Small landlords, especially owner occupants in older houses, control a large share of the affordable market-rate units we still have in Greater Boston. But many are still struggling due to the effects of the pandemic, and in some areas, like East Boston, they're being targeted heavily by prospective buyers.

In pandemic’s aftermath, small landlords are still feeling the pressure https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/12/25/business/pandemics-aftermath-small-landlords-are-still-feeling-pressure/

#rentalhousing #affordablehousing #greaterboston @wutrain

In pandemic’s aftermath, small landlords are still feeling the pressure

Struggling tenants and surging inflation are squeezing mom-and-pop landlords in Greater Boston, and there’s growing concern they’ll sell their buildings.

The Boston Globe
@marionsd @wutrain feel like we had this convo many months ago on the old bird site. But do we think this situation—owner occupants of 2 families renting out non-updated units at below market rents—is really a part of the housing picture we should try to preserve long term? I don’t see it. Just think we’re better off building them bigger and preserving affordable unit counts greater than what will be lost as these old buildings get sold.
@klaus As someone who lived in an owner-occupied house for 10+ years, paying well below the rents at Maxwell's Green and other new buildings nearby, my answer is YES, absolutely! Also has long made owning more viable for the non-rich, including many people of color, like the couple featured in the story. Owner-occupied triple-deckers are a very good New England tradition. Nonprofit-owned houses with deed restrictions as @wutrain is helping fund are great too, but we need both, AND new buildings.
@marionsd I love triple deckers. But I think the time has long passed where buying a building in Boston, Cambridge, or here and renting out units is a viable path for the non rich, no matter how much we constrain the size of the buildings. Here it seems we count on long time owners who have paid off their homes to rent non updated units at below market to create “affordable” units. And it’s nice this happens, but they always eventually sell and then it’s a crisis for the tenants.
@klaus So is the best outcome for every triple-decker to ultimately be condofied, bought by a corporation or a nonprofit, or else demolished to be replaced by a commercial apartment building or condos? I don't like that at all. I believe these small landlords are important for affordability, for neighborhood stability and for community. I don't think there's a single solution, but I want policy-makers to try, not accept this as just the way it is.

@marionsd As @klaus says, these small landlords only provide stability for as long as they’re here. Once they sell, it’s a crisis for their tenants b/c the new owners will move to recoup their costs & may need to renovate, which requires empty units.

Agree that there's no single solution.

Let’s remember that 3 deckers are energy inefficient, inaccessible to the disabled, and are all ~100 years old.

At some point, each & every one needs to be replaced, purely b/c nothing lasts forever.

@jeffbyrnes @klaus Why are they energy inefficient? They can be insulated like anything else. I live in one and routinely use less than 200 kWh per month. And you're arguing that because some day, everyone, including presumably my old landlord, @ef4, @StephanieLearns and a large share of current Somerville residents, will fail and be forced to sell to a corporate, we should just give up on them right now? I see a lot of babies going down the drain here.

@marionsd @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns most of them are still uninsulated. They can be retrofitted, but let’s remember that’s a form of upcycling (I.e., making those homes more expensive) and thus can encourage displacement b/c those costs need to recouped by the owner.

Keeping the buildings the same, but making them nicer, tends to displace in favor of higher-income households.

@jeffbyrnes @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns Isn't that why we have Mass Save, with good deals for property owners at all sizes? https://www.masssave.com/residential/rebates-and-incentives#weatherization

@marionsd @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns a new owner may not know about MassSaves (and maybe commercial owners aren’t eligible?)

Even w/ MassSaves though, you’re still talking about having to empty an apartment to do major renovations, which means somebody is gonna lose their home & be displaced to do those upgrades.

We still need more homes to accommodate folks.

Whatever we do, they’re not all going to disappear at once! We’ve many more years of having 3 deckers around.

@jeffbyrnes @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns But I never argued against building more housing. I was just saying I think it's important to protect this part of our housing stock, which I consider to be super valuable. Sometimes it makes sense to demolish a bunch of old houses and replace them with new apartment buildings. That doesn't mean triple-deckers aren't a pretty good use of land, and nice to live in. Good housing policies can support a diverse mix.

@marionsd @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns to be clear: I’m not saying you did! And definitely, 3 deckers are better than 1 or 2 unit houses in terms of land use.

It starts getting interesting when we think about how Somerville might need to grow to be a home to 2 or 3 times as many people as it is today.

Far future for sure (though maybe not that far!)

@jeffbyrnes @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns I'm not sure I'm a fan of a 160,000-240,000-resident future for #SomervilleMA, but replacing triple-deckers on side streets wouldn't be No. 1, 2, or probably even 3 on my list of ways to densify. Sites like Assembly and along 28 are better suited for true high-rises (and we could do more mixed-use and not quite as much lab space!), and main and mid-size streets (e.g. Medford St) could be lined with 3-5 story apartment buildings with ground-floor retail.

@jeffbyrnes @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns For perspective, we're at almost 20,000 residents per square mile, among the top 20 most densely populated cities in the U.S. (Boston is ~50th). Doubling our density would put us up with Shanghai, and tripling would make us like Kolkata: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/11/the-50-most-densely-populated-cities-in-the-world/39664259/.

I want plentiful affordable housing with efficient use of land so we still have lots of green space and amenities, and room for growth (maybe up to 50%?), but not *quite* 2x or 3x.

75,000 people per square mile? These are the most densely populated cities in the world

American rush hour suddenly doesn't seem so bad.

USA TODAY

@marionsd @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns Paris is 55k per sq mi. That tends to be my personal “density done well” guidepost.

Kolkata is 62k / sq mi, interesting it’s similar to Paris!

@marionsd @klaus @ef4 @StephanieLearns food for thought: Cambridge’s zoning originally allowed for ~600k people (almost Boston’s current population). Not sure about ours but it was crafted similarly.
@jeffbyrnes In what world does Massachusetts end up with such a huge population anyway? Are we clearing out everything west of Framingham and concentrating everyone here? Or is there mass migration from California or from other countries? Because I assume Boston, Watertown, Everett, Chelsea, Waltham... we'd all densify, and we could easily fit several million additional people here. With climate change, our relative desirability will significantly increase, but still, I'm skeptical.

@marionsd Boston metro already needs ~100k more homes, and we remain an incredibly desirable place to live despite our high housing costs.

You’re right that, really, it’ll be everywhere around here working together, so no one muni bears the weight!