Power To The People's Veto
'An Act to Increase Opportunities for the Development or Preservation of Low-income Housing' has a very misleading title!
Welcome! I'm Mackenzie Andersen and this is my reader supported newsletter. I am narrating the very local story of culture war taking place on the Boothbay Peninsula in Maine, centering around such issues as the ownership class -working class divide and constitutional home rule versus the centralized economy. I have been independently studying the Maine statutes and the Maine Constitution and other historical documents, concentrating on the years since 1969, since 2007. I weave this long view into the contemporary political Peyton Place that is the Boothbay Peninsula today. It’s a local story but every local story has universality in our globalized world, sometimes change sometimes has to happen at the roots and in fact, it already is! You can subscribe by clicking on this handy little button:
I have been independently studying Maine State statutory law, as a lay person, particularly economic policy law, for many years. It soon becomes apparent that the authors of the laws do not expect that the general public will read the law and that what is said about a bill or an act in the media often does not reflect, the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that the titles of some acts are designed to lead the public astray and to make it more difficult to sell to the public that we should use our constitutional right to a people’s veto, (Section 17. Proceedings for people's veto), to a to just say no to an enactment.
This post is about two such recent enactments. One is easy to explain and the other requires analysis and knowledge of the historical background to concur that the title of the law is not truthfully reflective of what the law achieves.
The simpler to explain enactment is the replacement school charter for the Boothbay Peninsula, containing the words that the charter will align with state law, interpretable as relinquishing the home rule authority of the inhabitants of the school district, especially since the public was never given the opportunity to vote on the replacement charter before it was sent to the Maine Legislature to be enacted.
CORRECTION to last post! Bruce McDonald’s Amendment was accepted. I did not realize at the time I wrote this that Amendments are not reflected in the Bill Text,
My suggested amendment, that the words that our school charter be “aligned with state law” be struck out was never given voice at the work session and appeared not to receive consideration during the legislative work session. I suspect that is because transferring local authority to the state is the point of replacing the school charter, contingent, perhaps, on becoming a Maine Space Corporation school, in which the state would likely want full control and the local investor cabal would see as an asset for increasing property values.
Public-private relationships work as a mutually supportive arrangement between the state and private investors. The state has wanted to eliminate public referendums since 1976 when it established the centrally managed economy with a goal to “eliminate municipal referendum on public bonds”. The charter was enacted without a municipal referendum. The Committee on Education and Cultural Affair’s job appears to be to make the state development corporation’s plan happen. In the state’s plan, society is designed exclusively by central management and concentrated wealth. Hold the public hearing but if anyone brings up anything that threatens the plan, pretend you didn’t hear it.
And some boards wonder why meeting attendance is so small!
Here is my Letter to the Editor of the Boothbay Register suggesting a People’s Veto. I have also sent an inquiry to confirm the number of signatures needed and the time and date by which the petition must be submitted. I wrote to the Maine Municipal Association and asked for support in gathering signatures on a state-wide basis.
Intermission:
The Celebration of Life for Elise Isabel Andersen at Gallery 53 was very well attended. People stayed well past closing with many commenting on what a successful event it was. Lots of thanks to Terry Seaman for offering his gallery, always a place that makes people feel at home, filled with three floors of interesting art, including the work of my late brother-in-law, David Dupree. Terry’s gallery reminds me of a special class of galleries that existed in New York in the 1980s. The majority of galleries changed the style of art they represented in unison with the publications every five years, but the special class of galleries remained true to a unique sensibility that resides authentically in the eye of the beholder.
The latest production housing funding act
Once I was a true believer in Marco Rubio. I thought him to be a man of integrity who could work with both sides as did many others as there was much talk about Rubio as a rising star. When Rubio decided to run for re-election as a US Senate, he said he would be there to hold the line against both sides, including Donald Trump. Today I never hear talk of Rubio as a rising star. The political system swallowed him up. The Rubio I once admired cannot be found.
I met Cameron Reny, our new Senator in the Maine Legislative when she stopped by when she was running for election. She seems like a good person with an interest in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Recently Reny sponsored a new housing appropriation bill. Reny’s testimony for LD 724 repeats the stock explanation, we “need more housing stock”, speaking the language of the development corporation that has replaced the constitutional government of Maine, reverberating the false narrative that the housing shortage is caused by “underproduction of housing” while ignoring the short-term rental industry that has caused a housing shortage across the globe, and ignoring the remote working movement which requires more space than developers of the Boothbay Regional Development Corporation are willing to dole out to the working classes lest it be at the expense of a “density bonus” for the ownership class.
A density bonus is a development incentive that allows developers to increase the maximum allowable development for a proposed development, as defined by a local zoning code, in return for support for specified public policy goals. Density bonus programs are a common planning tool at local, country, and state levels all over the United States, but can vary greatly both in the kinds of bonuses offered and the policy goals the incentives are intended to address. Most experts agree that density bonus programs are most effective as a planning tool in locations with strong real estate market demand and a limited amount of developable land.
Density Bonus Varieties
Because density can be defined in so many ways, even in the specifically circumscribed context of zoning codes, density bonuses can be offered for more than one variety of development intensity. For example, a density bonus program could increase dwelling units per acre (du/ac), Floor Area Ratio (FAR), building heights, or developed square footage. Density bonus programs around the country also provide bonuses for metrics not typically associated with density, such as reduced parking requirements and development setbacks, among other examples. source
The narrative that portrays concentrated housing density as a bonus works only within the context that posits housing underproduction as the cause of global housing shortages, a narrative created by and for housing developers. The bonus is the profit to be made in overcrowding the living quarters of the masses so that the entire scope of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is confined to the bottom layer of the pyramid. A “density bonus” applies only to investor profits, overriding the wellbeing and interests of the citizens for whom legislation is allegedly intended who do not benefit when treated as sardines.
The government policy goals might be mass production of housing for permanent residents to make room for the expansion of the short-term rental industry, that pays a 9% sales tax to the state, and needs the pre-existing residential housing for its industrial expansion. If there is a cause for the ”under production of housing”, it is not, in many cases, an increase in population, but the rapid growth of the short-term rental industry, erased from the narrative by large developers and unelected commissioners who pen the public-private state’s legislation.
The Bill Text says (Title Change) while the amendment text says
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT to S.P. 282, L.D. 724, “An Act to Expand Workforce Housing in Rural Maine by Funding the Maine State Housing Authority's Rural Affordable Rental Housing Program”
Amend the bill by striking out the title and substituting the following: 'An Act to Increase Opportunities for the Development or Preservation of Low-income Housing' Amend the bill by striking out everything after the enacting clause and inserting the following:
*Note added after publishing this post- technically “low-income is correct pursuant to categories used by HUD, but those categories also include “very-low income” and “extremely low income”, which is different that the terms “low-income, affordable housing, and workforce housing, used by politicians speaking to a general audience. This post was written in the context of the latter and I am currently working on a post incorporating the lesser known Hud definitions.
Why would the Legislature change the name of the bill? One reason might be that it makes it harder to get signatures for a People’s Veto when the title of the Act claims that it preserves low-income housing. The original titles testify that this housing act was always targeting two other demographics, workforce housing (120% or below the medium income for an area) and affordable housing (80% or below the medium income for an area), which is still the case. Only the title of the act has been changed.
In 2018 Erin Cooperrider, currently the VP of the Boothbay Regional Development Corporation spoke of the intention to phase out “low-income” from the financial language and replace it with “workforce housing”:
Formerly low income was 60% or less of the median income for an area, affordable income was 80% or less of the median income for an area, By changing the names of the signifiers so that “low-income” signifies the demographic formerly designated as “affordable” the two demographics are conflated into one. Property owners will prioritize renters making higher income because the rules of affordable housing regulate the amount of rent that can be charged as 30% of the household’s monthly gross income. There is nothing in the so-called Low-income Housing' Act to mitigate the advantage that those making 80% of the median income have over everyone making less than 80% of the median income, when the two demographics are lumped together as one, competing for the same housing, the name swap disadvantages the low-income renter. The title of the Act was changed to signify an act preserving housing for the low-income renter, when the original name of the act accurately represents the demographic that it serves.
Is that perfectly clear?
In 2018 Ms. Cooperrider established the goal to phase our subsidies for the 60% or under demographic and phase in subsidies for the 120% or under medium income demographic. Changing the name of the affordable income bracket to low-income does the first part. Changing the name of workforce housing to affordable housing can do the second part.
2018 in the Boothbay Register: In the last decade, affordable housing developers started using the term workforce housing during permitting to describe the financials with the low-income housing tax credit, Cooperrider said. The income bracket the projects target includes many service sector jobs. Workforce housing also avoid using the term low income or affordable to describe the projects, she added.
Portland is among communities that have started referring to workforce housing as a household earning between 100 percent AMI and 120 percent AMI, she said. Cooperider added, other communities have been targeting more specific industries or types of jobs, rather than income brackets.
…..“It's also important to understand that unlike traditional affordable housing, there are no specific programs targeted to workforce housing, which makes it hard to build." source (emphasis by author)
The next paragraph is amended in an inexplicable way:
PL 2017, c. 407, Pt. 18 A, §120, is further amended by amending subparagraph (6) to read: A housing project serving the following: individuals with mental illness, developmental disabilities, physical disabilities, brain injuries, substance use disorder or a human immunodeficiency virus; homeless individuals; victims of domestic violence; foster children; or children or adults in the custody of the State;
The amendment adds this group of individuals to the above category:
individuals with a household income of no more than 80% of the area median income if the project has 18 or fewer units and receives funding through a program administered by the Maine State Housing Authority. A nursing home is not considered a housing project under this paragraph.
Why would these two groups be combined but only in smaller sized developments? Is it to make small size developments more controversial to a neighborhood? Since funding for the Rural Affordable Housing Program are distributed on a first come first serve basis, conditions that create controversies around smaller size developments can prevent those developments from applying for funding on a timely basis.
The same is also true of the Rural Affordable Housing Program, as is true of the newly conflated low-income and affordable income demographics, combining categories in a manner that creates unfair competition. The program reads promisingly at the beginning when it speaks of houses and smaller size developments but funds are distributed on a first-come first-serve basis " The maximum forgivable loan amount is $1,800,000 per acquisition rehab project and $3,330,000 per new construction or adaptive reuse project."
The total amount of funding in LD 724 is ten million dollars for each of the fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25. The maximum forgivable loan amount is about a third of the total amount of funds available per year and can easily be snapped up by large developers, on a first-come, first-serve basis. If the Legislature really supported smaller size developers, they would craft a bill for smaller developers in which they would not be competing with larger developers.
Next the amendment repeals several former statutes, apparently by erasing them from the statutes so that one must put in a request for the repealed statutes at the Maine Legislative Library, which I have done but not yet received.
Next is the definitions section, notably missing is an income definition for low-income housing and likewise income definitions for affordable and workforce housing. There is mention of federal eligibility restrictions, which requires looking up those laws on the part of the user, rather than clarifying the eligibility restrictions in the state law.
Definitions include
2. Holder. "Holder" means either the Maine State Housing Authority or a municipal housing authority that holds the option to purchase a low-income rental housing project. Formerly it was the Maine State Housing Authority but municipal housing authorities can now own the housing developments.
This works well with the mandates in LD 2003-1489 that every municipality have a “priority zone“ designated for permanent residential housing, encouraging municipal governments to become the landlords of these priority zones developments mandated by the State. The amendment also authorizes the assignment of the purchase option to a nonprofit corporation. Since non-profits do not pay property taxes, why would a municipality do so? This is a question I have been asking pertaining to the Boothbay Regional Development Corporation, which has stated that even if it sells the houses, it will retain ownership of all the land. The best option for a municipality to see any revenue from such a development is to purchase it from the non-profit developer. Then the town becomes a landlord. Maybe that beats the corporate employer being the landlord but what the workers really want is for individual home ownership to be affordable by working for a living.
The next paragraph is a classic in legislative paragraph construction. A long first sentence starts with words that read as if the intent is to prohibit the sale of subsidized housing that would change the affordability status, but all that is necessary is give a 90-day notice. In that section, following the words “taking any action in regard to the property: These words are struck out:
that will result in the termination of financial assistance designed to make the rental units affordable to low-income or moderate-income people
By striking out these words. the Legislature strikes out a general law that applies to all corporations. The words that are struck out are consistent with The Maine Constitution, Article IV Part Third section 13:
Section 13. Special legislation. The Legislature shall, from time to time, provide, as far as practicable, by general laws, for all matters usually appertaining to special or private legislation. The Maine Constitution, Article IV Part Third section 13: ( emphasis by author)
The general law is replaced with these words
described in this section
The section is Sec. 4. 30-A MRSA §4973. The effect of striking out words intended to protect low-income renters appears to be none other than what it seems. The only words that I have identified in Sec. 4. 30-A MRSA §4973 that protect the status of low-income renters are these:
3. Exceptions. The Maine State Housing Authority holder may not possess any
right of first refusaloption when a bona fide buyer, by contract with the seller, agrees to maintain the property as low-income housing without any termination or other modification to the income eligibility restrictions or rental restrictions or financial assistance applicable to the property. The notice provisions of this section apply to this subchapter.
And so the Maine Legislature In an act titled “An Act to Increase Opportunities for the Development or Preservation of Low-income Housing” leaves the protection of low-income rentals in the event of a property transfer up to the chance that a good Samaritan landlord will save the day.
At the same time by striking out the words that are categorically a general law, it carves out an exception to the formerly general law to itself and its assigned non-profit partners and municipal corporations. The Act as currently written makes the protection of low-income renters a special law, applicable to a special case and not to all.
This act does not do what the title says, rather quite the opposite. If Governor Mills does not veto a bill titled “An Act to Increase Opportunities for the Development or Preservation of Low-income Housing”, the people should, but the misleading title makes it a hard sell for a veto by anyone.
I have taken a few steps toward organizing a people’s veto on the Boothbay School District Replacement Charter. As I read the Constitution, it has to be a state wide petition. It will not be a bad thing pursuant to larger school issues to create some media coverage over the charter, and also will help to raise awareness of other ways in which our home rule rights are being taken away. We need some serious public activism to protect those rights. I hope others will join in.
These are my latest stats. My influence is growing, my income is not:
I welcome all my free subscribers and I know it is tough for a lot of people so for those of you who follow my thought and have a cushion, please consider becoming a paid or foundational supporter.
Also check out Andersen Design Vintage and Special Editions for a unique hand-made object of art
Thanks for reading!