2025 Municipal Election | The Salem Commoner

2025 Salem Municipal Election Housing Questionnaire

The Salem Commoner partnered with Abundant Housing Massachusetts to distribute a housing questionnaire to all city council candidates. Below are the responses submitted by the September 5 deadline. Zach Calderón's responses were received after the deadline.

Responses are posted as submitted and not edited for typos, etc.

Skip to section:

GENERAL QUESTIONS

Home prices and rents in Massachusetts are some of the most expensive in the Nation, with the median single family home price in Greater Boston hovering around $1 million for the first time in history. Do you believe there is a regional housing crisis? If so, do you believe increased housing production is part of the solution to that housing crisis?

Alice Merkl (At-Large): Yes, we are in a housing crisis. With the cost of housing, owning or renting, being determined by supply and demand, it’s critical that we increase housing stock to stabilize housing costs at every price point in the market. To do this, we need to continue to implement the housing strategies in Imagine Salem’s Housing Roadmap.

Kyle Davis (At-Large): Yes, and yes! Supply has fallen further and further behind the pace of demand and we must right-size our housing stock to dig ourselves out of this crisis.

Walter Morrell (Ward 1): I do believe we have a regional housing crisis. Increasing housing production is part of the solution both with retrofitting existing buildings and building new ones. We also need to review and enforce our policies around short-term rentals especially here in Salem as we are a tourist city.

Erin Turowski (Ward 1): Yes, there is a regional housing shortage, which is contributing to a rise in the cost of living and an increase in homelessness in cities throughout the Commonwealth. Increasing production to start to close the gap with demand is absolutely part of the solution.

Andrew Smith (Ward 2): There is certainly a crisis when you look at the numbers and see who is left out of the housing market. I do think production is large part of the solution, but it should not be the only solution we explore. The current economic climate with tariffs on building products, labor shortages, and interest rates makes new production of housing inherently expensive. So, we can also work on reallocating what we already have built. We do this by cracking down on short-term rentals, reducing corporate and private equity ownership of homes and rental buildings, and encouraging people to right-size their housing choices when possible. Essex County has a 5% vacancy rate, so there is also some hoarding of housing going on and that needs to be addressed as well. We should also be mindful of the type of housing being produced; it should fit the needs of an area so that it helps alleviate the specific housing shortages, rather than inadvertently increase demand. It’s also worth noting that almost every other developed nation has a more robust supply of public housing that doesn’t have to follow the whims of the market and wealthy corporate landlords, we need to be doing more of this kind of production, by the people for the people.

Jason Sydoriak (Ward 3): There is a regional housing crisis, resulting in housing being increasingly unaffordable in Salem and limiting the housing opportunities available to our neighbors. My job as an economist in transportation planning includes assessing land use and the potential for economic development in cities across the country to support public transit. I see firsthand and through research that housing prices are unsustainably high because there is more demand from people than there are homes to purchase or places to rent. This demand is typically tied to desirable places that are closer to places of work, good schools, and attractive amenities. Salem is an incredible place to live with access to a lot of these opportunities and all of those positives mean people want to live here.

Housing options are limited for all types of folks. Even more so for renters that face a consistent volatile market and the difficulty in finding a home here. Data indicates that Salem has a rental vacancy rate just under 2 percent, lower than the average rate for the State at 3.2 percent. Both are incredibly low numbers - a healthy vacancy rate would be 5-10 percent. People have to pay more to be competitive in a housing market where there are fewer places to live. Increasing housing production is one way to slow the rising cost of affording to live here in Salem. I support building more housing of a wide range of types to meet the varied needs of people from different backgrounds and incomes. Doing so will continue to make Salem a thriving place to live.

Lydia King (Ward 5): Yes, there is absolutely a regional housing crisis, and increased housing production is one of the most important parts of the solution. In Salem, we built 2,300 new units between 1980-1999, but between 2000-2018, we built only ~1,600 units. That’s a 30% decrease in new unit housing inventory during a roughly 20-year period. Not only that, but we also had a huge influx of short-term rentals like Airbnb in the same time period, taking away precious rental housing stock. This is a massive contributing factor to the housing crisis we are experiencing in Massachusetts and in Salem specifically. We need to meet this moment with increased housing production and with urgency.

Zach Calderón (Ward 5): There is absolutely a regional housing crisis, and increasing housing production is part of the solution. However, we need to be more intentional than just increasing stock. In Massachusetts, affordable housing is considered 80% AMI, while in Salem it is closer to 60% AMI. Not only do we need to increase stock, but we need to increase the amount of affordable housing as well, and City Councillors need to be more aggressive with developers and utilize both soft and hard power to increase not just the housing stock, but affordable housing units.

Katelyn Holappa (Ward 6): Yes, there is clearly a regional housing crisis and it is in large part due to the artificial scarcity of housing that has broken down “free-market” forces that are typically self regulating. Increasing our supply of housing to match the demand of the market is a critical step in solving this crisis.

How have you led on specific housing policy initiatives in your career and how would you continue to do so if elected to this role?

Merkl (AL): I have been a strong advocate for housing initiatives such as expanding ADU’s, Tax Increment Exemptions (TIE), Inclusionary Zoning, reducing parking minimums, Condo Conversion ordinance and other incentives to promote housing production. My extensive volunteer work to address housing and food insecurity here in Salem allows me to bring an informed, in touch voice to the council which I feel strengthens my ability to advocate for housing policy initiatives. And I do my homework.

Davis (AL): I am currently working with the policy lab at Salem State on an upzoning feasibility study as a first step in a process to upzone in Salem. The inability for us to develop multi-family housing on the vast majority of land in Salem is a significant barrier to meeting our housing needs. I plan on introducing the recommendations of the study into the council- likely in the next session.

Morrell (W1): Everyone deserves a place to call home. I will always fight to expand access to safe, affordable housing, inclusive development, increased investment in affordable housing, and stronger protections against tenants.

Turowski (W1): I attended the 5/19 LWV/CHAPA event in Salem to get an idea of the community’s opinions at this point in time. I have also participated in the Salem Commoner events in the past, such as Henry Grabar’s presentation on 4/2 and a few social events at Couch Dog, to educate myself more on some of the causes of our housing affordability issues. I supported the ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right in Salem, and I have participated in several of the forums and city meetings about removing parking minimums for multifamily properties. If I am elected, I would like to see Salem move forward on right-sizing our parking requirements for all property types, continuing to ease restrictions for small- and medium-sized “modest middle” housing units (including infill building and single-room occupancy options), leveraging 40R “smart growth” incentives, and refining our zoning to continue to create walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods throughout all areas of the city, especially in areas accessible by public transit.

Smith (W2): I have not yet had a chance, or maybe the foresight, to specifically lead on housing policy initiatives. However, if elected, I would certainly have more than a fair share of opportunities and I intend to take them. I have spoken in favor of the Harborlight/Lifebridge development, removing parking minimums on buildings, upzoning, and removing certain zoning restrictions we have currently. Often, my support is expressed in a room or at a door that may not agree. I haven’t backed down from these positions because, while they may not always be easy to hold when face-to-face with someone who disagrees, I believe they are the right positions to support.

Sydoriak (W3): I have led several policy initiatives and efforts throughout my career to expand and preserve housing opportunities. My first was during my time as President of Student Government, while pursuing a bachelors in Political Science and Economics at Colorado State University. At the time there was a policy in Fort Collins that limited the number of unrelated people that can live in a home. This restriction disproportionally affected college students and lower income individuals. The original intent of the policy was to manage quality of life concerns but in reality it forced students and neighbors on the streets. I proposed an ordinance to the City Council through citizen referendum that would increase that limit by one individual and campaigned on increasing housing opportunities in the area. Although those efforts did not lead to policy change,eventually the Colorado legislature would ban that type of occupancy restriction leading to a complete removal of the ordinance. I am prepared to advocate for those in need, especially regarding housing and where we can make the best use of the limited resources that we have.

As an economist in transportation planning, I assess cities on their land use and economic potential along proposed public transit corridors. I know how different housing types and densities can impact local economies especially when paired with bus rapid transit or light rail. As City Councillor, I will use this knowledge to promote sustainable multi-faceted housing that will foster economic vibrancy within Salem. In my work I get to evaluate how cities across the country are successfully building housing in a manageable sustainable way and I hope to share those insights with City staff and community members.

I am also currently on Salem’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board. While on the board I’ve advocated for developments with income restricted housing, what’s called capital “A” affordable housing. I’ve consistently stressed that housing needs to be multi-faceted, meaning we create opportunities where developers can afford to build the necessary income restricted housing stock and also where we get the range of housing types that meet the needs of our community. This is important because it allows for different people, like service industry workers who staff our favorite coffee shops or larger families who otherwise would need to uproot for a community with larger units, to live here and add to our community’s personality. As a City Councillor, I will continue to advocate for housing of all types.

King (W5): I currently serve as the lead community organizer with Solidarity Rising, a non-partisan

progressive policy group on the North Shore of Massachusetts. In this role, I’ve led and supported several housing policy initiatives. Through our Neighbors for More Neighbors campaign in Salem in 2024, we gathered over 300 petition signatures to advocate for multifamily housing by-right citywide. This policy is now with the Salem State policy lab for additional research and review. As the leader of this organization, I took on the role of building educational and advocacy materials, presenting on behalf of the organization to relevant community groups, recruiting volunteers, and arranging canvassing days to gather community input.

I’ve also organized community members to speak at city council and public meetings in support of pro-housing policies, like reducing parking minimums and supporting 40R smart growth districts. In general, I have worked to ensure there are community education and support campaigns for all parts of the Salem Housing Roadmap.

Most recently, I’ve collaborated with groups like ECCO and Lynn United for Change to educate the public and hold legislators accountable on state-level proposals, including rent stabilization and real estate transfer fees. This work has taken me across the region, not only covering Salem, but also organizing around Lynn, Marblehead, Swampscott, and Beverly for affordable housing initiatives.

I will continue this work and expand in the ways listed below if elected or otherwise.

Calderón (W5): The biggest policy I’ve advocated for, which I elaborate on further in question 8, is eliminating parking minimums. Apart from that, I want to build on some of the For All Ages initiatives such as universal design. I also believe that the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that can be more aggressive than it currently is to increase the percentage of affordable housing. With most public housing being built in the 1950s and very little money and funding to maintain these buildings today, many people living in public housing are living unsafe/unhealthy conditions. When it is time, I support Pioneer Terrace being converted to a public/private partnership like Leefort Terrace which has increased the amount of public housing from 52 to 124 units, all project based vouchers

Holappa (W6): I do not have an established political career and my professional career is in the engineering & software fields, not housing policy. That said I have been a vocal supporter, on the public record, for Salem to enact policies like the recently passed condo conversion ordinance. If elected, I will continue to advocate for more housing, including zoning changes which will allow us to support a larger diversity of housing in our market, allow small development businesses to compete with large developers that currently dominate the market, and address the artificial scarcity that is causing high housing prices here.

Can you share an example of a time you took a public position in support or opposition to a housing development? What factors shaped your view?

Merkl (AL): I was very vocal in my support for Leefort Terrace. The 50 units of housing there were in dire need of attention as I had friends that lived there and knew the complex well. As the public/private partnership continued to progress and concerns for climate resiliency and the relocation of residents were addressed, I started to feel good about the project. I was very pleased with the affordability restrictions being 25 units restricted at 30% AMI and 99 units being restricted at 60% AMI in perpetuity. I supported the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement for the project, and as many residents reached out to me, I worked hard to address misinformation and provide facts and updates on the project.

Davis (AL): I was a vocal supporter of the updates to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance both in council and before it came before us when the details were being discussed at the state level- I testified in support of mandating that cities be given the least wiggle room possible to place barriers on the creation of ADU’s. This is such an important housing policy both in terms of creating affordable units, but also to support working-class homeowners. I’ve also spoken very highly of the developments on Canal Street which have gone above and beyond in terms of both affordability and energy efficiency.

Morrell (W1): I have been vocal about my position on Shetland Park here in Salem and how we need to continue the conversation with the Prime group at several meetings with residents and The Point Association. The project in its current proposal does provide enough affordable housing but there are some great aspects of the project such as the new school building and opening access to the waterfront which would be a huge benefit to the community. I look forward to continuing the conversation when elected.

Turowski (W1): In my home neighborhood (and in the ward in which I am seeking elected office), we are considering turning an underutilized industrial property (Shetland Park) into mixed-use commercial/retail/housing space. The property owners have shared a ~$1B proposal to re-develop the area, including plans to include flood and stormwater mitigation, a seawall and elevated construction situated above 2070 flood projections, and increased greenscaping and surface treatments to mitigate water runoff (https://thefutureofshetlandpark.com/community-benefits/).

I support conversations about re-developing this area (as stated publicly on my campaign website), which is a topic of much local discussion already. We have an urgent need to start protecting our neighborhood, and with the current plan already slated to take 8-10 years to complete, if we pass on this opportunity, we may not have time to make other plans or acquire funding before we are in a crisis. This project has the potential to increase housing, provide high-paying local jobs, add flood and climate mitigation, and make better use of our neighborhood than having an unoccupied asphalt parking lot for most of the year.

Smith (W2): I have supported a number of housing projects across Salem, but for fun, I want to give an example of the one project I’ve been opposing in its current form: Shetland Park. The number of rental units is enticing at 1200. But, the ownership is out of state and it sends hard earned rental money away out of our community each and every month. It would also reconfigure our waterfront into something cold, corporate, and controlled (not what Salem is about) and take away valuable commercial land that makes up a portion of our tax base. Additionally, this building would completely disregard the vibrant immigrant and student community that is just across the street from it. We should be welcoming more people into Salem, not storing them as if they were property (and this property happens to be owned by a storage company, for the record). I also am appalled that they cannot come up on their affordability numbers with just 10% at 80% AMI and 10% at 60% AMI. The developer has a long way to go, but I would favor a more parcelled-out approach with multiple developers operating under a shared vision that is consistent with what our residents want and need.

Sydoriak (W3): I’ve taken a few positions on housing developments proposed throughout Salem, several in my time as a member of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board serving the City. Some were proposals seeking federal dollars, pandemic relief funds, that the City set aside for the Board to award after assessing the impact of the proposed developments.

One of those projects is the Residences on Canal Street is a 250-unit project that includes 50 income restricted units for households making 60 percent of the area median income or lower. I was in favor of the development because they chose to set aside more units to be income restricted than what the City was asking for (20 percent instead of the 10 percent required by the inclusionary zoning ordinance) and because it was making great use of an underdeveloped space away from the congested downtown area. As City Councillor, I will take a methodical approach to reviewing proposed developments and apply my background in urban development to carefully evaluate possible impacts the surrounding community and opportunities to maximize benefits.

King (W5): I have spoken at many city council meetings in favor of housing, and proudly and publicly lead Solidarity Rising as a pro-housing organization.

To give a good example of a specific stance and topic, I spoke at a November 19th, 2024, community meeting regarding the South Salem 40R smart growth project. The project would result in 475 new units developed in South Salem, including more than 100 units for seniors, and 30% of the units being affordable between 30%-80% AMI.

I spoke in favor of the project, as I felt the added density is critical to solving the regional affordability crisis, one where Salem must do its fair share, much like other communities. I also shared case studies from other communities, like Minneapolis, where density brought rents down to support this conclusion.

I also addressed the issue as one that impacts young families and seniors. As we see school enrollment rates fluctuate, we know that one of the main barriers to living in Salem for young families is cost. The same can be said for many overhoused seniors who are unable to downsize, as we lack diversity in our housing stock to give seniors appropriate downsizing options.

See the full video here: https://youtu.be/0bWVhTsw1no?si=zWSEGBHonewOfN7s&t=3756

Calderón (W5): I am very supportive of the Lifebridge/Harborlight partnership expansion because I believe in increasing supportive services and having more permanent housing units for previously unhoused people.

Holappa (W6): Beyond public testimony in support of the condo conversion ordinance, I have also repeatedly spoken in favor of eliminating parking minimums at several city council meetings. Based on the city’s own findings, the data is clear. Eliminating parking minimum requirements is a necessary step for the city to build more housing in our downtown core, where residents have better access to services without the need for a car. Currently 1/6 households in Salem do not have access to a car, and we can grow this population intentionally if we build houses in the right places, and support this development with sensible, modern, policies.

TOPIC: HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Every candidate is talking about the housing affordability crisis. What is your plan to bring down home prices for renters and prospective homeowners? Specifically, what policies can help reduce the cost of both market rate and affordable housing?

Merkl (AL): It’s important we stabilize the “supply and demand” at every price point in the market to help not only middle income renters and owners, but boost the local economy by increasing household disposable income and for the overall economic stability of Salem. My priority is to continue to implement Salem’s Housing Roadmap, and I am proud to have supported several initiatives such as expanding ADU’s, various TIFs, 40R/Smart Growth Overlay Districts, and our Condo Conversion ordinance. The current proposal to “right-size parking” for multifamily homes is something I’m excited about, and I have been very impressed with the Planning Dept’s presentations and data provided to the City Council.

Davis (AL): As discussed above, I support increasing supply. The city has determined that we need 2,200 units of housing over the next 10 years and I am committed to helping to achieve that. In addition to allowing for multi-family housing in more of the city, we need to pair that with fixes to other zoning restrictions that stand in the way of development and ones that make development more expensive such as height limits, dimensional standards parking minimums, minimum frontage etc. I am in full support of the three 40R zones that have been heavily discussed this year and welcome the introduction of others which allow for high density, higher mandated affordability than our inclusionary zoning ordinance and come with state funding. I support the city’s efforts to introduce single room occupancy zoning and I’d also like to see changes to zoning that allow for tiny homes in Salem.

Morrell (W1): I think we need to continue to educate the community on available resources and support services such as First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Loan Programs. We also need to promote the use of Accessory Dwelling Units to the community and engage with residents who are interested in creating these units.

Turowski (W1): I would like to see Salem move forward on right-sizing our parking requirements for all property types, continuing to ease restrictions for small- and medium-sized “modest middle” housing units (including infill building and single-room occupancy options), leveraging 40R “smart growth” incentives, and refining our zoning to continue to create walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods throughout all areas of the city, especially in areas accessible by public transit. Much of the housing we have currently in Salem does not conform to current regulations, and I think advocating for the types of housing that give Salem its character (especially in the densely-populated downtown core) could potentially be a great way to raise public support for new housing construction - promoting human-scale (and not vehicle-scale) design and land use, reducing minimum setbacks and lot sizes, and creating neighborhoods to be walkable with access to necessary businesses.

We have tremendous opportunity to develop infill housing in walkable, transit-accessible areas of the City. Locating new housing close to public transit allows people the option to save money by reducing or eliminating their need to own a private vehicle. “Right-sizing” our housing supply by providing more opportunities for small units could give young people financial avenues by which they could save for a home, as well as giving older residents options if they want to downsize their current larger home and age in place.

Smith (W2): I believe we need to fast-track projects that want to develop unused, existing buildings into housing. It’s sustainable, preserves our history, and helps keep areas of our city inhabited that might otherwise fall into disrepair. There are a couple such buildings in Ward 2 and groups like the North Shore CDC have been doing a good job with this kind of “upcycled housing” (I’ll call it that), we just need more. On the subject of CDC, we need more community land trust activity. We should also be exploring building some more city-built units. This means that on municipally-owned property, we would develop it with the help of a contractor and own the housing, generating rents from mixed-income units, but keeping them fair and for the benefit of the residents. If wealthy developers can do this and turn a profit, surely our city can do this and create and sustain quality, affordable housing.

By only focusing on supply-side giveaways and the loosening of restrictions on developers, it may not bring prices down as much as if we explored solutions that don’t line the pockets of out-of-town entities. I would also like to help organize tenants and help them form tenant unions, particularly in larger developments. There is power in numbers and that power can help lower the costs of housing. I believe another step in this same line is to develop a rental registry that maintains a database of open units, rented units (and how much rents are), as well as landlord records; we should be supporting our upstanding landlords and keeping an eye on our less impressive ones.

Finally, I would look for strategies to find ways for downsizing to happen, when possible, to allow more housing for younger families to open up. I’m in that stage of life and can speak personally about the challenges my friends and I have had in finding homes in which to raise our kids.

Sydoriak (W3): The housing crisis is a complex issue that won’t be solved by a singular intervention. The primary driver of the housing crisis is the high demand for a limited number of places to live. That’s especially true here in Salem, which we all know is a desirable place to live. I don’t blame people for wanting to live and work here. And I want it to be easier for them to accomplish that goal. We need to make it easier to build housing to meet this rising demand.

Housing production is limited by a variety of factors, some of which are within the City's control to change or influence, others through advocacy to the state legislature. These include regulations on what types of housing can be built that may restrict how housing is built. Across the country, we see examples demonstrating that building more housing, and a variety of housing types, can temper housing prices and lower rents. Removing barriers to housing production, like oversized parking minimums, can encourage more housing to meet the rising demand.

As Ward 3 Councillor, I will collaborate with City stakeholders to address the housing crisis by evaluating what barriers to remove or augment, to encourage new housing. I will do so in a way that encourages common sense incremental development that does not strain our municipal resources and utilities. I will also engage non-profits leading on this effort as well as our State legislative leadership so that we can obtain the tools we need to accomplish our housing goals.

King (W5): Market Rate Housing: I would specifically be in favor of lowering barriers to development as a primary method for addressing the lack of Market Rate housing in Salem. I would like the see parking minimums lowered or removed, setback requirements lowered, and upzoning added in neighborhoods where the infrastructure can withstand the additional units.

Housing Stock Diversity: A big piece of the market-rate housing conversation is diversity in the housing stock. I don’t think it’s enough just to build; I think we also need to allow for variety. I am a big fan of ADUs and Incremental (Plus One) zoning so that we can maintain neighborhood character while building better density and diversity in our housing stock. For some neighborhoods, this may be a more appropriate option. I also believe this variety is one of the leading contributors to “Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing”.

Affordable Housing Stock: I also believe in variety when it comes to explicitly “affordable” housing as well. It’s important that we support voucher programs where we can, public housing like the Salem Housing Authority, and increase the number of affordable units by AMI definitions in new developments. People qualify for affordability in different ways, so it’s important our housing reflects this. I would also strongly support a real estate transfer fee to get more funds for affordable housing in the city of Salem to support all of this work.

Calderón (W5): To make homes more affordable for prospective homeowners, I would support local property tax incentives for first-time buyers by offering tax abatements or exemptions for buyers purchasing a home below a certain price threshold that would be worked out with city housing staff.

Holappa (W6): The clear longer-term goal is to build more housing in both the public and private sectors. I fully support an examination of the city’s zoning code and recognize that we need to make changes that support a larger diversity of housing in our market, allow small development businesses to compete with large developers that currently dominate the market, and address the artificial scarcity that is causing high housing prices here. I have also mentioned that eliminating minimum parking requirements will facilitate better land use and allow the city to better support the people who live and work here.

Beyond policy, I would like to see the city invest in building public housing, ideally with a path to home ownership. A larger supply of public housing will work within our for-profit housing system to stabilize rent increases in the market, even without additional policy. There are several opportunities that we can leverage to do this by redeveloping downtown parking lots into housing. If we can dedicate this land to homes and light commercial units instead of storing cars for tourists, we could create a space that would benefit the people who live and work here, and support local businesses and non-profits.

TOPIC: EXPANDING HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES

Local zoning rules can be a barrier to building the types of homes that our community needs. In fact, in many communities local zoning is so restrictive that it prohibits the very neighborhoods that we live in and cherish today. Do you support zoning reforms that expand homeownership opportunities by legalizing small-lot starter homes, townhomes, and other more affordable home types? Why or why not?

Merkl (AL): Yes. Outdated zoning restrictions have long been a barrier to equitable practices in real estate and limits our ability to create sufficient housing to meet demand. So much of Salem today doesn’t even comply with our

current zoning which shows the need to update our antiquated zoning laws. And to the point made in this question, we need to reenvision housing units and think out of the box. The innovative ideas and options I’ve seen for micro-units and creative, modular construction are so impressive. We need zoning that allows for flexibility and innovative solutions to address our housing crisis.

Davis (AL): Yes absolutely. I mentioned how I’m leading the charge on this above and I appreciate the framing – Salem’s historical neighborhoods have so much charm and it is nonsensical to not be able to replicate that charm in new housing units.

Morrell (W1): I support all actions that help young families and individuals get a foot on the housing ladder.

Turowski (W1): Yes - and in Salem, I think the fact that we have so many large homes that have been converted to multi-unit condominium or rental units supports the idea that there is a demand for these more affordable home types. If the only type of home we allow to be developed is single-family residences on relatively large lots, then we will only perpetuate increases in housing costs. Our land, especially in denser parts of the City walkable to transit, downtown, and other area amenities, is simply too valuable (i.e., too expensive) to limit its use to the construction of single-family homes only.

Smith (W2): I do support zoning reforms, upzoning, parking minimum elimination, and changes to minimum lot size and percentage, as well as some setback and height requirement changes. I think the main thing we can do – and exactly what this question alludes to – is to look at areas where existing homes are already out of compliance and rezone those to comply with the housing there now. Why would we force new homes to exceed the metric already set by our neighborhoods? Doing this would maintain our historical character without much detriment to our neighborhoods and I believe it would enhance them. As much as we think about those who want to move to Salem, we also have to consider those already here. Zoning reforms can help people stay in their homes as much as they entice new residents, because they lower the overall cost of housing across our city.

Sydoriak (W3): I support smart and reasonable zoning reforms that expand homeownership opportunities by legalizing small-lot starter homes, townhomes, and other more affordable home types. Salem is an incredible place to live first and foremost because of the people who live and work here. Everyone here has a unique background and a rich perspective that has helped shape the city and take care of our community. Having a variety of housing types enables people in different places in their life, and on different life paths, to be able to live and work here.

Many of the housing types that you can find in Ward 3 today, like tripledeckers, could not be built in Salem today because zoning laws were put in place after they were built that now prohibit that same type of construction. In my neighborhood, there is a triplex where every unit is occupied by different parts of the same family. They have been there for decades and their personality and presence, including their weekend back yard cookouts and fantastic holiday inspired light display, are emblematic of the character and charm built in this city. But, if we went by the book on zoning, that family couldn’t live in a place like that. Our current zoning prevents this from occurring in many places throughout the city.

We need to consider how to preserve the historic character of Salem and also put effort towards preserving the living character of Salem. That means creating opportunities for people to live here and thrive here. There are many opportunities for building more types of housing to meet people’s needs no matter their background. As City Councillor, I will advance reforms that optimizes our underutilized land in a sustainable way.

King (W5): Yes, I discussed this above, but I believe this variety is critical to our “naturally occurring” housing stock, to the rental housing stock, and to younger people/families and older seniors on a fixed income.

I think reducing minimum lot sizes, incentivizing ADUs, and allowing for incremental zoning are all great methods to specifically address this area.

When it comes to these types of buildings in Salem, I would love to see the permitting process further streamlined as well, in a similar way to how large building projects receive a “one-stop” meeting with all relevant city departments to catch any potential issues early - I would like these smaller development opportunities to move forward with fewer administrative delays.

Finally, as we consider reducing barriers to homeownership, I also would like to see the city of Salem take a far more active role in public education and resources regarding programs that make it more possible for first-time home buyers. For example, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA) program, ONE mortgage program, and MassHousing down payment assistance program.

Calderón (W5): Absolutely. We have a housing crisis, and will need to keep up with the demand for housing in a time when the demand is far outpacing the stock of affordable homes. With a crisis this urgent, we should consider every option and consult with residents and subject matter experts to ensure that we are meeting the demand for increased ooportunity while also taking care of our residents and community.

Holappa (W6): Yes. We need to make sense of our seemingly arbitrary and outdated zoning code to allow us to solve the modern problems our city is facing. Our restrictive zoning code has led to increased housing prices by creating an artificial housing scarcity, it has encouraged sprawl which has increased traffic, roadway collisions, and greenhouse emissions. I fully support sensible changes to our zoning to allow for a larger, market-driven, diversity in our housing market. I also support creating mixed-use neighborhoods with every level of residential housing & light commercial like cafes, shops, markets, and small, family-operated restaurants.

TOPIC: PARKING

Local and national research shows that minimum parking requirements for new housing often force homebuilders to supply more parking spaces than are needed by residents of the building. These extra spaces increase construction costs, which in turn increases the rent/sale price, and wastes land that could be better used for other purposes. Do you support removing minimum parking requirements so homebuilders have greater flexibility to match the parking provided to the needs of residents? Why or why not?

Merkl (AL): Yes, I support reducing/eliminating minimum parking requirements for new housing. As I had said in a previous question, I am very impressed with the Planning Department’s work on this issue and their current proposal that was presented to the council. Parking minimums increase the cost of housing, have a negative environmental impact, encourage car dependency, and sometimes result in residents paying for parking they don’t need. One point made in the presentation that I spoke of in council really resonated with me. It was the data showing that more parking spaces results in having more cars. When my husband and I moved to Salem from the suburbs 14 years ago, we had three cars. We eventually went down to one car because of lack of parking, and I’ve been using my electric scooter as my transportation for several years now.

Davis (AL): Yes of course. I was honored to be part of the parking minimum task force and look forward to voting to remove this outdated zoning law. I’d also support expanding this to R1 and R2 zones as well as existing developments. These empty parking spaces could and should be additional housing units and developers are better equipped to determine their development’s parking needs. We need to move away from car dependency by improving public transit, changing zoning to allow for small businesses in residential neighborhoods and by not centering cars in our city planning and design. More housing does not need to equate to more cars and car infrastructure.

Morrell (W1): The 1.5 parking per unit requirement is outdated here in Salem. We need to address this on all new developments. We also need to strengthen last mile transport options, so residents have alternatives to using a car.

Turowski (W1): Yes. I support the ongoing city initiative to remove or reduce mandatory parking minimums in multifamily properties, an effort that I believe should be expanded citywide. Eliminating these requirements should lower housing construction costs, allow more efficient land use, increase the number of available units, and encourage a more people-centered approach to urban design. By making this change, we can help address Salem's housing affordability challenges and create a more walkable, livable community. On a personal note, one of the reasons I was able to afford the condo I own is because I don’t require a parking space, so I didn’t need to purchase additional land for vehicle storage.

Smith (W2): Yes, and I want to start by reiterating that this does not ban homebuilders from adding parking to buildings, it only gives them the option. Right now, we are overbuilding parking and underbuilding green space and affordable units. 1/3 of our parking in private lots goes unused (according to a recent study done by our planning department) and that is not only frustrating to those of us who wish to see more affordable housing options on the market, but also to other residents who do not have parking and have to look at all the empty and underused spaces. Builders will still add parking, it is profitable to attach a space to a unit, but it may only be 0 or 1 spaces per unit, instead of the required 1.5. Many of these are smaller apartments where it is unreasonable to expect 2-car ownership, so the extra space is wasted. It’s nice when people have guests, sure, but many of our neighborhoods have ample street parking (outside of Septober). I would also like to see us work with buildings that were forced to build 1.5 spaces per unit and see if they can retroactively remove some of those spaces in favor of green space or lease the spaces out to nearby residents who have parking issues (many downtown residents do cite parking issues especially in October). None of these questions address tiny homes, but I feel that’s another really great opportunity to explore; whole homes can be built in the space of even just one parking spot!

Sydoriak (W3): I support removing minimum parking requirements so homebuilders have greater flexibility to match the parking provided to the needs of residents. This is an effort that Salem has been tackling for over a year now, which I’ve been proud to contribute to as a member of an advisory working group. City staff leading it has done an incredible job collecting data and articulating the results to the public. Here in Salem, we found that 38 percent of parking spaces at multifamily housing developments sat empty overnight - that’s an enormous missed opportunity when we think about how else that space (and funding) could’ve been used.

Eliminating parking minimums is not a prohibition of parking, and it does not mandate that developers provide less parking. It just provides the flexibility to right-size the parking provided to the project’s context, including intended resident population, location in the City, and other on-site transportation amenities. Depending on the area, for instance how close is the new development to the commuter rail station, developers will want to add or reduce the number of parking spots per unit for new development to better reflect the needs of people. Our city and the region is facing a housing crisis and we need to have the flexibility that allows for more housing to be built.

King (W5): Yes, I support removing parking minimums. In Salem, up to 38% of parking spots go unused for large developments, which is where these parking minimums are most heavily enforced today, and taking away the most potential housing.

Smaller developments closer to downtown tend to get variances or use the Planned Unit Development special permit to reduce the parking minimums that exist today, as there are many historic homes in Salem where this is impossible to satisfy.

Calderón (W5): I absolutely support removing parking minimum requirements. One parking space is 300 square feet, and at 1.5 parking spaces per housing unit this means that one apartment requires 450 square feet, two apartments require 900 square feet, three apartments requires 1350 square feet, etc. These are figures that should be describing apartment layouts, not parking spaces. By needing to allocate so much space for parking, the amount of available housing stock goes down and therefore it’s pricing goes up. This also addresses a lot of the concerns of residents who worry about increased traffic congestion as a result of new development.

It is important to note that removing minimum parking requirements does not prohibit parking, simply the legal requirement to include 1.5 spaces. If the city, developers, and residents feel that parking is required, parking spaces can still be allocated for. Likewise, if the city, developers, and residents feel that the location is centrally located enough to essential services and alternative modes of transportation, parking spaces can be forgone.

Holappa (W6): Yes absolutely for reasons I have said previously, here, and publicly.

TOPIC: DISPLACEMENT

Rising housing costs are pushing long-time residents out of our city/town. What would you do as a city councilor to better protect residents from displacement?

Merkl (AL): In my volunteer work here in Salem, I regularly engage with residents that are housing insecure or one paycheck away from being unhoused and it’s heartbreaking. I try to stay up to date on available assistance such as the

RAFT program and various Salem non-profits that offer financial assistance so I can assist residents in need. An important city resource for assisting community members that are housing insecure is our Housing Stability Coordinator, Lori Stewart, whom I’ve referred people to for a wide variety of assistance such as navigating affordable housing applications. I supported the Condo Conversion ordinance to assist people being displaced with the very high cost of finding a new apartment. Overall we need to continue to implement housing production and affordable housing initiatives such as the ones discussed in my previous answers, and continue to seek new, innovative solutions to keep our residents from being displaced.

Davis (AL): I think the condo conversion ordinance was a great move to prevent the rapid loss of rental units to condos. I support policy to strengthen tenant protections such as “Just Cause For Evictions,” and a “Right To Counsel for Tenants.” Our Neighborhood Stability Coordinator does a fantastic job and the long-term goal must be to develop an entire Neighborhood Stability Department to ensure that Salem renters know their rights and have the resources to quickly find housing. The best defense against displacement is an abundant housing supply of both market rate and affordable housing units here in Salem.

Morrell (W1): I support expanding affordable housing options, strengthening tenant protections, and increasing city funding for transitional and supportive housing. Stable housing creates safe communities.

Turowski (W1): Salem’s recent Condo Conversion Ordinance and Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) policy represent important steps in the right direction, and I strongly support these reforms. However, we cannot stop there. Producing new housing is the only sustainable, long-term solution to address the growing demand for homes in our city. By increasing the housing supply, we relieve pressure on existing units, help stabilize rents, and create opportunities for residents, whether they are looking to scale up, downsize, or transition into different types of housing based on their changing life circumstances.

Our IZ program only results in the production of new affordable units when new housing is built. This makes it essential that we address the regulatory and procedural hurdles that limit housing production. Permitting delays, restrictive zoning, and cumbersome local requirements all act as barriers to meeting demand. We must continue to reform these systems to enable the development of housing that reflects the needs of our community, including a mix of ownership and rental opportunities at a range of price points.

Equally important is supporting the residents who are already living in our city and facing housing challenges. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of our Housing Stability Coordinator, Lori Stewart, who is continually asked to do more each year as more neighbors struggle with housing insecurity. To support her work and the residents she serves, we need to expand and simplify access to RAFT (Residential Assistance for Families in Transition) funding and strengthen programs that provide tenants with right-to-counsel protections during eviction proceedings.

Ultimately, building new housing, supporting tenants, and maintaining a robust IZ program are all interconnected. By pursuing these policies together, we can ensure that Salem remains a city where seniors can age in place, families can grow, and new residents can have a fair opportunity to call our community home. I am committed to advancing these efforts so that our housing system works for everyone.

Smith (W2): We’ve done a lot of great work and so has the state (with programs like RAFT and MHVP), but people are still being displaced, so it’s not enough. Here in Salem, the condo conversion ordinance and the short-term rental ordinances are steps in the right direction, and I would want to explore more of those kinds of solutions. In my ward, this is happening specifically on a few streets near the common that are being renovated as luxury condos. I do not think this is the type of development that we need when we say we want to build more. We’re not adding housing, but simply adding to the price of this housing. This is not to say that we can’t have nice things, even in the world of affordability, as I believe we should have more luxury affordable homes (as in equally nice affordable units allocated to a lottery system), but I do not want to see people forced from their homes to do it.

Sydoriak (W3): As we work to solve the housing crisis, we need to ensure that our current neighbors who want to stay here can afford to do so, especially long-time residents who have strong connections here and have contributed to the character of our community. This is personal for me - as someone who has rented in Salem since 2016, and still does, I have often felt the anxiety of being able to afford to live here.

Personally and professionally, I think I am well positioned to help guide Salem’s growth while limiting displacement. My work in land use planning and economic development includes evaluating anti-displacement tools and resources. First and foremost, building more housing of different types keeps prices down and helps to mitigate displacement. When there is plenty of housing to meet demand, then prices are more manageable. Encouraging the production and preservation of affordable housing, both income-restricted and naturally occurring, will also help to prevent displacement. This can be accomplished via mandate, like the City has done with the inclusionary housing ordinance, or by encouraging it through incentives like tax abatements or density bonuses, which allow developments to add units if they increase how many units are income-restricted. But the City needs to be thoughtful in considering how the policies impact development. Someone needs to pay for these income-restricted units whether that is the developer, the City or the State. Requiring development to make a large portion of their units income-restricted could make the project infeasible and then not units for anyone will be built. As City Councillor, I will pursue opportunities that encourage development of both market rate and income restricted housing using the tools the City has and commit to advocating for additional means for decreasing the cost of housing development by working with our State legislative leaders.

Leveraging my professional and personal interest in urban planning, I will also evaluate novel methods to increasing or preserving the housing supply in an affordable manner like community land trusts, methods for stabilizing rents while maintaining housing quality, and targeted investments in high-needs neighborhoods. I will also encourage the city to consider developing a displacement monitoring dashboard so city stakeholders and organizations can better understand the trends in housing displacement and who is being displaced.

King (W5): I think density and building more are just one of our solutions in our tool belt to solve the housing crisis. I think gentrification and displacement are very serious concerns when it comes to maintaining a community's vibrancy.

I worry mostly about two populations: seniors on fixed incomes facing rising real estate taxes, and renters. For seniors and others on fixed incomes, I would like to see an expansion of tax abatement and tax relief programs, as well as better public education from the city regarding these programs.

For renters, I support rent stabilization (not to be confused with rent control, which hurts our ability to maintain properties adequately). Rent stabilization would tie rents to the rate of inflation and would only impact buildings that are not owner-occupied in the current proposed ballot initiative. I also support other renter protections, like eliminating broker’s fees and offering renters the right of first refusal.

Calderón (W5): I support Salem’s Condo Conversion Ordinance. Renters like myself face very high levels of instability, constantly having to worry about being priced out of their homes and whether they have the money to move if they are, which can often total well over $10,000 after first month, last month, security deposit, and moving costs.

I’d also work with Rep. Cruz and Senator Lovely to pursue a home rule petition to allow the city to enact rent stabilization, so that renters can plan for the future ahead of time without being blindsided.

Holappa (W6): We know it is going to take time to build the housing we need to start impacting the market price. In the meantime we need to continue to examine different mechanisms to assist residents in the short term; what we can legislate with policy, and what we can do with city resources. As mentioned I would like to see the city commit to better land utilization in the downtown core and initiate infill development projects. We have the opportunity to turn parking lots for tourists into places for people to live and work in Salem, inside of a walk-able downtown core.

TOPIC: STATE POLICY

In recent years, there has been an increasing effort by the state legislature to build more homes across Massachusetts. This includes passing the MBTA Communities Law, legalizing accessory dwelling units, and lowering the voting threshold to pass pro-housing zoning reforms. Understanding that solutions to our housing crisis should be regional, not just local, do you support further action by the state legislature to make it easier to build more homes in more communities? If so, what additional action should be taken?

Merkl (AL): Yes, I support the actions that have been taken at the state level to increase housing production such as the Housing Choice legislation, MBTA Communities Law, HDIP and other incentives. I am optimistic about the Commercial Conversion Tax Credit Initiative, a new tax credit to help convert underused commercial buildings into residential and mixed-use housing. In a related topic, I hope to see efforts continue at the state level for access to council in eviction cases. I am grateful for the progress that has been made on this issue.

Davis (AL): Absolutely. I’d like to see the state build on the success of the MBTA Communities Law by expanding multi-family zone mandates and would support a move to eliminate single family zoning all together as some major cities have done in other parts of the country. I’d welcome any of these local efforts throughout this questionnaire to be tackled at the state level – particularly parking reform. Hopefully the increasing number of municipalities that successfully undertake these reforms will be case studies for the state to consider for action as well. I’d also like the state to consider single-staircase reform.

Morrell (W1): I believe that both the state and cities/towns have a responsibility to tackle the housing crisis. It is in our best interest to work together at all levels of government to ensure we are moving legislation forward, paving the way for more affordable housing.

Turowski (W1): While we need to do more here in Salem to support expanding and diversifying our housing supply and improving affordability (as evidenced by our rising housing costs), we know our housing problems don’t stop at municipal borders. Salem’s housing market is part of a regional network, and we rely on all of our neighboring communities to do their part to take some of the pressure off of a strained housing supply. When our neighbors resist even modest efforts to produce housing, it only serves to increase strain on Salem’s housing market. As Salem undertakes long-overdue parking reform, I support AHMA’s efforts to further promote parking reform statewide. I also support Representative Manny Cruz’s ADU Trust Fund bill that would help more low- and moderate-income families take advantage of recent reforms in ADU policies.

Smith (W2): Yes, I think it’s excellent that we are starting to realize some communities have done better than others and asking those communities lagging behind to step up. Salem has hit its number for this law, but we can, should, and will do more. I think the state should be rewarding communities who have committed to easing the housing crisis by diverting funds away from the communities who have not (but living in Salem, I’m biased…). I also think they can add more public transit options to further open up the MBTA community zones to new areas. We have Marblehead right next door, but no way for them to take public transit to Salem’s rail station, increasing the need for cars if they build more.

Having ADUs by right will also help ease the crisis and give homeowners more rights over their property by allowing them to put an in-law suite, or housing unit in their backyards. In Salem, we also require these be rented out at below market value and that might be a good provision to expand to the state. We also need more funding for public housing and less reliance on developers. If the drive for profit is removed, prices will be significantly decrease. The government almost always subsidizes these developments to create affordability, why not subsidize our own developments? I understand that building housing is expensive and could be difficult for a municipality, but we have to ask what private development is costing our residents in the long run.

Sydoriak (W3): The State should be supporting its cities to take action to confront the housing crisis and to better the quality of life within their communities. This includes granting cities flexibility to approach the issue given their unique circumstances and access to resources. This also includes passing laws that strongly encourage cities to take action to respond to our shared challenge when there is an opportunity to do so and there is a potential for building housing to help people find a home in a community in a reasonable way so that resources and utilities are not overstressed.

I think there is a lot of potential for the State to take an active role, removing barriers to development so that cities can guide the growth of their communities in an efficient and reasonable manner that best meets their needs with the maximum amount of options available to them. I would like to see the state legislature pass House bill 1572 / Senate bill 962 which includes a comprehensive list of reforms that encourages more development by allowing a certain number of units developed by right, eliminating parking minimums, and providing property owners more rights to do what they want with their land when it comes to building homes. I also support House bill1542 / Senate bill 964 which aims to create a study on the impact of removing the requirement of mid-sized residential buildings needing a second staircase - this is often called Single Stair reform and has been successfully advanced in other parts of the country.

King (W5): Absolutely. The biggest problem with city-specific solutions over regional solutions is that developers seek profit above all other outcomes, so if one city or town looks more or less “profitable” to a developer due to specific legislation, then development will react accordingly. This creates issues where all development will happen in clusters, as opposed to being evenly spread where the housing demand exists. This is why statewide policies even the playing field and allow cities and towns to benefit equally from housing policy.

Some specific actions I would support statewide are eliminating parking minimums for new developments, eliminating minimum lot size requirements, helping subdivision of lots for housing purposes, and incentivizing ADUs with restrictions on their uses (not for short-term rentals). I also would support allowing for a real estate transfer fee and for rent stabilization statewide.

Calderón (W5): I do support further action by the state legislature to build more homes across Massachusetts and would support incentivizing affordable housing development, encouraging smaller-scale incremental development like the small-lot starter homes and townhomes mentioned in question 7, and investing in the infrastructure investments needed in transportation, water, and energy to support both new residents and current residents.

Holappa (W6): Yes. I am interested in seeing more details about the current rent control ballot proposal, though I’m not sure if I would support such as policy in Salem. I admit that I need to learn a lot more about the ramifications of such a policy to create a well-informed opinion.

LOCAL CONTEXT QUESTIONS

How have your experiences, prior to or outside of seeking elected office, shaped your views on housing and land use?

Merkl (AL): My volunteer work, and my lived experience, has made addressing housing and food insecurity top priorities for me. When I had to leave a bad situation when my daughter was 17 months old, being housing insecure was terrifying. We moved five times by her age of six, and made monthly trips to the welfare office for assistance. I interact with residents almost daily that are facing these struggles with few options available. We have a housing crisis, and I will continue to work hard to address it.

Davis (AL): As a renter, I’ve felt the effects of the housing crisis personally. I loved and worked in Salem for several years before I was able to afford to live here. It was always surprising to me how few apartments there were available to rent in such a desirable place and the few options that did exist were cost prohibitive to me for some time. This helped to spark my passion for housing justice and desire to learn more about the roots of the problem.

Morrell (W1): We rented for 8 years before being able to buy a condo here in Salem. We had multiple roommates to cover the cost of living while ensuring we were able to continue to save. It is tough and only getting tougher. We need to continue to provide support and proactively work toward a solution.

Turowski (W1): As someone who rented a home for most of my adult life (from age 18 to age 38), I can attest to the extraordinary stress that housing instability places on many aspects of life. While I was looking for a home to purchase, I watched as many of my friends were forced to move out of Salem due to a lack of affordable housing. I was only able to purchase my condo because I proactively told my landlords I was looking to buy, and they were gracious enough to sell it to me off-market as a result. If I, as a white-collar professional with a doctoral degree, had trouble finding a relatively modest home in a relatively modest neighborhood, then I can’t imagine the trouble most of my peers experience in their home search. Nobody should have to endure that - we can and should do better for our residents by doing all that we can to combat the housing shortage.

Smith (W2): I’ve been a renter, a homeowner, and a landlord and have lived in multiple cities across the world. I understand the housing market from many sides. Living in Brooklyn, New York, I saw friends get lottery apartments for affordable units in luxury buildings that were no different from the other units in the building. I’ve also seen in Boston our separate and unequal system for similar buildings going even so far as barring affordable units from using facilities or using the same entrance as market rate. This bothers me a lot and it’s something I want to prevent from happening with our affordable units.

Also in New York, I had landlords who were owner occupiers and lowered my rent for being a good tenant; my wife and I do something similar, offering our apartment that we currently rent out for below market rate. We need more local landlords who aren’t driven only by profit.

As to land use, I’ve personally dealt with the frustration of construction next door to my house with two small children (as I write this, saws are grinding mere feet from my window as construction happens on a project next door). I’ve seen zoning violations go unnoticed, financing run out leaving a blighted property, and out-of-hours construction noise hit peak levels. This becomes a barrier to housing because it weighs on residents and makes them less likely to support the next project. We need to remove certain barriers to building, but have to get better at enforcing the barriers that remain through fines. This can also help raise money for more housing.

In searching for a home a few years ago, we found ourselves getting into bidding wars with other young families; there just aren’t enough homes for our generation of millennials with young children. That is, however, fixable, but we have to look at what types of homes are rising in price the most and build those (single family homes, townhouses, but not necessarily condos). This can help balance out supply and demand and lower overall vacancy rates. We also need to build housing that seniors can move into and be comfortable in. This would help with right-sizing our housing stock and drive prices down as more single-family and townhomes become available.

Sydoriak (W3): Growing up, my mother struggled to keep a job and keep up with rent. We lived in similarly impoverished communities, moving around constantly when rent couldn’t be paid, causing a lot of hardship for my family. Eventually her struggle was too much. The summer before I started high school, I was without a home and sleeping on the living room floors of friends and strangers. This went on for a few months before my Aunt and Uncle, the best humans I know, intervened after learning of my circumstances.

My experiences struggling with housing motivates me to create conditions so that others do not have to struggle like I did. There are a lot of terrible things you face when you are in poverty and without a home that no one should face. So I am very passionate about creating the conditions for housing to be made available for all of those that need it regardless of their background, including our most vulnerable who cannot afford housing or find a home.

Even now, as a renter who faces increasing rents and sees very few homes I could hope to purchase in Ward 3, I still feel that anxiety. I know many others feel and face worse. As City Councillor, I will do my best to help our neighbors in our community regardless of their housing status.

King (W5): My experience as a community organizer, working with affected communities on the issue of affordable housing, is probably my most relevant prior experience in shaping my view. I was a young adult during the 2008 financial crisis, and experienced the effects of the subsequent housing crisis as multiple family members were forced to move in with our family as they experienced displacement. This experience was formative as I learned at a critical age that in this country, unfortunately, housing is not treated as a human right.

Calderón (W5): A formative experience I had happened while I was living in Washington, D.C. I was living at 55 M St. NE, right off of North Capitol Street NW. Washington is divided into quadrants, and North Capitol Street NW divided my Northeast side of M Street and 20002 zipcode from the Northwest side of M Street and 20001 zipcode, a literal stone’s-throw away. The two worlds that existed on either side of North Capitol was severe. On the Northeast side of M was a Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, and an REI housed in the building where the Beatles played their first concert in the United States, all within a ten minute walk from my apartment. On the other side of M street, Northwest, was dilapidated and abandoned housing, boarded up windows, and severe poverty. I always parked my car on the Northwest side - while the Northeast side had strictly watched paid parking meters, the Northwest side had a free two hour parking limit that I never once saw enforced. Northeast was Congressional staffers, lobbyists, think tank analysts, and other professionals ascending the ladders of their respective careers. The Northwest side of M Street was District locals, trapped in poverty and watching as new luxury apartments went up across the street while their own housing was condemned and forgotten.

Where the government invests time and resources, and where they don’t, makes all the difference to the residents. It is critical that we approach housing and land use with the utmost care, act intentionally, and make sure that our decisions lift up all residents, not just one group or another.

Holappa (W6): Folks that know me or have been following my campaign know that my main method of transportation is by bicycle. Yes, even in the winter! I started biking around Salem last summer after we sold our second car when my partner and I began to look for ways to reduce our monthly budget, and I can attest that when you see your city without the lens of a windshield, it changes your perspective. Its easy to take for granted the housing & transportation norms that we’re used to, but we need to recognize that our current system isn’t necessarily the best, it’s just what we have. Unfortunately what we have is also highly costly, inefficient, dangerous, and bad for the environment. We can choose to make different choices, and re-prioritize building the future of Salem around its people; focusing on safety, affordability, and long-term climate & financial sustainability.

In your opinion, how does housing development shape communities in terms of climate resiliency, safety, and economic vitality? What specific action would you take to advance Salem on these fronts through housing-related policies?

Merkl (AL): Addressing the housing crisis by increasing housing production and other initiatives is critical to maintaining a thriving local economy. There are also social benefits to creating vibrant, diverse communities. A denser concentration of residents leads to an increase of amenities and services, and more public transportation, creating more walkable communities that are less car centric.

Davis (AL): The more I learn about housing, the more I feel that it is at the center of many other issues. Denser housing is significantly more energy efficient, lessens car dependency and allows for more climate preservation and green space. Design features like mixed-use zoning, walkability, and public spaces encourage community interaction and passive surveillance, which can reduce crime rates. Low threshold housing can allow us to address homelessness through a housing first model which increases safety both for the unhoused and the community at large. This connects to economic vitality and so does mixed-use zoning. Additional housing means more customers at small businesses and more workers across industries that may have shortages. I will continue to be a vocal supporter of the south MBTA station and will support significant housing development in that area. I will continue to push for additional mixed use zoning and higher density in areas near large employers such as Salem State and the Salem Hospital.

Morrell (W1): We can’t have a conversation around housing with out discussing climate resiliency, safety and economic vitality. They all go hand in hand. We need to be smart about building, ensure the workforce on jobsites represents our communities and push for fair wages on those jobs. The building piece can be used to uplift our community while creating accessible housing options.

Turowski (W1): Well-organized, mixed-use neighborhoods give residents opportunities to work, attend school, shop, and socialize in areas that are close to home, fostering relationships with neighbors and friends. Conversely, building housing-exclusive developments within sprawling subdivisions requires people to live longer distances from necessary services, leading to larger carbon footprints, higher incidences of vehicular crashes, and loss of tax revenue and local jobs from commercial businesses. Sparse development also tends to raise infrastructure and maintenance costs by requiring more linear miles of paved streets, water pipes, and electric lines to service relatively few residents spread out geographically, compared to the compacted needs of smaller lots and multifamily properties.

Salem, as a city that is well-connected via transit (at least one MBTA commuter rail station, a seasonal ferry terminal, the Salem Skipper, and several regional bus lines), should be focusing our housing efforts on areas that are easily accessible by public transit - and advocating for these transit routes to be powered by renewable energy sources whenever possible. This is the rationale at least partly behind the MBTA Communities Act. While our rising housing costs suggest that our work in this area is not yet finished, I would like to see us continue to right-size our housing and focus our efforts on improving local transit options. I attended a Big Ten land grant university (Ohio State) that was extremely well-serviced by several local bus shuttles. Drawing from this, I would love to see a local electric-powered shuttle system that provides residents easy transportation to Vinnin Square, Salem State University, Salem Hospital, the downtown area, MBTA and ferry stations, and the Willows so our residents can have a reliable shared transit option to access important places and services. I love living here because we are such a transit-ready, resilient community, and I look forward to being part of more of these discussions in times to come.

Smith (W2): The building of housing is an economic driver, first and foremost. We should be using PLAs (project labor agreements) to help create strong union jobs that hire local for the largest of developments. We already abide by the Specialized Code, which is the highest level of requirements for sustainability in residential development. This means that our newest homes, especially in larger buildings, will also be some of our most sustainable (developments over 12,000 square feet for example have to be passive homes with airtight construction and electrification). Blighted areas with run-down buildings can attract and invite more crime, so fast-tracking our unused buildings and turning them into new units should be a priority. Walkability, proximity to public transit and stores, and bike lanes can also cut down on traffic accidents and traffic in general. This should also be a focus of where and how we build.

Sydoriak (W3): Housing is foundational to our lives and it intersects with many other important things. This question points to several of them: climate resiliency, safety, and economic vitality.

Housing and climate resiliency impact one another. Without resilient infrastructure and efforts to confront climate change, our coastal community will be impacted by increasingly severe weather patterns. Large portions of the city are in flood zones. My work touched on resiliency in many ways with one effort facilitating the development of a Geographic Information System based tool for measuring the resiliency conditions of port infrastructure. I also conducted research on how density and transit can impact greenhouse gas emissions based on the successful efforts in other countries around the world. Salem is on the forefront of this challenge and is a leader in the region. As City Councillor, I will continue pursuing policy approaches that strengthen the resiliency of our communities, like ensuring new developments include designs for flooding or pursuing options for fixing our aging drainage systems, and also articulate the importance of dense housing that takes advantage of public transit so that our carbon footprint is limited.

Vibrant communities where people from different backgrounds and income levels create a sense of place and trust. It also creates opportunities for folks of different income backgrounds to connect and offer opportunities for economic mobility. As City Councillor, I will encourage opportunities to build mixed-income housing that allows for this environment.

Having a healthy housing supply with a diverse range of housing types makes us stronger In addition to neighborly engagements and economic mobility enabled by mixed-income housing, mixed use development creates the opportunity for integrated commercial spaces, so residents can see to some of their needs right where they live, especially in neighborhoods that are far from downtown or grocery stores. These developments within our communities can include the necessary commercial opportunities that reduce the need to drive and even create “third spaces” like coffee shops that allow for neighbors to organically come together.

King (W5): Good, well-constructed housing created with community input can be revitalizing fo16r a community. I think the best conduit for this conversation in Salem is the future of the Shetland Park project. I would love to see this property redeveloped with housing, but only if it meets critical requirements. Development must address coastal resilience and flooding issues with the property. We also need to the non-profits on the property have permanent and affordable homes so they can continue to serve our community. The housing must be integrated naturally into the surrounding neighborhood, and the new street must be walkable, well-lit, and have the variety of servies provided by small businesses. We don’t want the property to feel like a luxury condo development in Boston, because that’s not the community in this neighborhood.

I believe strong community feedback and community benefit agreements are the way forward on this project and others like it, to ensure the community's needs are met as we meet the needs of the housing crisis.

Calderón (W5): Housing plays a major role in climate resilience, safety, and economic viability. On the resilience front, I support expanding the stretch code to include all construction projects, not just new construction. I also believe that increased green spaces and bike infrastructure worked into new development not only improves resident wellbeing but resident safety as well. Finally, by mandating that all new housing developments with 20 units or more should include a minimum of 20% affordable units at 60% of the Area Median Income, instead of the current 10%, we can increase the Salem workforce, especially with our largest employers such as the hospital and Salem State University.

Holappa (W6): There is clear evidence that restricting most new development to R1 zoning creates low density sprawl. I know that some folks like living in a single family home, and we should continue to have that as an option for some households, but we need more diversity in our housing market to facilitate better and efficient use of resources by our city. There are great studies done by Urban3 that I’m sure housing advocacy folks are familiar with, but to summarize, they’ve shown that lower density neighborhoods are typically subsidized by higher density, urban core neighborhoods, where infrastructure costs like roads, streetlights, and sewers, are divided over a smaller land area and a larger number of taxpayers.

In R1 neighborhoods there are no services, no commercial establishments, just residential homes. This lack of diversity forces people who live there to drive to access services, get to work, or get groceries. Single family homes are also inherently less energy efficient than higher density homes as they do not share any interior walls with adjacent units. R1 neighborhoods have a disproportionate impact on climate change compared to higher density, mixed-use neighborhoods.

To address these issues, it would be good policy to change our zoning to allow more light commercial and lower-medium density in more neighborhoods in Salem, especially along major corridors with inconsistent mixed-use zoning like Boston Street and North Street. These arterial roads have a mix of medium density and commercial zoning already, but the inconstancy and complexity really only allows large corporate developers to compete in this market. These companies have the capital to weather our red tape, seek out zoning variances, and as a result they typically build exclusively high(er) density luxury apartments or condos to compensate. If we want to maintain the character of our neighborhoods and also lower the cost of home ownership and rent, we need to change our zoning.