By Adam Swift
The city council debated City Manager Fidel Maltez’s revised inclusionary zoning ordinance at a subcommittee meeting Monday night.
Maltez presented the revised plan following a lengthy subcommittee meeting last week where councilors expressed concerns about the extent of the proposed changes to inclusionary zoning in Chelsea. (See story, p. 5)
The subcommittee voted to continue the meeting to an additional subcommittee meeting before the City Council meeting on April 27, possibly early next week.
The subcommittee could then vote to move the inclusionary zoning amendments to the full council for its April 27 meeting. At that point, the council could then send the ordinance to the planning board for a recommendation before coming back to the council again for a public hearing and vote on adoption.
At the heart of much of the debate in subcommittee was the effect the new inclusionary zoning regulations would have on spurring development in Chelsea as the city aims to bring more money into its coffers. This year, thanks in part to declining enrollment, the school department faced a $6.6 million budget shortfall. Superintendent of Schools Dr. Almi Abeyta has stated that enrollment could continue to drop by more than 200 students next year.
District 1 Councilor Todd Taylor pointed to the data showing the current inclusionary zoning ordinance has done little to create new development or affordable housing. Council Vice President Norieliz DeJesus also asked if the current ordinance was more effective at creating affordable housing, or just preventing possible gentrification through the creation of higher-rent new developments.
“The problem is that you cannot continue to have it both ways,” said Taylor. “We cannot continue the level of spending that we have, the level of services we provide to people, if we don’t have the money to do it.”
If the city chooses not to develop, Taylor said that means raising taxes and potentially getting rid of the 35 percent residential exemption and the maximum shift on commercial properties.
“We cannot continue as we are,” said Taylor. “We got a huge infusion of ARPA (Covid relief) money that was free, literally free money from the federal government that we used for pretty good purposes, but that’s gone. My point is that either we do what (the city manager) is proposing, or we raise taxes.”
If taxes are raised, Taylor said he believed it would lead to higher rents and more residents leaving Chelsea.
“We are going to find ourselves in an even worse position of fewer people in the cart pulling and we are going to go nowhere,” said Taylor. “If we do what you are proposing, it seems like at least we are going to have more options, because we have more revenue which gives us more choice in what to do and how to actually provide the affordable housing we need.”
Maltez pointed to a recent failed Proposition 2-½ override in Malden as something that could happen in Chelsea if it does not find ways to increase revenues and control spending.
“It was a brutal process for that community and it failed,” said Maltez. “It is going to result in significant losses everywhere – in the school department, in the fire department, in the police department. I know that the same result would (happen) here in Chelsea; there is no way that our residents, our homeowners, our property owners, our renters, our constituents, our voters are going to support an override, to tax themselves.”
Maltez said the city must spend less and grow more. He also noted that the city has to make more changes than just to inclusionary zoning, pointing to other potential zoning changes that could spur development throughout Chelsea.
“We are chasing every dollar that we can, but it’s upped the ante, the ante is a little bit higher for every development that comes to Chelsea,” said Maltez. “We have in the past had a spotty record of denying development, and there are times when you can do that. Right now is not the time.”
District 4 Councilor Tanairi Garcia said she got a phone call from one of her constituents who asked if the changes would impact their current affordable housing, and Garcia said it would not.
Garcia said she believes the city needs to concentrate on affordable housing preservation and Chelsea’s community land trust.
“We need to protect those who will be close to being displaced and having hardships, so we need to protect these two things,” said Garcia.
Maltez said he was happy to see that there was agreement among the council that the current inclusionary zoning ordinance was not producing affordable housing for Chelsea.
“I think there is some misconception … that by modifying this it’s going to reduce and (provide) less production of affordable housing,” said Maltez. “The data we have looked at has shown that it will actually (do) the opposite. It will give the city more money to invest in projects like the community land trust.”
District 5 Councilor Lisa Santagate said she does not believe the city has done enough yet in the ordinance to provide for affordable housing.
“I wonder about some progressive tiers where the larger the building there … are almost different levels of affordable units based on AMI, based on the size of the units,” said Santagate of the proposed inclusionary zoning changes. “This is kind of a one-size-fits-all and I think we can do better than that; or there are things out there that … are creative, that there is more.”
Santagate said she also believed that the process was moving too fast without looking at other options for inclusionary zoning and affordable housing.
“It seems like it’s a guess, it’s a two year guess, and we’re playing at something that’s value-based that makes us who we are,” said Santagate.
Maltez said he understood the level of conflict with the city’s values and that it was the same conflict he felt with the school budget crisis.
“We had to put our money where our mouth is and say what values do we have,” said Maltez. “I foresee these conversations becoming more reactive, unfortunately, and I foresee us having these more often as our reserves are eaten up by immediate needs.”
District 2 Councilor Deron Hines thanked Maltez for the work he and the administration have put into the ordinance, but said he felt like the city was having the wrong conversations.
“I feel like the conversations we are having (are) pertaining to the amendments rather than discussing how it is we can make (inclusionary zoning) work,” said Hines.
Like Santagate, Hines said he would like to see how the city could better incentivize the creation of more affordable housing under the current strictures.
“I feel like we are throwing the baby out with the bath water to make something work,” said Hines. “As daunting as what not fixing this sounds like, I feel like those challenges are somewhat speculative and as promising as the other (changes) sound like, those are somewhat speculative as well. We have still yet to actually talk about the displacement rates or challenges felt by the communities that are next to us.”
District 6 Councilor Giovanni Recupero said the city hasn’t seen any affordable housing under the current inclusionary zoning regulations.
“Affordable housing does not generate revenue for the city,” said Recupero. “You have to make the difference that these big corporations or whoever builds these units put there. I am for affordable housing, but it has to be affordable housing for the people of Chelsea.”
Councilor-at-Large Leo Robinson said the city needs to provide for new growth so that it can continue to provide social services to those in need.
“If we do not get new growth, a lot of those people who we were helping will not be helped in the future,” said Robinson.
Council President Roberto Jimenez-Rivera said that if he was voting on the proposal today, he would vote no, but that he believed the process should be moved forward so that there is the opportunity for public input.