Most of our subscribers probably know someone who’s been displaced, or forced to move. Maybe their lease ended, the rent went up, or in some cases their building has been condemned and must be torn down. In general, good housing and urban development policy aims to minimize displacement: when people move, it should be because they want to, not because they have to.
That one building on Mt. Auburn St. aside, most displacement in our region is driven by rising prices: rent has risen 50% over the last 10 years, while purchase prices are similarly up 30% over 8 years. Rising costs are a direct result of not building enough homes for all the people we have encouraged to live here. Worse, our analysis of Somerville’s Housing Needs Assessment shows that there is still more room for prices to rise, which means means that in the long term we cannot prevent further price-driven displacement without addressing the root cause: not enough homes.
A secondary driver of displacement is redevelopment. We cannot ignore that when an old building is replaced by a new one, the people who live in the old building have to move. To distinguish it from price-driven displacement, we call this process redevelopment displacement.
Over the last two decades, Somerville’s development strategy has reduced redevelopment displacement by focusing on areas like Assembly and Union Square, where new construction doesn’t replace existing homes. However, that policy runs into our ongoing problem balancing the need for commercial tax base with a housing shortage exacerbated by commercial development. Most importantly, focusing nearly all development citywide in just two squares simply hasn’t created nearly enough housing.
In other words, our current policy has minimized redevelopment displacement, but not made much of a dent in price-based displacement.
So, what should Somerville do? Which policy choices will minimize both price-driven and redevelopment displacement?
In discussion with city councilors, builders, anti-displacement activists, and other community organizations has shown us two key approaches, which can be combined or used individually.
Taller buildings in fewer places: Legalize buildings of 12-15 stories immediately next to train stations. This would create a moderate number of new homes, while producing a moderate amount of redevelopment displacement. That displacement, however, would be concentrated in just a few locations and at just a few times, making it harder for displaced households to find new homes nearby.
Shorter buildings in more places: Legalize 6-story buildings in more of the city. This option would likely raise redevelopment displacement, but spread it out across the city and over time. It would also maximize housing production, which is the most effective way of reducing price-driven displacement.
The city also has several tools to blunt the impact of displacement, especially redevelopment-driven displacement. For example, we have a very strong Condo Conversion Ordinance, which protects tenants from being replaced by owners. We also have a pending Home Rule Petition at the State House seeking permission to regulate against extreme rent hikes. And our Inclusionary Zoning program includes local preference, which means that those who live or have recently lived in Somerville get priority for the new subsidized Affordable homes. These policies can’t and won’t stop every case of displacement, but they can reduce the interim disruption while new construction brings down prices for everyone.
Ultimately, the goal is that when someone moves for any reason, whether because they want to or because they must, they can still stay in the community because there are plenty of other options just around the corner.