 A Cambridge housing acquisition and taxation proposal inspired by Vienna Cambridge should consider a dedicated annual charge on rental units, with every dollar placed in a Housing Land Acquisition Fund. This proposal is not based on the assumption that landlords will quietly absorb the cost. In Cambridge, where there is no rent control, landlords can—and often do—pass higher property taxes through to rents. That reality should be part of the analysis. The question is what Cambridge does with the money, and whether the charge helps the City obtain land and housing before more of it is priced out of public reach. We propose that the funds be used by the city of Cambridge to purchase land or properties to convert to affordable housing. Learning from Vienna Patrick Condon’s account of Vienna connects apartment taxes with a city that buys land and supports nonprofit, cooperative, and limited-profit housing. [1] Cambridge cannot simply reproduce Vienna’s historic rent control because Massachusetts law broadly preempts local rent control. [2] But Cambridge can adapt the public-acquisition principle: use a visible charge to build a permanent public fund, buy buildings and land, and keep affordability in public or nonprofit hands. A tax people can seeThe legal taxpayer should be the property owner, but the charge should appear clearly on the annual property-tax statement and be disclosed to renters. In a no-rent-control market, the charge may show up in rent.  The proposed amounts are modest compared with Cambridge rents, but not trivial for a low-income household: Monthly rate for a Studio ($41.67), One bedroom ($62.50), Two Two bedrooms ($83.33), Three or more bedrooms ($125.00). There also would be age exemptions for people younger than 21 and older than 65. Because the owner would be the legal taxpayer, relief for renters should operate as a City-administered renter credit or owner abatement tied to the leaseholder or household—not as a blanket exemption for any unit in which a child happens to live. That would protect seniors and young adults without making the charge impossible to administer or easy to evade. Using 2020–2024 Census data, Cambridge has about 49,444 households and a 33.5 percent owner-occupied housing rate, implying roughly 32,900 renter households. [3] For a planning estimate, assume 25 percent studios, 40 percent one-bedrooms, 25 percent two-bedrooms, and 10 percent three-or-more-bedroom units. Applying the proposed charges produces approximately $27.1 million per year. This is an illustration; the City’s assessor should calculate the exact number of taxable units, including the treatment of vacant units, dormitories, short-term rentals, and existing affordable housing. What the fund could accomplishIf an age exemption reduced the taxable base by 10 to 20 percent, annual revenue would be approximately $21.7 million to $24.4 million. At a middle estimate of 15 percent, the fund would receive about $23.1 million each year, or roughly $115 million over five years, before collection costs and financing. That would be more than half of the City’s reported more-than-$40 million FY25 investment in the Affordable Housing Trust. [4] Recent Cambridge acquisition proposals show the scale. One proposal sought $10.5 million to acquire two sites that might produce as many as 90 affordable units; another involved an approximately $13 million purchase with the potential for up to 100 units. [5] [6] The proposed charge could therefore support roughly two acquisitions of that scale per year, depending on the availability of properties and other financing. It would buy sites and preserve opportunities; it would not, by itself, pay the full cost of construction. Pass-through and land valuesThe fact that landlords may pass the charge through to renters does not make the proposal irrelevant. It changes who bears the cost. A recent Federal Reserve study found substantial pass-through of property-tax shocks to new renters in one California market, although Cambridge’s experience could differ. [7] An important inference is that this charge is unlikely to increase land values. This is a very positive change for Cambridge where land values tend to be far higher than home values. If the owner absorbs the cost, net operating income falls and the property’s value falls. At a 5 percent capitalization rate, an annual charge of $500 to $1,500 represents approximately $10,000 to $30,000 less value per unit. If the owner passes it fully through to rent, net income may remain nearly unchanged, so land values may remain roughly unchanged rather than rise. The tax is therefore weaker than a true land-value tax, but it should not reward land speculation by itself. The City necessarily avoid bidding prices up with its own fund. Acquisitions should be based on independent appraisals, clear price ceilings, and a strategy focused on preserving naturally affordable homes and preventing displacement. Once acquired, land should remain in public, nonprofit, or community-land-trust ownership. A different public bargain for AHO housingCambridge describes the Affordable Housing Overlay, or AHO, as a way to create permanently affordable homes while allowing greater density. [8] When public land or public land value is involved, however, the land should not be conveyed as a permanent gift. The City should retain title and provide a 100-year ground lease for $1.00. At the end of the term, the City would still own the land and could renew the lease under current affordability, maintenance, and resident-protection standards. For example, another 100 years for $1.00. This proposal would apply to public land or publicly controlled land; it could not simply be imposed on privately owned AHO sites. AHO residents should be treated separately from ordinary market-rate rental units. Rather than imposing the same flat charge on income-qualified residents, the City could establish a modest, progressive contribution based on household salary or income, calculated only above a protected income floor and capped so it does not undermine affordability. Residents 65 and older and residents under 21 would be exempt. The rule should be tied to the leaseholder or household, not triggered merely because a child under 21 lives in the apartment. The purpose would be to recycle a small amount of household capacity into the acquisition fund while recognizing that public land and public subsidy are public investments. GuardrailsThe revenue should be additive rather than a substitute for existing housing appropriations. It should be placed in a dedicated acquisition fund, reported publicly each year, and used only to acquire land or existing properties for long-term affordability. Public, nonprofit, and deed-restricted affordable units should be exempt from the ordinary flat charge, with AHO households participating through the separate income-based contribution described above. The legal path needs careful consideration and language. This is not a rent-control ordinance, but Massachusetts preempts local rent control and governs property-tax classifications through state law. Cambridge should ask its City Solicitor to confirm the structure and seek enabling legislation if needed. [2] [9] This would be a Cambridge adaptation of Vienna: not rent control, but public capacity. The ordinary rental market would help finance a fund; the City would keep the land; AHO residents would contribute according to ability; and the public would retain an asset rather than give it away forever. The policy would not make every rent fall, but it could help Cambridge acquire housing, preserve affordability, and keep the future value of land from being the sole beneficiary of the City’s growth. Sources [1] Cambridge Citywide: The Vienna Housing Model by Patrick Condon [2] Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40P: Rent Control [3] U.S. Census Bureau: QuickFacts, Cambridge, Massachusetts [4] City of Cambridge: Five-Year Affordable Housing Trust Report [5] Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust memo on 1826 and 1840 Massachusetts Avenue [6] Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust memo on 31–37 Mellen Street [7] Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia: Property Tax Pass-Through to Renters [8] City of Cambridge: 100 Percent Affordable Housing Overlay [9] Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 59, Section 2A: Property Classification
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |