►
Description
Planning, Development & Transportation Hearing - Docket #1293, Communication re: a filing from the BPDA re: inclusionary zoning changes to the Boston Zoning Code.
A
A
We
will
also
take
public
testimony
and
would
like
to
appreciate,
if
you
sign
in
over
here,
if
you
want
to
testify
in
person,
there's
also
an
option
to
testify
by
Zoom
if
you
email,
one
dot
Lopez
at
boston.gov,
with
your
full
name
for
the
zoom
Link
at
this.
Today's
hearing
is
on
dark
at
1293.
This
matter
is
sponsored
by
the
mayor
and
was
referred
to
the
committee
on
Planning
Development
and
transportation,
on
August
9
2023
and
for
the
record
talk
at
1293.
A
A
C
C
A
D
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you
all
so
much
for
being
here.
Thank
you
for
your
work
day
in
and
day
out,
I
am
really
excited
for
this
hearing.
My
district
district
one
is
seeing
exponential
growth.
People
are
being
priced
out.
They
are
rent
a
burdened
home
ownership
feels
like
it's
far
away
for
for
most
people,
and
so
this
is
really
a
lever
that
we
have
to
negotiate
with
our
private
Partners
to
to
provide
affordable
housing
in
the
city.
D
It's
an
extremely
powerful
tool
and
modernizing
it
in
this
way,
I
think
is
really
really
important,
and
the
levels
in
which
you
all
have
have
proposed
of
the
levels
that
you
have
proposed
I
think
are,
are
a
good
start.
I,
look
forward
to
the
conversation
and
diving
into
the
details
a
little
bit
more
and
understanding
how
this
will
positively
impact
the
people
of
Boston.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
Baker
I,
want
to
thank
the
administration
for
their
pursuing
this
matter.
We
hear
from
it
our
constituents
and
Witnesses
ourselves.
Boston
is
in
a
severe
housing
crisis.
Boston
is
a
great
city
with
a
lot
of
history
and
amenities,
which
creates
an
understandably
large
demand
for
housing
and
I.
Believe
what
is
being
discussed
in
today's
hearing
are
steps
to
provide
all
people
from
all
income
levels
the
opportunity
to
call
Boston
their
home.
E
It
should
be
noted
that
this
is
just
one
of
the
tools
in
the
toolbox
that
we
can
draw
from
to
find
Solutions
and
I.
Don't
expect
it
to
be
a
silver
bullet
for
a
housing
crisis
I'm
just
the
fir
I'm
in
the
first
two
months
of
in
office
and
already
taken
very
many
meetings
with
proponents
of
all
these
projects
that
District
8
is
encountering.
E
This
zoning
Amendment
will
make
sure
that,
when
developers
step
up
to
the
plate,
they
are
offering
a
proposal
that
satisfies
the
dire
need
for
not
just
housing
but
affordable
housing,
I
think
as
the
memo
States,
this
change
was
crafted
carefully
through
conversations
with
industry
leaders
and
a
lot
of
community
feedback,
so
look
forward
to
hearing
from
the
administration
and
about
and
today's
panelists
to
understand
deeper
what
these
conversations
were
and
what
came
how
this
came
to
be.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
F
F
Actually,
one
of
the
reasons
I'm
sitting
in
this
chair
is
the
cost
that
the
housing
issues
we
were
seeing
a
lot
of
development
in
Austin,
Brighton
that
the
affordable
units
were
coming
in
at
70
percent
of
the
area,
median
income
and
most
people
in
Austin
Brighton,
don't
earn
70
of
the
area
million
income,
so
they
were
being
excluded
from
benefiting
from
the
so-called
inclusionary
development
policy.
I'm
delighted
to
see
that
we're
offering
a
broader
range
of
IDP
Ami
eligibility.
F
I'm
also
very
pleased
to
see
that
we
are
considering
you
know
the
affordable,
affirmatively,
furthering
fair
housing.
Ordinance
that
we
put
in
a
few
years
ago
means
makes
it
explicit
that
developers
cannot
just
ignore
the
fact
that
we
need
to
build
family
housing,
that's
affordable
for
our
communities
across
the
city,
so
I
really
look
forward
to
the
conversation
today
and
thank
you
for
all
your
work.
I
know
this
is
really
tough,
we're
in
a
challenging
economic
time
right
now,
but
we
haven't
been
for
the
last
10
years.
F
G
H
H
As
of
now
it
looks
like
I'm
the
only
at
large
counselor
here
at
this
meeting,
so
I
do
appreciate
that
the
district
council
is
rarely
get
in
the
weeds
when
it
comes
to
development
and
neighbors
and
issues,
but
I'm
I'm
at
like
the
planes
Boston
meetings.
The
plan
child's
Town
plan
matapan
was
at
a
meeting
last
night
with
a
plan
downtown,
so
we're
absolutely
in
a
housing
crisis.
H
We
need
to
build
more
housing,
but
then
we
have
neighbors
who
are
feeling
like
they're,
not
part
of
that
conversation,
and
they
want
to
make
sure
their
voices
are
heard.
So
I'm
hoping
that
from
this
meeting-
and
we
continue
to
communicate
because
I
don't
want
to
always
just
be
pushing
back
and
pushing
against
the
plans
that
I
know
you're
working
hard
to
push
forward
to
make
sure
there's
more
housing
across
the
city.
H
A
Thank
you
Council.
So
there
was
two
two
letters
from
one
from
the
Greater
Boston
Chamber
of
Commerce
in
opposition
and
one
from
neop
commercial,
real
estate,
development
associations
of
Massachusetts
in
opposition
and
and
I
just
want
to
read
the
last
paragraph
in
the
the
chambers
these
will
be
on
will
be
on
record.
A
This
is
from
Jim
Rooney.
The
zoning
Amendment
does
not
address
the
feasibility
concerns
raised
by
the
chamber
and
in
some
ways
this
amendment
doubles
down
on
standards
that
will
be
disincentivize.
Investment
in
housing
production
data
indicates
that
building
permits
in
the
Boston
metro
area
are
down
down
by
50
percent.
I
Sure,
thank
you
very
much
to
the
chair
and
to
all
members
present
today.
My
name
is
Arthur
Jamison
I'm,
the
chief
plan
of
planning
and
the
director
of
the
bpda.
It's
got
a
few
remarks
and
then
I'd
like
to
invite
my
colleagues
here,
Sheila
Dillon,
the
chief
of
Housing
and
one
of
my
team
members,
Amy
Chambers,
our
director
of
planning,
to
offer
some
comments
in
in
presentation
we're
bringing
to
you
today.
I
Our
recommendations
for
the
inclusionary
development
policy,
known
as
IDP
under
IDP
developers
of
market
rate
residential
developments
are
required
to
support
the
creational,
affordable,
housing
and
exchange
for,
in
this
case,
zoning
relief
under
IDP
developments
with
10
or
more
units
in
need
of
zoning
relief
support.
The
creation
of
income,
restricted
housing
through
on-site
units
off-site
units
or
through
payment
into
an
IDP
fund
managed
by
the
mayor's
office
of
housing.
The
IDP
requirements
were
last
updated
in
December
2015
and
in
January
of
21.
I
Massachusetts
state
legislature
acted
to
approve
a
home
rule
petition,
allowing
us
to
codify
inclusionary
development
into
our
zoning
code.
The
mayor's
proposed
changes
are
aimed
at
directing
larger
share
of
resources
from
the
development
that
we're
all
seeing
happening
in
our
city
towards
a
vision
of
Boston
for
all
of
our
citizens.
These
changes
will
enable
us
to
support
the
growing
population,
ensure
there's
a
place
for
everyone
here,
and
the
goal
is
to
increase.
Obviously,
the
city's
supply
of
affordable
housing
I
did
want
to
offer
two
very
specific
comments
as
I
pass
it
on
to
Sheila.
I
We
have
a
great
Dynamic
on
our
team,
I
think,
and
so
we
ask
questions
of
one
another.
One
of
the
questions
we
asked
was
what
are
developers
currently
proposing
in
their
developments
that
are
going
to
the
bpda
board.
The
answer
to
that
question
is,
in
the
six
months
leading
up
to
our
proposal
of
17
IDP,
with
three
percent
for
small
area
rents
applicable
voucher
holders.
I
I
J
Jemisin
and
it's
I'm
very,
very
happy
to
be
here
with
chairman
Baker
and
all
the
members
of
the
city
council
I,
know
that
you
have
spent
endless
hours
days
talking
to
constituents
talking
to
developers
talking
to
the
person
on
the
street
about
this
very
important
policy.
I
know
that
I
have
and
we're
before
you.
We
come
before
you
with
our
best
thinking
on
how
to
change
this
policy,
but
at
the
same
time
preserve
development
that
is
very,
very
important
to
us
in
the
city.
J
J
So
just
I
think
it's
important
sorry,
my
glasses
aren't
working
properly,
but
I
think
it's
really
important
to
just
take
a
pause
and
really
recognize
how
successful
Boston's
IDP
policy
has
been.
Developers
have
created
over
4,
000
on-site
and
off-site
restricted
housing
units
that
has
not
cost
the
city
of
Boston
any
resource.
We
have
718
units
that
are
in
construction
now,
IDP
units
that
are
in
construction.
In
addition,
through
payouts
developers
have
made
over
210
million
dollars
in
IDP
contributions,
and
that
has
allowed
us
to
create
an
additional
3
300
income
restricted
units.
J
So
it's
just
it's
just
been
an
amazing
policy,
and
that's
why
we're
really
con?
We
really
want
to
get
any
changes
right
to
make
sure
that
that
the
policy
stays
strong.
Just
a
quick
view.
Review
of
the
timeline.
The
policy
is
for
Boston
It's,
relatively,
not
a
very,
very
old
policy
in
2000
Mayor
Menino
created
the
first
IDP
by
through
executive
order,
and
then
there
were
updates
to
this
policy
in
030506
and
07.,
so
it
was
updated
fairly
frequently
in
2015.
The
current
policy
was
established
in
probably
2015.
J
A
J
J
J
J
J
If
developers
are
going
to
meet
their
obligation
on
site,
they
have
to
provide
13
of
the
total
units
as
IDP
units
and
income
restricted
if
they're
pre,
if
they're
going
to
meet
their
obligation
by
creating
off-site
units,
the
obligation
is
18
in
zone
a
18
in
zone
B
and
15
in
zone
C.
They
cash
out
for
rental.
You
can
see
it
does
vary
by
Zone
380,
a
unit
in
zone,
a
300,
a
unit
in
zone
B
and
200
000
in
zone
C,
and
the
cash
out
for
Condominiums.
A
J
J
K
A
K
Thank
you
so,
with
regard
to
the
changes
we
were
proposing
to
make
and
to
codify
into
our
zoning
code,
first
and
foremost,
we
are
looking
to
change
the
threshold
for
participation
in
this
policy
from
10
units
to
seven
units.
Seven
units
is
the
number
that
was
selected
on
the
basis
of
the
study
that
was
mentioned
by
Chief
Dylan,
which
indicated
that
at
six
or
fewer
units,
the
impact
to
develop
two
projects
is
much
more
significant.
K
So
we
chose
the
seven
unit
threshold
and
would
would
like
to
proceed
in
in
such
a
way.
This
policy
would
apply
to
units
developments
with
units
of
seven
or
more,
whether
or
not
that
project
was
seeking
a
seeking
exception
from
the
zoning
code.
So
right
now,
if
a
project
is
seeking
exception
through
the
zba,
they
would
be
triggered
to
participate
in
inclusionary
development.
This
would
make
it
such
that
the
only
threshold
is
the
number
of
units
and.
A
K
We
are
not.
We
are
not
advocating
to
change
the
affordability
period,
it's
currently
50
years
and
we're
looking
to
maintain
it
at
50
years,
and
we
have
proposed
that
we
would
allow
developers
to
satisfy
the
obligations
with
relationship
to
this
policy
itself,
either
on
the
basis
of
number
of
units
put
into
the
development
or
on
the
basis
of
total
square
footage
of
the
development.
K
So,
under
the
current
policy,
developers
are
creating
units
that
are
proportional
in
size
and
bedroom
type
to
the
development
itself,
and
we
were
seeing
a
lot
of
or
are
seeing
a
lot
of
inclusionary
units
that
are
much
smaller
in
size,
Studios
or
one
bedrooms.
In
order
to
address
that
and
address
concerns
that
have
been
raised
around
creating
larger
size
units
for
families.
We
have
created
this
scenario
whereby
a
developer
could
meet
the
obligation
through
square
footage
instead,
thereby
allowing
for
opportunities
for
units
with
larger
bedrooms.
K
That's
that's
what
we
would
refer
to
as
IDP
only
developments
we
are
proposing
that
17
of
units
or
17
of
the
total
square
footage
of
the
development
be
inclusionary
units
and
that
that
would
be
available
to
tenants
with
an
average
of
60
percent
of
the
area
needing
income
not
to
exceed
70
of
the
area.
You
need
income.
So
our
goal
is
to
develop
an
average
of
60
of
those
residents
or
60
Ami
for
those
residents,
but
not
to
have
folks
qualify
who
are
Beyond.
K
That's
correct
with
these
size
developments
we
are
proposing
to
not
allow
off-site
development,
so
we
would
have
developers
make
these
changes
on
site.
Specifically,
we
would
allow
with
approval
the
opportunity
for
developers
to
make
a
contribution
into
the
inclusionary
Development
Fund
in
lieu
of
the
units
themselves
and
where
a
developer
has
where
the
average
number
of
units
that
need
to
be
developed
equates
to
a
fraction.
K
Likewise
for
our
rental
requirements
for
large
projects
and
pdas,
and
we
have
set
up
a
scenario
where
there
are
two
options
that
a
developer
could
take
advantage
of
one
being
15
of
units
or
total
square
footage
at
an
average
of
50
of
the
Ami
not
to
to
max
out
at
60
percent
of
Ami.
In
addition,
we
would
allow
for
three
percent
of
of
said
units
or
square
footage
to
be
available
to
voucher
holders,
so
a
much
lower
area,
median
income
for
a
total
of
18
of
units
or
square
footage
in
the
development.
K
K
We've
provided
an
example
essentially
of
a
hundred
unit
development,
just
to
begin
to
illustrate
how
these
changes
may
take
place.
With
our
current
policy.
We
would
allow
a
developer
to
rent
to
average
of
70
Ami.
In
this
example,
13
of
units,
meaning
13
units,
would
go
to
individuals
at
that
Ami.
With
these
proposed
Options
under
option
A,
we
can
satisfy
a
much
deeper
subsidy
in
terms
of
individuals
accessing
the
units
for
a
larger
number
of
units
18
or
with
option
b.
K
K
We
would
not
allow
off-site
development
here.
We
would
allow
for
full
unit
contribution
at
20
and
we
do
allow
for
the
partial
unit
contribution
for
home
ownership,
a
large
projects
we
would
require
20
of
units
or
Square
total
square
footage
of
the
development.
At
the
same
Ami
that
I
mentioned
previously
half
at
80
percent
and
half
up
to
100,
we
would
allow
for
off-site
development
here.
Twenty
percent
of
units
or
square
footage
that
off-site
development
could
be
rental
or
home
ownership.
K
C
I
Through
the
chair
to
council
member
at
large,
when
pardon
me,
councilman
Brooklyn,
the
reason
the
prior,
the
rate
was
13,
and
so
what
we
did
was
we
asked
Sheila
and
her
mayor's
office
of
housing
to
prepare
an
analysis
of
what
the
sensitivity
analysis
would
be
to
increase
it
and
they
came
back
with
a
series
of
recommendations
and
for
and
for
their
part,
they
recommended
a
rate
of
approximately
17
percent.
Now,
in
my
capacity
of
working
with
Sheila
on
policy,
matters
like
this
I
wanted
to
find
out.
I
Well
what
impact
is
this
going
to
have
on
the
proposals
that
come
to
the
board,
and
so
I
asked
my
team
to
put
together
an
analysis
to
say
what
was
the
is
17
out
of
line
with
what
we're
receiving
in
terms
of
proposals
that
are
being
approved
at
the
board
and
that
that
rate
was
approximately
17
for
the
six
months
prior?
Sometimes
we
get
larger
ones
other
times
we
get
slightly
lower,
but
but
the
average
was
17.
I
So
that
was
the
original
rate
and
that's
the
rate
we
went
to
and
that's
the
reason
why
there's
one
other
note
I
would
add,
which
is
there's
a
three
percent
amount.
That's
also
added,
so
it's
17
plus
three
that
three
percent
is
meant
to
be
fair
market
rents
for
the
city.
So
for
someone
as
a
voucher,
they
can
basically
pay
a
fair
market.
Rent
they're
also
is
space
held
for
them.
I
should
add
that
Boston
has
something
called
small
area
rent.
I
So
one
of
the
concerns
that
developers
have
shared
with
us
is
that
we're
concerned
that,
if
we're
developing
in
a
very
strong
Market
with
very
high
rents
that
the
fair
market
rents
that
are
set
by
Hud
won't
be
high
enough,
we
do
have
the
ability
to
more
narrowly
tailor
those
rents
to
the
hot,
even
high-end
markets,
that
the
city
has
so
that
those
developers
aren't
losing,
aren't
losing
much
if
anything
on
the
rents
that
they're
offering
those
people
with
the
three
percent
Ami.
Sorry,
three
percent
voucher
holders.
I
C
So,
during
this
period
of
time,
Chief
did
you
talk
to
the
development
Community
to
the
business
Community
to
the
banking
professionals
asking
them?
What
impact
going
from
13,
basically
to
20
percent,
would
have
on
construction
on
financing
on
borrowing
money,
and
is
this
a
possible?
Is
it
possible
that
a
potential
slowdown
could
take
place
because
this
percentage
is
so
high.
I
They
also
said
that
what
was
having
a
much
greater
impact
was
the
interest
rate
Rises
and
that
of
the
things
that
were
affecting
their
ability
to
move
forward.
The
lack
of
access
to
lower
cost
Capital
was
the
number
one
problem
and
that,
among
a
range
of
others,
they
would
see
IDP
going
up
as
a
as
a
complication
when
we
received
when
we
get
lower
interest
rates.
C
My
final
question,
Chief
is
instead
of
going
from
13,
basically
to
20.
Are
we
able
to
go
from
13
to
you,
know,
16
or
17,
and
then
a
development
team
that
goes
above
the
17
percent?
Are
we
able
to
factor
in
some
type
of
incentive
for
them
I'm
just
concerned
about
that
significant
jump
in
IDP
at
this
time
when
we're
coming
out
of
a
pandemic,
when
we
have
economic
challenges
in
this
city,
the
downtown
business
Community
workers
are
not
back,
including
most
of
the
city
of
Boston.
Workers
are
still
working
two
three
days
a
week.
C
I
The
three
percent,
as
I've
mentioned,
is
really
Mentor
effectively
give
Developers
90
to
100
of
what
they
would
receive
in
a
market
from
a
market
tenant
through
the
voucher
program
and
through
the
small
area.
A
rent
program
I
might
add
that
the
mayor
recently
shared
in
Her
speech
to
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
that
she
was
considering
incentives
to
cause
already
approved
development
to
advance,
and
so
I
think
to
the
extent
you're
concerned
about
sending
the
right
message
to
the
development
industry.
C
A
Thank
you,
Mr
President
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
councilor
Raul,
who
is
joining
us
Consular
who
has
joined
us
and
I'll.
Let
you
guys
do
opening
statements.
Council
Coletta
has
something
pressing
we're
going
to
let
her
go
and
then
you
guys
can
do
your
opening
statements.
Council
Coletti.
You
have
the
floor.
D
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
Baker,
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
work
on
this.
It's
very
thorough,
I
appreciate
the
breakdown
of
rental
requirements.
My
project,
large
Projects,
Home,
Ownership
I,
do
want
to
just
give
credit
where
credit
is
due.
I
was
proud
to
work
with
the
team
that
created
the
first
home
rule
petition.
That
is
allowing
us
to
have
this
conversation,
a
partnership
with
you,
Chief
Dylan,
and
so
just
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
Joe
wool
as
well
as
then
Council
lady
Edwards,
now
Senator
Lydia
Edwards.
D
D
We
have
seen,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
just
an
exponential
growth
of
of
East
Boston
in
particular,
soon
to
be
Charlestown
you're,
not
your
Chief
and
so
I
do
feel
like
we
need
to
to
modernize
these
tools
to
be
able
to
adequately
plan
for
the
inclusion
of
people
so
that
they
could
stay
here.
Home
prices
soared
any
spots
and
I
think
it
was
224
percent.
Since
2011.
people
I
grew
up
with
are
no
longer
living
there
because
they
cannot
afford
to
live
there.
They
cannot
afford
to
buy
a
home.
D
D
I
do
understand
that
we
have
to
be
very
thoughtful
and
balanced
with
having
housing
production,
but
we
need
to
be
super
intentional
about
what
we're
putting
in
and
what
we're
building
for
when
it
comes
to
affordable
housing.
So
the
I
am
generally
supportive
of
this
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
I
do
think
that
we
can
go
a
little
bit
further.
To
be
honest,
because
these
bossy
needs
it
I'm,
seeing
a
missed
opportunity
when
it
comes
to
the
lower
thresholds
from
10
to
7
units
Chief.
D
D
What
I've
seen
over
the
last
couple
years
is
that
developers
will
change
their
behavior
to
not
meet
the
minimums
of
affordability,
and
so
they
would
be
building
nine
units
and
they
would
be
building
multiple
nine
unit
buildings
across
East
Boston,
just
not
meeting
that
the
threshold
of
what
they
were
supposed
to
provide,
and
so
I
can
imagine
that
they'll
be
producing
six
units.
Six
units,
six
units,
because
that
is
what
allowed
through
the
planes
Boston
planning
initiative.
But
they
will
not
be
required
to
produce
any
affordability
from
that.
D
And
so
you
know,
has
there
been
talk
of
looking
at
this
on
a
portfolio
basis
for
folks
who
are
building
in
Boston,
because
that
is
what
is
going
to
happen.
They're
going
to
build
six
units,
because
now
they're
allowed
to
do
that,
but
there's
no
affordability
requirement
and
so
I
really
feel
like
it's
a
Mis
opportunity
for
East
Boston.
So
I
don't
know.
If
there's
any
response
to
that.
I
You're
making
I
think
it's
it's
a
it's
a
fair
point,
but
I
also
think
that
the
recommendations
we're
making
for
zoning
in
East
Boston
has
been
responsive
to
the
whole,
tried
to
be
responsive
to
local
concerns
and
also
so
I
I
guess
I
just
have
to
acknowledge
the
point.
You're
making
and
say
I
hear
you
I
think
we're
making
the
right
recommendation
for
the
city
I
think
we're
making
the
right
recommendation
for
East
Boston
in
this
case.
K
Through
chair,
if
I
may
piggyback
on
to
that
councilor
Coletta,
this
is
certainly
not
something
that
will
address
your
question
in
its
entirety.
But
I
do
think
it's
important
to
name
that
in
the
draft
zoning
text
we
have
attempted
to
provide
a
more
clear
definition
of
what
a
proposed
project
may
be
so
where
we
have
developments
that
have,
for
example,
six
or
less
units,
but
where
there
are
multiple
Parcels,
perhaps
being
proposed
at
the
same
time,
depending
on
funding
source
or
otherwise.
Some
of
those
projects,
May
in
fact,
be
required
to
meet
these
requirements.
K
We
did
that
on
purpose,
because
we
certainly
acknowledge
the
fact
that
there
is
the
chance
that
that
happens.
We
know
that
was
happening
with
the
nine
units
where
10
was
required,
and
so
where
there
are
commonly
financed
projects.
We
may
in
fact
not
necessarily
look
at
developers,
work
portfolio-wide,
but
at
least
to
look
at
those
projects,
as
they're
proposed
and
as
they're
coming
before
us
to
better
understand
if
they
are
in
fact
connected
to
one
another
that
they
may
in
fact
trigger
the
IDP.
So.
D
You're
saying
if
there
are
more
multiple
projects
that
will
now
be
considered
as
of
right,
there's
going
to
be
a
way
to
review
them
and
capture
at
least
an
analysis
of
whether
or
not
they're,
proposing
on
different
Parcels.
But
I
would
like
to
see
something
where
you
know:
there's
one
actor
in
particular
where
it's
been
9999
everywhere,
and
he
skirted
around
the
affordability
to
the
best
of
his
of
his
abilities
and
I.
D
A
K
We
don't
name
that
the
parcels
need
to
be
adjacent
adjacent.
What
we've
named
in
the
text
is
specifically
with
regard
to
a
developer
that
has
you
know,
Common
development,
that's
perhaps
being
financed
together.
We've
really
taken
a
look
at
the
financing
mechanism
as
a
way
to
address
whether
a
project
really
should
be
considered
in
its
entirety
or
considered
separately.
So.
A
L
M
M
You
know
when
we're
building
like
affordable
for
who,
so
the
Amis
is
always
a
big
question
and
then
also
the
inventory
I
have
so
many
families
in
the
neighborhood
that
want
to
stay
in
the
neighborhood,
so
they're,
always
looking
for
the
two
plus
bedrooms
and
I
believe
the
rkg
report
also
pointed
out
the
need
for
black
and
brown
families
to
have
larger.
You
know
larger
unit
Styles
and
then
also
the
restrictive,
Deeds
right.
M
So
those
are
some
of
the
things
I
would
I
will
address.
In
my
line
of
questioning,
but
then
I
also
want
to
just
bring
into
the
conversation,
is
you
know,
local
preference
I
know
that
you
know,
through
the
creation
of
the
affordable
housing,
we're
trying
to
keep.
You
know
the
families.
You
know
that
are
here
here.
M
N
You
chair,
thank
you
so
much
to
all
of
you
for
all
of
your
hard
work.
This
is
a
project
that
has
been
very
near
and
dear
to
my
heart,
on
that
I've
been
really
happy
and
to
Steward
through
the
housing
committee,
but
also
really
excited
about
the
outcome
of
it.
I
think
that
this
is
it's
just
it's
an
incredible
Leap
Forward,
so
I
wanted
to
to
say
thank
you.
N
When
you
look
at
it
here
in
the
city,
I
think
is
going
to
have
a
really
large,
spanning
impact
on
affordability
here
in
the
city
of
Boston
I.
Through
my
line
of
questioning
will
have
questions
about
what
we're
going
to
see
in
the
future,
and
implementation
and
I'm
also
curious
about
the
timeline
but
I
think
for
now.
Just
expressing
my
my
gratitude
in
Partnership
for
getting
this
done.
Thank
you.
O
Thank
you,
chair,
Baker
and
I
want
to
thank
the
ministry
members
Administration
for
being
here
for
your
dedicated
work
on
this
been
able
to.
You
know,
touch
base
with
you
and
community
members
and
really
give
suggestions,
get
updates
and
I
appreciate
that
I
appreciate
the
partnership
that
you've
engaged
in
to
approach
this
work
as
an
at-large
City
councilor.
O
We
all
know
that.
Third,
an
IDP
policy
of
13
is
a
displacement
policy.
It
is
one
that
essentially
ensures
that
families
will
be
displaced
by
new
development
and
so
increasing
the
IDP
percentage
is
important.
Deepening
the
affordability
is
important,
and
it's
also
important
that,
alongside
you
know
that
we
not
only
depend
on
IDP
as
the
only
as
the
only
method
to
getting
to
our
affordable
housing
goals.
We
know
when
we're
talking
about
deeply
affordable
housing.
O
The
federal
government
has
really
abdicated
its
role,
but
I'm
excited
about
what
this
can
mean
for
all
of
our
neighborhoods
I'm
excited
that
this
could
also
mean
that
we
will
see
fewer
people
getting
evicted
and
that
we
will
be
able
to
keep
people
stable
in
their
homes,
I'm
no
longer
working
as
an
attorney
actively
in
this
space.
But
the
calls
from
people
who
are
experiencing
displacement
who
are
facing
eviction
are
are
too
many
and
while
I
don't
think
this
is
a
perfect
plan.
O
It's
not
getting
us
to
exactly
where
we
want
to
be
where
Advocates
want
us
to
be
I.
Think
it's
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
Some
of
the
questions
that
I
have
are
questions
that
I
have
already
put
before
you,
so
we
will
hear
them
right
now
in
more
of
a
public
space,
but
they
are
about
deepening
the
affordability
they
are
about.
How
do
we
automate?
O
If
there
is
a
way
to
automate
reviews
of
what
the
proper
percentage
is,
and
it
is
important
for
us
to
look
at
one
of
the
reasons
why
that's
important
is
it
will
let
people
who
are
developers
and
who
are
potentially
in
speculators,
know
about
the
affordability
attachments
that
come
to
whatever
property
that
they're
interested
in
buying
it's
a
way
of
addressing
that
land
speculation
that
exists,
and
so
I'm
excited
to
get
into
each
of
the
questions,
and
thank
you
again
to
Administration
for
being
here.
Thank
you.
Mr,
chair
for
indulging.
E
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
Baker
I,
wanted
to
dig
in
a
little
more
to
the
macro
level
economic.
You
know
that
was
sort
of
brought
up
in
the
feasibility
study
and
I
know
that
you
know.
That's
the
reason
that
you're
moving
the
effective
date
of
this
proposal
to
October
1,
2024.,
Chief,
jemisin
and
chief
Dylan
wanted
to
see.
If
there's
sort
of
thoughts
you
have
on
where
you
see
the
state
of
things
going
between
now
and
then.
J
There's
no
doubt
that
increased
affordability
requirements
are
going
to.
You
know
change
the
economic
viability
of
projects,
so
we
thought
really.
It
was
a
good
thing
to
give
the
industry
time
to
really
look
at
at
how
these
would
these
requirements
would
impact.
You
know
I
should
say
that
there's
there's
a
there's.
J
You
know
I
was
looking
over
the
the
a
lot
of
the
public
comment
in
the
last
couple
of
days
in
preparation
for
this
hearing
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
public
comment
and
a
lot
of
hearings
and
really
and
well-informed
hearings.
I
will
say
the
the
affordable
housing
Advocates,
the
developers,
the
the
folks
that
are
doing
the
financial
analysis,
they're
all
really
understanding
what's
at
stake
here
and
it's
no
one
is
completely
happy.
J
The
I
think
The
Advocates
feel
very
much
that
we
could
have
pushed
this
policy
further
and
still
achieve
feasibility.
The
developers
feel
that
feasibility
is
going
to
be
a
slightly
harder,
especially
given,
given
the
economic
conditions
right
now,
and
we
think
you
know
sort
of
objectively
as
objective
as
we
can
be
that
we've
struck
the
right
balance.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
that
you
know
that
lots
of
folks
have
been
looking,
not
all
not
only
the
consultant
right.
E
A
A
A
A
F
I
think
we
have
a
proof
of
concept
in
Austin
Brighton
that
we
are
regularly
getting
17.
We
are
getting
20
we're
getting
25
percent.
If
a
project
is
connected
with
a
lab
development,
we're
saying
to
the
lab
developer.
Where
are
your
workers
going
to
live?
You
need
to
create
some
housing
and
they're,
creating
housing
for
us,
with
a
significant
level
of
affordability
that
exceeds
greatly
exceeds
the
IDP
policy.
F
F
They
can't
afford
to
live
in
the
city
and
we
have
to
change
this.
We
have
a
crisis
I
think
this
policy
is
measured
and
meets
the
moment
I.
My
question
is
in
terms
of
demystifying
the
voucher
issue.
We
we
get
to
17
and
we'd,
say
to
a
developer,
we'd
really
like
to
get
to
that
20
and
they
scratch
their
head
and
says.
F
You
know
tell
us
more
about
these
vouchers,
because
I'm,
sick
and
tired
of
this
sort
of
agnostic
response
that
we
get
I
really
want
to
nail
this
and
make
it
clear
and
that
vouchers
are
unexpected
option
and
not
something.
That's
that's
negotiable.
We
want
those
three,
those
three
percent
of
vouchers.
J
So
I
appreciate
the
the
comment
about
the
vouchers
one:
they
really
do
help
feasibility.
They
will
help
the
developers
with
feasibility.
As
Chief
Jemison
mentioned,
the
BHA
was
the
first
Housing
Authority
in
the
country
to
use
small
area
fmrs
to
allow
our
residents
choice
and
where
they,
where
they
wanted
to
live.
So
now,
the
next
step
of
this
and
I'm
very
very
excited
about
working
with
fair
market
rent,
okay
right,
so
it
it
costs
more
to
live
in.
You
know,
you
know.
J
Okay,
so
I'm
I
was
starting
to
say,
I'm
very
excited
about
working
with
administrator
Bach
on
this,
and
it
has
been
very
hard
and
Studies
have
shown
this
for
residents
with
the
voucher
to
access
new
housing
units,
even
IDP
units.
We
know
this
to
be
true
and
I.
Don't
have
all
the
reasons
for
it,
but
we're
going
to
start
being
very
intentional.
The
IDP
units
are
going
to
be
advertised
and
posted
where
voucher
holders
can
see
them.
J
The
expectation
from
developers
is
going
to
be
that
they're
going
to
accept
a
voucher
holder,
we're
going
to
follow
up
and
make
sure
that
happens.
So
we
really
have
got
to
start
now,
working
with
voucher
holders
who
want
to
move
and
want
to
live
in
a
certain
neighborhood
in
a
certain
building.
We've
got
to
make
those
connections
and
we've
got
a
year
to
do
it.
So
I'm
really
excited
about
this
upcoming
work.
F
F
The
other
question
I
had
was
really
the
notion
like
do
we
have
a
sense
of
you
know.
Affirmatively,
furthering
fair
housing
is
a
very,
very
important
piece
of
this
and
are
we
making
what
Headway
are
we
making
on
on
having
developers
build
more
three
three
bedroom
plus
units
like
we
can
sort
of
skim.
The
two
bedrooms
are
sort
of
almost
a
family-sized
unit.
If
it's
a
small
family,
but
in
reality
we
need
three
and
four
bedrooms.
What
sort
of
movement
are
we
making
in
that
space
like.
I
There's
a
process
through
which
the
policy
requires
the
city
to
to
request
more
of
each
development,
try
to
get
a
larger
share
of
affordability
than
is
than
the
policy
requires,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that,
even
though
the
policy
today
is
13
that
we've
had
so
many
developers
proposed
17
and
as
we've
worked
on
in
in
Austin
Brighton
even
higher
is
because
there's
the
compulsion
from
the
law
to
ask
for
more.
But
then
there's
also.
I
Other
regulations
which
call
for
the
for
bifdic,
which
is
a
abbreviation
for
the
group
that
is,
is
brought
together
and
convened
by
the
fair
housing
office
to
review,
to
review
proposals
that
they
make
up
a
proposal
eat
for
each
project
that
they
adopt
one
or
more
measures
that
are
going
to
address
the
local
affh
process,
and
so
in
each
board.
Memo
that
has
a
affordable
component.
I
I
There
is
a
interpretive
question
that
we
haven't
quite
yet
answered
at
the
agency
about
whether,
with
the
increase
in
the
IDP
threshold,
if
the
same
impetus
to
sort
of
request,
higher
ratios
of
affordable
housing
through
IDP
is
going
to
be
carried
forward,
but
it
is
the
reason
we
got
to
where
we
are
so.
I
suspect
that
we
are
going
to
in
our
review,
recommend
something
that
continues
to
ask
for
more
more
support
again.
P
J
Only
thing
I
would
add
is
that
we
know-
and
we've
been
looking
at
this
pretty
closely-
that
Boston
families
are
more
red
burdened
than
non-related
households,
and
especially
our
families
of
color,
and
so
it's.
This
is
really
a
very,
very
important
issue
that
we're
building
larger
units
in
building
income,
restricted
units,
so
I
I,
know
that
we
all
know
this,
but
I
am
very
excited
that
the
mayor
felt
strongly
that
we
do
have
the
option
here
of
units
or
square
footage
and
it
is
going
to
allow
communities
to
have
a
voice.
J
F
You
because
we
all
know
families
that
are
doubling
up
and
tripling
up
in
in
a
three
bedroom.
There's
three
families
living
in
a
three
bedroom
and
the
other
question
I
had
was
just
the
the
issue
of
permanent
affordability
like
in
perpetuity.
Like
you
mentioned
50
years,
is
there
I
don't
know
like
the
expiring
youth
experience
50
years
ago,
passed
really
fast?
Is
there
any
way
that
we
can
extend
the
affordability
of
these
units
going
out
further
than
the
50-year
level.
J
As
Council
Worrell
mentioned,
we
are
looking
to
shorten
the
affordability
terms
with
our
home
ownership
projects
to
allow
our
existing
homeowners
to
realize
after
they've
lived
in
the
property
for
a
goodly
amount
of
time
to
to
be
able
to
recognize
profit
and
and
wealth
creation.
So
there
are
two:
there
are
two
different
conditions,
I
think
really
taking
shape
right
now,.
G
J
It's
a
very
good
question.
The
the
way
that
this
is
contemplated
is
that
households
that
have
a
voucher,
either
City
or
BHA
administrator
or
any
voucher
actually,
but
we
really
are
excited
about
those
that
are
paying
small
area.
Fmrs
are
going
to
be
really
have
very
good
knowledge
about
where
these
units
exist
and
right
now
they
go
on
Metro
list.
The
process
is
confusing
they're
wondering
if
their
voucher
will
be
able
to
pay
those
rents.
There's
a
lot
of
there's.
J
There's
we've
got
to
make
better
connections
and
developers
will
have
the
expectation
that
three
percent
of
their
units,
if
they're
a
larger
project,
have
to
be
filled
with
voucher
holders.
So
it's
going
to
be
I,
think
much
better
education
with
to
those
that
have
a
voucher
holder
about
where
these
units
are.
When
they're
going
to
be
available,
like
that,
they
are
eligible
that
you
are
eligible
for
these
units
and
lowering
some
of
the
barriers.
High
credit
scores
like
there
there's
been
times
where
we
know
developers
haven't
accepted
vouchers.
Is
there
confusion?
Is
it
there?
J
Is
it
a
bias,
but
so
all
of
that
we're
going
to
say
the
voucher
holders?
You
can
access
these
units,
they
are
available
to
you
and
developers.
The
expectation
is,
you
need
to
make
three
percent
units
available
to
voucher
holders.
So
there's
a
lot
of
work
to
do
in
the
space
and
I
am
assuming
that
administrator,
Bach
and
I
will
be
back
before
you
to
really
work
with
the
council
to
really
try
to
figure
out
how
we're
letting
our
residents
know
of
the
opportunity.
J
I'm,
assuming
that
that
the
BHA,
the
bpda
and
the
mayor's
office
of
housing
would
welcome
such
a
request
and
see
if
there's
vouchers
available.
If
we
could
make
that
request
a
reality,
it's
it's
rare,
but
not
unheard
of
the
developer
will
come
in
and
want
to
go
above
above
their
the
existing
affordability
requirements.
G
Thank
you.
The
city's
interagency
Fair
Housing
Development
Committee
recommended
that
the
developers
of
Dorchester
Bay
City
partners
with
BHA
use
project-based
vouchers
in
order
to
mitigate
displacement
and
make
units
accessible
to
households
most
at
need.
Do
you
see
using
City
vouchers
as
a
way
that
developers
can
affirmatively
further
fair
housing
and
make
new
housing
more
truly
affordable?.
I
I.
Think
if
I'm
wrong,
not
wrong.
You're
talking
about
City
vouchers,
which
are
a
new
program
launched
a
few
years
back
in
terms
of
using
them
for
for
dorchester's
debate
projects.
I
think
that
they're
going
to
look
at
those
too,
but
I
know
for
certain
that
they've
committed
to
use
the
administrator
advisors.
That
administrator
Bach
has
available
to
her.
G
G
J
So
the
incomes,
the
Amis,
both
the
50
Ami
and
the
60
Ami
red
levels
are
higher.
Those
rents
are
would
be
unaffordable
to
the
the
families
that
you
have
identified
and
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
indicators
reported
by
I.
Believe
you
are
correct.
We
did
reduce
the
Amis,
as,
as
you
probably
are
aware,
from
70
to
60
and
then,
after
a
lot
of
very
rich
conversations
with
The,
Advocates
and
and
renters
in
the
city
really
felt
like
we.
J
You
know
we
need
to
give
another
option
if
a
developer
and
a
community
wanted
to
see
even
lower
Amis
and
we
went
to
50
with
a
lower
requirement
to
go
down
further
than
that.
It
would
be
very
difficult,
however,
the
the
way
that
the
the
IDP
policy
is
written.
It
would
be
a
range.
So
we
do
expect
that
if
a
developer
comes
in
with
a
50
Ami
average
that
we
will
see
units
at
40
percent,
Ami,
50,
60.,
so
sorry,
the
the
range
would
include
lower
Amis
below
50.
J
I
So,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
your
forbearance.
Can
I
just
add
one
a
note
to
the
chair
at
a
councilman,
Fernandez,
Anderson,
I'm,
very
concerned
about
very
low
income
household
and
the
three
percent
that
are
voucher
holders.
Most
of
those
voucher
holders
are
earning
30
Ami,
so
including
it
as
part
of
an
addition
to
the
other.
17
percent
is
really
a
way
of
expressly
prioritizing
those
households.
I
G
That's
a
three
percent.
Thank
you.
I
have
two
questions
yeah.
Yes,
thank
you
and
I.
This
is
an
area,
that's
extremely
important
to
me,
as
you
know,
considering
the
district
that
I
represent
average
income
being
around
thirty
four
thousand
dollars
as
well
as
typically
I
mean.
We
know
that
the
Ami
is
lower
than
40
percent
at
that.
At
that
rate,
so
I
guess
at
some
point
I
would
I
would
love
to
work
with
you
or
be
included
in
the
conversations
and
workshopping.
G
Considering
the
market
considering
the
dollar
amounts
to
build
nowadays,
so
I
express
my
full
respect
for
the
work
that
you've
achieved
so
far,
but
we'll
continue
my
questions
considering
that,
as
some
of
our
Council
colleagues
have
stated
today
that
we've
have
so
much
more
work
to
do
to
reach
our
goals
it
is
it
accurate
that
undocumented
residents
are
not
eligible
for
full
subsidies
from
section
8
vouchers
or
federal,
funded
public
housing.
I
know
the
answer.
G
J
J
There
is,
there
is
lots
of
Regulation
around
Federal
mobile
Section
8
and
project-based
Section
8
contracts
and
the
oftentimes.
What
what
becomes
complicated
for
the
administrators
of
these
units
is
like
that
parents
may
be
undocumented,
but
but
but
children
can
realize
the
rent
relief.
You
know
I
just
realized
that
my
colleague
has
worked
at
HUD.
So
why
am
I
trying
to
answer
this
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
point
to
him
but
I,
but
if
he
cannot
that
I
will
get
back
to
you
very
very
soon.
Sorry,.
I
I
I
would
like
to
join
Sheila
in
her
effort
to
research.
The
answer
to
this
question
I
when
I
worked
at
how
to
add
the
available
to
me
a
series
of
national
experts
who
could
answer
the
question
quickly.
I,
don't
have
those
experts
available
to
me
today
so
in
that
in
that
capacity,
let's
look
at
it
together
and
answer
the
question.
G
Thank
you,
I'm,
not
at
all
being
facetious
when
I
give
you
this
response,
but
for
those
at
home
it's
a
prorated
amount
and
essentially,
as
you
both
are
stating
you,
the
parent
is
not
subsidized.
The
child
is
and
per
child
per
person.
So,
for
example,
you
have
two
children
and
a
mother,
a
single
mother,
then
the
two
children
are
subsidized
and
that
becomes
say
that
that's
cut
into
certain
percentage,
so
the
mother's
percentage,
that
one-third
is
whole.
You
have
to
pay
full
in
full.
G
So
it's
it's
kind
of
confusing,
but
they
call
it
prorated
and
it
sucks
just
a
little
personal
to
connect
with
those
at
home.
So
raising
my
children
I
had
to
go
to
school.
You
have
to
pay
out
of
pocket
for
school,
so
I've
mentioned
that
it
took
me
about
two
decades
to
go
to
school,
so
you
pay
that
out
of
pocket.
J
A
J
A
Yeah,
well
that
that
becomes
a
problem.
If
we,
if
we
sign
ourselves
into
you,
know
30
million
in
vouchers,
then
what
happens
in
a
down
economy,
because
a
voucher
system
isn't
something
that
you
can
look
at
anyone's
family
say:
oh
you'll
voucher.
Just
we
don't
have
the
money
now
so
exactly
kind
of
a
slippery
slope.
J
Fair
cloth,
it's
a
it's
a
it's!
It's
a
it's
a
way
to
pay
rents
in
new
development.
It
almost
acts
like
a
project-based
voucher
contract
and
it's
a
resource
that
the
BHA
has
because
they
have
through
some
of
the
earlier
redevelopments
lost
units.
So
the
federal
government
is
a
way
to
make
up
units
that
have
been
lost.
So
we'll
get
you
all
that
information
and
do
it.
J
A
J
So
we
we
do
indeed
have
based
on
very
good
research
by
both
the
bpda
and
the
mayor's
office
of
housing.
How
many
you
know,
individuals
and
families
are
in
income,
restricted
units,
how
many
of
our
households
are
using
a
voucher
and
how
many
households,
especially
our
lower
income,
households,
are
in
market
rate
units
and
that
are
rent
burdened
and
those
that
number
has
is
that's
the
number
that
I've
always
been
the
the
most
worried
about,
and
we
have
the
breakdown
by
30.
J
You
know
who's
paying
more
than
30
percent
and
who's
paying
more
than
50
percent
of
their
their
income
towards
rent,
and
that's
the
number
that
probably
keeps
us
all
up
at
night.
But
I'll
get
you
those
as
well.
When
we
put
together
all
the
information,
I
can
get
you
that
number
and
and
yes,
we
have
to
help
our
residents
buy
new
more
homes.
We
have
to
you,
know,
take
care
of
inequality,
and
we
really
have
to
watch
that
folks,
don't
end
up
being
displaced
or
leave
Boston
that
are
in
that
category
and
I
do
believe.
M
Couple
questions:
one
of
my
questions
is
when
it
came
to
the
Housing
Home
Ownership
side.
I
know
we
didn't
state
that
we
can
use
and
I'm
just
excited
about
this
program
in
Section
8
to
home
ownership
program
that
we
have
over
at
the
BHA
and
also
the
new
line
item,
for
you
know:
City
vouchers
to
be
able
to
be
used
for
home
ownership
opportunities,
but
on
the
IDP
policy,
I
didn't
see
stated
that
we
can
use
homeowners
of
the
vouchers
or
the
vouchers
will
be
designated
for
that
three.
J
So
we're
just
saying
that
the
the
developer
has
to
create
the
the
units
how
the
the
family
buys.
The
unit
can
be
achieved.
You
know
in
multiple
ways
and
I
fully
expect
that
we'll
continue
to
provide
down
payment
assistance,
good
mortgage
products,
but
you
are
raising
a
very
interesting
point.
It
I
think
it
is
on
us
to
start
making
better
connections
or
new
connections
right
of
our
families
that
want
to
buy
and
you've
been
following
the
bha's
progress
on
this.
J
J
A
J
A
J
A
Well,
home
ownership
is
the
way
Sheila
or
you
need
that
stability,
because
we
talk
about
30
years,
30,
50
years,
whatever
to
have
something
affordable.
Who
wants
to
be
in
a
rented
apartment
for
50
years?
You
know,
and
and
do
you
pass
that
on
generationally
I'm,
going
to
give
it
to
my
daughter
now
because
she's
going
to
stay
under
that
income
level?
It's
it's
a
sort
of
a
catch-22:
sorry
counselor.
M
No
worries
I'm,
just
as
excited
about
the
program
as
you
are,
and
my
other
concern,
though,
is
a
lot
of
these.
New
developments
will
be
condos
and
the
condo
fees
sometimes
scares
me
right.
Economies
could
be
high
based
on
you
know
the
the
location
of
the
development.
Have
we
given
any
thought
on
how
we
make
you
know
the
condo
fees
affordable
to
the
to
the
home
buyer.
J
So,
if
you're
buying
something,
if
you're
buying
condominium
for
250
000,
your
condo
fee
is
going
to
be
based
on
the
value
of
of
that
of
affordable
or
income
restricted
condominium,
not
the
not
not
the
square
footage,
because
that
those
could
be
selling
for
a
million
dollars
right.
So
it's
it
is
baked
in
so,
but
but
still
our
lower
income
residents
do
run
into
issues,
especially
if
there's
a
special
assessment
and
we
often
help
them
fund
special
assessments,
because
it's
something
they
just
don't
have
the
nest
take
for
awesome.
M
And
then
my
final
question
is:
how
is
there
I
guess
making
sure
that
we
get
the
word
out
to
those
who
are
looking
to
keep
in
the
community?
You
know
making
sure
that
this
is
a
real
anti-displacement
too.
So,
like
the
marketing
program,
can
you
speak
to
me
about
the
marketing
program?
That's
going
to
be
behind
the
units
going
forward.
J
They
have
to
submit
a
marketing
plan
and
show
where
they're,
how
they're
doing
their
Outreach,
where
they're
advertising
we
also
most
most
buyers
and
most
renters
looking
for
a
unit
in
Boston,
go
to
Metro
list
which
is
updated
daily
and
that
is
and
we're
also
working
with
a
lot
of
our
housing,
counselors
and
non-profit
agencies
that
are
helping
our
households
buy
or
rent.
So
we
do
have
a
we
really
do
spend
weeks
getting
getting
the
word
out.
We
are
now
we're
adopting
or
adding
that
we
will
have
City
staff
in
the
mayor's
office.
J
M
Thing
that
I
used
to
do
when
I
was
in
the
real
estate
world
I
used
to
send
mailers
about
you,
know
new
to
the
market
and
I
know
that's
something
that
I've
seen
done
in
you
know.
Community
engagement
processes
that
the
city
has
put
on
so
is
there
is
I.
Would
love
to
like
create
like
a
standard
marketing
like
saying
the
developers
have
to
you
know,
send
out
mailers
to
you
know:
10
000
people,
that's
on.
M
J
O
O
Trying
to
maximize
the
number
of
people
who
are
happy
and
No
One's
Gonna
like
everything,
but
can
you
can
you
get
most
people
to
like
most
things
right,
I
wanted
to
point
out,
counciloral
mentioned
something
that
I
think
is
curious
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
start
there
about
home
ownership.
Specifically,
you
know
we
have
the
three
percent
set
aside,
which
is
Innovative.
It's
it's
it's
getting
at
the
issue
of
that
ID
you
know.
Can
we
tailor
IDP
for
deeply
low-income,
folks
and
I?
O
Think
that's
great,
but
we
don't
do
that
for
home
ownership
and
I.
Think
that,
like
I,
wanted
to
point
that
out
and
I
wasn't
gonna
ask
this
but
dovetailing
off
of
his
question
and
so
that
people
know
that
the
three
percent
set
aside
is
actually
only
for
home
ownership
right.
The
three
percent
for
voucher
holders,
which
I
think
is
again,
is
exceptional.
Is
there
a
reason
why
we
didn't
go?
We
have
this
new,
the
Section
8
program
that
we
are
advocating
and
everyone's
excited
about.
The
chair
almost
jumped
out
of
the
seat
about
it.
P
I
J
O
Is
that
it
because
that
to
me,
then,
isn't
preclusive
of
us
potentially
having
a
conversation
about
okay?
How
do
we
potentially
get
small
projects?
I
mean
you
know,
or
how
do
we
gather
increase,
get
small
projects
up
to
up
to
20
or
how
do
we
build
in
to
lar
like?
Is
there
a
way
to
build
in
increases
to
large
projects,
IDP
percentage
for
home
ownership
over
time?
O
J
I
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
the
the
the
push
to
have
our
households
use,
Section,
8
or
some
other
voucher
to
buy
is
relatively
new,
so
I
would
suggest
that
we
we
see
whether
or
not
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
going
to
work.
We've
got
a
healthy
pipeline,
but
I
would
give
it
some
time
before
I'd
make
it
a
requirement
in
the
homeownership
component.
O
Okay,
so
I'm
just
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
my
actual
questions.
It
still
relates
to
three
percent
those
we
obviously
see
rampant
discrimination
when
it
comes
and
I
think
counselor
Braden
was
making
this
point,
maybe
others
in
the
voucher
holders
in
space,
I'm
wondering
and
apologies.
If
someone
has
already
answered
this
question,
what
will
be
the
attempts
that
are
the
the
work
done
alongside
developers
to
combat
that
discrimination
that
voucher
holders
face?
How
are
we
going
to
oversee
that
three
percent
requirement?
What
are
like?
O
I
So
I
mean,
what's
going
to
happen,
is
developers
who
are
participating?
Who
are
developing?
Something
are
going
to
say.
I
need
to
find
for
me
to
satisfy
my
zone
and
I
need
to
have
these
voucher
holders
what's
interesting
about
it.
Is
they
it's
not
as
if
they
can
say
I
mean
the
the
ability
to
be
anonymous
and
not
accept
voucher
holders.
I
A
segment
of
alcohol
is
in
your
development,
but
I
think
we're
going
to
use
all
the
normal
means
we
do
to
prevent
discrimination
but
again
I
think
making
it
a
part
of
what
developers
commitment
is
is
in
itself
a
way
of
fighting
discrimination
because
they're
going
to
be,
you
know,
they're
going
to
have
inspections,
they're
going
to
have
compliance
reviews
that
are
going
to
say
whether
or
not
they're
in
compliance.
That's
that
comes
with
the
vouchers.
It
comes
with
the
requirement.
So
at
least
that's
the
way
I'm
seeing
the
enforcement
I
might
ask.
J
No
I
I
think
that's
right.
It's
a
requirement
right,
so
it's
no
longer
and
I
think
what
the
work
that
is
left
to
be
done
or
start
is.
If
a
developer
came
to
us
and
said
you
know
what
we
can't
find
if
they're
doing
100
unit
building,
we
can't
find
three
households
that
have
a
voucher
that
want
to
rent
here.
J
Then
we're
not
doing
our
job
right
that
we
we
really
need
to
figure
out
how
we're
making,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
how
we're
making
it
easier
for
voucher
holders
to
know
that
those
units
are
available
to
them
and
making
the
connections
to
develop
from
from
developers.
This
is
a
pool
of
people
that
are
actually
looking
for
an
apartment,
so
I
I
think
that
work
has
not
been
done
yet,
and
but
it's
going
to
be
ready
by
October
of
next
year,
so
we're
very
committed
to
doing
that.
O
I
have
another
question
about
the
homeownership
Amis
it
I
would
love
just
to
see
deeper
affordability,
I
I,
just
I,
wouldn't
I
would
love
to
see
deeper
affordability
on
home
ownership.
I
was
just
coming
from
a
meeting.
Our
developer
is
developing
in
Roxbury,
affordable
home
ownership
and
doing
it
at
60
percent.
O
O
I
know
the
answer:
you're
going
to
say
feasibility,
but
like
I,
want
I
want
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
why
we
can't
go
deeper,
especially
because
I
think
that
there
is
some
research
out
there.
That
Maha
has
been
involved
in
in
terms
of
like
we
can.
We
can
go
deeper
because
it
really
changes
the
demographics
right,
if
we're
being
honest
about
who
is
applying,
depending
on
the
Ami
percentage
when
it
comes
to
home
ownership.
O
O
Is
there
a
possibility
of
using
that
to
deepen
the
affordability
on
the
home
ownership
level
and
I
and
I
had
another
homeownership
question
that
escaped
me,
but
I
guess
we
can
just
we
can
just
start
from
there?
Oh
yes,
this
is
it
The
Advocates
had
their
own
consultant,
who
offered
his
own
analysis
in
terms
of
what
is
feasible
right.
Looking
at
the
market,
I
think
the
different.
O
The
differences
between
our
consultant
on
the
city
and
The
Advocates
consultant
was
the
the
financial
basis
off
of
which
there
were
calculating
profit
in
terms
of
determining
what's
feasible,
and
in
that
study
it
was
and
I'm
not
sure
I,
don't
remember
if
it
was
25
for
rental
and
home
ownership.
But
just
if
you,
if
there's
more,
to
talk
about
on
the
public
record
regarding
like
why
that
report,
and
that
understanding
is,
is
not
one
that
we
can
conclude
is
feasible.
O
J
I
I'll
certainly
start
this
I
I
do
know
that
there
are.
There
are
families
out
there
that
want
to
buy
that
are
making
less
than
80
percent
of
Ami
and
I
know
that
groups
like
Maha
and
others
are
seeing
those
families
graduate
from
their
classes.
So
it's
not
lost
on
any
of
us
that
we
really
want
to
serve
those
families.
J
We
are
serving
those
families
right
now
with
larger
down
payments
and
better
mortgage
products.
In
fact,
I'll
get
to
you.
I've
I,
recently
requested
from
staff
just
the
the
range
of
incomes
against
Amis
and
who's
buying
and
who's
in
our
programs,
and
it
I'd
see
them
every
day.
You
know
they
I
have
to
sign
off
if
we're
giving
them
financial
assistance
and
the
incomes
are
are
low.
You
are
right.
The
reason
that
we
hesitated
putting
low
having
the
prices
lower
is
just
the
impact
on
home
ownership
projects.
J
Our
analysis
showed
that
smaller
homeownership
projects,
even
with
these
affordability
requirements,
are
tight,
and
but
it
was
very,
it
was
very
especially
on
the
outer
neighborhoods,
but
it
was
very
important
to
the
advocates
in
The
Advocate
community
that
we
keep
the
the
restrictions
or
their
requirements
the
same
throughout
the
city
right.
So
the
the
numbers
are
very.
J
J
The
analysis
that
we
saw
to
to
to
make
the
sales
prices
even
lower
serving
a
lower
income
population
would
be
very
hard
on
developers,
especially
our
smaller
developers,
who
really
this
is
their
bread
and
butter,
they're,
building
smaller
condominium
and
and
Townhomes
across
the
city
and
I
think
if
we
went
deeper
I
it
really
at
some
point
it
just
becomes
infeasible.
So
once
again
we're
looking
at
how
do
we
allow
development
to
go
forward?
At
the
same
time?
I
My
dad,
through
the
Toyota
Council
movement,
so
I,
was
present
for
the
presentation
of
the
other
consultant
that
Advocates
brought
forward.
You
know
I
appreciated
their
analysis.
It's
about
it's
an
analysis
about
what
the
return
should
be
calculated
on,
and
you
know
I
think
our
my
view
of
it
was
Advocates
had
been
asking
for
the
rates
to
be
lower
for
them
to
be
other
options
for
there
to
be.
I.
I
Think
that
there's
a
I'll
have
to
have
a
recognition
that
these
policies
do
have
some
impact
on
the
volume
and
the
appetite
of
developers
to
take
on
development
projects
and
the
developers
that
we're
talking
about
are
not.
They
have
a
market
business,
they
don't
have
it
they're,
not
affordable
developers
and
so
trying
to
find
a
balance
where
we
can
get
developers
to
continue
to
produce
housing,
which
is
a
challenge
we
have
already
and
then
saying
to
them.
O
I
They're
making
an
argument
that
the
rate
of
return
on
cash
versus
the
rate
of
return
I'm,
not
sure
I,
don't
remember
what
what
metric
it's
on
in
rtj
rkg
study
is.
Is
that
we
should
use
this
other
analysis
and
because
of
that,
that
makes
it
possible
for
developers
to
that
makes
it
possible
for
developers
to
be
able
to
afford
to
do
40,
Ami
units
I
just
not
going
to
happen,
I,
don't
think
that's
feasible
and
I
I
think
we're
not
enough.
If
we
were
talking
about
a
different
Market
environment.
I
I
might
have
a
more
more
sympathetic
view
to
that.
But
we're
talking
about
a
very
small
margin
and
we're
talking
about
a
difference.
I
think
is
not
negligible,
but
is
it's
certainly
within
the
the
sort
of
policy
making
area
the
the
cost
of
borrowing
and
has
gone
from
two
percent
to
seven
percent
in
a
period
of
under
a
year,
I'm
saying
to
development
interest?
I
We
want
you
to
continue
to
develop
in
an
environment
where
those
policies
where
that,
with
that
other
Dynamic
of
their
business
has
changed
radically
seems
to
me
to
be
it's
like
we're
talking
about
a
small
difference
of
small
but
material
difference
in
saying,
because
of
the
small
material
difference,
we're
going
to
ask
for
a
very
significant
increase
in
the
amount
that
we're
asking
I.
Think
it
wasn't.
It's
all
about
elasticity,
I
think
you
could
impose
a
high
a
deeper
subsidy
policy.
I
I
think
it
will
actually
have
a
depressive
effect
on
the
number
of
units
that
are
produced
and
the
appetite
of
developers
to
take
on
new
projects
and
I.
Think
if
we're
trying
to
produce
units,
if
the
outcome
we're
seeking
is
people
moving
into
units,
then
I
think
you
you're
going
to
have
a
you're
going
to
have
an
impact
that
isn't
isn't
the
desired
impact.
I
I
K
Thank
you.
Three
excuse
me
through
your
chair
on
the
question
of
homeownership
I
realized.
This
doesn't
necessarily
answer
the
question
fully,
but
I
wanted
to
just
acknowledge
that
where
we
have
required
in
every
other
scenario,
an
average
Ami
and
we
purposefully
removed
the
question
of
that
the
or
the
requirement
of
the
average
Ami
from
the
home
ownership
scenario.
There
were
previous
versions
of
this
that
were
drafted
that
named
80
as
the
average
required
for
home
ownership.
K
The
reason
that
we
removed
it
and
listed
this
as
a
half
up
to
80
and
half
up
to
100
was
intentionally
to
allow
for
additional
opportunity
where
possible,
where
there
are
subsidies
available
down
payment
assistance,
Etc
to
allow
lower
income
families
to
be
able
to
access
homeownership
units
and
so
counselor,
to
the
point
that
the
policy
presently
doesn't
necessarily
actively
promote
the
requirement
of
lower
income
families
in
the
homeownership
model.
It
doesn't
preclude
them
from
it.
O
Either,
thank
you
I
think.
That's
an
excellent
point.
I
think.
That's
excellent
I
also
still
think
it
requires
us
to
think
about
how
we're
going
to
incentivize
that
right
and
like
does
the
data
bear
out
that
that's
going
to
actually
make
a
tangible
difference,
but
I
think
that's
excellent.
So
I
appreciate
you
for
for
bringing
that
up.
I
have
two
more
questions,
but
I'm
happy
to
wait
for
a
second
yeah.
Let's
come
back
around.
Thank
you.
Oh,
but
through
the
chair
can
I
ask
that
they
provide
us
with
the
financial
analysis.
O
O
A
A
You
thank
you
everybody
for
coming
out
today.
So
IDP
is
what
we're
talking
about
here.
That's
basically
residential
anything.
It
was
anything
over
10..
So
if
it's
seven
units
that
means
that
seventh
unit
in
Dorchester
would
be
17
percent,
so
you
need
to
give
17
of
that
seventh
unit.
It's
not
a
not
a
full
unit,
am
I,
correct,
yeah.
K
J
J
J
J
I
think
it's
a
good
point
because
we
are,
you
know,
I
think
as
an
Administration
we're
trying
to
be
very
careful
and
looking
at
each
individual
economic
system.
You
know
carefully
anyways,
sometimes
you'll
hear
to
you
know.
Others
say
you
know.
Idp
linkage
is
too
much,
but
it's
like
you're
right
linkage
is
for
commercial
buildings,
so
buildings
over
a
certain
square
footage.
If
you're
a
commercial
building
lab,
you
know
office
building
some
of
the
commercial
properties
on
our
institution,
institutional
campuses.
A
A
J
I
I
There
needs
to
be
a
change
in
the
traffic
signalization
in
the
area
that
needs
to
be
new
street
lights,
sidewalks
Open,
Spaces
public
realm
improvements
is
the
general
category,
but
often
they
might
mitigate
an
empath
by
adding
more
affordable
housing
yeah.
They
might
mitigate
an
impact
by
creating
affordable
commercial
space.
A
I
And
in
fact,
to
the
chair,
I
would
say:
one
of
our
efforts
that
we've
had
been
working
on
a
lot
lately
is
is
an
articulating
modernization
plan,
so
so
that
it's
easier
because
what
ends
up
happening
is
ends
up
being
a
creek,
a
lot
more
of
a
creative
process
for
both
citizens
and
developers,
there's
kind
of
a
there
can
be
either
an
expectation,
mismatch
or
awake
expectations
that
are
not
sort
of
managed
well.
So
what
will
happen?
Is
developers
might
say?
I
Well
the
economic
impact
of
what
I'm
doing
I'm
doing
20
here
and
I'm
taking
other
actions,
and
then
there
might
be
a
demand
for
more
and
the
developer
says:
I
can't
really
do
more
other
times
people
might
there
might
be
a
disagreement
about
what
is
the
most
important
thing
for
a
particular
neighborhood
and
so
trying
to
create
a
set
of
expectations
like
these
are
the
three
ways
that
mitigation
money
can
or
mitigation
investment
can
happen.
This
is
the
percentage
of
your
project
cost
that
you
should
expect
to
invest
into
mitigation.
I
Or
you've
forgotten
about
it
or
it
might
even
think
it
wasn't
adequate.
So
it's
one
of
those
things
that
we're
working
hard
on
is
modernizing
that
system,
because
I
think
it'd
be
better
for
Citizens
and
developers
to
have
a
expectation
going
in
of
how
much
for
them
to
have
a
understanding
of
how
it's
going
to
happen
and
when
it's
going
to
happen
and
sort
of
limits
on
those
things.
A
Yeah
and
my
opinion
on
this
as
a
whole
is
what
I
think
is
going
to
happen.
Is
that
smaller
developer
that
person
that's
been
in
the
neighborhood
for
years?
That
has
delivered
units
for
for
less
money
for,
however,
many
years
because
they
know
people
and
then
they've
started
building
those
six
seven
ten
unit
buildings
and
they
get
those
same
behaviors.
A
Are
there
I
think
that's
the
person
that
we're
going
to
totally
Crush
totally
put
out
of
business
same
when
we
started
talking
about
rent
control
and
things
like
that,
the
bigger
companies
they
don't
even
care
because
they
know
there's
money
to
be
made
here.
So
they
say:
okay,
we'll
spread
this
cost
out
over
a
thousand
or
two
thousand
units.
It's
the
person,
that's
in
the
neighborhood
that
for
the
last
20
years,
has
been
delivering
this
type
of
Housing
and
I
know.
A
A
I
call
the
landlord
the
landlord
says
this
person's
been
with
me
for
20
years:
I
love
them
I,
don't
want
them
to
leave,
but
I
also
don't
want
the
city
telling
me
what
to
do
when
this
feels
a
lot
like
the
city
implementing
Council,
Royal,
said
and
I
share
this
this
this
sentiment.
How
are
we
getting
our
people
in
those
units,
the
people
in
Dorchester,
looking
at
looking
at
the
nice
buildings?
A
That's
all
well
and
good
I'm
never
going
to
get
in
there,
because
you
need
a
PhD
in
paperwork
to
be
able
to
just
get
on
the
list
and
and
at
what
point
are
we
gonna
really
streamline
those
processes
and
and
Dot
block
actually
has
a
a
local
preference
for
some
of
some
of
the
units,
because
on
a
demographic
where
we
live,
it's
a
it's
a
very
diverse,
very
diverse
areas.
How
do
we
put
that
on
to
step
in
steroids?
A
We
want
people
to
feel
good
about
the
buildings
going
up
because
they
feel
like
they
have
a
shot
getting
in
them
same
with
the
with
the
with
the
labs
people,
don't
they're
apathetic
about
them,
because
they
don't
think
there's
a
job
in
the
lab
and
they
don't
think
there's
a
house
in
in
these
new
big
buildings
are
coming
up,
so
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
talking
about.
30
am
I
home,
we're
going
to
pay
for
these
people
for
the
rest
of
their
lives
too.
A
By
the
way,
this
is
a
commitment
that
it's
for
the
rest
of
their
lives.
Look
at
the
generations
that
remain
in
the
housing
developments
that
have
been
there
for
50
years,
passing
it
down
to
their
kids.
At
what
point
are
we
going
to
start
looking
at
the
cliff
effect
and
say:
okay,
let's
stop
this
keeping
people
with
that
noose
around
the
neck?
How
are
we
gonna?
Is
it
federal
law?
A
Is
it
state
law,
so
can't
tell
you
the
amount
of
people
that
will
say:
okay
I
got
into
this
unit,
it's
great
my
kid's
18
now
and
he's
going
to
go
out
and
get
a
job.
They
told
me
if
he
gets
a
job,
then
everything
goes
up
because
the
kid
does
what
you're
supposed
to
do
when
you're
18.
go
out
and
get
a
job.
Those
are
some
of
the
problems.
Also,
the
family
that
calls
that
says.
A
I
got
a
decent
job.
I'm,
okay,
I
can
pay
about
1800
or
2
Grand,
but
the
rent
is
2800..
When
are
we
going
to
start
dealing
with
that
middle
class
family,
it's
high
and
low,
and
we
all
talk
about?
Oh,
it's
high
and
low,
there's
no
middle
class,
but
we
are
doing
nothing.
All
of
this
is
all
well
and
good,
but
we're
not
doing
anything
for
the
family
mom
and
dad
both
get
up
and
work
every
day
they
can
pay
some
rent.
They
just
can't
pay
3
200
for
a
three
bedroom.
That's
where
we
have.
A
So
where
are
those
vouchers
that
that
are
going
to
be
open
to
that
family?
That
that
makes
that
money
I
mean
I,
wouldn't
be
able
to
live
here
now,
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
buy
a
pro
buy
property.
Now
I
was
here
in
buying
when
everybody
was
leaving
and
no
and
people
looked
at.
My
neighborhood
that
that
it
wasn't
a
good
name.
Why
would
you
want
to
live
there?
I
wouldn't
want
to
live
any
place
else,
but
the
reality
is.
A
Everybody
wants
to
live
in
the
city
now
and
we're
not
doing
anything
for
the
for
the
people
that
can
that
can
come
here
and
they're
actually
getting
up
and
they're
going
out
and
they're
making
our
city
work,
but
they're
not
going
to
be
here
much
longer
because
the
schools
are
going,
the
schools
are
having
their
issues,
I
don't
want
to
bad
mouth.
Anybody
or
anything
the
schools
are
having
their
issues
and
there's
no
way
for
us
to
help
that
family.
That
wants
to
say
that
can
pay
a
little
bit.
A
I'm
excited
about
the
voucher
system,
with
that
sort
of
rent
to
own
thing,
I
think
the
devil's
in
the
details
with
that.
How
do
we
end
up
like
who's
going
to
run
these
buildings
who's
going
to
lay
out
the
the
condo
docks
and
the
condo
associations
who's
going
to
be
responsible
for
those
things,
because
it's
a
whole
different
way
of
living?
You
know
when
you,
when
you
have
that
responsibility
of
a
of
a
condo
association
and
it's
sort
of
communal
living.
A
You
have
your
own
space,
but
you
have
to
respect
the
people
along
the
way.
I
think
they'll
things
that
we're
really
going
to
need
to
help
with
and
set
up
that
sort
of
programming.
I,
don't
know
if
it's
connecting
different
cdc's
along
to
own,
to
kind
of
own
the
land
and
the
or
or
on
the
condo
associations,
to
help
people
do
those.
A
Is
there
anybody
now
Sheila
building
on
city,
land
or
any
other
any
other
kind
of
land
that
you
know
of
building
home
ownership
opportunities,
100
home
ownership
opportunities
with
any
of
our,
because
the
nhi
program,
I
think
was
one
of
the
best
programs
that
we
did.
We
put
a
lot
of
people
in
housing
and
and
the
housing
was
single
families
and
free
families
nobody's
building
those
anymore
great
for
those
families
that
got
a
single
family
or
a
two
family
or
whatever,
but
I
think
we
need
to
stop
looking
at
that.
A
The
same
sort
of
model,
the
nhi
but
Building
25
units
building
40
units
with
the
condo
association.
Wrapped
around
and
help
people
hold
their
hand
right,
till
they're,
moving
their
bedroom
until
they're
moving
their
bed
in
that's
what
that's?
What
we
need
to
do
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
seven
units
here
on
film
much
more
comfortable
with
this.
A
If
it
were
still
the
10
units,
seven
units
I
think
is,
is
a
little
low,
especially
places
like
where
I
live
in
one
of
the
councils
that
talked
about
all
the
development
that's
been
going
on
for
10
years
in
Dorchester.
We
just
we
just
got
the
development
I've
been
here
for
12
years.
My
first
two
years,
I
might
have
had
zoning
two
or
three
times
in
that
third
year.
In
that
fourth
year
people
are
coming.
They
want
to
build.
A
I
have
probably
one
substantial
building
the
the
drop
block
building,
which
is
a
couple
hundred
units
they're
looking
to
get
into
them,
didn't
even
know
if
they're
going
to
do
their
second
phase
because
Dorchester
being
that
risk
area,
so
they
had
a
they
had
a
they
had
a
bar
set.
They
wanted
to
get
to
60
occupancy
Within
a
year
and
a
half
or
two
years
in
60
days.
They
were
above
60
percent,
that's
how
many
people
want
to
live
there
and
we
got
over
5
000
applications
for
those
some
was
calling
them
Frank
Baker
units.
A
They
were
the
units
that
were
going
to
be
available
for
people
that
lived
within
a
mile
of
the
of
the
project.
So
we
can
talk
about
all
the
units
we
have
and
everything
until
we're,
putting
and
I'll
use
the
term
and
if
I
sign
sound
tribal,
that's
okay
with
me.
We
need
to
get
our
people
in
these
units,
our
people
in
these
units
and
help
that
family
they
can
pay
a
little
bit.
How
are
we
talking
to
that
family?
That's
in
that
unit.
Now
that
can
come
up
with
fifteen
hundred
eighteen
hundred
two
thousand.
A
Let
me
give
you
1500
a
month,
so
you
can
end
up
in
one
of
these
apartments.
We
also
need
to
change
the
way
we
think
about
our
home.
It's
no
longer
that
single
family
with
a
picket
fence.
It's
I
remember
hearing
the
manhattanization
of
Boston
going
back
10
years.
It's
here.
We
have
to
figure
out
how
we're
living
in
apartments
and
the
picket
fence
is
gone.
A
A
Are
those
outfits
able
to
direct
designate
and
what
would
it
take
to
be
able
to
come
up
with
a
real
program
if
people
say
Okay,
I
want
to
build
this
building
on
this
lot
of
land,
I
want
to
build
100
units
and
I
want
to
use
my
money
instead
of
it
going
through
City
bureaucracy,
nothing
against
City
bureaucracy.
I've
been
here
for
30
plus
years
loved
the
city,
but
there
is
a
bureaucracy
there
and
the
developers
would
be
able
to
spend
their
money
more
efficiently
and
build
more
units.
A
I
So
through
the
through
the
chair,
I'm
going
to
ask
my
colleague
Sheila
so
Sheila.
My
understanding
is
that
the
method
that
the
technical
method
for
approval
of
a
direct
designation
is
the
Neighborhood
Housing
Trust,
there's
a
request
made
to
them
by
a
developer
to
say.
I
would
like
to
I'm
going
to
pay
my
obligation
I'd
like
to
pay
it
to
a
specific
project
and
I'd
like
to
I.
Think
that,
as
long
as
it's
approved
by
the
Housing
Trust
housing
trusted.
It's
okay.
That.
J
Yeah
you're,
very
both
very,
very
close,
but
so
no
and
we
like
direct
designations
because
oftentimes
a
developer
is
been
having
conversations
with
the
community
and
the
community
is
saying:
okay,
you
want
that
lab,
but
we
really
would
love
this
homeownership
project
to
be
built.
Do
we
really
want
this
senior
project
to
be
built?
So
we
like
those
they
go
to
they.
It's
called
a
housing
creation.
They
do
go
to
the
bpda
board
as
well.
A
J
A
To
the
trust,
so
so
back
on
that
specific,
because
maha's
potentially
going
to
get
10
million
dollars
to
be
able
to
help
towards
getting
people
in
homes,
that's
right
and
one
of
the
criticisms
in
in
I.
Don't
necessarily
think
it's
a
criticism.
It
is
what
it
is,
is
a
lot
of
that
10
million
will
probably
go
to
places
outside
of
the
city
because
of
the
affordability,
the
affordability
problem
and
the
availability.
A
So
if,
if
my
high
now
has
got
whatever
the
grants
are
going
to
be,
let's
say:
they're
50,
000
and
Sheila,
you
wanna,
you
wanna,
buy
something
you
want
to
live
wherever
you
want
to
live.
You
can't
find
I
mean
the
reality.
Is
you're,
probably
not
going
to
find
very
much
in
Dorchester
in
any
place
in
the
city.
So
now
you've
got
to
take
your
money.
Someplace
else,
I!
Don't
think
we're
going
to
say
to
that
person
that
is
going
to
buy
their
first
time
home.
No,
you!
A
A
I
A
Again,
I
would
never
want
to
be
the
person
saying
to
someone.
That's
moving
to
Quincy,
say
oh,
that
50
Grand,
that
we're
planning
on
giving
you,
because
you
did
everything
we
asked
you.
You
can't
do
it
now,
because
you
Can't
Buy
in
the
city,
but
then
you
go
and
look
around
the
city
and
you
can't
find
anything
so
question
being.
J
We
we
are
building
We,
are
continuing
to
build
Home,
Affordable
home
ownership
throughout
the
city.
We
have
a
very
healthy
pipeline
and
you
know
on
both
our
land
and
developers
are
coming
forward
with
projects.
So
I
can
get
you
the
list,
it's
pretty
impressive.
What
has
helped
this
effort?
Is
the
state's
Commonwealth
Builder
program
not
to
get
two
down
doing
the
weeds,
but
in
the
past
the
state
was
very
hesitant
about
funding,
affordable
home
ownership,
and
so
we
were,
we
would
foot
the
bill
and
now
we're
splitting
it
with
the
state
and
the.
J
They
just
thought
that
you
know
that
their
money
was
best
spent
on
rental.
That
was
where
the
greatest
need
was,
and
that
is
no
longer
the
case.
They
have
a
very
robust
program
and
Boston
gets
a
very
sizable
share
of
that
resource.
So
it's
making
our
money
go
further,
and
so
we
are
our
pipeline
of
homeownership.
Projects
is
much
better
than
it
ever
has
been.
A
J
A
That's
currently,
we
have
occupied
2900
deed,
restricted
homes.
Yes,
yes,
in
on
on
the
deed
restrictions,
so
to
speak,
to
council,
or
else
right
I
can
see
the
need
for
restricting
it,
maybe
first
10
years
or
whatever
first
10
years.
You
need
to
make
sure
that
your
your
bottom
line,
Remains
the
Same.
You
don't
want
people
going
out
and
remortgaging
and
who
knows
what
that
looks
like
that's
normally,
where
people
lose
their
homes
when
they
try
and
play
that
game
of
refinancing
and
pulling
money
out.
So
what
do
you
think?
A
P
J
A
it's,
a
very,
very
complicated
problem
and
I
see
all
sides
on
this
one.
For
once
in
my
life,
I
don't
have
a
a
strident
opinion.
I
think
we
do
have
to
be
concerned
about
families,
Building
Wealth
and
at
the
same
time
we
have
to
be
concerned
about
having
a
resources
available
to
you
know
for
future
Generations.
So
what
we
have
done
recently
is.
We
have
shortened
the
term
of
that.
J
Our
new
deed
restrictions
for
home
ownership
for
home
ownership,
we're
making
it
much
easier
for
homeowners
to
sell
to
family
members
without
being
income
qualified,
and
if
you
want
to
sell
to
your
son
and
and
he's
electrical
engineer
and
he's
making
like
go
ahead
and
sell
it
all
right,
it's
a
family
home
we're
we're
providing
more
return
for
families
and
households
that
have
done
Capital,
Improvements,
we're
saying
yep.
You
should
be
recognized
for
those
And
So
It
Goes.
J
We've
we've
been
having
lots
of
conversations
with
you
know:
elected
officials,
but
really
also
affordable
housing,
Advocates
Community
leaders
trying
to
figure
out
what
what
is
the
right
compromise?
What's
the
right,
Middle
Ground
here
so
there's
a
lot
more
conversation
to
be
had
and
more
work
to
be
done.
We're
looking
at
other
cities,
some
cities
are
are
have
much
longer
terms
than
us,
because
you
know
stability
of
neighborhoods
was
their
their
focus.
R
J
It's
like
IDP,
it's
finding
the
right
balance
that
we
can
justify
the
investment
and
and
promote
neighborhood
stability
at
the
same
time,
not
choke
people
off
from
recognizing
return.
You
know
we
have
looked
at.
We
did
some
really
good
research
and
we're
updating
this
and
I'll
get
it
over
to
you
too,
like
what
is
the
appreciation
per
year
on
average,
so
believe
it
or
not.
J
So,
but
it
is
interesting
to
see
that
the
appreciations
are
pretty
similar
and
families
have
benefited
from
very
stable
low
housing
costs
where
a
lot
of
folks
are
buying
in
the
market
and
they're
they're
really
struggling
to
maintain.
So
it's
it's
a
it's
a
big,
complicated
subject,
but
I
look
forward
to
ongoing
conversations.
A
We
need
to
do
something
about
it
and
even
worse
than
that,
I
think
is
the
cliff
effect
when
it
comes
to
people
that
are
in
housing,
developments
and
Cliff
effect
when
it
comes
to
people
that
have
IDP
units
that
that
I'm
five
dollars
over
the
requirement.
What
should
I
do
like
that
to
me
that
to
me
is
counterproductive
in
everything
that
we're
trying
to
do
in
the
way
in
the
way
we
help
people
did
have
one
more
I'm
gonna
go
to
you
and
come
and
come
back
hold
on.
Let
me
make
sure
it's
you.
E
Thank
you
so
much
I
really
appreciate
this
and
really
appreciated
the
chair's
passion
about
so
many
of
these
things
and
as
someone
who
is
trying
to
work
on
Transportation,
Planning
and
Development
I
feel
like
I,
actually
really
appreciated
those
terms
and
the
rebuffs
and
sort
of
the
comments
about
sort
of
like.
Let's
back
up,
what
are
all
what
are
developers
being
asked
to
do
and
what
are
the
different
tools
in
the
toolbox?
E
So
I
actually
have
District.
8
really
has
a
different
tact
in
terms
of
you
know,
counselor
Baker's
comments
around.
You
know
we
want
units
for
our
people.
My
district
wants
units
for
everyone
else.
You
know
what
I've
heard
from
you
know.
Most
all
of
my
district
is
in
a
Zone
a
except
for
Mission
Hill,
which
is
in
zone
B,
but
it
you
know
we
in
my
district.
E
There
really
is
a
passion
for
making
sure
that
and
and
chief
Dylan,
you
know
this
because
of
the
West
End
Library
revitalization
and
everything
that's
going
on
over
there
around
encouraging
public
housing
in
in
the
city
on
public
projects.
So
just
we
so
I
just
wanted
to
state
that
that
my
district
sort
of
takes
a
different
tact.
In
that
respect.
We
want
people
from
all
over
the
city
to
be
able
to
enjoy
our
downtown
neighborhoods
back
by
Beacon
Hill
West,
End,
Back
Bay,
and
you
know,
I
have
Fenway
and
Mission
Health.
J
So
you
you
are
the
what
I
know
about
your
district
is
that
the
your
constituents
have
been
very
interested
in
having
a
lot
of
the
the
IDP
units
on
site
because
for
parts
of
your
District,
it's
very
very
hard,
except
for
the
like
West,
End
Library
and
a
few
other
opportunities.
It's
really
hard
to
build
new,
affordable
units
in
your
District,
so
having
IDP
on
site
is,
has
been
really
important.
Certainly
Mission
Hill
we're
looking
to
build
more
affordable
housing
and
pet
Flaherty
and
Parker
Terrace
and
there's
there's
some
good
opportunities
there.
J
J
So
we
are
very,
very
interested
in
to
your
point
making
sure
that
that
we
are
building
and
preserving
affordable
housing
in
every
neighborhood
and
where
there
are
neighborhoods
with
the
lower
than
the
city-wide
average
of
affordable
housing,
19
2.2,
19.2
percent
that
were
really
prioritizing
and
not
insisting.
We
don't
have
a
legal
mechanism
to
insist
but
really
really
encouraging
new,
affordable
housing
in
those
neighborhoods.
Last
week
I
was
in
West
Roxbury
and
we
broke
ground.
J
No,
we
cut
a
ribbon,
sorry
on
60
units
of
new
rental
housing,
West
Roxbury,
and
that
was
very
exciting
because
they
have
a
very
low.
They
have
a
lower
percentage
of
affordable
housing.
So
could
not
agree
with
you
more
that
we
need
to
see
affordable
housing
and
voucher
usage
really
across
the
city
and
it
shouldn't
be.
Neighborhoods
are
stronger
when
there's
when
they're
racially
diverse
when
their
income
diverse,
so
we
really
I
couldn't
agree
with
you
more
so
I
think
we
have
a
lot
of
say
over
developments.
J
The
vouchers
we
are
have
are
a
little
harder
because
it's
hard
to
tell
someone
with
the
voucher
where
they
should
live
and
where
they
should
live.
They
choose,
they
choose
their
locations
for
a
whole
host
of
reasons,
but
I
think
our
job
is
to
make
people
aware
that
their
voucher
can
go
everywhere,
and
that
is
a
fairly
new
development.
It's
like
what
two
two
and
a
half
three
years
old,
where
the
BHA
started
to
pay
small
area
fmrs.
So
we
really
need
to
continue
to
educate.
E
But
again
it's
not
everything
we
possibly
could
do
so
I
appreciate
and
and
understand
that
there's
huge
opportunity
to
learn
from
you
three
about
what
might
what
where
we
could
go
in
in
other
directions,
but
I'm,
really
supportive
of
this
proposal.
I
think
I
think
it
strikes
the
balance
and
seeing
the
letters
from
some
of
these
groups
that
you
know
may
still
take
issue
with
with
some
of
these
changes.
E
I
think
it's
very
hard
to
make
changes
to
in
a
commercial
environment
and
I
think
that
this
proposal
really
does
strike
a
balance
and
seeing
that
everyone
is
a
little
bit
unhappy,
sometimes
means
that
you're
making
the
right
call.
So
I
appreciate
the
pragmatic
nature
of
like
what
this
proposal
is
and
excited
to
learn
more
and
continue.
F
The
issues
around
the
process
of
you
know
you,
you
have
a
you,
have
a
voucher
and
you
have
there's
just
a
sort
of
a
bureaucratic
swamp
that
you
have
to
get
through.
You
find
a
unit
that
your
landlord
wants
to
rent.
You
have
to
have
your
have
it
all
approved
the
inspection
VHA
inspectors
have
to
inspect
the
unit,
to
make
it's
up
to
up
to
up
to
speed
code
compliant.
F
Is
there
a
way
that
we
can
do
like
pre-certify
voucher
holders
and
just
as
you
would
get
pre-certified
for
a
mortgage
or
whatever
pre-approved
get
the
paperwork
in
line
so
that
when
you
go
to
look
at
a
a
unit
that
that
you
don't
have
weeks
and
weeks
and
weeks
of
delay,
because
landlords
have
gone
like
I
can
rent
this?
You
know
tomorrow,
why
would
I
would
lose
a
month's
rent
or
two
months
rent,
because
we
have
such
a
crazy
bureaucracy
that
doesn't
process
these?
These
units
quickly,
yeah.
J
When
mayor
Wu
came
into
office,
she
was
very
dissatisfied
with
what
she
was
hearing,
that
the
bpda
does
a
piece.
Moh
does
a
piece.
We
often
would
delay
things
until
a
developer
had
a
certificate
of
occupancy.
The
marketing
agents
are
doing
income,
certifications,
we're
doing
income
certifications.
So
we
have.
We
are
really
turning
that
on
its
head
and
we
cutting
the
time
down
by
at
least
50
percent
and
making
sure
that
when
a
unit
is
available
and
it's
completed,
it
has
a
certificate
of
occupancy.
J
Someone
is
giving
keys
right,
so
she
is
she's
been
very
clear
that
she
wants
improvements.
That's
IDP!
What
you're
raising
is
the
delays
around
the
BHA,
and
this
is
what
I'm
not
going
to
answer.
I
I
know
that
administrator
Bach
also
wants
to
do
that.
Look
at
those
improvements
and
look
at
the
process
and
she's
been
making
like
really.
J
You
know
some
staffing
changes
and
beefing
up
some
of
her
her
divisions,
so
I
would
suggest
that
that
give
her
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
I
would
suggest
that
you,
we
have
some
meaningful
conversations
with
her
vision
for
making
the
process
easier.
We
don't
want
to
discourage
landlords
from
renting
to
Section
8
holders.
They
they
can't
by
law.
You
can't
discriminate,
and
you
all
know
this.
You
can't
discriminate
based
on
the
the
source
of
of
rent,
the
source
of
of
one's
income,
but
you
don't
have
to
sit
around
and
wait
forever
either.
J
F
And
I
know
this
is
really
tangential.
One
off
I've
gone
off
really
badly
here,
but
in
the
news
this
week
There's
this
talk
about
thousands
of
of
public,
publicly
old,
affordable
housing
units
that
are
vacant
because
of
deferred
maintenance,
they're
not
up
to
cold.
It's
it's
in
the
moment
of
Crisis
that
we're
in
is
there
any
way
that
we
can
sort
of
Prime
the
pumps
and
get
pull
out
all
the
stops
and
get
those
units
back
in
line
again,
yes,
I
know,
I,
know
it's
a
budget
issue,
but
is.
J
J
F
Know
I
appreciate
that
it's
a
issue
the
knock-on
effect
of
it
that
if
there's
capacity
in
other
space
as
it
isn't
ready
to
go
that
those
those
voucher
units,
those
voucher
holders
can
come
to
Boston
and
look
for
housing.
So
if
they
can't
get
it
wherever
they
are,
they
can
come
to
us
and
they'll
they'll
increase
our
list
as
well.
So
you
know
we'll
talk
to
this.
We'll
talk
to
them
very
good.
F
You
know
the
the
the
approval
of
a
project
and
we've
worked
really
hard
over
years,
sometimes
to
get
all
our
ducks
in
a
row
and
get
as
maximum
amount
of
of
affordability
and
good
good
mitigation,
good
Community
benefits,
and
then
the
developer
turns
around
and
flips
it
and
makes
millions
like
I'm
talking
tens
of
millions
in
some
cases,
one
particularly
egregious
one
that
we
talk
about.
The
project
has
been
marketed
for
100
and
200
million,
or
something
crazy
like
when,
when
can
we
just
say,
stop
enough,
this
is.
F
I
Through
the
charter
Council
of
breeding
I'm,
thank
you
for
making
me
aware
of
not
just
one
example.
Last
time
I
was
here,
we
had
one
I,
think
we've
got
two
or
three
now,
unfortunately,
so
on
the
transfer
tax.
I.
Think
every
one
of
this
on
this
table
is
will
tell
you
that
the
administration
is
in
favor
of
a
transfer
tax.
I
I
The
other
thing
I'd
say
is:
we
have
to
be
careful
to
send
the
right
message,
but
we
do
need
to
evaluate
whether
or
not
I
think
I've
said
this
in
very
similar
circumstance
before
you
know
what
is
the
right
duration
for
an
approval
to
exist,
a
new
approval
that
that
we
might
approve
in
a
future
month?
How
long
should
it
be,
as
is
before
it
becomes
something
else,
that's
a
question
that
we
are
thinking
about
it
as
part
of
our
our
equation.
F
I
appreciate
that
and
and
you
know,
we
had
a
period
of
very
low
interest
rates
and
got
all
these
home
ownership
projects
approved
and
they
sat
on
them.
They
didn't
develop
them
and
now
we've
got
increased
interest
rates
and
they're.
So
much
harder
and
I
think
you
know,
I
agree,
I
approve
that
we
need
to
push
them
along
and
say
if
you
get
approval,
there's
a
time
limit.
G
J
P
J
I,
don't
recall
them
saying
that
I
I
do
recall
them
saying
multiple
times.
That
predictability
is
you
know
it's
what
developers
crave
and
what
they
need,
as
they
put
together
their
performas
I'd
be
glad
to
look
into
that.
I
I
read
the
report
quickly
last
couple
of
days
again
but
I.
Let
me
go
back
and
and
see
if
that's
in
there.
G
I
So
through
the
charity,
Council
or
Fernandez,
Anderson,
I,
recall,
Advocates
and
I
think
even
some
of
the
Consultants
that
were
engaged
by
Advocates
asking
the
question.
Well,
why
don't
you
create
a
future
year
increases
to
IDP
that
are
automatic
and
I
think
we?
We
certainly
considered
that
I.
Don't
think
that
that
was
a
recommendation
of
the
rkg
plan.
Although
Sheila
and
I
will
look,
I
think
saying
that
there's
a
guaranteed
increase
in
the
cost
of
doing
business
in
Boston
that
is
not
connected
to
other
costs,
didn't
seem,
certainly
to
me.
I
I
didn't
think
I
didn't
see
it
as
a
a
good
direction
to
go
in
I.
Think
we
I
think
that,
especially
in
an
environment
where,
in
one
year
the
number
one
cost
of
the
developers
have
to
deal
with
would
be,
which
is
building
materials
would
go
up.
The
way
that
they
went
up
and
that
the
next
year,
that
because
of
the
cost
of
building
materials
going
up
interest
rates,
would
would
go
up.
I
I
think
those
are
things
that,
if
we
had
an
automatic
increase,
we'd
have
to
come
into
the
we'd
have
to
come
in
and
enact
a
reduction
in
it
in
the
rate
of
increase
and
as
you've
seen
other
other
cities.
That
really
struggled
to
do
that,
where,
if
something
becomes
we're
not
having
any
production,
we're
not
having
any
development,
and
they
have
to
come
in
and
radically
change
the
policy
in
order
to
to
create
a
pipeline
of
construction.
I
So
I
certainly
remember
that
Advocates
making
that
request,
but
I
think
that
it
was
my
recommendation
at
least
that
we
make
the
we
go
forward
with
the
policy.
That's
before
you
today
and
it'll
be
not
guarantee
increases
in
future
years,
but
that
in
an
environment
like
this,
after
some
real
thinking
among
counselors
and
Advocates
and
policy
makers
that
we
arrive
at
a
new
conclusion
in
the
future.
G
I
Through
the
charity,
Council
Command
is
Anderson.
I
tend
to
look
at
it
like
this,
so
we've
got
23
000
units
that
are
permitted
at
13,
but
I
haven't
been
constructed.
If
you
take
out
10
10
000
of
those
units
that
are
associated
with
a
few
very
large
projects,
you
got
at
least
10
000
units,
maybe
more
that
are
where
people
have
10
13
IDP
and
they
can't
build
those
projects
under
those
circumstances.
So,
to
me,
saying
I'm
going
to
now
increase
the
cost
of
building
mixed
income
development
effectively
in
the
future.
I
I
think
we're
taking
a
pretty
I
mean
to
be
quite
direct,
I.
Think
we're
making
a
a
very
bold
message
of
our
intent
by
increasing
IDP
from
13
to
17,
with
the
additional
three
percent
and
I
think
there's
a
risk
of
a
sort
of
decreasing
the
appetite
of
our
development
industry
to
take
on
new
projects
and
take
on
the
kind
of
20
IDP
that
we're
talking
about
by
by
increasing
it
more
or
asking
that
it
be
increased
again
in
future
years.
I
I
think
what
we
think
we're
taking
a
really
important
step
together
and
saying
it's
been
eight
years
since
this
was
increased.
Let's
increase
it
thoughtfully
and
let's
take
a
lot
of
input
and
information
and
then
make
a
decision
together.
I
I
think
if
we're,
if
we're
trying
to
move
to
a
place
where
private
developers
opening
units
new
units
that
are
deeply
subsidized
for
bostonians
I
want
to
get
closer
to
starting
those
units
and
having
them
open
and
having
someone
move
in
rather
than
focusing
on.
Maybe
I
could
get
another
one
percent
this
year.
I
Maybe
I
get
another
two
percent
next
year,
I'd
rather
say
we're
going
to
go
up
seven
percent
now
and
then
we're
going
to
try
to
get
every
possible
unit
built
I
feel
like
we
got
it.
We
have
the
right,
I,
think
process
the
right
Dynamics
we've
got
smart
well-intentioned
players
who
are
all
coming
together
to
recommend
the
policy
we've
got
or
even
to
push
and
pull
on
it,
but
I
think
we're
making
the
right
recommendation
for
now.
G
It
I
guess
there
are
so
many
other
nuances
to
to
it
as
well
to
be
considered
when
it
comes
to
development,
not
just
costs
directly
to
material,
but
also
the
individual
developer
loans
that
they
qualify
for
different
amenities
or
other
attributes.
That
may
be
added
post
Community
engagement
right
so
then
can
that
developer
qualify
for
commercial
space?
G
I
Through
the
chair
to
council
Fernandez
Anderson,
so
the
great
news
for
everyone
is
that
I
have
the
benefit
of
other
experts
on
my
team
and
in
other
parts
of
the
city
to
help
make
decisions
like
this
and
Advocates
I.
I
guess
I
would
probably
have
the
same
answer
that
I
provided
earlier,
but
I
think
Sheila.
If
you'd
like
to
that.
J
J
What's
what
is
feasible
and
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
variables
change,
the
interest
rates
will
change
and
construction
costs
will
change
and
land
land
value
will
change
and
market
rate
rents
will
change
too,
which
is
also
a
really
important
variable
when
you're
looking
at
feasibility
rents
from
21
to
22,
when
up
12
across
the
board
offsetting
some
anyways.
So
you
get
it
so
there's
just
a
lot.
There's
a
lot
of
variables,
so
I
think
that
we
can
I,
wouldn't
I,
wouldn't
suggest
we
do
it
in
the
near
future.
J
J
Hopefully
not
we
never
have
in
the
and
the
policies
history
gone
lower,
so
so,
but
I
think
it's
hard
to
predict
the
future
with
so
many
variables
sort
of
especially
now
in
flux,
so
I
would
say
we
can't
pin,
and
we
can't
say
that
a
certain
percentage
will
be
that
we
can
realize
a
certain
percentage
at
a
certain
date.
I
do
believe
we
need
to
do
the
analysis.
G
Thank
you,
Chief
Dylan,
you've
you've
stated
that
the
city
would
revisit
the
policy
in
three
years
and
in
the
new
inclusionary
zoning.
If,
if
the
new
inclusionary
zoning
is
passed
or
the
changes
have
passed
and
by
December
20
23rd,
would
this
mean
that
the
goal
would
be
to
pass
additional
changes
by
26.
G
J
I
would
think
we
would-
and
please
I'm
kind
of
looking
at
my
colleagues
for
their
opinion
as
well.
I
would
think,
although
we
can
certainly
caucus
and
and
get
back
to
you,
but
I
think
we
would
be
looking
at
a
certain
amount
of
time
after
the
revised
policy
goes
into
effect.
So
we're
suggesting
this
policy
go
into
effect
in
October
of
2024.
G
G
So
I
look
forward
to
conversations
about
zoning
or
further
conversations
about
zoning,
one
that
is
truly
inclusive,
but
that
considers
in
depth
the
Amis
that
we
are
neglecting
if
we
continue
in
this
pattern.
It's
a
positive
thing,
but
it's
the
lesser
of
two
evils
right
or
the
lesser
of
evils,
and
it's
not
really
addressing
our
most
vulnerable.
G
That's
heartbreaking
for
all
of
us,
so
I
look
forward
to
hopefully
for
this
city
for
us
to
find
a
solution
where
we
are
prioritizing
the
most
vulnerable
if
that
means
exploring
the
idea
or
the
hearing,
order
that
councilution
and
I
filed
in
exploring
looking
into
bonds
to
resolving
our
housing
issues
or
other
alternative
and
creative
methods
look
forward
to
the
work.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank.
H
Council
Murphy
just
wanted
to
follow
up
on
the
vouchers.
I
know
there
were
a
few
cases,
some
shallow,
where
I
had
to
reach
out.
It
does
seem
like
some
very
minor
clerical
errors,
could
stop
someone
from
moving
in.
There
was
one
incident
where
there
was
a
young
mom
who
had
a
voucher,
and
it
was
a
seven
dollar
difference
between
what
the
voucher
said
and
what
the
apartment
was
listed.
H
Remember
that
and
the
homeowner
was
very,
very
willing
to
change
it,
but
because
it
can't
be
different,
even
though
it
was
actually
the
rent
was
like
less
than
the
voucher.
She
lost
it
in
a
neighborhood
that
was
close
to
her
Special
Ed's
on
school,
like
it
was
just
it
made
me
realize,
like
bureaucracy
here,
there's
got
to
be
a
way
to
fix
it.
So
definitely
would
like
to
talk
more
at
some
point
and
really
yeah.
J
H
Yeah
and
then,
like
was
just
said,
it
was
going
to
be
another
two
or
three
months
that
they
would
go
without
so
she
had
to
go
back
into
the
market
of
looking
for
a
house
which
she
still
is
at
Mom's
house
right.
So
there
hasn't
been
a
placement,
yet
yeah,
so
obviously
I'm
just
trying
to
make
that
work
better,
so
that
people
get
into
the
housing
they
need,
and
nothing
else
really
just
wanted
to
say.
Councilor
Baker,
as
my
district
councilor
I,
will
miss
your
institutional
knowledge
in
your
always
advocating
for
housing
needs.
A
You
councilor
Murphy
I'm
gonna,
go
to
council
Louisiana
for
her
last
round.
I
think
it's
your
last
round.
I
have
another
one.
We
can
go
again
and
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
Council
Flaherty
we'll
get
to
you
for
an
opening
statement
in
your
in
your
questions
after
Council
Louisiana,
Council
Louisiana.
Thank.
O
You
Mr,
chair
and
I
just
want
to
thank
the
administration
again
for
indulging
all
of
my
questions.
I
know
it
was
like
a
long
round
and
back
and
forth,
but
care
deeply
about
this.
As
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
do
and
I
want
to
just
make
sure
that
the
public
is
aware,
you
know
whether
it
needs
Boston
again,
not
a
pain
like
how
this
is
going
to
affect
them.
O
J
J
They
want
to
change
where
the
units
are
located
or
their
their
project,
they're,
changing
it
from
rental
to
homeownership
or
home
ownership
to
rental
or
or
that,
and
so
they
have
guts
work.
They've
got
some
work.
They
need
to
do
with
the
bpda.
So
we've
had
great
success.
Reducing
the
number
of
vacant
units.
P
J
Now
the
work
to
shorten
the
the
complexity,
the
bureaucracy
and
the
time
it
takes
to
Market
units
is
is
really
is,
is
being
worked
on
right
now,
progress
is
already
being
made
and
we
have.
We
had
phase
one
improvements
and
now
we're
looking
at
phase
two
improvements
that
are
more
structural,
but
I
think
the
developers
and
the
general
public
are
really
going
to
feel
a
difference.
Thanks.
J
I
Fair
to
councilman
religion,
so
we've
also
I
think
the
mayor
talked
about
this
in
the
most
recent
speech
are
making
some
and
made
some
structural
changes
to
strengthen
and
bring
our
team
closer
to
closer
to
Sheila's
team,
as
part
of
that
I
think
she
described
it
pretty
accurately.
This
working
together
in
a
much
more
concerted
way
to
close
the
gap.
O
The
affordability
attachment
with
that,
and
that
could
be
something
an
advantage
of
having
automatic
in
a
more
automatic
prediction
of
what
IDP
will
be
in
the
future,
that
helping
to
attempt
down
on
online
speculation
and
the
extraction
that
we
see
so
I
just
want
to
to
see.
If
you
have
thoughts
there.
O
P
J
I
go
back
to
my
earlier
comment
and
I
and
I
and
I
stand
by
it
that
it
might,
it
might
lessen
the
appreciation
of
land
but
there's
so
many
other
variables
that
go
into
making
real
estate
deal.
You
know
work
and
finance
Financial,
so
that
I'd
be
hesitant
to
say
that
X
is
going
to
happen
in
in
a
future
date
without
understanding
all
the
variables.
J
So
it's
my
opinion
and
not
everyone
will
probably
agree
that
you
do
need
to
look
at
all
of
the
variables,
including
interest
rates
and
cost
of
construction
and
rents
and
all
of
that
including
land
values.
At
a
certain
point
in
time,
if
you're
going
to
to
increase
the
requirement,
so
I
do
think
it
would
imp
values
of
land
but
I
think
there's
other
things
that
would
have
to
be
considered
simultaneously.
I
O
I
And
I'm
sorry
I,
think
I
understand
what
you're
saying
I
think
and
I
I
guess
what
I'd
say
is
for
the
last
10
to
maybe
15
years.
We've
had
two
things.
One
of
the
things
is
very
boston-centric
phenomenon,
but
that
two
things
happen:
we've
had
almost
zero
percent
interest
rates
so
having
such
low
interest
rates
has
made
it
possible
for
people
to
do
things,
including
you
know.
I
I
I'd
say
it's
Unique
for
Boston
is:
we've
had
the
benefit
of
our
economy
being
strong
in
a
particular
sector,
which
is
a
wild
lab
development
which
is
extremely
valuable
to
to
take
place,
and
both
those
things
have
really
created
a
sense
of
the
market
as
being
able
to
so
I
guess
what
I'd
say
now
is
we've
had
a
very
harsh
correction
by
the
Federal
Reserve
in
the
cost
of
money
and
I.
Think
you
know
when
developers
are
talking
to
us
and
again
I
think
we
all.
We
recognize
that
importance
and
value
of
delves.
I
We
also
have
the
appropriate
regulatory
skepticism
that
we
should
always
have,
but
I
do
think
that
when
you
say
that
the
cost
of
their
money,
the
money
they
use
to
build,
things
has
changed
radically.
The
cost
of
materials
and
the
relative
strength
of
of
the
lab
sector
is
have
has
changed
a
little
bit
saying
we're
going
to
have
an
automatic
we're
going
to
depress
the
value
of
land
using
a
policy
instrument.
I
I
Wait
is
the
appetite
of
the
development
industry
to
do
more
than
approve
projects,
but
build
them
and
I
think
what
we've
seen
with
the
is
a
we're
in
a
moment
where
we
actually
are
beginning
to
see
a
desire
to
have
a
lot
of
stuff.
That's
been
permitted
actually
be
built,
so
it
can
be
used
kind
of
mismatch
with
the
the
market,
the
the
way
that
the
Market's
operating
interest
rates,
cost
materials
and
the
value
of
a
web
space,
so
I
feel
like
we're
we're
in
a
good
a
good
place.
I
We've
taken
a
effectively
a
seven
percent
increase
in
the
what
we're
demanding
of
the
market
to
provide.
Maybe
it's
a
it's
a
harsh
correction
too,
like
their
interest
rates
to
account
for
the
changes
in
value,
but
I
think
we
need
to
continue
to
have
a
deliberative
process
like
the
one
we're
having
now,
in
my
view,
to
make
those
kinds
of
increases,
as
opposed
to
something
that's
automatic.
I
I
would
just
highlight
that
other
communities
have
have
had
to
recently
change
policies
backwards
so
that
they
can
allow
development
to
go
forward.
I
think
we
have
achieved
a
balance
here
with
the
development
industry
that
allows
us
to
make
a
very
significant
increase,
but
not
disturb
I,
think
people's
interests
and
excitement
about
growing
in
Boston,
so
I
think
your
questions
well
well.
May
I
asked
I
understand
that
I'm
just
a
little
hesitant
about
getting
into
affecting
macroeconomic
things
like
the
cost
of
land.
O
Thank
you
I
appreciate
those
responses.
I
think
that
there's
more
conversation
probably
to
be
had
about
what
the
effect
of
that
would
be
and
sort
of
like
what
the
intention
is
in
a
lot
of
our
neighborhoods
that
have
seen
right
that
the
cost
of
land
has
been,
if
not
always,
a
causal
relationship,
a
correlation
with
displacement.
And
so
my
comment
is
nothing
more
than
an
attempt
at
how
do
we
prevent
that
displacement
that
we're,
seeing
that
we've
seen
in
Jamaica
Plain
that
we
see
in
East
Boston?
That
is
creeping?
It
was
in
Dorchester.
O
O
The
point
of
using
bonding
is
that
we
have
a
AAA
Bond
rating
that
shows
the
fiscal
strength
of
the
city
and
that
almost
I
mean
look,
not
an
economist,
but
that
shows
the
enduring
economics
of
this
city
and
what
our
strengths
are,
and
we
have
a
strong
economy
based
on
and
ads,
based
on.
The
presence
of
Institutions
that
are
here
in
the
city
and
I.
Think
like
there
are
things
that
we
can
take
as
true,
even
if
not
permanently
true,
that
we
can
take
as
true
and
it's
happening
like
how
do
we?
O
A
B
If
you
will,
it's
obviously
great
to
see
our
folks
together,
chief
of
planning
and
director
of
the
bpda,
as
well
as
Sheila
from
Chief
of
housing,
go
back
a
lot
of
years,
not
so
along
with
Amy
Chambers,
but
so
welcome
and
look
forward
to
working
with
you
for
the
time
that
I
have
left.
But
I
do
have
a
longer
history,
with
Sheila
and
Arthur
back
to
my
pra
days
as
well.
So
and
I
appreciate
your
attention
to
detail.
B
I
know
it's
a
difficult
conundrum,
we're
in
as
referenced
by
some
I
heard
on
the
on
the
the
TV
earlier
that
we
are
seeing
ourselves.
Manhattanized
we've
been
at
this
a
long
time
trying
to
find
a
way
to
maintain
Boston's
affordability.
It's
a
good
news,
bad
news.
We've
got
the
best
colleges
and
universities
in
the
world,
the
best
hospitals
and
network
of
Community
Health
centers
we're
home
to
life,
science
and
financial
services.
Everybody
wants
to
be
here.
B
We've
got
great
sports
teams,
a
great
theater
and
arts
program,
and
that's
the
good
news.
The
bad
news
is
as
a
result
of
that
and
if
you
remember
both
Arthur
and
Sheila,
when
I
joined,
there
was
a
survey
that
the
bra
did
at
the
time
and
the
largest
demographic
when
I
joined
the
council,
the
largest
demographic
leaving,
the
city
where
men
and
women
in
the
just
recent
graduates
in
their
early
20s,
they
were
heading
to
the
Carolinas
and
out
to
San
Francisco
Etc.
B
That
has
obviously
reversed
folks
come
here
now
from
all
over
the
world
come
to
get
a
degree.
They
fall
in
love
with
Boston,
and
then
they
stay
and
they're
sort
of
part
of
our
brain
power
and
so
again
good
news,
bad
bad
news
story.
My
concern
is
the
city,
kids
and
I
call
them
City,
kids,
there's
a
kids
like
my
age,
the
21
22
23
24.
They
grew
up
here.
They
played
Sports.
Here
they
were
in
the
Arts
programs
yeah,
they
grew
up
in
the
Boys
and
Girls
Club
grew
up
in
public
housing.
B
My
focus
wants
to
be
on
on
the
middle
of
the
road
there
and
making
sure
that
we're
maintaining
a
middle
class
and
those
that
I'm
worried
about
is
the
young
men
and
women
from
our
neighborhoods
who
who
have
gone
to
school.
They
have
a
good
entry
level
good,
paying
job,
not
crushing
it,
but
just
making
just
a
little
too
much
that
they
don't
qualify
for
any
of
the
programs
that
bpda
and
DND
offer
they're
just
missing
it.
B
Yet
they're
not
making
nearly
enough
to
sustain
the
market
forces,
and
so
my
ask
is
within
when
we're
going
from
13
to
17,
particularly
on
properties
and
again
I
I
was
listening
to
some
of
my
colleagues
comments
and
because
I'm
not
not
sure,
if
you're
fully
aware
of
the
actual
cost
that
go
into
developing
and
let's
start
with
acquisition
costs
and
there's
a
clear
difference
between
someone:
that's
owned
piece
of
property
for
10,
20
or
sometimes
50
years,
and
they
decide
all
right.
We're
going
to
now
develop
that
property
acquisition
cost
is
zero.
B
They've
got
tremendous
flexibility
within
their
footprint
versus
someone
that
comes
in
and
pays
through
the
nose
or
borrows.
You
know
a
big
stain
from
a
bank
a
little
bit
more
pressure,
a
little
more
skin
in
the
game,
and
that
gets
that
world
gets
a
lot
tighter,
particularly
an
economy
like
this,
adding
on
to
cities,
housing
goals,
putting
on
new
regulations
at
the
fire
code,
putting
on
Birdo
that
this
body
and
the
administration
pass
makes
things
real,
tight,
real
fast
for
some
and
so
making
that
distinguishing
decision
between
all
right.
B
This
is
someone
that's
on
the
property
for
50
years.
They
have
a
lot
more
flexibility
versus
in
allowing
a
sliding
Ami,
so
whether
it's
going
from
13
to
17
Again
certify
those
sites
that
you
know
and
give
them
flexibility
on
the
Ami
to
allow
for
that
targeted
group
that
I'm
talking
about
those
City
kids
that
are
born
and
raised
here,
that
we
want
to
stay
here
and
yet
they're
getting
priced
out,
and
it
won't
be
at
the
Amis
that
we're
currently
looking
at
at
the
13.
We
did.
B
We
had
a
pilot
program
over
at
Washington,
Village
I
think
they
took
five
units
out
of
their
hole
and
they
did
a
signing
account
and
there
was
tremendous
participation
again
from
you
know:
sort
of
moderate
to
middle
class
individuals.
Again,
some
may
be
strapped
with
a
little
student
loan
debt.
Some
may
have
a
car
payment,
maybe
a
gym
membership,
a
good
job,
but
again
not
really
knocking
it
out
of
the
park
and
maybe
moving
up
the
latter.
B
But
it
may
take
some
time
we're
losing
those
kids
to
to
the
South
Shore
into
the
North
Shore
and
to
other
communities.
And
so,
if
we
have
some
flexibility
in
that
13
to
17
or
we
have
someone
willing
to
do
more
than
17.,
we
give
them
that
flexibility
to
make
that
Ami
and
you
guys
know
the
number's
been
I.
Maybe
it's
120,
maybe
it's
130.
Maybe
it's
140.
again
we're
targeting
a
certain
group
of
folks
that
you
know
we
want.
B
We
want
to
make
sure
that
they
have
an
opportunity
to
stay
in
the
city
that
they
were
born
and
raised,
and
so
that's
kind
of
conundrum
number
one
and
then
the
second
piece
is
around
identifying
which
properties
have
that
type
of
flexibility
and
which
ones
don't
if
we're
treating
everyone
that
comes
to
the
counter
you
know
upstairs
as
as
equal.
But
yet
you
know
it's
a
family.
That's
on
that
site
for
50
years
versus
someone
that's
trying
to
make
it
work.
It's
a
it's
a
complete
different
pro
forma.
B
What
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
don't
realize
is
the
process
of
architectural
cost
engineering,
cost
legal
cost
delays
and
deferrals
costs
on
top
of
construction
cost
on
top
of
financing
costs
on
top
of
insurance
costs,
in
addition
to
the
final
product
which
will
be
occupancy
in
taxes,
Insurance,
maintenance
and
repair.
All
of
those
are
real
for
anyone.
That's
willing
to
get
into
the
Housing
Development
game
and
when
listening
to
some
it
might
I
I,
wouldn't
want
to
live
in
a
house
that
they
built.
B
It
would
be
something
like
similar
to
to
the
Goldilocks
but
to
to
to
to
to
put
good
quality
housing
in
our
portfolio
and
having
good
housing
stock
in
the
city.
It
requires
a
significant
investment
in
commitment
and
risk.
My
colleagues,
no
one
talked
about
risk
today,
maybe
Council
Baker
did,
but
so
just
again
finding
that
balance.
Finding
that
healthy
balance,
where
we
continue
to
move
our
city
forward,
we're
recognizing.
We
have
an
affordability
issue.
B
It
looks
as
though
we
have
folks
on
the
high
end
covet
looks
like
we've
got
folks
on
the
low
end
cover.
We've
got
significant
public-private
partnership
and
investment
in
public
housing.
My
neighborhood
probably
setting
the
pace
with
the
in
Lynch
homes,
formerly
the
Old
Colony
project,
where
I
was
born,
the
old
Harbor
Village,
which
is
Maryland
McCormick,
which
we've
got
a
significant
commitment.
B
We've
got
one
in
Charlestown,
we've
seen
one
in
easy,
so
we're
seeing
that
public-private
partnership,
which
is
good
and
clearly
a
lot
of
the
high-end
stuff,
has
that
market
has
been
met.
It's
really
the
middle
and
Boston
really
depends
on
the
middle
class.
Our
neighborhoods
depend
on
the
middle
class.
Public
education
depends
on
the
middle
class
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
whatever
we're
doing
here.
B
Their
relationship
driven
they're
partnership,
driven
and
having
kids
that
are
from
the
city
that
have
those
relationships
with
guys
and
girls.
They
went
to
school
with
and
played
sports
with
Etc
and
as
they're
entering
into
the
economy
into
their
networking
within
a
particular
company
or
field,
nothing
better
than
to
have
that.
Network
versus
kid
gets
priced
out
and
has
to
go
to
you
know
down
to
to
you
know
where
I
pick
a
spot
anywhere
in
the
south,
southeastern
Mass
South,
Shore,
North
Shore.
So
for
me,
that's
been
a
travesty
and
we've
seen
it.
B
We've
had
a
front
row
seat
for
it
and
it's
part
of
the
the
good
news,
bad
news.
The
bad
news
is
that
people
are
being
priced
out
at
arguably
at
all
income
levels,
but
the
one
that
I
would
like
to
sort
of
see
addressed
in
some
form
of
fashion.
In
this
new
IDP
formula
is
the
flexibility
for
a
developer
and
it
may
be
the
developer,
that's
leveraged.
It
may
be
the
developer
that
paid
a
premium
as
an
acquisition
cost.
B
Maybe
that's
the
development
project,
that's
ripe
for
a
little
relief
on
the
Ami,
but
we
can
accommodate
some
of
those
moderate
middle-income
residents
to
be
able
to
compete
to
stay
in
their
neighborhood
versus
again.
Someone
that
has
owned
that
parcel
for
decades
does
not
have
the
acquisition
costs.
Conundrum
can
eliminate
a
little
bit
of
that
pressure.
Has
the
ability
not
only
to
sustain
these
numbers
at
17
may
even
be
able
to
go
to
20
and
or
over
17?
Have
the
flexibility
with
a
sliding
Ami
targeting
the
middle
class,
because
no
one
can
afford.
B
It
is
we
want
them
to
stay
here
that
what
makes
that
City,
the
best
city
in
the
country
and
we're
losing
the
middle
class
here
and
collectively
after
in
your
wisdom
and
experience
and
Sheila,
and
your
wisdom,
experience
and
and
Amy
and
your
wisdom
experience
working
with
this
Council
and
administration
I
think
we
have
an
opportunity
to
get
this
right.
This
clearly
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction.
B
I'd
just
like
to
have
an
Ask
of
a
little
flexibility
on
that
Ami
exceeding
that
they're,
a
team
or
in
situations
where
someone's
exceeding
the
17
and
really
put
in
perspective
the
real
costs
and
the
real
risks
that
are
out
there,
particularly
in
in
this
economy,
and
we're
seeing
it
significantly
and
we're
going
to
feel
the
pinch.
My
colleagues
haven't
seen
something
like
this
I
had
going
through
it,
Council
Baker
may
have
been
to
the
printing
shop
and
we've
seen
when
we
saw
her
as
a
city,
a
downturn
where
there
were
layoffs.
B
Cranes
were
halted
and
stopped
and
kept
in
place
for
for
a
few
years,
and
we
don't
want
to
return
to
that
type
of
situation
either.
We
want
to
make
sure
we
continue
to
to
move
our
city
and
to
grow
but
and
to
accommodate
as
many
as
we
can.
But
that's
one
of
my
concerns
and
we're
seeing
it
now
with
the
commercial
vacancy
rate
where
companies
law
firms,
insurance
companies,
financial
service
companies,
even
Labs,
they're,
now
taking
less
square
footage
in
their
renewals
by
thousands
of
less
blopping
off
floors.
B
That's
how
we
pay
for
our
schools,
that's
how
we
pay
for
our
parks
and
our
playgrounds
and
our
Police
Department,
our
fire
department
and
Public
Works
snow
plowing
tree
pruning
snow
removal,
trash
collection,
all
of
it,
that's
how
we
derive
and
that's
how
Boston
ticks
it's
really
through
our
big
partner
is
our
commercial
tax
base.
If
we
start
to
see
our
commercial
tax
vacancy
rate
continue
to
decline,
that's
a
holy
bleep
moment
for
Boston
for
this
Council
for
future
budgets,
and
so
all
of
this
is
real.
B
B
It's
impacted
not
only
municipal
government
and
second,
but
it's
it's
impacted
the
private
sector,
whereby
folks
are
allowing
their
employees
to
work
from
home,
which
means
that
they
don't
need
all
of
that
office
space
and
which
is
why
we're
seeing
major
companies
Lop
off
tens
of
thousands
of
square
feet
at
per
site
building
at
the
building
at
the
building.
That's
going
to
come
to
roost,
probably
two,
three
four
years
from
now
and
we're
going
to
feel
a
crunch.
So
all
issues
that
we're
well
aware
of
I
appreciate
the
attention
to
detail.
B
If
you
can
give
some
thoughts,
maybe
to
having
some
flexibility
going
from
13
to
17
on
maybe
a
sliding
Ami,
particularly
where
there's
capacity
or
a
need
from
an
owner
or
a
developer.
That
may
be
leveraged
on
the
acquisition
piece
of
it
or
having
flexibility
for
someone
to
go
from
17
to
20.,
because
they've
owned
the
site,
30
20
30
40
years
and
the
acquisition
cost
is
zero.
B
They
may
have
a
little
more
flexibility
and
they
may
be
willing
to
be
a
good
neighbor
and
a
good
partner,
but
you've
got
to
let
them
up
a
little
bit.
Let
them
up
for
air
and
give
them
maybe
a
120
130,
140,
Ami
and
they'll
fill
those
they'll
fill
those
units
immediately
it'll
be
a
great
contribution
to
what
we're
looking
to
do
here,
which
is
to
save
the
middle
class
in
Boston.
J
So
we'll
keep
our
answers
and
our
questions
very
very
brief.
So
I
always
appreciate
councilor
Flaherty
his
his
concern
about
I.
You
know
the
middle
class
in
Boston
and-
and
he
is
correct
that
over
you
know,
just
because
of
federal
funding
and
state
funding
and
city
funding.
A
lot
of
our
developments
don't
necessarily
serve
that
those
populations.
J
I
will
I
will
suggest
our
offer
that
when
I
look
and
I
was
looking
at
the
Amis
as
you
as
you
were
talking
that,
because
we
use
a
regional
Ami,
the
Amis
that
we
have
right
now
because
of
raising
Rising
incomes
are
pretty
high.
In
fact,
a
lot
of
people
complain
that
our
program,
housing
programs,
are
serving
folks
that
have
too
much.
You
know
too
much
income
for
our
programs,
so
it
is
sort
of
a
balancing
act
trying
to
find
the
the
right.
The
right
balance,
the
right,
the
right
incomes,
the
The
Sweet
Spot.
B
J
Could,
of
course,
in
the
way
that
we,
the
way
that
we
get
there
is
by
saying
instead
of
using
the
Ami
for
our
area,
which
is
for
a
family
of
one,
is
a
hundred
and
three
for
a
family
of
two
is
118
for
a
family
of
three
is
133
000..
We
know
that
those
incomes
are
much
higher
than
many
of
our
residents.
So
what
we
do
is
we
bring
the
Ami
percentages
down.
That's
why
we
talk
about
50,
Ami,
60,
Ami,
30
Ami,
because
we're
really
calculating
for
a
Boston
need
against
a
federal
standard.
J
If
you
will
so
but
I
think
you
know,
a
lot
of
the
IDP
program
has
historically
served
a
population.
That
is
that
that
is
not
people
that
need
Public
Assistance,
that
that
is.
It
is
more
of
a
middle
income,
especially
with
the
homeownership
being
80
to
100
Ami
I,
just
read
those
incomes.
That's
you
know.
Those
are.
Those
are
high,
a
lot
of
the
a
lot
of
the
individuals
that
are
buying
our
homes.
J
There's.
Certainly
there's
families
and
there's
also
folks
that
have
gone
to
College
and
State
are
staying
here
or
have
gotten
their
first.
Second
or
third,
job
and
I
see
I'll
see
a
lot
of
those
young
couples
buying
or
or
in
a
single
individual.
So
it
is
a
balancing
act.
We'd
be
glad
to
take
your
comments
under
advisement.
L
Foreign
thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
the
administration
for
your
work
in
this.
Space
is
really
appreciated,
and
I
always
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
stay
on
the
record
Sheila.
How
your
department
is
one
of
the
best
departments
to
provide
constituent
services
to
I
mean
I
can
send
Danielle
an
email
at
11
o'clock
at
night
and
unfortunately
she
is
responding
to
it
and
so
I'm,
so
grateful
and
I
just
I'll
just
send.
L
What's
that
like
the
Gratitude
is
real
and
I
also
want
to
just
share
the
reflections
like
coming
into
this
Council
I
was
talking
about
50
IDP.
You
know
and
I
think
that
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
really
meet
the
moment
here
in
the
city
of
Boston
and
really
trying
to
think
about
how
do
we
not
navigate
competing
interests
right?
L
How
do
we
bring
people
together
across
those
differences,
because
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
there's
one
thing
that
I've
discovered,
particularly
this
last
year,
is
that
nobody
has
a
right
everybody's
trying
to
figure
it
out,
and
everybody
believes
that
their
way
is
the
only
way
and
I.
Don't
think
that
that
is
the
way
we're
going
to
get
to
where
we
need
to
be
without
leaving
anyone
behind
so
I'm,
not
not
there.
L
I
really
am
about
what
is
realistic,
and
what
does
that
work
look
like
in
a
way
that
centers,
the
700
000
constituents
that
we
are
here
to
represent
and
I
want
to
start
with
that,
because
I
think
that
oftentimes
we
get
ourselves
caught
up
in
who
it
is
that
we
are
here
to
fight
for
and
I
want
to
be
incredibly
clear
about
what
I
believe.
This
is
about
right.
L
It's
about
making
sure
that
people
who
have
grown
up
here
to
my
colleague's
point
are
City
kids,
who
have
gone
through
public
education
and
then
can't
get
into
certain.
You
know
universities
or
institutions
that
aren't
meant
for
them.
So
then
they
have
to
go
to
where
they
go
and
then
wherever
they
end
up
they're,
not
making
enough
money
to
stay
here
in
the
city
of
Boston,
so
they
leave.
L
All
the
colleagues
I
can't
call
out
names
because
there's
I
don't
want
to
call
out
names,
but
we're
not
supposed
to
do
that,
but
other
colleagues
here
are:
are
that
too
so
I
I
want
to
acknowledge
that,
and
so
in
that
Spirit
right.
We.
We
know
that
a
lot
of
people
who
have
grown
up
here
in
the
city
of
Boston
are
now
living
in
Brockton,
Stoughton,
Randolph,
they're
being
displaced,
and
there
is
no
consequence
to
the
city
for
that
displacement
right.
L
You
know
45
minutes
to
an
hour
just
to
be
able
to
work
in
the
city
that
they
once
lived
in
and
as
we're
talking
about
this
conversation
around
zoning
and
changing
and
meeting
the
moment,
I'm
just
curious
about
where,
where
and
where
in
that
does
it
fit
in
terms
of
a
displacement
tax
I
know
that
sounds
kind
of
crazy,
but
I
think
that
if
we're
really
serious
about
holding
ourselves
accountable,
we
also
have
to
hold
ourselves
accountable
in
a
way
that
is
going
to
impact
our
little
pockets.
So
something
has
to
give.
L
K
Lately
we
have
been
looking
at
a
number
of
tools-
IDP
just
being
one
of
them
with
relationship
to
how
we
address
concerns
related
specifically
to
the
housing
crisis.
One
of
the
other
things
that
we're
working
on
presently
is
zoning
related
to
accessory
dwelling
units
to
counselor
Flaherty's
previous
remarks,
with
relationship
to
how
we
provide
opportunities
to
keep
City
kids
in
in
the
city.
K
We
have
named
here
today
that
you
know
this
is
just
one
kind
of
tool
within
the
toolbox
and
that
we
need
to
be
trying
to
create
as
many
tools
as
possible
in
order
to
be
successful.
With
regard
to
some
of
these
concerns,
one
of
the
other
things
that
we've
really
begun
discussing
in
relationship
to
the
new
zoning
initiative
that
we
are
planning
and
zoning
initiative
that
we're
embarking
on
in
the
spring
squares
and
streets
is
around
how?
K
If
we
are
looking
to
promote
housing
in
our
neighborhood
nodes,
to
promote
additional
housing
and
to
promote
additional
development
in
those
locations,
how
we
actually
employ
really
clear
anti-displacement
policies,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
using
that
to
kind
of
govern
the
decisions
that
we
make
as
we
move
through
that
planning
process.
So
that
doesn't
answer
the
question
of
the
tax
specifically.
But
it.
L
It
provides
some
insight,
but
I'm
I'm,
going
to
ask
us
right
to
really
hold
ourselves
accountable
to
something
right,
because
if
we
don't,
then
we're
going
to
keep
doing
business
as
usual
and
that's
just
what
it
is
and
I
just
think
that
if
we're
really
going
to
meet
the
moment,
then
we
have
to
hold
ourselves
accountable
to
something
that
is
tangible
right.
So
I
would
love
to
know
Chief
Dylan
if
you
happen
to
know
how
many
people
in
the
city
of
Boston
in
the
last
in
your
time
here.
J
J
But
what
we
do
have
and
I
will
be-
you
know,
be
I'll,
be
very
happy
to
get
this
to
you.
We
do
have
data
showing
and
I'm
sure
you've
seen
the
globe
cover
it
too
and
I
think
it's
been
good
coverage
with
that.
We
have.
You
know
that
certain
certain
groups
of
people,
certain
race,
races,
have
left
Boston
and
we
have
lower
percentages
and
I.
Think
that
is
an
indication
of
gentrification
and
displacement.
J
L
I-
and
these
are
parents
that
I
organized
with
you
know,
eight
or
nine
years
ago,
around
education
issues,
and
now
those
parents
have
moved
to
Brockton
and
now
they're,
organizing
in
Brockton,
so
yeah
I
just
think
it's
something
for
us
to
really
be
mindful
of
that.
There
is
a
migration
pattern
happening
here
and
I
think
that
we
are
in
some
ways
responsible
for
that,
because
we
have
not
to
my
colleagues
Point
here.
J
Can
I
just
offer
two
things
and
it's
you
know?
No,
as
you
said,
no,
no.
No
response
is
perfect,
but
in
all
of
our
income
restricted
housing,
we
do
give
preference,
and
so
is
a
BHA
for
Boston
residents
and
I.
Think
that
I
think
that's
really
important.
We
have
a
lot
of
families
coming
from
all
over
the
region
that
want
to
live
here.
We
have
the
most
affordable
housing
we're
building
the
most,
but
we
do
always
give
priority
to
Boston
residents
and
we've
been
very
intentional.
F
J
L
Yeah
I
have
one
more
one
more
question
and
then
that's
it.
I
promise
promise
absolutely
Professor
Baker
I
I'm
wearing
that
necklace.
Again.
Okay,
I
am
curious.
It's
around
the
vouchers
and
you
know
I,
wouldn't
want
to
like
lean
a
little
bit
more
into
the
incomes.
For
example,
60
of
Ami
is
89
for
a
family
of
four
I.
That's
kind
of
in
a
two
bedroom
apartment
at
60.
Ami
is
like
1400.
if
developed,
and
if
a
developer
includes
units
at
Ami.
L
Could
the
city
ask
them
to
apply
to
the
city
vouchers
to
make
that
unit
affordable
to
a
family,
making
30
or
40
000
a
year,
because
I
think
at
some
point
like
we
have
to
figure
out
how
we
get
to
where
we
need
to
be,
and
everyone
has
to
put
in
their
part
to
get
us
there.
So
is
there
a
world
in
which
the
city
can
ask
the
developer
to
apply
to
the
city?
Well,
just
to
make
that
unit
more
affordable
is
there?
Is
there
a
way
for
that.
J
L
J
J
A
Okay
and
I'm
just
going
to
do
a
couple,
quick
comments
and
you
guys
can
go
and
I'll
do
the
public
testimony
so
across
the
material
has
gone
up.
Interest
rates
have
doubled,
IDP
we're
talking
about
here,
looking
at
potentially
doubling
with
the
10
units
coming
down,
which
would
be
my
big
problem
with
this
going
down
to
seven
units
I
think
if
we're
increasing
the
percentages,
but
we
kept
it
at
10
units
I
would
feel
much
more
comfortable
about
it.
A
So
that's
nearly
doubled
linkage
linkage
went
from
linkage,
went
from
100
000
square
feet
to
50
000
square
feet
went
from
1539
to
2309,
that's
another
another,
doubling
mitigation,
we
don't
know
transfer
tax,
rent
control,
commercial
vacancies,
it's
all
going
up.
Is
this
the
time
to
to
to
to
pile
on?
Maybe
what
I
say
and
I
think
the
people
that
get
hurt
here
and
that
small
developer?
A
The
units
that
in
the
idps
can
can
we
not
do
a
lottery
on
those?
Can
the
developer
or
someone
say
yes,
I
have
a
family,
that's
in
need!
That's
on
Savin
Hill
lab
that
would
love
to
get
into
this.
I
mean
that's
how
we
fill
the
units
quicker.
That's
how
we
make
the
people
that
are
actually
building
these
feel
feel
better
about
where
their
money
is.
It
isn't
the
city
coming
in,
saying:
hey
you
go
you
gotta,
you
gotta
put
this
person
in
here,
I
mean
in
the
restaurant
industry.
A
Do
we
tell
you
know
you
need
to
use
Maine
potatoes,
only
main
potatoes,
otherwise
we're
not
gonna
give
you
anything
it.
It
seems
kind
of
a
little
different
to
me
that
this
this
industry
is
one
now
here
it
is
I
just
went
through
the
list
of
everything
that's
going
to
be,
or
already
happening
to
them,
transfer
attacks
being
the
latest
one.
A
What
is
what
is
the
incentive
for
the
for
that
small
developer,
where
they're
all
on
their
horses
and
they're
getting
out
of
here
now
I
can
tell
you
that
right
now,
what's
the
incentive
to
keep
those
people
here,
let
them
rent
their
own
units,
their
IDP
units,
if
there's
for
them,
because
I've
heard
stories
of
the
IDP
units
laying
vacant
for
two
plus
three
years,
you
say:
that's
not
happening
now.
I
hope
it's
not
happening.
A
So
why
can't
that
person
just
identify
someone
that
that
checks
all
the
boxes,
the
right
income,
the
right,
the
right
Ami,
all
that?
Why
couldn't
we
do
that?
You
don't
need
to
answer
that,
but
we
should
be
looking
at
how
we
do
that.
We
should
be
looking
at
direct
designation
and
we
should
also
be
looking
at
talk
about
give
something
to
the
to
this.
This
business
that
makes
us
roll.
A
It
still
takes
four
or
five
years
to
get
projects
done.
Block
was
eight
years
400
units
eight
years
before
they
put
a
shovel
on
the
ground.
From
the
time
we
had
the
first
meeting
till
you
want
to
talk
about
cutting
costs,
cut
that
carrying
cost
from
eight
years
to
three
years.
So
those
are
my
comments.
I'm
gonna,
I'm,
gonna,
let
and
know
what
he
needs
to
answer
any
of
that
I'll
I'll
harass
you
all.
In
my
own
time,
I'm
gonna
go
to
public
testimony
now.
Brian
looks
like
my
coffee.
A
A
A
S
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I,
wasn't
I
did
not
realize
we're
doing
the
zoom
testimony
right
now,
Okay
cool,
so
my
name
is
Armani
white
happy
to
be
here
today
as
a
member
of
the
Coalition
for
truly
affordable
housing
and
we're,
you
know,
really
excited
and
full
of
admiration
for
this
change.
That's
coming
and
we've
been
a
major
part
of
making
it
happen.
These
changes
to
the
inclusionary
development
policy
and
yeah
we're
really
excited
to
see
it
Incorporated
into
the
zoning
code.
S
It
marks
like
a
really
significant
Milestone,
demonstrating
a
commitment
from
the
administration
to
see
you
know.
Affordable
housing
be
created,
and
so
we
feel
like
the
Amendments
being
proposed
are
necessary
and
essential,
and
they,
you
know,
reflect
deep
understanding
of
the
issues.
The
decision
to
lower
the
compliance
you
know
from
ten
to
seven,
that's
a
good
thing,
and
you
know
we
agree
that
we
got
to
make
sure
that
the
Bad
actors
don't
get
around
that
still,
and
you
know
the
goal
to
increase
from
13
to
20.
S
S
You
know
making
sure
that
we,
you
know,
are
also
doing
more
to
to
ensure
that
the
the
marketing
and
the
Tenant
selection
plans
are
better
and
that
there's
improved
Outreach
and
the
streamlined
application
process
and
increase
transparency.
All
these
things
are
really
good
and
things
that
we,
as
a
coalition,
have
been
advocating
for
so
really
really
good
to
see
it
happening,
and
we
want
to
continue
to
to.
You
know,
work
as
advocates.
S
You
know,
we've
heard
Council
has
mention
The
Advocates,
The
Advocates,
you
know,
you
know
the
Coalition
for
truly
affordable.
Boston
is
the
Coalition
that
has
been
working
with
the
you
know,
House
of
counselors
and
with
the
administration
to
make
sure
that
we
have
the
strongest
policy
to
make
sure
you
know
Boston's,
truly
affordable,
and
so
with
that
being
said,
you
know.
S
But
with
that
you
know,
although
those
things
are
things
we
hope
to
see
in
the
future,
we're
excited
to
see
what's
happening
right
now,
and
you
know
it
was
really
good
discussion
today
from
folks
from
counselors
who,
you
know,
see
the
need
for
more
affordable
housing
in
our
city
and
are
concerned
about
the
well-being
of
our
most
vulnerable
people
and
so
yeah.
We
advocate
for
the
continuous
Evolution
and
enhancement
of
this
policy
and
then
are
proud
to
just
be
partners
and
want
to
continue
to
work
on
it.
S
A
Q
Hi
I
just
want
to
thank
everybody
for
being
here
and
listening
all
right.
I
want
to
I
want
to
encourage
the
counselors
to
vote.
You
know
pass
vote
on
the
mayor's
proposal,
but
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
is
as
strong
where
it
needs
to
be,
and
I
wanted
to.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
people
understand
that
if
developers
use
City
vouchers,
it
doesn't
cost
them
more
to
build
or
more
to
do
anything.
Q
Then
I
think
we
can
appreciate
that
if
they
have
to
be
subsidized
at
that
level,
then
they
have
to
be
subsidized
truly
at
30,
because
there's
no
way
there's
no
way
that
those
people
who
can
afford
to
be
here.
Boston
is
the
fifth
most
expensive
city
in
the
United
States
right
now.
So
it's
not
one
of
the
least
expensive.
It's
the
fifth
most
expensive
city
in
the
United
States
in
Massachusetts
is
the
third
most
expensive
state
in
the
United
States
and
we're
not
advocating
for
just
you
know,
put
your
buildings.
Q
Q
Don't
think
that
that
I
think
that
we
need
to
make
a
stronger,
a
stronger
proposal,
I
think
it
needs
to
focus
on
people
so
that
we
are
here
being
able
to
be
here
to
have
opportunities
for
our
kids
or
for
ourselves
or
to
be
able
to
take
advantage.
If
you
can't
afford
to
live
here,
then
you
you
can't
afford
to
work
here,
because
now
you
have
to
travel,
you
can't
afford
to
take
advantage
of
opportunities
that
are
in
the
city
of
Boston.
Q
You
can't
afford
schooling,
you
can't
afford
all
of
those
things
the
that
is
a
a
weight
that
is
a
weight
on
people
that
they
live
with
every
day
every
day.
Just
all
the
stresses
that
we
have
to
live
through
every
day.
That
I,
don't
think
a
lot
of
you
understand
so
making
sure
that
we
have
the
least
things
for
people
which
is
housing.
Housing
is
very
important,
so
I
just
want
to
finish
there.
Thank
you
for
letting
me
speak.
R
So
the
the
changes
are
a
good
first
step
and
we
I
as
a
coalition,
hope
that
those
changes
pass
and,
at
the
same
time,
we
think
there
could
be
more
that
the
city
is
doing
parallel
to
the
changes.
One
is
in
terms
of
lowering
Amis
as
markisha
just
said:
City
vouchers,
don't
cost
developers
money,
we
think
probably
developers
according
to
our
the
consultant.
We
who
did
analysis
for
us
that
developers
could
go
down
to
40
Ami
and
it
wouldn't
cost
them
that
much
and
would
still
be
feasible.
R
But
even
if
you
didn't
want
to
touch
the
developers
money,
if
they
apply
for
City
vouchers,
it
would
bring
the
rents
down
for
for
the
families
most
in
need
and
just
to
respond
to
cheap
Dylan.
You
pointed
out
that
three
percent
is
set
aside
for
section
for
voucher
holders,
but
those
have
to
be
folks
who
already
have
vouchers
and
the
waiting
list
for
vouchers
are
very
long.
R
He
also
pointed
out
that
at
a
50,
Ami
average
that
you
would
have
some
40s
and
some
50s
and
some
60s
but
you're
not
reaching
the
people
who
would
make
30
Ami
50
Ami
is
74
000
for
a
family
of
four.
So
really
we
need
to
the
city
to
push
developers
and,
for
example,
include
Dutch
distribute
city
which
I
Know
Chief
Jemison
talked
about
to
apply
for
more
vouchers.
R
To
get
more
than
just
three
percent
at
those
lower
Amis,
and
thank
you
to
counselors
Fernandez,
Anderson
and
Mejia
for
asking
a
lot
of
questions
around
vouchers
or
how
to
bring
the
rents
down
and
then
in
terms
of
phasing
into
at
least
25
percent.
We
originally
wanted
33,
but
you
know
at
a
minimum.
25
percent
no
counselor
Braden
talked
about
developers.
Flipping
properties
for
tens
of
millions
of
dollars.
Counselor
colettes
at
20
should
be
a
minimum
developers
are
doing
more
Consular.
Regen
talked
really
pointed
out.
R
Some
really
important
information
about
how
if
you
set
a
higher
goal,
it'll
help
mitigate
the
Rises
and
land
values.
So
we
we
think
that
the
developers
could
actually
do
25
now,
but
at
a
minimum
again
being
able
to
phase
it
in
over
time
and
chief
Dylan
had
ridden
us
that
rkg
has
shared
with
the
technical
advisory
committee
I'm,
just
quoting
an
email
she
sent.
Setting
incremental
changes
over
time
is
the
most
productive
way
to
increase
affordability
while
minimizing
the
shocks
in
the
marketplace.
R
Such
changes
would
be
incremental,
such
as
one
percent
increase
per
year.
You
know
so
both
rkg
and
the
consultant
that
Rick
Jacobus,
that
did
an
alternative
analysis.
Both
thought
you
could
increase
over
time
so
encouraging
both
to
pass
this
zoning
change,
but
for
the
city
to
keep
pushing
developers
and
in
upcoming
projects
when
using
City
vouchers
and
to
set
a
goal
for
at
least
25
and
phasing
that
in
overtime.
Thank
you
thank.
A
As
a
chair
of
the
committee
of
Planning,
Development
and
transportation,
I
will
be
reporting
favorably
on
this
matter
at
the
next
scheduled
session
of
the
Boston
city
council,
which
is
tomorrow,
Wednesday,
September,
27th
and
I.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
coming
out.
Thank
you
for
people
for
the
public
testimony
and
we
had
good
participation
from
the
city
council
today
and
I
thought
it
was
a
good
discussion.
Thank
you.
Everybody.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.