study features interviews with new infill condo owners in gentrifying neighborhoods of Montreal, with a focus on how they feel about diversity and affordable housing in their communities. The primary recommendation is to pursue low- and moderate-cost infill affordable housing development at the municipal level.
Continue reading...