Pay attention, Ruthie
By Rob Smith /
ecoRI News staff
Conservation and housing advocates are
aiming to dismantle that misconception this year with legislation that aims to
boost resources for both housing and open space preservation by reviving a
defunct state commission.
It’s called the Housing and Conservation Trust Board,
and it has been on the books in Rhode Island since 1990. Lawmakers at the time
based it on a similar model that had just been launched in Vermont to some
success. The board’s purpose was to identify and funnel money to affordable
housing projects that also conserved land, ideally by using the land trust
model of affordable housing.
Despite being state law for more than three
decades, there’s no evidence the state has done anything with the 11-member
board since creating it; no affordable housing projects have been funded and no
land has been preserved under its authority. The board has never been awarded a
budget, nor has it had any members in the decades since its creation. It’s not
clear, however, why it has never been used.
That could change under a pair of bills now under consideration in the General Assembly. Under legislation (H7699 and S2638) introduced by Rep. June Speakman, D-Warren, and Sen. Jacob Bissaillon, D-Providence, the board’s membership would be bumped up to 15, 11 of whom would be chosen from the general public. The governor would have until the end of next year to make the appointments.
During a committee hearing on the House
version of the bill last week, Speakman told lawmakers it was aimed at
disputing the notion that housing development and land conservation are opposed
to each other.
“This is a false dichotomy,” she said. “All
Rhode Islanders deserve affordable housing, and all deserve access to natural
spaces. The future of our planet depends on preservation of forest, farmland,
and coastal resources.”
Neither bill outlines any dedicated funding sources for the board, but they make two key changes. The bills would house any future funding within the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank — which advocates say already has the necessary expertise to manage and raise money and find federal matching dollars — and split any future spending from the board in three ways: 35% designated for housing projects; 35% for conservation projects; and the remainder used for either category or both, with more weight given to proposals that satisfy both.
Under the model, individuals or families
would buy a home that sits on land owned by a land trust. The land the house
sits on would remain owned by the land trust, so the purchaser only pays for
the house, making it more affordable than typical home-buying options.
It’s a model that has been used with some
success in Rhode Island. The Church Community Housing Corp. in
Newport has been using the model throughout Newport County since 1969. To date,
it has developed some 900 homes and rehabilitated another 1,500.
The process is similar to one used by land
trusts in Rhode Island that rent to farmers. The Westerly Land Trust rents some of its properties to
four farmers, with the added advantage of making farmland more affordable.
Despite having no funding, advocates hope
the board could forward the land trust model of affordable housing and help
environmental groups and housing nonprofits better coordinate multiple land
uses around affordable housing. For their part, environmental groups say the
two have never been in conflict.
“How do we fit all together in this puzzle
that is land use?” asked Kate Sayles, executive director of the Rhode Island
Land Trust Council, in a recent interview with ecoRI News. “There is space to
conserve important natural areas, forests, and farmlands, and there is space to
make sure we have enough affordable housing stock. It’s a matter of
facilitating the opportunity to work together on these issues. We’re just
breaking down the silos.”
Sayles noted that Rhode Island doesn’t have
a dedicated funding stream for land conservation. The state government
traditionally relies on bond borrowing to fund various conservation programs
through the state Department of Environmental Management. But while the state
has added such programs to bond funding for nearly 40 years, the past few bond
proposals from Gov. Dan McKee’s office has seen land conservation funding come
up short.
Advocates are hoping to emulate what
Vermont has accomplished. Established in the late 1980s, the Vermont
Housing & Conservation Board (VHCB) spearheads affordable
housing and land conservation projects around the state. According to the
VHCB’s last annual report, the
board has invested in 1,318 apartments, 25 farms, and conserved 3,451 acres of
natural areas, forestland, and public recreation.
“I think Vermont is the shining example,”
Sayles said.
By statute, the VHCB receives about half of
the 1.5% property transfer taxes collected in the state. In 2022, it received
nearly $30 million from its portion of the transfer tax alone. These days that
revenue is less than a fifth of its total budget, because the Vermont
Legislature chose to supplement the VHCB’s budget with additional
appropriations last year. In total, the VHCB raised $113 million last year,
between the transfer tax, state appropriations, federal grants, and other
sources. That money is then distributed to different land trust organizations
around Vermont.
Annette Bourne, research and policy
director for Housing Works RI, is no stranger to the land trust model of
affordable housing. Prior to moving to Rhode Island, Bourne worked four-plus
years in the 2000s managing the homeownership center of the Vermont Community
Land Trust in Springfield, Vt.
How it worked was pretty simple, she said.
Depending on the income of the family making the purchase, the land trust would
use its funds to offer a land grant, which would be deducted from the total
mortgage of the home. The homeowners would simply have to pay a small monthly
administrative fee, around $25 back then.
“Let’s say the home was $80,000,” Bourne
said. “And I gave a family a land grant of $25,000. Then at the closing they
would be getting a mortgage of only $55,000. And I literally had to attend the
closing because the land trust was taking ownership of the land.”
If that person decides to sell the house in
the future, the land grant goes with the house, keeping the land affordable
well into the future, according to Bourne.
A hidden advantage of the model? Bourne
said there is no reason Rhode Island can’t convert existing housing stock into
the land trust model as is.
“We absolutely need more production,” she
said. “But we could also utilize some of the more modest housing stock that
could use some energy improvements and make it more accessible for older folks
or people with disabilities.”
This year’s bills aren’t the first attempt
to revive the Housing and Conservation Trust Commission. Lawmakers empowered a
study commission in 2004 to study how the land trust model of affordable
housing could impact development, and find a dedicated source of funding. The
commission, chaired by Scott Wolf, executive director of Grow Smart Rhode
Island, spent 18 months studying the issue.
“It was spurred by a significant and
growing concern at that time that we had a serious housing affordability and
supply problem,” Wolf recalled. “Unfortunately, we still have that problem
today. We also had a sprawl problem that was eating up open space, and it was
not in the best interest of the state for that trend to continue.”
The study commission submitted its final report to
lawmakers in April 2006, recommending the state provide more money and a
dedicated funding stream to meet land conservation and affordable housing
goals. The commission also recommended better coordination between housing and
conservation stakeholders to help both efforts.
So why didn’t anything happen? The
commission was ultimately split on its recommendation for funding. The majority
of the commission recommended increasing the real estate transfer tax at the
time from $4 per $1,000 to $5.50 per $1,000. One dollar from the increase would
go into the Housing and Conservation Trust fund, and the rest would go toward
assisting municipalities to fund affordable housing and land conservation. The
commission estimated the tax increase would bring in about $7 million annually.
But not all commission members were pleased
with the recommendation. The increase in the transfer tax was strongly opposed
by the Rhode Island Association of Realtors (RIAR), which issued its own
minority report from the study commission, denouncing
any tax increase.
“Although staff and university students
spent a great deal of time researching alternatives from other states to assist
the Housing and Conservation Trust Commission,” wrote the association, “it was
clear from the first meeting of this commission that the majority wished to use
the real estate transfer tax as a funding mechanism, and RIAR opposed the
inevitable proposal to increase this tax. “
In its report, RIAR wrote that it preferred
state funds for affordable housing and conservation be supplemented with funds
from the private sector.
“It’s not a panacea,” Wolf said about an
increase in the transfer tax. “Even if the real estate conveyance tax
recommendation was enacted, it would only partially address the housing and
conservation needs of the state.”
Wolf said while the state hasn’t done
anything in the 20 years since the study commission, Rhode Island still faces a
steep cliff of housing underproduction. Wolf estimated the state produces
around 1,000 housing units a year, and to keep pace with demand the state
should be producing 2,500 to 3,000 units a year.
“Every year we have this underproduction,
the problem gets worse,” he said. “We have a growing cumulative shortfall, and
that shortfall tends to create an accelerated affordability crisis. If your
supply keeps getting lower than the demand and the gap grows, the cost pressure
in the market is going to grow.”
Bourne said she thinks because the land
trust model isn’t widespread already in Rhode Island, it’s difficult for
people, banks and other institutions to wrap their heads around.
“It’s not a robust model here,” she said.
“Honestly, in Vermont, it’s part of the culture and the ideology that it’s OK,
we create affordable housing by leasing land. Here there seems to be confusion
about it, or some sort of resistance to the fact that the way you would get to
affordability is by having the improvement, namely the house, separated from
ownership of the land.”
H7699 has been held in committee for
further study. A hearing date for S2638 has not been scheduled.
