7B.
REIABILITA TN
AND GRANTS
LOANS
. IN BOST)N
by
Eiily Jo Achtenberg
Subrn:iitted in Partial Fulfillment
of
the Requirements for the
Dgree of Master of
City Plannm~in
at the
of 'I'chmIo
Massch usetts Institutao
Juine,
Signature of
AuLtor
.
1970
.-.-.
...
Depart;ot
Certified
by
...
.....
.L.CL-.
.....
of Urban Studios .d
Plnig
.Tunc k. 1970
.-..
*---.
I
T esis Supervisor
Accepted by
Chairm;:an, Departmental Coi:-ittee
onAr G ,a J
rt 0 1St udenlts
Rotch
gMss.
INST. r cit.
AUG 1 3 1970
2
Rehabilitation Loans and Grants in Boston
Emily Jo Achtenberg
Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning
on June 3, 1970, in partial fulfillment of the requirement
for the degree o2 Master of City Planning.
The federal rehabilitation loan and grant program
(Sections 312 and 115) is designed to provide direct government subsidies and financing to owners and tenants who could
not otherwise afford the cost of housing improvement. The
thesis examines the operation of the program in three Boston
neighborhoods, where loans and grants form a critical element
in the ongoing urban renewal strategy. Of major interest is
the way in which the program has worked to distribute the
costs and benefits of rehabilitation among various groups
and the factors in each neighborhood which have influenced
its operation. The thesis evaluates whether the renewal
plans' assumption that rehabilitation would benefit existing
low and moderate income area residents is consistent with
actual loan and grant experience.
In general, while loans and grants have not been widely
used, the grant program has extended the benefits of rehabilitation
to a limited number of residents in great need of
assistance.
But only in Washington Park have 312 loans
facilitated the kind of minimal rehabilitation from which
low aad moderate income residents stand to benefit.
The
use of loans by middle-class aspiring Charlestow-m owners
to achieve rehabilitation well above code level has not
yet imposed substantial costs on low income tenants, but
may do so in the long run. In the South End, the program
has facilitated luxury rehabilitation and conversion of
low and moderate rent housing for use by affluent groups.
The outcome of the loan and grant program in each
neighborhood is determined largely by the economic and
social contexts in which it operates. But the policies and
practices of the local administering agency (Boston Redevelopment Authority) have, in the past, reinforced trends. which
impose costs on less affluent residents.
Finally, the loan and grant recipients have received
limited benefits from the quality of public intervention
in the rehabilitation process.
The benefits of public
rehabilitation assistance have also been somewhat unevenly
distributed in favor of the more affluent and sophisticated
recipients.
The loan and grant experience significantly undermines
the validity of original rehabilitation assumptions. A
recent BRA decision to give low and moderate income owners
priority
is a step in the tight direction; but broader changes
in rehabilitation policy and administration are suggested.
Thesis Supervisor: Lisa R. Peattie
Title: Associate Professor of Anthropology
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evolution of the Rehabilitation Loan and
Grant Program
Federal Role in
Housing Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation Loans and Grants: Dasic
Provisions and Legislative History
II
Progress to Date
13
Thesis Framework
14
The Boston Context for Loan and Grant
Rehabilitation
Overview: Boston's Neighborhood Renewal
Strategy
The Strategy in
III
IV
V
4
4
6
the Neighborhoods
16
16
19
Administrative Context: BRA Procedures
and Policies
26
Loan and Grant Rehabilitation Experience
30
Washington Park
30
Charles town
39
South End
50
The Quality of Rehabilitation Assistance
Provided
63
Summary and Conclusion
75
Appendix
Table 1 Table 2 -
Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 -
Table 7 Table
8 -
Rehabilitation Loans and Grants:
Cumulative Data, By Calendar Year
Original Rehabilitation Cost
Estimates
Rehabilitation Loan and Grant
Activity, by Project and
Calendar Year (Boston)
Rehabilitation- Volume and Cost
Under Various Financing Programs
Annual Incomes of Loan and Grant
Recipients
Actual Rehabilitation Costs Under
115 Grants and 312 Loans
Cost Analysis for Selected 312
Loans
Gross Monthly Rents Before and
After Rehabilitation
Footnotes
Bibliography
Personal Interviews
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
94
96
104
106
4
I
Evolution of the Rehabilita.,tion Loan and Grant Program
Federal Role in Housing Rehabilitation
Residential rehabilitation has been. an object of
federal concern for more than 30 years.
The government's
earliest venture into rehabilitation assistance was a
program of direct lending for home improvement,
in
1933 through the Homeowners'
lending, however,
established
Loan Corporation.
Direct
was soon eclipsed by the concept of
federal insurance for private rehabilitation loans, which
began with the Federal Housing Administration's
Title I
program in
(FHA)
1934.
The objective of these early programs was merely to
improve individual structures
basis.
Tlut in
1954,
on a geographically random
rehabilitat ion was expanded into
a strategy for neighborhood upgrading,
time a comprehensive
set of rehabilitation aids were
organized to implement this goal.
FHA Section 220,
and for the first
New programs ,
such as
were designed to extend the scope
of
rehab feasibility by providing federal guarantees for
long term, low downpayment
neighborhood conservation was seen as an
Basically,
alternative
financing.
to the clearance strategy associated with
urban renewal,
which had proven politically
unpalatable during the 1950's.
and economically
According to the wisdom
neighborhood relihbilitation would be a
of the ti
5es,
cheaper,
faster,
and more humane method of providing
decent housing, without destroying the physical fabric
and social integrity of neighborhoods.
A cardinal
principle of rehabilitation was that it
should serve
and benefit area residents, both owners and tenants.
According to a former urban renewal comimissioner,
2
(T)he whole intent of the rehabilitation
prograiN is to have existing property owners
rehabilitate their property...(T)he idea is
to get the existing property owner to try and
keep the people who are there now in the
property and rehabilitate without displacement...Pasically, the idea...is to try to
rehabilitate the houses in the area for the
people who live there.
At the same time, various political, economic,
and social forces affecting the rehabilitation process
often seemed at variance with this goal.
base considerations
Local tax
and FHA's preoccupation with
financial soundness demanded a level of replacement
which made rehabilitation resemble new construction.
Lending institutions,
areas,
reluctant to invest in
deteriorated
imposed stringent credit standards on borrowers;
and by the mid 1960's, FHA interest rates were escalating
to increasingly high levels.
Additionally, the select
group of owners who could afford to rehabilitate
available programs often had little
interest in
under
retaining
their tenants when market conditions permitted rehabilitation
for higher income groups.
Finally, the scarcity of reliable general contractors
in the rehabilitation field and the characteristic unpredictability of rehab work often made it difficult to get
OW
a good job done at reasonable cost.' Not infrequently,
"suede shoe operators" were able to take advantage of
the limited competition by charging high rates for
inferior workmanship--a factor which perhaps helped
to dampen the enthusiasm of unsophisticated owners for
rehabilitation work.3
As a result of these problems, the concept of
neighborhood conservation as a strategy for improving
the housing situations of renewal area residents was
gradually being undermined.
By 1964,
only 500 reha-
bilitation
loans had been secured under the Section 220
program.
Moreover,
rehabilitation process
benefits
was becoming clear that the
it
could impose costs rather than
on low and moderate income owners
Rehabilitation Loans and Grants:
and tenants.
Basic Provisions and
Legislative History
The Section 312 rehabilitation loan 'and Section 115
grant programs,
enacted,
respectively,
in
1 9 64 and 1965,
were intended to remedy some of the inadequacies ofexisting financing mechanisms.
Under the new programs,
rehabilitation assistance was to be made available
to
eligible owners in the form of direct federal grants and
3fo
loans,
repayable over a 20-year period..
with the neighborhood renewal strategy,
were initially
provided only to owners
or federally-assisted
*
In
line
loans and grants
in
urban renewal
code enforcement areas.*
Subsequently, loans and grants have been extended to
owners in "certified areas," designated for future relabiliand in areas covered by statewide insurance
tation treatient,
plans, under certain conditions.
The significance of the loan and grant program lies,
first, in the federal recognition of the need for rehabilitation subsidies
to extend the benefits of rehabilitation
to less affluent owners and tenants.
Second,
the program
marked a return to the concept of direct government
rehabilitation financing,
though on a small scale.
Finally,
the program greatly enhanced the role of the local
public agency (LPA) in rehabilitation assistance.
its
Through
assumption of loan origination and processing functions
and its
involvement
in
and work supervision,
work write-ups,
contractor selection,
the LPA was now in
a position to
exercise some control over the distribution of rehab
5
funds and over the nature and quality of.work to be done.
The basic design of the loan and grant program
suggests an intent on the part of its
legislative
authors
not only to bypass existing private finIncing channels
but also to minimiize the role of FBA in
field.*
Not surprisingly,
the rehabilitation
the 312 loan approach was
resisted for a time by the Housing and Home Finance Agency
(predecessor
Development),
of the Department of Housing and Urban
subsidized
which advocatedl a more traditional
loan insurance program under FHlA administration.
6
*Initially, FHA did exercise application review and
property inspection functions for 312 loans, but in 1967
its
jurisdiction in this regard was limited to buildings
only renaining role with respect
with 5 or more units. Its
to smaller properties is to appraise the "as-is" property
value for any loan over "-3500. (See "Hebabilitation Financing, 1t
Progra::s Handbook, Departim.ent of Hiouisi: g and Urban
Developmenlt, October, 1968. )
-R
z
The general purpose of the loan program, as
initially
enacted,
was "to assist
rehabilitation...
and thereby reduce the need for demolition and
removal of structures which could be rehabilitated" 7
and to
provide a source of financing to those
persons...who are presently unable to
undertake necessary rehabilitation of their
property because they cannot obtain loans in
sufficient amounts or at such terms as they
can. afford to carry.
Similarly,
the grant program was intended "to avoid
displacement of owners with no other means of financing
needed repairs.
The legislative and administrative evolution .of the
program over the past six years reflects
in
several shifts
the specific interpretation of this purpose, which
have influenced the program's implementation.
Two issues
that have dominated the legislative history concern.-.
0," the appropriate
constituency to be served and the
appropriate rehabilitation level to require or encourage.
And since the required level and cost of rehab strongly
influence the nature of the program's ~constituency,
while
constituency selection also affects the level of rehab
undertaken,
the
interrelationship of these two concerns
is readily apparent.
The basic
provisions of the program,
which they have evolved over time,
Elg:Libility.
Grant eli gibility
and the way in
are set forth below.
10
has been restricted
$3000,
less
to owner occupants with incom
consistently
exceeding
or with monthly housing expenses
250 of income.
resources
than
To preclude owners with substantial
from qua-lifying under the latter
the regulations stipulate
provision,
that grants are intended
only for "hardship cases,"
for the purpose of avoiding
unnecessary displacement.
Loan eligibility
was limited initially
to owhers
unable to secure rehabilitation financing from other
sources on "reasonable"
terms--provided
evidenced capacity to repay the loan.
eligibility
12
the applicant
Subsequently,
was exterded to .any owner who could not secure
financing on "comparable"
terits,
thereby widen.ing the
anyone
program's potential constituency. to virtually
13
owning property in the designated area.
In
1968,
however,
Congressional concern that the
benefits of limited rehabilitation funds were bypassing
owners in
greatest need of assistance
restricting future eligibility
owners.
14
led to an aimendement
to low and moderate
income
Such owners must have incomes below the allowed
limits for FHA Section 221d3 housing,
and with family size.
For instance,
which vary regionally
in
E3oston the current
maximum annual income limits are as follows:
Persons in
Household
Maximum Annual Income
1
$6700
2
88150
3-4
5-6
7+
96o0
11,050
12,500
In 1969,
led
renewed concern with diminishing rehab volune
to a modification of this provision,
moderate
whereby low and
for 312 loans.
income owners would receive priority
1
5
It should be noted that proposed changes in the 312
loan program contained
in
the 1970 Housing Bill could sub-
stantially affect the issue of constituency.
The new bill
contemplates a shift to a variable interest rate--according
to income--and a fixed maximum rate for investor-owners
At the same time,
(non-owner occupants).
the maximum loan
16
term would be increased from 20 to 30 years.
These
changes, if enacted, would re-assert the principle of
rehabilitation aid for all
owners,
but on terms which
would offer greater assistance with increasing financial need.
The required level of rehabili-
Rehabilitation Level.
tation under the loan and grant program has remained minimal,
especially in
contrast to the standards imposed under FHlA
rehabilitation programs.
On the other hand,
the permiissable
level of rehab which can be achieved with loans and grants
has steadily increased.
Specifically,
grant recipients must conform their
properties to area property rehabilitation standards
In
federally-assisted
code areas,
prescribed by local housing,
In
urban renewal areas,
(PRS).
these are the standards
building,
and related ordinances.
PRS are defined as
"t1-e
combination
of code standards and rehabilitation requirements which are
established for properties to be retained in the rehabilitation
area."
In practice,
however,
cities
code requirements may not differen-tiate
with comprehensive
between the
two
1l
sets of standards; for instance, PRS in Boston's urban
local building
renewal areas are the state sanitary code,
and other.related
and zoning codes,
If
ordinances.
the owner cannot bring his property into compliance
with PRS on the basis of grant funds alone,
mient the grant with a loan,
Since 1968,
he must supple-
or forego the grant entirely.
level of rehab beyond
the perissable
PRS has been extended to include the cost of correcting
"incipient violations," and providing basic equipment,
such as a stove,
if
the existing equipment is
unsafe or
unsanitary.1 9
Loan recipients are also required, at a
conform their properties to PRS.
iinimun, to
But since 1968, a 312
loan may also be used to cover the cost of (1) providing
basic equipment,
land,
if
(2)
as above;
under certain conditions;
acquiring additional
(3)
property conversion,
urban renewal "objectives,"
in
(4)
meeting
20
Such
urban renewal areas.
necessary to i.ake rehabilitation feasible;
objectives are typically designed to support a level of
rehab above
the local code requirements.
For instance,
21
urban renewal objectives in Boston are:
to
to
to
to
prevent the spread of blight...
restore deteriorating areas to sound condition;
improve the quality of individual properties;
create decent, safe, and sanitary structures,
providing the greatest degree of amenity, convenience, usefulness, and livability for the
occupants and users.
Additionally,
loan recipionts may undertake
property i.prove, ents"
the cost of other items
in
"general
an amount not exceeding 4or
(20'2 for investors).
This
of
"catch-
12
category includes 2
all"
additions,
2
enlargements,
renovation and re-
riodeling, such as; the provision for or enlargement of rooms, garage, or fence; the finishing
of spaces within the property such as an attic,
porch, or basement; remodeling kitchens, including
of a dishwasher...
the purchase and installation
purchase and instalthe
and
disposal;
and garbage
condilation of incinerators and central air
tioning.
should be noted that the provision for calculating
It
the general property improvements allowance as a percentage
other costs per Mits a considerably higher level
of all
of rehabilitation under 312 in
This is
in
code enforcem:ient areas.
in
urban renewal areas includes
renewal objectives which,
urban renewal areas than
because the cost base
the cost of meeting urban
as noted above,
may-beyused to
justify a number of additional items.
Cost Limitations.
is
The level of rehabilitation achievable
also influeced by various limitations on the cost of
rehabilitation which can be financed with a loan or grant.
In
general,
cost limitations have increased over the life
of the program,
reflecting the increasing level of rehab
work permitted.
The imaximum grant aIount has wore than
doubled since the beginning of the program,
to $3500 per structure.
from $1500
The maximum loan anourit has
increased from $10,000 to $12,000 per dwelling unit,
and is
now up to $17,400 per unit in
as Boston.
The loan amount is
high cost areas
such
also limited by the amount
of existing debt on the property and the loan-to-value
If23
ratio ( a raximum of 97c for resident owners).
TRent
Regulation.
The extent of rent regulation per-
mitted under the program is
also relevant
to the level of
13
rehab achievable and, therefore,
constituency served.
to the nature of the
Rent regulation by HUD is
authorized
only for properties conitaining 12 or more units,
rehabilitation costs exceed $5000 per unit.
24
where
The only
additional requirement which might operate to limit
rent increases
in
smaller buildings
is
a general stipula-
tion that rehabilitation beyond the mandatory PRS level
does not justify
rent increases
area residents
beyond the means of typical
25
Refinancing.
used to refinance
The extent to which 312 loans can be
existing debt is
another factor which
may influence both the rehabilitation level and the nature
of constituency served.
In
theory,
refinancing allows an
owner to achieve a certain level of rehabilitation at
the saie or reduced monthly debt service.
it
also provides
for rent stability
tions for some tenants.
permit refinancing,
Presumably,
or even rent reduc-
While the 312 legislation does
administratively this provision has
been restricted to owner occupants,
and only to those
whose monthly carrying costs on existing debt plus the
rehabilitation loan would exceed 20% of iricome.2
6
Progress to Date
Table I
progress
(see Appendix)
illustrates
the cumtulative
of the rehabilitation loan and grant program
nationally.
has
hile the pace of Iboth loan and grant activity
increased considerably in
recent years,
the olvious
disparity between loan and grant achievements
is
of some
In
interest.
in
part,
this reflects
significant differences
program adi nistration which will be examined subsequently.
But it
should be noted here that while
out of the urban renewal,
grants are financed
code erforcemvent,
or similar
project funds allocated to particular localities, loan
financing-is dependent upon annual appropriations to
a 312 "revolving fund" which have failed to keep pace
with increased program demand.
In fiscal 1969, 312 funds
were fully committed 3 months before the end of the year.27
Proposed appropriations
at ,35
million.
for fiscal
1971 are the lowest ever,
28
While the increasing level of loan repayments should
eventually make the revolving fund self-sustaining,
312 program may well have achieved its
volume.
The proposed 1970 Housirg 3ill,
program on the new terms noted earlier,
a major shift
the
maxiium annual
which places the
also
contemplates
of rehabilitation activity to a comprehensive
FHjA insurance
subsidy program which relies on the traditional
29
approach.
In a sense, then, the 312-half of the loan and
grant program now stands at some sort.of crossroads.
Thus
a review of the program's achievements seems appropriate
at this juncture.
Thesis Framework
The intent of this thesis is
of one rmajor city---3oston-ants.
to examine
the experience
with rehabilitation loans and
The analysis will focus on three nei:borhoods--
Mashington Park,
Charles toin,
loans and grants are a critical
and the South End--in which
element
in
the ongoing
15
government housing
particular
which one
of the way in
case study
conceived as a
The thesis is
renewal strategy.
and of how the the costs and
program has operated,
benefits of the program have been distributed to various
population groups.
should be noted at the outset that the scope of
It
While somLe of the findings
context.
code
enforce;ent or other situations
to
may be applicable
in
which loans and
federal regulations,
the variations in
grants are used,
a
to loans and grants in
restricted
the study is
may influence substantially different
as noted earlier,
outcomes.
grants
in
First,
the
the following approach will be taken.
Boston,
renewal
and the
strategy
and political-administrative
factors
on in
for loan and grant rehabilitati
will then be analyzed
in
factors,
and the
office records and interviews with BRA
with the three neighborhoods
and others faiiliar
are the major sources of
information upon which the analysis
sidering
co
with loan and
will ad(dress,
rehabilitat
each neighborhood
terms of these
loon and grant recipients,
.Before
providing the con text
data compiled from Boston Redevelop-
Statistical
m;ent Authority site
staff,
social,
ic,
for the original neighborhood renewal strategr
implications
assessed.
econo.
The actual experience with the program
will be examined.
ciated
loans and
evaluating -the use of rehabilitation
In
it
is
some
of
the
vrant rehabilitation
is
specific.
based.
asso-
isstes
which this
thesis
necessary to examine briefly the. Boston
ion context in which the
program is
operating.
16
II
The Boston Context for Loan and Grant Rehabilitation
Overview: Boston's Neighborhood Renewal Strategy
pehabilitation has been the focal point of Boston's
urban renewal strategy since the early 1960's.
three quarters
Almost
(32,000) of the 47,000 units in areas
to be renewed by 1975 are slated for rehabilitation,
as compared to 15,000-16,000 units which will be
newly constructed.
1
The objectives of the rehabilitation program have
frequently been stated in
improvement.
terms
of physical and economic
According to a ERA Working Paper on Rehabili-
tation prepared in 1964,2
(0)ur policy in the neighborhoods must be
to modernize the existing housing stock and its
environment so that Boston's neighborhoods can
compete effectively with newer suburban dwellings.
The specific goals of rehabilitation,
document,
are
according to this
3
1. to save the neighborhoods and (their) housing
stock...
2. to take the existing housing stock and rehabilitate it to an attractive condition...
new investment which will provide
3. to attract
further leverage toward improved city services,
toward a progressive community, and toward strengthening the tax base...
Elsewhere in
BRA publications,
considered a major resource
rehabilitation is
for meeting the housing needs
of low and moderate incomve families:
4
substandard housing, particularly for
(T)he city's
low income families, is -proposed to be predominantly upgraded through rehabilitation rather than
replaced by new construction.
Basic to the renewal strategy is
rehabilitation will,
at least,
the assumption that
serve and benefit the existing
17
residents of renewal neighborhoods,
both owners and tenants.5
The imajor thrust of the rencwal program in
residential areas is to stimulate the retention
and rehabilitation of existing structures with
no or only modest increases in ren-tal and
carrying costs to the occupants.
The economic assumptions underlying this proposition of
carrying cost and rent stability are:
(1) that rehabilitation costs will be minimal, reflecting
the essentially minimal nature of rehabilitation work required
to meet property rehabilitation standards
This determination is
11).
based on surveys of typical
properties in each area, conducted by the
($)
(see p.
that rehabilitation financing-,
tunties for refinancing existing debt,.will
3RA and FHA.
including opporbe available
on ter;:;s sufficienDtly liberal to enable area owners and
tenants to afford monthly amortization.
FHTA
Initially,
220 financing was seen as the major tool to achieve this
end,
but early experience with FIA and lender intransi-
gience
led
to some rethinking in
this regard. 6By 1967,
primary reliance was placed on direct grants and 3!o loans
"fto keep rental
to a minimum."
In
and
cost increases
due
to rehabilitation
7
the interest of further reducing the monthly cost
impact of rehabilitation,
the City also announced an assess-
rent freeze covering a wide range of rehabilitation improvements.8
While there could be no permanent protection against
eventual re-assessment over the course of time,
individual
owners might at least avoid higher tax payments as an immediate
consec uence of rehabilitationi work.
In
addition,
implicit in
a variety of social assum-ptions
are
the notion that rehabilitation will serve and
benefit area residents.
First, existing resident owners must
want to rehabilitate--a factor which dep-ends on such
variables as the extent of the owner'sthe neighborhood,
in
social ties
to
the value he assigns to. home improvem.ient
relation to other budget priorities,
his view of rehabili-
tation costs in relation to possible limitations of the area,
his age,
and his other housing options.
owners must want to rehabilitate
Secondly, existing
for existing tenants,
rather than for other social or econoic groups if
the
market perrmits.
These economic and social assumptions constituted the
grounds upon which the neighborhood renewal strategy could
be sold to area residents.
The extent to which they have
at
been validated by actual rehabilitation experience,
least with respect to the loan and grant program,
issue under investigation here.
critical
is
the
And while the
rehabilitation strategy as a whole cannot be evaluated
solely on the merits of loan and grant experience,
clear that the ability
it
of this program to deal with the
social and economic problems of rehab exclusion is
to the.success
In
is
critical
of the entire rehabilitation effort.
evaluating the loan and grant experience,
basic issues will be considered.
four
First, to what extent
19
has the program been utilized in
each area,
and how has
loan and grant assistance been distributed aroiing various
groups?
what level of rehabilitation and costs
Second,
and what do these findings reflect
have been achieved,
or imply about the constituency served?
Third,
what is
the probable impact of loan and grant rehabilitation on rent
levels and displacement?
Finally,
extent have
to what
those served benefitted from the special nature of public
intervention in
the rehabilitation process?
In
general,
hiave loans and grants significantly extended the benefits of
rehabilitation to the traditional victims of rehab exclusion
low and moderate income
-- i.e.
owners and tenants--or have
they provided incrcased benefits to groups who have traditionally gained from rehabilitation in
cular interest in
this analsis
It
tions,
are the social,
economiic,
variables in each neig;hborhood
,and political-admiistrative
influenced the programn 's
which have
Of parti-
the past?
should be emphasized that in
outcome.
m.aking these determi-ina-
both the short and long range implications
and grant experience must be considered.
of the loan
For instance,
even
where loans and grants are now extending the benefits
of rehabilitation to low and moderate income residents
at little
added cost,
the market context in
program operates may make it
benefits in
difficult
which the
to sustain these
the long run.
The Strategy in_ the_ Neighborhoods
Washington Park
Sociologically,
the most significant
fact about Washington
20
Park is
the dramatic shift
in
racial composition--
white to 707,%black--which occurrod in
prior. to renewal.
9
the area in
in
this statistic,
the area is
of significant socio-economic contrast.
smail group of white,
mostly elderly,
population represents
at least
residents,
the black
characterized
the blue-collar wage
and the black proletariat.10
Members of the elite,
highly organized and capable,
the relatively exclusive
own and occupy property in
part of the district
collar workers,
known as Upper Roxbury.
class aspirations
tend to display middle
styles while
and life
economic insecurity of the proletariat.
consists primarily of low income,
tively new to the area,
recipients.
situations
is
The blue
resident owners of the lilore deteriorated
Middle Roxbury three-deckers,
sharing the
This latter
low status tenants,
group
rela-
and includes a high proportion of
The lack of stability
reflected in
of Middle Roxbury's
25% in
one
In addition to the
three groups,
by Keyes as the affluent elite,
welfare
the decade
Beyond the degree of increasing racial
homogeneity reflected
earners,
from 70%
in
their housing
the fact that more than two-thirds
tenants had rent-income
ratios exceeding
1960.11
The Washington Park renewal strategy proposed a considerable amount of clearance,
of the elite,
area off
and the BRA to rid the
blue collar owners,
blighting" influences.
deteriorated
sirable"
reflecting the coma on desire
These included both the
physical structure-s and their "socially unde-
tenant occupants,
the area's stability.
who were considered a threat to
Basicallly,
urban rcinewal was intended
to stabilize
and upgrade Washington Park as a racially
integrated but econoriically homnogeneous
middle class
community.12
On the other hand,
of the rehabilita-
the implications
tion strategy per se were less clear-cut.
Typical property
surveys found the cost of rehabilitation to be minimal-no higher than $5000 for a
three-decker
increase in
(see Table II). The average
in
poor condition
monthly debt service
with liberal financing was estim-ated at 87.87 per structure.
Thus,
with rent stability
3
the assump-
but guaranteed,
all
1
tion seemed to be that existing low and im-oderate income
tenants, as well as owners,
would benefit from rehabilitation.
Charlestown
Unlike Washington Park,
Charlestown is
a tightly-knit,
relatively homog-eneous "urban village," whose residents
are predoinantly blue collar, upwardly mobile, Irish
14
struggle against
After a protracted and bitter
families.
the BRA's original proposal to demolish a substantial
portion of the town,
Charlestown residents were able to
make rehabilitation the focal point of the residential
renewal strategy.
Final plans called for rehabilitation
of 89:o of the area's residential
structures.
-
The under-
lying aim clearly was to stabilize the community
benefit of existing residents,
for the
and perhaps to bring back
some of the younger couples who had left
Charlestown for
the suburbs during the previous decade . 16
The 'MT's
assumption that
"Charlestown
has
potential for conservation and rehabilitation"
the
h.ighost
stems from
22
a number of factors.
Over 70%- of the structures
are resident-owned, and most of the "absentee"
are themis elves Charles t own res idents,
two properties.
18
in
the area
landlords
owning only one or
DRA surveys of typical properties found
the cost of rehabilitation
to be minimal--no nore than
$1700 for single family structures and $3050 for threefamily dwellings in poor condition (see Table II).
Additionally,
the $6200 median family income of Charlestown
residents in 196019 s-uggested economic
for home improvement.
ties
of most owners,
the
"kitchen culture"
rehabilitation,
Finally, the strong neighborhood
the short Charlestown streets,
and
features of the area indicated that
once "seeded,"
through the pores."
conditions favorable
might easily be "transmitted
2 0
Based on the low rehabilitation cost estivmates ard
the assumied availability of liberal
financing,
the plan
predicted that monthly debt service would decrease for the
majority of property owners,
remain about the same for
others, and in no case increase by more than $6 per dwelling
21
But at the same time, the uniquely low rent-income
unit.
ratios of Charlestown residents--averaging 13(
in
1960
22
--
suggested that tenants could absorb even greater rent
increases, should they be necessary.
familial and social ties
Finally, the strong
existing between many resident
owners and their tenants would seer
to mitigate against
the likelihood of substantial dislocation
from rehabilitatior,
in
resulting
the absence of strongir; econoic necessity.
23
South End
The South End has been described as an area of
architectural and historic
combined with extra-
unity,
ordinary social heterogeneity.
23
Blehind the elegant
brick facades of the five story row houses which characterize
the district
physically,
there is
a vital
social dynaric
revolving around at least four major interest
the lodging hoise tenants,
groups:
the lodging house proprietors,
the "urban villager" resident owners,
and the affluent
white~ "urbanites .it
An estim,.ated 14,000--or nearly half--of the South End's
30,000 residents
operated.
live in
lodging houses.,
legally or illegally
This sector of the population actually comprises
two major groups:
the socially stable,
residents, and the "skid row" types,
social and erotional problemIs.
elderly or retired
overburdened with
Both groups
share a poverty-
level existence, giving the South End the dubious -distinction
cityV
of being the/district
with the greatest proportion of households with incomes under
13000.25
tenants have lived on the same street
years,
their total
While many of these
for twenty or thirty
lack of organization and power has placed
them at an obvious disadvantage
in
termis of the renewal
strategy.
Lodging house owners run the gamut from the classic
absentee slwmnlord to the low income elderly proprietress
for whom the building is
of economic security.
both a home and the sole source
As many as three qlaters
of the
lodging houses are either resident-owned or owned by som.teone
26
living nearby in the South End.
W1hile the true absentees
2)4
would sooner sell
than invest even a few dollars for
property improvement,
many resident or nearby-absentee
owners display a strong sense of comiitment to their
properties and neighborhoods,
if
not always to their
Many would support a program of lodging house
tenants
rehabilitation which would ensure a reliable tenantry.
On the other hand,
in
the limited resources
is
program
the absence of a viable
for lodging house retention which takes into
of the owners,
27
account
the sales alternative
undoubtedly more profitable for this group.
The middle aged and elderly blue collar residents
are the South End 's
"urban villagers , " living in
cohe-
sive ethnic or racial subcormuunities within the larger
This group includes many resident
district.
together with the lodging house owners,
the 50,- owner-occupancy ratio
The "sense of neighborhood"
their tenants
in
owners,
who,
account for
South End buildings.
248
shared by these owners and
provides a strong degree of commitm':ent to
the area.
Finally,
the South End has recently become a haven
for white professional
"urbanites," both owners and tenants,
attracted by the area's architectural
advantages.
This move. ent,
to the advent of renewal,
trend in
recent years.
charm and locational
which be-gan as a
has become a distinctly
trickle
prior
pronounced
As a result of the urbanite influx,
the local housing market ha s been subjected to substantial
pressures which threaten to severely deplete the supply
of low and moderate
The fundamental
incohohousing.
issue of South End renewal has always
been whether the interests of the affluent newcomers can
"old,
be imade compatible with those of the
f29
the problem-ridden."2
is
terms of rehabilitation,
In
the proposed treatment for
75j,
or 3000,
units are to be retained for indigenous
of the area's
low and moderate
or converted for middle and upper
income residents,
which
whether existing housing
the basic question is
structures,30
and
the poor,
income
accordance with prevailing social and economic
occupancy in
forces.
The BRA has openly acknowledged
"probably represents
rehabilitation
the greatest
effort."
strongly sL:eOsts
'3]
that the South End
challenge
Yet the South End
to the Authority's
renewal nlan
that rehabilitation would be carried
out by and for existing low and moderate income rsidents.
As in
the other areas,
rehabilitation
to be minimal: no more than
post-rehabilitation increases
are estimated
family an.cd
poor condition
in
monthly carrying costs
a pledge of assistance
the difficult
reliabilitati on. 3 ,
(see
financing,
at $7 or less with refinancing.-
the plan contains
to aid in
in
of liberal
the availability
Iith
are assumed
1535 for sinl1e
$1428 for three family structures
Table II).
costs
Finally,
from local banks
task of financing lodging house
26.
Administrative Context: BRA Procedures
and Policies
The loan and grant progrant also operates within the
administrative
context of Boston Redevelopment Authority
procedures and policies.
Procedures.
program is
Administration of the loan and grant
lodged within the DRA's Rehabilitation Section
and its three principal branches-rehabilitation, finance,
and legal.
While major decisions are mrade by the central
rehabilitation office,
to s ite
considerable
leeway is
office rehalbilitation and finance staff
administer the program from day to day.
owner,
contact is
either in
the owner's
in
initiative.
cable).
eligibility
general,
loan
established with the property
connection with a property survey or at
a grant or loan,
determine
who
conforms to the following nodel.35
and grant adinistration
Initial
In
afforded
If
the owner expresses interest
a finance conference
is
held to
and debt service capacity (if appli-
A preliminary work write-up,
listing .iandatory
items and any optional work which the owner can afford,
is
prepared along with cost estimates.
Eventually, a
final work write-up and finance plan are developed.
The BRAfs next major function is
selection of a contractor.
to supervise the
If the work costs more than
$10,000, it is publicly advertised for competitive bidding
and the lowest bid from a responsible contractor is accepted
(unless
the owner wishes to accept a high.er bid and pay the
difference).
In
the cost range of $500-810,0000,
selected
27
contractors are
infornrally invited to bid on the work.
For work under $3500, the owner may negotiate an agreement
with the contractor,
subject
to the MA's
approval,
or
request competitive bidding.
Following contractor selection, in the case of a grant
the BRA simply issues its
approval and work can proceed out
of renewal budget funds already at hand.
For loan appli-
cants, a financial report must be prepared and approved
by the HUD Area Rehabilitation Loan Specialist,
including
credit certification, lien status, owrnership verification,
and the like.
Loan funds are then disbursed from the HUD
Regional Office.
Loan and grant funds for the work to be undertaken
are then deposited in an escrow account, to be released
Upon the contractor ts application for a progress payient.
This usually occurs at the 30/,
completion stages.
60,
While the work is
between the owner and contractor,
90
and final
contracted directly
the BRA is
in
a position
to exercise considerable control over work quality.
Property
inspections must occur at least prior to to every disbursal
of funds and, wherever possible, on a biweekly basis. While
funds can be released only with the owner's consent,
the
BRA can advise owners as to the nature of contract compliance.
To insure an adequate amount of funds for work completion,
the BRA withholds 20!
When all
work is
of the amount due at each payment stage.
satisfactorily
completed,
subject
to a final inspection and a release of liens by the contractor,
28
the BRA issues the final
payment.
the contractor for one year.
Work is
The BRA is
guaranteed by
also required to
conduct a post-completion inspection within 60 days after
the work is
finished.
Policies.
Within the framework prescribed by federal
laws and regulations,
BRA policy on the important issues of
constituency and rehabilitatien level has,
been rather vague.
in
the past,
With respect to constituency,
has
of local policy for 312 loan eligibility
the lack
led. to a
first-come-first-served approach throughout much of the
program's history.
Because the urban renewal projects
under consideration here were in
operation prior to the 1968
legislative revisions on loan eligibility (see p. 9),
this
de facto policy was allowed to prevail until late in 1969.
In Iovember,
priority
1969,
a new local regulation assigned
to loan applicants who were either low and
moderate income owner occupants,
non profit
or investors with commitments to lease
sponsors,
at least one third
of their units to the Boston Housing Authority.
6
IQues-
tionable cases" must be referred by the site office to
the Chief of Rehabilitation for final determination,
the new policy appears
to signify an important shift
the matter of loan constituency,
implemented at the site
is
a
critical
the way in
which it
While
on
is
office and central office levels
matter for subsequent
investigation.
On the issue of rehabilitation level,
a Question and
Answer Bulletin distributed to notential loan and grant
29
applicants
states that "primarily the State Sanitary Codes
and the City of Boston Building Codes are the standards"
required for rehabilitation.37
On the other hand,
BRA's general philosophy for rehabilitation is
the
that
while "codes are designed to treat the illnesses of a
house,...our
urban renewal program is
qualities of
'wellness."38 In fact, the urban renewal
concerned with
plans suggest that compliance with plan objectives
(see p. 11)
as well as PRS or code standards is mandatory:3 9
If...satisfactory
conformance with the standards
and objectives...has not been achieved, the
Boston Redevelopment Authority may acquire the
mine_7
property... /-italics
While this provision has not been enforced legally to
date,
"sell"
it
does provide the BRA with considerable leeway to
a brand of rehabilitation considerably higher than
code level.
ment and
In practice,
'sprucing
up,"
this means an emphasis
on replace-
rather than on doingr the minimum
necessary for livability.
The general philosophy has
been expressed by the Chief of Rehabilitation as follows:40
We want gutsy rehab.
If we only went to
code standards we'd have to be back again in
six months...What we're really interested in is
selling a higher quality of rehab to the owners.
We try to convince them that this is what they
should do.
Given the generous amount of rehab permitted by federal
loan regulations, the extension of the "gutsy rehab" policy
The
to 312 borrowers would seem all
but inevitable.
extent to which this policy has
influenced 312 rehabilitation
levels and costs is
consideration.
another
important issue
for
subsequent
30
Loan and Grant Rehabilitation Experience
III
PARK
WASIINIGTON
Use of Loans and Grants
As of March,
1970,
and 18 loan-and-grant
Park (Table III).
of all
a total
"com.bos"l
of 81 loans,
56 grants,
had been issued in
Washington
Loans and grants represent only about 15t
rehabilitation activity
In this connection,
it
in
is
the area
im;,portant
(Table IV).
to note that
while loans and grants were available from the outset of
renewal in
the other areas
under consideration,
arrived on the scene at the tail
they
end of the Washington Park
Many owners who might have received loan or
project.
grant assistance had already turned to less favorable forms
of financing or,
in
some cases,
111t the
their hocms.
had been forced to sell
fact that as many as 3/4 of those
who have rehabilitated have been able to use private,
ventional,
of many
or 220 financing attests
con-
to the relative afflience
ashington Park owners.
Since the bulk of Washington Park ts loan and grant
rehabilitation
in
occurred in
1966 and 1967,
much of the activity
this area belongs to the realm of "past history." The
legislative revisions which substantially altered the
thrust of the program in
mid-1968 are barely reflected in
the Washington Park eCperience.
which loans
Nevertheloss,
and grants were used in
tie
way in
Washington Park should
31
provide an important basis for comparison w'ith the present
program.
It
however,
should be noted,
that the time factor
did place somie limitations on data collection which make
the Washington Park information less comprehensive than
the data for other areas.
Population Served
According to site
office staff,
Washington Park grant
recipients are pri:tarily elderly or retired resident
living in
2-
and 3-family frame buildings.
owners,
These sources
state that most grant recipients have very low incomes and
would have been forced out of the area had grant funds not
been made available.2
and
The 312 loan recipients are also predominantly 2-
blue collar employees
tyjically
3-decker resident owners,
with working wives and families.
Although an exact breakdown is
Virtually all
unavailable,
are black.
only a handful
of investor owners are reported to have received 312 loans
in
this area,
including one limited-dividend corporation.
3
The extent to which the Washington Park loan constituency represents a group in
subsidies is
need of special rehabilitation
a matter open to some conjecture.
On the one
hand, many of the loan recipients are said to be rejectees
from the FHA 220 program--which in
as many as 3/4 of its
applicants.
image of substantial need is
the average income
312 borrowers
of
4
1967 was turning down
On the other hand,
not entirely co;sistent with
;8356 and the :_edian of
(see Table
V).
the
In
fact,
9096 for
about one gua T
r
of the loan recipients have incomes higher than
12,000,
while an equal number earn less than $6000.
It
noted that under the new incom:e regulations,
probably fewer
than half of the present
should be
loan recipients would qualify for
status (based on the standard of $9600 or less
priority
4).
for a family of
Nevertheless,
these aggregate statistics
may mask
significant problems associated with credit stability or
property condition which would make many 312 borrowers
questionable
risks in
institution.
In
the eyes of a
fact,
this is
to dual-wage earner families,
considered
"unreliable."
traditional lending
often the case with regard
where the wife's income
Secondly,
the fact that
is
these
owners had not yet rehabilitated:'by the time 312 loans
were available
sugge-osts that they were cither bypassed
by other programs or for some reason reluctant
the necessary funds.
Park seems to havc
described as
Thus the 312 program in
Washington
reached a constituency which may be
"bottoim of the barrel" in
rest of the area,
to invest
in
relation to the
terms of capacity or desire to rehab.
On the other hand,
rany owners who are clearly in
need
of rehabilitation assistance have been unable to obtain
grants or loans for various reasons.
Of primary importance
are the legislative and administrative barriers which existed
in
the early years of the program.
For instance,, prbvisions
33
limiting grants only to those 1-
and 2-
family structures
,1500 or less
which could be brought to code level for
disqualified the many 3-decker owners,
as well as those
whose properties required more than bare-minimum work. 5
Loan applicants were often rejected for poor credit records
or outs tanding tax or water liens
In
addition,
many who
had purchased property without proper legal protection
were disqualified on the basis
of murky title
records.
6
Finally, there were those who simply could not afford the
necessary work.
All of these problems were intensified because of the
strong role maintained by FHA in
loan administration
during the height of Washington Park activity.
the 220 programa,
As in
the FIA's caution with respect to
borrower and property risks helped to exclude many applicants
from 312 loan as e istance.
To a degree,
7
social factors have also excluded some
early years of the program,
many elderly ownors refused
to believe that grants would not have
to 1e repaid or
that liens would not be placed against their
the whole,
though,
the
1specially in
owners from rehabilitation assistance.
the strong pro-renewal
homes.
On
climate in
Washington Park probably created a more favorable attitude
towards loan and grant assistance
other neijhborhoods
than in
either of the
under .cons iderat ion.
RhLabilitation Costs
Rehabilitation
costs ider
the 115
grant program
average
$1909 per structure.
average
$5059
Costs under the 312 program
for single family structures,
family strotures,
and $56S8
for three deckers
Two significant observations
312 cost figures.
85157 for 2(see Table VI).
can be made about the
concerns the minimal cost
The first
spread between the single family and 3-decker figures,
suggesting that relatively
is
little
additional interior work
done outside the owner's apartment.
Second,
the actual
costs do not differ radically from original rehabilitation
estimates
(Table II),
given some allowance for cost inflawhich narrows
The slight differential,
tion.
as structure
size increases,
substantially
might also reflect
the cardinal
rehab principle that buildings ali:most always have more
defects than those revealed by initial
surveys.
The relatively minimal cost figures sug-gest that 312
borrowers
bilitation
are in
fact doing the kind of minimal level reha-
work contemplated in
Rehabilitation specialists
the original renewal plan.
familiar with the area tend to
agree that 312 k'ehabilitation generally entails only basic
structural and exterior work needed to correct code violations.
Based on their information and that provided in
project files,
sample
a typical 312 work write-up for a 3-decker
building would probably include the following items and costs:
porches - repair or replace (3)
roof, gutters, chirmey repairs
rewire ? new service
electricitykitchen & bathroom wall &.%
floor
$2300
500
1000
500
coverings
redecoration.
TOTAL
1000
85300
35
Some owners have also installed modern kitchen and bathroom
fixtures,
apartment,
but as a rule this is
done only in
the owner's
as the cost figures suggest. 9
low level of rehabilitation achieved
The relatively
with 312 financing in Washington Park may be attributed to
a number of factors.
First,
while building conditions
may have been worse than anticipated,
selves are small, relatively new,
bring to code
the structures
easy to
and relatively
J10
level without major replacement,
as already noted,
under 312 early in
them-
Second,
the kind of work which could be financed
the program was limited.
Finally, the
tendency to do "just enough to get by" seems consistenit
with the image of 312 borrowers as a constituency with
relatively little
capacity or enthusiasmn for rehabilitation.
More recent work write-ups do irdicate
are now undertaking a higher
level of work,
that some owners
perhaps
in
anticipation of attracting the more stable black middle
class tenantry now moving into the area,
it
appears that in
But generally,
the absence of a prime constiteiency
for "gutsy rehabilitation,"
the BRA has been unable to
achieve the kind of high level work it
typically advocates.
It is interesting to speculate as to the level and cost
of 312 rehabilitation that might have occurred,
and grants been available
Washington Park project.
earlier
in
the life
had loans
of the
Rent Increases
and Relocation
The econom.ics of loan and grant rehabilitation in
Washington Park would not seem to call for substantial
rent increases* Grant rehabilitation presumably entails
no cost increase to either owner or tenant.
312 rehabilitation cost of $2244 per unit
The average
(Table IV)
would yield an average rent increase of $12.50, based on
the standard 312 monthly debt service of $5.55 per '1000.
And since an estimated 105-30" of 312 borrowers in
11
area have been able to refinance existing debt,
this
rent
increase's could be considerably less or even nonexistent for some families.
level of improvement
Similarly,
the minimual
7
undertaken by most 'owners would
not seem to call for tenant dislocation during rehab.
Data on actual rent levels in
difficult
to obtain,
since the
maintain this information.
are developed in
investors
312 buildings
RA is
not required to
Proposed rent schedules
conjunction with the financial report for
only, but the BRA cannot force owners to adhere
to these figures after rehabilitation.
investors
In any event,
constitute only a negligible proportion of Wash-
ington Park's 312 borrowers,
as previously noted.
A reliable measure of tenant displacem-ent
difficult
is
to obtain,
since the official
significantly understate the actual total.
relocate families from buildings
is
also
relocation figures
The. BRA will
under re'abilitation
either
~37
when the extensive nature of the work makes
occupancy unfeasible,
10% is projected,
continued
or when a ront . ine-rease of at least
and the tenant's post-rehab rent -incone
12
ratio would exceed 25,.12 But under the first
condition,
the BRA must be able to verify that such work is
or financing for it
underway
committed; and many tenants undoubtedly
move before this point, especially if needed interim repairs
have been neglected.
Under the second condition, the BRA
must be informed that excessive rent increases will occur
or have occurred.
But since the BRA has no knowledge of
actual rents charged in
312 buildings,
it
stands to reason
that many tenants entitled to assistance might be bypassed
unless they happen to request help on their own.
Thus the BRA's assertion that "there has not been a
rent increase in
excess of 10-
Washington Park" 1
of any official
turn is
based on the absence
relocation due to rent increases--is open
to some question.
claim
-- which in
under the 312 pro gram ,in
An independent effort to verify this
led to some;hat more ambivalent conclusions.
This
was accompli.shed through short telephone interviews with
12 randomly selected 312 loan recipients,
to reveal rental information.
who were willing
8 of the 12 stated that
they had- not increased rents more than 10(, as a result
of rehabilitation,
while 4 stated that they had.
charged by owners in
the latter
Rents
group ranged from $120
to $145 for 2-4 bedroom apartments.
Similarly,
the 15 families who show up on
ashington
Park relocation records as families displiaced by extensive
-lswis
38
312 rehabilitation do not necessarily reflect the total
In
amount of dislocation.
an attempt to gain a broader
view of dislocation, Boston- Police Census records of
residence
and occupancy in
45 312 buildings were checked
While the Census does not
for the years 1966 and 1969..
accurately reflect turnover,
skipped each year,
in
since many families are
the occupational inforination viewed
conjunction with apparent turnover gives some impression
of the extent
by a shift
In
to which rehabilitation has been accompanied
to higher status occupancy.
9 of the 45 buildings checked, both tenant turnover
and significant
occupational
dominant occupational
to rehab were "clerk,"
categories
"at hom;e,"
as compared to "clergy,"
"student" after reliab.
shifts
in
seemed evident.
The
these buildings
prior
and
"hospital worker,"
"social worker,"
"teacer,"
and
The other 36 building's eviden1 ced
either no turnover or turnover within the same general
kinds of occupations.
These findings certainly do not provide conclusive
evidence about the impact of 312 rehabilitation on rent
levels or dislocation.
Nevertheless,
they do suggest
that while the economics of 312 rehab have not imposed significant
costs on tenants,
on the whole,
a minority probably have
been displaced by rent increases beyond their means. The
social conflicts between Washington Park ownersand tenants
and tihe high pre-rehab rent incol::e ratios noted earlier
can
e cited as faictors wh'Lich probably acco.unt for this
tendency.
Future market trends , especially with regard to the
middle income tenantry moving into the area, will determine
whether the cost of 312 rehabilitation to indigenous low
and moderate income tenants will be substantially greater
in
But given the minimal amount of rehab
the long run.
achieved with 312 financing,
it
is
probably safe to pre-
dict a relatively limited demand for these units by higher
income groups in
it
Finally,
the near future.
should be noted that the minimal use
of leased housing in
Washington Park 312 buildings to
date has hardly helped to counteract whatever shift
towards higher income occupancy might be occurring.
Boston Housing Authority leased housing records snhow
13 leased units in
in
the Washiingtorr Park 312 program,
investor-owned buildings.
increase in
Presumably,
all
this total
may
the remaining months of the project under the
new loan priorities; one such loan for an investor is
now being processed.
CHARLEOSTOWN
Use of Loans and Grants
As of April, 1970, 72 grants, 97 312 loans, and 20
loan-and-grant
"comnbos"
had been issued in
Charlestown
(Table III).
Loans and grants represent about one third
of the total
rehabilitatioxi volume in thiis area--roughly
double the Washington Park ratio.
(Table IV)
40
In
contrast,
about 60
have rehabilitated
of the -Charlestown owners who
to date have used private funds,
re-
flecting the accessibility of many owners to "mattress
money."
Much of the work falling
into this
category is
actually done informally by friends and relatives with
which seem almost second nature to
construction skills,
many Charlestown residents.
owners in
Only a small fraction of
this area have used conventional
or 220 loans
for rehabilitation.
After a slow beginning in
loan and grant activity
only to slow down in
in
Charlestown built
the pace of
up in
1968,
1969 because of the national funding
problem noted earlier.
now about 60
1966 and 1967,
completed,
With property surveys in
the area
the Charlestown R1ehabilitation
Chief projects a need for 142 additional loans and 61
more grants by 1972.15
Pop~ulation Served
As in
Washington Park,
Charlestown grant recipients
are predominantly elderly or retired resident owners with
very low incoes.
About one quarter of the grant recipients
have incomes higher than $3000,
qualifying on the basis
of excessive ronthly housing costs.
But only in
two instances
do the incomes of these owners exceed $6000 (see table V).
While the Charlestown 312 program contains the highest
proportion of single family residences,
the rehabilitated structures are 2-
more than half of
and 3-family buildings.
About 80% are owner occupied
(see Table
VI).
The owner
occupant borrowers conform to the Profile of typical
Charlestown residents: many are longshoremen or city
employees with large families and strong roots in
In
terms of age,
Charlestown.
the 312 recipients are on the young side
for the area: an estimated three quarters of the group
are under 45,
and more and miore are in
The average
in
Charlestown
their twenties.
16
income of owner occupant loan recipients
is
$8076 and the median is
t;8260.
one quarter have incoiies higher than :'12,000,
Almost
with an
equal nwber earning less than $6000 (see table v),
these figures would seem to indicate a
On the surface,
similarity in
economic status between the Charlestown and
Washington Park borrowers.
in
terms of race,
age,
However,
and family charactoristics--including
the fact that the family income
derives
tially
the significant differences
in
Charlestown usually
from only one wage earner--suggest
a substan-
greater degree of financial security in
the Charlestown
situation.
An important characteristic
in
Charlestown
is
debt encumbrance
that of relatively low or non-existent
prior to rehab.
inherit property from relatives
cost.
of 312 loan recipients
And until recently,
Many Charlestown owners
or frieids
at little
or no
those who purchased property on
the market were able to benefit from depressed sales prices
and correspondingly low mortgages. 17
One consequence of this rather unique debt situation,
in
level
conjunction with the feature of moderate-to-middle
incomes,
is
that fewer than 2-
loan recipients
of Charlestown's
have been able to refinance existing debt.
18
For example,
in a typical $10,000 rehabilitation situation,
with debt
service on the 312 loan amounting to 855 per month., debt
service on the existing mortgage might be no more than $35.
With a total
monthly debt service of $90,
earn no more than
§450 per month,
or $4800 per year,
(see p.
be eligible for refinancing
an owner could
13).
the incomes of most 312 borrowers in
to
As noted above,
Charlestown are in
a
considerably higher range.
Charlestown's 312 program also includes a number of
investor-owners,
312 buildings
who have rehabilitated about 1/5 of the
The investor group includes
(table VI).
a number of professiolal contractors,
handled a considerable
in the area.
who have thom:selves
amount of 312 rehabilitation work
The affluence of these few operators accounts
for the gross disparity between average and median income
figures for investors (table V).
Charlestown
The non profit
Development Corporation has also rehabilitated
5
properties
under the 312 program.
W1hether the present 312 loan recipients
are those most
in need of rehabilitation subsidies and assistance is, again,
a matter open to debate.
In
chief, most of the homes in
the opinion of the.project rehab
Charlestown would have been
43
demolished or sold in
program.
the absence
On the other hand,
it
of the loan and grant
is
worth noting that under
the new loan regulations, possibly one third of the present
resident-owner
loan recipients would not qualify for
status because
priority
their
incoimies
maximum for families with 5-6 persons.
exceed the $lL,050
Many of the
present recipients might have been able to afford a minimal
level of rehabilitation with their own funds,
and most
con-
of the investors night have financed rehalilitation
ventionally, were it not for the present tight money
situation.
At any rate,
it
seems clear that the Charlestown
loan recipients do not resemble the "bypassed" constituency
receiving 312 assistance
On the other hand,
not more,
in
in
Iashington Park.
some owners wlo may be equally,
if
need of assistance have been excluded from
the benefits of the loan and grant program.
These
include
some owners who could not afford to bring their properties
into code compliance with a grant,
for loans because of low incomes
but who did not .qualify
or poor credit
ratings.
Since HUD has recently begun to allow the use of co-sigiers,
19
the size of this group has probably decreased.' Secondly,
there are owners who cannot accept
debt after years
the idea of assuming
of debt-free or low-debt ownership,
particularly when the cost ofrehabilitation equals or
exceeds the original purchase price of the house.
Even
outright grants have been rejected for simnilar reasons.
In
the world-view of the typical Charlestown
laden
it
which is
owner,
with a good deal of suspicion for the outside world,
simply does not make sense to spend $3000 on a wiring
job when the house was purchased 10 years ago for $2000.20
Coupled with this negativism is
toward the URA,
the legacy of stormy renewal battles which
have apparently left deep wounds.
town rehab staff,
a general resentment
According to the Charles-
at least half the owners will not even
allow the ERA to survey their homes, one of the pre-requisites
21
Finally, some owners are
of rehabilitation assistance.
reluctant to invest money in
their properties
"mtil
the
el coimies down" or the BRA offers other tangible evidence
of commitment to the "New Charlestown.*1"
Rehabilitation Costs
The cost of rehabilitation financed with grants in
Charlestown averages "?3112--reflecting the tendency of
many grant recipients to supplement the grant with private
funds.
Rehabilitation costs under the 312 program average
$7203 for single family structures,
$12,715 for 2-family
structures, and $22,325 for 3-family buildings
(see table VI).
Costs for investor-owned buildings are double those of
resident owned buildings, probably reflecting the fact that
many iivestors are rehabilitating vacant or badly deteriorated
structures.
Not only are Charlestown 312 costs
considerably higher
than Washington Park costs under the same prograu,
also bear little
resemblance
but they
to. the cost estimates in
the
urban renewal plan.
The disparity may be attributed to
several factors, in addition to cost inflation and the
typical "ballpark" nature of rehabilitation
cost estimate
figures.
First,
many Charlestown structures apparently require
substantial work to meet code standards.
Typical code
violations include inadequate electrical service, improperly
vented space heaters, rotted wooden cellar posts, and
dirt
basements
insufficiently impervious
to moisture.
But more important than the nature of the violations
which most 312 recipients have
the manner in
correct them.
23
is
chosen to
While the typical Washington Park borrower
would probably remedy the heating problem with a new pump
for $50,
the Charlestown owner would install
for $1000.
Moreover,
and kitchen in
central heating,
he would provide a modern bathroom
each apartment,
even where existiang fixtures
were basically sound though deficient
of convenience and status.
Thus,
by current standards
Charlestown rehabilitation
specialists estimxate that the following work items and costs
are typical in
a wood frame,
3-
family house:
rewiring and new electric service
basement floor- concretize
basement wooden posts- replace
with concrete-filled columns
windows- replace
central heating
exterior- new siding or painting
new kitchen, including panelling (3)
new 3 piece bath
TOTAL
In
addition,
(3)
$2000
350
100
2000
1000
1000
7500
1500
$18450
about half the owners replace existing roofs.
46
Somle measure of the externt to which 312 loan money
in
Charlestown is
bilitation--i.e.
provided in
being allocated for non-essential reharehabilitation beyond code level--
Table VII.
The table shows cost breakdowns
from 25 random-ily selected work write-ups,
of the total
is
and the percentage
cost represented by non-essential
items
(urban renewal objectives and general property improvements)
in
each case.
Among the items most frequently listed
these categories are kitchen and bathroom fixtures,
in
panelling,
ceramic wall and floor tile,
base and wall cabinets,
garbage
disposals, and landscaping.
On the whole , an average of
27. of the total rehabilitation expenditure represented by
these properties is allocated to non-essential items. Moreover,
since the same or similar items may be categorized
as incipient code violations--given
the general tendency
of rehab specialists to maximize the cost base upon which the
general property imrovement allowance
is
24
calculated--this
measure of above-code level rehab may be considered a
conservative one.
Finally,
it
is
of interest that per unit rehabilitation
costs under the 312 program are more than twice as high as
per unit costs under other types of rehab financing in
area
(table IV).
the
While this surprising cost disparity may
indicate a relatively greater degree of deterioration
in
312 buildings,
it
also suggests that 312 borrowers may
be achieving a higher level of rehabilitation than owners
using private,
conventional,
or FIA funds.
47
Charles town, the middle class aspirations,
Clearly in
and long term neighborhood
1 security,
financ
relative
commitment of 312 borrowers
the level of rehabilitation.
is
influencing
a majOr factor
this case,
In
the liberalized
permitting a wide range of improvements
312 regulations,
and the BRAts "gutsy rehab" policy have
and conveniences,
found a ready-made constituency.
The level of rehabilitation undertaken with 312 money
in
in
Charlestown may well be economically justifiable
the long run for most of the 312 borrowers--although
aware
is
the BRA itself
of some instances
in
which the
large sums invested undoubtedly will never be recouped.
2 5
And obviously the distinction between "essential" and "nonessential" rehabilitation is
cases.
sarily
difficult
to draw in many
simply that higher level rehab neces-
The point is
entails higher costs whichi may have a substantial
iripact on other groups-mriost
rent hi-kes,
an.d in
immediately,
the long run,
on tenants,
on less affluent
through
owners,
through substantially increased tax assessm-ents which they
may not be able to afford.
Rent Increases and Rehabilitation
Based on the average per unit rehabilitation cost of
iv)
$6570 (table
and the standard 312 monthly debt service
of $5.55 per 01:000,
the economics
of 312 rehabilitation in
Charlestown would predict rent increases
per month.
averaging
36.50
Despite the uniquely low rent-income ratios
Charlestown's
tenants,
noted earlier,
of
rent increases of this
magnitude could obviously impose substantial costs on low
and moderate
income occupants.
Since the Charlestown site
office has maintained some
information on proposed rents in
owned buildings,
it
both resident-
and investor-
was possible to subject this presumption
to some empirical verification
(see Table VIII).
In
the
19 owner occupied buildings for which proposed rents
were recorded,
tation and
$36.
In
gross rentals averaged
122 after.
.86 before rehabili-
This reflects an increase of exactly
the 11 investor-owned buildings,
pre-rehab rents
averaged $78, as compared to post-rehab rents of $130.
The increase reflected in this case is $52,
with the higher rehabilitation costs
in
consistent
investor-owned
buildings noted earlier.
While there is
charged,
no available data on actual rents
sources familiar with the Charlestown -arket
indicate that prevailing rents for relabilitated
allow investors to charge slightly
figure suggests.2
economic rents in
buildings
more than the average
Boston Housing Authority estimiates of
the Charlestown rehabilitation market--
used as a basis for calculating leased housing subsidies-range from -145 to $160 for 1 to 3 bedroom apartments.
It
should be noted that thus far,
only 20 units in
8
investor-owned buildings have been leased to the Boston
Housing Authority.2 7 For the most part, 312 rehabilitation
f
419
by investors seems to be aimed at a younger,
market--perhaps
at the trickle
of young Boston professionals
who are beginniing to discover
prime location.
more affluent
the advantages
of Charlestown's
28
On the other hand, it is
widely believed that many
resident owners charge even less than rehabilitation costs
might justify,
in
the interest
of retaining long term
tenants with whoim they have strong social or familial
ties,
In fact, the Charlestown site office finance specialist
indicates
that he has often overstated proz osed rents
"for the record,"
Available
in
order to ensture HUD approval. 2 9
data on tenant displacement
also suggests
a more optimistic picture than the econoimics
of rehabilita-
only five families
30
who have been relocated from 312 buildings--although this
tion might predict.
Official records list
infor-.ation must be interpreted
An analysis
caveats noted earlier.
in
subject to the numerous
of occupancy data
only
the Boston Police Census for 1966 and 1969 reveals
12 out of 83 312 buildings in
These include 6 instances
turnover seen.s significant.
of turnover accompanied
by an occupational
higher status tonantry--e.g.
"student,"
"teacher,"
which the nature of tenant
shift
from "laborer" and "clerk" to
and "attorney."
In
6 other instances,
buildings fully occupied in 1966 were totally
1969,
vacant
in
suggesting a possible association between rehabilita-
tion and displacement.
Of interest, too, is the fact
that 8 of the 12 buildings
in
question were inve.s tor-owned,
i.ncluding several on Bunker Hill and Monument
relatively
suggesting
prestigious neighborhoods.
Square,
two
I
These findings suggest that the unique owner-tenant
relationships
consequences
in
Charlestown m-ay well have mitigated the
owned buildings.
investor-owned buildings have
Tenants in
It should be noted,
probably not fared as well.
that the force of this "social exeription"
guaranteed for future generations
tenants.
There is
turnover in
resident-
of 312 rehabilitation for tenants in
is
though,
hardly
of low and moderate
already some indication that natural
resident-owned buildings may be accompanied
by substantial rent increases. 3
Given the level of
modernization being achieved by 312 loan recipients
both resident- and investor-owned buildings,
of the area's housing resources
families is
income
open to question.
housing program1 can recapture
in
the future
for low and rioderate incom;e
Whether a stepped-up leased
somte of thcse resources- for
continued occupancy by these groups remxains
to be seen.
SOUTH END
Use of Loans and Grants
As of April, 1970, a total of 54 grants, 119 loans,
and 13 loan-and-grant
coibinations had been issued in
the
South End, representing about 37- of all rehabilitation
activity in the area (tables III & IV).
thus play a
larger role in
Loans and grants
the South End than in
At the same
the other two rehabilitation neighborhoods.
tine, conventional loans account for more than 4o
rehabilitation activity in the South Lnd,
either of
in
of the
sharp contrast
to their limited role in
the district
other areas.
The affluence of
's "urbanite" owners undoubtedly accounts
for this unique feature of its
Virtually all
loan distribution.
of the South End's loan and grant
rehabilitation has occurred during the past two years.
Projected needs are for another 319 grants and 2000
loans or loan and grant "coimbos"
by 1975,
the target
date for project completion. 3 2
Population Served
As in- the other two areas,
South End grant recipients
are predominantly elderly or retired resident owners with
incomes
under $3000.
About a fifth
have incomes between
(table V).
$3000 and $6000
About 2/3 of the loan recipients are resident owners,
with incomes averaging nearly
figure suggests
12,000
(table V).
that most are the relatively
The
affluent
white urbanites who have recently moved to the South E/nd,
of the loan recipients have incomes below
About one fifth
$6000,
owners.
and
be catcgorized as more -typical indigenous
ight
Many of these live in
cohesive neighborhoods
in
ethnically or racially
and received their loans very early
One sdch neighborhood with a heavy con-
the program.
centration of 312 loan (and grant) money is
Sussex, whichis
often displayed by the BRA as a "showcase"
of indigenous owner rehabilitation.
representativc
today.
Greenwich-
of the way in
However,
it
wIlich the progra,
is
is
hardly
being used
A
Investor-owners,
who have -received about 1/3 of the
seem to be the prime candidates
South End 312 loans to date,
This group includes
for 312 rehabilitation at present.
who have already made their
a few seasoned operators,
reputations as South End landlords,
and three non profit
rehabilitation contractors,
The average
dividend coriorations.
is
over
some professional
or limited
income of investors
(table V).
-30,000
slightly miore than 1/3 of the loans have
In all,
and the rest to
gone to owners of single family hom:-es,
owners of 2-9 unit buildings.
312 borrowers in
The average incole of all
the South End is
about
16,600.
Apart from the minority of indigenous owners, the
the South End is
312 loan constituency in
relatively little
group, ii
clearly a select
need of rehabilitation subsidies.
The inability of the 312 loan program to extend the benefits
of rehabilitation to those in
is
also most evident here.
due to economic factors is
income
greatest need of assistance
The problem of rehab exclusion
critical:
owners can comprehend,
few low or moderate
let
alone afford,
a $20,000-
$30,000 rehabilitation job on a house they have lived in
for years
(see below).
rehabilitation
TNot infrequently, the required
investment may approach or exceed the cost
of buying a new suburban hoime.
M.oreover,
high rehabilitation
costs m..ay threaten traditional ways of living which owners
are reluctant
to Qhane--e.g.
by requiring a single family
resident owner to rent out apartments
to make ends meet.
The group most system:;atically excluded fro;, 312 rehaassistance are the resident or "nearby absentee"
bilitation.
lodging house owners.
Rehabilitation costs for these owners
are especially prohibitive,
because of the substantial
amount of internal restructuring required to bring the
buildings into code compliance.
the case whether
to be retained for lodging house occupancy
the building is
to apartments,
or converted
This is
since most South End lodging
3
houses occupy a limbo status between the two categories. 3
Administrative regulations further complicate
atters,
since
a lodging house lacking at least one oomplete apartment
is
considered
a "coiinercialI
structure,
. Funds for 312
commercial rehabilitation, non-existent before 1969,
are still
in short supply and difficult
a house with an apartmernt is
312 purposes,
designated a "mixed use" for
requiring the coordination of three separate
bids,
work write-ups,
approval.
to obtain. Moreover,
and processing channels for loan
Not surprisingly,
only one such loan has been
successfully negotiated to date.
Finally,
since lodging
houses by definition contain more than 4 residential units,
even resident lodging house pr6prietors
for grants,
are ineligible
although many could benefit from this added
assistance.34
The ways
in
which BRA policy has operated to reinforce
the selection of loan recipients
dictated by economic and
social forces is readily apparent in the South E nd.
addition to the past practice of first
rehabilitation assistance--which
come,
in
first
served
clearly gave the edge to
the more ambitious and financially capable urbanites-the BRA made a practice of servicing new would-be resident
owners on the more favorable
occupants,
loan terms available to owner
even before they moved into their properties.
There are also unconfirmed allegations that some otrners
were
title
receiving 312 loan assistance
to their properties.
even before acquiring
Finally,
the underlying bias
which these practices seeied to reflect
convinced many
indigenous South End owners that 312 loans were only for
"people with money."
This belief,
in
turn, reinforced
their own lack of rehab enthusiasm and their reluctance
to approach the BRA for assistance.36
Whether the new priorities
will substantially alter
distribution remains
for 312 loan applicants
the pattern of future loan
to be seen.
The site
of these regulations 37
present emphasis on the "flexibility"
suggests that strict
the immediate future.
enforcement is
office staff's
not
More important,
contemplated for
however,
is
the issue
of whether rehabilitation by indigenous
owners is even
feasible with existing financing tools,
given the nature
of rehabilitation required by South End buildings
(see
below).
55
Rehabilitation Costs
The cost of grant rehabilitatio-n
averages $2771.
$8318,
the South End
312 loan rehabilitation costs average
$17,967, $27,364,
4-family buildings,
Charlestown,
in
and $32,904 for 1-, 2-, 3-,
respectively
(see Table VI).
costs are consistently higher in
owned buildings,
and
As in
investor-
many of which were burnt-out shells
prior to rehabilitation.
Actual 312 rehabilitation costs clearly bear no resemblance to the initial
South End r ehabilitation cost estimates.
They are also substantially higher than 312 costs in either
of the other two areas under consideration.
that a totally
occurring in
total
This suggests
different kind of rehabilitation
these buildings,
is
now
which more closely resembles
roconstruction or extensive remodeling than minival
or intermlediate
level rehabilitation.
Several factors have constributed toward the high level
of rehabilitation being accomplished with 312 financing.
First,
the
according to many rehabilitation specialists,
degree of deterioration and obsolescence found in
many
of the 80-100 year old South End buildings calls for replacement fiather tIlan repair.
To bring a typical 3 story brick
row house up to minimal standards of livability
requires replacement of all
plumbing,
major systems,
usually
e.g. electric,
and heating, as well as new windows and a new roof.
Thus a minimum rehab job in
such a structure would probably
entail the following items and costs:
electricityplumbing
basement
windows
heating
roof
rewire C new service
$1700
2500
400
2200
3000
1200
J_14000
TOTAL (basic items)
Boston building code requirements often raise
However,
the cost of basic rehabilitation in the South End. If
rehabilitation costs amount to $50/por more of the total
value, or-if
a legal "change of occupancy" is
required,
the owner must make the pre-code building comply with a
that would not
number of post-code building requirements
38
otherwise be applicable.
an owner might
For instance,
in
waxit to renovate four existing apartments
registered as a single family dwelling.
years,
occupancy.
such
Although the practical
registered
has deviated from the le;ally
usage of the bilding
us0 for
a house last
as a
work would be classified
And because
of this technicality,
change
of
the owner
might be forced to replace existing plaster ceilings in
relatively good condition,
because they are
fire resistive by present code standards. 3
Secondly,
facilitated
of 312 money to urbanite borrowers.
the
by the dispensation
M1any of the more affluent
are using 312 money to convert old lodging
houses for higher income occupancy,
process.
9
South End rehabilitation costs reflect
process of market trarsition
loan recipients
insufficiently
a particularly costly
Even when the most economic approach--that
of
restoration to the building's original
-- is
adopted,
And if
the cost of interior de;olition is
the house is
kitchens,
Moreover,
in
etc.4
0
iany owners
the process of reconstruction
approaching
South End work write-ups
"luxury" rehabilitation.
the
partitions, new
installing
seerti to be achieving a level of iodernization
that in
substantial.
there is
converted into apartments,
added cost of restructuring,
bathrooms,
single family usage
show
addition to modern kitchen and bathroom fixtures,
and wvall panelling,
ceramic tile,
often go in
carpeting,
for dishwashers,
electric heat,
South End 312 borrowers
clothes washers and dryers,
extra closets,
Since these items seei to show up in
wall-to-wall
and new oak flooring.
the work write-ups
as corrections of actual or incipient code violations
just
as often as they are categorized under urban renewal objectives or general property improverents,
in
the cost breakdown
Table VII provides a gross under-estirxate
of above-code
while this confusion of categories
stantial
It
level rehabilitation.
of the extent
should be noted that
part reflects
in
the sub-
deterioration of South End buildings--so that almost
anything can be justified as a
also suggests
the rehab specialists'
"necessary" expenditure--
it
bias toward "gutsy
rehabilitation" which many are free to adnit.
One specialist
even indicated that he might classify a garbage disposal
as.a-necessary expense,
littering
problems.
considering its
function in
correcting
58
In
other ways,
too,
BRA practices have worked to encourage
the high rehabilitation level desired by affluent
South End
surely pushes the limits of permissable
borrowers--which
For exam-ple,
312 rehabilitation.
lodging house conversion,
until recently, was not discouraged; in fact, the availability
of free design service from the DRA may have facilitated
the conversion process in
many inistances.
4
(Recently, HUD
has insisted that applicants for conversion work
obtain
change of occupancy permits and finance the associated preliminary costs on their
assistance.
As in
own,
before applying for 312 loan
)
Charlestown,
it
may be that 312 subsidies are
enabling South End borrowers
to achieve an even higher level
of rehabilitation than owners using conventional,
or 220 financing.
As Table IV indicates,
for 312 rehabilitation
but the differential
as significant as that found in
in
per unit costs
are higher than the per unit costs
for these financing programs,
the differences
private,
Charlestown.
is
not
Once again,
building condition between structures
undergoing 312 as opposed to other kinds of rehabilitation
may be an important factor to consider in
Rent
Increases
this connection.
and Relocation
Based on the average per unit rehabilitation cost of
$85117
(table TV),
the economics of 312 rehabilitation alone
in the South End would call for monthly rent increases as
high as 047.50 per unit.
Since only a fraction of 312 loan
recipients have been able to ref inance existing debt-because of high incomles aid the inapplicability of refinancing
provisions to investor-owners--
chance of
little
there is
Increases of
reduced monthly costs on this account.
this magnitude would obviously impose substantial costs
on indigenous low and moderate income South End tenants.
MUoreover,
in
view of the kind of rehabilitation being
financed with 312 funds,
emphasizing conversion,
degree of dislocation appears
stantial
all
but inevitable.
Some confirmation of this presumption is
provided by
11 312 buildings,
an analysis of proposed rents in
some 48 dwelling units,
a sub-
for which the South End site
has recorded such information (see table ViII).
containing
office
All of
While the absence of
the buildings are investor owned.
comparable information for res id ent-owned st-uctures is
unfortunate,
it
should be noted that investor-owned buildings
accounted for m13ost of the rental units p;rovided by 312
rehabilitation in
Moreover,
the South End.
since most of
the resident owners providing rental units are also affluent
urbanites
undertaking essentially the same kind of rehabili-
tation as the investors--although at somewhat lower cost-rent levels in
both kinds of buildings are likely to be similar.
According to the analysis,
proposed gross monthly rents
after rehabilitation average $160.
11 buildings,
containing a total
Moreover,
of 7 units,
are known to be $25-8 30 higher than the
in
2 of the
actual rents
proposed levels.
60
That prevailing rents for rehabilitated units are indeed
well up into this range is
indicated by the Boston Housing
Authority s maximum leased housing rents for the area, which
$160, and 1 180 for 1-3 BR apartments.
are $130,
be noted that so far,
the BTA in
It
only 30 units have been leased to
conjunction with 312 rehabilitation,
all
profit or limited-dividend soonsored buildings.
owners are reportedly in
ments in
should
in
non-
A few
negotiating commit-
the process o'
but some
line with the new loan priorities,
have apparently dem-anded higher rents than what the EiHA
is
willing to pay.
information also supports the prediction
Available
causing considerable dislocation.
that 312 rehabilitation is
Official records show only 17 families in
who have
0een relocated due
but the general
this number is
8 312 buildings
to extensive rehabilitation,
feeling amiong relocation staff
conservative
On the other hand,
is
that
for reasons already noted. 4
5
Boston Police Census data for 312
buildings rehabilitated between 1966 and 1969 present
an entirely different picture.
Of the 64 buildings for
26 evidenced the
which occupancy records were analyzed,
kind of occupancy shift
which might be associated with
rehabilitation for higher income levels.
26 buildings,
nificant shift
pational listings
"retired," "C.t
to rehab,
Tn 14 of the
tenant turnover was acconpanied by a sigin
occupational
status; the dominant occu-
for these buildings
clanged from
home, " "factory worker,"
to "secretary,"
"student,"
and "clerk" prior
"teacher,"
and "attor-
ney" after rehab,
Judging from recorded birth-years,
many
of the pre-rehab residents of these buildings seered to
be elderly,
suggesting that the buildings were probably
lodging houses.
fully
In
occupied in
the other 12 instances,
1966 were totally
buildings
vacant in
1969.
9
of' these also ap-peared to be lodging houses with multiple
occupancy by elderly and retired
is
persons.
Of interest,
too,
the fact that 14 of the 26 buildings evidencing "significant"
displacem-.ent have been rehabilitated by resident owners,
according to
IBRA records.
This provides soLe support for
the previous suggestion that both resident-
and investor
owners are rehabilitating for higher status or higher income
occupancy.
These findings obviously do not offer proof of a
direct relationship between displacement
tation in
every case.
It
is
possible
and rehab ili-
that some buildings
became vacant with increased deterioration and were then
sold to owners desiring to rehabilitate
But by the same token,
with 312 funds.
the deterioration process may have
been hastened by the previous owner's awareness
resale and rehabilitation iarket,
any case,
the impression yielded by both available
rental aid displacement information is
are facilitating,
ipoT)se
part to the
of 312 funds for urbanite rehabilitation.
availability
In
due in
of a ready
if
not reinforcing,
that 312 subsidies
rnarket trends which
substantial economic anid social. costs on indigenous
South E'nd tenants.
That South End tenant groups are fully
62
aware of this trend is evident from the recent "squatting"
action which occurred in a 312 building on Yarrmouth Street.
IV
The Quality of Rehabilitation Assistance Provided
For those owners who have received rehabilitation
bans or grants,
provided is
program's
the quality of rehabilitation assistance
an important consideration in
impact.
In particular,
measuring the
to what extent have loan
and grant recipients actually benefitted from the added
component of direct government
involve,]ent
in
phases of the rehabilitation process--i.e.,
processing,
work write-ups,
A further question concerns
various
application
and quality and cost control?
the way in
which the benefits
of these services have been distributed among various
recipient groups.
Since the m:ost significant contrasts
these issues have occurred within,
rehabilitation neighborhoods,
in
relation to
rather than between,
the
the frameworlk of examination
here will be a general one with areal differences noted as
appropriate.
based is
The inform~ation upon which this analysis is
largely impressionistic,
with loan and grant recipients,
gained through interviews
other area residents,
and
ERA staff.
Application Processing
A major problem associated with the quality of assistance
provided to loan recipients., more so than grant recipients,
is
the amount of time required to serv-ice and process
a
request for rehabilitation aid.
circumstances,
the time elapsing between the initial
property survey and the
three months.
weeks in
and final
about
This minimum schedule assumes about six
(property survey,
the "rehab stage,"
work write-up,
review,
order is
"proceed to work"
followed by two weeks in
lien
Uxder the most favorable
title
bid advertisements,
preliminary
and biddirg),
"finance" (credit and municipal
search,
preparation of mortgage documents)
and one month for IIUD approval.
While this timetable has been considerably abridged
over the life
of the progran,
compares unfavorably
it-still
with the usual processing schedule for a
loan.
2
Mloreover,
at any stage,
conventional bank
a variety of delaying factors may arise
so that the
typical processing schedule
is
actually closer to 6 months than 3 months.
In
the rehab stage,
for ins tan ce,
work write-ups and/or re-bid work is
the need to re-write
common.
Work write-
ups may have to be re-written for a number of reasons,
the owner may change his mind,
e.g.,
the Building Department's
ruling on work required for a change of occupancy may differ
from the rehab specialist's
over-estimate
problem,
the owner's financial
which was critical
when there was little
finance functions,
years.
assumptions,
in
or the BRA may
capacity.
The-latter
the early years of the program
coordination between the rehab and
has been alleviated considerably in
recent
The need to re-bid work usually arises when the
initial
the
rotnd of bids are substantially
specialist's
estilate.
out of line with
Additionally,
the ERA often
blames owners who are slow to respond to initial
offers
of rehabilitation assistance for delays at this stage-but such problems may well result from insufficient
follow-through by the rehab specialist.
At the finance stage,
many of the factors which
operate to disqualify some lower income applicants
from
getting loans work to delay the applications of others.
Poor title
records and outstanding municipal liens are
the primary problems in
this regard.
Secondly,
reference checks can be time consuilng,
if
credit
particularly
the owner does not readily reveal information.
For
an applicant with a dubious credit rating, a co-signer's
references iust in
past insistence
turn be
checked.
on updating credit
Finally,
iD's
liform ation after
three months often prolonged the application process
more,
even
but this problem has been somewhat abated by the
recent extension of this limitation to six months. It
Problems in
the HUD-approval stage relate
primarily
to red tape and backlogs, and to the need for checking and
rechecking information with the local agency.
Additionally,
Boston's Area Rehabilitation Loan Specialist has a reputation for exacting review;
returned to the site
figurativOly
thus applications are often
office for i-dotting and t-crossing,
speaking.
Obviously,
for "problei' cases" -- eg.
poor credit risks
or owners uidertaking complex rehabilitation
work--the
processing timetable may well be longer than 6 months.
And at the end of the processing period,
of loan funds is
never guaranteed,
the availability
as some owners discovered
in the Spring of 1969 (see p. 14).
Work Write-Ups
A second iajor problem. area concerns
the quality of
technical assistance provided by the ThRA in
work write-ups
and cost estimates,
Difficulties in
in
developing
this regard seem to arise most often
connec-tion with owners who want to do less rehabilitation
work than the BRA deems advisable .
attributes such conflicts
While the BRA often
to the owner's failure to compre-
hend tlhe need to meet basic
Lealth and safety requirements,
owners frequently accuse the BRA of trying to imose alien
middle class standards and costs
on their more modest style
of living.
There is
issue,
undoubtedly some truth on either side of this
with the balance varying in
For instance,
each individual situation.
while the requiremtent for concretizing basement
Charles-
floors might seem superfluous--understandably--to
town owners who never use their basements,
this work is
probably essential for rat-proofing protection.
other hand,
spocialist's
there have been situations in
"suburban"I
But on the
which the rehab
housing standards have led
to a
67
judgment that a particular work item iis necessary which is,
to say the least,
case,
for exar.ple,
This may have been the
questionable.6
with regard to a particular South End
ownter who was forced to spend most of her grant m.oney on
the job had been unnecessary.
7
the BRA's general
Mforeover,
emphasis on high-level rehabilitation reinforces
hood of such conflicts--particularly
as some have in
the likelibelieve,
specialists
if
that their performance
the past,
that
by another specialist
rewiring only to be told later
is
being
rated according to the dollar value of rehabilitation they
are able to sell.8
Finally,
attribute
some critics
to the inefficiency and incomi-petence
these problems as much
of particular reiab
specialists as to value conflicts between the B1RA and lower
or working class homeowners .
tion specialist
job qualifications include a "thorough
knowledge of the materials,
in
rolabilita-
While the official
building construction,"
iethods,
as well as
used
and techniques
"the ability
to
establish and maintain effective working relationships with
property owners and the general public,"
alleged that the primary job requisite in
"knowing someone."
problem in
in
it
is
widely
practice is
While competence may not be a major
this regard,
a system which relies
it
cannot be totally
discounted
so heavily on the skills
and
discretion of -particular individuals.
Oualitv and Cost Control
The most comon sources of dissatisfaction on the part
of loan and grant recipients relate to the quality of rehabili-
tation work done and the prices charged to pay for it.
fail
Charges that contractors
to
work write-up
kmet
display poor workl;anship,
specifications,
or simply walk off
the job before completion are widespread in all three areas.
One rehabilitation specialist
in
Charlestown estimated that
about half the owners had complaints
of this nature.
The feeling that prices are out of line,
to work perforlance,
also appears
especially relative
to be prevalent.
Complaints about work quality and cost have been common
kinds of rehabilitation in
to all
(see p.
5).
The issue here is
the added feature
as noted earlier
the past,
whether and to what extent
the rehabilita-
of public intervention in
tion process has operated to reinforce or mitigate the
impact of these problel>s on owners
u
rehabilitation.
With regard to usatisfactory rehabilitation work, the
basic sources of the problem: apiear to lie
outside
As noted earlier,
and grant program per se.
the loan
reliable
mad
skilled general rehabilitation contractors are scarce, and
even good contractors operating on a shoestring easily
becon:e over-extended due to the unpredictability of rehabilitation
work,
Moreover,
the rate of 1c
with construction costs now escalating at
10
,
the incentive
per month,
or substitute cheaper items is
whose primary objective
Under the circumstances,
is
to cut corners
strong even for contractors
not strict
profit
maximization.
unsophisticated owners are easily
69
put at a disadvantage.
On the other hand,
certain aspects of the loan and
grant program may work to reinforce these problems.
unpredictable
The
timiespan between bidding date and job
on a 312 loan narrows the field of interested bidders
start
and enhances
the likelihood of corner-cut.ting due to
over-extension.
11
cessed smoothly,
And even where applications are probureaucratic delays in
meeting progress
payment. requests may have the same effect.12 Additionally,
the ambiguous work write-ups prepared by some rehab specialists
may provide opportunities for the use of inferior materials.
specialists overlook items,
On occassion,
too.
closet doors,
which must later
such as
be paid for out of conltin-
gency funds or t:he owner 's pock1,et.
Most important,
though,
is
the failure of the ER A to
act more forcefully to ensure the adequacy of rehab work.
Technically,
whose role is
the
a neutral adm.inistrator,
MRA considers itself
to conciliate owner-contractor
conflicts
rather than to advocate the owner's point of view as much
as possible.
the BRA is
meet official
Thus,
with regard to contractor selection,
of contractors who
content to furnish a list
insurance
requirements,
tion about the quality of their work.
level of work supervision which is
without any informaSecondly,
the
actually accomplished
by many owners to be superficial and ineffective,
is
felt
in
terms of thi)e frequency and nature
of inispecotions. 15
70
To be sure,
this probleI has to do with manpow.er shortages
and the overwheling amount of paperwork which consumes
much of the specialist's
time.
But the priorities
which
work schedule also reflect the
determine the specialist's
underlying posture of passivity which se ems to be the rule
with regard to
quality control in
loan and grant rehabili-
tation.
Of course,
contractors who prove consistently trouble-
somue are removed from the "approved"
and the BRA does support owners in
problems
But it
cone to its
is
list--after
contractor
the fact-disputes when
attention and circumstances warrant.
th:e more sophisticated or affluent
owner who
knows enough about rehabilitation and contractors
from this kind of service;
finds that ouners in
and seek assistace.
and not surprisingly,
this group are m.ost likely
16
The
to benefit
the BRA
to complain
same level of service does not
Meet the needs of lower income or less sonhbisticated
owners,
particularly the elderly grant recipients--who
iay not even re.alize that the specified kind of stove was
not installed or that verbal agreements with the contractor
are not enforceable.
And to an owner unfamiliar with
the names on the PIRA's "approved" list,
directory is equally as useful.
the telephone
iinally,
owners
in
this group often regard the BRA as an enemy rather than
an ally and may be hesitant to complain about
work quality.17
In effect,
the BRA's failure to pZlaxy a more active and
supporting role in
this regard has worked to.reinforce
the differential distribution of rehab benefits that
is
likely to exist in
Moreover,
the abseiice
of public intervention.
there are indications that the BRA has
pursued its own interest in
achieving rehabilitation volume
at the expense of quality rehab on more than one occasion, by supporting contractors when the work was less
than adequate.
In one rather notorious South End case,
a low income owner was reportedly "pressuredll into
signing payment releases
two different
held a list
to a contractor who had used
color floor tiles,
while the BRA still
of unfinished items.
town episode,
In
a similar Charles-
the owners described themselves as being
under continuous pr essure to "settle,"
despite the
fact that the contractor had installed a brand of sink
and dishwasher different from that specified in
write-up.
In
this instance,
and knowledgeable,
the owners,
the work
who were articulate
held out for what they wanted; but they
expressed the opinion that less experienced owners in
position might well have been persuaded to settle
their
for
poor workmanship.
It is
of some interest that at least two reports on
loan and grant programs elsewhere
support these general findings.
study on rehabilitation
in
in
the country tend to
A General AccQunting Office
urban renewal areas,
covering
mail,
primar:Lly loan and
'rant
inancing,
found considerable
fault with the limited public supervisory role.
More
than three-quarters of the rehabilitated properties
inspected by thie GAO on a sample basis were found to
be in
violation of the required FRS standards,
their approval by local LPA's and,
HUD regional office.
20
in
despite
some cases,
by the
Secondly, a survey of loan
and grant rehabilitation by the Haddington Leadership
Organization,
considerable
area,
a Philadelphia conununity organization v/ith
involvement
in
the renewal program for its
uncovered widespread dissatisfaction on the part.
of owners with the quality of rehabilitation work.21
HLO staff
has cited "the contractor
duplicity,"
t
s penchant for
particularly with regard to less sophis-
ticated loan and grant recipients,
redevelopmen1t
authority's
the contractors"
Finally,
and the local
"overprotedtive
attitude toward
as the major sources of the problem.
2 2
many of the factors which contribute to
the unsatisfactory quality of rehabilitation work --e.g.
unpredictability of processing time and payment schedules,
and the limited number of participating contractors--may
also result in higher prices being charged for loan and
grant rehabilitation.
of this contention is
While concrete evidence in
lacking,
at least one case is
where 312 rehab bids were far in
same work financed privately.
support
In
excess
known
of the cost of the
this instance,
312 con-
73
tractors demnanded $10,000 and $18,000 for work which
was eventually done privately for $.5000.23
Whether cost inflation,
to the extent that it
actually allows loan and grant contractors
profits with government financing is
speculation.
is
an-efficient
40,
to iake higher
a matter open to
The profitability of loan and grant work
presumed to vary widely;
much as
exists,
according to one estimate,
contractor with low overhead might make as
on a predictable
on an unpredictable
job,
and close to nothing
one.
Finally, there are the usual allegations and suspicions of collusion between the BRA and contractors,
in
connection with "revolving" bidding patterns which seem
to give a particular contractor the low bid and another
the high bid at regular intervals.
In
any event,
the
public role in
cost control seevs,
and,
somiewhat detrimental to the homeowner 's
at worst,
at best,
ineffective,
interest.
In
this connection,
the interest expressed by a
number of loan recipients,
particularly in
Charlestown,
to act as general contractors for their own rehabilitation
work should be noted.
The primary incentive
is
to cut costs
by eliminating the general contractor's profit.
In practice,
while the proposal would seem to have some merit for owners
skilled in
construction work,
it
is
for an owner to be hired even as a
own btlilding.
subcontractor
on occasion succeed
Investors
their own corporate
extremely difficult
entities
in
on his
hiring
as general contractors,
or
74
vice-versa;
but strict
for general contractors
local insurance requirer.,ents
undertaking loan or grant
rehabilitation seem to effectively preclude small
resident owners from this opportunity. 2 5
V
Summary and Conclusion
The analysis of loan and grant rehabilitation
has shIovmI that the program is
strongly
the polititcal-administrativo ,
sOeial,
texts in
market
which it
influenced by
and housing
operates.
ings of the three case studies
The inajor find-
and the conclusions
which can be drawn from them are sununarized bel ow.
First,
the loan and grant program has not been
widely used,
in
relation to private and conventional
forms of rehnbilitation financing.
in
part
,
the relative affluence
taking rehab iitat
it
also suggests
of those in
ion in
While tiis
of most ownc.rs
reflects,
under-
urban renewal nie ighbo rho ods,
that the program has not reaced miany
greatest need of rehabilitation assistance.
The fact that loans and grants have financed the highest
proportion of total
area rehabilitation voltune in
South End, where the program is
constituency,
the
serving an exclusive
merely emphasizes the lack of correlatioin
between loan and grant volume and need.
The analysis
of owners receiving assistance shows
that onily the grant program has consistently extended
the benefits of rehabilitation to a group clearly in
need of rehabilitation subsidies.
The population served
76
by the progr'am,
however,
has boen severely
restricted
by the cost and income limitations attached to grant funds.
312 loans,
on the other hand,
have come
closest
to reach-
ing a
truly "needy" constituency only in
Park,
where late timing, rather than deliberate effort,
has been the key factor influencing this
town loan recipients,
Washington
outcome.
though far from affluent,
Charles-
are a
group with considerable rehabilitation ambitions who
have used 312 money primarily to extend the level of
rehabilitation which they might otherwise have tmdertaken.
And in
the South End,
the loan program has served largely
a sophisticated and affluent group,
benefitted
traditionally
whose members have
from rehabilitation.
Within the bounds established by federal laws and
regujations,
the popul ation served by 312 loans largely
reflects the economo and social forces
each rehabilitation area.
Thus in
prevailing in
the South End,
the
high rehab costs associated with severely deteriorated
bui-ldings,
the opportunities presented by a changing market,
and the presence of owners with the capacity and desire
to take advantage of these trends have conbined to produce an exzclusivC
constituency.
In
Charlestown,
tions for social status and conavenience,
aspira-
as well as the
existence of market factors permitting the desired level
of rehab,
the fore,
have pushed an ambitious
And in
ashington Park,
group of owners to
the forces which led
77
and affluent owners to rehabilitate
more abitious
other forms of financing. early in
under
the program by default
to receive 312
also produced the constituency which was left
loans.
Con-versely,
the loan program--and the grant program,
to overcome
extent-has failed
to a lesser
many of the
ecoromic anId social factors traditionally excluding low
and modorate
tation.
income
istaice
Some owners for ihom grant a
cannot afford 312 loans.
quate still
of rehabili-
owners fro;m the benefit
the BRA or reluctance
inade-
is
Antagonism toward
to change traditional
life
styles
Especially
have prevenited others from obtaining assistance.
in
the South End,
312 loans have failed to mitigate the
rehab problems of large groups,
o'wMners.
In
fact,
the difficulties
i.e.
the lodging house
of rehabilitation for
this group may even have been reinforced by the administrative complexities involved in
312 lodging house rehabilitation.
Finally, the constituency selection dictated by
ecoomic and social factors has been rireforced by the
BRA's policy of first-come,
assistance and by its
in
Washington Park,
constituency,
first-served rehabilitation
advocacy of ",gutsy rehab."
where there was little
Only
choice of
has the BRA been forced to settle
for a
less ambitious and resourceful group of loan recipients.
78Ow
With regard
to rehabilitation
ments of the grant progar
has been surpris ingly high in
other hand,
of work rec uired to bring old buildings
in
comp:-lance, espcially
occupancy"' arle
irportant
high
nowever,
being undertaken with 312 financing.
m;any South End buildings,
ization approaches
reconstruction.
of
"changes
the level of rehabilitation well beyond
code standards which is
in
into basic code
the South End where
Equall
inolved
costs also reflect
fact,
two of the
This indicates, first, the substantial amount
three areas
vant in
on the
The cost of 312 loan rehabilitation,
expense.
In
A;
, m-;ini
which can be mae liabl
loas t some builings
avt
ro ar
ha
sugst
ieve-
thea
0ot,
the level of modern-
luxury rohabilitation and/or total
While building conditions are also rele-
this regard,
the economiic capacities and social
aspirations of owners doing the work are also a
critical
factor.
Once again,
the BR.1A's emrphasis
on "gutsy rehab" has
operated to reinforce these tendencies wherever
Only in
Washington Park,
feasible.
where neither the housing market
context nor the economic and social situations of 312
borrowers
favored high cost rehabilitation,
was it
possible
to keep the level and cost of rehab work to a minimum.
The level and cost of rehabilitation being achieved
with loans antd grants has important economic and social
consequence
the tIree
in
for low andi moderate income tenants livng
n eighbor h od,s
On
the one hand,
it
seems
probable
79
that the fully subsidized,
miniu-level
rehabilitation
finIced by 115 grants has not iriposed costs
on existing
tenants' (to the limited extent that grants' have been used
in
ten anL-ccupied bcildings )
bilitation
in
Similarly,
312 loan reha-
Washing~on Park probably has not excluded
most indigenous tonaits from the benefits of rehabilitation
-- although social conflicts between owners and tenants
may have led to rehab exclusion in
Charlestown,
cost
on the other hand,
somIe cSase
the econom
of high-
312 rehabilitation has probaly s inificantd
the supply of low and mUoderate rent housing,
in
In
investor-owned buildirigs . And wile
tenant relatior
uniquo own
ships may have mitigated the consequences
of rehab temporarily for tenants in
buildings,
at least
resident-owned
the long run impact on the area s low and
moderate income hotsing supply coutld be substantial,
Fiinally,
i
extert furhered
tating
the South End 312
the econom
overs ion of low and
resources for
iddle
ILoan
have to s;orme
and social forces facili-oderate incoe ho us ng
and upper income use
To this degree,
the programa has operated to impose substantial costs on
the area's low aid moderate
:incomej
tenants,
the minimal use of leased housing in
rehabilitation has done little
Thuis far,
conjunction with 312
to counteract these trends.
The higher level rehab norm established by the
majority of 312 owners -- as well as by owners using other
forr-s of rehabilitation financing--may ultimnately impose
80
costs on lower income owner occupants as well.
This
could occur througji a corresponding increase in
assessed
owners from
values and taxes which could drive existing
the area as surely as displac ement.
Finally,
loan andl grant recipil;hich
the extent to
ents have benefitted from the sjpecial nature of public
interve nti on in
vralue
by sliow application procssing,
with work
procoss has been linited
the rehabilitationi
and
write-ups,
the superficial
in fact,
and quality control.
conflicts associated
certain features
program may operate to intensify problems
associated with rehabilitation,
to the cost and quality of work.
grant r ecipien tI
tribited
in
favor
have
of
level
cost
of the
typically
particularly in
regard
The benefits to loJan and
also been somwha
unevenly dais-
of the more affiuent and sopistiated
of the owaers receiving assistance--largly
because
of
the BRA's pattern of overselling and undersrvicing.
Ditermeg
of the basic assumption underlying Boston 's
neighborhood renewal
strategy--that rehabilitation would
serve and benefit existing,
area residents--the
largely low; and moderate income,
loan and grant experience
gap between promise and real:ity.
indicates the
Original assumptions
about minimal rehabilitation and the widespread availability
and use of liberal financing aids have not been validated
in
practice,
at least in two of the three rehabilitation
81
This- largely reflects the failure of
neighborhoods.
original plans to take into account the various housing
arid political-administrative
market,
social,
work in
these areas--some
forces at
of which were perhaps unknown
at the time.
the very program designed
As a result of these forces,
to maximize rehabilitation benefits for those most likely
served this purpose
to be threatened by rehab exclusion has
only to a limiited extent.
Instead,
the program has worked
the depletion of low and moderate income
to facilitate
housing resources,
both in
the South End,
Charlestown,, in
run, and in
the long run.
in
the short
And it
seems-
reasonable to suggest that the extent to which the loan
and grant program has failed in
this regard reflects
of the entire rehabilitation
on the ability
rather critically
program to make good on its
initial
assumptions,
Ilications
The analysis has stressed that the forces shaping
the
ipact
of the loan and grant program--and particularly
the distribution of rehabilitat;ion
resulting from its
itself.
use-are
costs
far broader
economic and social changes.
than the program
that the program
This does not imply, however,
should be ignored or abandoned in
and benefits
the absence of more basic
For the imiediate future ,
it
suggests the need for program re-orientation so that the
forces which exclude low and moderate
the benefit;
inco:e g;roups from
uti.ted, can be
of improved hous:ig
rather
than reinforced,
to tie greatest possible extent,
within the limits
of
federal
existing
goverring the loan and grant program,
of ways
in
which this
and regulations
there are a number
Somc of
can be done locally,
these deserve brief mention here,
list
laws
of proposed changes
is
Even
although the following
by no means exhaustive and
deals with only a few of the issues raised by this study.
The point is
merely to suggest a general future direction
with the program in
groups in
Boston might take,
or which community
renewal neighborhoods might begin to organize
around.
The BRA has already taken the first
step, by assignincome omners and
ing priority status to low and moderate
to
investors comitd
This
to the use of some leased housing.
should be s treng{thened by~maingl?~
of loan funds
to any
of leasod hosing,.
investor
and by
the disensationI
conditional
upon the use
of
0roportion
incr0eas ing t
leased units required to at Ieast 2/3.
While
this proposal
would conflict with present Poston Housing Authority regulations limiting the proportion of leased units to 1/3
in
small buildings,
special allowances
be made for 312 rehabilitation.
could certainly
Given the housing problems
facing low and moderate income residents
neighborhoods,
there
is
little
justification
in
renewal
for the use
of 312 funds to subsidize any rehabilitation for middle
and npper inc ome groups.
83
Secondlyy there shouId be local
controls on the
level of rehabilitation which can.be achieved by either
n vCstor-oGners
or
resdontre hab:iitatio
in
conj unction with 312
This might be accomplished through local
n
which are more stringent
cost or work liitations
ens.
those pi-ovid ed by federal regulat io
than
Restrictions
of this n2ature would preclude imore affluent residentowners from doing the kind of rehabilitation which irmposes
substantial costs on low income tenants and would also
keep investors within the range of roasonable leased
Alternatively,
housing subsidlies.
or perhaps
addi tionally,
a system of rent controls similar to those applying
to other federally-subsidized
buildings might be established.
Authority for local control over rehab levels and rents
in
312 buildings might be found in
the previously noted
federal limitation on above-code lvol rehabilitation
and rent increases beyond the means of area residents
On the issue of cost and quality control,
it
(p.13).
should
be poKssible to establish community arbitrat.ioni boards
with binding authority, to resolve owner-contractor
owner-BRA disputes.
est ablished. in
of its
A system of this sort has been
Philadelphia,
mandate is
area residents in
or
although the exact nature
at this point unclear.
In
addition,
at loast one Philadelphia rehabilitation
neighborhood have instituted
a community inspection system
in order to certify the work of contractors and approve
them for comununity use--another reform which app.ears useful
8
in- terms of aiding less experienced
owners.
Finally, with regard to the issue of arssive
advocacy of the interests of low and moderate income residents,
the possibility of contracting the entire loan
and grant operation to a connaunity organization representing
such groups should be considered.
The mistrust and resent-
mient toward the BRA which many indigenous residents have
accumulated over the -years is
extensive use of the progrwa
loan and grant cxperience
a strong barrier to more
by these owners.
And the
to date has not subs tantially
disproved the charge of bias of which the agency has
Control by such a community group
long been accused.
would facilitate
the -adoption and s t rict
of the policies listed
above,
some of which run counter
to the BRAi's entrenched value system,
probable that a total
shift
enforcement
in
In fact,
it
is
program orientation will
never be accomplished short of such a radical change in
program control as the shift
to conumunity sponsorship
implies.
On the other hand,
point of view,
from a community organization4
the benefits
of assuming responsibility for
loan and grant administration would have to be weighed
carefully against the costs.
The likelihood that conmnunity
control might substantially alter
tie
existing distribution
of costs and benefits resulting from loan and grant rehabilitation,
in
terms
of population served and costs achieved
could vary considerably from area to area,
End, for example,
In the South
the high. cost of code compliance -regard-
less of who undertakes
it--could be a
serious liability
85
for a group advocating the interests of low income
residents.
On the other hand,
organization in
control by this kind of
an area with somewhat more favorable
economic and social conditions,
might be a worthwhile
effort.
such as Charlestown,
86
APPETNDIX
Table I
Rehabilitation Loans and Grant s :
COunulative Data, By Calendar Year
Section 312 Loans
Cumulative as of:
Number of Loans
Amount (000)
DU's
1965
13
6o
13
Dec. 31, 1966
Dec. 31, 1967
Dec. 31, 1968
649
3,190
14,142
38,220
916
4,196
11,131
Dec.
31,
2,666
6,563
Section 115 Grants
Cumuilative as of :
Dec. 31, 1965
Dec. 31, 1966
Dec. 31, 1967
Dec. 31, 1968
March, 1969
Source:
Number of Grants
9
1,999
4,514
8,617
10 ,074
Aount
(000)
12
2,784
6,263
13,860
17,684
"Progr;ess Report on Federal Housing aid Urban
Developrment Prog rais,"
U.S. Senate Cornittee
on 3anking and Currency, Subcommittee on
Housing and Urban Affairs, Sept. 1969,
p. 114, 115, 124.
87
Table II
Original Rehabil itation Cost Estimates
for Washington Park, Charles town, South End
(per structure)
Washington Park
No. of Units
Bldg.
Cond.
in
Structure
4
3 _
1
$
462
$
690
$
5+
270
A (Good)
$ 272
B (Fair)
1200
1330
2640
890
c (Poor)
2460
31407
5142
2000
Charles town
$ 350
$
450
$
550
700
1300
1650
1700
2150
3050
South End
625
$ 500
$ 3000
2225
900
975
800
3700
2800
1535
1610
1428
6085
3525
$ 450
$
Source: Boston Redevelopment Authority, "Application
for Loan and Grant, Part I: Final Project
Reports," Washington Park; Charlestown; South
End; R-221.
88
Table
III
Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Activity,
by Project and Calendar Year
WASHINGTON PARK
Year
Grants
1966
1967
1968
1969
23
12
12
7
Loans
Loan-Grant
"Combos"
28
26
21
7
1970 (Iarch)
82
TOTAL
18
CHARLESTOWIN
Year
Grants
1966
1968
(April)
TOTAL
SOUTH
7
15
35
13
20
72
TND
Grants
Loans
1966
1967
1968
1969
22
29
52
49
10
119
TOTAL
"tCombos"11
15
36
19
Year
1970
Loan-Grant
18
1967
1969
1970
Loans
Loan-Grant
"Combos"
8
(April)
13
Source: Compiled from Boston Redevelopment Authority,
Monthly "Summary of Rehabilitation Progress,"
for Washington Park, Charlestowrn, South End.
89
Table IV
Rehabilitation Volume and Cost Under
Various Finan-cing Programs , by Project
Area
Financing
Structures
Rehabbe d
Rehab
Cost(ooo)
Cost
Per DU
101
284
$ 101
$ 1001
637
2244
1338
314
1609
743
1392
586
1040
1866
6124
2799
4389
$14,549
214
95
$ 173
1406
$ 1819
6570
616
27
1916
90
3110
40
76
1898
$ 146
$ 1857
DU's
Rehabbed
WASHINGTON PARK
115 grants
312 loans &
combos
private
conventional
221 d3
220 & VA
TOTAL
54
99
15%
451
45%
114
100
183
1001
11%
10
18%
9753
2080
CHARLESTOWN
115 grants
312 loans &
combos
private
conventional
221 d3
220 & VA
65
112
TOTAL
536
322
16
60%
21
4
3%
3347
992
SOUTH END
115 grants
312 loans &
combos
private
conventional
221 d3
220 & VA
TOTAL
54
124
37%
28
196
50
20
42%
11%
472
6%
4%
79
273
75
611
271
56
1365
2333
493
4450
3187
280
$10, 889
Source: Compiled from Boston Redevelopment Authority
"Summary of Thabilitation
Progress," monthly
reports dated January 31, 1970.
8547
6584
7282
11760
4995
90
Table V
Annual Incomes of Loan and Grant
Recipients, by Project Area
Grant Rcipients
Less than
$3000
$3000-
6000
Over
$60oo
-N.A. -
W.P.
50
C.
S.E.
2
1
14
10
39
Total
Avg.
66
$2604
,50
$2832
Median
$2364
t2316
Loan Recipients
WASIMNGTON PARK
Less than
$6000
$6000-
12, 000
A.----- N.
--- N.
A.--44
22
owner-occ.
investor
TOTAL
Median
Over
Total
$12,000
87
$8356 $9096
CHARLESTOWN
Less than
w.26ooo
owner-occ.
investor
TOTAL
27
2
29
$6ooo-
Over
Total
AIvc.
Median
-2.220.
58
28
113
14
61
9
37
3
127
38260
50,244 16,428
8844
13, 800
T8076
SOUTH END
Less than
$6000
owner-occ.
investor
TOTAL
Source:
I/i
18
2
20
$6000812,00
3 00
30
5
35
Over
$12
?
. 00
40
23
63
Total
88
30
118
v
Median
$11,952 $10,074
21,600
30,228
16,596
12,396
Compiled from BRA Site Office summary records.
Table VI
Actual Rehabilitat ion Costs Under
115 Grants & 312 Loans, By Project
Area
(per structure)
115 Grants
Number Issued,
by Structure Size
2 units 3 units 4 units
I unit
Washington Park
N.
A.
Total Avg Cost
Charlestown
44
10
-
54
63
South End -
39
3
4
55
312 Loans *
2 units
No.
Avg.
Loans Cost.
1 unit
Avg.
No.
LoansCost.
Wash.
Park
3 units
No.
Avg.
Loans Cost
$1909
$2771
$3112
4 units
No.
Avg.
Loansl Cost
10 (4+) NA
Tot.
8
35059
18
$5174
37
$5688
59
$7111
31
$10,028
15
$18,342 2
NA
107
12,632
10
21,044
16
26,060 1
NA
28
60
7203
41
12,715
31
22,325. 3
NA
135
43
$9088
15
$16,090
15
$23,177 10
$29, 685
4
4829
3
27,349
11
33,037 13
35,381
47
8318
18
17,967
26
27,364 23
32,904
73
Charles.
0-ocC.
invest.
TOTAL
1
South End
0-0cc.
invest.
TOTAL
5
units
No.
Avg.
Loans Cost
Total
83
6
Q43,292
38**
121**
43,292
office summary records
Source: Compiled from BRA site
* *Includes 1 6-unit buildin"corbos"
*Includes loan-g rant
92
Table VII
Cost Analysis for Selected 312 Loans,
Charlestown and South End
CHARLESTOWN
Property
1II
Code
Viol.
36 HIgh
$ 6817
18 Belmont
In cip.
Code
Vi ol.
III
U.R.
Objectives
IV
Total
Rehab
Gen.
Cos t
Prop.
Improve - Est. *
ments
$
$
$
3492
$11,595
115 High
1400
4850
5 Adams
3012
43 Russell
7698
3463
4528
21,367
2233
407 Main
19 Sullivan
514
1_5382
5319
930
4850
2227
13,396
4366
1934
1145
1918
3 Mt. Vernon
932
5 Cordis
54 Green
5 Armory
7 Hathon Sq.
24 mead
2882
4 Ludlow
41 Bartlett
48 Soley
+IV
2014
$12,323-
1869
13,464
17%
14%
6,630
6%
7,034
8c
16,632
26%
26,455
11%
21,631
71%
380
559
4011
III
395
2341.
7,077
0
1455
21,151
16%
2109
55
5,227
41%
620
2801
200 .
,553
8749
5413
2526
7575
689
620
6339
429
2148
16,688
15
9,124
96
1597
8,365
19%
770
2,918
26%
240
12,187
662
66
17,041
15,069
0
95%
5 Mystic
2924
8202
3575
18,478
15,101
52 Park
6559
6739
5733
19,031
30%
32 Pleasant
41 Russell
2923
621
6018
9,562
63%
948
1322
8,285
19%
31 School
5725
8861
4567
6659
20,087
33%
52 Sullivan
5440
475
300
6,215
5%
13,660
7953
1215
22,828
6%
316,439
27%
24 Monument
74 Tremont
TOTAL
86,col
775
290
9634
*Cost estimate does not include contractor s profit-andoverhead allowance (20. ) and is not the actual rehab cost.
Source: Selected work write-ups and cost breakdown forms.
24%
SOUTH END
Property
II
Inc ip.
I
Code
Viol.
Code
Viol.
III
U.R.
Objectives
$2925
36 Sussex
$1620
$23,548
$4098
24 Sussex
lol Appleton
19 Appleton
39 Concord Sq.
Total
TV
Gen.
Rehab
Cost
Prop.
Improve-Est._*
ments
$ 640
III
+IV
$28,733
125
200
4,298
56
2725
2213
4,938
455
11,985
5650
2208
14,193
15%
2000
7,650
25%
4705
7260
12,325
62%
20 Warwick
38 Bradford
18,574
2396
430
1071
22,491
146 w. Canton
3650
1695
950
4oo.
12,561
23 Union Pk
7,236
14,745
7%
10%
1915
140
18,495
11%
302 Columbus
20 Hanson St.
7,715
26,450
2275
1420
20,720
50%
98410
9310
3920
30
40,24o
10%
8 Milford
25,605
2,407
8870
4050
1260
39,785
13%
3,711
35%
1120
7,645
0
87 Dartmouth
6,525
14,760
3075
265
18,100
2%
14 Yarmouth
34,360
5785
2655
1245
44,315
9%
18 Dwight
24,475
3870
505
4oo
28,270
4%
486 Columbus
18,386
11,025
5370
10,242
45,023
33%
145 W. Canton
22,105
1525
65
575
24,270
3%
43 Lawrence
20,639
310
125
1218
22,292
6%
420,055
16%
10 Greenwich
18 St.
TOTAL
Chas.
1304
48,030
18,641
*Cost estiiiate does not include contractor's profit-and
overhead allowance (20,) and is not the actual rehab cost.
Source: Selected work write-ups and cost breakdown forms.
1
L
Table VIII
Gross Monthly Rents Before and After
Rehabilitation, for Selected 312 Properties
CHARLESTOWN
Inve st or-Owned
Owner-Occupied
Pr e Rehab
Rent*
Property
6 St.
-
65
65
75
85
2-4 St. Iar t in
19 Sullivan
85
95
407 Main
10 St.
Martin
83 High
39 High
7 Hathon Sq.
100
90
90
100
100
100
105
105
85
38 Harvard
9 Hancock
75
11 Mconument
90
90
90
95
55 Park
30 Mt.
Avg.
Vernon
**
17 Elm
62
120
130
90
90
-
115
115
150
150
120
120
170
170
9
Elm
4.17 Main
19 Auburn
4 Howard
3
Pays on
375-9
Bunker HIll
44-5
85
125
125
105
105
125
125
125
95
1o6
chappie
- 86
$122
PostRehab
Rent*
Rent*
$ 90
$125
125
125.
120
125
115
-
150
-
150
-
150
125
--
125
70
70
70
70
70
70
70.
150
130
130
130
130
130
140
14o
70
1io
70
150
135
-
135
150
75
75
75
100
100
90
10 Summer
-
145
16 Union
-
155
95
105
105
$78
$130
8 Sheafe
106
Rent
PreRehab
90
90
90
90
90
90
105
Martin
Rehab
Rent*
$ 95
84 Washington
1 Seminary
8 Tremont
14 St. Martin
14 School
artin
8 St.
Property,
Post-
Avg.
Rent
*$20 adjustment made between contract and gross rentals.
**Proposed,
Source:
not actual.
BRA site
office records.
**
95
SOTPH END
Property
PostRehab
Rent*
3 Hancock
5
Hancock
82 Worcester
52 Garden
12 Rutland
Property
**
$185
205
205
205
205
185
205
205
205
205
115
115
125
125
125
150
150
150
150
125
160
160
PostRehab
Rent*
22 Yarmouth
8 Rutland Sq.
$170 (195)***
170 (195)***
195 ***
170
150 (165 ***
160 (19o)
16o
250
Avg. Rent
**
190
$160
160
-
Holyoke
590 Colum-bus
24 Mt.
Vernon
10 Rut land
115
100
155
110
110
125
125
125
125
125
160
160
250
195
195
195
195
160
$20 adjustmient made between contract and gross rentals.
**Proposed, not actual rents.
***Actual rents.
*
Source: Compiled from BRA site
office records.
***
(300 ***
96
FOOTNOTES
Chapter I.
1. The following historical discussion is drawn from Bernard
E. Losbough, "Rehabilitation of Hous ing: Federal Programs
and Private Enterprise," Law and Cont emporary Proble ms,
Duke University School of Law, Durham, N.C., Surmer, 1967
McFarland, "Residential Rehabili(reprint); and M. Carter
t
in McFarland and Walter K. Vivrett,
tation:
An Overview,"
eds., Residential Rehabilitation, University of Minnesota,
1966.
2. Statement by William L. Slayton, U.S. Senate, Committee
on Banking and Currency, Hearings on the Housing Act of
1964, p. 1038.
Philip Johnson, "Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Under
Section 312 and 115 Explored and Explained," Journal of
, No. 5, 1966.
Thgigus
3.
4.
Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and
Currency, Hearings on the Ho using Act of 1964, p. 219.
7.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and
Currency, Conference Report on the Housing Act of 1964, p. 23.
8, U.S. TIOuSO of Representatives, Comittee on Banking and
Currency, Report on the HoLsing Act of 1964, p. 16.
9. U.S.
Senate, Co ,Mittee on Banking and Currency,
on the Hous ing Act of 1965, p. 11.
Report
10. General references for this section: U.S. Department of
"Rehabilitation Financing, "t
Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
RAA Programs Handbook, October, 1968; and U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Banking and Currency, Basic
Laws and Authorities on Housing and Urban Development,
Jan. 31, .1969.
11.
U.S.
DepartiUent of HUD,
op
cit.,
Ch.
3,
p.
1.
12. U.S. louse of Representatives, Committee on B'anking and
Currency, Conference Report on the Housing Act of 1964, p. 23.
13. U.S. Senate, op. cit., p. 36
14. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and
Currency, Tearings on the Housing Leislation
of 1968, p. 137
and 155.
97
15. U.S. Senate, Comittee on Baning a:d Currency,
on the Housing Act of 1969, p. 15.
16.
Journal
of Housing
#
3, March,
1970,
p.
Report
124.
17. Dept. of Housinrg and Urban Development,"Urban Renewal
Handbook," Rehabilitation, Ch. 1, Sect. 5, p. 1.
18. Boston Redevelopment Authority, U±tban Renewal Plan,
Charlestown Urban Renewal Area, Sect. 808 (Rehabilitation
Standards), February 25, 1965.
19. U.S. Dept. of 11T,
"Rehabilitation Financing," RAA
Progra:ls Handbook, October 1968, Ch. 5, Sect. 1, p. 1.
20. Ibid.,
Ch. 5,
Sect.
2, p. 1.
21. See, for example, Boston Redevelop:ent Authority,
Renewal Plan, Charlestown Urban Renewal Area, op cit.
22.
Ch.
U.S. Dept. of HUD,
, Sect. 2, p. 4.
23.
Ibidl.,
Ch. 7,
p.
p. 4.
25. Ibid.9 Ch. 5,
Sect.
Oh.
8, p.
op cit.
1.
24. Ibid., Ch. 7,
26. Ibid.,
"Rehabilitation Financing,"
Urban
2,
p.
1.
1.
Slowed by Congressional Halt on Funds,
1UB
Rehab
27. "
Boston Globe, July 20, 1969.
28. U.S. Dept. of HUD, Housing and Urban Affairs Daily,
February 2, 1970, p. 93.
29.
Journal of 1ousing,
op cit.
Chapter II.
1. Boston Redevelopment Authority, "Housing in
2. Boston Redevelopment Authority,
itation,"
Winter, 1964-65, p. 1.
3.
Ibid.,
4.
BRA,
5.
p. 2.
"Housing in
,p
Ibd5
Boston,"
p.
53.
Boston,"
p. 46.
"Working Paper on Rehabil-
98
, p. 34; and
BRA"orking Paper on Rehabilitatioin.," op cit
Residential
of
David R . Gergen, "Renewal in the Ghetto: A study
Rehabilitation in Boston 's Washington Park," Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. III, No. 2, Spring
1968, p. 272,
6.
7. BRA,
"Housirg in
Boston,"
op cit.,
p.
47.
8. BRA, "Application for Loan and Grant, Part I: Final Project
Report," Charlestown Urban Renewal Area, February 25, 1965;
South End Urban Renewal Area, Fall, 1965; Washington Park
Urban Renewal Area, January 25, 1963, Sect. 221 (Rehabilitation)
9. Langley C. Keyes, The Rehabilitation Planning Gaun.e, MIT
The following discusass., 1969, p. 145.
Press, Cabridge,
sion draws heavily on Ch. 5, p. 143ff.
10.
Ibid.,
p.
146.
11.
Ibid.,
p.
153.
12.
Ibid.,
p.
186.
13. BRA, "Application for Loan and Grant, Partl: Final Project
Report," Washington Park Urban Renewal Area, January 25, 1963,
Sect. 221 (R"ehabilitation)
p.
op cit.,
14.
See Keyes,
15.
Ibid -.
p.
205.
16.
Ibid.,
p.
134ff,
17.
Ibid., p. 138.
18.
BRA,
87 ff.
"Working Paper on Rehabilitation,"
19. Keyes.,
residents.
op cit.,
p.
91.
BRA "Working Paper on Rehabilitation,"
21.
Keyes.,
p.
cit.,
p.
5.
The riedian excludes public housing
20.
op cit.,
op.
op
cit,
p. 42.
138.
22# Ibid.,
p.
205.
23.
Ibid.,
p.
40. This section draws heavily on ch.
24.
Ibid.,
p.
43.
3,
p.
34ff.
25. Robert B. UWittlesey, The South End Row House and Its
Rehabilitation for Low Incor e (esidents, South End Commmiuity
Develop.Aent, Inc., Boston, Mass. 1969, p. x.
99
26.
Keyes,
op.
cit.,
p. 43,
27. Ibid., p. 42.
28. BRA, "Working Paper on Rehabilitation, " p. 5.
29. Keyes, op. cit.,
p. 74*
30. Ibid., p. 205.
31. BRA,
32.
"Working Paper on Rehabilitation" op. cit.,
p.
46.
Whittlesey, op. cit., p. 5.
BRA, "Application for Loan and Grant, Part I: Final
Project Report," South End Urban Renewal Area, Fall, 1965,
Section 221 (Rehabilitation).
33.
34. Ibid.
35. The following discussion is based on the following BRA
memos: "Administrative Process for RA Rehabilitation Loans,"
Loan and $3000
(umdated); and Frederick S. Paulsen, "3
Grant Rehabilitation Programs," Feb. 6, 1969, as updated by
interviews.
36. "Priorities for Section 312 Loans," Memo to Rehabilitation
Staff from Terence J. Farrell, Nov. 10, 1969, as updated.
"Question an-d Answer Bulletin on the BRA Rohabilitation
Program," Dec. 1969.
37.
"Working Paper on Rehabilitation,"
38.
BRA,
39,
See BRA,
40.
Gergen,
Urban Renewal
op.
cit.,
Charlestown,
Plan,
cit.,
p.
Sect.
808,
op.
94.
p.
46,
266,
p.
Chapter III.
1.
Gergen,
op.
cit.,
p. 273.
2. Interview with Joseph Morrison, Washington Park Rehabilitation Chief, and Ed Cooper, Washington Park Community '-elations.
3.
Interview with Morrison,
4.
Gergen,
op
cit.
p.
op.
273
5. Interview with Cooper,
op.
cit.
cit.
100
6. Interview with Ronald Thompson,
Finance Specialist.
formrer Washington Park
and testimony of Ed
7. Interview with Thompson, op. cit.;
Logue before the National Commission oui Urban Problems, Hearings,
Volume I, May-June 1967, p. 194.
8.
Interview with'Cooper,
op._cit.
9. Interview with Robert
cGilvray,
BRA Chief of Rehabilitation.
10. Interview with William Draper, Deputy Chief of Rehabilitation,
South End (formerly of Washington Park).
and Sil Ricca, South
i
11. Interviews Ronald Thompson,
End Finance Specialist, formerly Washington Park,
12. BRA Memo, "Relocation Services
February, 1967.
in
Non-Acquisition Areas,"
13. Interviews with Ruth Akimbami, Washington Park Relocation;
Elizabeth Lewis, Charlestown Relocation; Roland Peters, South
End Relocation.
to Robert McKay, Citizens Housing
14. Robert McGilvray letter
and Planning Association of Greater Boston, May 8, 1969.
15. Memo from Leon Valliere, Charlestown
to Robert McGilvray, Feb. 17, 1970.
16. Interview with Ed Kelly,
Rehabilitation Chief,
Charlestown finance s-pecialist.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20.
Interview with Joseph Charyna,
Charlestown Community Relations.
21. Interview with Jamues Landry, Deputy Rehabilitation Chief,
Charlestown.
22. Interview with Leon Valliere, Charlestown Rehabilitation
Chief ..
23. Interview with Landry,
op.
cit.
24. Ibid.
25. Interview with Jack Spencer,
Chief.
BRA R ehabilitation Finance
101
26. Interview with James Conway,
Ledger; and Ed Kelly, op. cit.
editor,
27. Interview with Leo Caparelli,
Leased Housing Section.
Charlestown
Patriot-
Boston Housing Authority
28. Interview with Conway, op. cit.
29.
Interview with Kelly,
op.
cit.
30.
Interview with Elizabeth Lewis,
31.
Interview with Conway,
cit.
op.
South End Rehabilitation
32. Interview with Jack Kermedy,
Chief.
33.
Interview with William Draper,
34.
Ibid.
35.
Interview with Spencer,
op.
South End Cormmunity Organiza-
Interviews with Kennedy and Ricca,
38.
Interview with William Crowley,
Specialist.
Whittlesey,
40.
Interview with Crowley,
op.
op.
cit.
South End Rehabilitation
1-23 and 2-5.
cit., p.
39.
cit.
op. cit.
36. Interview with Gastral Riley,
tion staff
(BRA).
37.
cit.
op.
cit.
op.
40a.Ibid.
41. Interview with Robert Coit,
Project Director, South End.
42.
Interview with Kennedy,
43, Interview with Ricca,
formerly Assistant to the
op.
cit.
op. cit.
44. Interview with Caparelli,
op. cit.
45. Interview with Roland Peters, op. cit.
102
Chapter IV.
op.
1. Interview with Kelly,
cit.
2. Ibid.
3.
Interview with Thompson,
4.
Interviews with Kelly and Spencer,
op. cit.
op.
cit.
5. Ibid.
6. Interview
with Landry,
7. Interview
with Coit,
8.
op.
cit.
Interview with Thompson,
op.
9. Interview
10.
op. cit.
cit.
with Landry,
op.
cit.
Interview with Draper,
op.
cit.
11, Interview with Robert Simeone,
Legal Department.
op.
BRA Rehabilitation Section,
cit.
12.
Interview with Crowley,
13.
Interview with Thompson and Coit,
14.
Interview with Landry,
15.
Interview with Viicent Kelly,
16.
Interview with Simeone,
17.
Interview with Riley,
18.
Interview with Coit,
op.
cit.
cit.
op.
Charlestown loan recipient.
cit.
cit.
op.
op.
op.
cit.
19. Interview with Mr. and Mrs.
recipients (by telephone).
Dromgoole,
Charlestown loan
20. U.S. Comptroller General, General Accounting Office,
"Improvements Needed in the Management of the Urban Renewal
Rehabilitation Program," Report to the Congress, April 25,
1969; p.
15.
21. Haddington Leadership Organization Housing Committee,
Report on Contractor Performance Under the Federal
"Initial
Loans and Grants Program," February, 1970, Philadelphia, Pa.
103
22. Letter from Ca'leton C. Richards, Jr., Haddington
Leadership Organization staff,
to the author, April, 1970.
23. Telephone interview with Frank Tierney,
resi dent.
24.
Interview with Landry,
Charlestown
op. cit.
25. Ibid.
Chapter V.
1. See Haddington Leadership Organization Housing Committee, op. cit.
BIBLIOCAPHY
Boston Redevelopnent Authority, "Application for Loan and
Grant, Part I: Final Project Report," Charlostown Urban
Renewal Area, February 25, 1965; South End Urban Renewal
Area, Fall, 1965; Washington Park Urban Renewal Area,
January 25, 1963.
July, 1967.
Boston,"
Boston Redovelopiaent Authority,
"Housing in
Boston Redevelopient Authority,
inter, 1964-1965.
"Working Paper on Rehabilitation, "
"Renewal in the Ghetto: A Study of ResidenGergen, David R .
Rehabilitation in Boston's Washington Park," Harvard
tial
No. 2,
Civil Rights- Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. III,
Iousing Assoc iation of Delaware Valley, "Rehabilitation Loans
and Grants," Special Memiorandum ;47, Juie, 1969, Philadelphia, Pa.
Haddington Leadership Organization Housing Committee, "Initial
Report on Contractor Performaace Under the Fedteral Loans
and Grants Progral,'.' February, 1970, Philadelphia, Pa.
"Rehabilitation Loans and Grants Under
Johnson, Philip M.
Section 312 and 115 Explored and Explained," Journal of
Ho us ing
#5, 1966.
The
eobilitat
Keyes, Langley C.
ass. 1969.
Press, Camlbridge,
on
anningGe
,
IT
"Rehabilitation of Housing: Federal
Losbough, Bernard E.
Programs and Private Enterpriseq" Law and Contemporary
Problems, Duke University School of Law, Durtham, N.C.,
Summer, 1967 (reprint)
Residential
McFarland, M. Carter and Walter K. Vivrett, eds.
Rehabilitation, University of Minnesota, 1966.
"Design and Rehabilitation Techniques,"
McGilvray, Robert B.
in Melvin R. Levin, ed., Innovations in Housing Rehabilitation, Boston University Urban Institute, Monograph #2,
Boston, Mass., 1969,
"Three-Percen.t Loan an-d $3000 Grant
Paulsen, Frederick S.
Rehabilitation .Programs," Boston Redevelonment Authority
Memiorandum, February 6, 1969.
U.S.
"ImproveComptrollor General, General Accounting Office.
ments Needed in the Management of the Urban Renewal
Rehabilitation Proram," Report to the Congress, April 25,1969.
105
U.S.
"RehabilDepartment of Housing and Urban Development.
1968.
October,
Handbook,
Programs
RAA
Financing,"
itation
U.S. House of Ropresentatives, Conmnittee on Banking and
Currency, Hearings on Housing Acts of 1964, 1965, 1968,
1969.
U.S.
House of Representatives, Couniittee on Banking and
Currency, Reports on Hous ing Acts of 1964, 1965, 1968,
1969.
U.S.
House of Representatives, Conmnittee on Banking and
Currency, Compilations of the Housing Act of 1965, 1968,
1969.
U.S. House of Representatives, Comnittee on Banking and
Currency, Conference Report on the Housing Act of 1964.
U.S.
Senate, Coimnittee on Banking and Currency,
Housing Acts of 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969.
U.S. Senate, Corunittee on Banking and Currency,
Mousing Acts of 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969.
Hearings on
Reports on
The South End Row Iouse and Its
Whittlesey, Robert B.
Rehabilitation for Low Income Residents, South End
Conrmunity Development, Inc. , Boston, Mass,, 1969.
1o6
!ERSONAL
TE2AS
washing-rton Park
Chief
Toseph Morriso n, Pro joct nehabilitation
latior-s
Ed Cooper, Co umity
2.o c at on
Ruth Akimba1J,
ist
Specia
G. Ronald Thomp-son, for;mer Finance
(telephone
CharlestownM
Pehabilitation. Chief
Project
Lecn Vallire,
Chief
Jarmes Landry, -. eputy Pro ject Pehabilitation
ialist
Ed Kelly, Finnce Spec
Organiztion
Joserph Charyfna, Countiy
Relocation
Lewis,
Elizabeth",
yatioTge
Charlestown
(-'+ t-,
-O-L--Ch-C..
Jares ConwayC cnito-r,
anizationJohn 1Harrington, leader of Self Hclr
(SHOC)
elly, ho~e owner
Vincent
a.
..
Charlostowr
South Tnd
?r1ojeot nehabilitat ion Chief
JcKe nede
ion Chief (for::erly Washingt on
Rehailitat
DJpty
Yilliam Draper,
par;:)
Sil Ricca, Finrnce Specialist
Se cialist
Reillia Crowly, ReJalitation
;P ty Organizaion
Riley, Counnuni
Gas
Relocation
Roland Peters,
Assistant to Project Director
Robort Coit, for'Gr
Ioston BedCe IO
m.ent~ -n9h2-0
L'--'
- -~--------
FaxOA.~-, Dire ct or of Residnt ial. Develcpmei::lnt
Tcrrece
Robert McG lwray, Chie f of Rehabilitation
Jack Soencer, Chief of Finance
Robert Simeone, Legal Division
Other
Ed Dryson, Tloston -. Model Cities
L
Section
Housing Authority Leased Housin&
Leo CaparelBliy Bosto
ImproveBoston Comrmunity
Wilfred Pelt ior, Deputy Coordinator,
ment Program