The Chelsea City Council voted 9-0 on Monday to ask the city to set aside 70 percent of the city’s inclusionary zoning apartments for Chelsea residents. Those are the affordable units developers must include in new buildings. The preference would apply to a new citywide lottery and waiting list that the Chelsea Housing Authority will run. Before the vote, two councillors said the city still has to decide who counts as a Chelsea resident.
The order
The order, from Councillor Kelly Garcia, asks City Manager Fidel Maltez to work with the Housing Authority to establish “a 70% local preference for eligible Chelsea residents on the proposed centralized lottery and waiting list for inclusionary zoning affordable housing units, or the maximum percentage permitted by applicable state and federal law with appropriate fair housing safeguards and required approval.” Garcia said the goal is “prioritizing our Chelsea families to stay in the City of Chelsea.”
At the October 5 meeting, Maltez laid out the plan for the Housing Authority to run one lottery for all inclusionary units, instead of each developer running its own. A councillor asked then whether the preference could be 100 percent, and Maltez said he would look into it.
Why 70 percent and not 100
Garcia asked Maltez to share the legal advice the city had received. Maltez said the city “reached out to our lawyers and also reach out to the state, and this is going to be possible.” He called it “a game changer.” He said 70 percent “is more prudent because it’s in line with fair housing law.”
Councillor Santagate asked what preference the existing affordable housing lists use. Maltez said it “really depends on the funding of the project.” Projects that receive state money can apply for a 70 percent preference, and “sometimes” it is granted. Projects financed with low-income housing tax credits carry their own restrictions. Inclusionary zoning units, he said, “typically do not have any requirements or funding from the state.” That is why the city thinks following the state’s usual maximum of 70 percent keeps it in compliance.
Councillor Todd Taylor asked what would happen if the city went higher. “We would be out of compliance,” Maltez said. “We could get sued.” When the city pays for a project itself, he said, it sets its own rules. He cited 55 Hurst Street, where the preference was 100 percent “because it was our money.”
“How do we define 70% Chelsea?”
Councillor Calvin Brown said he supports the idea but is “kind of wary” about how residency will be measured. “People will find out, hey, Chelsea. If you’re a resident of Chelsea, you put your name on a list, you move in three months before the list come out, you knock off a lot of folks,” he said. “We have people in Chelsea right now that’s been on some of these lists for over 10, 12 years.” He asked for “some kind of parameters to protect that.”
Councillor Leo Robinson agreed. “There need to be some guidelines as to how long you’re a resident of the city of Chelsea,” he said. The vote set no residency rule. Garcia called the 70 percent figure “a really good happy medium” between protecting the city from a lawsuit and keeping families in Chelsea.
All nine councillors present voted yes. Councillors Hines and Tanairi Garcia were absent. The full exchange is in our transcript of the meeting.