Eight bills that would allow individual municipalities to add a new fee to certain real estate transactions advanced from one legislative committee, while another is taking more time to decide on a proposal that would allow cities and towns to take such a step without first getting Beacon Hill’s approval, the State House News Service.
As of Wednesday’s deadline for most committees to act on bills, the Housing Committee had put forward an order extending until May 9 its window to advance or reject legislation that would enable municipalities to impose a fee of between 0.5 percent and 2 percent of the price of certain housing transactions in order to generate revenue to preserve affordable housing and fund new home construction, the news service reported.
The Coalition to Create the Martha’s Vineyard Housing Bank has advocated for the passage of these bills, which would pave the way for the Island to set up a housing bank. All six Island towns have agreed to let voters decide this spring whether they support legislation to create a housing bank on Island with money from such a transfer fee.
Four of the six Island towns need to approve the housing bank for it to become established. Towns that don’t approve it can opt in later on, and, similarly, towns that want to leave can do so. As currently drafted, the housing bank would consist of seven elected commissioners, each representing one of the Vineyard’s six towns, plus one commissioner at large. The legislation also calls for a town advisory board for each town. This is the Island’s third attempt at a housing bank. This proposal seeks a 2 percent real estate transfer fee through a mechanism similar to the Martha’s Vineyard Land Bank. However, unlike the Land Bank, the first $1 million of a sale price isn’t subject to the 2 percent fee.
A Local Option for Housing Affordability (LOHA) coalition has advocated for the transfer fees.
“We are grateful to the six Island select boards for sending in support for H1377/S868 to the legislature,” Laura Silber, coalition coordinator, wrote in an email to The Times. “[The coalition] will continue to work in partnership with Nantucket and the statewide LOHA coalition to advance these bills on Beacon Hill this session.”
While the decision could bottle the bills up for three more months, Rep. Mike Connolly, who filed the House version and serves on the Housing Committee, said he viewed the extension as an “encouraging sign,” according to the State House News Service. “I’m grateful that we have the opportunity to continue the conversation and look to build consensus around it,” he said.
Earlier this week, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu reportedly filed a home-rule petition that would allow her city to impose a fee on sales of $2 million or more and major employer Mass General Brigham, the parent company of Martha’s Vineyard Hospital, earlier this month voiced support for the bills specifically citing the shortage of housing on the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket.
“We look forward to continuing to work with the legislature on this extremely important issue. It is a vital measure to have enacted this session for communities from Nantucket, to Boston, to Western Massachusetts,” Nantucket housing director Tucker Holland said in a statement offered by the coalition.
According to data gathered by the MVC, UMass Donahue Institute, and U.S. Census, as extrapolated in a recent article by the MV Times, the Island currently has 17,562 houses to accommodate a year-round population of 20,600. That is 0.85 of a house for every man, woman and child living here, or 3.4 houses for every family of four. Deduct 50% for seasonal housing and you get 1.7 year-round houses on the island for every family of four currently living here. Those numbers do not describe a housing “shortage” and certainly not a “crisis” in terms of available housing. In light of such data, why are we moving forward with a tax on Vineyard homeowners and a bureaucracy that will increase the development of affordable housing beyond environmentally sustainable levels? Where are the studies that support the passage of a bill which, if adopted, will result in overdevelopment and greater overpopulation on MV? This bill has the potential to change the character of the Island forever at the expense of the natural environment. The need is questionable and the consequences are undeniable. Keep Our Island Green
https://www.mvtimes.com/2022/02/02/island-population-outpaces-housing-growth/
Your estimate of 50% of island homes being seasonal is pretty generous. According to the MV Commission:
“The seasonality of the housing stock in combination with a relative lack of multi-family housing contribute to a limited supply of affordable housing and why so many are forced to live off-Island and commute to work by ferry.
• Year-round housing occupancy is extremely low, at 38%.
• Housing growth largely occurred in the seasonal or second home housing stock. While the total number of housing units increased by 4.2% between 2010 and 2019, the year-round occupied housing stock decreased by 8.2%, or by 603 units, while seasonal or occasional units increased by 15.4%, or by 1,428 units, from 9,253 units in 2010 to 10,681 in 2019.
The answer to every problem is not to tax more which is what this is. Housing problems have been an issue for as long as there have been houses. And taxing people for public good is not a new idea. We have made progress without this new tax and also at the correct pace. Seasonal dormitory housing would do more for this island without picking the tax payers pocket. Why not have the paid housing bank people put their energy into creating dormitory housing!! now that would be a win for the island.
Dan,
well said, I had not thought of it like that.
Brian
Hi Brian, hope you’re well. Not sure where Dan is getting his info on the Housing Bank: the proposal requires a minimum of 75% of the funds restricted to already developed land, and existing structures — to re-capture housing lost to the short term rental market back into year-round inventory. The design also outlines more stringent environmental/habitat protection requirements than current open market regulations. The Climate Action Task Force and conservation leaders provided input for this language, with eyes focused on habitat preservation, net zero energy, nitrogen mitigation, and minimizing funding for construction on undeveloped land, and it is shaping up to be a model for the state. It sounds like Dan has not read the warrant article, and I have not seen him in any of the myriad of public meetings over the past year (many town boards in all 6 towns, MVC, etc) in which these provisions have been discussed and shaped. The warrant article language is here: https://www.ccmvhb.org/the-warrant-article
Our group has been advocating for the carrying capacity study with the MVC– and hope that everyone else is too. The key word in Dan’s argument that doesn’t fit with what the community is actually experiencing is “available” — there are no rentals, and very few homes for sale under $1 million. Shifting the existing inventory to make more of it actually “available” is a key part of a long term sustainable solution. That shift did not happen on Nantucket, and their median home price is now approaching $3 million.
Curious Laura would you mind telling us how much you are getting paid and who is paying you to promote a new tax on the island citizens. Sugarcoat this however you want it is a tax and a tax we do not need as we are making progress with affordable housing. We have a need for affordable housing and we have a need to stop taxing the taxpayer every time there’s an issue. We can be against your Cabal who’s pushing the housing bank forward and still be for affordable housing.
Dan, thanks for some actual numbers.
I am against any transfer tax to subsidize development.
Affordable housing is development. In many cases advocates want to develop as yet undeveloped areas, thus increasing infrastructure costs for towns, fragmenting habitat, degrading the Island experience, and adding nothing to the tax base.
If you want to see a future that we should strive to avoid, go to South Dartmouth. There, lovely old houses and farms are visually overwhelmed by new developments and subdivisions with cookie-cutter houses. Most of the road-scape now has little “local” charm.
Dan may be right with some of the numbers. But they are not Affordable Homes. Things happen savings disappear, injuries, other health issues, and then our aging population is living on Social Security with no place to live.
Then we have the people that are needed to mow the lawns, clean, Health Care workers, the list is very long of those we depend on to take care of the more fortunate ones that managed to have higher incomes to afford to buy homes here.
I am a born native of Martha’s Vineyard, most of my classmates I grew up with have left the island because there is no place for them to live. Most of our children have left because there is no affordable place to live.
The Island Elderly Housing list is so long there is a 3-5 year wait for Affordable housing.
Lawyers and Real Estate Agents that make money selling Properties of course will speak out against anything like Affordable Housing.
I have said for the last 50 years that we forget who is going to take care of the more fortunate population, the workers like the plumbers, electricians, carpenters, gas attendants, firefighters, EMTs, etc. all need housing?
Now more of the rental units have evaporated as homeowners have moved here year-round, they are welcome to be here but now more people are displaced. Why if the numbers are so correct why do we have homeless shelters in the winter so people won’t freeze?
There is much to be done foe true Affordable Housing to be available.
There does not need to be a tension between our island’s strong record of conservation and our need for affordable housing. We can and will keep our island green while also making sure that we can house our nurses and teachers. The ~year-round~ housing stock is severely inadequate for what our population demands.
Ok please read the actual warrant article, 75% of the funding will go toward already developed land, to recapture inventory into the year-round market.
I am an island resident and let me tell you that the housing crisis is real. It is both wildly expensive and difficult to find stable housing and it constantly puts the community in struggle. There is MUCH MORE than a 50% seasonal homes. Also, seasonal housing isn’t helpful. We need year round housing to support that community that we live in YEAR ROUND
If we want to have a functioning community we need places to live! This project is great and is being put together very carefully.
Hi I am lucky to live year-round on MV, and it is so clear that housing is really hard to find. I have seen how hard it is for couples of all ages with both partners working, and I can only imagine how hard it must be for individuals, people who are unable to work, or people with children. I support the article in favor of the housing bank and know that it is a plan put forth by people who love the Island very much and want to preserve the natural beauty and also the community.
I have been a year-round resident for the past 3 years working full time, often up to 45 hours per week. Because of the cost of living — and predominantly rent — i will be shifting careers and leaving the island and the state of Massachusetts. After working my ass off day after day, i am more or less breaking even. This when i am living in the cheapest 1-bedroom apartment i could find. The cost of housing is unnaturally inflated by the sheer volume of massive, high value summer homes that are not available for year-round rent, yet which drive up the property values and with them cost of living.
In my view it is the responsibility of those wealthy home owners who are buying these luxury houses to offset this disruption to our community in order to preserve the community’s integrity, and so a tax on these high-value transactions seems the only adequate response.
Hello. I’m a 24 year old year round resident living at home with my parents. Housing is really hard to find and should be made more accessible to everyone, including kids who grew up here and don’t want to leave their family, friends, jobs, doctors, familiarities and lives behind just to afford to move out. While many 20-something’s like myself are blessed to have family homes to still live in, some are not so lucky and are forced to move out and far away. Not everyone can or wants to stay with their parents just to be able to stay where they grew up. Although this is a low priority group of citizens looking for housing, it does add to the young families, displaced renters, traveling workers, and the rest of the year round population who need housing. I support this article in favor of the housing bank.