Jason Grow
Candidate for:
Councilor at Large
What do you see as the biggest housing problems in Gloucester; whom do they affect; and what would you do to rectify these problems?
Housing affordability remains the biggest issue that Gloucester is facing right now. We have been shaping our Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to eliminate loopholes and confusion and to ensure that developments build deed restricted housing on-site as part of the overall project. While this is good for those who meet 80% and below AMI, we also need to attract work-force housing - housing the addresses the 80-130% AMI range as well. I support entities that build the complete range of housing from restricted affordable to the mid-level market. Everyone needs to work collaboratively to create more of this housing so young people can afford to settle here and establish their own roots, and for our elders to stay. I want my children to have the opportunity to return to the community where they were raised and not have to win the lottery to do it.
How do you define affordable housing and workforce housing and whom do you see as needing them?
As we know there are HUD definitions that define the range above and below the AMI for our region. It's concerning to me that a large percentage of families in Gloucester already qualify for restricted Affordable housing at the 60-80% AMI, there just isn't enough of it. As I said above, we want our children and other young people to be able to settle here and raise their families, contribute to their community etc., but when new teachers and new police and firefighters don't make enough to afford rents or mortgages, we have a systemic problem. We have to recognize the challenges of the service industry and similar businesses in attracting employees so that they can thrive. But if an employee making minimum wage has to commute here from Beverly or similar, they're far more likely to look for employment nearer to home, outside our community. We can't forget our rapidly aging population as well. Seniors looking to downsize are finding that the places that better suit them size-wise are still too expensive - especially for single elders. People shouldn't be forced to move out of their community when they need to downsize.
What are you hearing from businesses and employers about their ability to hire or retain workers given the current housing situation?
We're hearing that they can't find employees to fill their shifts, especially in the service and minimum wage levels. That's a particularly difficult burden on our tourism industry, restaurants and retail shops. It's also a big impediment to attracting higher paid industrial and commercial businesses. A business in Waltham can cast a wide net around many communities that have lower housing/living costs and attract workers who can find housing and not have to commute nearly as far to get to work. In Gloucester, where we're at the end of the road surrounded by beautiful water, our options are far more constrained. Without housing that is affordable for those employees, it makes building our commercial base that much more difficult. We need to respond to that reality by encouraging the building of housing that's more affordable to that sector of employees. There will always be housing for the upper/middle income brackets, but without the infusion of workforce level employees, we strangle our economic development.
Do you think new housing development is being shared fairly across all neighborhoods in Gloucester? If not, where is it lacking, and how can the City address this inequity?
Short answer, no. Several years ago, the Planning Board recommended a modest set of changes that would have eased and even encouraged a modicum of in-fill housing in all areas of the city. I supported all of those changes, however, the really meaningful changes, the ones that would have added exactly the kind of housing we need, unfortunately failed. Protectionist zoning changes made several decades ago have set the stage for our current housing crisis, although to be fair this is a national problem. By doubling our minimum required lot sizes, we created a city full of non-conforming, difficult to develop properties. We should revisit those changes and make necessary changes to both lot sizes and setbacks. Where appropriate, we need to revisit multi-family construction and perhaps look at the amount of lot size we allow for construction. Right now, our zoning continues to serve builders of expensive mega duplexes and that makes multifamily construction very challenging.
What specific steps will you take to increase the supply of affordable and workforce housing in Gloucester, especially for local workers and young people and young families?
We need to open up opportunities for building more affordable units in underutilized areas and re-examine areas for multi-family housing. Specifically the City Council, along with the Planning Board, should look again at the Reimagining Railroad Avenue plan from 2014, and consider whether a 40R plan might be appropriate. With a 40R we not only continue to encourage mixed use and residential use, we also can receive state funding to support education costs.
Now that Massachusetts has legalized Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right in all residential areas, what proactive or incentivizing steps can the City take to encourage their development as part of Gloucester’s broader housing strategy?
Just having our own ADU ordinance has been incentivizing. We now have two paths for people to build an ADU depending on their particular situation and lot configurations. Our local ordinance has a bit more flexibility because it allows for less restrictive setbacks and those can be granted a ZBA special permit if non-compliant, whereas the state model doesn't have the ability to grant variances. Greater public awareness/education is probably the most effective thing that we can do to encourage their creation.
Where do you stand on two or three family homes across all neighborhoods to meet the housing needs of the average Gloucester family and worker?
I supported all the proposed amendments that were proposed three years ago including equalizing the 2-family by right across all residential zones and the allowance of by right 3-family in the R-30. It may be time to revisit some of those amendments once again. I also supported and advocated for the 3A compliant proposal that was eventually approved by the voters.
Do you generally support building more modest size and clustered housing—such as duplexes, multi-family, townhouses etc.? If so, where in the city do you see opportunities for this kind of housing development?
Yes. We have two existing ordinances (Open Space and Recreation Development and Cluster Development) that encourage more concentrated development of multifamily units while simultaneously protecting open space. I also support more collaboration with non-profit housing developers to build on city owned properties and restrict them as permanent affordable units for either rental or ownership.
What specific zoning reforms or other modifications would you advocate to support more housing, including for example, multi-family, accessory dwelling units, and affordable homes? How could permitting and approvals be streamlined while preserving community input and environmental protections? Do you support eliminating or modifying practices like minimum lot sizes or parking requirements?
The zoning changes that effectively doubled our lot size thirty years ago were designed to shut the door on new development. The unintended consequence of this has driven up prices, choking availability and created substantial non-conformity issues. Additionally, higher property values have encouraged the building of more expensive high end single and duplex units. The City Council and Planning Board should review lot area requirements and modify as necessary. This could reduce the need for variances and special council permits. Our whole zoning ordinance needs a comprehensive review.
Another possibility would be to reconsider how we use lot area coverage to reduce the percentage for single-family construction and scaling it upward for more densely developed housing.
What role should the City play in encouraging the redevelopment of underutilized commercial or industrial sites, such as the Shaw’s properties, into housing or mixed-use developments? What incentives could the City offer to support this?
The creation of 40R zones can potentially increase both commercial and residential investment and also bring state incentives to support education. The loss of Shaw's was a terrible blow to downtown. Moving forward, a new grocery store with a couple of floors of apartments above would serve to address both issues of adding housing that is affordable and eliminating the food desert created by the closer of Shaw’s.
Would you support a “Tenant Opportunity to Purchase” ordinance, enabling tenants the first right to purchase a building if the owner decides to put it on the market?
I am prone to support any legal measure to support tenants becoming property owners as long as the plan remains equitable to the property owner. So much of what we're allowed to do is governed by state law and as such anything we wanted to put into place would need to survive that process.
What steps would you take to prevent the displacement of long-term residents and vulnerable populations as housing costs rise? Do you support the Rent Stabilization bill currently before the Legislature? Why or why not?
I support the concepts of that proposal. Additionally it might be worth considering tenant mediation board to hear renter/landlord issues both with regard to evictions, but also to hear tenant complaints on rental conditions. Honestly I don't know if that would be legal in Massachusetts, but if so, it would provide a fair/objective forum for both sides without having to bear the cost of going to court.
Would you consider policies like Real Estate Transfer fees on high-end properties to increase funding for the Affordable Housing Trust? Would you support a Home Rule Petition to establish a small percentage Gloucester transfer fee on real estate transactions over $2 million?
Yes.
How will you work to keep Gloucester livable and affordable for fishermen, teachers, service workers, young people and families, and seniors—particularly when it comes to housing, transportation, and access to essential services?
All of the measure previously mentioned are designed to create not only more restricted "A"-affordable housing, but more housing that is generally more affordable. Without the creation of these kinds of units, the workforce that Gloucester depends on will be pushed out affecting not only city services (new teachers, municipal workers, police/fire) but our retail and commercial enterprises. People want to live near where they work and if we make it impossible to live here, we also make it far less possible to work here. People who live AND work here have that much more invested in their community.
Earlier we asked about access to housing for seniors and young people. How will you work to reduce the shortage of affordable housing—particularly for other vulnerable households facing housing insecurity or homelessness? What steps would you take to expand access to supportive housing for people with disabilities, mental health needs, or substance use disorders?
By supporting projects that tailor housing to the needs of vulnerable populations. Most of these projects, the YMCA's SRO project and HarborLight’s senior housing on Main Street, are examples of 'friendly' 40b projects that come with the added benefit of added services. Realistically, the City Council has very little to do with these kinds of projects other than to offer our support.
Housing policy intersects with issues like transit, racial equity, climate resilience, and economic sustainability. How can Gloucester’s housing policies advance progress in these areas?
It is crucial to create housing for all populations and income levels. Carefully considered zoning laws help create equity, economic development and sustainability and climate resilience. We need to be more proactive to protect Gloucester's future.
How will you promote the development of energy-efficient, climate-resilient housing in Gloucester to address rising energy costs and climate risks? Do you support requiring all-electric systems in all new construction as part of that effort? Why or why not?
Generally speaking, I support adopting more comprehensive, climate-friendly regulations. While this does add some cost to the construction process and that's something critics cling to in opposition, a small increase in the upfront costs will reap long term benefits, not only for the tenants/owners of the buildings through reduced energy consumption and costs, but will also benefit the community and environment on the more global front.