Marjorie Grace
Candidate for:
Ward 3 Councilor
What do you see as the biggest housing problems in Gloucester; whom do they affect; and what would you do to rectify these problems?
The biggest problem to housing is the lack of affordability in the rental market as well attainable and affordable homeownership opportunities.
Gen. Z and Gen. Alpha are profoundly affected by this, as are seniors who may wish to downsize but can't do to limited resources, limited housing choices and lack of supportive housing for individuals unable to remain fully independent. Lower wage earners are swimming against the current and gasping for air.
Gen. Z entered the "adult" world during the pandemic. Everything they had worked towards for their futures was upended and irrevocably altered. We have an entire generation who have been priced out locally, as well as nearby communities. Moreover, they are inundated with student loan debt, and when coupled with high interest rates and ever rising prices of basically everything, the "American Dream" is virtually unattainable to anyone who isn't wealthy or has access to help from family or financial assistance of some sort. And unless something changes drastically in the next few years, Gen. Alpha will face the same dilemma.
There is no easy solution to the problem as it is a systemic issue that affects people from coast to coast. What I can do is to continue as I have done for the last (almost) two years and that is to advocate for, and support, responsible and thoughtful development that prioritizes the demographics most affected by this crisis.
How do you define affordable housing and workforce housing and whom do you see as needing them?
Affordability is subjective as it is tied to income and location. Buyers are shackled by wages and when the median house price is upwards of 700K, "affordable housing" is an oxymoron.
The textbook definition of affordable housing is a cost of no more than 30% of income.
"Affordable" housing is often subsidized and not everyone in need meets the financial criteria on paper to be eligible for this particular type of housing. Attainable housing describes a more realistic need.
Workforce housing is defined as between 80%-120% of the average median income.
I tend to avoid the phrase "workforce housing." Although I do understand the definition, I do not like the term. This phrase is often used when referring to people who work in industries such as hospitality, retail and other essential services. These workers are a vital part of our community that should have reliable housing so we can rely on them. Adding the modifier "workforce" before "housing" immediately raises the question: who is "housing" for? This system of discriminating between types of housing exacerbates the wealth gap between the working class and the owning class, implying certain people need to be segmented into their own forms of housing on the basis of their occupation.
The need for affordable (and attainable) housing is felt by people in all phases of life. People starting out and lower wage earners. People crippled with medical or student loan debt. People who have experienced life changing events such as illness, change in family dynamic, retirement, loss of income, etc. People working in gigging occupations such as artists, musicians and other creatives. We need realistic housing that is affordable, period!
What are you hearing from businesses and employers about their ability to hire or retain workers given the current housing situation?
It is not so much what I have heard as it is what I have observed with regard to hiring/retaining workers.
The pandemic illustrated in a very real way who keeps society moving. I think that people are no longer willing to work for less than they feel they are worth. In order to pay a livable wage, employers must either raise prices, cut costs, cut services, jeopardize product integrity or cut into profit. None of these options are sustainable for a small business. It's a catch 22 of sorts.
The current housing situation is directly tied to what people can afford, and what people can afford is directly tied to what they earn. Wages have remained stagnant while inflation and the cost of housing and basic human necessities are skyrocketing. We are more fortunate in Massachusetts that the minimum wage is significantly higher than the national minimum wage, but it is still not enough to pay the rent, buy necessities or pay down debt. Far too often people have to make a choice about what they will pay any given month. Sure, people can work multiple jobs to increase their income - but I think one full-time job should be a reasonable standard to earn enough income to cover a person's living expenses.
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?
Not necessarily, The answer to this question is not cut and dry, it depends on the individual and what is important to them. Many of my constituents express concern that they feel like the traffic, noise and congestion have gotten so bad that it is negatively impacting their lives. Across the board people understand the need for affordable housing, but overwhelmingly feel it is unfair to focus solely on the downtown wards.
Much of the densest development has occurred in the R5 district. The traffic, congestion, pollution and noise disproportionately affect the downtown wards. Any further loss of green/ open space in the R5 districts should be discouraged and avoided. Wards 2 and 3 deserve to have what little green space that remains preserved and protected.
Just to add perspective...
Ward 1 has beaches, conservation land, a brand new playground and a golf course. It does not escape the ever increasing traffic, but there is a walkability to it and a sense of openness because of the expansive coastline known as the Back Shore.
Ward 4 has beaches, conservation land, quaint village areas that are quintessential New England, significant open space and far less traffic than most wards.
Ward 5 has Stage Fort Park, Ravenswood Park, beaches and vast swaths of protected forested land.
Compare this to the open space in Wards 2 and 3, and it is perhaps a bit easier to understand perceived inequities. Burnham's Field and the new Green St field are amazing but they are very specific in their use. Ward 3 has the Blvd, which is an extraordinarily beautiful landscape and a gift to this community, however, to the kid playing basketball in the middle of the street 2 miles away and unable to safely walk on sidewalks because of cars parked on them, the Blvd and the ball fields may as well be a 1000 miles away. Likewise to the kids selling lemonade on the sidewalk on Maplewood Ave, the green spaces in the outlying wards are not part of their world.
The point being is that the environment in the R5 districts is quite different than in less densely populated areas. That's not to say that there isn't a vibrancy to it, because there is and it gets better every day, but if you want to climb a tree, you may have a hard time finding one if we don't seek to preserve green space.
All wards need to share in the responsibility of attainable, affordable and thoughtful housing. The City can address this inequity by realistically looking at zoning in the R20 and R40 areas and figure out ways to thoughtfully and respectfully encourage development that prioritizes need over greed.
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?
Continue to encourage responsible and thoughtful development.
Encourage developers to include more affordable units than what is required in the inclusionary zoning law. Revisit inclusionary zoning and explore ways to increase it.
Educate the public on resources available to them such as the housing lottery and first time home buyer incentives.
Insist on strict adherence to the STR ordinance and initiate a yearly review of the ordinance to ensure it goes far enough to keep the number of short term rentals at a reasonable number.
Require developments with affordable units to give local individuals and families first refusal.
Explore ways to add more funding to the Affordable Housing Trust.
Encourage the housing lottery to take into consideration debt to income ratio when student loans are the primary cause of the debt and to consider allowing cosigners. This will directly benefit Gen. Z.
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?
Educate the public about what an ADU is.
Work with lenders to educate people about financing options.
Streamline the permitting process.
A tax break for homeowners when the ADU is occupied by a family member.
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?
Much of the city already has two family by right. Most often three family conversion is approved, so making it by right isn't really a stretch. It makes the approval process quicker and allows for significant cost savings during the permitting process as well.
Creating more multifamily housing is a step in the right direction. However, it can be cost prohibitive for many people. In addition to the ever-rising cost of building materials, for any three family it is also required by law to install a sprinkler system. This adds a significant amount to a project. The more it costs to build, the higher the rents must be to recoup expenses. By right zoning offers modest growth in the housing stock and is a valuable tool in a multifaceted solution.
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?
I am all for modest size! Society has gotten so out of control with the size of houses being constructed it borders on obscene. The size of modern design is palatial and I will never understand, for instance, why a wealthy retired couple, or a wealthy vacationer feels compelled to build a massive house, especially when it's not their primary residence. But I digress....
Multifamily, duplexes, townhouses and cluster housing are all great options to further address the problem of housing for all and I am very supportive of these options. They are part of the "big picture" approach and are necessary and effective types of development.
Opportunities for the aforementioned types of housing should be considered in areas that can sustain more housing without compromising the quality of life of the existing neighborhoods, where open space can be preserved and incorporated into the design, where public transportation can be added or increased and where the school district can accommodate potential additional students.
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?
Exploring three family by right across the city. This streamlines the permitting process.
Determine the feasibility of changing zoning in portions of the outlying wards. This would perhaps allow for modest homes to be built. It would also go a long way in mending bridges post MFOD mandate.
I think that by right building needs to have an element that takes the neighborhood into consideration. When conversion to two or three family occurs, it often requires drastic changes to the landscape and a potential increase in traffic and noise. Conscientious building should be encouraged.
I am not in favor of changing parking requirements, especially in the R5 zones. If anything, I think more parking should be required. Take a ride through the densely populated inner city if you need an illustration of why parking requirements are an absolute must.
Without exception, the number one comment that permeates any dialogue surrounding development is parking! The City needs to take as an aggressive approach to mitigating the parking issues in Wards 2 & 3 as it does to the housing concerns. The City needs to explore where an additional municipal lot might be possible, where satellite parking might be possible and where a parking garage would fit. We need to avoid worsening one problem while trying to solve another. I live where the impact of development is more keenly felt than it is in the out lying wards. Parking, open space, safe places to walk (sidewalks not used as parking lots) and safe places to play are vitally important.
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 City needs to reach out to the owners of underutilized commercial properties with purpose and resolve and have serious discussions about the future use of these properties. The Shaws property presents an opportunity to not only add to the housing stock, but to revitalize the entire area.
Railroad Ave. is the gateway to downtown and if redevelopment is done right, with the focus of mixed use, aesthetic integrity and need over greed, it has the potential to make a huge difference in people's lives.
I think repurposing buildings in general is a good idea. Using the same foot print and converting space has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In the R5 district it also avoids eliminating much needed green space.
The City could work with developers and provide tax relief if affordability (and attainability) is the foundation of the project and if locals are given the opportunity at first refusal.
We cannot push for more housing with the premise of providing said housing for locals if we don't prioritize locals.
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?
Yes. It makes sense to prioritize the people who already call someplace home.
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?
Yes, I support the Rent Stabilization bill. As long as wages do not keep up with the cost of existence, we have no choice but to take steps to protect people who lack financial freedom or find themselves in situations that drastically impact their lives and make them vulnerable.
We need to prioritize need over greed. The unfortunate truth is that we can't always rely on someone's moral compass to be the driving force behind decisions so having safeguards in place to protect people is a natural side effect. Preventing displacement requires resources to help bridge financial gaps that occur with job loss or with passed-on expenses that outpace income.
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! Gloucester has been "discovered" and the amount of wealth that flows onto these shores is quite astonishing.
We have two generations, Z and Alpha, that have little to no hope of remaining here because they have been priced out, that is not okay! We currently have a 1% CPA tax levied on all homeowners to fund various and sundry grants to preserve and protect historically important artifacts and architecture, to contribute to artistic endeavors and the affordable housing trust, etc. etc.. A small fee levied on a pricey real estate transaction is certainly fair and reasonable.
With wealth comes responsibility.
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?
This question has been indirectly answered in all the previous responses.
Encourage attainable housing; prioritize need over greed; strictly enforce STR regulations; incentivize developers to go over and above inclusionary zoning criteria; encourage the housing lottery to lessen the impact of the debt to income ratio in regard to student loans and perhaps allow a cosigner; provide educational tools to help maximize resources available to first time home buyers; tax incentives for ADU and two and three family conversions if they are occupied by family members; diversify development and tweak zoning where it is feasible; preserve open space in the R5 districts; additional taxes paid by way of fees on multimillion dollar real estate transactions; advocate for supportive living senior housing to allow the aging population to age in place with dignity; prioritize the financial needs of the public schools; have more public input and transparency on where money is spent; hire an enforcement officer and prioritize enforcement of parking, safety and environmental regulations; preserve and protect the marine industrial zone and the waterfront in general (It can not ever become a members only club).
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?
I am already a strong advocate for Harbor Light Homes. I have a loved one who is thriving in their Beverly facility. The only negative is that my loved one had to leave the only place they have ever called home for the entirety of their 85 years and move to another city because Gloucester does not currently have a supportive living facility.
Gloucester currently has a facility that provides a bed to sleep in and a sister facility that offers help to people to better equip them to transition from homelessness to housed. Until and unless the housing crisis and wage stagnation are overcome, the number of unhoused will likely grow. I would encourage the City to continue to work with our neighboring Cape Ann communities to provide temporary shelter, mental health support, training and education. A solid foundation is needed to gain footing and help people transition from vulnerable to self sufficient. Without a solid foundation, it will continue to be two steps forward and one step back.
In the grand scheme of things, helping people when they need help makes life better for all. Most of us are one catastrophic event away from a major shift in our realities.
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?
To continue to encourage diversity and inclusion; to respect this rock we live on and take care of it by supporting responsible and mindful development that respects neighborhoods and human dignity. We need to recognize that Gloucester's future depends on Gen. Z and subsequent generations to survive. The aging population imparts their wisdom and legacy, but without future generations to carry on the stewardship, it will be lost.
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?
Promoting energy-efficient and climate-resilient housing is best practice and requires education geared towards people who resist change. It's not a hard sell to people who are self-aware and are willing to adapt to change for the good of the planet and future generations, the difficulty is in reaching people who resist fact-based science.
Electricity in new construction has to go hand in hand with renewable energy sources. I think the electric program the City participates in helps keep the wolf at bay as far as cost for this community. Electricity has traditionally been more expensive than gas, although this year has seen a shift largely due to distribution charges. To rely on electricity without renewable energy only circumvents the problem. If a fossil fuel burning power plant is what powers the grid, what have we really changed?
I don't think we have any choice but to move away from oil dependency. Misinformation about climate change makes our population less educated and enriches the elites who own the oil companies. Anthropogenic climate change is an issue that will only be solved at a systemic-level and with a sense of urgency. Continuing down the path we're on serves to financially benefit a few while condemning us all to an uninhabitable planet.
Gen. Z and beyond have been handed a mess in regard to housing, the environment and a host of other problems, we owe it to them to do better.