Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Workforce Housing in the Monadnock Region
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Workforce Housing in the Monadnock Region

1,355
views

Published on

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing, as “a household that spends no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.” In conjunction with …

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing, as “a household that spends no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.” In conjunction with Heading for Home, a Keene-based non-profit housing coalition, this study’s primary focus is on the issue of workforce housing in Keene and the Monadnock Region of New Hampshire. One closed-response survey was developed and distributed to Town Planners and Selectmen to ascertain opinions regarding workforce housing. A second closed-response survey was distributed at Cheshire Medical Center in Keene to determine the impact of commuting on health care professionals. A case study was also conducted on Walpole, New Hampshire, where a 52 acre parcel of land has been preserved with the support of many public and private organizations. Education, participation, and legislation are all essential and necessary if New Hampshire wishes to house its workforce.

Published in: Education, Sports, Automotive

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,355
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. P age |i December 2008 KEENE STATE COLLEGE MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU: DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING IN THE GEOGRAPHY MONADNOCK REGION Sarah Forler, Torin Hjelmstad, Elizabeth Kane Faculty Sponsor: Christopher Cusack
  • 2. ii Abstract The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing, as “a household that spends no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.” In conjunction with Heading for Home, a Keene-based non-profit housing coalition, this study’s primary focus is on the issue of workforce housing in Keene and the Monadnock Region of New Hampshire. One closed-response survey was developed and distributed to Town Planners and Selectmen to ascertain opinions regarding workforce housing. A second closed-response survey was distributed at Cheshire Medical Center in Keene to determine the impact of commuting on health care professionals. A case study was also conducted on Walpole, New Hampshire, where a 52 acre parcel of land has been preserved with the support of many public and private organizations. Education, participation, and legislation are all essential and necessary if New Hampshire wishes to house its workforce.
  • 3. iii Acknowledgements_______________________________________________________ We are extremely grateful to the many organizations and individuals that provided valuable information and helpful insight. The following organizations are: Heading for Home Keene Planning Department Southwest Regional Planning Commission New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority Cheshire Housing Trust Keene State College In addition we would like to thank the following individuals for their support on behalf of this study: Susy Thielen, Coordinator, Heading for Home Susan Newcomer, Workforce Development Coordinator, Heading for Home Joyce Clarke, Member, Heading for Home Benjamin Frost, Director of Public Affairs, New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority Mikaela Engert, City Planner, City of Keene Laura Thibodeau, Tax Assessor, City of Keene Will Schoefmann, GIS Technician, City of Keene Matt Suchodolski, Community Development Specialist, Southwest Regional Planning Commission Nicole Cusack, RN, BSN, Cheshire Medical Center Dr. Christopher Cusack, Department of Geography, Keene State College Sheldon Sawyer, Selectman, Town of Walpole
  • 4. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF TABLES v CHAPTER 1 1 Introduction 1 Literature Review 2 Affordable Housing in New Hampshire 7 Hypotheses 11 CHAPTER 2 13 Keene and the Monadnock Region 13 CHAPTER 3 21 Workforce Housing Purchasing Power 21 CHAPTER 4 36 Survey, Methodology, and Results 36 Health-care Professionals Survey 36 Health-care Professionals Survey Results 37 Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey 40 Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey Results 43 CHAPTER 5 48 Case Study Within the Monadnock Region: Walpole, New Hampshire 48 CHAPTER 6 54 Conclusions and Solutions 54 LITERATURE CITED 58 APPENDICES 61 APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 62 APPENDIX 2 – HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS SURVEY PLANNING 63 APPENDIX 3 – RAW DATA 65 APPENDIX 4 – BOARD MEMBERS AND SELECTMEN SURVEY 66 APPENDIX 5 – RAW DATA 69
  • 5. v LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. New Hampshire Housing Coalitions 9 2. The Monadnock Region 11 3. Aging Population for Keene, New Hampshire, for the Year 2000 15 4. Population Change 1970-2007 16 5. Residents Who Commute out of Community of Residence 18 6. Residents Who Work in Community of Residence 19 7. Single-Family Homes in Keene, 2001 23 8. Single-Family Homes in Keene, 2008 24 9. Homes Falling Within the Workforce Housing Purchasing Power, 2001 26 10. Homes Falling Within the Workforce Housing Purchasing Power, 2008 26 11. Workforce Housing Availability in Keene’s Downtown, 2001 28 12. Workforce Housing Availability in Keene’s Downtown, 2008 29 13. Workforce Housing Availability in West Keene, 2001 31 14. Workforce Housing Availability in West Keene, 2008 32 15. Workforce Housing Availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2001 33 16. Workforce Housing Availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2008 34 17. Opinions on worst aspect of respondents commute 40 18. Survey Respondents 42 19. Officials’ opinions regarding future land use 46 20. Town Common, Walpole, New Hampshire 48 21. Home that does not adhere to 200 foot ordinance 49 22. Location of Ballum Farm in Walpole, New Hampshire 51
  • 6. vi LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Monadnock Region Municipalities Arranged by County 13 2. 2001 Affordability Calculator 21 3. 2008 Affordability Calculator 22 4. Correlation between commute time and workplace morale 37 5. Correlation between commute time and household morale 38 6. Correlation between commute and length of employment 39 7. Opinions of growth compared to Cheshire County 43 8. Opinions on changes in Master Plan 44 9. Opinions on tax increases which supplement workforce housing options 45 10. Correlation results between income and housing options 46
  • 7. P age |1 Chapter 1________________________________________________________________ Introduction Communities throughout the United States are faced with a growing and sometimes unrelenting problem: a scarcity of workforce housing. An increasing number of low and moderate-income families—families in a community’s “workforce”—are having difficulty affording reasonably priced homes. This issue is not a low-income issue, but rather one that affects entire communities. Nurses, teachers, firefighters and police officers—vital building blocks of a community—are all struggling to find affordable housing in the communities where they work. Much has been written about housing (Barnett 2003; Green and Malpezzi 2003; Bratt 1989) and specifically about designing homes that are not only aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly, but also affordable (Barnett 1995; Benfield, Terris, and Vorsanger 2001; Wells 2007). The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website defines affordable housing, as “a household that spends no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing” (2008). In the simplest terms, “the relationship of the cost of housing to income is central to the definition of affordable housing” (Meck, Retzlaff, and Schwab 2003, 20-21). Currently, this cost to income relationship is proving increasing difficult to reconcile for members of the workforce.
  • 8. 2 Literature Review Affordable housing is considered to be a problem across the nation. It not only impacts the sales of homes, but the employers of businesses as well. A majority of the working population is not within the means to spend only 30 percent of their income on housing (mortgage and rental payments). This concern is evident all across the country, not necessarily in one specific place, city, or town. This issue has become an ever- increasing problem and it seems that no part of the United States can escape the heavy hand of the workforce-housing crisis. The state of Arizona has seen a great increase in the price of homes within the past five years. For example, from the 1st quarter of 2005 to the 1st quarter of 2006 there was a 32.81% increase in annual home prices. The fact that the price of homes has rapidly increased over the past years has pushed development into areas that were previously uninhabited. Not only has there been a rapid increase in the prices of homes, but the population has also increased creating a greater demand for houses. In order to compensate and help the workforce (teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and nurses) in their ability to afford housing within the community that they are employed, the amount of development of more affordable housing needs to be increased. In 2005, a task force was created for the state of Arizona to help address this problem. There were many suggestions and strategies that were brought to the attention of the task force, such as development and expansion, creating financial incentives to encourage the establishment of local housing trust funds, and permitting the State Treasurer to
  • 9. 3 authorize a percentage of the states permanent funds to be put aside for additional loans specifically for affordable housing (Gunderson 2007, 42-43). Facing comparable problems is Edina, Minnesota, a Minneapolis suburb of just under 50,000 residents. It is also having a rather difficult time housing its workforce. Residents in Edina earn on average $66,019 annually and an average home in the town costs around $338,000. (Sullivan 2004). While the number of employment opportunities continues to grow in Edina, residents are still unable to afford the homes located in that same community. Employees are choosing to leave the city of Edina and taking residence in other Minneapolis suburbs. These individuals are then making a sometimes hour-plus commute into work on a daily basis. Echoing similar sentiments is Park City, Utah, a premier ski vacation town, and economic force in Summit County, Utah. There are simply not enough housing units being built that low- and moderate-income households can afford (Housing Park City’s Workforce 2005). In the first quarter of 2008, homes were selling for above $1.1 million on average. A two-bedroom condominium can be expected to cost somewhere around $200,000, although some are selling for $300,000. Like elsewhere, the town’s workforce is slowly being driven out due to the high prices of the housing market (Palmer 2008). A study done in Sedona, Arizona, found that employees who live in the city do not have significantly higher incomes than workers who commute. City residents are paying significantly more to live near their respective jobs, while commuters are paying less in housing costs, living in smaller, more rural towns, but are unfortunately incurring higher travel costs (Gober, et al. 1993). This study proves that the imbalances of
  • 10. 4 workforce housing are not restricted to urban areas; that suburban and rural areas are faced with the same dire concerns. Workforce housing “has not kept pace with suburban job growth” (Gober, et al. 1993, 19) and thus employees are suffering because the city in which their jobs are located do not provide adequate and affordable housing options. Inclusionary zoning, which has become more prominent recently, can be described as a government’s requirement or encouragement to developers to create affordable residential units as a part of any new development. It commonly requires that a specific number of these units be built for families of a particular income level. Finally, an affordable time period is allotted, which controls the amount of time that the units can be on the market as affordable. A major benefit of this program is that the financial burden of developing these units falls on the developer, rather than the community. In return for the tremendous commitment and responsibility, the developers receive incentives, usually involving a density bonus, for the great work being done (Lerman 2006, 385-386). On the other hand, exclusionary zoning cannot be considered nearly as positive as its counterpart. The zoning ordinances require large lot sizes, prohibit the use of mobile homes, and limit the amount of multifamily homes that can be built. Exclusionary zoning can be most commonly found in affluent communities where the population hopes to keep the “lower income” families out of their neighborhood. Governments have been known to disguise the issue of exclusionary zoning—to preserve the community’s character—so as not to seem like the town is discriminating
  • 11. 5 in any way (Lerman 2006, 386-387). However, Pendall (2000) notes that despite the combined efforts of some governments to limit this type of discrimination, exclusionary zoning is still being used as a vice for segregation. However, there are states and local governments that have decided to take action against this issue. In 1969 the state of Massachusetts adopted the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act” in hopes that the state would solve a housing “crisis” before it began. The act has not been altered in the almost forty years it has been on the books, and can still be read today as requiring that, “no less than ten percent of the housing stock within every city and town be subsidized with or by a federal or state subsidy” (Witten 2008, 230-232). This can further be understood as the state of Massachusetts promising to provide additional federal funding to the specific cities and towns that have less than ten percent of its housing financed. The intent of this act was to aid the municipalities in providing affordable housing options at no considerable cost to their local governments. In conjunction with this act, builders are able to reap the benefits as well. If the builder chooses to offer twenty-five percent of the residences as “affordable”, all zoning rules and restrictions are waived. Although this may sound like a very open and straightforward act, the fine print tells an entirely different story. It is proposed that the local zoning regulations of each individual town have the ability to be waived. The definition of local includes the rules and regulations adopted by the city or town itself, not required by the state. This further means that the State of Massachusetts’ zoning regulations do not have the option of being waived, just because the developer so chooses to offer affordable housing. The State Building Code, Wetlands Protection Act,
  • 12. 6 Environmental Policy Act, and wastewater disposal regulations apply equally to each of the cities and towns. This, as can be assumed, poses many problems for the cities and towns because of their individual environmental and infrastructural qualities. Furthermore, the permit process of the act lacks any policy that requires developers to comply with a towns pre-existing master plan (Whitten 2008, 227-228). Without proper knowledge of the cities historical records, or current master plans, the developer may cause further damage to the infrastructure or environment. On the brighter end of the situation, more is being done, most recently, to help lower-income families become more self-sufficient and lessen the burden of finding housing within an affordable price range. McClure (2008) focuses on de-concentrating poverty with the use of housing programs. He has determined that placing low-income families in a development designed exclusively for low-income households “creates social and economic isolation and contributes to the ills of our cities” (91). De- concentration of poverty is the first step in eliminating this condition. Lower-income families and households should not be forced to live in so-called “low-income” neighborhoods, but rather should have the option to choose where to live. This de- concentration of poverty then allows for better housing structures, safer neighborhoods, and a higher quality of services (92). Finally, with proper social networking, introducing a lower-income household into a “good” neighborhood will help in eliminating the non-existent relationship that is currently present between economic classes.
  • 13. 7 Affordable Housing in New Hampshire This continuously growing gap between low and moderate-income households and the ever increasing average home prices are creating a challenge for state and local officials. In the state of New Hampshire, the legislation currently passed a statute that promotes the development of more workforce housing. Senate Bill 342-FN-LOCAL (2008) “requires municipalities that exercise the power to adopt land use ordinances to provide opportunities for the development of workforce housing” and “establishes a mechanism for expediting relief from municipal actions which deny, impede, or delay qualified proposals for workforce housing”. The Bill, which takes effect in July of 2009, is aimed to help alleviate the shortage of housing available for the working class. Mr. Benjamin Frost, Director of Public Affairs for the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority (NHHFA), was an instrumental part of Bill 342. He hopes that the Bill will “force New Hampshire municipalities to examine its ordinances and make a good faith determination if they are allowing enough affordable housing opportunities” (Frost 2008). If, after July 2009, municipalities are not in compliance with Bill 342, a loss of control of legislative decision-making will occur. It is a small step in the larger scheme of trying to eliminate the need for workforce housing. Additional steps are being taken in the right direction to find a solution to this ever-increasing issue. These solutions can be found in the form of housing coalitions that are springing up across the country. New Hampshire, alone, currently has eight coalitions designed to help alleviate the workforce-housing problem (Figure 1). The Upper Valley Housing Coalition (UVHC), based in White River Junction, Vermont,
  • 14. 8 includes many towns in the state of New Hampshire. The coalition was created after a workforce-housing summit in November 2001, where over 200 business, municipal, and civic leaders gathered to address the difficulty with affordable housing. This region is a highly desirable place to live and work, which has drawn many top companies to the area resulting in over 10,000 jobs just in the past decade. With the support of community members, over 200 volunteers were able to raise $110,000 to fund the first year of operation. Through education, advocacy, and legislation, the UVHC hopes to eliminate the affordable housing shortage (www.uvhc.org).
  • 15. 9 Figure 1 New Hampshire housing coalitions. *Some towns are located in more than one housing coalition In 2001, the Housing Partnership initiated an education and advocacy program called the Workforce Housing Coalition of the Greater Seacoast (WHCGS). With the help of local businesses, government, and community groups, the mission of the WHCGS is to
  • 16. 10 be a mechanism for the development of a range of housing options for the workforce in the Greater Seacoast Region. Through public awareness and education, the coalition hopes to acknowledge the need to balance out the housing supply, advocate practices to protect the environment, and support developers that are committed to creating quality workforce housing options (www.seacoastwhc.org). Heading for Home, a third non-profit coalition is based in Keene, New Hampshire, and was initiated in 2003 to address ubiquitous housing problems facing the region. Its jurisdiction lies within the thirty-one towns in the Monadnock Region (Figure 2). Heading for Home strives to provide the necessary leadership, advocacy, and organization to assist the development and maintenance of workforce housing. The board of directors on the committee represents businesses and individuals from around the Monadnock Region who agree with the need for further workforce housing options across the region. Donations from members allow Heading for Home to remain an active part of the community (www.headingforhome.org). Working in conjunction with Heading for Home, the primary focus of this study is on the issue of workforce housing in Keene and the Monadnock Region.
  • 17. 11 Figure 2 The Monadnock Region. Hypotheses Several hypotheses were developed for this study and tested using SPSS Statistical Analysis. The initial hypothesis was created with the hope of finding a common factor between the lack of affordable housing in certain towns and their respective median incomes. It was hypothesized that: o Towns with a higher median income will have less workforce housing options. This will be due to an overall lack of low-to moderate-income households, the primary recipients of workforce housing. o Fewer homes in 2008 will fall within the workforce housing range than in 2001 due to the increase in home values. Previous studies have also shown that longer commute times can attribute to negative implications in the workplace. Hennessy (2008) notes that driving can intensify
  • 18. 12 other stressors, namely workplace conflict. Using this particular study, two additional hypotheses were developed: o Employees with longer commute times will show significantly affected levels of workplace and household morale. o Longer length of employment will correspond with a significantly shorter commute time.
  • 19. 13 Chapter 2________________________________________________________________ Keene and the Monadnock Region Primary research for this study is associated with the Monadnock Region of New Hampshire, located in the southwestern corner of the state. The Monadnock Region, composed of thirty-one towns, which span Cheshire, Sullivan and Hillsborough Counties (Table 1), is known for an abundance of scenic lakes and ponds, charming towns, and Mount Monadnock, which stands 3,165 feet above the surrounding towns (NH State Parks). Somewhat isolated from the rest of the state, be it due to geographic or psychological factors, the Monadnock Region offers an interesting look into the ever- present workforce housing issue. Table 1 Monadnock region municipalities arranged by county. Hillsborough County Sullivan County Antrim Acworth Bennington Charlestown Greenfield Langdon Hancock Peterborough Cheshire County Alstead Jaffery Rindge Troy Dublin Keene Roxbury Walpole Fitzwilliam Marlborough Stoddard Westmoreland Gilsum Marlow Sullivan Winchester Harrisville Nelson Surry Hinsdale Richmond Swanzey Keene, the eleventh largest municipality in New Hampshire with a population of 22,672 (U.S. Census Bureau), is the physical and economic center of Cheshire County. It is approximately 94 miles northwest of Boston, Massachusetts, 60 miles west of Manchester, New Hampshire, and 100 miles north of Hartford, Connecticut, allowing for easy access from the three largest surrounding metropolitan areas. Home to Keene
  • 20. 14 State College and Antioch New England Graduate School, Keene draws a considerable number of young people (18-24) who help stimulate the economy and diversify the community. Keene is also home to the Colony Mill Marketplace and the Monadnock Marketplace, just two of the many shopping destinations for local residents and visitors. However, while many people are drawn to Keene for its plethora of activities, fewer and fewer people are choosing to call Keene home. The lack of affordable housing has had repercussions on the average age of residents in the Monadnock Region and Keene in particular. Figure 3 highlights the aging population in Keene. Note the inflated levels of 20-24 year olds, which can be attributed to the colleges (KSC and Antioch). Young families are choosing not to move to the Keene area because of the lack of housing, leaving only an aging population and college students, many of whom are not residents. In the next twenty to thirty years, the current population of 40 to 55 year olds will maintain its current rate of growth, while the younger population will continue to decline. This is slowly turning New Hampshire into one of the “oldest” states in the nation. New Hampshire’s median age in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, was 39.8 years. Florida, a popular retirement destination, where the general perception of the population is “old”, has a median age of 39.9 years, not much higher than New Hampshire.
  • 21. 15 Figure 3 Aging population for Keene, New Hampshire for the year 2000. While Cheshire County’s population continues to rise, albeit more slowly in recent years, Keene’s has flat-lined, maintaining a relatively consistent level over the past twenty years (Figure 4). This may be due to several issues, such as Keene residents paying higher taxes compared to the surrounding towns. According to the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration, Keene residents’ 2006 Full Value Tax Rate (per $1,000 of value) was $24.58, whereas residents of Westmoreland, directly west of Keene, only pay $12.97 in Full Value Tax Rates. Residents are finding it more practical to live outside the city of Keene and make the longer commute to work, just to pay the cheaper tax rate.
  • 22. 16 Figure 4 Population change, 1970-2007. Another possible reason for the lack of growth within Keene and continued growth outside of Keene is the availability of jobs. The thirty towns that surround Keene are not the economic forces that Keene is and thus, the term “drive until you qualify” often applies. This refers to what many residents are forced to do: drive away from their place of employment until they can find housing that is within their income level. If it means working in Keene and commuting from Charlestown, some residents are forced to do so. This is unfortunate when the commute time becomes a detriment to the well being of a household or workplace. Figures 5 and 6 show the percentage of working residents who commute outside of their communities and the percentage of working residents who work within their community of residence, respectively. Residents of Keene, by and large, do not commute out of Keene to work. This is due to the availability and variety of jobs in Keene for those who live there. Residents of Keene are earning higher incomes than those outside of Keene and are able to afford housing that is relatively closer to the
  • 23. 17 jobs. Similarly, very few residents of Keene’s surrounding towns remain in the community to work. This is again due to the strong job market in Keene. As evident in Figure 5, more than 82% of residents in Surry, Sullivan and Roxbury commute out of the community to work. This is likely due to the lower taxes and greater opportunity for employment. Conversely, Keene residents generally stay in Keene to work. A larger job market, along with higher paying jobs enables residents to live and work in Keene. Figure 6 shows that Keene residents choose to remain in Keene to work, as do residents of Peterborough. This may be due to the fact that both are home to hospitals, which are the towns’ largest employers; Cheshire Medical Center (CMC) in Keene employs 1,500 and Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough employs 600 (www.nh.gov).
  • 24. 18 Figure 5 Residents who commute out of community of residence.
  • 25. 19 Figure 6 Residents who work in community of residence.
  • 26. 20 The towns surrounding Keene can also be referred to as “bedroom communities” or “commuter towns.” As previously discussed, individuals and their families often choose to live in a community outside of Keene for the cheaper tax rates, but will continue to commute to Keene for work and furthermore to use the city’s services, recreation, and shopping options. This in turn, puts a larger strain on the population still living within the city. Residents of Keene are continuing to pay high tax prices while supporting the services of residents from surrounding towns.
  • 27. 21 Chapter 3________________________________________________________________ Workforce Housing Purchasing Power According to the United States Census Bureau website, “affordable housing” is “housing that falls within the purchasing power of those whose household income falls between 80% and 120% of the area’s median income” (2008). For example, the 2008 median income for the City of Keene, New Hampshire is $61,089 (CNN Money.com). Based on this median income, the purchasing power of a family in Keene making the average income would be $188,351. Purchasing power includes variables such as interest rates, mortgage repayment terms, property tax rates, and available cash for down payment (www.nhhfa.org). This was determined using the “affordability calculator” available on the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority website (www.nhhfa.org). Using the same calculations, the 2001 purchasing power was determined, as well, to detect any changes in housing affordability. Prior to these calculations, three variables were assumed. First, a $10,000 down payment would be made; second, the interest rate would be set at 6.25%; and third, the mortgage term would be set to be paid back over a thirty year period. Tables 2 and 3 show how these calculations were processed.
  • 28. 22 Table 2 2001 Affordability calculator. Annual Income: $57,640 Purchase Price: $176,130.00 Total Monthly Payment: $1,328.62 Cash Down Payment: $10,000 Interest Rate: 6.25% Mortgage Term: 30 Years 80% Purchase Power Average Purchase Power 120% Purchase Power $140,904.00 $176,130.00 $211,356.00 Table 3 2008 Affordability calculator. Annual Income: $61,089 Purchase Price: $188,351.00 Total Monthly Payment: $1,425.04 Cash Down Payment: $10,000 Interest Rate: 6.25% Mortgage Term: 30 Years 80% Purchase Power Average Purchase Power 120% Purchase Power $150,680.80 $188,351.00 $226,021.20 Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the assessed property values for single-family residential homes in 2001 and 2008, respectively. Note the 2001 range of home values, which is $27,300 to $966,500, lower than the 2008 range of $46,700 to $1,022,300. A comparison between these two figures shows how the values of single-family homes in Keene have increased over a period of seven years. This makes it even more difficult for working families to find a home in a viable price range.
  • 29. 23 Figure 7 Single-family homes in Keene, 2001.
  • 30. 24 Figure 8 Single-family homes in Keene, 2008.
  • 31. 25 For further analysis, three locations throughout Keene were selected to look specifically at the number of single-family homes falling within the purchasing power range. First, Keene’s historic downtown (1); second, West Keene, home of Keene High School (2); and finally, the area adjacent to Maple Avenue (3) in the northwest part of the city. These locations are the areas that are most densely populated with single- family homes in Keene. The number of homes that fall within the purchasing power of a family earning the average median income in 2008 ($61,089) and 2001 ($57,640) were determined using the previously stated U.S. Census Bureau’s definition that “housing that falls within the purchasing power of those whose household income falls between 80% and 120% of the area’s median income”. A closer look at the homes in Keene reveals that fewer homes fall within the workforce housing purchasing power in 2008 than did in 2001, thus producing a failure to reject one of this study’s hypotheses. It stated that fewer homes in 2008 would fall within the workforce housing range income than in 2001 due to the increase in home values. Figure 9 shows the number of available single-family homes that fell within the workforce housing purchasing power in 2001 and Figure 10 shows the number of available single-family homes that fall within the purchasing power in 2008. Note the drastic reduction in available homes. Between 2001 and 2008, the number of available homes falling within the purchasing power range fell from 3,958 in 2001 to 2,193 in 2008, or a 1,765 decrease in homes. This represents a decrease of 55.4% in the number of homes that fall within the workforce housing purchasing power. This is an important
  • 32. 26 figure, as it demonstrates the increase in need—and a decrease in availability—for workforce housing. 3 1 2 Figure 9 Homes falling within the workforce housing purchasing power, 2001. 3 2 1 Figure 10 Homes falling within the workforce housing purchasing power, 2008.
  • 33. 27 Figure 11 illustrates the workforce housing available in Keene’s Downtown district, adjacent to Main Street, in 2001. Fewer homes were available closer to the center of the City (Main Street), but homes become more abundant the further away from the center. It is a small-scale form of “urban sprawl”: very few homes available close to the city center, forcing people to spread centrifugally. This is evident by the increased number of homes that surround Main Street. Figure 12 shows the workforce housing available in 2008 around Main Street. Note the decrease in homes as compared to Figure 11. This decrease can be attributed to the rising costs of homes; working families are making the same amount of money, but the cost of living continues to escalate. Consider the “V” area directly north of Main Street, between Court Street and Washington Street (see figures 11 and 12). In 2001, it was moderately occupied by homes within the workforce housing range. By 2008, noticeably fewer homes are now considered “affordable”.
  • 34. 28 Figure 11 Workforce housing availability in Keene’s downtown, 2001.
  • 35. 29 Figure 12 Workforce housing availability in Keene’s downtown, 2008.
  • 36. 30 Figures 13 – 16 show a comparison between the number of homes in the workforce housing range in 2001 and 2008 in the locations near West Keene and Maple Avenue, respectively. Notice the substantial decrease in the number of available homes in both locations. Between 2001 and 2008, the amount of available homes in the West Keene area fell from 975 to 510, a 48% decrease. Given that West Keene is the home of Keene High School, Symonds Elementary School, and Wheelock Park, a decrease of 465 homes is sure to have a considerable impact on families of school-aged children. If this number continues to decrease at such an alarming rate, fewer families will be able to raise their children in a friendly neighborhood within close proximity of a school. Maple Avenue is faced with a similar situation. Home to the Jonathan M. Daniels School, and close to Cheshire Medical Center, this area has shown a comparable decrease in number of available homes. In 2001, there were 627 single-family homes that fell within the workforce housing affordability range in the Maple Avenue area and by 2008, that number had fallen to 436, a 30% decrease. If these numbers continue to decrease at such a drastic rate, families wishing to live in Keene will be unable to do so, and those who do live there, will be faced with the ever-rising cost of living.
  • 37. 31 Figure 13 Workforce housing availability in West Keene, 2001.
  • 38. 32 Figure 14 Workforce housing availability in West Keene, 2008.
  • 39. 33 Figure 15 Workforce housing availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2001
  • 40. 34 Figure 16 Workforce housing availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2008.
  • 41. 35 The preceding data therefore proves the hypothesis that there would be fewer homes that fell within the workforce housing purchasing power range in the year 2008 than there were in 2001. Despite the fact that Keene’s average median income rose from $57,640 in 2001 to $61,089 in 2008, families were unable to cope with the increased home values. This continuously growing gap between income and the cost of housing will only make finding affordable housing more difficult for the families who need it the most.
  • 42. 36 Chapter 4________________________________________________________________ Survey. Methodology, and Results The primary method of data collection for this study was the distribution of surveys. Two surveys were developed and distributed with the intention of obtaining data that would be able to be analyzed and studied. Several descriptive statistical analyses were performed as well as tests determining a correlation between two variables. “A correlation provides a more objective, quantitative means to measure the association between a pair of spatial variables. Both the direction and strength of association between the two variables can be determined statistically” (McGrew and Monroe 2000, 193). Health-Care Professionals Survey Sacks (2005, 2), terms nurses as “key workers”, who “provide essential education, health, and community safety services fundamental to the long-term vitality of our cities and towns” (2). Other “key workers” include teachers, firefighters and police officers—a vital part of a community’s well being and an essential part of the workforce. Consequently, a mostly closed-response survey (Appendix 2) was developed and distributed to members of the nursing profession at Cheshire Medical Center (CMC) in Keene. Fourteen surveys were returned. o A Correlation test was run to determine whether commute time has an effect on workplace and household morale. This hopes to demonstrate that a longer commute contributes significantly to an employee’s morale, both in the workplace and at home.
  • 43. 37 o A second Correlation test was run to determine the relationship between town of residence and length of employment. It was hypothesized that a longer length of employment would mean a shorter commute time. This test hopes to demonstrate that those who live closer to the CMC have been employed significantly longer than those with longer commute times. Health-Care Professionals Survey Results Using the results from the health-care professionals’ survey, three correlation tests were conducted. First, to determine a correlation between commute time and workplace morale; second, to determine a correlation between commute time and household morale; and third, to determine a correlation between commute time and length of employment. Table 4 shows the results of the first correlation test. It was determined that there is no significant correlation between commute time and workplace morale, therefore rejecting the hypothesis. The correlation was -.231, with a significance value of .448, thus only a moderate and statistically insignificant correlation was found. Table 4 Correlation between commute time and workplace morale. 9d) My commute time affects my morale Commute affects Commute Time workplace morale Commute Time Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.231 Sig. (2-tailed) .448 N 13.000 13 Commute affects workplace Pearson Correlation -.231 1.000 morale Sig. (2-tailed) .448 N 13 14.000
  • 44. 38 Table 5 shows the results of the second correlation test, which shows the correlation between commute time and household morale. It was hypothesized that a longer commute time would mean significantly affected levels of household morale. It was concluded that there is no significant correlation between these two variables, as the correlation was -.383. While a majority of respondents commute to Keene from other towns, those commutes affect neither workplace nor household morals. This could possibly be due to the fact that the longest commute time among respondents was forty-five minutes, not an extremely long distance to travel, though fairly substantial. Had commute times been longer, a possible correlation might have resulted. Table 5 Correlation between commute time and household morale. 9e) My commute time affects my household’s morale Commute affects Commute Time household’s morale Commute time Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.383 Sig. (2-tailed) .196 N 13.000 13 Commute affects household’s Pearson Correlation -.383 1.000 morale Sig. (2-tailed) .196 N 13 14.000 Table 6 shows the result of the final correlation test. It was hypothesized that employees with a longer length of employment would have a shorter commute time. The correlation coefficient was found to be -.418, hence having a weak relationship. While eleven out of fourteen respondents have been employed at the CMC for ten years or more, there was no relationship between length of employment and commute time.
  • 45. 39 Also, six of the respondents disclosed that their commute time was not a significant determinant in choosing their employment. Employees, by and large, are drawn to an income that can support themselves and their families, regardless of their commute. Table 6 Correlation between commute and length of employment. 5) How long is your commute to work? Commute Time Time of Employment Commute Time Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.418 Sig. (2-tailed) .156 N 13.000 13 Time of Employment Pearson Correlation -.418 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .156 N 13 14.000 Among respondents, gas prices ranked highest for worst aspect of their commute (Figure 17). This is no surprise given the relatively high gas prices, though prices have declined lately. Other determinants were also cited. Many respondents cited road conditions, likely due to the major road construction currently being undertaken on Court Street, which is the main access road to get to the Cheshire Medical Center. An employee wishing to get to the CMC must take several detours, endure tedious waits at stop signs, and drive on uneven or unpaved roads. Weather was also an issue; winters in New Hampshire are often unforgiving on vehicles and drivers alike.
  • 46. 40 Figure 17 Opinions on worst aspect of respondents commute. After running correlation tests there was found to be no relationship between commute time and workplace and household morale. For both morales there was a weak relationship in correlation to commute time, which disproved the hypothesis stating that employees with longer commute times will show significantly affected levels of workplace and household morale. Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey While decisions regarding planning and zoning are left to Planning Board Members and Selectmen, many states have encouraged the public to play a more prominent role in the process (Jorden and Hentrich 2003). Ballot-box zoning, “the process of subjecting land use decisions to popular vote, usually on a local level” (Staley 2001, 26) allows citizens to express opinions and concerns about specific topics such as land-use or open space programs. In 2004, voters in San Francisco, California, rejected a proposal, which would have allowed for developers to construct middle-income homes
  • 47. 41 aimed at workforce housing families. Although none of the towns in the Monadnock Region adhere to the ballot-box zoning initiative, the relative small size of each town, enabled a survey to be developed which facilitated the acquisition of opinions of Town Planners and/or Selectmen. The survey (Appendix 4) was primarily a closed-response survey, containing mostly Likert-scale questions for quantitative analysis and one open-ended question for personal insights and qualitative analysis. Issues discussed were: changes in zoning, tax increases, and incentives to developers. The survey was designed to obtain data, which would be useful for Correlation tests and descriptive statistics. Using the 2008-2009 New Hampshire Municipality Directory, the names and e- mail addresses of all thirty-one towns’ Town Planners and/or Selectmen were compiled. Surveys were sent and after two weeks, only one had been returned. A follow up survey was sent via post to the same offices, along with additional surveys distributed to Keene planners. Fifteen of 31 non-Keene surveys were returned as well as two Keene surveys; responses represent 52% of the towns in the Monadnock Region (see Figure 18).
  • 48. 42 Figure 18 Survey respondents.
  • 49. 43 o Using SPSS Statistical Analysis, a number of descriptive statistics were found. Specifically, the mode, to determine the opinions on rates of growth compared to Cheshire County (Question 3) and to determine different levels of support regarding specific issues pertaining to workforce housing (Questions 8a-8f) o A Correlation test was run to determine if there was a relationship between a town’s median income and the amount of available workforce housing options. This hopes to demonstrate that towns with a higher median income will have a significantly lower amount of available workforce housing options Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey Results Using the results of the survey, several statistical analyses were run. Respondents were asked to compare the growth of their town to the growth of Cheshire County as a whole. Table 7 illustrates these findings. Interesting is the discrepancy between Keene Planning Board members’ opinions: one believes Keene is growing faster than Cheshire County, while the other feels that it is not growing as fast. Table 7 Opinions of growth compared to Cheshire County. 3) Compared to Cheshire County, my town is growing: Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Faster 3 9.4 18.8 18.8 About the Same 5 15.6 31.2 50.0 Slower 8 25.0 50.0 100.0 Total 16 50.0 100.0 Missing System 16 50.0 Total 32 100.0 Tests were run on two questions regarding officials’ opinions on two major issues: changes in their towns’ Master Plan and tax increases. Question 8b posed whether officials believed changes should be made to the town’s Master Plan so to allow for undeveloped land to be re-zoned for workforce housing (Table 8). Of the
  • 50. 44 sixteen respondents, seven strongly disagreed that any changes should be made to the Master Plan while two (Keene and Nelson) strongly agreed that changes should be made. Overall, this reveals a considerable resistance to any re-zoning for undeveloped land. Seventy-five percent of respondents disagree or strongly disagree that any changes should be made to the Master Plan, while less than twenty percent agree. This demonstrates that rezoning is not likely to be a practical option for the development of more workforce housing. Table 8 Opinions on changes in Master Plan. 8b) Changes should be made in the Master Plan that would allow undeveloped land to be re-zoned so that it can be used for new neighborhood housing developments that are specifically designed for working families Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid Strongly Agree 2 6.2 12.5 12.5 Agree 1 3.1 6.2 18.8 No Opinion 1 3.1 6.2 25.0 Disagree 5 15.6 31.2 56.2 Strongly Disagree 7 21.9 43.8 100.0 Total 16 50.0 100.0 Missing System 16 50.0 Total 32 100.0 Table 9 shows results from Question 8d, which asked whether taxes should be increased to help make more workforce housing options available. Taxes are always a pertinent topic, especially in local governments, which makes this question very essential. Not surprisingly, fourteen out of the sixteen respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed that taxes should be increased to make more workforce housing
  • 51. 45 available; the remaining two had no opinion (Rindge and Alstead). Towns that surround Keene have considerably lower tax rates as it is (New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration) and given the chance, it seems few would agree to a tax increase regardless of the reason. Table 9 Opinions on tax increases which supplement workforce housing options. 8d) Taxes should be increased to help supplement housing options for working families Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Don't Know 2 6.2 12.5 12.5 Disagree 7 21.9 43.8 56.2 Strongly Disagree 7 21.9 43.8 100.0 Total 16 50.0 100.0 Missing System 16 50.0 Total 32 100.0 Question 5 of the survey asked whether or not officials thought their town currently had an adequate number of workforce housing options. Using these results, a test was run to determine any correlation between a town’s median income and adequacy of workforce housing options. As illustrated in Table 10, there is no correlation between a town’s median income and the believed adequacy of workforce housing. Also, only two (Greenfield and Winchester) of the respondents believed that workforce housing was the top priority.
  • 52. 46 Table 10 Correlation results between income and housing options. Correlation between median income and available housing options Five Median Income Pearson Correlation 1.000 .133 Five Sig. (2-tailed) .612 N 17.000 17 Pearson Correlation .133 1.000 Median Income Sig. (2-tailed) .612 N 17 32.000 As illustrated in Figure 19, Question 9 sought to determine planners’ opinions regarding future land use in their communities. Of the seventeen respondents, two supported the removal of barriers to development and encouraged construction of new houses. Nine respondents believe “development of housing must occur with careful consideration and some restraint”, and the remaining six were in favor of natural environment preservation, one respondent felt that “rural property—forests and tillable lands are a finite commodity. We rely on these for the air we breathe and the food we eat but also for the beauty and wildlife. Can we afford to lose these?” Figure 19 Officials' opinions regarding future land-use.
  • 53. 47 On the whole, there were no outstanding trends among local Town Planners and Selectmen. The issue of workforce housing, though prominent in many towns in the Monadnock Region, remains to be a “backburner issue” as evident by the fact that only two town officials ranked it as the top priority in their town. For workforce housing to become an effective and viable option, more town officials need to understand that without it, their communities will suffer. Young families will choose not to live and work in that area due to the fact that they are unable to afford housing within relatively close proximity to their place of employment. Furthermore, employers will be unable to hire skilled workers and retain valuable employees. This lack of workforce thus hinders economic expansion and development.
  • 54. 48 Chapter 5________________________________________________________________ Case Study within the Monadnock Region: Walpole, New Hampshire The increase in home values in Keene has forced a considerable number of families to move to the surrounding towns, furthering the demand for affordable housing in those towns. One town in particular, however, views land conservation as a primary and everlasting concern. Walpole, New Hampshire, residents joined together for the purchase of a 52-acre plot of land adjacent to the Connecticut River. Walpole lies about fifteen miles northwest of Keene, its western border touching the Connecticut River. Within the town lines are the villages of Walpole, North Walpole, and Drewsville, which contain working farms, accredited primary schools, a small business district, and charming Town Common (Figure 20). According to the 2000 US Census, the population of Walpole is 3,594 and of that, a considerable number have operating farms as their main source of income (http://www.walpolenh.us). Figure 20 Town common, Walpole, New Hampshire. Source: Authors.
  • 55. 49 Sheldon Sawyer, Town Selectman and Planning Board Member, as well as a local farmer, has strong opinions regarding zoning within the town and its effects on housing costs. He explained that the Town of Walpole currently mandates that residential development must lie on a parcel of land that is no less than 40,000 square feet and furthermore possess no less than 200 feet of road frontage. Walpole’s town common can be found as an exception to this rule. There are homes and businesses that do not possess the 200 feet of frontage because they were grandfathered into the ordinance (Figure 21). This is due to those specific homes and businesses being established prior to the master plan being written. Ultimately, if Walpole chose to build a town common today, it would look drastically different due to the regulations mandated by the ordinance. Figure 21 Home that does not adhere to 200-foot ordinance. Source: Authors
  • 56. 50 Mr. Sawyer also noted that subdivisions can be developed on a major or minor scale. According to the Town of Walpole website, a major subdivision consists of anything more than four dwellings, while a minor subdivision allows for four or less residences (2006). Builders are choosing to develop minor subdivisions because the approval process by the town is much simpler, and is more likely to be accepted over a major development project. This significantly limits the amount of development in Walpole. Furthermore, it may spur an inefficient “leap-frog” form of housing development. Currently fifteen percent of Walpole falls under a conservation plan and the town hopes to see that number rise to 25 percent in the upcoming years. One step towards the increase in conservation can be found at Ballam Farm, only minutes from Walpole’s center. The Ballam Farm property was formerly part of Louis Ballam’s family farm. Figure 22 shows the location of the Ballam Farm relative to Walpole’s town center and the Connecticut River. When this land was first put up for sale in 2006 it was under consideration as the future site of a car dealership and residential development. This raised concern due to the fact that this property is located close to Walpole’s “River Well”- the largest public water supply in town. The 52 acres of farmland and forestland have frontage on the Connecticut River, good quality soil, and are positioned over the town’s drinking water aquifer, covering about twenty-percent of the most productive aquifers in the state of New Hampshire (http://www.nh.nrcs.usda.gov).
  • 57. 51 Figure 22 Location of Ballam Farm in Walpole, New Hampshire. Many organizations played a role in the funding to help purchase this land. The Trust for Public Land raised almost $200,000 of private funding that was matched with public funds for the conservation land. The United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program
  • 58. 52 provided a $290,000 grant. The Water Supply Land Grant Program of New Hampshire provided a $153,000 grant as well. Locally, the Walpole Conservation Commission contributed $50,000 in order to fund the purchasing of the Ballam Farm (http://www.nh.nrcs.usda.gov). After two years, The Trust for Public Land (TPL) and the Walpole Conservation Commission has successfully closed on the Ballam Farm Conservation Commission. This gives Walpole’s Conservation Commission a conservation easement on the land. Not only are the 52 acres adjacent to the Connecticut River but there is an additional eight acres in addition to the wellhead property which can hold a wellhead if it is needed in the future. Now that this land is protected there will not be any development that may pollute the water supply of Walpole. While conserving this land protects the water supply of the community, it also removes 52 acres of land from potential housing development. In Communities and Consequences, authors Francese and Merrill report that resistance to residential development is common in many towns. A developer may propose a plan to build 90 homes on 300 aces of open land—in conformance with the town’s three-acre minimum zoning. Individuals opposed to that wasteful use of the land rally support for buying up all 300 acres for permanent conservation as open space. Federal and state grants are obtained and combined with a town bond issue to purchase the land, and the development is stopped (2008, 23 – 24). The repercussions of this particular act are both long term and most certainly underestimated by the population who chose to conserve the land. The cost of housing will increase because of the demand and young families will not have the option of
  • 59. 53 living there because of the lack of affordable housing, thus starting the vicious cycle. Fortunately, there are many solutions and available options for towns like Keene and Walpole to put into action.
  • 60. 54 Chapter 6________________________________________________________________ Conclusions and Solutions When a family is left without a bed to sleep in at night, without a living room to congregate in, and without a dining room to eat a meal in, they are not considered houseless, but rather homeless. This issue is not just an issue of numbers and figures; it has ramifications that transcend every family in every town. But what can be done? What can communities do to help combat this issue? Mikaela Engert, City Planner for Keene, New Hampshire, believes that ultimately workforce housing involves having a choice. Workforce families should be able to choose homes that are well built and well maintained, not homes that are so-called “dumps” located in bad neighborhoods. Homes should be within close proximity to town services (jobs, shops), which would decrease energy consumption and transportation costs; homes should be energy efficient, further reducing energy costs; and finally, homes should be family-specific: a fitting home for a family of three should be suitable for a family of three, not a family of seven. Engert suggests changing town ordinances and offering better incentives to developers to make their metaphoric carrot bigger. This is something that Keene is currently in the process of doing by making changes to the Master Plan, which will address the broader issue of housing as well as workforce housing specifically. If developers are solely concerned with making a substantial profit, then they either need to rethink the situation realistically or walk away from the project. Developing
  • 61. 55 workforce housing should not only be about making money, it should be about creating quality homes for families who need them. While Engert works diligently with the City of Keene, Benjamin Frost spends his time traveling across the State of New Hampshire to educate the public about the issues surrounding workforce housing. He also works with the government officials of these towns in their pursuit to find ways to offer more affordable housing within their communities. Further efforts, too, could be made to reduce minimum lot sizes which would increase the density and allow for more housing options. For example, a single-family house lot in Keene only needs to be 6,000 square feet, while in Alstead; a single-family house lot must be five acres. This can be considered a form of exclusionary zoning, which limits where families can live, work, be educated, and quality of life (Liberty 2003). Thus, more inclusionary zoning needs to be incorporated to help increase the available options for families of low-to moderate-income levels. Mixed-use development, too, would help increase the options for housing. Mixed-use development involves combining commercial and residential lots, while still maintaining property integrity and function. Keene’s Main Street is a prime example of mixed-use development, with many residential apartments located above the numerous shops and eateries. This also drastically limits commute times and provides a sense of belonging to the community, all while allowing residents to live where they work. Dispelling any myths will also help erase the stigma that accompanies workforce housing. Workforce housing is not a low-income problem, it is a community issue that
  • 62. 56 affects the entire population. It is part of a community’s infrastructure, just like road services, water supplies and communications, which are all used on a daily basis. More and more “cultural and economic racism” is evolving (Francese and Merrill 2008, 38). The “not-in-my-back-yard” (NIMBY) mentality percolates through communities when faced with workforce housing issues. To many it conjures up images of low-income housing projects in inner-city neighborhoods. What many fail to realize is that workforce housing is for the workforce, those who teach children, put out fires, stop crime and save lives. Without a workforce, a community would crumble. Another myth that coincides with workforce housing is that if a family with children moves into a town, schools will become overcrowded and taxes will increase for the rest of the community due to school enrollment increasing. A study by the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority in 2005 found that each new home results in an average increase of only one-half child (Francese and Merrill 2008, 8). Couple this with the fact that no new development will be built overnight; a 100-home development will not yield 200 (or even 50) children at the start of every school year. Homes take time to occupy. If only twenty-five homes are filled in the first year after development, about thirteen new children are likely to become enrolled in the schools, all presumably of different ages. Children are an essential part of a community. They maintain a stable population within a community and help preserve balanced housing efforts for the middle-class. The bottom line, according to Ben Frost, is that “towns need kids” (2008). Finally, without a doubt, the most important way to help find a solution for the workforce housing issue is to stay involved and educated. This means taking the
  • 63. 57 opportunity to attend local housing coalition meetings to stay informed with current issues regarding workforce housing (see www.workforcehousingnh.com/coalitions.cfm for a full list of New Hampshire housing coalitions). It means attending planning board meetings and learning what can be done and what has been done to address this issue. Lastly, a simple, but extremely effective way to make a difference is with a letter to the editor to a local newspaper. Especially in small towns where voices really can have an impact, a letter to the editor has the power to create awareness that a larger-scaled effort may be unable to generate. In New Hampshire, the goal of providing adequate and well-maintained homes for the workforce is just as imperative as any other town service. No community would let unsuitable roads go unattended or educational facilities crumble. To achieve this goal, communities must unite and take action through education, participation, and legislation. Only then will New Hampshire be successful in housing its workforce.
  • 64. 58 Literature Cited___________________________________________________________ Affordable Housing. 2008. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Accessible from www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/ Index.cfm (last accessed 15 October 2008). Barnett, J. 2003. Redesigning cities. Chicago: American Planning Association. . 1995. The fractured metropolis. New York: Icon Editions. Benfield, F. K., J. Terris, and N. Vorsanger. Solving sprawl: models of smart growth in communities across America. New York City: National Resources Defense Council. Bratt, R. G. 1989. Rebuilding a low-income housing policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. CNNMoney. 2008. Best places to live: Money’s list of America’s best small cities. Available at www.money.cnn.com (last accessed 27 October 2008). Engert, M. 2008. City of Keene. Received data from personal contact. Francese, P., and L.S. Merrill. 2008. Communities & consequences: the unbalancing of New Hampshire’s human ecology & what we can do about it. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Peter E. Randall Publisher LLC. Frost, B. 2008. New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. Received data from personal contact. Gober, P., K. E. McHugh, and D. Leclerc. 1993. Job-rich but housing poor: The dilemma of a western amenity town. Professional Geographer 45 (1): 12-20. Goodno, J. B. 2004. Voters reject San Francisco plan to encourage workforce housing. Planning. Available at: www.planning.org/affordablereader/planning/news0504 .htm (last accessed 16 September 2008). Green, R. K. and S. Malpezzi. 2003. A primer on U.S. housing markets and housing policy. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. Gunderson, R.J. 2007. Housing affordability and workforce housing initiatives. Economic Development 39-46. Heading for Home. 2008. A regional housing coalition. Available at www.headingforhome.org (last accessed 11 November 2008).
  • 65. 59 Hennessy, D.A. 2008. The Impact of Commuter Stress on Workplace Aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38 (9): 2315-2335. Housing Park City’s Workforce 2005-2010: Housing Assessment and Demand Analysis. 2005. Executive Summary. Jorden, D. A. and M. Hentrich. 2003. Public participation is on the rise: a review of the changes in the notice and hearing requirements for the adoption and amendment of general plans and rezonings nationwide and in recent Arizona land use legislation. Natural Resources Journal 43(3): 865-886. Lerman, B. 2006. Mandatory inclusionary zoning: The answer to the affordable housing problem. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 33(2): 383-416. Liberty, R.L. 2003. Abolishing exclusionary zoning: A natural policy alliance for environmentalists and affordable housing advocates. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 30(3): 581-604. McClure, K. 2008. Deconcentrating poverty with housing programs. Journal of the American Planning Association 74(1): 90-99. McGrew, Jr. J.C. and C.B. Monroe. 2000. Correlation. An introduction to statistical problem solving in geography, second edition, 193. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Meck, S., R. Retzlaff, and J. Schwab. Regional approaches to affordable housing. Chicago: American Planning Association. New Hampshire Senate. Senate Bill 342-FN-LOCAL. Available at: http://www.gencourt.state. nh.us/legislation/2008/sb0342.html. Palmer, R. 2008. Affordable Housing elusive in Park City. Deseret News, 3 August. Pendall, R. 2000. Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142. Sacks, S. D. 2005. Key worker housing : a demand analysis of middle-income workforce housing in eastern Massachusetts. Thesis: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning. Sawyer, S. 2008. Town of Walpole. Received data from personal contact.
  • 66. 60 Seacoast Workforce Housing Coalition. Portsmouth, NH. Available at http://www.seacoastwhc.org (last accessed 28 October 2008). Staley, S. R. 2001. Ballot-box zoning, transaction costs, and urban growth. Journal of the American Planning Association 67(1): 25-37. Sullivan, T. 2004. Putting the force in workforce housing. Planning 70(10): 26-31. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. City of Keene, New Hampshire. . 2000. General Housing Characteristics: 2000. Keene, New Hampshire. . 2006. Census 2006 Demographic Profile Highlights Cheshire County, New Hampshire. United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at: http://www.nh.nrcs.usda.gov (last accessed 5 November 2008). Upper Valley Housing Coalition. White River Junction, VT. Available at http://www.uvhc.org (last accessed 28 October 2008). Walpole, New Hampshire. 2006. Land subdivision control regulations. Available at: http://www.walpolenh.us/ordinances.htm (last accessed 20 November 2008). Wells, W. 2007. Blueprint for greening affordable housing. Washington: Island Press. Whitten, J.D. 2003. The cost of developing affordable housing: At what price? Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 30(3): 509-554.
  • 67. 61 APPENDICES
  • 68. 62 APPENDIX 1: List of Interviewees Ms. Mikaela Engert, City of Keene Planning Department Mr. Benjamin Frost, Director of Public Affairs, New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority Mr. Sheldon Sawyer, Town of Walpole Selectman and Planning Board Member
  • 69. 63 APPENDIX 2: Health Care Professionals Survey Greetings, we are Keene State College Geography students completing our Senior Thesis. We are working in collaboration with Heading for Home, a non-governmental organization which was created with a goal of finding a solution to the lack of workforce housing in the Monadnock Region. Workforce housing applies to all income levels within our workforce. A household’s total housing costs, according to federal guidelines, should be no more than 30% of the household’s income. The purpose of this survey is to sample local employees’ opinions about workforce housing. We appreciate your time and if interested, we will gladly provide you with a copy of our results. 1. Position:____________________________________ 2. Town of residence: ___________________________ 3. Total number of persons in your household including yourself? __________ 4. Do you rent or own? Rent _____ Own _____ 5. Approximately how long (in minutes) is your commute to work? __________ 6. How do you get to work? _____ Drive my own car _____ Public transportation _____ Walk _____ Get a ride/carpool with co-worker _____ Bicycle _____ Other 7. The worst thing about my commute is: Gas Prices _____ Road conditions _____ Weather _____ Other _____ Traffic _____ 8. How many years have you been with your current employer? __________ 9. Please rate your level of support regarding the following: a. My commute time was a significant determinant in choosing my current employer Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 b. I would like to live closer to my current employer Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 c. Housing costs are an important factor as to why I live where I do Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5
  • 70. 64 d. My commute time can affect my morale Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 e. My commute time can affect my household’s morale Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 f. A lack of affordable housing contributes to a shortage of nurses in the Monadnock Region Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 10. If you currently do NOT live in the community where you are employed, would you consider moving to that community if you could find housing that was affordable for your household? ____ Yes ____ No If NO, skip to Question 11. If Yes, how interested would you be in moving to that community? _____ very interested _____ somewhat interested _____not very interested If Yes, what type of housing would you need in that community to make relocating to that town desirable and feasible? _____ Single family house _____ Multi-family housing/ Apartment _____ Townhouse/ Condominium _____ Other (please specify) _______________ 11. Please rank what you feel is most important in your town 1-6 (1 being the least, 6 being the most important) Open Space/ Recreation _____ Property Taxes _____ Education _____ Workforce Housing _____ Municipal Services (police, fire) _____ Other _____ (please explain below) 12. What is your opinion about the availability of affordable housing in the Monadnock region?
  • 71. Position Tow n of Residence Total number of persons in your household including youself Do you rent or ow n? Approximately how long (in minutes) is your commute to work? How do you get to work? The worst thing about my commute is: How many years have you been with your current employer (in years)? My commute time w as a significant determinant in choosing my current employer I would like to live closer to my current employer Housing costs are an important factor as to w hy I live where I do My commute time can affect my morale My commute time can affect my household's morale A lack of affordable housing contributes to a shortage of nurses in the Monadnock Region RN Vernon, VT 4 own 45 minutes car gas,traffic, road condtions 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 RN Keene 4 own 15 minutes car weather 30 1 1 5 5 5 3 RN Dublin 3 own 25 minutes car gas & weather 27 5 1 5 3 3 3 RN Westmoreland 3 own 20+ car gas & road conditions 30 1 4 4 4 4 4 APPENDIX 3: Raw Data RN Keene 4 own 8 minutes car none 18 2 3 2 3 4 4 Health Unit Coordinator Roxbury 3 own 8 minutes car traffic 3 1/2 4 4 2 4 4 3 RN Langdon 5 own 35 minutes car gas, weather (winter) 2 1/2 3 4 4 4 4 3 Nursing Assistant West Swanzey 2 own 10 minutes car road conditions 36 4 4 2 2 2 2 RN Keene 3 own <10 minutes car none 13 1 4 4 4 4 4 Pre Admission Technician Marlborough 6 own 15 minutes car road conditions 10 4 2 2 5 4 2 LNA Keene 2 own car weather 15 1 3 1 3 4 3 RN Keene 5 own 3-5 minutes car,walk,bike gas prices 24 2 4 3 3 4 4 RN Marlborough 5 own 15-20 minutes car road conditions 10+ 4 4 2 4 2 4 RN Harrisville 3 rent 23 minutes car gas prices 15 4 3 1 3 2 1 65
  • 72. 66 APPENDIX 4: Planning Board/Selectmen Survey Greetings, we are Keene State College Geography students completing our Senior Thesis. We are working in collaboration with Heading for Home, a non-governmental organization which was created with a goal of finding a solution to the lack of workforce housing in the Monadnock Region. This issue has become more of a concern due to changes in population and the relative lack of new residential development in the Monadnock Region. The purpose of this survey is to sample local employees’ opinions about workforce housing in their town. We appreciate your time and if interested, we will gladly provide you with a copy of our results. 1. Town/City: _____________________________________ 2. Position: ________________________________________ 3. Compared to Cheshire County, my town is growing: Significantly Significantly Faster Faster About the Same Slower Slower 1 2 3 4 5 4. My town is growing: No Extremely Fast Somewhat fast Just Right Somewhat slow Growth/Declining 1 2 3 4 5 According to Heading for Home, workforce housing applies to all income levels within our workforce. A household’s total housing costs, according to federal guidelines, should be no more than 30% of the household’s monthly income. 5. Your town currently has an adequate number of workforce housing options available Yes No 1 2 6. You would support efforts to initiate (more) public awareness campaigns on workforce housing Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 7. The economy in your town/city is strong enough to support the number of households Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5
  • 73. 67 8. For the next set of questions, please rate your level of support regarding the following: a. Undeveloped land in your town/city should be re-zoned so that it can be used for new neighborhood housing developments that are specifically designed for working families Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 b. Changes should be made in the Master Plan that would allow undeveloped land to be re-zoned so that it can be used for new neighborhood housing developments that are specifically designed for working families Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 c. Incentives should be given to developers to buy and restore houses in blighted areas to sell to working families at reduced rates Strongly Agree Agree Don’t Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 d. Taxes should be increased to help supplement housing options for working families Strongly Agree Agree Don’t Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 e. More apartment and rental properties should be built in order to expand the supply of housing options in your town/city Strongly Agree Agree Don’t Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 f. Any new development must adhere to EPA standards (air, traffic, solid waste disposal, and water and sewage disposal) Strongly Agree Agree Don’t Know Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5
  • 74. 68 9. Which of the following sentences best describes your attitude toward future land use in your town (check one): a. We must remove barriers to development and encourage the construction of new housing _____ b. Development of housing must occur with careful consideration and some restraint _____ c. Preservation of our natural environment and the protection of open areas is paramount _____ 10. Rank the priorities of services in your town 1-6 (1 being the least, 6 being the most important) Conservation _____ Property Taxes _____ Education _____ Workforce Housing _____ Municipal Services (police, fire) _____ Other _____ (please explain below) Any additional comments would beneficial.
  • 75. Keene Keene Antrim Rindge Nelson Jaffrey Alstead Roxbury Hancock W alpole Town Swanzey Achworth Richmond Charleston Greenfield W inchester Bennington Selectman Selectman Selectman Selectman City Planner Town Planner Planning Board Planning Director Planning Technician Planning Board Chair Adminstrative Assistant Planning Board Member Position Planning Board Chairman Planning Board Chairperson Planning Board Select Person Planning and Zoning Administrator Director of Planning & Development Compared to Cheshir e County, m y town is gr owing 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 2 3 2 3 4 4 My town is growing: Your town curr ently has an adequate number of 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 wor kforce housing options available Support effor ts to init iate (mor e) public awar eness 2 3 2 3 3 5 2 3 4 3 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 campaigns on workforce housing The economy in your town/city is strong enough t o 2 4 2 2 2 1 5 2 3 5 2 3 4 4 2 4 4 support the number of households Undeveloped land in your t own should be re-zoned so 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 1 5 5 5 4 4 r that it can be used for new neighbo hood developments that are specifically designed f or working familiies Changes in the M aster Plan that would allow undeveloped land to be re-zoned so t hat it can be used f or new 1 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 2 5 5 5 4 4 neighbor hood housing developments that are specifically designed for working families. Incentives should be given to developers to bu and restor e 4 3 5 4 2 5 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 5 2 3 2 houses in blighted areas to sell to working f amilies at reduced rates Taxes should be increased to help supplem ent housing 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 3 4 5 5 3 4 options f or working fam ilies More apartm ents & rental proper ties should be built in 1 2 1 2 4 5 2 5 4 3 5 2 4 4 1 3 4 order to expand the supply of housing options in your town Any new development must adhere t o EPA standards (air, 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 traf fic, solid waste disposal, and water and sewage disposal) Which of the following best describes your att itude 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 toward f uture land use in your town Conservation Top service in your town Property Taxes Property Taxes Municipal Services Municipal Services Municipal Services Municipal Services W orkforce Housing W orkforce Housing Community Centers APPENDIX 5: Raw Data 69