Hey, there! Log in / Register

Boston has fourth-highest rents in the country

New York, San Francisco and San Jose beat us, according to the Boston Business Journal, which quotes some Gloomy Gus about how all those new residential units are going to force landlords sooner or later to lower their rents.

Neighborhoods: 

Ad:

Comments

Until enough is built for supply to meet demand prices aren't going down.

There still isn't enough development happening at anywhere near fast enough to catch up to the backlog of demand any time soon.

up
Voting closed 0

That would do a lot towards getting useful transit into less expensive areas. If done comprehensively, it won't skyrocket values in any one area.

Boston needs bigger reachable space.

up
Voting closed 0

There are many ways to "expand supply" against demand. One was is to build, each new unit mean one less person on the market looking to buy.

But unlike the demand to buy a potato, the supply of homes is dependent on transit times (and other factors) as well as how many homes in a single area. Thus if places farther out is reachable in reasonable time, then they become part of the supply too.

This means expand the MBTA. But, I will also add if choke points (mess at RT 2 and other spots) is done, this reduces transit time and thus makes more areas into play. I would outright say adding highways, but I don't see many areas where that can be done without plowing everything or at a cost that outruns the gains.

This card is one card we have that places like San Francisco doesn't (and in some metrics - SF is in its own league, though in this metric that its only higher than Boston but lower than NYC). Along with their massive constrictions on new construction, people can't even look to the suburbs as they are surrounded by water on 3 sides with the existing bridges and tunnels already acting as choke points.

up
Voting closed 0

I think you're underestimating the massive fight towns outside of Boston put up to keep new housing out of the question. The potential property tax revenue doesn't in anyway off-set the additional cost of municipal services needed for additional people.

up
Voting closed 0

Of people who apparently have nothing better to do than spend every waking moment in church basements making sure that no new housing will ever get built, anywhere, ever.

To me, it's a miracle that rooming groups haven't started hot-racking like sailors do on submarines. Think about it: why is a perfectly good bed going empty in the middle of the day? Take on a roommate who works a night shift, or works food service, and can sleep during the day, to occupy that bed. Taken to its extreme, you can do two racks per bedroom, times three shifts. You can fit 18 roommates in a single 3br floor of a three-decker that way.

up
Voting closed 0

For anyone thinking "rents will eventually go down" ... the next few years are going to be very hard for you.

Rents will never go down. Increasing supply may mitigate the speed in which rents increase, but it's just not realistic to think that Boston rents will decrease.

If they do, welcome to your next depression, war, famine, natural disaster.

up
Voting closed 0

Rents this year have gone up 1-200 dollars all over the city. Now granted some of that could be the spike of places that are listed now but available 9/1. But there is still an overall, upwards, death spiral of pricing. I've also seen the effect of one-up-man-ship when looking at the prices in a specific building. One unit is asking 1200, another 1300, another 1400 for virtually the same place. That 1400 doesn't go down. Rather, within the week, the other two go up to 1350 and 1400 as well.

up
Voting closed 0

Have any actual proof?

up
Voting closed 0

Are you Don Chiafaro or something? I have seen you [seemingly] white knighting for greedy landlords in a couple different posts now.

No I don't have proof because I don't screenshot websites I visit on a day to day basis. But we have plenty of evidence for Boston's rising rents all over the place that is not just anecdotal.

This is just a small sample of some of the articles and reports and stories a Google search will get you:
https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-boston-rent-trends/
http://www.wbur.org/2015/05/28/boston-rent-report
http://www.tbf.org/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/2014%20-%202015%20Housin...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/02/24/rising-rent-smaller...
You're welcome to do your own research if you want more proof.

up
Voting closed 0

You stated "it's a sin to be rich", which I questioned because it's an absolutely ridiculous statement. You made up some story about how if 3 places are for rent at 3 different prices, they always move up to the higher price.

Yes, rents are rising, but not because of "greed", it's because there is intense demand and for years supply was ignored. If I owned a building, I wouldn't lower my rents if I knew I could make more money. Call me a sinner, but I enjoy making money and getting maximum value for my skills and assets. If that makes me evil, so be it.

up
Voting closed 0

So it might get through his thick skull.

You're applying for IT jobs and got two job offers - one is at a large bank, other is at a local nonprofit. Same type of work, same hours, same number of idiot users to support. One pays $85,000, the other pays $35,000. Assuming you don't have a nice chunky trust fund and actually need to work for a living, which job would you take? Would you be willing to give up a large chunk of money in exchange for that warm fuzzy feeling?

up
Voting closed 0

In case you hadn't noticed.

Many extol things like vows of poverty and quite a few proscribe behaviors that tend to come with the territory of richness such as greed, avarice and what have you.

There are some great secular homilies such as "behind every great fortune lies a monstrous crime."

So it does sound whiny, unrealistic and self serving to pound your chest about the horror that being rich might be.... a sin.

Hell, yer rich, they can shove it, as the smarter wealthy well know.

up
Voting closed 0

Just wondering what other areas of your life do you apply this "if that makes me evil, so be it" attitude? My cynical mood has you pegged as the non-yielding, box blocking type that doesn't bother holding doors for others...

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, clearly because I want to make money on my investments, that means I don't hold doors for others. Great analysis.

up
Voting closed 0

J M Keynes went so far as to describe hoarding money as a morbid pathology.

up
Voting closed 0

36 people liked that post?? Would you elect a politician who stated something like that - like, the truth, instead of trying to buy votes by promising lower rents and free pony rides?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not sure that rents WILL go down but I recall your being sure there was not going to be a recession in 2007 so Im not sure I trust your economic predictions.

up
Voting closed 0

There isn't some magic eternal spike toward the sky for ever more property speculation profits.

2007/2008 were great proof that prices don't always rise. And a significant aftermath impact was profound reluctance of lenders to write new mortgages for anyone but those with platinum credit.

That's where we still are. So if all these luxurists pump out the dumps til they make an inventory overhang bubble, all bets are off.

You'll be able to see signs. The losers usually start with a bunch of incentive like deposit waivers, free toaster ovens, no rent for two months and so on. These are the easy concessions.

But if the dumps are still stiffs, panic will eventually set in. And there is considerable residential building going on out in the burbs. My home town of Reading looks like it jammed large housing complexes in the old Addison Wesley tract and along the border with Wilmington.

I saw more of the same along 95 a few days ago in the Danvers/Peabody area.

The snob towns and aspiring snob towns may sand bag these kinds of projects but other towns see it as a niche to exploit.

There could be another wave of urban flight from Boston if costs get unacceptable. I generally see the region as a coherent whole rather than a bunch of fiefdoms with varying levels of brag status.

And if others adopt that outlook, the allure of Boston takes a hit.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm sure Ill get slammed for asking this.. but can someone explain to me why Rent Control was a bad thing?

up
Voting closed 0

City councilors were overwhelmed with calls from landlords speaking out against it. It hasn't been brought up much since then. I have some vague recollection of a city council meeting last fall on the subject of high rents. Where it lead I don't know.

up
Voting closed 0

Seems to me that rent control would stop many of these soaring rental prices.

Didn't NYC and SF also do away with rent control in the 90s also?

Funny how things turn out.

up
Voting closed 0

It was supposedly meant for people of modest means, it morphed into connected trustafaians, upper income 'professionals' , and just plain old politically connected getting $250. a month apartments in the best neighborhoods that should have been going for 5-10x that.

up
Voting closed 0

From what I've read online, both San Francisco and New York City still have rent control.

http://www.sftu.org/rentcontrol/
http://www.nycrgb.org/html/resources/faq/rentstab.html

Approximately 50% of NYC's apartments are covered by rent control / rent stabilization. Very few are covered by rent control with the vast majority covered by rent stabilization. That's ~1,000,000 apartments.

The lawmakers in Albany set the % increase that landlords can charge each year. For 2015, they set the increase at 0%. So, no one's rent will increase this year.

up
Voting closed 0

"Menino tried to revisit rent control a few years back"

It's a state law.

up
Voting closed 0

His rhetoric was often at odds with the law.

up
Voting closed 0

..with common english, godblessim

up
Voting closed 0

You are going to tell me that tenants do not have to pay market rates for my parent's investment, yet they and the tenants have to pay the market price for the investments of General Mills, ExxonMobil, Verizon, Ford, etc? Really?

Don't start with the belief that rent control only happens in larger buildings; it still skews the market.

Sorry about the slam but as someone who has been in real estate since high school I can assure you there was a lot of chicanery with rent control in the PRC and Brookline until controls were lifted.

up
Voting closed 0

but to be honest john, you're view is skewed.. you're in real estate. I say this in all loving kindness. same with asking me (as a tech guru) what I think about net neutrality or something I would already agree or disagree with because of my profession.

I agree with what you are saying tho however, wouldn't rent control help with these sky rocketing rents to keep thing affordable?

And yes I do get what you are saying about the triple decker, but my question is 'what is market value' and who defines that?

In the case of your parent's triple decker, is the rent set according to what their mortgage is (so it can be paid with a small profit on top) or is it 'market' as in "well all my neighbors set their rents at this price so I figure I better to the same, regardless if over priced or under-priced". (which is what happens now) Seems to me that rent control would help that.

Do not take this as a slam.. I do not know much about rent control so this is why I am asking!

up
Voting closed 0

Nobody wants to invest $10 in something if they know they are going to lose money on it. If people go into the wayback machine of the late 1980's they would notice that a lot of Cambridge housing was fairly crappy and not updated, a direct result of landlords' disinterest in investment, despite menial incentives to raise rents based on apartment improvements and renovations. Once rent control was lifted a lot of people who were slumming it (and cheating on it) moved to Somerville. All getting rid of rent control when it left Cambridge was make a lot of people who owned 3 families in Davis Square decamp to Tewksbury since the Barnies realized that they had to live like the rest of us and try to find a cheaper place to live.

From an environmental standpoint, If you say to developers today, we are going to impose rent control within the state, the incentive for new rental housing construction would drop, there would then be, based on our strong economy, a massive decrease of available housing, forcing people who want to live here into ownership owing that they cannot land a rent controlled apartment since there are no new apartments being built. People who work in Kendall can't afford Cambridge and can't afford Somerville for ownership, hell let's see what Pelham, NH has to offer for housing. Then they realize their commute sucks, we have more suburban housing, and the people finally say screw it and move to the Research Triangle in NC to avoid all this Massachusetts regulatory crap and live in a $250,000 3,000 SF house and live nicely.

Hate to get all Reaganesque here, but the government should stick to zoning and planning when it comes to housing. Get out of the public housing market (warehousing the poor) and rent control process and leave the driving to those interested in making it right.

up
Voting closed 0

There is still some rent control in Massachusetts. There are a number of trailer parks, excuse me, Manufactured Home Communities, that are exempt from the law. They are mostly in smaller rural / suburban towns. Middleboro, Raynham, Easton have a few that fall under this form of control.

It is a great way for towns to avoid building public housing and leave the poor people control to private interests.

up
Voting closed 0

are not interested in doing things right, they're only interested in maximizing their short term profits (the mid-1980s business school mantra again).

up
Voting closed 0

I was just going to say the exact same thing. People who drive usually do what is in their own best interests(The "I got mine, screw you" mentality) and that is why the government should be involved.

up
Voting closed 0

So, are you saying someone who already has the building paid off isn't allowed to charge anything, other than whatever covers maintenance expenses and a small profit on top of that? Also, if rents are pegged to one's mortgage payments, do you think all the new landlords who paid recent sky-high prices for their property will lower their rents to match old landlords, or will all the old landlords who aren't allowed to charge high rents simply sell their buildings at current market value, which in the end will result in even higher rents?

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks, I didn't get the relevance of a mortgage payment either. My 2family is paid off, but there are risks and expenses related to having renters that I just would not bother with if I wasn't making any money at all.

And if I don't ask for close to market rate, I get scores of garbage inquiries asking if they can have it for half of what I'm asking, no proof of income, etc... I have one unit, not two hundred. It's a security net for me. I'm not rich and I can't play savior to everyone with a sob story. I learned that from unfortunate, expensive experience.

So real talk, where should rents be? Asking landlords to make 0% profit will result in a lot of smalltimers leaving the market entirely. I'm hearing a lot of complaints that the current situation is not fair (agreed) but not a lot of realistic alternatives.

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry, the impact of your triple-decker cannot even come close to the impact of GM and other large companies failing.

Sorry about making slightly less money off of your 'investment'. Those who can barely afford to pay their rents in this city send out their kindest words to you and others like you.

up
Voting closed 0

You know, for no reason at all except that I want things that way. C'mon, just give me that money that you earned. Just give it to me. It is a nice feeling to have that money taken away from you, isn't it?

I'm just going to go down to The Deluxe and have a few drinks with your money. It's no big deal. I know I didn't earn it but come on, just give it to me.

Do you get the point now?

up
Voting closed 0

I'd be curious how many land lords "earned" their money and how many got money or the property from mommy and daddy.

up
Voting closed 0

At some point, someone "earned" that money. Whether it was the person who is the current owner, their parents, their grandparents, it was still earned at some point. So people should be penalized for owning an asset, not selling, and handing it down to another generation?

up
Voting closed 0

The word for the day is "earned". Some families do inherit their wealth, down through the ages, and there is a difference. Aside from that, and by way of example, what my great grandpa earned was his own money, what I earn is my own money. And since he is dead and I am alive, well, if I inherit his "earnings", which I did not "earn" through the sweat of my own brow, those "earnings" should be subject to a tax (although you like the word "penalized").

up
Voting closed 0

I never said someone who inherited money "earned" it. I said someone at some point "earned" it. It's none of my business whether it was you, your father, or your grandfather.

up
Voting closed 0

The vast majority earned and invested their way to wealth. As a financial advisor I meet lots of people with large amounts of wealth in real estate - almost all of them started from ground zero or pretty close - bought a property, parlayed that into another then 2 more and then 4 more. This doesn't apply to large corporations like Boston Properties, the Trumps etc. - but the vast majority of real estate isn't owned by those large companies anyway - most of this is nuts and bolts moms and pops managing houses, small apartment complexes or condos.

People who get their money from Mommy and Daddy don't need or want to run off and unclog a toilet at 3 am. They have stock and bond investments and pay people to do that stuff - directly or indirectly (real estate is a great investment - but also highly leveraged and exposes you to lots of liability - generation 2 is usually not willing to take that risk and is more interested in preserving that wealth than taking huge risks to make more).

Exceptions to everything, past performance not an indicator of future returns, getting out of bed in the morning is risky yada, yada, yada....

up
Voting closed 0

Which is none of your business.....

up
Voting closed 0

Can I have your Rolex? Yes, that sub you bought for $200 in 1965 - that's exactly how much I'll give you not a penny more, you profiteering capitalist pig! Others buying it for $8000? I don't care - they're rich, I'm poor but I still want it, giveme giveme giveme!

up
Voting closed 0

why a small landlord should be subsidizing rentals? I come from another one of those immigrant families who sunk their savings into real estate--and no, not the gold doubloons we carried from the old country but hard-won earnings. And not vast apartment towers either--small, multi-unit buildings. Every home I lived in growing up was partly rented out--that's how the mortgage got paid. No one was gouged--every place was modestly below market and well-maintained. But rent control pretty much made it impossible to keep up the maintenance of a building and generally went to subsidize some very comfortable, middle-class folk. I just don't see why an "investment" in real estate that isn't abusive or criminal should be treated differently than an "investment" in anything else and subject to that kind of regulation. The mayor of Cambridge had a rent-controlled apartment for Pete's sake--tell me how that's right. Rental subsidies, yes, but a system that worked largely by connections and word of mouth and gave huge advantages to some pretty privileged people...no, thanks

up
Voting closed 0

I've lived in Boston both during rent control and now that it's gone. There are always going to be slumlords, of course, but prior to the end of rent control most landlords were slumlords. Barely maintained properties were pretty much the norm. Now you can find good landlords; my current building is well maintained, for example, and my rent has only gone up a couple of hundred bucks in the 10+ years I've lived there. Rents are high because of demand; the best way to approach the problem has already been mentioned. We've got to work on our transportation infrastructure so that people can live further out but still be able to get into town. Not artificially restricting rents also encourages building.

up
Voting closed 0

When there are X housing units and Y people wanting to live in them, and Y>X, the wealthy wind up getting those units and the poor wind up having to leave.

Always. Rent control doesn't change that.

With rent control, you get money under the table, connections, et cetera, driving the process. At best, you've slowed it down. Without rent control, at least the wealthy have to part with more money to get the units, and the high rents spur construction of more units. W

up
Voting closed 0

NYC still has it and it badly distorts the rental market. People don't move if they have a cheap rent reducing turnover of units. Landlords can't make money and defer maintenance. Investment in new rental housing construction stagnates making it so that the underlying problem of limited supply not meeting demand is not solved but made exponentially worse.

The massive arson rings in Boston in the 1970s and 80s were the result of rent control. People could make more money on insurance fraud than being land lords because of prices locked in before double digit inflation hit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJvTTGOHFkU

up
Voting closed 0

Rent control was a disaster. Landlords were not able to re-invest in their buildings to upgrade or do needed maintenance leading to deterioration of the housing stock. It also put downward pressure on supply as there was less of an incentive to invest in building new apartments and more of an incentive to cash out and turn condo. Tenants would stay put for years so as to not to lose their below-market apartments, thus cutting off the supply of more affordable apartments coming on the market. Rent control was not income based, so you had many well-off individuals living in below-market apartments instead of the lower-income people that needed them. Rent control is not the answer, the answer is more apartment-friendly zoning, including in the suburbs.

up
Voting closed 0

Paul Krugman wrote a piece about 15 years ago that covers a lot of the ground on rent control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html

The analysis of rent control is among the best-understood issues in all of economics, and -- among economists, anyway -- one of the least controversial. In 1992 a poll of the American Economic Association found 93 percent of its members agreeing that ''a ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing.'' Almost every freshman-level textbook contains a case study on rent control, using its known adverse side effects to illustrate the principles of supply and demand. Sky-high rents on uncontrolled apartments, because desperate renters have nowhere to go -- and the absence of new apartment construction, despite those high rents, because landlords fear that controls will be extended? Predictable. Bitter relations between tenants and landlords, with an arms race between ever-more ingenious strategies to force tenants out -- what yesterday's article oddly described as ''free-market horror stories'' -- and constantly proliferating regulations designed to block those strategies? Predictable.

up
Voting closed 0

When Bill Weld was governor he and his "brain trust" which included Charlie Baker got a ballot measure on the ballot to abolish rent control. Even though only Cambridge (and maybe Boston) had it, the whole state was allowed to vote. That's when rents in Cambridge skyrocketed and longtime residents were pushed out. Merino only tried to get rent control for seniors, not all residents. Highways (except 90) may be free, but if you want to live here your going to pay, so people move further and further from their jobs and drive or take the commuter rail further and further. On the flip side, landlords are a lot richer and more apartments have been upgraded to granite countertops and stainless steel appliances.

up
Voting closed 0

The SJC ruled that it was a valid statewide issue.

Look at the stats and you will see that the highest "Yes" percentage by county was Middlesex, which includes Cambridge (one of the three cities directly affected) but also Somerville (a place where people who weren't the beneficiaries of Cambridge's rent control could easily see the effects). Many ballots in other parts of the state left the question blank (as high as 13.26% in Bristol County) and, for some reason, 15.46% in Suffolk County which is mostly Boston. The per-city/town results show the highest YES margins in places like Arlington and Somerville; see my comment about non-beneficiaries familiar with the effects....

up
Voting closed 0

but can someone explain to me why Rent Control was a bad thing?

So, you want a private party to directly subsidize the rent of someone? That's exactly what rent control does - it asks a specific private citizen or private enterprise (the owner) to subsidize the rent for someone, or even a lot of people.

Is that really fair?

If you want to help people out with rent, it should be a public entity doing so with funding thru taxes.

up
Voting closed 0

Somehow, even though your answer is short, it's really clear and makes an excellent argument. Just in case it's not obvious, there's no snark here; I really admire your response!

up
Voting closed 0

Thanks for the replies. Now I know. This is why I asked! No harm in asking, right?

Now I must bow out of the conversation for the next few hours (meetings...)

Thanks again for the reply.

up
Voting closed 0

1) Non rent-controlled properties will escalate in price even faster, creating a wider disparity
2) Rent-controlled apartments generally become rapidly less maintained
3) New, generally younger/poorer renters will be the ones most punished
4) Less overall development because investors must content with uncertainty, which means what is built will more likely be higher-priced if something may be controlled in the future
5) Situations like in SF where entire buildings get evicted to get around certain things being under the control
6) Inefficient allocation -> people will tend to stay put rather than take opportunity to find something that may suit them more (eg, single old lady hangs on to large apartment b/c she’d have to go small for more $ if she moved, but then a family that could really use the space can’t get it)

Its a policy which results in outcomes completly opposed to its intent, and MA was very smart to ban it, because it is one of the primary reasons NY and SF are so distorted today pricing wise and so quickly deteriorating, and a policy opposed almost unanimously by economists across the spectrum.

Generally a good synopsis if you want a longer read: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

The solution to our problems are generally that we need to change restrictions on development/NIMBYism, and change laws that do things like mandate expensive parking in the units in an age where car ownership is rapidly declining.

up
Voting closed 0

Most cities and towns with rent control were doing just fine.

In Cambridge, it became an entitlement: get a hold of a rent controlled apartment, continue to live there while your income went from student to professional levels, bank enormous amounts of cash due to artificially low living expenses, and then offer it to the next tenant for $1-5,000 when it came time to move.

This is not an exaggeration.

Cambridge was so entrenched with this system, and the abuses so widespread, that the city councilors and Mayor lived in rent controlled apartments and refused to fix it. Meanwhile, someone with a triple-decker and a leaky roof could not raise the rent enough to fix the place or maintain other systems properly.

Finally, people were so fed up that they got it on a ballot for the whole state to vote on. And the whole state did vote on it, amidst horror stories from Cambridge.

Most communities that means-tested and implemented limited rent control were pissed off at Cambridge for their abuses.

up
Voting closed 0

According to note 7 in Ash v. Attorney General, anyway. Those three were Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline. Amherst had "rent review", whatever that means, and Lowell, Waltham, and Somerville had "enabling authority to maintain and enforce systems of rent review" which implies that they were not using said authority.

up
Voting closed 0

If you did a full rehab of a space, it qualified as 'new'. This would allow you to set higher rates and was the incentive to fix that leaky roof.

My father owned several multi families, pre rent control, that he got for less each than a mid range car costs now. That was in 1962.

Rent control eventually drove him out, which was probably for the best, as he was a crappy landlord.

Yes, there are many tales of rent control squatters including mayors and local celebrities but they tend to be tinged with a mythic glow similar to the Cadillac welfare queens shtick.

The real value of rent control was the fear it instilled in rentiers in adjoining towns. They'd throttle down whole hog greed to reduce the incentive for rent control in their bailiwick.

Now, no such throttle exists and whole hog greed is like a religious creed for avarice adherents. It's easy, lazy money despite the sob stories offered. The people who built the structures were the real value makers and the rest were generally a long line of petty leeches.

There is a funny market impact on the non residential side now. The more astute property owners are reluctant to jack rent as much because their sector is tanking due to the decline in demand for storefront things.

up
Voting closed 0

you can't make me click on a NY Post link.

up
Voting closed 0

How long can a luxury apartment building sit empty? There's one off Rt 2 near Alewife that appears to me to have been mostly empty for at least a year. Some in the Seaport District appear to be similarly situated. Anyone understand the economics of luxury apartment buildings? What does failure look like? I don't get it.

up
Voting closed 0

Are far from empty. Park Lane is always 90% occupied, and Pier 4 was 65% occupied and like 80% rented when I went to look at it a couple months ago...after opening in March.

up
Voting closed 0

Just because the outer skin is on doesn't mean it is move-in ready.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://www.blogcdn.com/realestate.aol.com/blog//media/2010/10/nygovernorsrace.4fec15a3274648fba755188784045445.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

Final comment from me.

There is "rent control" in Boston in the sense that there is an Inclusionary Development Policy that requires developers of projects requesting zoning variances to have 13% of the new housing be "affordable". What is meant by affordable is usually along the lines of 60-80% of area median income (not solely Boston).

Approximately 22% of Boston's housing units are income-restricted, meaning the landlords or current owners cannot increase rents beyond a certain amount and where renters and buyers must meet income requirements. This total includes public housing projects, where tenants pay ~30% of their income in rent, and Section 8-type rental units.

http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/housing/overview

up
Voting closed 0

I know I'll get slammed for this, but when can we knock down Villa Victoria and the surrounding neighborhood? Oh, and that atrocity located between Washington and Harrison at Brookline?

up
Voting closed 0

these are some of the only developments that indicate the so end still has an soul if not a heartbeat. BTW, the atrocity is "Cathedral": home to a good number of working folks. yer welcome.

up
Voting closed 0

QUALIFIED LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR COUNCILLOR-at-LARGE
http://www.cityofboston.gov/boardsandcommissions/default.aspx?boardid=52

There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor at Large

2015 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

NAME .... ADDRESS .... Phones .... Email Address
1) Michael F Flaherty South Boston MA 02127 617-269-4673 617-635.4205 flahertyforboston at gmail.com
Present City Councillor at Large

2) Annissa Essaibi George Dorchester MA 02125 617-474-0797 617-594-1841 annissaeg at hotmail.com

3) Stephen J Murphy Hyde Park MA 02136 617-361-3339 617-635-4376 councilormurphy at aol.com
Present City Councillor at Large

4) Ayanna S Pressley Dorchester MA 02124 857-220-7026 617-635-4217 ayannap at ayannapressley.com
Present City Councillor at Large

5) Michelle Wu South End MA 02118 617-599-0449 michelleforboston at gmail.com
PO Box 180231 Boston, MA 02118
Present City Councillor at Large

There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor at Large

QUALIFIED LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR DISTRICT CITY COUNCILLOR
http://www.cityofboston.gov/boardsandcommissions/default.aspx?boardid=52

2015 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
NAME .... ADDRESS .... Phones .... Email Address
DISTRICT ONE - There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor District 1
6) Salvatore LaMattina East Boston MA 02128 617-567-0071 617-635-3200 sallamattina at gmail.com
Present District City Councllor

DISTRICT TWO - There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor District 2
7) Bill Linehan South Boston MA 02127 617-224-6911 617-635-3203
Present District City Councllor

DISTRICT THREE - There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor District 3
8) Frank Baker Dorchester MA 02125 617-288-9061 617-635-3455 fkbaker2 at yahoo.com
Present District City Councillor

9) Donnie Palmer Dorchester MA 02125 617-470-1437 donniedpalmer at gmail.com
Veteran

DISTRICT FOUR – Preliminary Municipal Election on September 8, 2015
10) Andrea Joy Campbell Mattapan MA 02126 617-874-0210 campbellandreaj at gmail.com

11) Jovan J Lacet Mattapan MA 02126 617-593-5593 lacet4boston at gmail.com

12) Terrance J Williams Dorchester MA 02121 617-594-7457 mrwilliamsmission at yahoo.com

13) Charles Calvin Yancey Dorchester MA 02124 617-436-4444 617-635-3131 ccyancey at aol.com
Present District City Councillor

DISTRICT FIVE - There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor District 5
14) Timothy P McCarthy Hyde Park MA 02136 617-364-9971 617-635-4210 mccarthy4boston at gmail.com
Present District City Councillor

15) Jean-Claude Sanon Mattapan MA 02126 617-839-7191 jeanclaude_sanon at yahoo.com

DISTRICT SIX - There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor District 6
16) Matt O’Malley Jamaica Plain MA 02130 617-935-9752 matt at votemattomalley.com
Present District City Councillor

DISTRICT SEVEN – Preliminary Municipal Election on September 8, 2015
17) Charles L Clemons Jr Dorchester MA 02121 617-334-4639 617-686-1377 djccsounds at aol.com

18) Kevin A Dwire Roxbury MA 02119 617-680-0085 kadwire at hotmail.com

19) Haywood Fennell Sr South End Roxbury MA 02118 617-966-9594
Veteran

20) Althea Garrison Dorchester MA 02125 617-407-7661
PO Box 191395 Roxbury MA 02119
Former State Representative

21) Tito Jackson Dorchester MA 02121 617-635-3510 tito4boston at gmail.com
Present District City Councillor

22) Roy Owens Roxbury MA 02119 617-516-6163 prince.albert204 at yahoo.com

DISTRICT EIGHT - There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor District 8
23) Josh Zakim Back Bay MA 02116 617-480-0203 josh at joshzakim.com
Present District City Councillor

DISTRICT NINE - There will be no Preliminary Municipal Election for City Councillor District 9
24) Mark S Ciommo Brighton MA 02135 617-789-4693 617-635-3113 mark at markciommo.com
Present District City Councllor

http://www.cityofboston.gov/boardsandcommissions/default.aspx?boardid=52

up
Voting closed 0