Local control vs. affordable housing

The Committee to Study Growth Management developed several growth management bills that were debated in the 120th’s second legislative session. Among them, LD 2099, An Act to Create Livable, Affordable Neighborhoods, provoked heated debate. This proposed legislation addresses a key issue in challenging an increasing majority of Maine citizens today – affordable housing.

Sponsored by Rep. Ted Koffman, D-Bar Harbor, LD 2099 proposes the creation of a six-member planning board housed in Augusta, possibly funded through the Maine State Housing Authority, where developers could bring large-scale residential housing developments for pre-certification. In order to obtain pre-certification, the project would have to include at least 30 percent affordable housing units and incorporate neighborhood design principles to be identified by the State Planning Office.

Once pre-certified, the project could be brought to any of the nine labor markets designated by the Maine State Housing Authority as having an affordable housing crisis (Bath-Brunswick, Belfast, Biddeford, Boothbay Harbor, Ellsworth-Bar Harbor, Kittery-York, Portland, Rockland and Stonington). One hundred and thirty municipalities could potentially and dramatically increase their affordable housing stock.

On average, a median-priced home in Maine is three times the median annual household income in the state. Although not designated by the Maine State Housing Authority as having an affordable housing crisis, the median sale price (MSP) of a home in Penobscot County has increased almost 19 percent, from $74,100 in 2001 to $87,900 in 2002. In Washington County, MSP of homes increased 48 percent in the same period, with 45 percent fewer homes bought.

Homes are out of reach for median-income households in regions where 44 percent of Maine families live. In the Ellsworth-Bar Harbor region, 57 percent of households cannot afford the median sale priced home of $119,000. More than 80 percent of households in the Belfast area cannot afford a median-priced home of $129,500, where the hourly wage necessary to purchase this home is $22 an hour. Teachers in Belfast earn $19 an hour and plumbers earn $15 an hour. It is clear that the affordable homes are needed for a diversity of income brackets. The time is ripe for affordable housing legislation.

So where is the controversy over this proposed legislation coming from? Why is the Maine Municipal Association claiming this proposal represents a state mandate that directly threatens home-rule authority?

The neighborhood-design principles, which these pre-certified housing developments would incorporate, are different from most existing zoning ordinances in local areas. Specifically, these guidelines would include a maximum individual lot size of 6,500 square feet and maximum road frontages of 50 feet. Additionally, municipalities would be prohibited from establishing multi-family housing densities for pre-certified housing developments that were less dense than seven units per acre. While trying to increase the affordable housing stock, LD 2099 is also promoting sensible growth management.

However, the Maine Municipal Association perceives these sensible growth guidelines regarding lot size and road frontage as direct threats to exercising home rule authority. According to MMA, LD 2099 establishes a clear path for state directed, centralized planning.

Ed Suslovic, a Portland-based developer, testified before the Natural Resources Committee that municipal home rule should only be pre-empted where local control has failed to serve local people. What MMA fails to understand is that local control has, in so many instances, failed to meet the basic need for shelter for a growing number of its citizens. Realistically, municipalities are not able to provide affordable housing for a variety of political and market-driven reasons. It is only through state intervention that affordable homes can become a reality, and LD 2099 offers the most viable alternative to do just that.

What MMA also fails to understand is that, ultimately, the final decision regarding the housing development’s appropriateness for specific neighborhoods remains under the auspice of the local planning board enforcing local subdivision ordinances. LD 2099 does not propose centralized planning; it does not strip away home rule any more than current shore- land zoning infringes upon municipal control. Rather, LD 2099 promotes certain design standards and neighborhood development while streamlining the certification process to increase the stock of affordable homes. The Maine Municipal Association has successfully generated opposition to LD 2099 through hyperbole, and once again the myth of home rule efficiency has left Maine citizens with a persistent and ever-intensifying housing crisis.

There are alternatives to LD 2099, some of which MMA has proposed. Ironically, one includes State Planning Office developing model ordinances regarding the neighborhood design standards advocated in LD 2099. SPO has developed several model ordinances, and is currently working on an ordinance related to traditional neighborhood development. Another alternative includes contributing to the Municipal Investment Trust Fund. SPO has been a moving force in proposing $4 million for the Trust in the Governor’s bond package. But these alternatives will only effectively work to provide affordable housing where there is already a local commitment to such housing; and there is little evidence of this commitment.

The ultimate goal of LD 2099 is to provide a heterogeneous housing stock suitable for a diversity of incomes. Housing is a part of a larger context in the life of our citizens and in our economy. In the bigger picture, providing affordable homes to teachers, to plumbers, to nurses and recent college graduates, is ultimately about being in the business of building healthy communities.

A healthy community offers housing choices for everyone. A healthy community operates from a place of hope – that we can meet the challenge of providing well-constructed and affordable homes for a variety of incomes. A healthy community operates from the conviction that we are all in this together – that affordable homes are needed by everyone, not just low-income people. A healthy community requires state and local partnerships to translate our hope and conviction into reality.

LD 2099 was rejected by the Legislature. The only portion of the proposed legislation that was enacted was a working definition of affordable housing, which now reads as housing that is affordable to households with incomes at or below 80 percent of the regional median income.

We cannot afford to let LD 2099 to remain forever defeated. It continues to be one of our most viable options we have to address the challenge of providing affordable homes for our neighbors, for our children and for ourselves. I invite the Maine Municipal Association to reconsider their opposition, and to join a dialogue from a place of hope and partnership.

Sarah Dooling lives in Old Town.