Some applicants for scarce low-income housing in Cambridge, who now can wait years to be offered a subsidized apartment, may soon get an affordable home more quickly because of a radical policy change by the Cambridge Housing Authority. Starting Nov. 1, the policy could allow hundreds more applicants to qualify for preferential treatment on the waiting list.
Applicants who live or work in Cambridge have long received a “local preference” that puts them ahead of those from other cities and towns on the CHA waiting list. The current rules require applicants claiming the preference to prove they were living or working in Cambridge when they applied and when they get close to the top of the list and are screened for eligibility – two dates that can be years apart.
In the change, applicants will have to demonstrate they qualify only at one point in time: the date when they applied or when they are screened. The CHA board approved the change Oct. 23, with no discussion.
A staff memorandum to the board said the preference requirements were preventing applicants from getting approved, and consequently increasing the time it takes to fill vacancies. The memo said “documenting preference [is] the No. 1 barrier to applicants being able to be housed in available subsidized units.”
That’s not surprising, because many applicants who lived in the city when they applied can’t afford to stay here during the many years they have to wait for an available unit, the memo said. “When we look at how long an applicant may be on the waiting list, it is obvious that even if they could afford to live in Cambridge when they applied, it is very likely that they cannot retain that housing due to the rapidly increasing rental market for nonsubsidized units,” the memo said.
“This is keeping vacant units open for much longer than we would want them to be open,” it said. Affordable properties “month after month have vacancies,” said CHA director of leased housing Sue Nohl. That’s because applicants who claimed a local preference when they applied have moved away, so they can’t show they’re living or working in Cambridge when they reach the top of the waiting list.
CHA does not verify applicants’ claims of local preference when they apply; that step waits until applicants get close to being offered an apartment. If households can’t meet the requirement at that point, they lose the preference and go back to the waiting list, much lower on the list. Under the new policy, applicants have more of a chance of retaining the preference and getting a home more quickly.
“Not a perfect system”
The policy could also allow an applicant to claim a preference when he or she applies although the applicant doesn’t deserve it and move to the top of the list based on the assertion. The applicant could then qualify if he or she lived or worked in Cambridge at the time of screening. James Williamson, a public housing tenant and unsuccessful City Council candidate, pointed out this scenario in public comment on what he called a “crazy” policy.
“We recognize it’s not a perfect system,” Nohl said. “We looked at whether or not we could prescreen folks [when they apply], but we don’t have the staff.” The policy change appeared designed mainly to deal with applicants who must leave the city while they’re waiting for housing.
About 22,000 applicants were on the waiting list in June, and approximately 5,500 said they were living or working in Cambridge, though the numbers may have changed since then because the authority was conducting a periodic check to see if applicants’ information or interest had changed, CHA executive director Michael Johnston said at the time.
The agency estimates that the new policy could increase the number of applicants who qualify for a local preference by 25 percent, Johnston said Friday. The change applies to applicants for Section 8 rent assistance as well as those seeking apartments in CHA developments and other subsidized buildings. Help for residents squeezed out of the city has long been asked by Mayor E. Denise Simmons and other city councillors.
Accelerated change
The authority expected to introduce the policy in its 2025 Administrative Plan, effective next February, but decided to make the change much sooner. The staff memo to the board said that “we have applicants, who in February 2025, will be eligible based on their preference documentation but who now, when they have finally been selected to screen after many years of waiting, are being denied [under the current rules].”
Until recently local preference governed almost all CHA housing decisions, so applicants living or working outside the city had very little chance of getting a subsidized apartment. That’s no longer true; the state agency that gives financial aid to the Authority for upgrading its developments is demanding that 30 percent of available units be rented without regard to local preference, for some sites.
For example, the new Jefferson Park Federal project now under construction must take applicants without considering local preference for 30 percent of new openings. Roosevelt Towers and Daniel Burns Apartments were also subject to the 70-30 percent split. More buildings that got state financial aid will probably have the same requirements. State officials insisted on the policy because of concern that local preference could result in racial discrimination.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Good for CHA!
This is a reasonable and frankly overdue change. Otherwise, we allow exclusionary zoning to prevent building enough housing, displace residents, and then refuse to let them move back a decade later when a spot finally opens up for them.
When the city says affordable housing is it still 20% of the building? Or 100%?
They only know these folks exist because they “ qualify”. Unfortunately those who make slightly under or over income ( residents) never apply. We also don’t educate young people who live in public housing that inclusionary housing is an option. You have to have some distinction between living here and working here. Displaced folks should have a low barrier to prove they were here but there must be proof. Again I think the city should be thinking about a wider income guidelines and negotiating for more 2-3 bedrooms for families.
I’m sorry what? How hard or time consuming is it to double check that someone lives or works in the city at some point in the process??
For the record, in the time allowed for public comment, Mr. Williamson made clear his enthusiastic support for the change at the front end of the certification process. Applicants who have certified their resident status and are subsequently forced to move out of Cambridge shouldn’t lose their so-called “resident preference.” That change is a good thing. The problem arises at the back end, when CHA have to manage where applicants belong on their priority waitlist when they do not yet know who actually qualifies for the “Cambridge Resident Preference.” Some will, others may not. But no point in explaining all that here; taken completely out of context, referring to this aspect of their new plan as “crazy” sure seemed a bit extreme, didn’t it. Not really, but so be it. A more serious problem is granting people who may only *work* in Cambridge *now* the so-called “Cambridge Resident Preference” ahead of those who have lived in Cambridge for many years – and possibly their entire lives – and who actually ARE “Residents.” This policy should be changed, so that only actual *residents* of Cambridge get the “Cambridge Resident Preference,” and are then given priority on the waitlists.
Williamson was NOT an “unsuccessful”candidate for City Council. Far from it. He ran to raise and highlight key issues and was quite successful in doing so. One of those was included in his platform when he was first a candidate, centered around the slogan, “Save the Tasty!” In the mid-90’s, Mr. Williamson posited, “If you were born and grew up in Cambridge, you ought to be able to continue to live here.” What’s wrong with that??