Affordable Housing
Transition Policy Committee Summary of Findings
Committee Members
Ben Baldwin, Bonnie Bastian, Shannon Bennett, Fred Berman, Drew Colbert, Diane Cohen, Beatriz Gomez-Mouakad, David Gibbs, Daniel Jacobson, Todd Kaplan, Cory Mian, Adam Portney, Gonzalo Puigbo, Councilor Kristen Strezo, Joyce Tavon, Samantha Wolf
Key themes and trends:
Note: The 2025 Findings and Recommendations of the Residential Displacement Committee of the City of Somerville Anti-Displacement Task Force (ADTF) provides a comprehensive (but year-old) review of the initiatives in place in Somerville that this subcommittee recommends being maintained and, if feasible, strengthened, as well as efforts to enact and implement laws and programs that would enhance the housing stability of the City’s diverse renter households. Where relevant in the following discussion, that document is cited for useful context. Contact OHS Director Ellen Shachter (eshachter@somervillema.gov, 617-417-7498) for up-to-date program specifics.
Probably the most significant actions the City can take with regard to home ownership is ensuring that residents are adequately informed about resources currently available to support and sustain homeownership.
Potential Development Modalities: Housing development, and in particular, affordable housing development can come in a variety of modalities. Different kinds of property owners and developers are inclined to take on different types of projects. The City must be flexible enough to support the different types of development that are appropriate to different types of sites and conditions, while at the same time, exercising leadership regarding the types of projects and project attributes we want to encourage.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – The new State law basically allows property owners a lot of flexibility as long as they are generally compliant with basic requirements.
Recommendation for City Action: Make sure that residents understand the State law.
Acquisition and deed-restriction to preserve existing NOAH/BMR small properties – This was the model used to implement the 100 Homes effort.
This model will not work in an upzoning environment, because properties will have a higher asking price if they are smaller than the upzoning allows.
This model works best when the property is mostly habitable as-is; if significant repairs or updating is needed, or if ongoing maintenance is likely to require extensive effort, it could be difficult to recoup those costs via rent in a deed-restricted unit, especially if property is more deeply affordable than 80% AMI
City Role: (1) Make available Early Acquisition fund for downpayment and to write down the loan principal. For a triple decker with three 2BR apartments, expect to pay $1.15-$1.35 million or more (if lucky…), so need upwards of $400,000-$600,000 (and more to deepen affordability beyond 80% AMI) downpayment + principal write-down to get monthly cost with insurance, taxes, management / maintenance reserve down to 3 x 80% AMI rent.
Acquisition and redevelopment of small property or 2-3 adjoining properties (presumably pursuant to upzoning) –
The bigger the parcel on which the property/properties sit, the more units can be created, and the better the payback.
What’s the right mix of IZ units vs. deed-restricted units (depth of affordability, # of bedrooms) to compensate for demolition of pre-existing units?
City Role: (1) administrative role only: ensure proper notice to tenants, relocation assistance, right of return, develop AHIP.
Acquisition of vacant land or land that can be cleared; then development of primarily affordable housing
We’re probably talking about 4-8 story apartment buildings, because developers probably can’t generate enough tax credits or other subsidy funding to building anything much larger
City Role: (1) work with developer to devise AHIP; (2) make AHTF funds available to cover acquisition costs and to leverage tax credits and other subsidy sources; (3) work with developer to clarify other obligations vis-à-vis greenspace / landscaping, infrastructure, mobility-related provisions, if any
Acquisition of vacant land or land that can be cleared; then development of market rate housing with IZ units.
City Role: (1) work with developer to devise AHIP governing inclusionary units; (2) work with developer to clarify other obligations vis-à-vis greenspace / landscaping, infrastructure, mobility-related provisions, if any
To accommodate the demand for housing, in particular, affordable housing, we need to densify our neighborhoods, where possible. Upzoning is a strategy for encouraging denser development in neighborhoods where housing has primarily been limited to single family, duplex, or triple-decker structures. Upzoning encourages demolition of less dense structures and replacement with taller, bigger structures that increase the number of units per parcel. Displacement of the households that rented the apartments demolished to make room for the new denser housing is an unavoidable concomitant of the upzoning-related redevelopment effort.
If we intend to upzone a neighborhood and trigger displacement to achieve denser development, we should do it in a controlled way so:
(a) the redeveloped properties provide the community with an adequate benefit - more units of housing in a range of sizes (i.e., number of bedrooms), and including deed-restricted affordable units - counterbalancing the adverse impacts of the displacement;
(b) the impact of tenant displacement is mitigated to the extent possible, that is, the households being displaced get reasonable time, logistical support, and the financial help they need to find and transition to suitable alternate housing;
(c) the displaced households have a right of return, that is, priority and a reasonable opportunity to return to a comparably (or appropriately) sized unit on the site of their prior apartment or in similarly redeveloped housing reasonably close to that neighborhood, with preference for a deed-restricted unit based on income eligibility; and
(d) given that the older rental housing from which they were displaced was likely less costly than newer rental housing that was built in its place, make sure the redeveloped property contains a meaningful number of deed-restricted affordable apartments, at least proportional to the number of apartments that were demolished, but no fewer than the number of deed-restricted affordable units that would be provided under the inclusionary requirement, so that households displaced from the community can afford to return to it. We may also want to ensure that there is a reasonable match between the mix and types of housing that is developed (1BR, 2BR, 3BRs, etc.) and the types of apartments that were demolished.
Importantly, rather than upzoning by amending the underlying NR and UR zoning districts, any such upzoning should be accomplished via an Overlay District, which:
Allows for inclusion of the above-listed obligations, which are typically part of zoning: (a) sufficient notice and relocation help for displaced tenants; (b) development of deed-restricted units; and (c) provision of a right of return, that is, priority for tenanting a comparably- (or appropriately-) sized apartment developed on the site of the tenant’s former building, or a comparable or otherwise appropriate apartment in a property similarly redeveloped pursuant to the Upzoning Overlay District requirements.
Allows upzoning to expand incrementally, particularly in areas where there is more support and less opposition.
To what extent and how should the City guide development, as opposed to largely responding to developer interest and initiative? What kind of housing is there an appetite for? Do we need more 1BR and studios for people who want to live alone, or do we need more 2BR and 3BR units for people who want housing that has space for roommates or family?
On the one hand, developers complain that the process of applying for permits is too protracted and has too many delays, adding to the cost of development. On the other hand, the ZBA hearing process is dominated – I daresay monopolized - by the presentation team (owner / developer / lawyer) which can easily consume 30 minutes or even longer presenting narrative information, diagrams, etc., By comparison, abutters have two minutes to present their questions and concerns, without any assurance that they will get answers or any response at all. Although the developer/owner/lawyer team can present charts, graphs, diagrams, and reems of paper, abutters are not allowed to provide exhibits that present an alternative perspective. Nor is there any assurance that the abutters and the party sponsoring the development will be encouraged to work out their disagreement; there may just be a winner and a loser.
Finally, notification about hearings pertaining to zoning and proposed projects only go to abutting owners; abutting or interested tenants are not seen by the zoning as enfranchised parties.
To what extent can City officials solicit proposals for the kind of development their planning teams have indicated is needed? For example, advocates for development of new units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless persons would like to see the City announce such a solicitation; how could such an announcement come about?
Existing initiatives:
1.01 Maintain, or as the Budget allows, expand assistance furnished by the Office of Housing Stability (OHS) and the non-profit partners with which OHS and the Affordable Housing Trust contract:
Individualized language-appropriate assistance for tenants facing the risk of displacement, emergency assistance to family households facing imminent unsheltered homelessness.
Administration of various pools of rental assistance including municipally funded flexible rental assistance funds, that fill gaps which other funding sources cannot address.
Legal services, especially full representation in court or in negotiations with an owner or management company seeking to evict a tenant, and legal representation at an administrative hearing
Individualized and workshopped housing search services,
Tenant outreach, education, and organizing support to assist groups of tenants at risk of displacement due to building sale, building renovation, condo conversion, a disproportionate rent increase, or other owner effort to encourage or force emptying of their building.
Implementation of the Municipal Voucher Program
Individualized and workshop assistance to tenants and property owners
1.02 Continue to support the work of the Condominium Review Board, in particular, ensuring that tenants facing displacement due to condo conversion are accorded the rights guaranteed to them in Ordinance 2019-06, as amended by Ordinance 2025-18 on 8-28-2025, including the rights to (a) an appropriate notice period; (b) protection during the notice period against rent increases in excess of what is allowed by the Ordinance; (c) appropriate levels of assistance with relocation; and (d) purchase their unit at fair market value in as-is condition, pursuant to a timely and viable offer.
3.01 City Programs and Other Resources for Condo and Homebuyers and Homeowners
Sources of Property Tax Relief for Somerville Owner-Occupants (as extensively listed on the Assessor website): If not already done, insert 2-page flyer summarizing available exemptions, deferrals, and other property tax relief options with first quarter bill, annual property tax update mailer with third quarter bill, and Instructions and Application for the owner occupant residential exemption with the first and third quarter bills.
Information about Homebuying Assistance: promote awareness of closing cost and downpayment assistance programs (see the bottom of Inclusionary Housing Page)
First-Time Homebuyer Education: promote awareness of Somerville Community Corp. first time homebuyer class and financial literacy programs & free financial counseling, as well as other sources of first time homebuyer classes
Promote awareness of Somerville’s Homeownership Stabilization Program providing loans to help first time homebuyers facing unexpected and significant increases in housing costs.
Promote awareness of the City of Somerville Home Improvement Program (HIP), which provides loans to owner-occupied or investor-owned buildings in Somerville with income-qualifying tenants to assist with addressing building code violations, health and safety-related problems (including addressing lead paint hazards), heating system replacement, work to support aging in place, etc.
Promote awareness of Foreclosure Prevention resources including
HOPE Hotline: 1-888-995-HOPE or www.995hope.org
Homeowners Rehab, Inc: 617-868-4858 or www.homeownersrehab.org
Legal Help Line for Seniors: 800-342-5297 or www.mass.gov/legal-help-for-elders
Ensuring Stability Through Action in our Community: 617-524-4820 or www.esacboston.org
Cambridge Neighborhood Apartment Housing Services, Inc: 617-491-1545 or www.homeownersrehab.org/cnahs
Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA): 617-250-6222 or www.naca.com
At present, upzoning has not been initiated in Somerville. The recent upzoning in Cambridge did not include displacement protections, a requirement for extra deed-restricted units, or a right of return, and online postings and public comments in the local paper are raising concerns about displacement and properties for sale to developers who want to make big money building luxury accommodations. That isn’t the outcome we want to see in Somerville.
Gaps:
1.03 Participate in and support advocacy for the following state legislative and budget initiatives:
Passage of Somerville’s Home Rule Petition (initially S. 22) to establish rent control in the City (See p. 7, et seq. of the ADTF) and support for voter passage of a statewide ballot referendum creating a statewide rent control program.
State Legislative passage and enactment of Transfer Fee legislation, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) legislation, and Just Cause Eviction legislation (paralleling just cause eviction language in S.22).
State legislative funding for expansion of the Right to Counsel Pilot Program for Tenants Facing Eviction
State legislative funding for rent, case management, and supportive services for permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless persons, in the event that federal funding ordinarily available for those purposes is withheld.
State legislative funding to maintain, and as funds allow, expand the Bridge Housing Program for Older Adults, a City of Somerville pilot program helping older adults remain housed while they wait for their applications for public or subsidized housing to result in placement in a sustainable apartment.
1.04 Draft a local ordinance requiring owners to provide early notice to tenants of their intention to sell, renovate, or demolish the building (or particular units therein) such that affected tenants are likely to face non-renewal of their lease or of their at-will tenancy, as the case may be.
1.05 Assess the adequacy of policies and resources relative to assisting tenants of deed-restricted housing in annually documenting their eligibility to remain in that housing, and as needed, support the development of additional policies and/or resources ensuring the availability of such assistance for tenants unable to manage that process.
1.06 Support efforts to strengthen the partnership between the Office of Housing Stability (OHS) and the Inspectional Services Division (ISD) to ensure appropriate enforcement of City Ordinances and State Laws protecting tenants.
Ensure that pursuant to the Housing Stability Notification Act, policies and procedures and staff resources are in place to ensure that building owners or their designees provide appropriate, timely information to tenants regarding rights and resources at the start of a tenancy (see HSNA-2022) and on issuing of a Notice to Quit (see HSNA- 2019).
Ensure that policies, procedures, and appropriate and adequately trained ISD staff are available to timely respond to tenant complaints about unsafe or unhealthy housing conditions,
Ensure that apartments are not illegally removed from the rental housing stock for use as short-term rentals, by proactively enforcing the City’s Short Term Rental (STR) ordinance
Ensure that pursuant to 105 CMR, § 410.900 (E), when a residence or portion thereof has been condemned and placarded as unfit for human habitation and the occupant of the condemned dwelling unit or rooming unit is not the owner of the residence, the owner shall provide comparable, suitable housing for the occupant until the soonest of: (1) the end of the lease term or rental period; (2) the unit is deemed suitable for habitation by the board of health; (3) the occupant finds alternate permanent housing and voluntarily terminates tenancy.
1.07 Broaden efforts to enhance diverse Somerville tenants’ knowledge and understanding: (a) about their rights as tenants, (b)about deed-restricted affordable housing options available in Somerville and beyond, (c) about relevant public benefits and local programs and resources, and (d) about sources of employment assistance, job coaching, career development, and workshops to enhance financial and digital literacy.
3.02 Programs to Assist Elderly Homeowners in Maintaining Their Property
Financing: Promote awareness of MA Home Modification Loan Program & MA Housing Home Improvement Loan Program
Hands-On Help: Consider developing a program that might partner with SCES or the Council on Aging to help homeowners who, because of age or disability and insufficient income, cannot manage needed home repairs or routine maintenance. For information about how it might work consider the Central Mass. Housing Authority’s Elder Home Repair Program & Elder Home Maintenance Programs: https://www.cmhaonline.org/ehrm or 508-752-5519
How is the Inclusionary Zoning program working? Are changes needed?
The City needs additional affordable housing for households earning at or below 50% of AMI, many of whom cannot access IZ units. Survey participants asked whether it was possible to shift funding from middle-income housing to housing serving the most challenged population (earning at or below 50% AMI, or even 30% AMI.
The City should increase the availability of subsidized and IZ units targeting households earning at or below 50% of the AMI, as this group faces the most dire housing challenges. Expanding the Inclusionary Zoning program requirements to generate more IZ units was also mentioned.
The recent Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) and Financial Feasibility Analysis (FFA) raised a number of concerns about potential problems with the way compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning requirement is defined, and suggested some alternative approaches; some of the issues raised are discussed below:
One issue that the HNA/FFA did not address is the threat to the Inclusionary Zoning program posed by the Pioneer Institute lawsuit against Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Would the IZ provisions be “safer” from legal challenge if they were embedded in an Overlay District, for example, trading off the reward of denser development with the obligation to provide affordable units?
The HNA/FFA identified concerns about the difficulty in finding tenants to lease 110% AMI IZ rental units (since tenants with a qualifying income can afford to lease in the private market without having to annually income qualify), which developers on the Transition Team suggested could be remedied by better, broader-based marketing. However, Somerville’s IZ program is restricted to serving only City residents. Alternately, if the 110% AMI units were 2 or 3BR units that could be marketed to voucher-holding families on the waitlist, that might address the problem: the higher development cost of these units would be reliably compensated by voucher-assisted rents, and the difficulty finding local tenants for the units would be eased. If we still cannot find Somerville tenants for the 110% AMI IZ units, we should probably drop 110% AMI units from the IZ program, keeping the same sequence without 110% AMI units:
Fractional Buyouts Under this Scenario: For a property with 24 units, create 4 IZ units and make a 40% payment for a 50% AMI unit. For a property with 49 units, create 7 IZ units and make a 90% payment for an 80% AMI unit.
Locale-Specific IZ Rates: In its Financial Feasibility Analysis, RKG suggested considering lowering the IZ rate below 20% in more expensive parts of the City (i.e., where land costs are higher) to encourage development in those areas.
Fee-in-lieu Recommendation: Developers on the Transition Team stated that the City’s fee-in-lieu (FIL) option to make payments to the Affordable Housing Trust in lieu of creating an on-site IZ unit is currently too expensive. In fact, making in lieu payments an unattractive alternative to creating an IZ unit was intentional, because deed-restricted units are so valuable. Although developers can avoid fractional payments by “rounding up” and creating an additional deed-restricted unit, another option would be to allow fractional payments to be paid on an installment basis, perhaps over a 5-year period, with annual adjustments for inflation, so as not to overwhelm the developer with the all-at-once cost. Fractional payments from different projects could be aggregated and used to deepen the affordability of (unoccupied or newly developed) deed restricted units, a strategy that is consistent with the FAF’s advice that Fee-in-Lieu and fractional payments be “reinvested in ways that meaningfully advance the City’s affordability objectives.”
Basing Inclusionary Requirements on Rentable Square Feet (RSF) vs. Number of Units Produced: As noted in the FFA, the Inclusionary Zoning rules require that at least 20% of IZ units in properties with 30 or more units must be 3BR apartments. Because 3BR units are larger than most of the other apartments, this means that in properties with 30 or more units, the inclusion of 3BR IZ units is likely to mean that IZ units take up more than 20% of the overall RSF, thereby reducing the property’s income-generating potential. (A large number of smaller apartments is more lucrative than a small number of larger apartments.) To avoid this loss of revenue, developers on the Transition Team proposed defining the 20% inclusionary requirement in terms of RSF, rather than in terms of the number of IZ units. As long as the mix of subsidy levels remains as currently prescribed (or drops the 110% AMI units, as described above, or even better, adds units targeted for lower income households), and as long as the IZ units include a mix of apartment sizes (studio, 1BR, 2BR, 3BR) in more or less comparable proportions to the overall mix of units in the property, basing the IZ requirement on 20% of RSF instead of 20% of the total number of units wouldn’t substantially change the number of deed restricted units.
Temporary Inclusionary Relief, Project-Specific Property Tax Relief, and Other Measures Designed to Spark Progress in Stalled Development Projects: The FFA and developers on this Transition Team suggested that projects stalled due to expenses exceeding expectations (e.g., due to higher borrowing costs, higher material or labor costs, etc.) could benefit from property tax relief or implementation of a phased-in approach to affordability, that is, a delay in the effective date of the discounted rent levels promised for IZ units. However, without clear guidelines governing the parameters for negotiating such relief, that is, the basis for and extent and terms of financial or other relief, such individual arrangements could easily raise concerns about unequal treatment, and set a problematic precedent. That said, affordable housing projects are free to return to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust and argue their case for more help.
The Challenge of Competing Priorities: Developers creating affordable housing in Somerville face expectations from different sectors of the community regarding use of union labor and paying prevailing wages, helping fund infrastructure improvements, providing ground floor retail, creating greenspace, providing bike racks, maximizing the energy efficiency of their buildings, and addressing other environmental concerns to improve the project’s “Green Score.” All of these aspects can increase development costs. Perhaps most contentious has been the topic of requiring prevailing wages or a project labor agreement. Different studies have variously calculated the added cost of paying prevailing (union) wages as 6% (Hinkel & Belman, 2022), 23% (NYC Independent Budget Office, 2016), 32% (Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2024), or higher. The more diverse the projects included in these studies, the harder it is to isolate the impact of labor costs (as opposed to impacts related to regional differences in labor, land, and material costs; the cost of wood vs. steel construction and the related differences in costs of building higher vs. constructing the same number and types of units in buildings with fewer stories and a bigger footprint; the costs of underground parking, elevators, etc.). A Boston metro area project cited by a developer on this Transition Team estimated the added cost of prevailing wages at between 30% and 44%, which developers on the Team warned would result in creation of fewer units, given project financing challenges.
Although EOHLC has delayed issuing revised development cost limits governing eligibility for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) in hopes that the current cost environment will stabilize, they warn that “sponsors of extremely high-cost projects should anticipate that HLC is likely to deny their applications in favor of less expensive projects that are able to meet design criteria as well as other evaluation criteria.” (p.29-30 of 2025-26 Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP)) To the extent that the cost of union labor or costs linked to the other “priorities” listed in the paragraph above push development costs too high, they could put Somerville projects at a disadvantage in competing for LIHTC credits, which are essential to creating housing affordable to households with income below 50% or 60% AMI. The 2022-23 metro Boston cost ceiling – which, as noted above, was unchanged in the 2025-26 QAP – was $379,000 for small units and $399,000 for large units. Staying under that cap is harder for an LIHTC-assisted family housing project -- in which at least 65% of the units must have two or more bedrooms, and at least 10% of units must have three-bedrooms – than for a senior housing project or other project that primarily consists of studios and 1BR units, because the overall development cost can be apportioned among the larger number of small units occupying the same-size building envelope as the family housing project.
As noted above, affordable housing development has been bedeviled by tension between advocates for prevailing wages and advocates for keeping project labor costs as low as possible. One strategy nationally that has helped integrate the goals of supporting union wages and creating affordable housing has been investing pension funds in affordable housing development (see Quinnell, 6/14/2023 and p. 1012, et seq. of Blasi & Tucker, 2025 on union pension fund investment, and see Manware & West, 2024 and Crawford, Kivell & Recto, 2024 on investment by other types of pension funds and other instruments). Perhaps future LIHTC eligibility rules can bridge these two competing societal priorities by allowing access to LIHTC tax credits by projects with higher union construction costs that can document commitment of other sources of funding, like low or zero cost pension fund investments, that offset those higher costs, so that the impact of the LIHTC credits is undiminished by the higher costs, and those tax credits can have the targeted effect on unit affordability.
Remove Unnecessary and Counterproductive Delays in the Zoning Review and Permitting Process:
Per feedback from developer interviews, there is consensus that the City’s policies and procedures unduly extend the development timeframe increasing costs and frustrating the developers with unanticipated delays. The HNA/FFA also identified unnecessarily protracted review process as a problem, and made the following recommendations:
Streamline Processes: Limit pre-submittal meetings; simplify smaller development project reviews
Scheduling: Expand staff capacity, enable virtual/concurrent sessions
Public Meetings: Standardize staff-led neighborhood meetings; reduce councilor dependence
Documentation: Eliminate dual note-taking; use summary templates to reduce workload
Design Review: Fewer design options; better align committee input & Board expectations, build capacity to review and make recommendations pertaining to prefabricated/modular construction utilizing Mass Timber
Coordination: Interdepartmental conflict-resolution to improve consistency, reduce confusion; clearer Planning Board guidance on common discretionary changes
Inspections: Adopt risk-based or sampling models to enhance compliance and process efficiency
IZ Leasing: Streamline and expedite approvals
Caution: Once a property’s value has been increased via upzoning, we can’t undo it and restore the property’s lower value; and once a property has been sold at a price that reflects its greater value, we can’t tell the buyer that we won’t allow the property to be developed to its new potential. If we are going to create guardrails to protect against massive displacement, requiring relocation assistance, and providing displaced tenants with a right of return, and if we are goiing to require property owners to replace a percentage of the demolished units with deed-restricted units, we must codify those guardrails in the zoning before we enact the upzoning changes.
Challenges:
Once a property’s value has been increased due to its new, higher development potential, we can’t undo it and restore the property’s lower value; and once a property has been sold at a price that reflects its greater value, we can’t retroactively add constraints that decrease the value of the property by limiting the type of development allowed or adding new requirements.
If we are going to create guardrails to protect against massive displacement, we have to codify those guardrails in the zoning before we enact the upzoning changes. Of course, with the high demand for new housing, money to be made, and property to be redeveloped, there will be pressure on the Administration and the City Council to “get it done” as quickly as possible.
Opportunities:
The new Administration and City Council have an opportunity to learn from the experience of other communities and implement upzoning in a way that preserves as much of the fabric of the community as possible, even if the new physical landscape has a higher profile than the landscape that preceded the upzoning. As noted earlier, one of the best ways to implement upzoning in a controlled manner is to frame the rules in an Overlay District. That way, we can start the process in neighborhoods that are generally supportive of the idea, and avoid neighborhoods where the resistance will be more substantial. And we can learn how conditions –infrastructure, geology, water table, etc. – might impact, and so, inform where and how we upzone.
Recommendations for action:
Short term recommendations:
Short term recommendations: easy early implementation (low hanging fruit)
Maintain, or as the Budget allows, expand assistance furnished by the Office of Housing Stability (OHS) and the non-profit partners with which OHS and the Affordable Housing Trust contract
Maintain and support the work of the Condo Review Board, in particular, the work ensuring that tenants facing displacement due to condominium conversion are accorded the rights guaranteed to them in City Ordinance
Short term recommendations: easy early implementation (low hanging fruit) (see Request to Mayor Jake Wilson, above)
Become familiar with the issues and challenges faced by the Somerville Homeless Coalition and its formerly chronically homeless clients whose permanent supportive housing is at risk due to threatened HUD funding cuts, and, if possible, provide the advocacy support requested by Joyce Tavon, CEO of MHSA and Somerville resident.
Become familiar with the issues and challenges that the SHA and the clients it serves are facing
Engage the OHS in working with the SHA to plan for likely scenarios with respect to crises which threaten clients’ ability to sustain their public housing or Section 8 tenancies.
Short term recommendations: easy early implementation (low hanging fruit)
Maintain and promote awareness of existing programs and update outdated web information
Recommendations for action: See themes and trends above.
Short term recommendations: (easy early implementation/low hanging fruit): Provide recommended framing and language for an Affordable Housing Overlay District zoning amendment that Mayor Wilson and key staff and the City Council Land Use Committee can review, verify the legality and feasibility of proposed zoning elements, and, hopefully enact.
Medium term recommendations:
Medium term recommendations: to be focused on during first year
Participate in and support advocacy for the following state legislative and budget initiatives:
Somerville’s Home Rule Petition (initially numbered S. 22) to establish rent control in the City
statewide rent control ballot referendum creating a statewide rent control program
Transfer Fee legislation, Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) legislation, and Just Cause Eviction legislation (in addition to and paralleling the just cause language in Somerville Home Rule Petition for rent control
State legislative funding for expansion of the Right to Counsel Pilot Program for Tenants Facing Eviction
State legislative funding for rent, case management, and supportive services for permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless persons, in the event that HUD funding is withheld or seriously cut
State legislative funding to maintain, and as funds allow, expand the Bridge Housing Program for Older Adults, a Somerville pilot program helping older adults remain housed while they wait for public or subsidized housing
Draft a local ordinance requiring owners to provide early notice to tenants of their intention to sell, renovate, or demolish the building they live in or units therein.
Assess policies and resources RE assisting tenants of deed-restricted housing in annually recertifying their eligibility to remain in that housing and support creation of needed resources to assist tenants unable to manage that process
Support efforts to strengthen the partnership between OHS and ISD to ensure appropriate enforcement of State and City laws protecting tenants: (a) Housing Stability Notification Act-required landlord notification of tenants about relevant rights and resources at the start of a tenancy and upon issuance of a Notice to Quit; (b) timely response to tenant complaints about unsafe or unhealthy housing conditions; (c) protection against illegal removal of Somerville apartments for use as short-term rentals; and (d) ensuring that owners timely provide suitable alternate housing for occupants of units condemned and placarded pursuant to 105 CMR, § 410.900 (E) as unfit for human habitation.
Medium term recommendations: to be focused on during first year
Take a leadership role in prompting the OSPCD and, in particular, the Housing Division to initiate action on a strategy to create more Permanent Supportive Housing:
Identify City or donated property that is available for redevelopment (e.g., vacant Allen St. properties)
Issue a Request for Information to gauge interest among local affordable housing developers and to solicit ideas about the best approach to developing the identified properties. In the meantime, identify potential program operators and supportive services providers.
Based on preliminary data on target population, number of units, etc., estimate development and operating costs, and begin to assess potential sources of funding for development, operations, and supportive services.
Solicit funder interest and developer/operator/service provider proposals
Medium term recommendations: to be focused on during first year
Promote awareness of programs available to help residents interested in exploring homebuying or needing help with an overwhelming mortgage or interested in programs that can help reduce their property tax bills.
Medium term recommendations: Implement the zoning in a few test locations and assess strengths and challenges: How were property sales affected? How soon after properties were sold were tenants evicted? Were the tenant protections effective? What kinds of building permit applications were received? Amend, if needed.
Long term recommendations:
Long term recommendations: to be built into strategic planning over course of entire term
Broaden efforts to enhance diverse Somerville tenants’ knowledge and understanding about: (a) their rights as tenants, (b) deed-restricted affordable housing options available to them in Somerville and beyond, (c) relevant public benefits and local programs and resources, and (d) sources of employment assistance, job coaching, career development, and workshops to enhance financial and digital literacy.
2.01 Key Theme: The Potential Impact of HUD and Medicaid Rule Changes on Public and Subsidized Housing Programs:
Although threats by the Trump Administration to drastically cut funding for public housing and the Section 8 program have dissipated, a looming funding shortfall and several proposed rule changes will likely threaten the housing stability of public housing and voucher holding tenants in the coming year:
Although a threatened 43% HUD cut in the public housing and Section 8 program budgets was averted when the House and Senate Appropriations Committees both proposed substantially higher funding (NLIHC, 7/24/2025), the amounts proposed by those Committees could leave up to 243,000 existing tenants without vouchers
A July 2025 proposed rule prohibits households that include one or more members with ineligible immigration status from living in federal public housing or maintaining a voucher-assisted tenancy. HUD has indicated that unless household members with ineligible immigration status are removed, these households will lose their eligibility for public or subsidized housing and be evicted. The rule could affect 20,000 mixed-status families [nationally] that receive housing assistance, according to a HUD analysis of the rule obtained by ProPublica; since 16,000 of those families include children, HUD expects virtually all of these families to relinquish their housing assistance out of “fear of the family being separated.” (ProPublica, 9/29/2025)
Since all members of each household will have to prove their citizenship or other eligible status, the proposed rule will not only jeopardize the targeted population, but also the “estimated 3.8 million adult US citizens who lack any form of documentation proving citizenship, and another 17.5 million [who] cannot readily access such documents” (Rothschild, Novey, and Hanmer; June 2024)
Adding additional concern is a HUD plan to ask housing authorities (PHAs) “to report the immigration status of public housing residents and voucher holders within 30 days; if the housing authorities don’t - or can’t - comply, HUD has threatened to revoke their federal funding….” (Urban Institute, Sept. 2025) This initiative follows a March 2025 agreement between HUD and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to share data about the immigration status of HUD-assisted tenants, raising the risk of abduction, detention, and deportation for the 25,000 public housing and Section 8 tenant households with mixed immigration status
A Medicaid rule (in the “Big Beautiful Bill” signed into law in July 2025) required that adults age 19-64 receiving health coverage by virtue of a disabling condition recertify their disabling condition every six months or else be required to work (unless they are pregnant, postpartum, caregivers of young children, or “medically frail” individuals). Massachusetts officials “estimate that approximately 175,000 people could lose MassHealth coverage because of work requirements and six-month eligibility checks.” (Mass.gov, 11/26/2025) Losing disability status could also mean losing income benefits, and possibly even housing, if that housing was awarded, at least in part, based on the tenant’s disability status. A non-trivial percentage of these tenants will likely need help recertifying their disability, possibly including help accessing or using technology.
2.02 Advocacy Opposing the HUD Public Housing and Section 8 Funding Cuts and Rule Changes:
Diane Cohen, Executive Director of the Somerville Housing Authority is a member of the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA) and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). These organizations joined the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) in a letter to the leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee signed by multiple housing organizations expressing concern about proposed HUD budget cuts, and calling for fully funding the various housing programs that have been terminated or sharply reduced, including Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) renewals; increasing the HCV Shortfall Set-Aside Funding from $200 to $400 million; providing sufficient funds to transition remaining EHV-assisted households to other voucher programs; allowing Tenant Protection Vouchers to be used for EHV households; protecting Continuum of Care (CoC) funding; and requiring HUD to renew for 12 months all first-year CoC grants that expire in 2026.
2.03 Key Theme: HUD Threat to Slash Funding for Permanent Supportive Housing and Other McKinney-Vento Programs:
A HUD-proposed revision to the McKinney-Vento Continuum of Care grant program would have dramatically cut funding for permanent supportive housing (PSH) in the second year of a two-year grant cycle, and reduced the overall amount of second-year grant awards by 70%, but for the threat of a judge’s injunction. Instead, HUD temporarily withdrew its proposed revision to the second-year funding guidelines. With the process of applying for and receiving second year funding already months behind schedule, providers will face – or may already be dealing with – significant shortfalls in their ability to pay for their clients’ housing, jeopardizing the willingness of private landlords to lease to PSH tenants. Also, PSH clients who fail to timely re-certify their disability status and lose their Medicaid funded supportive services might also be at risk of losing their McKinney-Vento housing assistance, if the loss of disability status ends their PSH eligibility.
HUD’s abandonment of a Congressionally sanctioned grantmaking process, abandonment of the housing first model, a proven approach to addressing homelessness, and abandonment of the plan to use the now-delayed process for applying for second year funding for projects that were previously awarded first-year funding jeopardizes the PSH of the some 170,000 formerly homeless persons with serious disabling conditions, leaving them vulnerable to becoming homeless again.
Implication for Somerville Programs: In the Somerville/Arlington partnering communities of the Massachusetts Balance of State Continuum, PSH for 55 formerly chronically homeless households (⅓ families, ⅔ individuals) has been placed in serious jeopardy due to HUD’s dramatic last-second federal policy shift, revising with complete disregard for Congress’ intent and instructions the statutorily defined Continuum of Care (CoC) grant program. If HUD’s revised rules are not withdrawn and the abandoned rules restored, and if a source of funding for the second-year housing subsidies that should have been routinely awarded is not found:
Most, if not all, of the 55 households will likely find themselves evicted and homeless, and
The Somerville Homeless Coalition, which uses grant funding to master-lease the apartments where program clients live, will face liability for the $1-2 million of rent due for the remaining lease period.
Request to Mayor Jake Wilson: Since Somerville is not a Continuum of Care and cannot sign on to the lawsuit as such (and since it is too late to join the lawsuit), Joyce Tavon, CEO of the Mass. Housing and Shelter Alliance and a Somerville resident, is requesting that Mayor Wilson (1) publicly affirm Somerville’s support for the objectives of the lawsuits; (2) voice concerns through the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Metro Mayors Coalition, to the State EOHLC, and to the Legislature about the likely descent to homelessness many thousands of currently housed, formerly chronically homeless persons – including the 55 clients that the SHC helped stabilize in housing – due to HUD’s abandoning the federal commitment to PSH; and (3) urge a shared investment in saving PSH units including state resources as, for example, Connecticut’s Governor Lamont has proposed.
2.04 Advocacy Opposing Funding Cuts and Continuum of Care Program Rule Changes Jeopardizing the Permanent Supportive Housing that Ended the Homelessness of 170,000 Persons
As described in the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by plaintiffs including municipalities (e.g., City of Boston, City of Cambridge, Nashville/Davidson TN, MLK County WA, Santa Clara County CA, San Francisco CA, Tucson AZ), national organizations working to address homelessness (e.g., National Alliance to End Homelessness, National Low Income Housing Coalition, joined by the Mass. Housing and Shelter Alliance), and other organizations serving constituencies at heightened risk of homelessness (e.g., Crossroads Rhode Island, Youth Pride, Inc.), “HUD’s Continuum of Care (CoC) program is Congress’s primary response to homelessness, supporting housing and other essential services for hundreds of thousands of formerly unhoused people, including many disabled and older individuals, veterans, and families.
A second lawsuit filed on behalf of the states of Washington, New York, Rhode Island, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine , Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, likewise decries HUD’s hijacking of the Continuum of Care (CoC) program and the McKinney Vento statute which undergirds it. A call to sustain CoC funding for supportive housing and other services was also included in the aforementioned letter to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees filed by a coalition of organizations led by the CLPHA.
As documented by the Mass. Housing and Shelter Alliance (MHSA), HUD’s CoC program contributes $136 million in grant funding to address the housing and service needs of Mass. individuals and families who are currently homeless or recovering from homelessness, $91 million of which funds rent and supportive services that help sustain formerly homeless households in permanent supportive housing (PSH). HUD is proposing to cut 2/3 of that funding, which would mean a return to homelessness for a majority of the 3,800 Mass. households currently served by the CoC PSH program. Nationally, HUD’s proposed policy shift and budget cuts jeopardize $3.6 billion in CoC grants, threatening to deprive 170,000 formerly homeless households of the housing and stability the CoC PSH program has afforded them.
In addition to threats to the HUD funding (primarily for the cost of rent), households receiving Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) may also face obstacles related to recently adopted requirements (that go into effect at the start of 2027) that “disability” status be recertified as often as every six months, with some exceptions (e.g., for “medically frail” persons). Failure to timely recertify “disability” status could jeopardize eligibility for PSH.
2.05 Other Challenges Faced by Housing Authorities and Their Tenants:
Timeliness of HUD Funding: The SHA has to make spending decisions long before it knows about the level of funding it will receive. Reimbursement may come months after funds have been spent. Lack of certainty about spending capacity may adversely affect relationships with small landlords, multi-family property owners, etc., jeopardizing the ability to leverage or sustain voucher-assisted tenancies.
Tenants with chronic money management challenges: Although Somerville Cambridge Elder Services is able to provide volunteers to help with money management/bill-paying services (and Representative Payees who can help with managing Social Security funds), there are few resources available to work with non-elder-headed households that have chronic money management-related challenges that lead to falling behind on rent payment. If there is a decrease in the availability of rental assistance to assist tenants who repeatedly fall behind and require rental assistance, there will be little alternative but to evict these tenants, which is the last thing the SHA wants to do.
Connecting with and supporting tenants concerned about being targeted by ICE: The SHA has tried to make Know Your Rights-type information available to tenants, but has not reached all who need or want that information. Given the aforementioned agreement between HUD and DHS to share tenant addresses and data their immigration status, the situation will only get more anxiety-ridden for tenants worried about being abducted, detained, and deported.
Long term recommendations: to be built into strategic planning over course of entire term
Explore development of a resource to assist homeowners who, because of age or disability and insufficient income, need with home repairs and routine maintenance in order to remain in their homes
Long term recommendations: to be built into strategic planning over course of entire term
Important Note: The fact that the Cambridge IZ Ordinance is being contested in court by the Pioneer Institute may be another reason to use the Overlay District concept to frame the requirements for relocation assistance, right of return, and creation of deed-restricted units in proportion to the number of rental units demolished to make way for the new building.
