Opinion: Market-rate housing and affordable housing are not opposites | The New Bedford Light
Massachusetts faces an undeniable housing shortage. While much of the public conversation centers on affordable housing, and for good reason, the commonwealth has also encouraged the development of market-rate housing. At first glance, this may seem contradictory. Why promote market-rate apartments when many residents cannot afford today’s rents?
The answer lies in economics and community development. Housing shortages affect every segment of the market. When there are too few homes overall, higher-income households compete for older, more modest apartments that might otherwise remain affordable. Expanding the supply of market-rate housing can reduce pressure throughout the housing market, helping preserve affordability while attracting new residents, employers, and investment.
This is where the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP) can play an important role for Gateway Cities such as Fall River and New Bedford. HDIP provides state tax credits to help finance market-rate housing projects that might not otherwise be economically feasible. Many older downtown buildings require expensive rehabilitation, and construction costs often exceed what developers can recover through rents. HDIP helps close that financial gap.
The result is more than new apartments. By encouraging redevelopment in designated districts such as Fall River’s harbor area, HDIP can diversify the city’s housing stock by creating options for young professionals, healthcare workers, teachers, entrepreneurs, and empty nesters who might otherwise leave the region. A wider variety of housing strengthens a community by allowing residents to remain through different stages of life while attracting new households with disposable income.
Economic development follows. More residents living downtown support local restaurants, shops, entertainment venues, and service businesses. Increased pedestrian activity makes neighborhoods feel safer and more vibrant, while rehabilitating long-vacant buildings reduces blight and preserves historic character. These improvements often encourage additional private investment, creating a cycle of neighborhood stabilization that extends beyond a single project.
Critics rightly note that market-rate housing alone will not solve the affordability crisis. Communities still need affordable housing, workforce housing, rental assistance, and policies that protect vulnerable residents from displacement. HDIP should be viewed as one tool within a broader housing strategy, not a substitute for affordability initiatives.
An additional advantage is fiscal. New market-rate developments generally increase assessed property values, expanding the local property tax base without requiring extensive new infrastructure. While no specific project can guarantee a substantial increase in municipal revenues, successful redevelopment can strengthen a city’s long-term finances. Those additional revenues flow into the municipality’s general budget, where elected officials allocate funds through the annual budgeting process. They may support public schools, police and fire services, road and sidewalk maintenance, parks, libraries, public buildings, pension obligations, debt service, and other essential municipal responsibilities, depending on local priorities.
The real question is not whether communities should choose between market-rate and affordable housing. Gateway Cities need both. A balanced housing strategy that combines HDIP-supported market-rate development with continued affordable housing investments offers the strongest path toward economic vitality, neighborhood stability, and greater housing opportunity for everyone.
Eileen J. Marum is a Marion resident and chair of League of Women Voters SouthCoast.
