Beyond Urban Renewal: Retooling Redevelopment Authorities to Create Social Housing in Massachusetts

Why It Matters

Reactivating redevelopment authorities offers Massachusetts a fast, politically feasible path to expand affordable, mixed‑income housing and curb displacement in high‑cost communities.

Key Takeaways

• Redevelopment authorities can be repurposed for long‑term mixed‑income housing.
• Massachusetts lacks a social‑housing program despite 2024 Housing Act pilot.
• Cambridge’s affordable‑housing overlay and zoning reforms illustrate new tool usage.
• Study defines social housing as income‑diverse, publicly owned, non‑LIHTC funded.
• Success hinges on staffing, funding, and sustained local political support.

Summary

The Rapaort Institute for Greater Boston unveiled a new report urging Massachusetts to transform its existing redevelopment authorities into engines for social housing. The briefing, anchored by Cambridge Mayor Samul Sadiki, highlighted the state’s chronic shortage of affordable units and the 2024 Housing Act’s allowance for a social‑housing pilot, while emphasizing that current tools are under‑utilized.

Key findings define social housing as income‑diverse, publicly owned housing financed outside the low‑income housing tax credit, and argue that redevelopment authorities—originally created under Chapter 121B to combat blight—possess land‑acquisition, eminent‑domain, and procurement exemptions that can be redirected toward mixed‑income projects. The study surveyed roughly 30 active authorities, noting that effectiveness depends more on staffing, funding, and local political backing than on institutional form.

Mayor Sadiki cited Cambridge’s affordable‑housing overlay and recent zoning reforms as concrete examples of repurposing existing mechanisms. The presenters also referenced external models, such as Montgomery County’s county‑level housing authority and Seattle’s newly created social‑housing entity, to illustrate how public ownership can sustain affordability over time.

If Massachusetts leverages these authorities, the state could accelerate the delivery of mixed‑income units without building new bureaucracies, addressing affordability across income levels and preserving community cohesion. The report calls for a dedicated task force, clearer mandates, and sustained investment to translate legal powers into tangible housing outcomes.

Original Description

Redevelopment authorities were created in the mid-20th century to carry out urban renewal projects, made possible through federal and state programs. Although these programs ended or were scaled back due to often controversial projects, in Massachusetts redevelopment authorities still exist and retain significant powers, including eminent domain. This has led housing advocates and policymakers to explore whether redevelopment authorities might be uniquely positioned to help cities and towns promote new social housing—mixed-income developments in which the public sector holds a lasting ownership stake.

Susanne Schindler and Becca Heilman will present the findings of a new Center paper which examines how redevelopment authorities in Massachusetts might support social housing. The research for the paper was funded by the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, the Cambridge Community Foundation, and the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. A panel of practitioners and officials, moderated by Chris Herbert, will discuss the paper's findings and its implications for communities across the state.