Boston council committee hears push for transfer fee to fund senior relief and affordable housing

The Boston City Council Committee on Government Operations heard April 10 from city housing officials, council sponsors and neighborhood advocates who urged passage of a home‑rule petition that would authorize a real‑estate transfer fee and expand senior property‑tax relief.

"Our city is in a housing emergency," lead sponsor Councilor Henry Santana told the committee, saying the narrowly targeted fee would let Boston "ask the wealthiest among us to pay their fair share" to fund programs that preserve affordable housing and help seniors stay in place.

City housing chief Sheila Dillon described the draft language to the committee: the ordinance would authorize a fee of up to 2 percent applied only to sale value above an exempt threshold (the current draft exempts the first $2 million of any transaction). Dillon illustrated the calculation: on a $5 million sale, the fee would apply to $3 million and a 2 percent charge would produce $60,000. She also said projected annual revenue estimates discussed by the administration range from roughly $50 million to more than $100 million, and that a four‑year backcast used earlier in outreach would have yielded about $180 million.

Advocates and nonprofit developers at the hearing urged passage to create a steady, locally controlled revenue stream for the Neighborhood Housing Trust and city subsidy programs that can unlock larger state and federal financing. "We need dedicated affordable housing production resources," said Christina Van of neighborhood housing organizations, adding that community land trusts and local CDCs have projects stalled for lack of funding.

Commissioner Emily Shay laid out proposed changes to the city's senior exemption under the local implementation of the so‑called "41C" relief: raising the income eligibility to 50 percent of area median income, doubling the asset limit to $80,000 for individuals and $110,000 for couples, and increasing the exemption amount (the draft raises the base exemption to $1,500 and allows an additional $1,500 assessment reduction for some households).

Committee members asked detailed questions about how the new revenue would be spent, how the fee would affect different types of transactions, and whether it would deter sales. Officials said the ordinance permits further exemptions by ordinance (for family transfers, certain affordable developments and transfers involving vulnerable‑population owners) and that the $2 million exemption would be indexed via revaluation every five years so it keeps pace with market changes.

Several councilors and witnesses pressed officials on operational details. Councilors sought clarity on whether revenues could support both one‑time capital investments (for preservation and conversion) and ongoing operating needs such as assisted‑living subsidies; officials said a spending plan would be developed with council input and that some funds could be devoted to stabilization, preservation or programs that enable public‑housing properties to access other subsidies.

Neighborhood speakers recounted recent sales that led to tenant displacement and urged a narrowly targeted fee that falls on speculative, high‑value transactions rather than ordinary homeowners. Jenny Huang of the Chinese Progressive Association said Chinatown residents have watched low‑income families be pushed out as property values rise, and local CDC leaders described using the city's Acquisition Opportunity Program to buy at‑risk buildings when funding was available but said that pipeline is now strained.

Tenant advocates also emphasized that a modest fee on very high‑value transfers would primarily capture gains going to large investors and commercial deals. Michael Caine of tenant alliances said the revenue would not come predominantly from ordinary homeowners but from firms that flip large assets for substantial speculative profits.

Supporters said local flexible dollars are often the lever that unlocks state and federal financing; nonprofit speakers noted examples of permitted projects that are stalled for lack of local subsidy and said transfer‑fee proceeds could move dozens of homeownership and rental projects forward more quickly. Several speakers quantified likely impacts: the administration cited that, under earlier modeling, the fee could have produced approximately $180 million over four years, while officials and advocates discussed per‑unit funding ranges commonly used to estimate how many units could be advanced with new local dollars.

Concerns raised during the question period included protecting middle‑income homeowners, whether the fee might reduce sales activity, and the administrative mechanism for collecting and stewarding funds. Officials reiterated the city would retain authority via ordinance to craft exemptions (including for transfers between family members and other tailored carve‑outs) and that the Neighborhood Housing Trust was the planned steward of proceeds.

Public testimony was broad and emphatic: nonprofit developers, community land trusts and senior advocates described long waitlists, rising costs, the decline of some federal housing programs and the urgent need for a reliable local revenue source. "We have the need, we have the capacity; we just need the funding," said Tanya Janelle of East Boston CDC.

Chair Gabriella Collette closed the hearing by thanking witnesses and saying she planned to move the petition through committee quickly and send it to the state house, asking constituents to contact both city councilors and state legislators in support. The committee adjourned without a formal vote at the end of the session.

What comes next: the council will consider committee action to advance the home‑rule petition to the full council and then file the petition at the state house; sponsors and advocates urged fast action to give the state legislature time to consider the petition in its session.