Section 8 Existing Housing Program:
The Boston Experience
by
Peter Francis DiToro
B.A. Housing and Community Development
University of Massachusetts at Boston
(1978)
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN STUDIES AND PLANNING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF CITY PLANNING
at the
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 1982
Peter Francis DiToro 1982
MASSACHUSETTS
(
The
author
hereby grants to M.I.T.
permission to reproduce and to
distribute copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.
Signature of Author
Depa 'tment
of Urban Studies and Planning
May 10, 1982
Certified by
Langley Keyes
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
Langley Keyes
Chairman, Departmental Graduate Committee
Rotcfi
~~
T~
f . -r ' i i T1i
LInABIES
1
SECTION 8 EXISTING HOUSING PROGRAM:
THE BOSTON EXPERIENCE
by
PETER FRANCIS DITORO
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on May 10, 1982 in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of City Planning
Abstract
The Section 8 Existing Housing Program, administered in
Boston Housing Authority Leased Housing
the
by
Boston
Department, currently accounts for approximately 2,150 active
Section 8 leases. This study analyses the locational patterns
Providers of
that have evolved over the program's history.
A database
housing service are classified by type and size.
subsidy
consisting of information on unit costs (rents,
and provider
payments, utility allowances, tenant shares)
is queried and program costs are
classification information
analysed by neighborhood. Ownership patterns are analysed and
locational data queried to determine whether or not rents in a
voucher type program are location sensitive or whether owners
Direct subsidy costs are
rents.
program
into"
"back
Rent levels in
unit size.
calculated by neighborhood and
fourteen Boston neighborhoods are analysed and conclusions
drawn about the state of the rental market. The experience of
Section 8 Existing
the Boston Housing Authority with the
Housing Program is analysed, questions about the housing
future research are
market are addressed and directions for
charted.
Thesis Supervisor: Langley Keyes
Title: Professor
2
Table of Contents
List of Tables
3
Introduction
5
Chapter One
A Baedeker's Section 8
10
Chapter Two
The Boston Housing Authority
and the Leased Housing Department
27
Chapter Three
The Philosophical Bases of Section 8
42
Chapter Four
The Boston Rental Market
49
Chapter Five
The City-wide View
55
Chapter Six
The Neighborhoods
77
Chapter Seven
Summary
96
Appendix One
Neighborhood Tables
1o6
Appendix Two
Research Methodology
147
3
List of Tables
Title
Table
1-1
Income Limits and Fair Market Rents
1-2
Annual Adjustment Factors Effective
Page
12
February 1, 1982
18
1-3
Utility Allowance Schedule
19
5-1
Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit Size
59
5-2
Distribution of Units by Number of Bedrooms
58
5-3
Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit Size
and Neighborhood
61
5-4
Summary of Indicators by Unit Size
62
5-5
Average Contract Rents by Unit Size and
Neighborhood
5-6
Average Tenant Share of Rent by Unit Size
and Neighborhood
5-7
68
Average Gross Rent by Unit Size and
Neighborhood
5-9
64
Average Utility Allowance by Unit Size
and Neighborhood
5-8
63
69
Average Gross Rent/Fair Market Rent Ratios
by Unit Size and Neighborhood
70
5-10
Analysis of ownership
75
6-1
Total Benefit Levels by Unit Size
101
List of Tables (cont.)
Neighborhood Tables
Roxbury
106
North Dorchester
109
South Dorchester
112
Brighton
115
Hyde Park
118
South End
121
Fenway-Kenmore
124
East Boston
127
Roslindale
130
Jamaica Plain
133
Charlestown
136
West Roxbury
139
South Boston
142
North End
144
5
Introduction
1974
In
the
Development
Community
Congress
U.S.
law was to consolidate
passed
and
Housing
the
Act One of the primary thrusts of this
housing
the
subsidy
and
production
programs frozen by President Richard Nixon during the previous
produced the Lower Income Housing
consolidation
That
year.
the
of
section
1936
Act
Housing
at which it
the
after
8,
Section
Assistance Program (commonly known as
was encoded)
established a three tier approach to the provision of low rent
housing:
1. Section 8 New Construction
Rehabilitation
2.
Section 8 Substantial
3.
The Section 8 Existing Housing Program
The following study traces the history and
current
portfolio
of
the Section 8 Existing Housing Program
(referred to hereafter as Section 8) in Boston.
analysis in
Boston
context the local
Housing
Authority
examined and its history is
portfolio
is
examined
classification types.
examined.
the
tenant
the
analyzes
administrative
Leased
Housing
summarized.
by neighborhood,
The
To place that
(The
structure
Department)
BHA
unit size,
Section
8
and owner
Program costs are summarized and trends
A brief analysis of the demographic composition
population
is
is
presented
housing market behavior are made.
and
inferences
of
about
6
An understanding of the evolution of Section
in
grounded
organizational
in
a
vacuum,
and philosophical.
The program did
the
in
arise
not
nor was the idea of subsidizing privately owned
Section 8 has
existing housing new to the 93rd Congress.
roots
be
both
history,
program's
the
of
knowledge
must
8
Section
implemented in 1965.
23
(Leased
first
program,
Housing)
its
There are functional differences between
the two programs, the primary one being the "ownership" of the
Under Section 23 the subsidy was tied to
subsidy.
With
Section 8 the recipients (tenants) "own" the subsidy and
can take it
the
unit.
the
with them if
programs'
they so choose.
philosophical
In
underpinnings
spite
this,
of
remain virtually
identical.
In Chapter One the parameters of Section 8 are
both
from
the
perspective
of recipient and property owner.
Chapter Two consists of a brief history of the Boston
Authority
and
the
Leased Housing Department.
Housing
Chapter Three
consists of a discussion of the pilosophical roots of
8.
examined,
Section
Subsequent chapters present an analysis of the BHA Leased
Housing
Department
Section
8
portfolio,
overall
neighborhoods.
The conclusions of this study are as follows:
and
by
7
A voucher type program of unit leasing, dependent on
1.
providing
for
model
Specifically,
far
taxpayers
the
Housing Program
to
below that encountered
in present or
easily
administered
is
It
proposed production programs.
While Section 8 has not lived up to its
controlled.
and
Existing
providing quality housing at a price
Boston,
works in
8
Section
the
subsidies.
housing
income
low
workable
a practicable,
is
privately owned housing stock,
initial
promise as a mechanism
income
populations,
low
deconcentrating
for
potential remains for at least
the
moving further toward this goal.
2.
Rent levels in the city of
Gross Rent/Fair Market Rent
for
.80
all
unit
sizes.
at
a
Overall
Section
While
8
locating
difficulties
below program rent ceilings, approximately
or
half of them succeed in
For
those
averaging
low,
are
ratios
Certificate holders do experience
units
below
are
both by the author and most observers.
expected
about
Boston
acceptable
finding
apartments.
private market dependent program in a city with a
This,
this
is
low
rent
levels encountered by BHA
combined
with
the
Leased Housing Department,
indeed
news.
perennial housing crisis
raises serious questions about
the actual state of the Boston rental marke.
Section 8 is
meeting the market head on.
Apparently
8
The other side of this
about
half
of
all
from the program.
requires
a
coin
is,
of
course,
Certificate holders fail
Section
degree
8
Existing
that
to benefit
Housing
program
of self direction from participants.
There is a segment of
the
low
income
population
that
simply will not be able to utilize Section 8 or a similar
Fortunately Section 8 does not exist in
voucher program.
a
vacuum.
Public
housing,
much
simpler
from
the
applicant's point of view, also fails to deliver services
to all who apply and are deemed eligible.
such alternatives
those
least
to a voucher-type
able
to
fend
Elimination of
program
for
would
themselves
leave
with
no
alternative.
3.
Patterns of ownership in the BHA
are
dispersed.
23,
Rent
With previous leasing
Supplements,
concentrate
in
the
Boston neighborhoods
stock
in
etc.)
hands
show
of
this
others neighborhoods
of
program
programs
(Section
ownership
large
is
tended
developers.
pattern.
Most
of
their
the
Current
trends are clearly toward a larger participation by
community.
Some
portfolios.
these own triple deckers and duplexes.
segment of the landlord
to
provided by individual
owners with fewer than three units in
Most
8
Section
this
9
4.
The proposed federal
program
will dilute the marketabliity of the concept,
the only extant example.
which Section 8 is
more disturbing
be
switch to a level funded voucher
implications of the proposed
sizes would most likely experience
of
level
benefits
derived
larger units would be "taxed".
the
from
The
an
program
participants
are
population most likely to be "taxed".
the
switch would
increase
in
the
the program while the
larger
larger the diminution in benefits.
family
of
The smallest unit
impact on program recipients.
the
One
of
the
family,
Since 69% of BHA
black,
this
is
the
10
Chapter One
A Baedeker's Section 8
Author's
Note:
All
data
to
pertaining
parameters are taken from HUD forms and
program
publications.
All statistics, unless
otherwise
cited, are derived from BHA data compiled by the
author for this and other research projects.
1.
The Program
The Section 8 Existing Housing
income
participants
Certificate
a
with
like
voucher
of Family Participation.
low
subsidizes
by
consumption
housing
families'
Program
providing
the
called
instrument
Essentially "apartment
stamps" these Certificates help low income people compete
the
private
rental
entities defined by
Development
market.
the
The program is administered by
Department
of
Housing
as Public Housing Agencies
(HUD)
in
and
(PHA's).
Urban
These
from
can be virtually any organization so classified by HUD,
state housing agencies (in Massachusetts the Executive Office
of
Communities and Development (EOCD,
Community Afairs (DCA)) to
bodies,
Local
Housing
Housing Authority,
more
formerly Department of
traditional
Authorities
(LHA's).
whose Section 8 portfolio is
this study, belongs to the latter category.
administrative
The
Boston
the focus
of
11
Under HUD regulations PHA's are required to
pool
This is
of eligible applicants.
maintain
generally accomplished
and
by infrequently collecting large numbers of applications
issuing
Certificates
to
eligible
resulting waiting lists.
waiting
list
is
number
of
position
determined
by lottery.
Waiting lists
persons in
two
size
category
(determined
a
For example,
children)
if
Certificate
on
the
are
by
the
an applicant's family and expressed in
would
family
of
a
require
Certificate if both children were of the same
bedroom
taken from the
applicant's
number of bedrooms).
parents,
families
An
maintained by apartment
a
four
two
sex,
same sex children per bedroom"
algorithm is
Deviations are made only in very
special
bedroom
a
they had a boy and a girl.
(two
three
The "two
almost universal.
(usually
medical)
circumstances.
Eligibility is determined by comparing net family income
(all income received by the head of household
family
members
medical
expenses in
federally
minus
the
set
and
area
median
any
other
of deductions (e.g.
gross
income))
determined eligibility standard.
families
families.
standard
excess of 3% of
presently set at 80% of
income
a
or
income
with
This standard is
for
very
Thus,
of
they issue go to very low income families.
The vast majority of BHA program participants fall into
category.
low
50% of area median for very low income
PHA's are required to assure that at least 30%
Certificates
a
in
this
Boston, a family of four could earn as
12
much as $21,750 annually and remain program eligible.
1
Table
presents eligibility standards in effect as of February 1,
1982.
The
number
approximately
available
1,300
allocations)
is
renters
the
in
of
unused
dwarfed
by
Certificates
Certificates
the
Boston area.
number
in
(BHA
its
several
income
of
has
eligble
In 1980 BHA conducted a three
day application session hosted by Boston's Little City Halls.
Over 7,000 persons filled out preapplication forms, the
majority
of
whom
are
income
eligible.
applicants is expected to last at
least
This
another
vast
pool
two
of
years
before BHA needs to go public again.
TABLE 1-1: Income Limits and Fair- Market Rents
# of Persons
Lower Income
Very Low Income
1
15250
10150
2
17400
11600
3
19550
13050
4
21750
14500
5
23100
15650
6
24450
16800
Section 8 Existing Housing Program income limits for program
participants in effect as of February 1, 1982.
Fair Market Rents
# of Bedrooms
FMR
0
1
2
3
4
5
289
329
394
458
519
597
Fair Market Rents in effect as of February 1, 1982.
13
Once a family's turn on the waiting list is reached they
and eligibility established.
verified
"marriage
traditional
BHA
government's
expense)
unless
"families"
Once an applicant
family is
days)
The
sin at the
living in
over
are
they
62
of
years
has been determined
age,
eligible
program
on
(with
maximum
their
extensions
They
own.
lasting another
owned
within which they must locate a privately
The
have
sixty
unit.
owner must be willing to enter into a Housing Assistance
Payments (HAP) agreement with the administering PHA.
HAP
not
is
and
currently out of favor
is
essentially
then left
days
sixty
(no
test"
a Certificate of Family Participation.
issued
is
The
or disabled.
handicapped,
he/she
of
any group
as virtually
Single people are not considered by HUD to
enforced.
being
HUD regulations limit
together and related by blood or marriage.
people living
be
defined
to "families",
eligibility
and
determined
is
income
family
BHA,
to
in
are called
executed
is
income.
of
The term of
into the program.
the HAP contract runs with that of the lease,
share
generally
The tenant is responsible to the owner
rent,
the
currently
set at of 25%
The owner rceives the balance
Tenant Share)
in
a
and the tenant signs a standard lease with
the owner the unit is inducted
one year.
Once
(Contract
for
for his/her
of net family
Rent
the form of a monthly HAP payment.
minus
14
Units
brought
standards.
These
which the rent included all utilities
in
case
a
In cases in which
figures would be identical.
utilities
placed
were
in
the
based)
allowances).
utility
and Gross Rent (Contract Rent plus any
In
Contract
amount on which the monthly HAP payment is
(the
Rent
apartment
categories,
Rents are broken into two
conditions.
and
levels
rent
involve
certain
meet
must
program
the
into
some
the two
or
all
tenants' names, HUD utility
allownces would be added to Contract Rents to determine Gross
Rents.
This last figure is
limits
known
Fair
as
compared
then
must either adjust his figures
Gross
participation.
"worth"
or
rent
be
can
brought
into
the
Gross Rent exceeds these limits the owner
the
If
federal
Market Rents (FMR).If the Gross Rent
does not exceed the FMR the unit
program.
with
of a unit if
Rents
downward
or
forego
program
represent a HUD opinion of the
were
all utilities
included.
Contract
"economic" Rent is the best estimate of a landlord's cash
flow needs since his monthly HAP payment
figure.
Contract
is
based
on
this
or "economic" Rent is the figure on which
this study will focus.
been
has
Once it
determined
that
a
unit
fits
FMR
BHA inspector is dispatched to assure that the
guidelines
a
unit meets
minimum
guidelines
but
standards
allows
of
fitness.
HUD
publishes
PHA's to use local standards if they
15
are
more
stringent.
BHA
follows
State
Sanitary
Code
guidelines.
Unit fitness is supposedly determined in accordance with
an "inspection checklist" issued by HUD.
an
inspector's
fitness.
BHA
judgement
call
inspectors
are
it
In practice
that
determines
notoriously
is
a
unit's
fussy,
often
rejecting units for seemingly minor problems (drafty windows,
sticky cabinet drawers,
Inspectors
comparing
the
in
inspected
inspector's
ceiling cracks,
estimate
rent
unit
question
the
in
same
reasonableness
with
neighborhood.
by
others
mentally
they
it
Again,
have
is
an
judgement call that generally determines whether
a unit fits this criterion.
has
etc.).
recently
begun
BHA
Leased
Housing
Department
to generate alternative data for use in
this process, of which the analysis that follows is a piece.
Property owners are encouraged
their
tenants.
Unlike
to
deal
previous "private"
directly
subsidy programs
nor
the PHA provides no assistance with tenant selection,
PHA's
screen
for
landlords,
required
which is
the
applicants.
to
example
live
within
This
is
do
Some guarantees are available to
vacancy
Tenants
payments.
the terms of their leases,
the provision of sufficient notice
unit.
with
before
are
one of
vacating
usually interpreted to mean thirty days
notice upon termination of the lease.
Should
a
tenant
and
16
decide to terminate a lease by mutual
landlord
PHA takes no further role beyond issuing the
Certificate
agreement the
another
tenant
and providing some search assistance.
Tenants who vacate without notice are responsible to the
property owner for whatever "liquidated
may
within
prescribe,
reasonable limits.
Should the owner
will
remain unable to collect his damages the PHA
pay
full
for any portion of the month remaining after vacate and
rent
is
owner
the
if
eighty percent of contract rent for up to two months
unable to rerent the unit and can substantiate his
Section 8 provides a process for owner "waste claims"
claim.
(damage to units caused by tenants).
first
lease
the
damages"
owner's
Here again the
recourse must be to the tenant.
The PHA only steps in
was
if the owner can clearly demonstrate that the tenant
at
fault and either cannot be located, is insolvent, or will not
honor
the debt.
prohibited
In return for these guarantees the owner is
from holding as security
deposit
amount
any
in
excess of one month's tenant share.
While initial rents are set
with
FMR
rent
guidelines,
guided by the "Annual
by
levels
comparing
upon
Gross
lease renewal
Adjustment Factor "(AAF).
Metropolitan
are
The AAF is a
percentage rent escalator determined in Washington
Standard
Rents
Statistical Area (SMSA).
for
each
The size of
the AAF to be applied to any given apartment is a function of
the utilities
supplied
by
the
property
owner,
the
size
17
bedrooms)
of
(number
unit,
the
of
Owners who
supply all utilities
increases
of
utilities can look forward to an
this year.
approximate
utility
participant
from the Tenant share
allowances.
that
so
This practice has given rise to
no
a
These represent checks
phenomenon known as "negative rents".
each
hike
of their adjusted
25%
than
more
pays
income for shelter.
sent
rent
Rent for comparison
are added to the Contract
with FMR's and subtracted
(net)
7%
Table Two presents the AAF's currently in force.
figures
program
rent
while an owner supplying no
Table Three summarizes current HUD
These
expect
currently
can
12%
approximately
and the Contract Rent.
month to tenants so that they can remain in their
of
25%
units without paying above the
their
upper
income
limit.
For
example,
take
a
two
bedroom
$350/month, including all utilities.
a
net
income
of
unit
renting
A Section 8 tenant with
$400/month would pay $100 to the landlord
property
with BHA sending off a monthly check of $250 to the
owner.
Now, suppose that at the end of the
first
the owner decides to forego a full rent increase
both
at
heat and electricity in the tenant's name.
Share and Contract Rent would
be
reduced
(by
lease term
but
places
Both Tenant
BHA)
by
an
18
Annual
Adjustment Factors
Monthly
Gross Rents
under $125
125 - 149
150 - 174
175 - 199
200 - 224
225 - 249
250 - 274
275 - 299
300 - 324
325 - 349
350 - 374
375 - 399
400 - 424
425 - 449
450 - 474
475 - 499
500 - 524
525 - 549
550 - 574
575 - 599
600
up
TABLE 1-2
in effect as of February 1, 1982.
O Br
1 Br
2 Br
3 Br
.126
.118
.112
.107
.104
.101
.099
.097
.095
.094
.153
.139
.130
.123
.118
.114
.127
.107
.105
.103
.101
.100
.098
.192
.171
.157
.146
.138
.132
.147
.123
.119
.116
.113
.111
.109
.107
.106
.104
.103
.102
.101
.100
.099
.238
.209
.189
.174
.163
.154
.147
.141
.136
.131
.128
.124
.122
.119
.117
.115
.113
.111
.110
.109
.107
.093
.092
.091
.090
.090
.089
.089
.088
.088
.087
.097
.096
.095
.094
.094
.093
.092
.092
.087
AAF for Contract Rent (excluding utilities)
owner.
is
4+
.269
.235
.210
.193
.179
.169
.160
153
147
.142
.137
.134
.130
.127
.125
.122
.120
.118
.116
.115
.113
1.078.
Now, suppose that at the end of the first lease term
the owner decides to forego a full rent increase
both
heat and
electricity
Share and Contract
amount
Br
equal
to
in
Rent would
the tenant's name.
be
reduced
the sum of the utility
but
places
Both Tenant
BHA)
by
an
allowances.
If
the
(by
allowances exceeded the tenant share the tenant would be in a
negative rent position.
19
TABLE
1-3
Utility Allowance
Schedule
Group One: Single Family
0
1
2
3
24
40
45
29
46
49
36
58
53
44
71
58
53
85
62
59
98
67
7
7
8
6
7
9
9
9
5
12
10
14
Electric Light
Refrigerator
14
5
16
5
21
6
25
6
27
7
29
7
WATER HEATING
Natl. Gas
Electric
Oil
9
15
12
10
18
14
13
25
18
15
31
22
18
36
26
20
40
30
Bedroom Size
HEATING
Natl. Gas
Oil
Electric
COOKING
Gas
Electric
Group Two: Duplex,
HEATING
Natl. Gas
Oil
Electric
COOKING
Gas
Electric
Electric Light
Refrigerator
WATER HEATING
Natl. Gas
Electric
Oil
Twin,
or
5
Three Decker
22
36
41
26
41
44
32
52
48
40
64
52
48
77
56
53
88
60
7
5
7
6
8
7
9
9
9
12
10
14
14
5
16
5
21
6
25
6
27
7
29
7
9
10
18
14
13
25
18
15
31
22
18
36
26
20
40
30
15
12
20
TABLE 3 (cont.)
Group Three: Garden, Town House,
2
0
1
Bedroom Size
HEATING
29
23
19
Natl. Gas
46
Oil
32
37
42
Electric
39
36
COOKING
Gas
Electric
Refrigerator
WATER HEATING
Natl. Gas
Electric
Oil
5
35
57
46
42
68
50
47
78
54
9
9
9
12
10
14
3
5
6
8
7
14
5
16
5
21
6
25
27
7
29
6
9
10
18
14
13
25
18
15
31
22
18
36
26
20
40
30
41
7
7
Electric Lights
or Walkup
4
3
15
12
7
Group Four: High Rise
HEATING
Natl. Gas
Oil
Electric
17
28
32
20
32
34
25
41
37
31
50
41
37
60
44
69
COOKING
Gas
Electric
7
5
7
6
8
9
9
9
12
10
14
14
5
16
5
21
6
25
27
29
6
7
7
9
10
18
14
13
25
18
15
31
22
18
36
26
20
40
30
Electric Light
Refrigerator
WATER HEATING
Natl. Gas
Electric
Oil
If
tenant
our hypothetical
of $120/month
each
15
12
allowance
She would be responsible to the utility
companies for her heating
AAF of $15
received a utility
she would subsequently receive a check from BHA
month for $20.
lendlord
7
47
for nothing.
(7%).
and
electric
bills
and
to
the
The owner would receive $230 plus his
Subsidy cost would have been
increased
by
21
$15
(the
$245
BHA
now
sends
to
the
owner plus the $20
negative rent payment to the tenant) .This would represent
increased
subsidy
cost
of of approximately 6%.
excellent system for addressing the
BHA
landlords
utilities
(and
property
growing
This is an
movement
among
owners in general) to get the
out of their names.
Section 8 contains a little used but fairly
provision
called
the
"shopper's
shoppers
by
well
known
credit".
incentive
encourages (theoretically) Certificate holders
to
be
It
smart
offering a slight rent reduction (tenant share)
if the Certificate holder locates a unit whose Gross Rent
below the FMR.
distance
of
is
The amount of the credit is a function of the
the
Gross Rent from the FMR.
The credit is so
used and its impact on program costs
little
the
an
so
slight
that
need know no more about it than the fact that it
reader
exists.
The most significant points
for
our
analysis
are
as
follows:
Rent ceilings.
clients
to
local market.
this
The FMR limits the ability
of
PHA
compete for the most expensive units on the
This is
probably as it
helps control program costs it
areas from participation in
should be.
can exclude certain
the program.
renewal are governed by the AAF.
While
Rent levels on
However,
owner
cash
22
flows can be augmented, and program costs controlled, by
a
judicious combination of use of the AAF and selective
of
shifting
the
utility
burden.
of
Absence
rent
ceilings coupled with a fixed value voucher could easily
result
in
participants' seriously overestimating their
ability to meet rental
for
the
The
commitments.
marketability
of
consequences
the program are obvious and
potentially deadly.
BHA controlled inspections.
have
claimed
Some
is
generally
Department.
role.
The
uniform
internal
by
quality
This
can only
assuming
inspection
for the purpose of
allows us to assume,
fairly
BHA
overburdened.
guarantee minimum standards of fitness
inspection
critics
that this function duplicates that played
by City of Boston Housing Inspection
Department
program
this
an
function
study,
a
of housing services across the
portfolio.
Private market dependence.
National program design
assures that Certificate holders are almost entirely
their
own
while locating units.
available
units
Approximately half of
While PHA's may maintain lists
them are successful.
they
may
not
"steer"
toward any particular area or owner.
influences (market
tightness,
shape of the program.
on
of
their clients
Undesirable market
discrimination)
On a local level,
the
impact the
shape
of
23
the
BHA
(55%
portfolio
of
BHA
units are located in
Roxbury and North and South Dorchester) has been heavily
influenced by both of these factors.
Income
financial
limits,
shape
areas than in
rent
of
ceilings,
the
others,
program.
income
etc.
determine
the
FMR's are higher in some
limits
fluctuate
with
area
median income, but the financial picture of a PHA's Section 8
is generally determined in Washington.
program
are quite
another
composition
of
phenomenon.
It
the
The
racial,
is important to understand
demographics
inducted
and
age
a purely local
who
the
program
Given the private market dependence outlined
of the local administrative bodies'
jurisdictions will often determine what
are
ethnic,
PHA's tenant population is
a
recipients are.
above
matter.
Demographics
into
the
type
of
apartments
program and where they are located.
The following section summarizes the demographic
profile
of
the BHA tenant population.
2.
The
Tenant/Applicant
Population
of the Boston Housing
Authority.
As of May, 1981,
BHA Leased Housing Department had 1,734
active Section 8 units with 198 Certificates "on the street".
Of the active program participants 659 (38%)
"non-family"
classifications.
and
1075
(62%)
As of March 3,
into
fell
the
into
the
"family"
1982 BHA held 2170 Section 8
24
Of
HAP agreements.
non-family
remained
family
population
this
since
unchanged
virtually
the
into
profile of
as
classified
were
fell
(63%)
The demographic
classification.
has
1362
while
(37%)
805
these,
last
addition, the profiles of both active lease holders
May.
In
and
the
population of 1980 pre-applicants are virtually identical.
A
at the racial breakdowns of these groups should yield a
look
fuller understanding of the analysis that follows.
Of BHA's 659 non-family units 497 (75.4%) were
by
elderly
households
handicapped or disabled.
96
white,
(19.3%)
(2.8%) Oriental.
361
elderly
Of the
black,
were classified as
(24.5%)
162
and
15 (3%)
The handicapped/disabled population of
and 2 (1.7%)
Spani-sh Americans,
blacks,
(again,
both
was
composed
142 (13.2%)
with
(persuasion?)
or
on
of 160 (14.9%) whites, 741
Spanish Americans,
either
and 11
no
listed
belonged
162
blacks, 14 (8.6%)
participants,
a few "others" mixed in).
populations
were
Orientals.
The population of family program
hand,
(72.6%)
Spanish American, and 14
cconsisted of 70 (43.2%) whites, 71 (43.8%)
other
tenanted
to
(1%)
(69%)
Orientals
Approximately 2% of
affiliation
racial
the
the
"other"
category.
Approximately 80% of the non-family tenants live in 1 bedroom
aparatments, are childless, single (or widowed) female headed
households.
require
Of the family
participants,
a two or three bedroom unit.
approximately
Most (in
60%
excess of 90%
25
on record) are
female headed households, most
(again, on record)
next
few
years,
Certificate
6,983
are applicants
at least
for
preapplications
During
during
a
Of these applicants 5,880 (84%)
day sign up marathon.
three
holders,
already been determined.
has
collected
June, 1980, BHA
dependent
on public assistance and most are black.
The pool of potential
the
are
for family Certificates
while 508
(7.3%)
are
classified as elderly and 593 (8.5%) as handicapped/disabled.
applications
The incidence of family
higher
This is partially explained by the
a
conducted
during
significantly
among this new population than among existing program
participants.
BHA
is
participants
non-family
previous year.
across the two
non-family preapplication
special
1979.
January,
fact
Much
had
thus
Bedroom size needs
potential
the
of
session
pool
of
reached during the
been
virtually
are
that
identical
populations.
Of the elderly members of the applicant pool 373 (73.4%)
are white, 96
Members
of
(19%)
other
black, and 33
37
(6.2%)
Indians fell
214
(37.7%)
Spanish Americans.
into
Americans.
minority groups comprise an insignificant
proportion of this population.
preapplicants
Spanish
(6.5%)
Of
the
are white,
handicapped/disabled
325
(54.8%)
black,
and
Only 4 Orientals and 3 American
these categories.
26
component
The family
consists
of
1,037
of
the
preapplicant
(17.6%) whites, 3,803 (64.7%) blacks, 878
(15%) Spanish Americans, and 129 (2.2%) Orientals.
.5% either listed no racial attachment
other
minority
Given
groups.
between
similarities
population
or
the
and
current
were
The other
members
across
potential
the
of
board
program
participants,
BHA Leased Housing Department can expect little
change in
Section 8 "demographic
few
its
Additionally,
years.
nature
of
the
family
the
portfolio" over the next
almost completely non-white
population
may
explain
help
the
Program's failure to penetrate neighborhoods like East Boston
with
its
huge
resources
of
cheap housing,
as well as its
unpopularity.in insular neighborhoods like South
the North End.
Boston
and
27
Chapter Two
The Boston Housing Authority
and the Leased Housing Department
largest
the emerging Roosevelt era
the
of projects through
Fifties
late
the
system
housing
BHA
a growing portfolio
family housing in
provided
successfully
public
fourth
1937 as part of
in
Established
in the country.
LHA
and
oldest
The Boston Housing Authority is the
and
Sixties.
early
Family housing enjoyed its last major spurt of development in
the
1951
period
to
the
In
1953.
years that
seventeen
followed not a single unit of family public housing was built
in Boston.
Subsequent construction activity was aimed at the
growing, popular elderly
currently has approximately
Authority
housing,
Boston
program.
housing
17,000 units of public
of which between 20 and 30% are vacant.
Boston's
construction,
venture
next
into
public
family
with the
originally
Development
slated
to
Cororation
of
produce
2,000
America.
be "industrialized",
community
that is,
As with most family
in
combination
Infill
was
large family units on
small sites scattered throughout the city.
on site.
housing
the Infill program (1968), was conceived by an
ambitious Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA)
to
Housing
Construction
was
factory built and assembled
public
housing
construction,
opposition to the Infill program grew as the plans
28
became
for BRA
Site acquisition became critical
public.
and
BHA Planners.
By
1970 it was obvious that this housing would cost more
than anticipated (in
model
the
informed
America
BHA
Corporation
Development
year
of
the industrialized housing
that
would not work and that each structure would have to be
site-built)
and that
planned
that it
would produce
nowhere
is
The fate of Infill
near
A quote from Andrew M.
and
Planning
family
Olins, then Director
Infill
the
up
sums
Development
the
instructive in
the efforts of the Sixties to produce
typifies
BHA
Infill
units.
2,000
public housing.
of
that
experience:
pressure against the program became more and
"Community
more severe [by 1970] and
Urban
Washington Park Urban Renewal area, the South End
and
area
Renewal
the Model Cities Area...
The problem
of the sites became more and more severe, and
Boston
Housing Authority found
units
of family housing on its
came
extreme
under
available
for
the
Infill
South End sites
to
is
program
program...
will ever produce.
the
we [BHA]
sites
these
make
There
uniform agreement that, at best, 600 units will
the
when
unable to build 76
itself
pressure
it
outside of
to get sites
exceedingly difficult
be
would
that
obvious
became
it
is near
be
all
I think that 392 units
much more likely to be the number"
(1) ~
29
Of the total units produced under
40
are
approximately
One begins to appreciate the delight
still on line.
with which the new
Infill
leasing
programs
were
greeted
by
LHA
officials.
For the first thirty years of its history public housing
in
Boston
provided
and military personnel stationed
Public housing,
families.
viewed
as
a
residents and
stepping
Boston
the
during
War
early
those
years,
was
to the suburbs by most of its
was treated as such.
the growth of the American
highway
the early and mid fifties enabled many public
during
housing
during
stone
The housing boom and
system
in
upwardly mobile veterans and their
subsequently
and
the
middle and working classes, war workers
Depression-displaced
years,
for
homes
temporary
residents
to
take
of
advantage
easily
cheap,
available mortgage money and relocate to the periphery of the
metropolitan
Boston
As more and more of the working
area.
class residents of BHA projects benefitted from the
boom
of
replaced
Fifties
the
by
a
more
and
headed for the
chronically
poor,
economic
suburbs they were
often
non-white
clientele.
As the decade of the fifties
to
lose
its
working
waned
Public Housing
class clientele entirely.
began
The tenant
population became increasingly dependent on public assistance
30
and increasingly minority.
During
the
Sixties
population went from 13.5% to 37% non-white.
time
period
the
proportion
of tenants wholly dependent on
reaction to the perceived
Public Housing system,
makers
to
began
both
financial
housing subsidies.
In 1965 LHA's were
renting
owned
privately
income people under the
Section
23
(Leased
of
problems with the
and
social,
the delivery of
authorized
to
begin
10
c
long
Housing)
term
programs.
1,000
leasing
In
units
1966
of
and
the
the BHA
this
new
Known at first as "instant housing" due to the lack
planning
and development efforts on the part of LHA's the
program was viewed as an answer to the problem
operating
Policy
units for subsequent sublet to low
received its first allocation of
subsidy.
(2)
new directions in
explore
tenant
During the same
public assistance increased from 56% to 75%.
Partially in
the
costs
of
spiraling
associated with conventional public housing
development and management.
Operations became
the
business
of private individuals who were presumed to be more qualified
for the task than their public sector counterparts.
Start up of the
Boston.
Only
80%
Leased
of
BHA's
Housing
Program
was
slow
1,000 units were leased up by
March of 1967 with another 150 in the pipeline (3).
The real
impetus for the expansion of the Leased Housing Program
with
the
Boston
1967 and 1968.
in
came
Urban Rehabilitation Program (BURP) during
Under BURP $24.5 million in FHA 221
(d)
(3)
31
Rate (BMIR) rehabilitation mortgages
Interest
Market
Below
were funnelled
into Roxbury and
approximately
2,000
units
rehabbed
The
impetus
In
1968
units.
23
Section
BHA received another allocation of 2,000
were
rest
similar Rent Supplement program.
the
with
the
under this program 600
were leased to the BHA under Section 23 while the
covered
Of
Dorchester.
North
by these massive infusions of federal
provided
money launched the BHA into the Leased Housing business.
Housing
Leased
Initially
This arrangement,
"three-party" lease.
the
present
was
leasing units directly from landlords.
checks
role than forwarding monthly
program
The
eligibility.
intent
units
effectively make leased housing
"disappear"
the
into
strikingly similar to
BHA played no greater
and
on
and vacancy information.
this
their
(and
landlords
tenant
certifying
behind
greater community.
Authority became dependent
collection,
a
under
lease and HAP contract, had tenants
8
Section
administered
was
to
tenants)
Unfortunately the
for
rent
tenant,
This proved unreliable.
Control became next to impossible.
Due to
induced
the
growing
Leased
housing
Department's
severe
BURP
pains a Leased Housing Management Committee
was appointed in 1969.
The purpose of the Committee
was
to
oversee Leased Housing operations and make recommendations to
improve
Handbook,
them.
In
1969 HUD issued the first Leased Housing
the purpose of which was to serve as guide to LHA's
32
in
program
their
administration.
references to the
contained
1 Section
"Local Authorities are encouraged
leasing
the
low-income
of
option
to
low-income
the
that
purchase
It
family.
to arrange that all
under
agrees,
lease
price established."
may
1 (7)
to make
home
promote
This can be done,
families.
property
the
to
program
handbook
the
Program's use as a mechanism for
Chapter
home ownership.
promoting
Surprisingly
states:
use
of
ownership
by
full
where the
owner
by including in the lease an
may
,
in
be
exercised
some cases,
be possible
or part of the payment to the
may be applied
the
by
owner
to reduce the purchase
(4)
Unfortunately, most of the provisions
of
the
Handbook
are phrased as above, replete with "may be"'s and "should"'s.
Program
goals
were stated fuzzily and couched
in indefinite
apply
terms.
LHA's were left to themselves to interpret and
them.
Needless to say, little home ownership was encouraged
in Boston by Leased Housing, unless it came in
the
form
of
tenant self-help.
In
1970 the Leased Housing Department
was
reorganized.
The position of Director was established, as were seven other
significant
positions,
from 12 to 22 people.
bringing
A
new
the total
lease
was
Department
size up
designed,
annual
33
inspections
mandated,
and
a vacancy identification program
begun.
Under the "new" lease the Authority
and
became
the
the resident became a sub-lessee of the BHA.
tenant
The intent
behind this change
was
landlord,
central tenant selection and lease period
in
the
supervisory role.
to
place
the
Authority,
not
This action was taken at the height of the
"liberal" Bernstein-Bunte board (LHA boards of directors
composed of five people,
governor).
It
was
four chosen by the mayor,
Gem Realty,
Tenants
began
paying
in
computerized
timeliness.
It
the
of
landlords
their
rent
hope
of
directly
to
BHA.
Payments and receipts
insuring
accuracy and
may be instructive that this system (provided
by a subsidiary of Boeing)
Homes,
one by the
the major BURP recipient).
Landlords received full rent from BHA.
were
are
apparently felt that tenants would fare
better at the mercies of BHA than at the hands
(especially
the
allowed one account,
to slip almost $60,000 in
arrears
during
that of Roxie
the
period
1973 through 1981.
One of the primary attractions of this "internalization"
of Leased Housing tenants (for the
tenants
under
the
present time over
Management)
reformers)
was
bringing
public housing grievance system.
half
tenants
of
the
remaining
Gem
(now
At the
Grant
have arrearages in excess of $500, many
34
BHA is now under federal
of them ranging well into 4 digits.
management
Department
must
thus
current
The
8.
Section
mandate to convert these units to
face up to the results of
well meaning but short sighted past reforms.
which was to emerge from Section 8.
that
closely
some sort
of the families in the program recieved
with
was Aid to Families
ratio
Dependent
Children
is
among active section 8 participants
spite of much more liberal eligibility limits.
families
Most
were
Leased
black
(59%)
Housing
units
and
Dorchester,
were
projects within urban renewal
Leased
Housing
even higher,
in
Most
the
of
Roxbury,
the
was
often
a
Agreements between
these areas.
gave priority to
areas.
The period of reform (1969
1973.
The
in
located
BHA and Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA)
with
(AFDC).
and most non-elderly (73%) (5).
(of which
and rehabilitation in
collapsed
public
of
the South End, reflecting the concentration
of new construction
part)
Over half
The dominant income maintenance program
(54.5%).
assistance
mirrored
1973
of
as
The Section 23 tenant population
to 1973)
at
Leased
Housing
passing of the Bernstein-Bunte Board in
The period had been rife with
conflict
between
City
Hall and the BHA, the prime issue being control of the Board.
Since
Board
members
are appointed for five year terms, the
protracted battle ended in
terms
ran
out.
1973
as
liberal
Board
members'
During 1973 and 1974 City Hall "recaptured"
35
with
filled
were
Jobs
the BHA.
members
of
Mayor's
the
political machine and patronage (never far out of the line of
Although "old
the
at BHA.
a way of life
once more,
became,
sight)
faces" were once again ubiquitous
at
BHA,
problems of the public housing system stubbornly refused
Vacancy rates in
to disappear.
mount,
operating
did
as
bad
projects went from
Leased
worse.
in
Conditions
deficits.
to
some
units,
Housing
In July,
Gem properties, were no exception.
the
especially
to
continued
projects
the
1975, the Boston Phoenix described one of Gem's propeties
as
follows:
later [after BURP] the apartment house at
years
"Eight
71 Georgia street, a tree
many
the
in
avenue
federally
passing
glance
building
it
heart of Roxbury, bears the earmarks of
backed
once was.
At
apartments.
renovated
the
resembles
it
unlockable,
report
Tenants
and
But a closer
did...'If
it
resident of a
'I'd
its
a
solid, middle-class
look would
find
it
work,
and
electrical
the
and
sprinkled
apartment
move out tomorrow.'"
(6)
problems,
intecoms
weren't for my Rent Supplement,'
basement
open.
broken
mailboxes
major plumbing
the door buzzers don't
poison,
Hill
Blue
with roaches, mice, and even rats, its outside
infested
doors
of
branch
lined
never
says the
with
rat
36
H.
Spence, the Receiver/Administrator appointed by
Superior
restructuring of BHA,
the
oversee
to
Garrity
Paul
Judge
Lewis
similar condition.
Many Gem/Grant units remain in
commented on visiting some Grant units that he felt like
biggest
the
slum lord in Boston visiting the second biggest slum
lord in Boston.
the
Lest
that
think
reader
the
deterioration
in
conditions at Gem properties can be laid at the door of "city
hall
26,
hacks",
1971
Solomon,
the
following quote from a letter dated March
(the height of
then
"liberal"
the
from
board)
Irving
Director of HUD Housing services and Property
Management Division, to Gem should indicate the intransigence
of the problems facing any BHA administration:
windows,
trash
in
broken
have
"All properties
the
boxes,
mail
broken
halls, linoleum in entry halls
which should be replaced, outer doors that do not close,
and inner door security locks that do not operate."
(7)
this
one
As Mr Solomon stated in another letter to Gem,
dated April 5,
1971:
"Subsequent to the inspection
March
22,
1971
the
made an inspection of
by
office
this
on
Director of the HUD Boston Office
some
of
the
dwelling
owned and/or managed by your organization.
projects
In his words
37
he was 'appalled
BHA's
In 1976 Armando Perez, a tenant at
development,
against
subhuman
conditions
with the plaintiffs,
the
in
of
behalf
on
claiming
Authority
the
established
suit
brought
a
out
Hill
Mission
BHA tenants
all
and
mismanagement
gross
the developments.
hammered
(8)
he found."
at the conditions'
The court agreed
and
decree,
consent
office of Master to oversee BHA operations.
The Master's Office then commenced what can be best described
BHA
agreed to undertake certain organizational reforms aimed
especially
at improving the delivery of services to tenants,
in
decree
Under the consent
as the "dance of the Departments".
the
areas
of maintenance and tenant participation.
The
out
did
studies,
new
various BHA Departments,
generating
themselves
organizational
tables,
never
a
cohesive
compliance
and
all
group,
reports,
the
regalia
of
paper
compliance.
In spite of the blizzard of paper conditions in
the projects
continued
to
deteriorate.
The
only
rising
indicator was the vacancy rate.
Throughout this process Leased Housing generally slipped
through the cracks.
The Master's Office attempted to involve
itself in Departmental affairs (especially personnel
but
was
stonewalled
issues)
by the Leased Housing Department Head.
The flavor of the interactions between the Deaprtment and the
Master's Office can be sensed in the following
concerning
certain
staffing
changes
communication
undertaken
by
the
38
Director:
"Upon Receipt of the BHA's draft special order on
23,
March
1979, a member of the Master's staff requested from
the Director of Leased Housing a copy of
the
Table
Organization...which
had
draft
This request was not honored.
special order.
Tuesday,
April
3,
1979,
not been delivered with BHA's
after
Leased
of
Organization].
consideration
April 4,
by
1979,
an
was
budget
agenda
containing
the
[of the Table of
meeting
However, at the BHA Board
began at 8 a.m.
Administrative
copy
from
a
The Director of Leased Housing said that
he did not have one.'
that
a
Housing
On
the close of business,
member of the Master's Office again requested
Director
of
the
item
agenda
Since
Board.
materials
the Leased Housing
for
Board
the
for
folders
are
members
prepared in advance of the meetings, and considering the
previous conversations
senior
staff
set out above with members of the
concerning
and Table of Organization
loss
to
understand
Organization
meeting."
In
reality,
these documents
Department
was
why
the FY80 Leased
Housing budget
the Master's Office
the
was unavailable
budget
to them
and/or
before
is
at
a
Table of
the
Board
(9)
the Master's
Office
were unavailable to
busily
upgrading
knew
them.
quite
well
why
The Leased Housing
(increasing salaries) many
39
existing employees and inducting "safe"
Departments
into
time)
Judge
from
"receivership"
the
last
refuge
Garrity's
was
friends
(or so it
wrath.
from
other
seemed at the
While
the
word
on everyone's lips, noone quite believed
in it until it hit.
When
it
happened
it
came
over
the
In July, 1980 Judge Garrity issued an order placing
BHA
horizon like an angry July thunder storm.
in
receivership.
The Board appealed and
stayed pending resolution.
Judicial
Court
Garrity
upheld
In
Lewis
Receiver/Administrator.
the
Supreme
H.
"Harry"
Spence
Work at BHA had ground virtually to
a halt during the appeal.
no
1981
order of Receivership and Judge
the
appointed
February,
implementation was
The Leased Housing Department
exception to this rule.
Section 8 withered.
was
Allocations
remained unleased, existing leases were left unattended,
and
Department morale hit a new low.
The Court's attention did not turn to the Leased Housing
Department until
the
fall
of
that
year.
A
search
was
undetaken for a new Direcror of Leased Housing and one of the
Receiver's
closest
january 5, 1981
Director
of
new job.
rationalize
Her
the
Rental
people
new
charged
Director,
Assistance (Ch.
mandate
its
was
is
to
operation,
Department's runaway programs.
Alice
with
liason.
Krapf
On
(formerly
707) at DCA) began her
reorganize
the
and
control
seize
Department,
Conversion of Section
of
23
the
to
40
Section
8,
mandated
in
Approximately half of the
expired.
1978 by HUD,
existing
had hardly commenced.
Section
8
leases
were
The various Section 8 allocations were seldom more
than 60% leased.
The Department was barely surviving.
41
Notes to Chapter Two
1. BHA Internal Memo, Status Report on the Boston Infill
Director of Planning and
Olins,
M.
Andrew
Program,
Authority, November 23,
the
of
Members
to
Development [BHA],
1970.
Private Publication, A Struggle for Survival, the Boston
2.
Housing Authority 1969-1973, February, 1973, p 1-2.
3.
ibid, pp III 6-7
Urban
and
Housing
of
Department
United States
4.
Handbook,
Housing
Leased
Housing
Low-rent
Development,
November, 1969, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, D.C., p 1 (1) (7) (a).
5.
A Struggle for Survival, ibid, p 111-9
The Boston Phoenix,
6.
Boston, Mass., p 5.
Gem
in the Ghetto, July 8, 1975,
7. Correspondence between Irving Solomon, Director of HUD
and Property Management [Boston Area
Services
Housing
1971 and
Office], and Gem Realty Company, dated March 26,
April 5, 1971.
8.
ibid
Correspondence of Sandra Henriquez, Staff Member of the
9.
Garrity, Associate
G.,
Master's Office, to Honorable Paul
12, 1979.
April
dated
Court,
Superior
the
of
Justice
42
Chapter Three
The Philosophical Bases of Section 8
93-383 contains a section (Sec.
P.L.
the
isolation
geographical
and
communities
Specifically Congress called for
Principle.
"the reduction of
thought
for persons of lower
programs.
leasing
with
specifically
the
its
Section
train
afflicting
8,
Principle,
Deconcentration
Spatial
designed to address the problems typified by the
complex
spatial
of
lead to the replacement of much public housing
that
development
the
areas...through
This principle is typical of
(1).
."
within
groups
income
of
deconcentration of housing opportunities
income..
that
Spatial
the
as
establishes a statutory goal commonly known
Deconcentration
(c) (6))
101
and
was
Pruitt-Igoe
public housing administrators during the
late Sixties and Early Seventies.
legislative
principle
deconcentration
8's
Section
echoed
the
mandate handed the administrators of Section 23.
As HUD put it
in
1969:
"In adding Section 23 to the United States Housing
Congress
provision
intended
be
throughout
environment...
that
dispersed
the
dwellings
as
assisted under this
as
widely
community.
Act,
The
practicable
project-type
was to be avoided under Section 23,
and
43
to
this
end
Congress
included
that normally not more than ten
units
any single
in
structure
in
the Act a provision
percent
this
isntruction,
the
total
are to be leased.
the legislation authorized the local
waive
of
agency
While
itself
the social value adhering
to
to it
is so great that any waiver should be in accordance with
policies established
by the Local
adequately considered
due
After
levels,
The
Authority
Board
at a high management level."
at
consideration
the
and
(2)
management
highest
BHA waived this "instruction".
fate
resplendent
of
St.
premier
project
Authority's
Housing
Louis
(Pruitt-Igoe),
and
once
the
near
bankruptcy of the Authority itself, shocked policy makers and
academics alike
housing
into a rejection
development
of the
large
scale
public
as a model for addressing the country's
omnipresent housing crisis.
The "culture
of
view
poverty"
combined with these fears to instill a feeling among decision
makers
that
groups of poor,
large
were tantamount to disaster.
Solomon
"It
succinctly put it
is
the
in
especially black,
As George Peterson
concentration
Crime
havens for drug
rates
Arthur
1973,
of the pathological poor in
particular neighborhoods that signals the
return.
and
people
soar,
vacant
point
dwellings
addicts or gangs of destructive
of
no
become
youths.
44
The
disintegration feeds on itself
area is inhabitable."
until no part of the
(3)
Given this apocalyptic view of low income communities
no
surprise
that
these "pathogens"
over as wide a base as possible.
such forceful terms,
"Spatial
concentration
of
makes
it
identical
when,
in
sentiment,
1974,
he wrote,
low income families in turn
and
limits job availability
which
is
the only obvious solution was to disperse
Richard Musgrave voiced almost an
albeit not in
it
more
generates
an
to
difficult
environment
escape
from
poverty...Given the existence of Ghettoes and widespread
housing discrimination, combined with the importance
not
housing
just as a matter of consumption but of job
opportunity,
the
evidently
matter
a
structure
of
of
housing
public
markets
concern.
It
is
is also
evident that spatial shifting in low-income housing
require
of
may
selective subsidies...but even then the primary
objective is to shift the location rather than to secure
an increase in overall housing supply."
The thrust toward leasing
development
was
seen
as
a
and
way
away
to
of social integration.
large
from
both
consequences of the public housing system and
degree
(4)
scale
avoid the worst
to
acheive
a
Section 23 served mostly as a
45
cash
flow
augmentation
developments
rehab
and
several federal and state
was,
spite
in
of
mechanism
efforts
for
large
subsidized
multi-family
programs.
production
one
of
Secton
23
under
highly
"instructions",
Congressional
concentrated in primarily low-income, minority areas.
Program
Section 8 Existing Housing
with
deconcentration
subsequently
fine
Chicago
Housing
system
legal
sued
Authority
was
Gautreaux
CHA
the
favor
of
until
the
The suit ground
1976
statute
(P.L.
its
when the U.S.
tenants.
delivered the majority opinion,
"The
goal
This
goals.
tuned in the landmark Hills v.
tenant selection policies.
ruled in
its
claiming
patterns of racial segregation in their site and
intentional
the
of
During the mid-Sixties a group of black tenants of
decision.
the
one
as
break
spatial
claimed
statute
The
tradition.
this
to
intended
Justice
way
Supreme Court
Potter
Stewart
holding that,
93-383) clearly has, as one of its
objectives, the spatial deconcentration of lower
groups,
through
particularly from the central cities.
income
Congress
apparently decided that this was part of the solution to
the crisis facing our urban communities."
(5)
46
Implementation of
the
Court's
decision
in
Gautreaux
consisted of a program of geographic dispersion utilizing the
Section
8
Existing
Housing
as
Certificate
its
primary
mechanism.
Chicago inner city (read minority) residents
encouraged
to "go mobile" and are offered regional Section 8
Certificates to subsidize their passage.
moved
from
Thus
subsidized
the
population
not
buildings,
and individual market behavior is
acheive policy goals,
Given
i.e.
racial
outlined
directed to
deghettoization.
composition
above,
of
the
the
BHA
issues
with
the
spatial
one.
In
a population of family certificate holders and
applicants that is almost 70%
address
tenant
of
deconcentration and desegregation become virtually
Boston,
has
a convenient, cheap adjunct to the LHA portfolio
of mechanisms to a mechanism by which people,
are
leasing
are
first
black,
administrators
cannot
issue without also addressing the latter.
BHA simply does not have enough white,
family
applicants
to
allow the issues to exist seperately.
Section 8 has not done a good job of reaching out to the
low
income
white
concentrations
of
community.
low
income
Neighborhoods
whites
remain
with
virtually
untouched by Section 8.
For example,
leases
of the portfolio) and in East Boston
18
units
(.85%
only 77 units (3.6% of the portfolio).
large
waiting
list
in
South
Boston
The existence of
BHA
the
precludes any effective outreach to this
47
community over the next few
If
years.
BHA
to
wishes
be
faithful to the spatial deconcentration provision of the 1974
Act
it
deal
must
with
the
problems
a largely black
of
clientele.
Although BHA has instituted
a "mobility"
under
program
which any BHA Section 8 Certificate holder may find and lease
a
unit anywhere in the state little actual mobility has been
Blacks have not rushed to
acheived.
During
the
mobile"
year
first
and
leased
suburbs.
of the program only 13 people "went
units
outside
of
Boston.
While
surely at least partially responsible for
is
discrimination
the
"invade"
many black Certificate
this lack of interest,
would
holders
probably agree with Ralph Ellison who testified almost twenty
years ago:
"...it
to
is a misunderstanding to assume that Negroes want
out
break
of
Harlem.
Harlems of their country.
they have lived,
where they have loved,
worked out life as they could...
run
to
where they
have
it isn't the desire to
suburbs or to invade 'white' neighborhoods
the
that is the main concern with my people in Harlem.
would just like to have a more human life there.
like Harlem
to
These places are precious
places are where they have dreamed, where
These
them.
They want to transform the
isn't
form of historical
just a place of decay.
and racial memory."
It is
(6)
They
A slum
also
a
48
Notes to Chapter Three
1.
P.L.
93-383, Sec.
101
(c)
(6).
and Urban
of
Housing
Department
States
United
2.
Handbook,
Housing
Development, Low-Rent Housing Leased
1969, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
November,
Washington, D.C., p 1 (1) (4) (a).
Property
George E. Peterson, Arthur Solomon, et al,
3.
Heath,
Housing, and the Cities, Lexington/D.C.
Taxes,
Lexington, Mass., 1973, p 44.
Musgrave, "Policies of
Richard A.
4.
in Housing
Rationale and Instruments",
Working Papers, Vol. I, Washington, D.C.,
Printing Office, 1974, p 217.
5.
Ct.
Hills
1538.
v.
Support:
Housing
in the Seventies:
Government
U.S.
Gautreaux, 425 US 284, 47 L Ed 2d 792, 96 S.
Ralph Ellison, in "Federal Role in Urban Affairs",
6.
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization,
Committee on Government Operations, August 30, 1966, U.S.
Senate, 89th Congress, 2nd Session,
Part 5,
p
1155,
referenced in Edward C.
Banfield, The Unheavenly City,
Little Brown and Company, Boston, 1968, pp 81-82.
49
Chapter Four
The Boston Rental Market
"The Commission [President's Commission on Housing] must
conversion
evictions
income
moderate
and
market...in
condominium
and
be oblivious to the skyrocketing rents
which are forcing elderly and low
families
out
is
an
Boston.. .There
of
response.
rates in the city are under 2%...Perhaps if the
Vacancy
members of the President's housing committee
hand
of
enormity
the
so
to
quick
counterproductive
production
offer
with
programs
such
a
Section
see
and more
would
they
not
and
unrealistic
[replacement
proposals
could
nation's,
the
specifically Boston's housing problems,
be
housing
emergency
emergency
crisis in Boston which requires an
first
housing
the
8
of
present
like
voucher
program]."
Thus spake Boston City Councillor
to
letter
the
editor
of
Review dated March 9, 1982.
that
the
central
Councilor
will
the
Raymond
in
a
Boston North End Waterfront
It should be obvious
be
Flynn
making
the
from
this
housing crisis a
issue of his upcomming mayoral campaign.
50
housing
The provision of decent
to
low
moderate
and
people will always be a problem for policy makers and
income
It does little good, however, to confuse
implementors alike.
campaign
the issue with crisis hyperbole and less to mistake
for
rhetoric
Part of
appreciation of the issues.
reasoned
the problem may just be the fact that Boston has already
From
too many "emergency" reactions to the housing "crisis".
Infill
BURP
to
one
been
has
interventions
common
thread
uniting
past
of
careful
research
lack
a
had
housing
and
planning.
Boston's rental market is
known
The
beast.
a
much
Bureau's
Census
(1977) for Boston estimated that there
units in the central city.
given
point
time
in
is
field
is
for
14 7
The 2% vacancy rate
problematic.
the
evening
community
the
news;
are
standard of measurement with which all things
Yet
the
Boston
Redevelopment
Authority
estimated the vacancy rate for the city
and
West
Roxbury
while Charlestown
18%
and
rental
,5 00
The number of these vacant at any
quoted above has become for the housing
football
Housing Survey
Annual
were
little
but
studied
at
(BRA)
5%.
what
the
ultimate
compared.
in
1980
Roslindale
had the tightest submarkets with 1% rates
and the South End topped
the
charts
with
13% vacancy rates respectively. (1) The BRA figures
should be treated with some care.
counter-intuitive.
They are, after all, quite
They are indicative of the wide variation
in vacancy rate estimates.
51
Another recent vacancy rate estimate was offered
Alan
Lupo,
a
columnist for the Boston Phoenix.
important point for our purposes is
Estimates of rent levels
figures.
Mr.
Lupo
in
which
appeared gave no hint as to his sources.
estimate
opines,
in
by
He put the
city's rate at 3.7%. (2) Unfortunately the article
this
up
The
the unreliability of such
are
equally
unreliable.
same article quoted above, that
the
rents have escalated 91% since 1970.
He
to
fails
that this is less than the rate of inflation.
mention
If his figures
are accurate this would imply that rental housing is actually
cheaper
today (in constant dollars) than it was twelve years
ago.
This latter
consistent
is
by the BRA in 1980 (3).
performed
in
conclusion
neighborhoods
some
when
Seventies
had
expressed
appearing
a
survey
They concluded that rents
during
declined
actually
in
with
constant 1970 dollars.
low
at
first,
conclusions,
while
inconsistent
with BHA's actual market experience.
rents, when deflated to 1970 dollars,
look
very
are
the
Their
not
Section 8
much
like
those reported by the BRA.
Most market rent studies rely heavily
for
their
survey.
should
raw data.
on
The
analyses
Newpaper ads only capture a fraction of
joined.
available units.
ads
The BRA study quoted above relied on a
Both methods are somewhat deficient.
be
newpaper
BHA
Leased
Housing
Department
recently
52
average
conclusion was that the
the
North
same
The
North End units simply
A
are rented by word of mouth.
in
applies
logic
South
Most low rent units
and Charlestown.
Boston,
East
for
rented
End
the newpapers unless they are high priced
into
waterfront apartments.
Boston,
in
unit
One
This is patently untrue.
get
not
analysis.
bedroom
two
$800/month.
do
an
such
performed
miss
will
survey
newpaper
this phenomenon.
Approximately 70%
only
here
studied
73%
from
down
1980,
of Boston households were
the
experienced
Dorchesters
End,
South
a
shift
The movement
ownership in
explained
1970 to 27% in
by
explosion
neighborhood during the Seventies.
from
fact is
This last
1980.
condo
the
shifting
extreme,
most
that
the
The rest
ownership.
either remained constant or shifted to rentals.
in the South End was the
and
Roslindale
to
in
the neighborhoods
Of
1970 (4).
in
renters
11%
probably
engulfed
that
Of more interest to us is
the shift in the Dorchesters.
The large stock of triplex and duplex structures in
Dorchesters
ownership.
operators
appears to be encouraging
This is
with
neighborhoods.
in
Outreach
a shift from rental to
consistent with the large number of small
whom
the
BHA
does
business
in
these
Since 35% of BHA Section 8 units are located
the Dorchesters this trend
BHA.
the
to
property
has
policy
ownersd
implications
for
in these neighborhoods
53
must be cognizant of who these people are.
operators.
large
to
small owner.
this
that
program
BHA
conterparts.
may
a program of management assistance for
contemplate
the less experienced
the
the
Their interests and concerns will be quite
different than those of their larger
want
They are not
It is in the interests
of
large pool of small property owners
survive and prosper.
rental
In summary, the
subject
of
much
misunderstood.
vacancy rates,
analysis,
market
remains
in
while
Boston,
the
little known and often
Accurate estimates of the number of of units,
and
rent
levels
are
difficult
to
obtain.
Those estimates available are often conflicting and sometimes
self-serving.
data
with
Researchers should be careful to bracket their
Implementors should
of unreliability.
estimates
take care when someone (or organization) recommends
course
market,
of
action
especially
responses.
a
given
based on the "latest" study of the rental
if
Unreliable
the
petitioner
data
coupled
sunk many a housing program.
wants
emergency
with hasty action has
54
Notes to Chapter Four
1.
Boston
Redevelopment Authority,
Characteristics
of
Boston's Population
and Housing Stock:
1980, Background
Tables, BRA Publication, February, 1981, p. k-2.
The
Deja Vu",
2. Alan Lupo, "Housing Policy and
Phoenix, Boston, Massachusetts, April 27, 1982, p.. 3.
Boston
pp J-1 through J-10 for the BRA analysis of
See op cit.,
3.
They
The figures seem ridiculously low.
rental payments.
should not be too easily dismissed.
4.
ibid,
p.
H-3.
55
Chapter Five
The City-wide View
As of February 1, 1982 the
2,130 active Section 8 leases.
of
the
entire
portfolio,
Boston
Housing
Authority
held
This chapter presents an analysis
allowing the reader to view the city,
and the program, as a whole.
Three aspects of that portfolio are
of central concern:
1. Subsidy costs
2. Rent levels
3.
Ownership patterns
(1)Subsidy costs are of particular interest because
current
federal
trend
toward
a
a
fixed
value
and
eliminated, as would the
(depending
on
whose
into
AAF.
voucher
$1,800 to $2,200 annually.
enter
a
five
year
Proposed
all
involve
life.
a
voucher
FMR's would be
values
voucher
range
program is under discussion) from
Voucher
holders
would
be
free
to
leases for units with rents in excess of current FMR
limits with the difference between
the
voucher
contract rent coming out of tenants' pockets.
would be left
the
level funded voucher program.
Current HUD proposals, while tentative,
with
of
for the tenant and landlord
value
and
the
Any rent increases
to work out.
56
us
offer
program
(2) Rent levels encountered by the Section 8
the opportunity to open a window on the Boston rental market.
Since present rent levels are the result of almost five years
program
experience
they
are representative of the rental stock
available to low and moderate income
assure
that
units
moderately priced.
of
let
by
apartment
Certificate
seekers.
holders
FMR's
are
indeed
They assure, as well, that apartment seekers'
"eyes" will not be bigger than their wallets.
(3) Ownership patterns are
with
over
1,000
It
operators.
is
dispersed.
tha
landlords,
an underlying
majority
of
whom
business
are small
assumption of this study that any
Section 8-type program in Boston would end up
very
does
BHA
a
with
similar to that currently leased by the BHA.
portfolio
The portfolio
decisions
is the result of hundreds of individual locational
on
the part of BHA clients.
This dispersal of the flow of subsidy dollars contains
interesting policy implications.
Rent
Supplements)
benefits
with
a
few
sophisticated
Previous programs' (Section 23,
were concentrated
few very large property owners.
It
is
property
easier
in the hands of a
for
BHA
successfully
BHA
that,
while not simple,
to
deal
owners than to deal with a
crowd of relatively untried disparate landldords.
this
some
In
spite
of
works with both types of owners, proving
it can be done.
to the "trickle down" theory it seems
If there is
preferable
any validity
that
benefits
trickle down through a myriad of channels rather than a few.
57
1. Subsidy Costs
Direct subsidy costs vary both by neighborhood and
size.
The cheapest units on a city-wide basis are the smallest.
Efficiency apartments cost an average of
the
unit
by
largest
cost $5,856.
(of
which
and
monthly
annually
while
7 bedroom units,
there are only a few),
Table 5-1 summarizes
costs by unit size.
$1,920
annual
subsidy
Since families with children cannot lease up
efficiency or one bedroom units, most of the residents of Section
8
units of this size are either handicapped/disabled or elderly.
The majority of them are elderly.
with children,
Larger
units
house
families
most of them black.
The average annual subsidy cost of $2,712 for all size units
is
emminently
maintaining
Rehabilitation
has
problems
reasonable
units
in
programs.
when
the
New
compared
with
Construction
Like most programs,
cost
the
or
Substantial
Section
however,
This
8
Only 2.34%
delivering services to large families.
of the BHA units have five or more bedrooms.
of
is
probably
due to a genuine scarcity of large units and the unwillingness of
58
Table 5- 2
Boston:Distribution of Units by Number of Bedrooms.
Area
N. End
S. Bos
W. Rox
Chastn
J. Plain
Rosl
E. Bos
FenKen
S. End
H. Park
Bri
S. Dor
N. Dor
Rox
Total
Br Size
3
Count
0
1
2
11
18
26
35
58
5
3
136
152
170
180
321
405
446
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
24
2
4
33
3
2
4
2108
82
73
77
16
10
45
34
131
115
118
2
2
5
17
28
15
16
1
35
29
11
119
171
165
475
618
617
9
4
13
0
2
29
36
106
42
50
11
16
22
20
5
45
99
7
83
4
0
1
10
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
4
2
0
28
2
2
44
89
100
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
14
14
292
39
7
10
6
.52%
.85%
1.22%
1.64%
2.72%
3.43%
3.62%
6.38%
7.14%
7.98%
8.45%
15.07%
19.01%
20.94%
program costs would
famil ies
figure
the
proportion
shares
of subsidy
costs
are
Contract
Allowances.
decrease
and
As
use
subsidy
of
allowances
costs rise.
large
Rents
impact on program costs is noticeable.
Dorchester demonstrate this phenomenon.
in these neighborhoods,
utility
higher than the city wide average.
increases
Although the
tenant and BHA share the shifting of cost away from the
the
of
on which a property owner's monthly check is based)
and HUD Utility
tenant
if
Whatever the
served by Section 8 were to increase.
The chief components
(the
leap
99.00%
3
many landlords to rent to very large families.
reason,
Ratio
7
landlord
Both North and South
Tenant shares are lowest
allowances
and
subsidy
costs
59
Table 5-1
Boston: Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit Size
# Br
Mean
BHA
Count
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mean
+ Negrent
Mo.
Cost
=
Annual
Cost
Ratio
82
475
618
617
292
39
4
3
160
177
221
245
250
288
382
445
0
0
2
6
7
14
35
26
160
177
223
251
257
302
417
471
1920
2124
2676
3012
3084
3624
5004
5856
Total 2130
222
4
226
2712
The distribution of units
concentrated
Dorchester.
units
of
confirms
in
Roxbury,
North
of
the
Dorchester,
and
South
and virtually all of the largest (5 and up
sizes
Table 5-2 summarizes the
throughout
the
most
The largest units
the
city.
distribution
area
of
large units.
average subsidy costs.
of
units
by
North and South Dorchester have the
highest average subsidy costs largely thanks to
in
100.00%
These three neighborhoods account for 55% of the BHA
all
bedrooms).
size
size
wisdom about the Boston rental market.
common
are
by
3.85%
22.3%
29.00%
29.00%
13.70%
2.00%
.20%
.14%
This
their
dominance
Roxbury enjoys one of the lowest
likely
due
to
the
presence
in
Roxbury of several large,
subsidized developments whose rents are
federally
Table
controlled.
5-3
summarizes
average
annual
subsidy costs by unit size and neighborhood.
In summary, city-wide subsidy costs are low compared to
other
present
housing
program.
Variation
neighborhood is less than expected, especially
sufficient
units
to make comparison valid.
costs by unit size is
large.
in
where
costs
there
any
by
are
Variation in direct
The number of very large
units
(5
60
and
up
bedrooms)
units has little
is
small,
thus the burden of supporting these
impact on overall program costs.
2. Rent Levels
Contract Rents
Given
the
"spiralling"
almost
rents
in
weekly
the
media
pronouncements
on
the
Boston market, average rents in the
Section 8 program are low for all areas of the city.
The smaller
(efficiency and one bedroom) units, on the average, include
utilities
in
the
rents.
most
The average utility allowance for the
BHA's 475 one bedroom units is
only
$12
per
month.
This
is
approximately one fifth the full utility allowance (all utilities
in the tenants' names).
water.
Very
few
of
Most of these units provide heat and hot
the
larger
units
provide as much.
The
(median = $96)
per
average four bedroom utility allowance is $74
month.
Most of these units do not include heat.
Table 5-4 summarizes the primary indicators
"Ecorent"
the
city.
is the economic or Contract Rent, "BHA" is the monthly
subsidy payment, "Tensh" is the Tenant Share
"Util"
for
of
the
is the HUD utility allowance actually applied.
summarizes the Contract Rents for
the
city
by
unit
rent,
and
Table 5-5
size
and
61
Boston:
Table 5-3
Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit Size and Neighborhood
Average
Area
0
1
2
Br Size
4
3
6
5
total
7
N. End
S. Bos
W. Rox
Chastn
J. Pla
Ro sl
E. Bos
FenKen
S. End
H. Par
Bri
S. Dor
N. Dor
Rox
1752
1404
0
0
1656
2064
1644
2148
1500
1488
1836
2448
1428
1860
1627
2016
2532
0
1632
1860
2201
2364
2124
2004
2124
2328
2136
1794
2920
2220
2976
3021
2532
2184
2712
2640
2460
2424
2604
3096
2736
2460
1614
2064
3012
2976
3360
2664
2760
2640
1968
3108
2592
3324
3228
2838
0
2928
1836
2796
3372
3540
2910
0
2268
3180
3480
3684
3336
2820
0
1776
0
0
2016
0
0
0
0
3132
0
4275
3768
3468
0
0
0
0
0
0
3720
0
0
0
0
4500
5892
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6492
0
5130
0
2424
2064
2736
2950
3024
2268
2472
2352
2196
2412
2224
3240
3120
2628
City
1920
2124
2676
3012
3084
3624
5004
5856
2712
neighborhood.
Rents, as expected, increase with unit size.
neighborhoods
month
the
few
to
draw
any
meaningful
The average rent for an efficiency unit is $237 per
including
most
utilities.
Brighton and Fenway-Kenmore.
with
of
contain exceptions to this rule but in those cases
the number of occurrences are too
conclusions.
A few
Of
these 70% are located
This rent compares
most
in
favorably
that charged for efficiencies in Section 8 New Construction
and Substantial
Rehabilitation projects.
62
table 5-4
Boston: Summary of Indic ators by Unit Size
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
82
475
618
617
292
39
4
3
Ecorent
mean
237
272
291
304
310
350
382
445
med
246
279
295
299
310
340
380
419
BHA
mean
160
177
221
245
250
288
377
438
med
170
184
235
261
252
296
338
419
2130
293
295
222
224
For example, a
Rehabilitation
recently
project
$588 for efficiencies
bedroom
(median
unit
units
in
in
and
the
Util
mean med
10
11
14
12
27
33
60
57
96
74
23
109
120
130
167
188
65
68
completed
43
Section
8
25
Substantial
the South End charges the government
$666
Existing
= $279)per month.
Tensh
mean med
74
78
95
90
69
55
53
50
52
43
48
23
-36
-10
-16
-20
for
one
bedroom
units.
Housing
Program
average $272
Effectively this means that
for
One
each
of New Construction or Substantial Rehab built the Existing
Housing Program could
sanitary
units.
housing.
put
This
two
families
in
decent,
safe
and
relationship holds true for the larger
A four bedroom Existing Housing Program unit rents for an
average of $310 per month.
Units of similar size rent
for
$950
Substantial Rehab rents do not reflect start-up costs.
Tax
per month at the above cited development.
losses
due
to sindication, contractor cost overruns, tax losses
due to bond issues, all must be summed before the actual per unit
cost is derived.
Section 8 Existing Housing has
no
other
cost
63
Table 5-5
Boston: Average Contract Rent by Unit Size and Neighborhood
Br Size
Area
0
1
2
3
N. End
S. Bos
W. Rox
Chastn
J. Plain
Rosl
E. Bos
FenKen
S. End
H. Park
Bri
S. Dor
N. Dor
Rox
185
200
0
0
222
200
229
280
213
222
222
260
195
209
269
232
278
0
234
246
269
321
262
253
267
271
234
243
372
200
320
296
275
274
281
286
279
291
329
298
288
283
230
270
288
355
325
287
294
298
277
319
312
295
291
325
City
237
272
291
304
than monthly subsidy payments
Section 8
ownership
rents
are
of
owners
(corporate
7
0
315
299
306
0
311
0
0
275
0
0
0
0
350
0
329
353
366
0
0
0
0
0
0
410
0
0
0
0
340
438
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
525
0
406
0
282
235
292
343
306
267
278
316
280
285
276
298
293
302
310
350
382
445
293
396
296
388
329
308
272
0
311
375
397
a
function
of
them
own
of
tend
Dorchesters)
Sma 11
On the other end
entities
the
duplex/triplex
frequencies
of
negative
of
neighborhoods
to
demonstrate
owners
tend to own
of
the
bedroom
spectrum
structures.
units.
rents.
Very
Neighborhoods
dominated by this last category of owner tend not to
high
type
with more than twenty units)
tend to opt for efficiency and one or two
few
Total
As previously noted,
ownership.
duplexes and triple deckers.
large
6
and administrative overhead.
and housing stock.
patterns
5
often
with lots of large units (the
fragmented
4
demonstrate
Roxbury and Brighton are
typical of areas dominated by the portfolio's largest
landlords.
64
Table 5-6
Boston: Avg. Tenant Share of Rent by Unit Size and Neighborhood
Area
N. End
S. Bos
W. Rox
Chastn
J. Plain
Rosl
E. Bos
FenKen
S. End
H. Park
Bri
S. Dor
N. Dor
Rox
Subsidy
1
2
39
0
0
84
28
92
101
88
70
69
56
126
54
53
64
67
0
100
91
83
124
87
86
90
77
57
105
12 9
15
72
44
64
65
53
10 6
75
87
11 2
41
60
79
96
49
25
107
44
13
53
78
113
60
96
18
22
89
0
152
143
155
48
0
24
0
122
110
107
9
21
71
78
95
69
53
52
are
lower,
83
City
costs
Br Size
3
4
0
tenant
6
7
0
163
0
0
107
0
0
0
0
90
0
-27
38
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
-35
-53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-16
0
48
-10
-20
5
shares
80
63
64
97
54
79
72
119
96
82
90
28
34
-22
83
0
bit
a
total
68
The
higher.
difference is not great but is noticeable.
low
Most recipients, before becoming Section 8 tenants
live
rent
There is
housing,
most
of
which
comes
"as
is".
generally
an
residents
of cheap apartments that repairs are deferred.
unspoken
understanding
between
repairs, especially cosmetic ones, are made
made
by
tenants,
at
their
own
Sanitary Code violations tenants can
inspectors
(municipal)
but
this
they
does
recourse
little
Short of outright condemnation of the property
that
a
tenant
or
the
are
and
If any
generally
In cases of serious
expense.
have
landlords
in
to
housing
practical good.
there
is
little
Housing Inspection Department can do to
force owners to perform repairs.
65
improves
Section 8, by helping tenants to pay higher rents,
this
Tenants can take their subsidy and move if they
position.
effectively
BHA
program.
owners balk at
on
While some
As
readily.
comply
the
one
pay for working sash cords, we
reduced,
While tenant payments for rent are
are often increased and the quality of housing
incomes
consumption
"we
stated,
ought to get them."
landlord
most
repairs
making
recently
isnpector
aggressive in this regard.
quite
is
for
qualify
units
their
that
so
landlords make repairs
are
Many
can demand more in return.
they
more
paying
they
Since
are seriously aggrieved by an owner's behavior.
the
of
part
is
recipients
definitely
most
augmented.
Average Tenant Shares (payments by tenants to landlords) are
low.
The figure varies greatly from area to area.
the average monthly tenant payment in
$28
South
while in Fenway-Kenmore it is $119.
by larger units,
owners.
is
only
due to
South
Dorchester
is
owned by small investors and resident
payments has already
Most of the burden of utility
shifted to tenants.
Dorchester
This variance is
two factors peculiar to each neighborhood.
dominated
For instance,
been
Most of BHA's current intake of new property
owners falls into this same category.
Fenway-Kenmore, on the other hand, is dominated by one large
subsidized
development,
Church
Park.
The
rents
include
utilities, most of the tenants are elderly, and most of the units
are
efficiency,
one
and
two
bedroom
apartments.
Family
66
elderly
counterparts
of which
is
their
than
holders tend to have lower tenant shares
Certificate
thanks largely to their dependents,each
worth $300
in
deductions from
family
gross
one
income.
5-4 summarizes tenant shares by unit size and neighborhood
Table
as
allowances
and Table 5-7 summarizes HUD utility
various unit sizes across neighborhood
applied
to
borders.
Gross Rents
They
anticipated.
like
are,
Rents
Gross
calculated
are
by
with FMR's to determine
a
unit's
applicable
adding
utility allowances to Contract Rents and are the
than
lower
Rents,
contract
figures compared
The
eligibility.
financial
HUD
Gross Rent for an efficiency unit is only $247 per month
average
while the average three bedroom unit fetches $364 per month.
Gross Rent variance accross neighborhood boundaries is
expected.
than
Table 5-8 details average Gross Rent figures for
Boston and the neighborhoods.
in
West
Roxbury
of
rents
neighborhood
city.
For example, a three bedroom
unit
averages $349 per month, in Hyde Park $320, in
South Dorchester $348,
range
less
given
and in Roxbury $360.
the
huge
characteristics between
very
This a
differences
in
narrow
population and
these disparate
parts of the
67
South boston has the lowest average Gross Rents in the City.
figure for this neighborhood
The overall
all
two
so small (only
is
since it
The Southie sample may not be representative
sizes).
unit
I
author.
expected
fully
I
expensive.
sophisticated
and
to
counterparts
a result that surprised the
that
therefore
approach
small
owners
rent
program
larger
their
The
ceilings.
concentration of large units in these areas may explain
this phenomenon.
less
be
would
than
likely
less
less
be
to
neighborhoods
these
reasoned
the
are
Dorchesters
The
18 units).
neighborhoods,
expensive
most
(for
month
$286 per
is
heavy
some
of
The small owners may be more sophisticated than
I thought.
Gross
Rent/FMR
effectiveness
HUD.
Table
neighborhood.
experience
ratios
to
judge
both
the
of the program and to analyse the FMR levels set by
5-9
details
this
figure
by
Again the results were surprising.
dictates
unit
The
size
and
national
that we should expect a GR/FMR ratio in the
mid .90's for all unit sizes (1).
experience.
us
allow
This is definitely not the BHA
68
Table 5-7
Utility Allowances by Unit
Boston: Avg.
N. End
S. Bos
W. Rox
Chastn
J. Plain
Rosl
E. Bos
FenKen
S. End
. Park
Bri
S. Dor
N. Dor
Rox
2
3
1
11
41
27
0
11
20
13
1
11
18
14
26
34
6
0
69
29
42
38
26
38
10
23
29
15
50
39
21
65
67
92
19
54
73
70
34
16
61
40
89
78
35
0
7
98
32
92
83
50
0
15
77
67
104
98
58
1
12
33
60
74
54
11
2
4,
1
1
1
1
City
The
neigh bo rhood
onl
and
Fenway-Kenmor
categories.
Br Size
4
1
Area
t here
This is, again,
6
7
total
0
125
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
123
0
123
99
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
1 21
1 56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188
0
157
0
21
51
43
29
46
87
120
167
43
5
approac hes
that
o nly
Size and Neighborhood
the
in
Church
Park
38
33
2
16
33
17
72
71
34
figure
this
is
efficien cy and on e br
showing
the
through
Church Park's management has kept their rents close to the
data.
FMR's, no mean feat given the difficulties inherent in processing
rent
mass
increases and tenant recertifications.
ratio slips into the .70's for the larger units,
Even here the
tho se not
owned
by Church Park.
One totally unexpected result was
GR/FMR
ratios
speaking, the
Efficiency
and
as unit size increases.
larger
the
unit
the
the
direction
taken
by
It seems that, generally
lower
the
GR/FMR
ratio.
one bedroom units have the highest overall ratio
69
Table 5-8
Boston: Average Gross Rent by Unit Size and Neighborhood
Area
FMR
0
289
1
329
2
394
3
458
N. End
S. Bos
W. Rox
Chastn
J. Pla
Rosl
E. Bos
FenKen
S. End
H. Par
Bri
S. Dor
N. Dor
Rox
235
214
0
0
246
248
235
283
213
239
234
274
205
222
280
272
305
0
245
266
282
322
275
271
281
297
268
249
372
269
349
338
313
300
319
296
302
320
344
348
327
304
295
337
380
374
379
360
364
City
247
284
324
while five and
7
753
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
352
384
377
360
0
436
0
0
405
0
0
0
0
473
0
452
559
421
0
0
0
0
0
0
456
0
0
0
0
461
594
0
364
384
437
502
293
380
six br units enjoy
the
Total
303
286
335
372
352
305
311
318
296
309
293
370
713
0
563
0
364
336
565
lowest.
336
This
says
two
they are presently high enough to enable
do business in Boston, and, they may be exagerating
to
BHA
6
675
0
403
394
420
421
391
322
0
326
452
464
419
457
364
332
things about HUD FMR's;
the
Br Size
5
4
519 597
the market cost of larger units.
One is
almost forced to the conclusion
neighborhoods
levels,
may
be
most are not.
out
It
is
that,
while
BHA
out
Charlestown).
of
South
much more likely to be the dearth of
Boston
keeps
and East Boston (not to mention
One of the most common complaints levelled against
the landlord community by radical housers is the charge of
gouging".
few
BHA's reach because of high rent
of
white applicants than prohibitaively high rent levels that
the
a
This
phenonenon,
"rent
if it exists at all, is swamped in
the BHA portfolio by the huge number of property owners providing
decent housing at reasonable prices.
BHA
has
just
over
1,000
70
Table 5-9
Boston: Avg. Gross Rent/FMR Ratio
by Unit Size and Neighborhood
Area
FMR
N. End
S. Bos
W. Rox
Chastn
J. Plain
Rosl
E. Bos
FenKen
S. End
H. Park
Bri
S. Dor
N. Dor
Rox
0
289
1
329
.81
.74
0
0
.85
.86
.81
.98
.74
.83
.81
.95
.71
.85
.83
City
.93
.77
0
.74
.81
.86
.98
.84
.82
.85
.90
.81
.76
.85
.86
Br Size
5
4
3
597
458 519
2
394
6
675
7
753
0
0
.64
.74
.83
.82
0
.78
.76
.81
0
.73
0
0
.83
.81
.68
.88
.83
.77
.79
.79
.72
.64
.83
.77
.84
.82
.79
.75
.62
0
.63
.87
.89
.81
.88
.70
0
0
0
0
.79
0
.76
.94
.71
0
0
0
0
0
.68
0
0
0
0
.68
.88
0
.82
.79
.73
.74
.74
.94
.68
.86
.86
.79
.76
.81
.75
.77
.81
.87
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.95
0
.75
0
.75
the vast majority of
landlords enrolled in the Section 8 pro gram,
whom do not fit commonly held stereotypes.
3.
Patterns of Ownership
Ownership was broken into two categories for the purposes of
individuals
study;
this
logical
that
there
would
and
be
business
substantive
operating styles of landlords who kept their
own
names
differences
in the
property
in
their
Corporate
entities
(everything
San-Vel Concrete to the Boston YMCA) account for 1185 units
(56% of the portfolio)
(44%).
seemed
and owners who went to the trouble of setting up real
estate trusts or corporations.
from
It
entities.
while individual owners provide 945
These categories were further
of owners'
units
sub-classified by the size
Section 8 portfolios as follows:
71
1. One to three units.
2.
Four to ten units.
3.
Eleven to twenty units.
4.
Greater
than twenty units.
Of the eight possible categories 76% of the units belong
owners
falling
into
two
(individuals with one to
(corporations
three
small
categories;
large
and
units)
854
units
(40%).
landlord categories is
individuals,
82%
The
weight
roughly equal.
individuals
corporations
The former category
with more than twenty units).
accounts for 777 units (36% of the portfolio)
provides
to
while
of
the
Of the units
the
latter
two dominant
provided
by
belong to individuals with one to three units.
Of those provided by corporate entities 72% belong to
businesses
with more than twenty units.
Structure type and
associated.
Structure
ownership
type
classifications
appear
to
for
this
identical with those used in calculating HUD utility
The five structure categories are:
1. Multi family
2. Row House
3. Duplex/Triplex
4. Single Family
5. Unclassified
be
closely
study
are
allowances.
72
Only those landlords utilizing the
are
HUD
required to classify their units.
the
individual
owners
the
to
the
determine
classify
corresponding
Classifications can be somewhat vague.
required
allowances
Of the corporate entities
24% neither claim utility allowances nor
Of
utility
their
units.
figure
is
7%.
BHA leasing officers
are
classification of a given unit when
calculating Gross Rents.
Classification is often determined by
and
landlords
what
classifications
probably
the
the
property
the
above
listed
asking
looks
tenants
both
like.
Duplex/Triplex
Of
the
category
is
most reliable since it is the least vague and most
Some of the
familiar to Bostonians.
rents
for
reported
units
classified as single family are so low as to raise serious doubts
about their classification.
Corporations are unlikely to own
while
their
duplex/triplex
structures
individual counterparts are most likely to own this
type of property.
Only
7%
of
the
units
owned
by
business
entities are so classified while 56% of the individuals' holdings
fall into this category.
Corporate Entities
1. Multifamily:
19%
2. Row House:
32%
3.
Duplex/Trip:
7%
Structure types break down as follows:
73
4.
Single Fam:
5.
Unclassified:
1%
41%
Individuals
1.
Multifamily:
2.
Row House:
3.
Duplex/Trip:
4.
Single Fam:
20%
9%
56%
6%
5. Unclassified:
In summary,
with
current
8%
subsidy costs and rent levels are
housing production programs.
low
compared
Section 8 avoids the
tax losses and start-up costs associated with production programs
and offers on-going costs well below those encountered elsewhere.
The rental market in
care to admit.
from
Section
Boston is
more resilient than most observers
While many program participants fail
8,
many
to
benefit
derive a high quality subsidy consistent
with most of the original program goals.
Patterns
anticipated.
of
ownership
Small
population,
owners
are
more
highly
dispersed
than
comprise the bulk of BHA's landlord
although they account for
only
44%
of
the
units.
Economic spin-offs from Section 8 are probably larger and acheive
greater
neighborhood
concentrated
expansion
are
programs.
impact
The
fairly clear.
than
those
implications
of
for
past,
more highly
future
program
Neighborhoods with large stocks of
74
triple deckers and duplexes are
East
Boston,
South
untouched by Section
to
program
both
Boston,
8,
ideal
for
Section
8.
Charlestown, thus far largely
and
an
offer
targets
to
opportunity
expand
the
neighborhoods and populations largely excluded
from participation in the past.
An expansion of Section 8 can be accomplished at a price
taxpayers far below the cost of producing new housing.
to
A central
premise of Section 8 was the assumption that the existing housing
stock
offered
providing
a viable resource on which to build a strategy for
has
Nothing
subsidies.
happened
since
1974
to
invalidate this premise.
Both rents and program costs have risen
with
tightness
inflation,
market
and
condo
conversion
inhibited program expansion in some parts of the city.
of
8
this Section 8 remains vital.
reach
a
populations
broader
than
segment
under
any
In
have
spite
Subsidy benefits under Section
of
both
of
its
recipient
and
antecedents.
enormous costs associated with new housing
production,
landlord
Given
the
programs
to protect and utilize the existing stock are more valid now than
ever.
75
Table 5-10
Analysis of Ownership
counts
osize
four to ten
twenty and up
eleven to twenty
one to three
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
112.000
111.000
131.000
889.000
242.000
82.222
11.746
11.055
11.362
777.000
9.451
41.737
87.402
12.598
100.000
counts table pct
individual
business entity
36.479
5.258
41.737
45.868
54.132
100.000
5.211
6.150
11.362
counts row pct
otype
individual
business entity
counts column pct
otype
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
854.000
876.000
3.704
7.426
2.328
72.068
5.775
41.127
28.455
71.545
97.489
2.511
945.000
1185.000
2130.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
44.366
55.634
100.000
100.000
100.000
1.643
4.131
1.033
40.094
44.366
55.634
5.775
41.127
100.000
utype
counts
individual .
business entity
22.000
35.000
88.000
123.000
multi fam
182.000
268.000
450.000
duplex/triplex
row house
single fam
99.000
63.000
533.000
346.000
445.000
127.000
660.000
null
72.000
68.000
435.000
503.000
945.000
1185-000
2130.000
7.196
36.709
23.615
100.000
100.000
100.000
13.519
86.481
44.366
55.634
100.000
100.000
9.000
19.259
10.476
22.616
21.127
29.198
56.402
10.717
20.892
30.986
6.667
0.759
3.380
40.444
22.247
80.758
87.500
59.556
77.753
100.000
100.000
19.242
100.000
12.500
100.000
8.545
4.648
25.023
2.958
12.582
21.127
16.244
20.892
5.962
30.986
0.423
3.192
20.423
44.366
55.634
3.-380
23.615
100.000
76
Table 5-10
(cont.)
utype
counts
multifam
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
single fam
row house
null
182.000
63.000
38.000
167.000
450.000
83.000
53.000
27.000
282.000
445.000
495.000
74-000
33.000
58.000
660.000
54.000
9.000
1.000
8.000
72.000
75.000
43.000
24.000
361.000
503.000
889.000
242.000
123.000
876.000
2130.000
20.472
26.033
30.894
19.064
21.127
9.336
21.901
21.951
32.192
20.892
55.681
30.579
26.829
6.621
30.986
6.074
3.719
0.813
0.913
3.380
8.436
17.769
19.512
41.210
23.615
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
40.444
14.000
8.444
37.111
100.000
18.652
11.910
6.067
63.371
100.000
75.000
11.212
5.000
8.788
100.000
75.000
12.500
1.389
11.111
100.000
14.911
8.549
4.771
71.769
100.000
41.737
11.362
5.775
41.127
100.000
8.545
3.897
23.239
2.535
3.521
41.737
2.958
1.784
7.840
21.127
2.488
1.268
13.239
20.892
3.474
1.549
2.723
30.986
0.423
0.047
0.376
3.380
2.019
1.127
16.948
23.615
11.362
5.775
41.127
100.000
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
77
Chapter Six
The Neighborhoods
Boston is
tend
well known as a city of neighborhoods.
to be close,
verging on insular.
These
A leasing program,
be
it Section 8 or a voucher program, must acknowledge this fact
and meet it head on.
People in South
"outsiders"
from
(anyone
This feeling is
Boston
do
not
trust
across the Southeast Expressway).
echoed in most of the city's
neighborhoods.
This Chapter summarizes the Section 8 experience in each
of the city's
rents
in
neighborhoods.
dissimilar
different parts of the city, although the variance
was less than the
differ,
Similar units fetch
as
does
author
the
expected.
degree
of
Annual
Section
Future outreach programs, both to landlords
subsidy
costs
8 "penetration".
and
prospective
program participants, should be cognizant of this variance.
Roxbury
Roxbury,
for 21%
Roxbury
the heart of Boston's black community,
of BHA Section 8 units.
With 446 units of all
sizes
has the highest proportion of Section 8 units of the
neighborhoods studied.
It
large units.
100 four bedroom units (the
any
accounts
There are
neighborhood)
and
is
14
also one of those with the most
fives
(equalled
only
most
of
by North
78
Dorchester).
The Roxbury portfolio contains no units
than five bedrooms.
but
Only 4 efficiencies are to be found here
one bedroom units.
45
live
holders
in
larger
Roxbury's non-family certificate
than
quarters
larger
slightly
their
counterparts in most areas of the city.
Subsidy
(approximately
costs
are
slightly
below
city
averages
3% for all unit sizes) but contract rents are
above city averages by an equal amount.
Average Gross
Rents
are equal to the city average ($336/month for all unit sizes)
for each unit size.
This
tells us that more utilities are provided with Roxbury
units
but
are
slightly
below
average
than is customary in most neighborhoods.
allowance
of $43.
large,
in
Roxbury is
$34 compared with a city wide figure
This is most likely due to the
assisted developments
in
Ownership is concentrated
52%.
high
proportion
of
the Roxbury portfolio.
in
Roxbury,
with very few small individual owners.
belongs
The average utility
a
neighborhood
Only 24% of the stock
to this last category while large corporations claim
Row house and uncategorized structures account for most
of the stock (62%) while triplex/duplex buildings supply only
23%.
As is usual, the smaller the ownership entity the
likely the units are to be part of a triplex/duplex.
more
79
North Dorchester
Two
of
Dorchesters
generally
the
original
are
graced
sound,
car
"street
with
triplex
and
an
ample
duplex
both
suburbs",
stock
of
older,
structures.
North
Dorchester has 405 Section 8 units, 19% of the BHA portfolio.
This
neighborhood
has
the
heaviest
large units with 89 four bedroom units,
and
2
into
14
fives,
2
sixes,
There are very few efficiencies and ones (2
sevens.
and 10 respectively)
largely
concentration of very
that
indicating
the
clientele
falls
North Dorchester is home
the family category.
to more large families than any other neighborhood.
Subsidy costs are consequently above the
The
average
annual
size units except
that no meaningful
are
virtually
average.
cost for all size units ($3120/year) is
15% above the city average.
all
city
This relationship holds true for
efficiencies,
of which there are so
conclusions can be drawn.
identical
with
city
Contract
$71/month,
almost 65%
the city-wide mean.
rents
means but gross rents,
largely due to a much higher average utility allowance
of
few
above average),
(mean
are 8% higher than
Average Gross Rent/FMR ratios
are
above
average but nowhere near unity.
Ownership is dispersed.
Large operators are outnumbered
by small owners many of them owner-occupants.
to
be
These
appear
the landlords most willing to rent to large families.
80
They are also the group most likely to get the utilities into
tenants'
names.
of
North Dorchester units while large operators account
the
for only 15%.
encountered
duplex
Individuals with small holdings provide
The
triple
type,
structure
or
triplex
is
decker
the
most
frequently
with 55% of the units in
buildings.
Of
these
84%
58%
either
belong
to
individuals.
South Dorchester
South Dorchester resembles its northern neighbor in many
is
There
ways.
abundance
serves
area
the
structures,
an
non-family certificate holders.
of
many
For
duplex
large
the
triplex
and
families and few
this
of
pruposes
study Mattapan has been included as part of South Dorchester.
as rich in large units as either Roxbury or North
not
While
neighborhood
this
Dorchester
concentration
of
fives and one six.
comprise
them.
for
largest
third
Altogether South Dorchester's
321
units
15.1% of the BHA portfolio.
all
units
($3,240)
above
average.
The
annual
is almost 19% above the city
This holds true for all size units except the one
mean.
bedroom
apartment.
not tell us much.
due
the
There are 44 four bedroom units, 7
Subsidy costs are, again,
cost
has
to
the
six
With only a single occurrence this does
Again,
the higher
subsidy cost is
largely
interaction of the presence of an above average
81
number of large units
tenant-paid
utilities.
$72/month, 67% above
rents
consequent
The
the
average
city
heavier
reliance
utility
allowance is
economic
Average
average.
on
close to city means but Gross Rents are 10%
very
are
and
above average ($370/month compared with
$336/month
for
all
unit sizes).
Ownership is
fragmented,
owners than large operators.
of
the duplex/triplex
Again,
stock.
The former category claims
while large operators provide only 11%
units
the
with many more small individual
model
with 53% of the units,
small,
individual operations
structure is
the
60%
of the
dominant
are owned by
of which 148 (87%)
Brighton
With .180 units Brighton has the fourth largest share
Most (73%)
the BHA portfolio.
These
units.
population.
homes
are
are efficiency and one bedroom
to
a
large,
nothing
BHA
to
contradict
units
and
Brighton is studded
elderly,
of
elderly
which
experience
this common wisdom.
only three large apartments in Brighton,
bedroom
mostly
Brighton enjoys a reputation as a safe haven for
the elderly, sort of a mini-Brookline.
says
of
two
of
here
There are
them
four
one a seven bedroom single family house.
with
BHA
subsidized
has
three.
developments
for
the
Unlike the Dorchesters
Brighton is richest in large blocks of multifamily
buildings
82
containing mostly small apartments.
Subsidy costs are much cheaper in
neighborhood examined thus far.
$2,224
annually,
The average for all sizes is
the
below
18%
any
in
Brighton than
city average.
The use of
utility allowances is minimal, especially in the small units.
The average for Brighton is
The
The average Gross Rent is $293, 76%
below the city mean.
for
Rent
units.
all
bedroom
efficiency and one
average
mean.
40% of the city
Contract Rent of $276/month for all sizes is 6%
average
Gross
$17/month,
This
applies
only
cost
Two's
units.
of
the
to
than
more
Brighton's few large units are quite expensive.
and
While the prices of the larger units are above
only
average
the single seven bedroom house exceeds a Gross Rent/FMR ratio
of .90.
Ownership in Brighton is quite concentrated.
units only 22 (12%) are
owned
96
by
units,
53%
provide
portfolio.
The dominant structure form
building
(41%
of
the units).
category is "unclassified".
largest
of
the
all utilities.
Large
investors.
small
operators
Of the 180
neighborhood
the
of
is
the
multifamily
The second largest structure
These units
are
owned
by
the
real estate operators, ones able to provide
Most of these residents are elderly,
the units efficiency and one bedroom apartments.
most
of
83
Hyde Park
Hyde Park,
with 170 units,
accounts
of the BHA Section 8 portfolio.
small
family
bedrooms).
apartments
(66%
The stock,
to that of South Dorchester.
frame
duplex
and
of
contain
Only four are larger
fours and two fives.
wood
Most
for approximately 8%
than
these
units
are
either two or three
three
while newer,
bedrooms,
is
two
very similar
Hyde Park has a large number of
triplex buildings interspersed
with
early-fifties single family homes.
Hyde Park,
inexpensive
while not as cheap as Brighton,
for
the
still
an
BHA.
The average annual
subsidy cost for all units is $2,412, 11%
below the city-wide
figure.
neighborhood
is
All unit sizes are cheaper to maintain in Hyde
Park
than their average counterparts in the entire city portfolio.
Use
of
utility
allowances
approaches
the
($33/month compared with $43 for all units).
are
somewhat
higher
than
least part of the disparity.
compared
with
city
average
Tenant
shares
the city averages, explaining at
Contract
$293 for the city.
rents
average
$285,
Gross Rents average $309,
8% less than those for the city as a whole.
Most Hyde Park units are provided by large
concerns
estate
(those with more than twenty units in their Section
8 portfolios).
Park.
real
These account for 66% of the
units
in
Hyde
Individuals with fewer than four units provide 27% of
84
Multi-family
(50%).
Georgetown
account
the
house
row
the row house model
for
17%
only
of
Hyde
Much of what we see here is
apartments.
8
Section
is
trail
structures
Triplex/duplexes
with 25%.
Park's
type
The dominant structure
the stock.
a large assisted development.
Houses,
South End
one
and
Home of the Row House, the Hispanic Community,
of the first Urban Renewal sites, the South End has undergone
dramatic
change
approximately
during
40% of the South
The rest
housing.
the past decade.
is
End
live
28
in
one
or
Castle Square Housing
is
largest with about 90 units.
evenly
four
bedroom
There
units.
are
four bedrooms.
two,
one,
among
only
two
The
South
four bedroom apartments represent about 10%
of the
efficiencies
End's
poorest.
here consists of units
Units are distributed roughly
and
richest
Some of Boston's
another of these assisted projects.
three,
The South End is
cheek to jowl with some of the city's
Much of the BHA portfolio
probably the
assisted
now
is
rapidly.
gentrifying
a neighborhood of stark contrasts.
citizens
stock
By BRA reckoning,
BHA's fours.
and none larger
than
Most of the South End
corporate
entities,
individuals
are involved
both
in
large
units
and
are
small.
provided
Few
this part of the protfolio.
by
small
85
Subsidy costs in
The
mean
for all units is
cost
This is
city average.
below
the South End are well
$2,196 per year,
average.
81% of the
largely due to the presence of a
high
proportion of units with controlled rents combined with above
average
is
tenant shares.
well below average
Thus
(average
mean, Gross Rents are only
Gross
$296/month,
for three and
In fact,
lifted
12%
four
ratios are .64 and .63 respectively.
be
allowance
$16).
average.
below
ratios are very low, among the lowest in the
Rent/FMR
portfolio.
monthly
rents are, on average, 96% of the city
contract
while
The dependence on utility allowances
from
undoubtedly rise to
levels
more
the
Should federal controls
units
of
majority
the
units
bedroom
closely
this figure would
with
approximate
those of the city as a whole.
of
Ownership
the
Almost
concentrated.
South
62%
corporations with more than
Only
13%
of
End
the
twenty
portfolio
is
units
provided by
units
are
in
the
highly
program.
provided by indivdiuals with fewer than four.
are
Row houses account for 43% of the stock while another 33%
unclassified.
End
would
Most of the three unit structures in
be
triple decker is
Fenway-Kenmore
classified as row houses.
is
the South
The classic Boston
largely missing from this neighborhood.
86
This neighborhood prsents the
clearest
example
area dominated by one large assisted development.
units 124 belong to Church Park.
and
one
bedroom
apartments.
of
an
Of the 136
All of these are efficiency
In
bedroom units and 1 three bedroom
addition there are 5 two
apartment.
Most
of
the
residents of these small apartments are elderly.
Subsidy costs are moderate,
87%
city
the
of
average.
averaging $2,352
per
year,
Fenway-Kenmore, however, is the
only neighborhood that closely approaches
FMR
limits.
The
Gross Rent/FMR ratio for the efficiency and one bedroom units
is
This
.98.
management knows the
maximize their income.
Virtually
$2/month.
is
and
ceilings
rent
units
come
determined
allowance is
The average utility
all
Church
that
demonstrates
clearly
complete
with
Park
to
only
all
Gross rents are virtually identical with economic
utilities.
rents, an average of $316/month.
Ownership is highly concentrated in
Park,
Church
the
largest
large-operator statistic.
duplexes
in
owner
There
Fenway-Kenmore
and
here, shows up in the 91%
are
no
only
individuals with fewer than four units.
units
are
unclassified
neighborhood.
this
triple-deckers
3
could only be classified as multi-family.
units provided by
Church
by structure type.
or
Park's
124
These buildings
87
East Boston
East Boston is
people
income
stock is
many
old,
ways
a neighborhood
dominated
of working class
by Italian Americans.
mostly wood frame duplexes and
and
The housing
triplexes.
Yet in spite of a population that largely
the
8
fits
criteria and a housing stock that is perfect
for Section 8 BHA has only managed to lease 77 units in
Boston.
In
the stock bears strong resemblence to that of the
Dorchesters.
Section
low
East
This represents but 3.6% of the whole portfolio.
Unit sizes in
Eastie are divided equally among one,
two
and three bedroom units (47% ones, 47% twos and threes).
the
neighborhood
br.
provides
only 2 four bedroom units and one six
Small families and non-family certificate holders derive
most of the benefits
from
Section
8's
small
East
boston
portfolio.
Subsidy costs in
program
East boston are moderate.
The
benefit paid out by BHA runs $2,472 annually,
the city average.
($204/month
Economic
rents
are
well
below
average
91% of
average
for all units) while utility allowances are very
near the mean (average of $33/month).
Gross
out to $311/month, 7% below the city average.
rents
average
88
divided roughly evenly
Ownership is
operators (49%
small
between
and 45% respectively).
and
large
Among the small
60%
investors the duplex/triplex structure type accounts for
Large operators' units are either in row house
of the units.
structures
(40%)
or unclassified
There is a pool of
(38%).
individual owners in East Boston, one largely still
by
Section
There
8.
can
be
no doubt that a significant
income-eligible population exists here as
for
expansion
of
Section
8
untapped
are
well.
The
well sown in
seeds
Eastie.
It
requires administrative resolve on the part of BHA to move in
this direction.
Roslindale
Roslindale is often regarded (except by those
raised
there)
as
a
stopping
point
Roxbury and Hyde Park/West Roxbury.
on
Plain.
two
and
the route between
In fact the neighborhood
definitions offered by the Mayor's Neighborhood
big pieces of Roslindale away to
born
both
Roxbury
Planners gave
and
Jamaica
A neighborhood of oddly mixed uses (light industrial,
BHA family projects),
Roslindale is
currently struggling
to retain its neighborhood identity and preserve its stock of
triple deckers and single family homes.
The BHA leases a total of 73 units in Roslindale,
of
the
portfolio.
All
three berdroom categories.
3.43%
but 7 of them fall into the one to
The Program
has
attracted
only
89
Subsidy costs are
one efficiency and six four bedroom units.
city averages, coming in at $2,268 annually (84%
below
well
of city mean for all sizes).
small
are
Average
than
higher
slightly
Economic rents average $267/month, 9%
fmailies.
below city mean.
beneficiaries
of
The majority
utility
is
allowance
Rents
Gross
average.
$305/month, with GR/FMR ratios averaging in the
Roslindale
structure
common
most
average
high
.70's.
about evenly divided between small individual
is
owners and large corporations
The
$38/month,
type
47%
and
(42%
respectively).
is multifamily (51%) with
duplex/triplex running second (26%).
Jamaica Plain
A
still
changing,
predoninantly
class
working
neighborhood, Jamaica Plain is home to a growing off-shoot of
the
Hispanic community.
BHA currently leases 58 units here,
virtually all of them tenanted by family Certificte
are
There
only
1 efficiency and two one bedroom units, the
majority of the rest falling into the
bedroom
holders.
categories.
three
two,
four
and
One very large family resides here in a
five bedroom unit (single family home).
Subsidy costs are higher than average in
The
average
annual cost is $3,024, 11%
Economic rents and utility allowances are
well.
Average
Jamaica
Plain.
above the city mean.
above
average
as
gross rent for all unit sizes is $352/month,
90
Tenant shares are
5% above aveage.
It
$54/month.
portfolios.
8
Section
fewer
with
structures account for 31 units (53.5% of
the
Large operators own only 3.5% of the
Section 8 stock).
J.P.
individuals
by
their
in
units
Duplex/triplex
Just over
Ownership is highly dispersed.
60% of the units here are owned
three
at
average
this last fact that explains most of the
is
cost differential.
than
below
well
units.
Charlestown
Charlestown is
white,
a
rapidly
gentrifying,
working class neighborhood tucked away between Boston
It
proper and Somerville.
and
townhouses
"Billerica
of
possesses a large stock
frame
wood
specials",
down
plumped
triplexes
early-fifties
interspersed
style
tract
brick
with
houses
between historic homesteads, some still seedy,
many in the last stages sof restoration.
large
largely
still
population
of
potentially
Charlestown
has
a
eligible low and moderate
income (there are presently three large assisted developments
in Charlestown, none of them hurting for
applicants)
people
yet Section 8 has managed to attract only 35 units.
Subsidy costs are 9% above the city
per
year
on
average.
Contract
and
tenant
shares
at
$2,950
rents are high, averaging
$343/month (17% above city mean) , use of
low
average
above average.
utility
allowances
Gross rents are 11%
91
above the city-wide mean.
Over
half
the
units
provided by large corporate entities (more
indicating
of its
are
than twenty units)
that the large developments provide BHA with most
Charlestown units.
All
by small landlords,
provided
(63%)
of
the
rest
one
are
virtually all in duplex/triplex
Most of the units owned by
structures.
but
the
large
opeators
are unclassified.
West Roxbury
At this stage of the analysis the
thin
out
seriously.
in-town suburb.
"Dapper"
Home to
O'Neil,
this
West
Roxbury
such
is
a
portfolio
is
local
begins
known as an
often
as
luminaries
of Boston.
BHA leases only 26 units in
lowly 1.22% of the Section 8 portfolio.
bedroom units,
Albert
neighborhood of single family
homes with a greater resemblence to near-by Dedham
rest
to
12 are two's or three's,
than
the
West Roxbury,
a
Half of them are one
and
one
is
a
four
bedroom single family home.
Average subsidy cost is
$2,736/year.
Contract
shares
The
Rents
$64,
$43/month,
rest
of
slightly above the city average,
the
indicators
are
average $292, $1 below the city mean, tenant
$4
below
average,
equal to the city mean.
and
utility
virtually
allowances
Gross rents are $1 below
average, weighing in at $335/month for all units.
is
normal.
Ownership
all divided between small indivduals and small
92
units
Roxbury's
corporate
while
BHA
buildings.
in
structures and 35%
triplex/duplex
in
located
with fewer than
entities
Ten of the units (38%) are
units own 35% of the stock.
three
one
leases
West
of
54%
for
accounts
The former category
investors.
single
multifamily
home
family
West
in
Roxbury.
South Boston
in
The home of public housing
country)
the
South Boston accounts
public housing developments
in
families
(18
neighborhood's
a
stock
misfit
units)
of
deckers
and
eligible
elderly
three
five
years
penetration is not
8
nor
residents,
Southie has a large
housing stock.
the
with
triple
of
Section
by any dearth of income eligible
explainable
by
paltry
The
admission.
the
of
lack
no
developments require an average wait of three to
for
in
waiting lists for all three
indicates
The
Southie.
.85%
for only
huge
The
portfolio.
BHA
Ellen
Mary
on Old Colony Avenue were the first
Houses
McCormick
(the
Boston
duplexes.
In
any
fact,
surveyor could verify that most of the units here
windsheild
are of this type.
South Boston is
the BHA.
18 units
and
In
fact it
not an overly expensive neighborhood
is
cheaper
than most other
areas.
are evenly distributed between efficiencies
family
units.
The
neighborhood
supports
for
The
and ones
two
large
93
families,
one in
a four bedroom unit and the other in
a five.
The average annual subsidy cost is
a very
low
76%
tenant
shares and utility
of
the
city
mean.
While
$2,064,
allowances are average, all other indicators are
the
figures
BHA
$235/month,
80%
$286/month,
a
$336/month.
small
is
of
accustomed to.
the
hefty
All but two of
individual
mean,
below
the
Six
of
Gross
grand
units
Southie's
investors.
below
Contract rents average
city-wide
15%
well
only
them
are
Rents
average
of
owned
by
are located in
duplex/triplex structures (33%), four in single family homes,
and four in multifamily buidlings.
The North End
With only 11 units (.52%
of the portfolio) the North end
barely makes it
onto the charts.
in
rock and a hard place.
between
a
North Enders are
Italian community,
the North End is
a
estate
wave
of
real
success
of
the
neighborhood
cheap,
has
no-frills
a
Urban
tradition,
housing.
The heart of Boston's
currently being swept
speculation spurred
Waterfront
presently
Renewal
largely by the
package.
one seriously endangered,
Section
8
has
by
done
The
of
virtually
nothing to help low-income North Enders hang on to a piece of
their neighborhood.
94
Six of the eleven units here are
bedroom apartments.
population,
The North End is
traditionally
the
efficiencies
and
one
home to a large elderly
segment
Italian
lion's
subsidies
Mercantile Wharf and Baker's Alley
(an
MHFA rehabilitation
family
subsidies
development,
House,
whatever
small
project) provide virtually all of the
here
the
of
the
population to recieve the
are available.
share
of
while
Christopher
the
elderly
have
Columbus Houses,
a
BHA
Sancta Maria
and a burgeoning nursing home.
Subsidy costs are slightly below city averages.
Annual
benefit levels are $2,424 compared with the city-wide average
of
$2,712.
Gross Rents are similarly below average.
of Gross Rents to FMR's are not out of the ordinary,
.64
from
two's.
for
the
two
Ownership is
three br uni-ts to
evenly divided between a couple of small
There
large operators in this part of the portfolio.
recieved
so
ranging
.94 for the three
individuals and two small corporate entities.
has
Ratios
are
no
The North End
little benefit from Section 8 that further
analysis of this neighborhood is
hardly worth while.
Summary
Section 8 serves
hardly
at all.
portfolio,
The
racial
some
neighborhoods
well
and
others
Roxbury and the Dorchesters, with 55% of the
derive considerable
composition
benefits
from
the
program.
of program participants is probably
95
the determining factor in this equation.
69%
of
the
family
Certificate
Black
recipients,
holders, tend to locate in
neighborhoods where they experience the least resistance
feel
most
It
comfortable.
is
unrealistic,
and porbably
unfair, to expect most black families, whose main concern
affordable
shelter,
and
is
to "take the point" and break into South
or East Boston.
It
the
should be obvious,
income
eligible
income classes,
program.
Charlestown
population,
has generally
Likewise,
neighborhoods
however,
such
South
little
derive
segment
of
the white low and moderate
failed
property
as
that a large
to
benefit
owners in
Boston,
benefit
from
the
white working class
East
from
Boston,
Section
8.
and
For
neighborhoods such as the North End the program might just as
well not exist.
programs,
This is
a failure common to housing
with the exception of elderly housing.
for this phenomenon are beyond the scope
The
conclusion is inescapable.
base of its
this
Section 8 program it
community.
To
follow
of
The resons
this
analysis.
If BHA wishes to broaden the
will have to
reach
out
to
the present course will surely
result in further concentration, both racial and
of the subsidy.
subsidy
geographic,
96
Chapter Seven
Summary
Section 8 Existing Housing program has been successfully
implemented and operated in Boston.
as
of
February
1982
the
program.
not
Most
quantified
active
have since grown to approximately
51
new
units
the new units are provided by
of
small landlords, many of them minorities.
is
units
During the month of April BHA brought
2,250.
into
1,
The 2,130
This
latter
fact
the BHA does not keep demographic
since
data on landlords.
The
costs
compared
with
programs.
The problems associated with
largely
absent
of
maintaining
those
in
Section
encountered
Section 8,
8
in
units
current
public
low
production
housing
are
thanks to the dispersal of the
The quality of services provided is
subsidy.
are
consistent
and
high, largely due to the active inspection role played by BHA
Leased
Housing
holders are often
program.
These
Department.
repaired
repairs
were tenants paying full,
vis-a-vis
Units rented to BHA Certificate
in
order
probably
lower
to
qualify
for
would not have been made
rents.
Tenants'
positions
their landlords are improved by both their ability
to pay more rent and the back up provided by BHA staff.
example,
the
if
deteriorate
a
section
BHA can,
8
landlord
For
allows his property to
and often does, withhold
payment
until
97
repairs
are made.
It
is
virtually impossible for a landlord
to retaliate against BHA whereas individual tenants are often
left at the mercy of unscrupulous property owners.
Inferences can be drawn about
rental
market
clients,
from
the
BHA
the poorest people in
transfer
payments
of
one
the
Section
nature
8
of
Boston's
experience.
Boston (around
90%
BHA
exist
on
sort or another), manage to find
decent, safe and sanitary units that rent within program rent
limits.
Many experience considerable difficulty, many
Section
8
is
not
a
program
everyone who is income eligible.
that
A
fail.
can serve the needs of
considerable
degree
of
self direction is required for program success.
Rent levels encountered by BHA are below those
and
This holds true accross neighborhood borders and
all unit sizes.
to
cited in market studies and the popular
those ' commonly
media.
expected
for
FMR's are generally sufficient to enable BHA
not only maintain its present portfolio but to expand it.
Gross Rent/FMR ratios tend to decrease as unit size increases
indicating either that large apartments cost
analysts
less
than
HUD
anticipated or problems with the algorithms used by
HUD when setting FMR levles.
Rents for all unit sizes across the portfolio distribute
normally.
overly
This indicates
influenced
by
that
the
artificially
BHA
portfolio
is
not
set rents in subsidized
98
developments.
Boston)
is
While the impact
of
rent
(City
control
not quantified (BHA has no record of which units
are controlled) rent control is a fact of the housing
in
Boston.
controlled
of
Neither
units
in
subsidized developments nor
units can be excluded from the pool
apartments
available
to
market
low
income
Assisted units have become an integral
of
potential
apartment
part
of
the
seekers.
Boston
housing market.
Any Section 8 type program will wind up with
a portion of its
portfolio in
Rent levls in
high
to
these developments.
the Section
attract
new
units
8
program
to the program.
section 8 over the past year and a half
1,700
units
in
1980
to
2,250
profperty owners find program
fact,
are
rent
The growth of
(from
today)
sufficiently
approximately
verifies that many
levels
attractive.
In
BHA has managed to operate its program without pushing
FMR's even though the
portfolio
to
exceed
program
permits
rent ceilings.
up
This is
to
20%
of
the
especially true
in Roxbury (one of the neighborhoods most heavily impacted by
large subsidized developments) , South Boston (GR/FMR
.68 for 2 br
units),
and
the
South
End
ratio of
(again,
a
remain
largely
high
incidence of large assisted developments).
Working
unpenetrated
class
by
neighborhoods
white
Section
8.
East Boston, South Boston, the
North End, and Charlestown account for less than
portfolio.
This is
7%
of
the
not surprising given the dearth of white
99
Blacks continue to outnumber whites in
Section 8 applicants.
Hispanics participate in
the program by at least six to one.
to
equivalence
rough
This is consistent with past
of Hispanic origin.
population
eligible
the
of
proportion
the
studies of the Boston rental market that indicate that racial
exclusivity (on the part of both sides of the color line)
in
discrimination continue to play major roles
in
individuals'
are located
The majority of BHA units (55%)
search patterns.
and
the predominately minority areas of Roxbury and North and
South Dorchester.
rent
The variance in
Rent,
Gross
both
levels,
is
Given the uniormly low GR/FMR ratios it
program
by
explained
phenomenon can be
ratios to be much closer to
HUD
into"
"backing
landlords'
FMR's
unity.
study were effective as of 4/1/81.
from
unlikely that this
the case one would expect these
this
Were
rents.
and
surprisingly small.
is
neighborhoods
accross
rent
economic
in
quoted
this
New rent ceilings are due
and are expected to be 10 to 15% higher
presently
than those quoted here.
the most expensive program
Large families,
to
derive
maintain,
The average annual
unit is $3,084.
the
program
$5,856.
the
participants
largest benefit from the program.
subsidy expenditure
for
a
four
bedroom
A one bedroom unit, on the other hand, costs
only
$2,124
Seven br units average
per year.
Any move to a voucher
with
a
limit
to
its
value
100
program resources to the 26% of participants in
shift
would
units.
larger
in
efficiency and one br units from the
74%
This shift could be viewed as a "tax"
on family participants'
program
benefits.
heavily
on
those
The
burden
least
able
of this tax would fall most
to
of
dilution
a
affoord
benefits, large families, the majority of whom are black.
aspect
Perhaps the most disturbing
Should the voucher
implications.
value
burden
the
certificate
administrators
cash
cut backs would be
the
and
to
allowed
process
the
likely) the politics of
fixed
a
with
distribute
to local priorities (as seems
according
values
a
If PHA's are given a fixed limit to
portfolios
their
to
switch
distributional
the
come
distributing
of
assumed by HUD planners.
the value of
is
program
voucher
funded
level
a
of
will
program
present
with enormously difficult choices.
Table 6-1
summarizes the present distribution of benefits by unit
size
category.
Any meaningful cuts in benefit levels will
directed
at
size
those
program expenditures.
receive
probably
categories
Two and
three
to
absorb
the
lion's
to
be
comprising the bulk of
bedroom
60.8% of present program benefits.
have
have
family
units
This group would
share
of
benefit
101
Table 6-1
Levels by Unit Size (Dollars)
Benefit
Total
Boston:
# Br
Count
Proportion
of Total
82
475
618
617
292
39
4
3
1,920
2,124
2,676
3,012
3,084
3,624
5,004
5,856
157,440
1,008,900
1,653,768
1,858,404
900,528
141,336
20,016
17,568
2.7%
17.5%
28.6%
32.2%
15.6%
2.5%
.4%
.3%
2130
2,712
5,776,560
100.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
City
Total Benefits
per Category
Ann'l Benefit
per Unit
overall
if
reductions
savings goals are to be acheived.
this
Given
the
fact
present voucher proposals appear very
likely to lead to a "blackness"
Current
black.
are
families
previously noted close to 70% of these
As
in
least
at
tax,
Boston.
federal voucher proposals seem intent on keeping the
bath water but throwing out the baby.
is
should
in the interests of
of
the
estate
real
be treated carefully.
group
this
to
hysteria about rental availability.
developers
of
extremely high.
more
Section
8
New
actual
market
The pronouncements
notoriously hard to come by.
representatives
communities
on
Data
prices.
reasonable
that rent for
of
perpetual
clients from finding and leasing acceptable units
8
behavior
a
of
throes
but that has not stopped a majority of BHA
housing emergency,
Section
the
in
locked
Boston may be
development
and
It
maintain
is,
a
after all,
degree
of
The rents paid by HUD to
Construction
I doubt that taxpayers
will
projects
tolerate
are
many
of these "emergency responses" to perceived but largely
102
unquantified dilemmas.
The
same
care
pronouncements
should
be
of professional
taken
when
digesting
problem solvers.
of professionals has grown up around
the
the
A community
"housing
crisis",
one whose intentions are laudable, but whose bread and butter
are
inextricably
to alleviate.
fully
bound up with the crises they are supposed
One offical of DCA recently told
render
him
unable
His
so deeply engrained
very
as a "fixer" of housing problems.
appear less serious,
he
as
to take a fresh look at the problem.
One may wish to remember that he is
state
that
housing riots in the streets of Boston.
expected
perception of the crisis situation is
to
me
well
paid
by
the
Should the "crisis"
the need for his services
might
become
less obvious.
The conclusions that the reader
study
can
be summarized in
should
a few words:
take
from
this
Section 8 Existing
Housing Program works. The immediate implication of this
is
that a switch to a cheapened
probably
be
hasty
good program,
and
voucher
might result in
one which delivers a much
program
would
the death of a
needed
subsidy
at a cost the taxpayer can live with.
Section
8
works
better
others. This is largely
applicants
and
the
in
due
some neighborhoods
to
segregated
the
dearth
nature
of
than in
white
of most Boston
103
low
white
income
on
courage
some
of
part
the
Little horizontal
administrators.
program
Such an outreach program
community.
probably require
would
the
to reach out to
BHA has done little
neighborhoods.
equity will
be acheived, however, unitl program administrators
come
to grips with this failure.
8 works better for some people than for others.
Section
The private market dependence of Section 8 dictates that
the
self-direction
holders'
housing
present
at
could do more than
to
there
searches,
Certificate
assist
will
always
be
a
population
eligible
income
significant segment of the
While BHA
of recipients.
part
the
on
and
persistence
considerable
require
program
who will be unable to benefit from the program.
The
ownership
are
levels
devastating
them.
most
than
complex
rent
housing
rental
more
paid
concede.
observers
do
BHA
by
"spiralling"
available
condition so often ascribed to
seems
in
about the housing market
the
demonstrate
not
vacancy rates vary,
with the politics of the observer.
accurate
of
Patterns
dispersed than generally conceded,
Estimates of rents and
currently
viable and
more
both
is
market
None of the analysis
able to capture
Boston.
often
the "truth"
It may be
that
an
appreciation of the status of Boston's housing
market will consist of
a
pattern
of
small
"truths".
104
What
West
true of Dorchester may not be the case in
is
Roxbury.
The data presented
research.
as
is
This
it
should
behavior is still too little
for example be directed
Has
are black.
Real world market
be.
understood.
Research
Many
8
Section
assisted
harnessed
for
businesses?
minority
and
utilized
as an "engine"
of
quality
and
of
progress
the
Can these
as the city
patterns of minority ownership be quantified
done
should,
of BHA's smaller landldords
people traditionally excluded from ownership?
has
future
for
towards issues such as:
ownership.
Minority
questions
herepose many
Can Section 8 be
this
further
to
process?
Analysis
ownership
This study
type.
assumed a fairly consistent quality of housing services.
This may not be the
quality
case.
If
there
throughout the portfolio,
most likely to provide the highest
is
variance
what type of owner
unit
quality
at
in
is
a
price the program can sustain?
The
potential
accumulating
program's
for
use of Section 8 as a mechanism for
accurate
present
housing
data
data.
market
gathering
and
procedures are geared towards operations, not
The
management
research.
105
With some attention on the part of PHA's accurate market
be compiled and knowledge of actual
could
descriptions
market behavior improved.
These are,
this
study.
to researchers.
of course,
not the only questions
raised
They are among those most obviously accessible
Section 8 remains a program studied to death
on the national level but virtually unanalysed at
of detail attempted here.
itself
Future
vitality.
its
for
the
landlord
Yet
community
research should begin to direct
to this aspect of the program.
abandoning
I am not advising
favor of market analysis.
coin
receive
equal
market information in
It
level
The tenant population has received
the program is equally dependent on
the
the
lion's share of the research attention and funding.
the
by
should be tapped.
demographic
research
in
I am suggesting that both sides of
attention.
There
is a wealth of
the hands of PHA's accross the country.
1o6
Appendix One
Neighborhood Tables
Roxbury
Roxbury:
# Br
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
Average Annual
Me an
BHA
4
45
118
165
100
14
0
0
155
138
204
235
232
279
0
0
446
217
Subsidy
Cost by Unit
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Cost
Mean
+ Negrent
0
0
1
1.50
3
10
0
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
4
45
118
165
100
14
0
0
Ecorent
mean med
209
210
243
138
297
283
334
325
317
306
402
366
0
0
0
0
302
300
BHA
mean med
155
170
135
135
204
227
259
235
230
232
286
279
0
0
0
0
217
228
Ratio
155
138
205
236.50
235
289
0
0
1860
1794
2460
2820
3468
0
0
1%
10%
26%
37%
22%
3%
0%
0%
219
2628
100%
Roxbury: Summary of Indicators by Unit
BR
0
1
2
Si ze
2838
Size
Tensh
mean med
50
54
99
105
68
79
75
89
55
71
59
77
0
0
0
0
83
72
Util
mean med
15
13
0
6
19
21
25
35
55
58
29
55
0
0
0
0
34
25
107
Roxbury: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
107.000
11.000
16.000
0.000
134.000
21.000
29.000
32.000
230.000
312.000
128.000
40.000
48.000
230.000
446.000
79-851
6.731
8.209
11.940
10.256
10.762
0.000
9.295
8.969
73.718
51.570
100.000
100.000
100.000
16.406
100.000
27.500
72.500
100.000
33.333
66.667
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
23.991
4.709
28.700
2.466
6.502
8.969
3.587
7.175
10.762
0.000
51.570
51.570
28.700
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
83.594
30.045
69.955
100.000
30.045
69.955
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row hou se
single fam
null
21.000
40.000
61.000
19.00 0
122.000
141.000
69.000
33.000
102.000
8.000
4.000
12.000
17.000
113.000
130.000
134.000
312.000
446.000
15.672
14-179
39.103
51.493
10.577
5.970
12.821
1.282
12.687
36.218
13.677
31.614
22.870
2.691
29.148
100.000
100.000
100.000
34.426
65.574
13.475
86.525
67.647
32.353
100.000
100.000
100.000
13.077
86.923
69.955
100.000
66.667
33.333
100.000
100.000
4.709
8.969
4.260
27.354
15.471
7.399
1.794
0.897
3.812
25-336
30.045
69.955
13.677
31.614
22.870
2.691
29.148
100.000
30.045
108
Roxbury: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
single fam
multifam row house
null
22.000
6.000
8.000
25.000
61.000
19.000
6.000
12.000
104.000
141.000
65.000
8.000
21.000
8.000
102.000
8.000
3.000
0.000
1.000
12.000
14.000
17.000
7.000
92.000
130.000
128.000
40.000
48.000
230.000
446.000
17.188
15.000
16.667
10.870
13.677
14.844
15.000
25.000
45.217
31.614
50.781
20.000
43.750
3.478
22.870
6.250
7.500
0.000
0.435
2.691
10.938
42-500
14.583
40.000
29.148
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
36.066
9.836
13.475
4.255
63.725
7.843
66.667
25.000
10.769
13.077
28.700
8.969
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
13.115
8.511
20.588
0.000
5.385
10.762
twenty and up
40.984
73.759
7.843
8.333
70.769
51.570
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
counts table pct
one to three
4.933
4.260
14.574
1.794
3.139
28.700
four to ten
1.345
1.345
1.794
0.673
3.812
8.969
1.794
5.605
13.677
2.691
23.318
31-614
4.709
1.794
22.870
0.000
0.224
2.691
1.570
20.628
29.148
10-762
51.570
100.000
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
109
North Dorchester
Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit Size
North Dorchester:
Me an
Mean
BHA
3
4
5
6
7
2
10
1 15
1 71
89
14
2
2
119
176
226
259
265
308
438
396
0
2
2
10
13
6
53
32
Total
405
252
8
0
1
2
North Dorchester:
3
Count
2
10
115
171
7
14
2
2
BR
0
1
2
4
5
6
89
405
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Count
# Br
+ Negrent
=
Cost
228
269
278
314
491
428
1428
2136
2736
3228
3336
3768
5892
5130
.5%
2.5%
28.4%
42.2%
22.0%
3.5%
.5%
.5%
260
3120
100.0%
119
178
Summary of Indicators by Unit
Ecorent
mean med
195
195
254
234
288
295
286
291
299
300
342
353
438
438
406
406
BHA
mean med
119
119
179
176
226
245
266
259
265
267
298
308
438
438
396
396
mean
126
57
60
22
21
38
-53
-22
293
251
255
34
294
Ratio
Tensh
med
126
66
47
3
14
22
-53
-22
34
Size
Util
mean
10
34
39
78
98
99
156
157
71
med
10
28
28
90
109
114
156
157
82
110
North Dorchester: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business enti ty
counts row pct
individual
business entity
234.000
16.000
250-000
33.000
counts table pct
individual
business entity
294.000
20.000
405.000
1.701
13.514
7.483
53.153
4.938
20.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
25-000
75-000
100.000
27.160
72.840
100.000
27.407
100.000
1.235
3.704
5.432
72-593
14.568
4.938
20.000
27.407
100.000
5.000
15-000
54.000
79.592
11.224
14.414
18.919
13.333
61.728
counts column pct
individual
business entity
22.000
59.000
81.000
21.000
93.600
6.400
61.111
100.000
100.000
57.778
3.951
61.728
8.148
38-889
5.185
13.333
111.000
72-593
utype
counts
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam null
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
59.000
29.000
88.000
14.000
19.000
33.000
20.068
26.126
21.728
13.000
25.000
38.000
294.000
111.000
405.000
1.802
4.422
22.523
5.926
9.383
100.000
100.000
100.000
186.000
36.000
22.000
2.000
222.000
24.000
4.762
17.117
63.265
7.483
32.432
8.148
54.815
67.045
32.955
42.424
57.576
83.784
16.216
91.667
8.333
34.211
72.593
27.407
100.000
100.000
65.789
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
14.568
3.457
4.691
8.148
45.926
8.889
54.815
5.432
0.494
5.926
3.210
7.160
21.728
72.593
27.407
6.173
9.383
100.000
111
North Dorchester: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
52.000
8.000
11.000
9.000
2.000
26.000
88.000
250.000
24.000
14.000
5.000
11.000
8.000
38.000
6.400
5.600
1.000
12.000
157.000
29.000
6.000
30.000
16.000
3.000
0.000
5.000
33.000
222.000
4.400
62.800
54.000
20.000
81.000
405.000
16.667
53-704
5.556
9.259
30.000
0.000
55.000
21.728
5.000
14.815
8.148
37.037
54-815
6.173
5.926
9.877
9.383
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
counts column percent
one to three
59.091
four to ten
9.091
eleven to twenty
2.273
twenty and up
29.545
100.000
33.333
27.273
3.030
36.364
100.000
70.721
66.667
13.063
2.703
12-500
0.000
36.842
13.158
28.947
61.728
13.333
4.938
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
20.800
14.815
10.000
32.099
13.514
20.833
100.000
100.000
21.053
100.000
20.000
100.000
12.840
1.975
0.494
6.420
2.716
2.222
0.247
2.963
38.765
3.951
3.457
7.160
1.235
2.716
61.728
13.333
4.938
7.407
0.741
0.000
1.235
21.728
8.148
54.815
5.926
1.975
9.383
20.000
100.000
1.481
11?
South dorchester
South Dorchester:
# Br
Count
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16
131
119
44
7
1
0
Total
321
3
Average Annual
Annual
340
0
0
1
4
10
14
39
35
0
204
194
258
277
307
356
375
0
2448
2328
3096
3324
3684
4275
4500
0
262
8
270
3240
Mean
+ Negrent
204
193
254
267
293
317
3
4
5
6
7
16
131
119
44
7
1
0
Ecorent
mean med
260
260
273
271
298
305
290
295
300
315
325
329
*
340
0
0
321
298
Count
3
Cost by Unit
Mo.
Cost
Mean
BHA
South Dorchester:
BR
0
1
2
Subsidy
299
Summary of
BHA
mean
204
193
254
267
293
317
340
0
med
200
209
260
275
290
325
262
269
*
0
Ratio
Cost
1 %
5 %
41
%
37 %
13.7%
2.2%
.3%
0
100
Indicators by Unit
Tensh
mean med
56
39
65
77
40
41
-2
18
-4
9
-28
-27
*
-35
0
0
28
*Too few occurences to derive a median
24
Size
Size
Util
mea n med
11
14
26
19
50
35
96
89
10 4 109
12 3 134
*
12 1
0
0
72
80
%
113
South Dorchester: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
194.000
12.000
206.000
36.000
17.000
53.000
14.000
12.000
26.000
0.000
36.000
36.000
244.000
77.000
321.000
79.508
15.584
64.174
14.754
22.078
16.511
5.738
15.584
8.100
0.000
46.753
11.215
100.000
100.000
100.000
94.175
67.925
53.846
0.000
76.012
5.825
100.000
32.075
100.000
46.154
100.000
100.000
100.000
23.988
100.000
60.436
3.738
64.174
11.215
5.296
16.511
4.361
3.738
8.100
0.000
11.215
11.215
76.012
23.988
100.000
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
42.000
30.000
72.000
30.000
20.000
50.000
148.000
23.000
171.000
17.000
3.000
20.000
7.000
1.000
8.000
244.000
77.000
321.000
17.213
38.961
22.430
12.295
25-974
15.576
60.656
29.870
53.271
6.967
3.896
6.231
2.869
1.299
.2.492
100.000
100.000
100.000
58.333
60.000
86.550
85.000
87.500
76.012
41.667
100.000
40.000
100.000
13.450
100.000
15.000
100.000
12.500
100.000
23.988
_100.000
13.084
9.346
46.106
5.296
2.181
76.012
9.346
6.231
7.165
0.935
0.312
23.988
22.430
15.576
53.271
6.231
2.492
100.000
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
114
South Dorchester: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
33.000
9.000
15.000
15.000
72.000
13.000
19.000
7.000
11.000
50.000
139.000
22.000
3.000
7.000
171.000
15.000
2.000
1.000
2.000
20.000
6.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
8.000
206.000
53.000
26.000
36.000
321.000
16.019
16.981
57.692
41.667
6.311
35.849
26.923
30.556
67.476
41.509
11.538
19.444
7.282
3.774
3.846
5.556
2.913
1.887
0.000
2.778
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
22.430
15.576
53.271
6.231
2.492
100.000
45.833
12.500
20.833
20.833
100.000
26.000
38.000
14.000
22.000
100.000
81.287
12.865
1.754
4.094
100.000
75.000
10.000
5.000
10.000
100.000
75.000
12.500
0.000
12.500
100.000
64.174
16.511
8.100
11.215
100.000
10.280
2.804
4.673
4.673
4.050
5.919
2.181
3.427
43.302
6.854
0.935
2.181
4.673
0.623
0.312
0.623
1.869
0.312
0.000
0.312
64.174
16.511
8.100
11.215
22.430
15.576
53.271
6.231
2.492
100.000
115
Brighton
Brighton: Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit
# Br
Count
Me an
BHA
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
33
99
34
11
2
0
0
1
153
177
217
212
290
0
0
525
Total
180
185
Me an
+ Negrent
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
16
.33
Mo.
Cost
Annual
Cost
153
177
217
216
290
0
0
541
1836
2124
2604
2592
3480
0
0
6492
185.33
2224
Size
Ratio
18.3%
55 %
19 %
6 %
1 %
0 %
0 %
.5%
100
Brighton: Summary of Indicators by Unit Size
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
33
99
34
11
2
0
0
1
180
Ecorent
m ean med
226
222
299
2 67
355
3 29
329
12
3
07
3Q
*
0
0
525
*
276
292
BHA
mean med
167
153
183
177
223
217
213
212
*
290
0
0
*
525
185
187
Tensh
mean med
60
69
90
87
112
98
96
108
*
107
0
0
-16
90
*Too few occurrences to derive median.
*
80
Util
mean med
14
12
14
17
0
15
40
31
67
*
0
0
*
188
17
14
%
116
Brighton: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
one to three
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
twenty and up
four to ten
eleven to twenty
22.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
26.000
18.000
40.000
27.000
31.000
13.000
13.000
96.000
96.000
154.000
180.000
84.615
11.688
15.385
17.532
0.000
22.222
17.222
0.000
8.442
7.222
62.338
53.333
100.000
100.000
100.000
55.000
12.903
87-097
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100-000
100.000
14-444
85.556
100.000
2.222
0.000
0.000
14.444
15.000
7.222
7.222
53.333
53.333
85.556
45.000
100.000
12.222
10.000
22.222
17.222
100.000
utype
counts
multifam row house
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
lex/triplex
single fam null
7.000
67.000
74.000
3.000
19.000
22.000
11.000
4.000
15.000
26.923
43.506
11.538
12.338
42.308
41.111
2.000
0.000
2.000
3.000
64.000
67.000
26.000
154.000
180.000
7.692
11.538
41.558
37.222
100.000
100.000
100.000
12.222
2.597
8.333
0.000
1.111
9.459
90.541
13.636
86.364
73.333
26.667
100.000
0.000
4.478
95.522
14.444
85.556
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
3.889
1.667
10.556
12.222
6.111
2.222
8.333
1.111
1.667
14.444
0.000
35.556
85.556
1.111
37.222
100.000
37.222
41.111
117
Brighton: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
Counts
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam null
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
16.000
25.000
11.000
22.000
74.000
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
40.000
80.645
84.615
5.000
5.000
2.000
10.000
22.000
12.500
16.129
15.385
22.917
41.111
10.417
12.222
21.622
22.727
22.727
9.091
33.784
14.865
29.730
14.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
15.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
3.000
1.000
0.000
63.000
67.000
40.000
31.000
13.000
96.000
180.000
35.000
0.000
0.000
1.042
5.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.500
3.226
0.000
65-625
8.333
1.111
37.222
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
93.333
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
4.478
1.493
0.000
94.030
100.000
100.000
1.667
0.556
22.222
17.222
0.000
35.000
37.222
53.333
45.455
6.667
0.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
8.889
13.889
2.778
2.778
6.111
12.222
41.111
7.778
1.111
5.556
0.000
0.000
0.556
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.222
8.333
1.111
1.111
22.222
17.222
7.222
53.333
7.222
100.000
118
Hyde Park
Hyde
# Br
Park: Average Annual
Mean
BHA
Count
0
1
2
4
50
83
29
2
2
0
0
3
4
5
6
7
Subsidy Cost by Unit
Mean
Mo.
+ Negrent
124
167
201
255
265
242
0
0
=
Annual
Cost
Cost
0
0
1
4
0
19
0
0
Size
124
167
202
259
265
261
0
0
Ratio
1488
2004
2424
3108
3180
3132
0
0
2.4%
29.4%
49 %
17 %
1.2%
1.2%
0 %
0%
Total
Hyde
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
4
50
83
29
2
2
0
0
170
Park: Summary of
Indicators by
Ecorent
mean med
222
180
253
240
291
290
319
322
*
375
*
350
0
0
BHA
mean med
140
152
167
165
201
192
255
261
*
270
*
242
0
0
285
200
275
196
Tensh
mean med
70
70
86
81
87
78
60
53
*
110
*
90
0
0
82
*Too few occurrences to derive median.
79
Unit Size
Util
mean med
18
17
18
18
29
21
61
37
*
77
*
123
0
0
33
21
119
Hyde Park: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
46.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
52.000
4.000
1.000
0.000
113.000
118.000
50.000
7.000
0.000
113.000
170.000
88.462
3.390
29.412
11.538
0.847
4.118
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
95.763
66.471
100.000
100.000
100.000
92.000
8.000
100.000
85.714
14.286
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
30.588
69.412
100.000
27.059
2.353
29.412
3.529
0.588
4.118
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
66.471
66.471
30.588
69.412
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
11.000
31.000
42.000
7.000
78.000
85.000
24.000
5.000
29.000
5.000
0.000
5.000
5.000
4.000
9.000
52.000
118.000
170.000
21.154
26.271
24.706
13.462
66.102
50.000
46.154
4.237
17.059
9.615
0.000
2.941
9.615
3.390
5.294
100.000
100.000
100.000
26.190
73.810
100.000
8.235
91.765
100.000
82.759
17.241
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
55.556
44.444
100.000
30.588
69.412
100.000
6.471
18.235
24.706
4.118
45.882
50.000
14.118
2.941
17.059
2.941
0.000
2.941
2.941
2.353
5.294
30.588
69.412
100.000
120
Hyde Park: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
8.000
5.000
0.000
29.000
42.000
7.000
2.000
0.000
76.000
85.000
24.000
0.000
0.000
5.000
29.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
9.000
50.000
7.000
0.000
113.000
170.000
16.000
71.429
0.000
25.664
24.706
14.000
28.571
0.000
67.257
50.000
48.000
0.000
0.000
4.425
17.059
10.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.941
12.000
0.000
0.000
2.655
5.294
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
19.048
11.905
0.000
69.048
100.000
8.235
2.353
0.000
89.412
100.000
82.759
0.000
0.000
17.241
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
66.667
0.000
0.000
33.333
100.000
29.412
4.118
0.000
66-471
100.000
4.706
2.941
0.000
17.059
24.706
4.118
1.176
0.000
44.706
50.000
14.118
0.000
0.000
2.941
17.059
2.941
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.941
3.529
0.000
0.000
1.765
5.294
29.412
4.118
0.000
66.471
100.000
121
South End
South End: Average Annual
# Br
Count
0
1
2
Mean
125
177
204
164
189
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
152
183
0
4
5
6
7
125
177
205
164
189
0
0
0
3
4
5
6
7
Count
2
42
45
35
28
0
0
0
183
152
Ecorent
med
mean
*
213
264
274
279
250
277
270
311
310
0
0
0
0
0
0
BHA
mean med
*
125
192
177
204
196
164
165
202
189
0
0
0
0
0
0
280
183
270
*Too few occurrences to
192
derive median.
1.3%
27.6%
29.6%
23 %
18.4%
0 %
0 %
0 %
2196
Tensh
med
mean
*
88
80
87
59
75
113
93
122
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
96
Ratio
1500
2124
2460
1968
2268
0
0
0
South End: Summary of' Indicators by Unit
BR
0
1
2
Size
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Cost
+ Negrent
2
42
45
35
28
0
0
0
3
Total
Me an
BHA
Subsidy Cost by Unit
81
100
Si ze
Util
mean med
0
*
11
14
23
19
22
16
15
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
19
%
122
South End: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
19.000
7.000
26.000
8.000
11.000
19.000
counts row pct
individual
business entity
70.370
29.630
5.600
17.105
8.800
12.500
73.077
26.923
42.105
100.000
100.000
12.500
4.605
5.263
7.237
17.105
12.500
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
57.895
0.000
0.000
13.000
13.000
94.000
94.000
27.000
125.000
152.000
0.000
10.400
8.553
0.000
75.200
61.842
100.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
17.763
82.237
100.000
0.000
0.000
61.842
17.763
82.237
61.842
100.000
8.553
8.553
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entitf
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam null
10.000
55.000
65.000
6.000
10.000
16.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
44.000
50.000
27.000
125.000
152.000
18.519
12.800
37.037
22.222
0.000
22.222
44.000
8.000
0.000
35.200
13.816
42.763
10.526
0.000
32.895
100.000
100.000
100.000
23.810
.76.190
100.000
15.385
84.615
37.500
0.000
62.500
100.000
0.000
0.000
12.000
88.000
100.000
3.947
6.579
0.000
0.000
10.526
0.000
5.000
16.000
21.000
3.289
10.526
13.816
100.000
6.579
36.184
42.763
3.947
28.947
32.895
17.763
82.237
100.000
17.763
82.237
100.000
123
South End: Analysis of Ownership
(cont.)
utype
counts
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam null
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
5.000
0.000
11.000
4.000
0.000
3.000
0.000
4.000
0.000
16-000
0.000
5.000
6.000
28.000
50.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
42.308
47-368
23.077
51.064,
42.763
19.231
21.053
23.077
4.255
10.526
29.787
32.895
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
23.810
4.762
4.762
7.692
13.846
31.250
25-000
0.000
0.000
22.000
10.000
17.105
12.500
4.615
18.750
0.000
66.667
73.846
100.000
0.000
0.000
12.000
56.000
100.000
8.553
61.842
100.000
25.000
100.000
3.289
0.658
0.658
3.289
3.289
0.000
7.237
5.921
1.974
31.579
42.763
2.632
1.974
2.632
10.526
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.289
3.947
18.421
32.895
5.000
1.000
1.000
14.000
21.000
5.000
9.000
3.000
48.000
65.000
19.231
19.231
5.263
7.692
14.894
13.816
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
9.211
13.816
26.316
46.154
26.000
19.000
13.000
94.000
152.000
100.000
17.105
12.500
8.553
61.842
100.000
124
Fenway-Kenmore
Fenway-Kenmore:
# Br
Count
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
24
106
5
1
0
0
0
0
Total
136
Me an
BHA
3
4
5
6
7
Count
24
106
5
1
0
0
0
0
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Me an
+ Negrent
=
Cost
220
220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
179
197
220
220
0
0
0
0
2148
2364
2640
2640
0
0
0
0
196
0
196
2352
179
197
Fenway-Kenmore:
BR
0
1
2
Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit
Size
Ratio
17.7%
77.9%
3.7%
.7%
0 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
100
Summary of Indicators by Unit Size
Ecorent
mean med
289
280
321
329
286
386
*
298
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BHA
mean med
184
179
218
197
260
314
*
220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tensh
mean med
101
99
108
124
106
89
*
78
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
119
214
196
329
316
136
median.
dreive
*Too few occurrences to
106
Util
med
mean
0
3
0
1
0
10
*
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
%
125
Fenway-Kenmore: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
on e to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
3.000
2.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
124.000
124.000
5.000
131.000
136.000
60.000
1.527
40.000
0.000
0.000
3.053
3.676
4.412
0.763
0.735
94.656
91.176
100.000
100.000
100.000
60.000
40.000
100.000
33.333
66.667
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
1.471
0.000
0.000
2.941
4.412
0.735
0.735
91-176
91.176
5.000
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
2.206
1.471
3.676
3.676
96.324
100.000
3.676
96.324
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row hou se
sing le fam
4.000
5.000
9.000
1.00 0
2.000
3.000
80.000
3.817
6.618
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
44.444
55.556
100.000
2.941
3.676
6.618
null
0.000
0.000~
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
124.000
124.000
5.000
131.000
136.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.52 7
2.20 6
94.656
91.176
100.000
100.000
100.000
33.33 3
66.66 7
100.00 0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.73 5
1.47 1
2.20 6
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
91.176
91.176
3.676
96.324
100.000
3.676
96.324
100.000
126
Fenway Kenmore: Analysis of Ownership
(cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
single fam
house
row
multifam
null
4.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
9.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
124.000
124.000
5.000
6.000
1.000
124.000
136.000
80.000
83.333
0.000
0.000
6.618
20.000
16.667
100.000
0.000
2.206
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
91-176
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
44.444
55.556
0.000
0.000
100.000
33.333
33.333
33.333
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
3.676
4.412
0.735
91.176
100.000
2.941
3.676
0.000
0.000
6.618
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.000
2.206
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
91.176
91.176
3.676
4.412
0.735
91.176
100.000
127
East Boston
East Boston: Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit
Count
# Br
Me an
BHA
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Cost
Me an
+ Negrent=
0
310
0
206
2472
137
0
137
1.40
183.40
226
230
4
5
6
7
182
225
222
232
0
310
0
Total
77
204
3
1
8
10.50
0
0
0
242.50
2
East Boston: Summary of Indicators by Unit
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
2
36
20
16
2
0
1
0
77
Ecorentmean med
229
*
269
281
294
272
0
410
0
285
288
285
278
285
BHA
mean med
*
137
185
191
225
227
222
230
*
232
*
310
*
24l
*
*
0
100
0
*
207
72
0
*Too few occurrences to derive median.
2.6%
47
%
26 %
20.7%
2.6%
0
1.3%
0
100
Size
Tensh
me an med
92
*
83
87
55
53
64
53
0
204
Ratio
1644
2200.40
2712
2760
2910
0
3220
0
2
36
20
16
2
0
1
0
0
1
2
Size
76
Util
mean med
7
*
13
13
27
38
86
70
*
50
0
*
50
0
33
19
%
128
East Boston: Analysis of Ownership
osize
four to ten
counts
one to three
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
35.000
4.000
39.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
38.000
38.000
35.000
100.000
9.524
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
90.476
49.351
100.000
100.000
100.000
10.256
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
45-455
5.195
5Q.649
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
49.351
49.351
50.649
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
twenty and up
eleven to twenty
89.744
42.000
77.000
45.455
54.545
100.000
45.455
54.545
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam null
5.000
8.000
13.000
14.286
19.048
16.883
21.000
1.000
22.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
11.429
40.476
60.000
2.381
27.273
28.571
19.048
4.000
17.000
21.000
4.000
16.000
35.000
20.000
77.000
2.857
11.429
0.000
1.299
38.095
25.974
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
20.000
80.000
100.000
5.195
20.779
25.974
38.462
61.538
80.952
100.000
100.000
95-455
4.545
100.000
6.494
10.390
5.195
27.273
1.299
22.078
1.299
0.000
16.883
27.273
28.571
1.299
42.000
45.455
54.545
100.000
45.455
54.545
100.000
129
East Boston: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
single fam
multifam row house
null
6.000
0.000
0.000
7.000
13.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
17.000
21.000
21.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
22.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
7.000
0.000
0.000
13.000
20.000
39.000
0.000
0.000
38.000
77.000
15.385
0.000
0.000
18.421
10.256
0.000
0.000
44.737
53.846
0.000
0.000
2.632
2.564
0.000
0.000
0.000
17.949
0.000
0.000
34.211
100.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
16.883
27.273
28.571
1.299
25.974
100.000
46.154
0.000
0.000
53.846
100.000
19.048
0.000
0.000
80.952
100.000
95-455 -100-000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.545
0.000
100.000
100.000
35.000
0.000
0.000
65.000
100.000
50.649
0.000
0.000
49.351
100.000
7.792
0.000
0.000
9.091
5.195
0.000
0.000
22.078
27.273
0.000
0.000
1.299
1.299
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.091
0.000
0.000
16.883
50.649
0.000
0.000
49.351
16.883
27.273
28.571
1.299
25.974
100.000
130
Roslindale
Roslindale:
# Br
Count
0
1
2
Me an
BHA
Average Annua 1 Subsidy Cost by Unit
Mean
+ Negrent
=
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Cost
172
155
180
215
286
0
0
0
0
0
2
172
155
182
2064
1860
2184
7
9
222
2664
4
5
6
7
1
29
22
15
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
295
0
0
0
3540
0
0
0
Total
73
186
3
189
2268
3
Roslindale: Summary of Indicators by Unit
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
1
29
22
15
6
0
0
0
Ecorent
mean med
*
200
245
246
274
275
294
287
299
308
0
0
0
0
0
0
BHA
mean med
*
172
165
155
184
180
246
215
285
291
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ratio
1.4%
39.7%
30 %
20.5%
8.2%
0 %
0 %
0 %
100
Size
Tensh
mean med
28
*
84
91
91
80
65
55
13
-10
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
267
265
186
178
79
*Too few occurrences to derive median.
Size
73
Util
mean med
48
20
14
26
19
87
73
83
99
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
19
%
131
Roslindale: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
31.000
8.000
39.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
34.000
34.000
31.000
42.000
73.000
100.000
19.048
53.425.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
80-952
46.575
100.000
100.000
100.000
79.487
20.513
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
42.466
57.534
100.000
42.466
10.959
53.425
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
46.575
46.575
42.466
57.534
100.000
utype
counts
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
otype
individual
business entity
-
counts row pct
individual
business entity
null
9.000
28.000
37.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
17.000
2.000
19.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
3.000'
10.000
13.000
29.032
66.667
3.226
4.762
54.839
4.762
3.226
0.000
9.677
23.810
100.000
100.000
50.685
4.110
26.027
1.370
17.808
100.000
24.324
75.676
33.333
'66.667
89.474
10-526
100.000
0.000
23.077
76.923
42.466
57.534
31.000
42.000
73.000
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
12.329
38.356
50.685
1.370
2.740
4.110
23.288
2.740
26.027
1.370
0.000
1.370
4.110
13.699
17.808
42.466
57.534
100.000
132
Roslindale: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
11.000
0.000
0.000
26.000
37.000
3.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
19.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
19.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
8.000
13.000
39.000
0.000
0.000
34.000
73.000
28.205
0.000
0.000
76.471
50.685
7.692
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.110
48.718
0.000
0.000
0.000
26.027
2.564
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.370
12.821
0.000
0.000
23.529
17.808
100.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
29.730
0.000
0.000
70.270
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
38.462
0.000
0.000
61.538
100.000
53.425
0.000
0.000
46.575
100.000
15.068
0.000
0.000
35.616
50-685
4.110
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.110
26.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
26.027
1.370
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.370
6.849
0.000
0.000
10.959
17.808
53.425
0.000
0.000
46.575
100.000
133
Jamaica Plain
Jamaica
Count
# Br
0
1
2
4
5
6
7
1
2
16
28
10
1
0
0
Total
58
3
Jamaica
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Plain: Average Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit Size
Mean
BHA
Mean
+ Negrent
Mo.
Cost
Annual
Cost
138
168
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
136
211
280
281
168
0
0
1656
1632
2532
3360
3372
2016
0
0
249
3
252
3024
138
136
211
275
279
Plain: Summary of Indicators by Unit
1
2
16
28
10
1
0
0
Ecorent
mean med
*
222
*
234
275
253
308
325
322
329
*
275
0
0
58
306
Count
298
BHA
mean med
*
138
*
135
211
211
282
275
299
279
*
168
0
0
249
250
*Too few occurrences to derive median.
1.7%
3.5%
28 %
48 %
17 %
1 .7%
0 %
0 %
100
Si ze
Tensh
mean med
*
84
*
100
64
60
44
46
48
59
*
107
0
0
54
Ratio
56
Util
mean med
24
11
38
54
92
30
0
0
54
*
*
28
40
107
*
35
%
134
Jamiaca Plain: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
35.000
5.000
40.000
10.000
6.000
16.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
45.000
13.000
58.000
77.778
38.462
22.222
46.154
0.000
0.000
0.000
15.385
100.000
100.000
68.966
27.586
0.000
3.448
100.000
87.500
12.500
100.000
62-500
37.500
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
77.586
22.414
100.000
60-345
8.621
17.241
10.345
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.448
77.586
22.414
68.966
27.586
0.000
3.448
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
9.000
3.000
12.000
5.000
2.000
7.000
24.000
7.000
31.000
2.000
0.000
2.000
5.000
1.000
6.000
45.000
13.000
58.000
20.000
23.077
11.111
15.385
53.333
53.846
4.444
0.000
11.111
7.692
100.000
100.000
20.690
12.069
53.448
3.448
10.345
100.000
75.000
25.000
100.000
71.429
28.571
100.000
77.419
22.581
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
83.333
16.667
100.000
77.586
22.414
100.000
15.517
8.621
41.379
3.448
8.621
77.586
5.172
3.448
12.069
0.000
1.724
22.414
20.690
12.069
53.448
3.448
10.345
100.000
counts table pct
individual
business entity
135
Jamaica Plain: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
9.000
1.000
0.000
2.000
12.000
7.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.000
21.000
10.000
0.000
0.000
31.000
1.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
4.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
40.000
16.000
0.000
2.000
58.000
22.500
6.250
0.000
100.000
17.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
52.500
62.500
0.000
0.000
2.500
6.250
0.000
0.000
5.000
25-000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
20.690
12.069
53.448
3.448
10.345
100.000
75.000
8.333
0.000
16.667
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
67.742
32.258
0.000
0.000
100.000
50.000
50.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
33.333
66.667
0.000
0.000
100.000
68.966
27.586
0.000
3.448
100.000
15.517
1.724
0.000
3.448
12.069
0.000
0.000
0.000
36.207
17.241
0.000
0.000
1.724
1.724
0.000
0.000
3.448
6.897
0.000
0.000
68.966
27.586
0.000
3.448
20.690
12.069
53.448
3.448
10.345
100.000
136
Charlestown
Charlestown: Average Annual
# Br
Count
0
1
2
0
0
11
17
3
4
5
6
Me an
BHA
0
0
249
248
233
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
Total
Mean
+ Negrent
245
35
=
Sub sidy Cost by Unit Size
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Cost
0
0
2.73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
251.73
248
233
0
0
0
0
0
3021
2976
2796
0
0
0
.86
245.86
2950
Ratio
0%
0%
31.4%
48.6%
20 %
0 %
0 %
0 %
100
Charlestown: Summary of Indicators b y Unit Size
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
0
0
11
17
7
0
0
0
35
Ecorent
mean med
0
0
296
355
388
0
0
0
343
300
364
404
364
BHA
mean med
0
0
248
249
252
248
267
233
0
0
0
245
252
Tensh
mean med
0
0
44
51
89
107
142
155
0
0
0
97
80
Util
mean med
0
0
42
52
0
19
0
32
0
0
0
29
0
%
137
Charlestown: Analysis of Ownership
osize
twenty and up
four to ten
one to three
eleven to twenty
counts
otype
individual
business entity
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.000
22.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
95.652
62.857
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
34.286
2.857
37.143
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
62.857
62.857
12.000
1.000
13.000
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
100.000
4.348
37.143
92.308
7.692
0.000
0.000
12.000
23.000
35.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
34.286
65.714
100.000
34.286
65.714
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
duplex/tri piex
multifam row hou se
single fam null
2.000
0.000
2.000
0.00 0
3.00 0
3.00 0
10.000
1.000
11.000
0.000
.0.000
0.000
0.000
19.000
19.000
16.667
0.000
83.333
4.348
5.714
0.000
13.04 3
8.57 1
31.429
0.000
0.000
0.000
82.609
54.286
100.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
100.00 0
100.0c 0
90.909
9.091
100.OOC
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
5.714
0.000
0.0c 0
8.57 1
28.571
2.857
0.000
5.714
8.57 1
31.429
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
54.286
54.286
12.000
23.000
35.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
34.286
65.714
100.000
34.286
65.714
100.000
133
Charlestown: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
null
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
11.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
19.000
13.000
0.000
0.000
22.000
2.000
3.000
11.000
0.000
19.000
35.000
15.385
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.714
0.000
0.000
0.000
13.636
8.571
84.615
0.000
0.000
0.000
31.429
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
86.364
54.286
100.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
37.143
0.000
0.000
62.857
100.000
5.714
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.714
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.571
8.571
31.429
0.000
0.000
0.000
31-429
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
54.286
54.286
37.143
0.000
0.000
62.857
100.000
139
West Roxbury
West Roxbury: Average
# Br
Count
Me an
Mo.
+ Negrent
Cost
Annual
Cost
5
1
0
0
0
0
211
248
247
153
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
211
248
251
153
0
0
0
0
2532
2976
3012
1836
0
0
0
26
226
2
228
2736
0
1
2
0
13
3
7
4
5
6
7
Total
Me an
BHA
Annual Subsidy Cost by Unit Size
Ratio
0%
50
%
26.9%
19.2%
3.8%
0 %
0 %
0 %
100
West Roxbury: Summary of Indicators by Unit Size
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
0
13
7
5
1
0
0
0
26
Ecorent
mean med
0
278
279
320
329
270
288
*
296
0
0
0
292
280
BHA
mean med
0
202
211
248
217
252
247
153
*
0
0
0
226
Tensh
mean med
0
67
71
51
72
25
18
143
*
0
0
0
211
*Too few occurrences to derive median..
64
68
Util
mean med
0
22
27
29
25
92
119
98
0
0
0
43
22
%
14o
West Roxbury: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
14.000
9.000
23.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
0.000
1.000
1.000
14.000
12.000
26.000
100.000
75.000
88.462
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
16.667
7.692
0.000
8.333
3.846
100.000
100.000
100.000
60.870
39.130
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
53.846
46.154
100.000
53.846
34.615
88.462
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.692
7.692
0.000
3.846
3.846
53.846
46-154
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
2.000
7.000
9.000
2.000
2.000
4.000
7.000
3.000
10.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
2.000
0.000
2.000
14.000
12.000
26.000
14.286
58.333
14.286
16.667
50.000
25.000
7.143
0.000
14.286
0.000
100.000
100.000
34-615
15.385
38-462
3.846
7.692
100.000
22.222
77.778
100.000
50-000
50.000
100.000
70-000
30.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
53.846
46.154
100.000
53.846
counts table pct
individual
business entity
7.692
7.692
26.923
3.846
7.692
26.923
7.692
11.538
0.000
0.000
46.154
34.615
15.385
38.462
3.846
7.692
100.000
141
West Roxbury: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
8.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
9.000
3.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
4.000
9.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
10.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
23.000
0.000
2.000
1.000
26.000
34.783
0.000
50.000
0.000
13.043
0.000
50.000
0.000
39.130
0.000
0.000
100.000
4.348
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.696
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
34.615
15.385
38-462
3.846
7.692
100.000
88.889
0.000
11.111
0.000
100.000
75.000
0.000
25.000
0.000
100.000
90.000
0.000
0.000
10.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
88.462
0.000
7.692
3.846
100.000
30.769
11.538
34.615
3.846
7.692
88.462
0.000
3.846
0.000
0.000
3.846
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.846
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.692
3.846
34.415
15.385
38.462
3.846
7.692
100.000
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
142
South Boston
South Boston: Average Annual
Mean
BHA
Mean
+ Negrent
Subsidy Cost by Unit
Annual
Cost
Mo.
Cost
# Br
Count
0
1
2
1
9
4
2
1
1
0
0
117
168
183
172
244
148
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
117
168
185
172
244
148
0
0
1404
2016
2220
2064
2928
1776
0
0
18
172
0
172
2064
3
4
5
6
7
Total
South Boston: Summary of
BR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Count
1
9
4
2
1
1
0
0
18
Ecorent
mean med
BHA
mean med
200
*
117
*
232
200
270
396
233
200
168
192
189
189
170
*
311
*
244
148
0
0
*
*
172
190
*
0
0
235
239
*Too few occurrences to
Size
Ratio
5.5%
50 %
22.2%
11
%
5.5%
5.5%
0 %
0 %
100
Indicators by Unit Size
Tensh
mean med
83
*
64
50
14
15
49
*
*
152
163
*
0
0
derive median
63
46
Util
mean med
14
*
41
69
67
33
72
7
125
0
0
51
*
*
*
58
%
143
South Boston: Analysis of Ownership
osize
counts
four to ten
twenty and up
one to three
eleven to twenty
otype individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
14.000
0.000
14.000
1.000
1.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
15.000
3.000
18.000
93.333
0.000
77.778
6.667
33.333
11.111
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
66.667
11.111
100.000
100.000
100.000
50.000
50.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
83.333
16.667
100.000
5.556
5.556
11.111
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.111
11.111
83.333
16.667
100.000
counts column pct
individual
100.000
business entity
0.000
100.000
counts table pct
individual
77-778
business entity
0.000
77.778
utype
otype
counts
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
3.000
1.000
4.000
1.000
0.000
1.000
6.000
0.000
6.000
4.000
0.000
4.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
15.000
3.000
18.000
20.000
33.333
22.222
6.667
0.000
5.556
40.000
0.000
33.333
26.667
0.000
22.222
6;667
66.667
16.667
100.000
100.000
100.000
75.000
25.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
100.000
33.333
66.667
100.000
83.333
16.667
100.000
16.667
5.556
33.333
22.222
5.556
83.333
5.556
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.111
16.667
22.222
5.556
33.333
22.222
16.667
100.000
counts table pct
individual
business entity
144
North End
North End: Average Annual
# Br
Count
0
1
2
1
3
2
0
0
0
0
4
5
6
7
Total
5
3
11
Mean
BHA
Mean
+ Negrent
Subsidy Cost by Unit
Mo.
Cost
Annual
Cost
146
136
243
135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
136
243
135
0
0
0
0
1752
1627
2920
1614
0
0
0
0
202
0
202
2424
Size
Ratio
9%
46
27 %
18 %
0%
0%
0
0 %
100
%
145
North End: Analysis of Ownership
osize
four to ten
counts
one to three
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
counts column pct
individual
business entity
0.000
0.000
5.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.000
6.000
11.000
100.000
0.000
16.667
54.545
83.333
45.455
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
83.333
16.667
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
45.455
54.545
45.455
0.000
9.091
45.455
45.455
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0-.000
5.000
1.000
6.000
100.000
counts table pct
individual
business entity
twenty and up
eleven to twenty
54.545
100.000
45.455
54.545
100.000
utype
counts
otype
individual
business entity
counts row pct
individual
business entity
dupl ex/tri piex
multifam row hou se
single fam null
1.000
1.000
2.000
20.000
16.667
18.182
counts column pct
individual
business entity
counts table pct
individual
business entity
50.000
50.000
100.000
9.091
9.091
18.182
2.00 0
0.000
2.00 0
1.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
5.000
6.000
40.00 0
0.000
18.1 82
20.000
0.000
20.000
9.091
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.00 0 100.00C
0.00C
0.0 )0
)0
100.OOC
100.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
9.091
0.OOC
9.091
0.000
0.000
0.000
45.455
54.545
18.1 32
0.0 )0
18.1 32
83.333
54.545
16.667
83.333
9.091
5.000
6.000
11.000
100.000
100.000
100.000
45-455
54.545
100.000
45.455
54.545
100.000
146
North End: Analysis of Ownership (cont.)
utype
counts
osize
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts row pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts column pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
counts table pct
one to three
four to ten
eleven to twenty
twenty and up
duplex/triplex
multifam row house
single fam
null
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
6.000
6.000
5.000
0.000
0.000
11.000
33.333
0.000
0.000
0.000
18-182
33.333
0.000
0.000
0.000
18.182
16.667
0.000
Q.000
0.000
9.091
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
16.667
100.000
0.000
0.000
54.545
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
100.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
16.667
83-333
0.000
0.000
100.000
54-545
45.455
0.000
0.000
100.000
18.182
0.000
0.000
0.000
18.182
18.182
0.000
0.000
0.000
18-182
9.091
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.091
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.091
45.455
0.000
0.000
54.545
54.545
45.455
0.000
0.000
100.000
147
Appendix Two
Research Methodology
The Data
The data for
Housing
Authority
this
study
from
Section
8
the
Boston
As of February 1,
Housing
Existing
Program
Operational data on these units are maintained in the BHA
Digital
PDP-11,
accessed
management system (DBMS).
seperate,
logically
and
managed by an Admins 11 database
Data on each unit
files
related
(designated by last name ".mas").
held
obtained
Leased Housing Department.
1982 BHA had 2,130 active
units.
were
in
the
related data.
other
files.
Unit.mas
file.
Data on program
Leased
Housing
are
known
as
contains
participants
MIS
fields from Unit.mas using a program known as
in
files
study
are
operational unit
are
personnel
master
this
The data for
This
maintained
maintained
in
printed selected
"add/edit
(ADE)".
Those fields selected were:
1.
Agown
(Agent/Owner
number,
a four digit owner identifier)
2.
Henter
3.
Br (unit size by number of bedrooms)
(date of lease initiation)
4. Ecorent (Contract
Rent)
5. BHA (monthly subsidy payment)
6. Tensh (monthly tenant rent payment)
148
7. Util (HUD utility allowance)
classification)
Utype (structure
8.
9. Utract (census tract)
In addition, the author used the BHA landlord
each
classify
variables
size
and
individual)
were
were defined
=
2
(business
"otype"
portfolio.
for
property
a portfolio in one's own name.
two
ownership
Thus otype
entity) became somewhat of a catch-all category,
containing such disparate entities as San-Vel
Cyprian's
These
Business entities
and "osize".
arrangement
legal
other than maintaining
ownership (business entity or
owner's
an
of
labled
as any
of
type
by
unit
to
directory
Church.
Most
of
the entities in
standard Massachusetts business trusts.
and
Concrete
St.
this category were
Any owner who maintained
his/her business in the family name was classified as otype
=
1
(individual).
Owner size (osize) was broken into four categories:
1. One to three units.
2.
Four to ten units.
3.
Eleven to twenty units.
4. More than twenty units.
Thus
an owner could be classified
as otype = 1,
osize = 2.
landlord would be an individual with between four and
in his Section 8 portfolio.
ten
That
units
149
After classification the data were input to the MIT
hosted
Consistent System using the ReadDtmx program.
input in segments of 25 to 30 lines, formatted
and
accuracy, then joined along the second dimension.
2,130
lines
(entities)
were
joined
in
Multics
Data were
checked
for
Ultimately all
one file, each entity
possessing 11 seperate data fields (attributes).
A sample of the
resultant file follows:
Agown henter br otype osize ecorent bha tensh
1445
1539
1630
80
80
80
7
7
7
Further
designations
in
1
1
1
1
1
1
files
were
(CS
392
419
525
372
419
525
created
"cat attr's")
to
util
20
-63
-16
utype centr
116
198
188
define
4
4
4
923
915
1
the
category
so that cross tabbing would result
easily interpreted output.
Consistent System Programs Utilized
This study relied heavily
perform
important
conditional
of
neighborhood
these
subsets
on
along
manipulations
populations
the
from
ability
of
the
rows and columns.
was
the
the
master
CS
The most
preparation
file.
to
This
of
was
accomplished by the following process:
1.
Extract the census tract column from
extract
attr.
the
matrix
using
150
2.
a neighborhood as a collection of census tracts
Define
using the cm (calculator mode) and a logical operator.
3.
master
Subset from the
matrix
using
Dtmxselect
the
program.
Once a subset of the master matrix was prepared and
it
subset program to select a random batch of entities)
the
(using
checked
was handed to a pair of macros called
info
macro)
(analysis
br.select (a macro to subset a neighborhood population for a
and
size).
unit
given
Info
called
CS
following
the
analysis
programs:
(applied
to Henter).
1.
Frequencies
2.
Histogram (applied to all four continuous variables).
(returned
Means and stdev
3.
for each continuous variable).
mean and standard deviation
Median and bds (returned median,
4.
hinges for each continuous vriable).
Tab twopercents
5.
categorical variables).
(cross
tabulated
and
maximum
minimum,
the
ownership
6. Counts (total number of negative rent checks issued),
(total value of all negative rent payments), and
Totals
Means (mean value of negative rent payments).
Br.select, in addition to accepting a population (all
in
Brighton,
for
example) and subsetting for a given size unit
(input at the terminal), checked to be sure that
requested
units in
was
not
Brighton;
units
a
null
the
population
set (for example, there are no 5 br
to request a subset of them would
result
in
151
an error condition), counted the occurrences, and invoked info if
the
population
contained
more than five occurrences.
were fewer than five members
printed
out
desireable
that
section
a
of
the
of
master matrix.
br.select
This seemed
For example, the entire portfolio
only contains 3 7 bedroom units.
out.
returned
population
since info was an expensive macro to run and its power
seemed wasted on so few units.
them
given
If there
If
The info macro
simply
printed
a requested population was a null set the macros
a message at the terminal and exited.
Reporting the Data
raw
The tables contained in this thesis are aggregations of
the
CS
The
output.
The quantity of data generated was large.
form of the output was too disaggregate to be
in
the
final report.
directly
This study does not contain, for example,
minimum and maximum values for the continuous variables,
the
shapes
of
the
utilized
distributions
nor
are
as returned by the histogram
program reported.
The incidence of normal or near normal distributions of
but
Util
was
surprisingly
high.
categorical than continuous
since
units
size
according
included
Tenant
to
in rents.
shares,
normally for the
their
ecorents,
portfolio.
and
Utility allowances are more
HUD
and
of
Distributions
all
assigns
allowances
the
bundle
of utilities
Util
values
were
for
lumpy.
BHA subsidy payments distributed
The
shape
of
the
distributions
152
decayed as smaller portions of the sample were examined.
Hard copy of the raw CS
examination.
effort should be worthwhile.
The
pages of
output
measures
of
containing
costs
and
There are in excess of 350
remain untouched by this study.
that
further
There is a huge
rents,
patterns,
volume of information on ownership
for
available
is
output
histograms
of
the
distributions,
tendencies, and categorical cross-tabs for
central
each bedroom size for each neighborhood.
The reader
should be aware of the time series element in the
agreements
signed
prior
and
leases
Of the 2,130 units studied 12% represent
data.
Two of the units studied had
to 1980.
BHA
not had their leases renewed since initial sign-up in 1977.
has
however, any intense landlord pressure to
experienced,
not
renew these leases.
increased
even
Departmental
reported
their
though leases were not renewed.
to
practice.
At
BHA's Section 8 leases are expired.
costs
had
Some have probably
increasing rents via an amendment
longer
are
HAP
the
actual
operation of its Section 8 program.
Neighborhood Definition
an
lease
is
no
just under half of
In spite of
costs
levels
The practice of
expired
present
rent
incurred
this
fact
the
by BHA in the
153
slippery
Defining neighborhoods in Boston can be a somewhat
have changed with time.
Definitions
business.
In an effort ot
be as consistent as possible the data were allowed to
way
toward these definitions.
census tract number.
Boston
print-out
of
street
The tract numbers are
changes
in
definitions
made
1970
by
Census
the
provided
in
definitions
Some
1977.
and
813
by
their
were
broken up into
part
considered
were
planners had them
Roxbury
according to
listed
passed
to
as
Mayor's
The
1970.
starting point with a series of
a
derived
of
census
flagged with a 1970
team
a
Jamaica
Dorchester
sub-neighborhoods
such
of
definitions
For
patterns visible in the 1970 Census data.
812
The
1980 are not
in
I attempted to define my neighborhoods
Housing
neighborhood
planners
of
census
designations.
Census
the definitions used by the Census Bureau in
of
City
useable form.
number
Office
a
addresses and corresponding
Given the fact that each unit is
tract
the
All units are coded by BHA with a
These numbers are derived from
tracts.
available in
point
neighborhood
confound
example,
the
tracts
of Roxbury in 1970 yet the
Plain.
Other
parts
of
while the Dorchesters were
as
Franklin
Field
and
Fields Corner.
The planners'
study.
definitions were simply too
The Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA)
map of the neighborhoods,
varied
for
this
provided a 1969
apparently the original version used by
the Census Bureau when they defined their 1970 tracts.
The
only
154
problem
with
this
map
was
the aggregation of Fenway-Kenmore,
South End, and Chinatown into one catch-all called Boston Proper.
This neighborhood was subdivided by the author with the help of a
census
tract
neighborhoods
as
defined
in
this
Otherwise
names.
street
showing
map
study
match
the
the
1969 BRA
definitions.
Following are the 14 neighborhoods defined
for
and the census tracts that compose them:
1. Roxbury
2.
North Dorchester:
Tracts 801 through 821
Tracts 901 through 924
3. South dorchester:
Tracts 1001 through 1011
4. Allston-Brighton:
Tracts
1 through 8
5. Hyde Park
Tracts
1401 through 1404
6. South End
Tracts 703 through 712
7.
Fenway-Kenmore
8. East Boston
Tracts
101 through 105
Tracts 501 through 512
Roslindale
Tracts 1101 through 1105
10.
Jamaica Plain
Tracts
11.
Charlestown
Tracts 401 through 408
12.
'West Roxbury
Tracts 1301 through 1304
13.
South Boston
Tracts 601 through 614
14.
North End
Tracts 301 through 305
9.
1201 through 1207
this
study
155
The reader will notice that
Bay,
and
a
above list.
entire
few
In
is
inappropriate.
parcel
Hill,
are not included
here.
that analysis of this
Even
with
study merely printed
in
Back
in
of
the
the
concentration of units in each of these
The North End, with its
written for this
went
The
so small
considered
I
"neighborhoods"
Beacon
fact their exclusion misses 22 units out
portfolio.
neighborhoods
when
other
Chinatown,
for each unit size.
account for 99% of the BHA portfolio.
depth
would
be
11 units, is the smallest
the
out
North End the macros
the
original
matrix
The neighborhoods studied
This seems sufficient.