The ZBA (Zoning Board of Appeals) rejected a proposal this past week from Traggorth Companies and TND (The Neighborhood Developers) to construct 42 affordable RENTAL units at the old Midas Site (1005 Broadway), located at the intersection of Clinton, Eastern Ave and Broadway.
Alongside other area homeowners, I voiced my opposition during the hearing. My objection stemmed from a growing consensus in our city: we should not continue approving rental construction while failing to create equivalent homeownership opportunities. Chelsea cannot afford to surrender another ownership prospect to rentals. Our housing stock is currently 80 percent rentals, which translates to approximately 90 percent of residents paying rent and remaining vulnerable to landlord decisions and market fluctuations.
This represents an unsustainable situation for a community addressing its social and economic challenges.
I must clarify: I do support affordable housing, but it must be OWNERSHIP-based, not rentals. Since 2007, when Boxworks (by TND) and Keen Artist Lofts (by IBA) were completed, no affordable condos with income guidelines and deed restrictions have been built. Last year, only three affordable condos came available for resale compared to 180 market condos.
My experience as a licensed real estate broker has shown me the difficulty of locating affordable Chelsea homes for teachers, police officers, trades people, and Logan Airport workers. Our local economy depends on nearby working-class residents. Some might characterize my ownership advocacy as self-interested.
That would be incorrect.
Real estate agents can earn commissions on rentals as well. I am advocating for my community’s benefit, leveraging my expertise to shape policy and conversation. Furthermore, TND has previously hired me to assist with multi-family purchases—a relationship unlikely to improve from this position on my career or professional standing.
Nearly 4,000 apartments have been constructed since 2010. TND alone has developed three substantial affordable projects on Spencer Avenue, plus affordable rentals at the former Winnisimmet Club on Shurtleff Street, the Latimer Lewis home on Shawmut Street, and properties in the Box District on Gerrish Avenue and Highland. Additionally, they have acquired numerous three-families throughout Chelsea—properties that once represented the traditional ownership pathway for working-class residents.
This trajectory undermines efforts to build a vibrant, engaged community where residents participate actively in local affairs. Homeowners have always been a minority here. School enrollment reflects this crisis, with hundreds of students entering and leaving annually. Civic involvement and voter participation remain disappointingly low for a city of 50,000 residents.
Many in the room, including TND proposal supporters, validated my concerns about prioritizing ownership over rentals. One TND supporter who became a homeowner herself observed, “fblikebutton_button” Ever since my family bought our home, I care more about how clean my street is, who is hanging around, if there is suspected criminal activity etc. “fblikebutton_button”
This reflects precisely what those opposing additional rentals seek to encourage.
Affordable rental units trap tenants in poverty. Qualification requires remaining below income thresholds, creating incentive to earn less rather than more. Home purchase works differently: a raise does not result in eviction, and resales maintain affordability.
Meanwhile, as 4,000-plus apartments were constructed, working-class residents have been displaced because home prices rose while new ownership opportunities disappeared.
Chelsea is stratifying into wealthy (by local standards) or impoverished populations, with no middle working class.
Couples earning $60,000 to $80,000 annually cannot afford Chelsea housing. Their income disqualifies them from market-rate newer buildings while exceeding limits for TND apartments.
The City Council mandated that new police and firefighters reside in Chelsea—a policy I consider a budget error—yet offers no program helping them achieve this on entry-level salaries.
I sponsored and supported Inclusionary Zoning, requiring developers to include at least 15 percent affordable units.
I sponsored the Community Preservation Act order placed on the 2016 ballot and campaigned for voter approval. Chelsea voters overwhelmingly supported it.
Last week, following Councilor Leo Robinson’s request, the City Council met with Chelsea Restoration Executive Director Helen Zucco and staff. Chelsea Restoration represents the other—often overlooked by some activists—longest-serving non-profit agency building affordable ownership housing and graduating thousands of Chelsea residents from First Time Home Buyer Courses.
The meeting reminded colleagues and informed our new city manager of accomplishments and remaining needs, particularly regarding CPA funding sources and city support.
CPA funds should support current working-class residents and city employees by increasing down payment assistance provided by Chelsea Restoration and local banks to first-time homebuyer course graduates.
If colleagues and community advocates genuinely want city employees living here, fund additional down payment assistance through CPA resources.
If TND claims no state funding exists for non-profit affordable ownership development, then support private condo developments incorporating affordable units.
The City should reinstate its problem property program, using CPA funding to acquire abandoned dilapidated properties and engage agencies like Chelsea Restoration as receivers to rehabilitate and sell them as affordable homes to first-time homebuyers.
I am prepared to meet with TND and accept their executive director’s offer to discuss creating ownership opportunities.
I will collaborate with them examining their 49-property portfolio and proposing that three-family renter occupants purchase their units affordably. We can require Chelsea Restoration home buying course completion, down payment assistance access, and TND financial literacy training to establish stable owner-occupants while charging affordable rent for the remaining two units. Alternatively, convert those three-families into three affordable condos.
Many properties have been TND-owned for over 20 years, purchased at low prices, and could certainly be sold very affordably now.
Let us revisit the Midas site and the undisclosed purchase price Taggart agreed to, determining whether the seller might accept a lower price supporting 42 condo units with 50 percent affordability.
Let us reconsider the Seidman Property on Sixth Street that TND has under agreement. Instead of planning additional apartments, let us analyze condo configurations with 50 percent affordability.
A private developer previously held this property under agreement, proposing 60 condo units with 20 percent affordable. Surely with TND, housing advocates, and experts reviewing the numbers, we can exceed 20 percent affordability from a non-subsidized developer. Without profit requirements, cannot we achieve at least 50 percent affordability?
As TND continues pursuing the former Boston Hides and Furs site, remember that condo construction—not apartments—will be required. This should strengthen negotiating leverage for a workable purchase price.
The ZBA’s rejection of TND’s proposal was not a sad day. Ideally, it represents a watershed moment for Chelsea’s struggling homeowners who have reached their limit. Our city has endured sadness since becoming a super-majority renter community.