The Wellesley Affordable Housing Trust—previously the Wellesley Housing Development Corp.—this past week held a public meeting with a consultancy that will work with the town to create a 5-year strategic action plan for affordable housing (see Wellesley Media recording of April 10 meeting).
The plan—not to be confused with the complementary Strategic Housing Plan or Unified Plan (at some point to be replaced by a Comprehensive Plan)—costs $30k and is being paid for from the trust’s existing funds. The trust’s mission is “to provide for the creation and preservation of affordable housing in Wellesley for the benefit of low- and moderate-income households” (Annual Town Meeting approved the trust’s creation last year).
Consulting firm JM Goldson started off by doing consultancy things, asking members of the now full Affordable Housing Trust board to introduce themselves and share a word or phrase about housing here (“complicated,” “important,” etc.). JM Goldson, led by Jenn Goldson, previously worked with the town on its Housing Production Plan.
Board members were earlier asked to fill out a questionnaire to help guide the plan’s direction, and cited a desire for a focused plan, and one that syncs with the Wellesley Housing Authority, which manages public housing properties on Barton Road and elsewhere. The Housing Authority has gone through a period of instability, and is in the midst of arranging a management agreement with the Cambridge Housing Authority.
A past feasibility study looking at possible redevelopment of the 16-plus-acre Barton Road public housing property proved to be largely a bust, but was cited as a resource for JM Goldson to at least look at as the town takes a possible fresh look at how to maximize this large property with just 88 units on it. Trust board chair Micah O’Neil noted that the organization needs to proceed somewhat cautiously, as this Lower Falls area of town is ripe for all sorts of other development with key commercial properties changing hands. “How do we smartly develop Barton Road but also keep in mind what else is happening in that part of town?” he said.
Wellesley currently meets the state’s guidance for having at least 10% of housing stock deemed affordable, though the town keeps a sharp eye on that percentage in the face of any possible new multi-family housing developments that could lack an affordable component. The state’s Affordable Homes Act, curiously, doesn’t include an affordable unit requirement… so possible development on the MassBay property designated as surplus by the Commonwealth could skew Wellesley’s affordable housing percentage. This MassBay situation “will hang over everything for the moment” in terms of development in that part of town, said Kenny Largess, the Select Board’s liaison to the trust, though he also said the Barton Road property provides the greatest opportunity for consensus on affordable housing development in town and could offer “the biggest bang for the buck.”
Goldson raised the issue of how to proceed with the trust’s action plan given the town is also awaiting its start on a broader comprehensive plan (Annual Town Meeting voted against funding yet another pricey study for now, with some portion of Town Meeting looking for Wellesley to first hire a new planning director). Executive Director Meghan Jop said “If anything, this plan I would argue is going to inform the Comprehensive Plan in terms of some of the goals and strategies for affordable housing.”
The questionnaire brought to light possible obstacles to affordable housing plans in town, including state funding rules that limit redevelopment and resident fatigue around multi-family housing discussions despite a general acknowledgement that Wellesley needs more housing diversity.
Thinking creatively will be required to come up with new affordable housing opportunities in town. One idea would be to create a land trust that will enable developers to seek more types of funding for projects.
A working session involving the consultancy and members of Wellesley boards/committees/staff with a say on housing matters is slated for May. From there, the consulting firm would come up with a draft plan in June and a final product in July.
- Send tips, photos, ideas to theswellesleyreport@gmail.com
- Please support your local online news source with a tax-deductible donation.
Andrew, why are you always meddling in Wellesley housing issues. You are NOT a Wellesley resident and you should have NO STANDING inserting yourself in Wellesley housing.
The way to increase truly affordable housing is to have the town or state donate land i.e. NO COST, have the architects volunteer their time. Have a highly competitive construction bidding process, NO UNIONS.
No incredibly expensive wasteful studies, no frightening expensive town processes. With common walls, it CAN BE DONE very economically.
The thing we dont need more housing, the coast of owning or renting is way out of control. Why not use what is available, lots of empty buildings are around. Don’t need to cut down 40 + acres of beautiful forest to have 180 units . How Greedy are humans? Not to mention we Need Trees and wildlife more than ever. Evicting beautiful animals..for Greed once again.
Building more housing would help tame runaway housing prices, as academic research has shown: https://www.furmancenter.org/publication/supply-skepticismnbsp-housing-supply-and-affordability/. Existing buildings, by themselves, are insufficient to meet Wellesley’s housing needs, and residential vacancy rates in Wellesley are far below those considered healthy by economists: https://data.census.gov/table?q=Vacancy+Rate+by+tenure&g=060XX00US2502174175.
No one involved in the MassBay project wants to cut down the forest. Not the state administrative agencies. Not MassBay. No one. It is a textbook example of a strawman argument. State officials have repeatedly said that they are interested in placing permanent conservation protections on the forested land on the site and building on the parking lot. This fact has been well established by The Swellesley Report: https://theswellesleyreport.com/2025/12/wellesley-select-board-meeting-starts-with-massbay-forest-ends-with-massbay-forest/; https://theswellesleyreport.com/2025/11/massbay-forested-land-in-wellesley-not-out-of-the-woods-yet/.
Here’s a novel idea. I own an “affordable” home in Wellesley that sat on the market for over six months before finally being rented. It is by far the least expensive free-standing house rental in all Wellesley. Next time aroind I won’t wait that long. What with the confiscatory taxes, the fact that NOTHING is deductible from federal income taxes, owning and renting an “affordable: home just is not worth it any longer. How about some reflief from TAXES and more TAXES?? And, while we are on the subject, how about some relief from the ever-increeaasing INSURANCE that pays nothing when there is a claim but oh boy, just be one day late with their “premium” and see what happens.
AFFORDABLE ???
How much is that?
Affordable to whom?
To own or to rent?
After defining affordable, the questions become more difficult to answer in a town where a lowly single family house lot costs more than a million dollars.
HOUSING ???
Ultimately, we must deal with the harder questions of “where” and how dense and who’s interested
in developing some? I’ll be surprised if another housing study will tell us anything we don’t already know or how we can identify, encourage and allow a developer to build housing that we decide is “affordable.”
From a technical perspective, the “affordable” in affordable housing usually means that a household making a certain percentage of the “area median income” would spend no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. The “area median income” is a number that’s calculated by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the “area” in this case covers most of Greater Boston, so it’s capturing way more than just the towns where homes sell for $1M+.
Affordable housing can be owner-occupied or renter occupied, and the exact percentage of the area median income covered varies widely by program. Wellesley’s inclusionary zoning bylaw, for example, sets aside some homes for those making between 80% and 140% of the AMI. Low Income Housing Tax Credits generally target between 50% and 60% of AMI. And traditionally, public housing has reached as low as 30%.
I agree that there are difficult questions to answer about where and how dense the housing needs to be. A housing study is only useful if there is the political will to implement it. Optimistically, studies can be used to build consensus around thoughtful, strategic, and long-term policy solutions. Pessimistically, they can obfuscate and delay efforts to implement existing known solutions.