Workforce Housing in the Monadnock Region

P age |i

December 2008

KEENE STATE
COLLEGE
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU:
DEPARTMENT OF
WORKFORCE HOUSING IN THE
GEOGRAPHY MONADNOCK REGION

Sarah Forler, Torin Hjelmstad, Elizabeth Kane

Faculty Sponsor: Christopher Cusack

ii

Abstract

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable

housing, as “a household that spends no more than 30 percent of its annual income on

housing.” In conjunction with Heading for Home, a Keene-based non-profit housing

coalition, this study’s primary focus is on the issue of workforce housing in Keene and

the Monadnock Region of New Hampshire. One closed-response survey was developed

and distributed to Town Planners and Selectmen to ascertain opinions regarding

workforce housing. A second closed-response survey was distributed at Cheshire

Medical Center in Keene to determine the impact of commuting on health care

professionals. A case study was also conducted on Walpole, New Hampshire, where a 52

acre parcel of land has been preserved with the support of many public and private

organizations. Education, participation, and legislation are all essential and necessary if

New Hampshire wishes to house its workforce.

iii

Acknowledgements_______________________________________________________

We are extremely grateful to the many organizations and individuals that
provided valuable information and helpful insight.
The following organizations are:

Heading for Home
Keene Planning Department
Southwest Regional Planning Commission
New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority
Cheshire Housing Trust
Keene State College

In addition we would like to thank the following individuals for their support on
behalf of this study:

Susy Thielen, Coordinator, Heading for Home
Susan Newcomer, Workforce Development Coordinator, Heading for Home
Joyce Clarke, Member, Heading for Home
Benjamin Frost, Director of Public Affairs, New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority
Mikaela Engert, City Planner, City of Keene
Laura Thibodeau, Tax Assessor, City of Keene
Will Schoefmann, GIS Technician, City of Keene
Matt Suchodolski, Community Development Specialist, Southwest Regional Planning Commission
Nicole Cusack, RN, BSN, Cheshire Medical Center
Dr. Christopher Cusack, Department of Geography, Keene State College
Sheldon Sawyer, Selectman, Town of Walpole

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES iv

LIST OF TABLES v

CHAPTER 1 1
Introduction 1
Literature Review 2
Affordable Housing in New Hampshire 7
Hypotheses 11

CHAPTER 2 13
Keene and the Monadnock Region 13

CHAPTER 3 21
Workforce Housing Purchasing Power 21

CHAPTER 4 36
Survey, Methodology, and Results 36
Health-care Professionals Survey 36
Health-care Professionals Survey Results 37
Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey 40
Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey Results 43

CHAPTER 5 48
Case Study Within the Monadnock Region: Walpole, New Hampshire 48

CHAPTER 6 54
Conclusions and Solutions 54

LITERATURE CITED 58

APPENDICES 61
APPENDIX 1 – LIST OF INTERVIEWEES 62
APPENDIX 2 – HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS SURVEY PLANNING 63
APPENDIX 3 – RAW DATA 65
APPENDIX 4 – BOARD MEMBERS AND SELECTMEN SURVEY 66
APPENDIX 5 – RAW DATA 69

v

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1. New Hampshire Housing Coalitions 9

2. The Monadnock Region 11

3. Aging Population for Keene, New Hampshire, for the Year 2000 15

4. Population Change 1970-2007 16

5. Residents Who Commute out of Community of Residence 18

6. Residents Who Work in Community of Residence 19

7. Single-Family Homes in Keene, 2001 23

8. Single-Family Homes in Keene, 2008 24

9. Homes Falling Within the Workforce Housing Purchasing Power, 2001 26

10. Homes Falling Within the Workforce Housing Purchasing Power, 2008 26

11. Workforce Housing Availability in Keene’s Downtown, 2001 28

12. Workforce Housing Availability in Keene’s Downtown, 2008 29

13. Workforce Housing Availability in West Keene, 2001 31

14. Workforce Housing Availability in West Keene, 2008 32

15. Workforce Housing Availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2001 33

16. Workforce Housing Availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2008 34

17. Opinions on worst aspect of respondents commute 40

18. Survey Respondents 42

19. Officials’ opinions regarding future land use 46

20. Town Common, Walpole, New Hampshire 48

21. Home that does not adhere to 200 foot ordinance 49

22. Location of Ballum Farm in Walpole, New Hampshire 51

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Monadnock Region Municipalities Arranged by County 13

2. 2001 Affordability Calculator 21

3. 2008 Affordability Calculator 22

4. Correlation between commute time and workplace morale 37

5. Correlation between commute time and household morale 38

6. Correlation between commute and length of employment 39

7. Opinions of growth compared to Cheshire County 43

8. Opinions on changes in Master Plan 44

9. Opinions on tax increases which supplement workforce housing options 45

10. Correlation results between income and housing options 46

P age |1

Chapter 1________________________________________________________________

Introduction

Communities throughout the United States are faced with a growing and

sometimes unrelenting problem: a scarcity of workforce housing. An increasing number

of low and moderate-income families—families in a community’s “workforce”—are

having difficulty affording reasonably priced homes. This issue is not a low-income issue,

but rather one that affects entire communities. Nurses, teachers, firefighters and police

officers—vital building blocks of a community—are all struggling to find affordable

housing in the communities where they work.

Much has been written about housing (Barnett 2003; Green and Malpezzi 2003;

Bratt 1989) and specifically about designing homes that are not only aesthetically

pleasing and environmentally friendly, but also affordable (Barnett 1995; Benfield,

Terris, and Vorsanger 2001; Wells 2007). The United States Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) website defines affordable housing, as “a household that

spends no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing” (2008). In the

simplest terms, “the relationship of the cost of housing to income is central to the

definition of affordable housing” (Meck, Retzlaff, and Schwab 2003, 20-21). Currently,

this cost to income relationship is proving increasing difficult to reconcile for members

of the workforce.

2

Literature Review

Affordable housing is considered to be a problem across the nation. It not only

impacts the sales of homes, but the employers of businesses as well. A majority of the

working population is not within the means to spend only 30 percent of their income on

housing (mortgage and rental payments). This concern is evident all across the country,

not necessarily in one specific place, city, or town. This issue has become an ever-

increasing problem and it seems that no part of the United States can escape the heavy

hand of the workforce-housing crisis.

The state of Arizona has seen a great increase in the price of homes within the

past five years. For example, from the 1st quarter of 2005 to the 1st quarter of 2006

there was a 32.81% increase in annual home prices. The fact that the price of homes has

rapidly increased over the past years has pushed development into areas that were

previously uninhabited. Not only has there been a rapid increase in the prices of homes,

but the population has also increased creating a greater demand for houses. In order to

compensate and help the workforce (teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and nurses)

in their ability to afford housing within the community that they are employed, the

amount of development of more affordable housing needs to be increased. In 2005, a

task force was created for the state of Arizona to help address this problem. There were

many suggestions and strategies that were brought to the attention of the task force,

such as development and expansion, creating financial incentives to encourage the

establishment of local housing trust funds, and permitting the State Treasurer to

3

authorize a percentage of the states permanent funds to be put aside for additional

loans specifically for affordable housing (Gunderson 2007, 42-43).

Facing comparable problems is Edina, Minnesota, a Minneapolis suburb of just

under 50,000 residents. It is also having a rather difficult time housing its workforce.

Residents in Edina earn on average $66,019 annually and an average home in the town

costs around $338,000. (Sullivan 2004). While the number of employment opportunities

continues to grow in Edina, residents are still unable to afford the homes located in that

same community. Employees are choosing to leave the city of Edina and taking

residence in other Minneapolis suburbs. These individuals are then making a sometimes

hour-plus commute into work on a daily basis.

Echoing similar sentiments is Park City, Utah, a premier ski vacation town, and

economic force in Summit County, Utah. There are simply not enough housing units

being built that low- and moderate-income households can afford (Housing Park City’s

Workforce 2005). In the first quarter of 2008, homes were selling for above $1.1 million

on average. A two-bedroom condominium can be expected to cost somewhere around

$200,000, although some are selling for $300,000. Like elsewhere, the town’s workforce

is slowly being driven out due to the high prices of the housing market (Palmer 2008).

A study done in Sedona, Arizona, found that employees who live in the city do

not have significantly higher incomes than workers who commute. City residents are

paying significantly more to live near their respective jobs, while commuters are paying

less in housing costs, living in smaller, more rural towns, but are unfortunately incurring

higher travel costs (Gober, et al. 1993). This study proves that the imbalances of

4

workforce housing are not restricted to urban areas; that suburban and rural areas are

faced with the same dire concerns. Workforce housing “has not kept pace with

suburban job growth” (Gober, et al. 1993, 19) and thus employees are suffering because

the city in which their jobs are located do not provide adequate and affordable housing

options.

Inclusionary zoning, which has become more prominent recently, can be

described as a government’s requirement or encouragement to developers to create

affordable residential units as a part of any new development. It commonly requires

that a specific number of these units be built for families of a particular income level.

Finally, an affordable time period is allotted, which controls the amount of time that the

units can be on the market as affordable. A major benefit of this program is that the

financial burden of developing these units falls on the developer, rather than the

community. In return for the tremendous commitment and responsibility, the

developers receive incentives, usually involving a density bonus, for the great work

being done (Lerman 2006, 385-386).

On the other hand, exclusionary zoning cannot be considered nearly as positive

as its counterpart. The zoning ordinances require large lot sizes, prohibit the use of

mobile homes, and limit the amount of multifamily homes that can be built.

Exclusionary zoning can be most commonly found in affluent communities where the

population hopes to keep the “lower income” families out of their neighborhood.

Governments have been known to disguise the issue of exclusionary zoning—to

preserve the community’s character—so as not to seem like the town is discriminating

5

in any way (Lerman 2006, 386-387). However, Pendall (2000) notes that despite the

combined efforts of some governments to limit this type of discrimination, exclusionary

zoning is still being used as a vice for segregation.

However, there are states and local governments that have decided to take

action against this issue. In 1969 the state of Massachusetts adopted the “Anti-Snob

Zoning Act” in hopes that the state would solve a housing “crisis” before it began. The

act has not been altered in the almost forty years it has been on the books, and can still

be read today as requiring that, “no less than ten percent of the housing stock within

every city and town be subsidized with or by a federal or state subsidy” (Witten 2008,

230-232). This can further be understood as the state of Massachusetts promising to

provide additional federal funding to the specific cities and towns that have less than

ten percent of its housing financed. The intent of this act was to aid the municipalities in

providing affordable housing options at no considerable cost to their local governments.

In conjunction with this act, builders are able to reap the benefits as well. If the

builder chooses to offer twenty-five percent of the residences as “affordable”, all zoning

rules and restrictions are waived. Although this may sound like a very open and

straightforward act, the fine print tells an entirely different story. It is proposed that the

local zoning regulations of each individual town have the ability to be waived. The

definition of local includes the rules and regulations adopted by the city or town itself,

not required by the state. This further means that the State of Massachusetts’ zoning

regulations do not have the option of being waived, just because the developer so

chooses to offer affordable housing. The State Building Code, Wetlands Protection Act,

6

Environmental Policy Act, and wastewater disposal regulations apply equally to each of

the cities and towns. This, as can be assumed, poses many problems for the cities and

towns because of their individual environmental and infrastructural qualities.

Furthermore, the permit process of the act lacks any policy that requires developers to

comply with a towns pre-existing master plan (Whitten 2008, 227-228). Without proper

knowledge of the cities historical records, or current master plans, the developer may

cause further damage to the infrastructure or environment.

On the brighter end of the situation, more is being done, most recently, to help

lower-income families become more self-sufficient and lessen the burden of finding

housing within an affordable price range. McClure (2008) focuses on de-concentrating

poverty with the use of housing programs. He has determined that placing low-income

families in a development designed exclusively for low-income households “creates

social and economic isolation and contributes to the ills of our cities” (91). De-

concentration of poverty is the first step in eliminating this condition. Lower-income

families and households should not be forced to live in so-called “low-income”

neighborhoods, but rather should have the option to choose where to live. This de-

concentration of poverty then allows for better housing structures, safer

neighborhoods, and a higher quality of services (92). Finally, with proper social

networking, introducing a lower-income household into a “good” neighborhood will

help in eliminating the non-existent relationship that is currently present between

economic classes.

7

Affordable Housing in New Hampshire

This continuously growing gap between low and moderate-income households

and the ever increasing average home prices are creating a challenge for state and local

officials. In the state of New Hampshire, the legislation currently passed a statute that

promotes the development of more workforce housing. Senate Bill 342-FN-LOCAL

(2008) “requires municipalities that exercise the power to adopt land use ordinances to

provide opportunities for the development of workforce housing” and “establishes a

mechanism for expediting relief from municipal actions which deny, impede, or delay

qualified proposals for workforce housing”. The Bill, which takes effect in July of 2009, is

aimed to help alleviate the shortage of housing available for the working class.

Mr. Benjamin Frost, Director of Public Affairs for the New Hampshire Housing

Finance Authority (NHHFA), was an instrumental part of Bill 342. He hopes that the Bill

will “force New Hampshire municipalities to examine its ordinances and make a good

faith determination if they are allowing enough affordable housing opportunities” (Frost

2008). If, after July 2009, municipalities are not in compliance with Bill 342, a loss of

control of legislative decision-making will occur. It is a small step in the larger scheme of

trying to eliminate the need for workforce housing.

Additional steps are being taken in the right direction to find a solution to this

ever-increasing issue. These solutions can be found in the form of housing coalitions

that are springing up across the country. New Hampshire, alone, currently has eight

coalitions designed to help alleviate the workforce-housing problem (Figure 1). The

Upper Valley Housing Coalition (UVHC), based in White River Junction, Vermont,

8

includes many towns in the state of New Hampshire. The coalition was created after a

workforce-housing summit in November 2001, where over 200 business, municipal, and

civic leaders gathered to address the difficulty with affordable housing. This region is a

highly desirable place to live and work, which has drawn many top companies to the

area resulting in over 10,000 jobs just in the past decade. With the support of

community members, over 200 volunteers were able to raise $110,000 to fund the first

year of operation. Through education, advocacy, and legislation, the UVHC hopes to

eliminate the affordable housing shortage (www.uvhc.org).

9

Figure 1 New Hampshire housing coalitions.

*Some towns are located in more than one housing coalition

In 2001, the Housing Partnership initiated an education and advocacy program

called the Workforce Housing Coalition of the Greater Seacoast (WHCGS). With the help

of local businesses, government, and community groups, the mission of the WHCGS is to

10

be a mechanism for the development of a range of housing options for the workforce in

the Greater Seacoast Region. Through public awareness and education, the coalition

hopes to acknowledge the need to balance out the housing supply, advocate practices

to protect the environment, and support developers that are committed to creating

quality workforce housing options (www.seacoastwhc.org).

Heading for Home, a third non-profit coalition is based in Keene, New

Hampshire, and was initiated in 2003 to address ubiquitous housing problems facing the

region. Its jurisdiction lies within the thirty-one towns in the Monadnock Region (Figure

2). Heading for Home strives to provide the necessary leadership, advocacy, and

organization to assist the development and maintenance of workforce housing. The

board of directors on the committee represents businesses and individuals from around

the Monadnock Region who agree with the need for further workforce housing options

across the region. Donations from members allow Heading for Home to remain an

active part of the community (www.headingforhome.org). Working in conjunction with

Heading for Home, the primary focus of this study is on the issue of workforce housing

in Keene and the Monadnock Region.

11

Figure 2 The Monadnock Region.

Hypotheses

Several hypotheses were developed for this study and tested using SPSS

Statistical Analysis. The initial hypothesis was created with the hope of finding a

common factor between the lack of affordable housing in certain towns and their

respective median incomes. It was hypothesized that:

o Towns with a higher median income will have less workforce housing options.
This will be due to an overall lack of low-to moderate-income households, the
primary recipients of workforce housing.

o Fewer homes in 2008 will fall within the workforce housing range than in 2001
due to the increase in home values.

Previous studies have also shown that longer commute times can attribute to

negative implications in the workplace. Hennessy (2008) notes that driving can intensify

12

other stressors, namely workplace conflict. Using this particular study, two additional

hypotheses were developed:

o Employees with longer commute times will show significantly affected levels of
workplace and household morale.

o Longer length of employment will correspond with a significantly shorter
commute time.

13

Chapter 2________________________________________________________________
Keene and the Monadnock Region

Primary research for this study is associated with the Monadnock Region of New

Hampshire, located in the southwestern corner of the state. The Monadnock Region,

composed of thirty-one towns, which span Cheshire, Sullivan and Hillsborough Counties

(Table 1), is known for an abundance of scenic lakes and ponds, charming towns, and

Mount Monadnock, which stands 3,165 feet above the surrounding towns (NH State

Parks). Somewhat isolated from the rest of the state, be it due to geographic or

psychological factors, the Monadnock Region offers an interesting look into the ever-

present workforce housing issue.

Table 1 Monadnock region municipalities arranged by county.
Hillsborough County Sullivan County
Antrim Acworth
Bennington Charlestown
Greenfield Langdon
Hancock
Peterborough

Cheshire County
Alstead Jaffery Rindge Troy
Dublin Keene Roxbury Walpole
Fitzwilliam Marlborough Stoddard Westmoreland
Gilsum Marlow Sullivan Winchester
Harrisville Nelson Surry
Hinsdale Richmond Swanzey

Keene, the eleventh largest municipality in New Hampshire with a population of

22,672 (U.S. Census Bureau), is the physical and economic center of Cheshire County. It

is approximately 94 miles northwest of Boston, Massachusetts, 60 miles west of

Manchester, New Hampshire, and 100 miles north of Hartford, Connecticut, allowing for

easy access from the three largest surrounding metropolitan areas. Home to Keene

14

State College and Antioch New England Graduate School, Keene draws a considerable

number of young people (18-24) who help stimulate the economy and diversify the

community. Keene is also home to the Colony Mill Marketplace and the Monadnock

Marketplace, just two of the many shopping destinations for local residents and visitors.

However, while many people are drawn to Keene for its plethora of activities, fewer and

fewer people are choosing to call Keene home.

The lack of affordable housing has had repercussions on the average age of

residents in the Monadnock Region and Keene in particular. Figure 3 highlights the aging

population in Keene. Note the inflated levels of 20-24 year olds, which can be attributed

to the colleges (KSC and Antioch). Young families are choosing not to move to the Keene

area because of the lack of housing, leaving only an aging population and college

students, many of whom are not residents. In the next twenty to thirty years, the

current population of 40 to 55 year olds will maintain its current rate of growth, while

the younger population will continue to decline. This is slowly turning New Hampshire

into one of the “oldest” states in the nation. New Hampshire’s median age in 2007,

according to the U.S. Census Bureau, was 39.8 years. Florida, a popular retirement

destination, where the general perception of the population is “old”, has a median age

of 39.9 years, not much higher than New Hampshire.

15

Figure 3 Aging population for Keene, New Hampshire for the year 2000.

While Cheshire County’s population continues to rise, albeit more slowly in

recent years, Keene’s has flat-lined, maintaining a relatively consistent level over the

past twenty years (Figure 4). This may be due to several issues, such as Keene residents

paying higher taxes compared to the surrounding towns. According to the New

Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration, Keene residents’ 2006 Full Value

Tax Rate (per $1,000 of value) was $24.58, whereas residents of Westmoreland, directly

west of Keene, only pay $12.97 in Full Value Tax Rates. Residents are finding it more

practical to live outside the city of Keene and make the longer commute to work, just to

pay the cheaper tax rate.

16

Figure 4 Population change, 1970-2007.

Another possible reason for the lack of growth within Keene and continued

growth outside of Keene is the availability of jobs. The thirty towns that surround Keene

are not the economic forces that Keene is and thus, the term “drive until you qualify”

often applies. This refers to what many residents are forced to do: drive away from their

place of employment until they can find housing that is within their income level. If it

means working in Keene and commuting from Charlestown, some residents are forced

to do so. This is unfortunate when the commute time becomes a detriment to the well

being of a household or workplace.

Figures 5 and 6 show the percentage of working residents who commute outside

of their communities and the percentage of working residents who work within their

community of residence, respectively. Residents of Keene, by and large, do not

commute out of Keene to work. This is due to the availability and variety of jobs in

Keene for those who live there. Residents of Keene are earning higher incomes than

those outside of Keene and are able to afford housing that is relatively closer to the

17

jobs. Similarly, very few residents of Keene’s surrounding towns remain in the

community to work. This is again due to the strong job market in Keene.

As evident in Figure 5, more than 82% of residents in Surry, Sullivan and Roxbury

commute out of the community to work. This is likely due to the lower taxes and greater

opportunity for employment. Conversely, Keene residents generally stay in Keene to

work. A larger job market, along with higher paying jobs enables residents to live and

work in Keene. Figure 6 shows that Keene residents choose to remain in Keene to work,

as do residents of Peterborough. This may be due to the fact that both are home to

hospitals, which are the towns’ largest employers; Cheshire Medical Center (CMC) in

Keene employs 1,500 and Monadnock Community Hospital in Peterborough employs

600 (www.nh.gov).

18

Figure 5 Residents who commute out of community of residence.

19

Figure 6 Residents who work in community of residence.

20

The towns surrounding Keene can also be referred to as “bedroom

communities” or “commuter towns.” As previously discussed, individuals and their

families often choose to live in a community outside of Keene for the cheaper tax rates,

but will continue to commute to Keene for work and furthermore to use the city’s

services, recreation, and shopping options. This in turn, puts a larger strain on the

population still living within the city. Residents of Keene are continuing to pay high tax

prices while supporting the services of residents from surrounding towns.

21

Chapter 3________________________________________________________________

Workforce Housing Purchasing Power

According to the United States Census Bureau website, “affordable housing” is

“housing that falls within the purchasing power of those whose household income falls

between 80% and 120% of the area’s median income” (2008). For example, the 2008

median income for the City of Keene, New Hampshire is $61,089 (CNN Money.com).

Based on this median income, the purchasing power of a family in Keene making the

average income would be $188,351. Purchasing power includes variables such as

interest rates, mortgage repayment terms, property tax rates, and available cash for

down payment (www.nhhfa.org).

This was determined using the “affordability calculator” available on the New

Hampshire Housing Finance Authority website (www.nhhfa.org). Using the same

calculations, the 2001 purchasing power was determined, as well, to detect any changes

in housing affordability. Prior to these calculations, three variables were assumed. First,

a $10,000 down payment would be made; second, the interest rate would be set at

6.25%; and third, the mortgage term would be set to be paid back over a thirty year

period. Tables 2 and 3 show how these calculations were processed.

22

Table 2 2001 Affordability calculator.
Annual Income: $57,640 Purchase Price: $176,130.00
Total Monthly Payment: $1,328.62 Cash Down Payment: $10,000
Interest Rate: 6.25% Mortgage Term: 30 Years

80% Purchase Power Average Purchase Power 120% Purchase Power
$140,904.00 $176,130.00 $211,356.00

Table 3 2008 Affordability calculator.
Annual Income: $61,089 Purchase Price: $188,351.00
Total Monthly Payment: $1,425.04 Cash Down Payment: $10,000
Interest Rate: 6.25% Mortgage Term: 30 Years

80% Purchase Power Average Purchase Power 120% Purchase Power
$150,680.80 $188,351.00 $226,021.20

Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the assessed property values for single-family

residential homes in 2001 and 2008, respectively. Note the 2001 range of home values,

which is $27,300 to $966,500, lower than the 2008 range of $46,700 to $1,022,300. A

comparison between these two figures shows how the values of single-family homes in

Keene have increased over a period of seven years. This makes it even more difficult for

working families to find a home in a viable price range.

23

Figure 7 Single-family homes in Keene, 2001.

24

Figure 8 Single-family homes in Keene, 2008.

25

For further analysis, three locations throughout Keene were selected to look

specifically at the number of single-family homes falling within the purchasing power

range. First, Keene’s historic downtown (1); second, West Keene, home of Keene High

School (2); and finally, the area adjacent to Maple Avenue (3) in the northwest part of

the city. These locations are the areas that are most densely populated with single-

family homes in Keene. The number of homes that fall within the purchasing power of a

family earning the average median income in 2008 ($61,089) and 2001 ($57,640) were

determined using the previously stated U.S. Census Bureau’s definition that “housing

that falls within the purchasing power of those whose household income falls between

80% and 120% of the area’s median income”.

A closer look at the homes in Keene reveals that fewer homes fall within the

workforce housing purchasing power in 2008 than did in 2001, thus producing a failure

to reject one of this study’s hypotheses. It stated that fewer homes in 2008 would fall

within the workforce housing range income than in 2001 due to the increase in home

values. Figure 9 shows the number of available single-family homes that fell within the

workforce housing purchasing power in 2001 and Figure 10 shows the number of

available single-family homes that fall within the purchasing power in 2008. Note the

drastic reduction in available homes. Between 2001 and 2008, the number of available

homes falling within the purchasing power range fell from 3,958 in 2001 to 2,193 in

2008, or a 1,765 decrease in homes. This represents a decrease of 55.4% in the number

of homes that fall within the workforce housing purchasing power. This is an important

26

figure, as it demonstrates the increase in need—and a decrease in availability—for

workforce housing.

3

1
2

Figure 9 Homes falling within the workforce housing purchasing power, 2001.

3

2 1

Figure 10 Homes falling within the workforce housing purchasing power, 2008.

27

Figure 11 illustrates the workforce housing available in Keene’s Downtown

district, adjacent to Main Street, in 2001. Fewer homes were available closer to the

center of the City (Main Street), but homes become more abundant the further away

from the center. It is a small-scale form of “urban sprawl”: very few homes available

close to the city center, forcing people to spread centrifugally. This is evident by the

increased number of homes that surround Main Street. Figure 12 shows the workforce

housing available in 2008 around Main Street. Note the decrease in homes as compared

to Figure 11. This decrease can be attributed to the rising costs of homes; working

families are making the same amount of money, but the cost of living continues to

escalate. Consider the “V” area directly north of Main Street, between Court Street and

Washington Street (see figures 11 and 12). In 2001, it was moderately occupied by

homes within the workforce housing range. By 2008, noticeably fewer homes are now

considered “affordable”.

28

Figure 11 Workforce housing availability in Keene’s downtown, 2001.

29

Figure 12 Workforce housing availability in Keene’s downtown, 2008.

30

Figures 13 – 16 show a comparison between the number of homes in the

workforce housing range in 2001 and 2008 in the locations near West Keene and Maple

Avenue, respectively. Notice the substantial decrease in the number of available homes

in both locations. Between 2001 and 2008, the amount of available homes in the West

Keene area fell from 975 to 510, a 48% decrease. Given that West Keene is the home of

Keene High School, Symonds Elementary School, and Wheelock Park, a decrease of 465

homes is sure to have a considerable impact on families of school-aged children. If this

number continues to decrease at such an alarming rate, fewer families will be able to

raise their children in a friendly neighborhood within close proximity of a school.

Maple Avenue is faced with a similar situation. Home to the Jonathan M. Daniels

School, and close to Cheshire Medical Center, this area has shown a comparable

decrease in number of available homes. In 2001, there were 627 single-family homes

that fell within the workforce housing affordability range in the Maple Avenue area and

by 2008, that number had fallen to 436, a 30% decrease. If these numbers continue to

decrease at such a drastic rate, families wishing to live in Keene will be unable to do so,

and those who do live there, will be faced with the ever-rising cost of living.

31

Figure 13 Workforce housing availability in West Keene, 2001.

32

Figure 14 Workforce housing availability in West Keene, 2008.

33

Figure 15 Workforce housing availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2001

34

Figure 16 Workforce housing availability in area around Maple Avenue, 2008.

35

The preceding data therefore proves the hypothesis that there would be fewer

homes that fell within the workforce housing purchasing power range in the year 2008

than there were in 2001. Despite the fact that Keene’s average median income rose

from $57,640 in 2001 to $61,089 in 2008, families were unable to cope with the

increased home values. This continuously growing gap between income and the cost of

housing will only make finding affordable housing more difficult for the families who

need it the most.

36

Chapter 4________________________________________________________________

Survey. Methodology, and Results

The primary method of data collection for this study was the distribution of

surveys. Two surveys were developed and distributed with the intention of obtaining

data that would be able to be analyzed and studied. Several descriptive statistical

analyses were performed as well as tests determining a correlation between two

variables. “A correlation provides a more objective, quantitative means to measure the

association between a pair of spatial variables. Both the direction and strength of

association between the two variables can be determined statistically” (McGrew and

Monroe 2000, 193).

Health-Care Professionals Survey

Sacks (2005, 2), terms nurses as “key workers”, who “provide essential

education, health, and community safety services fundamental to the long-term vitality

of our cities and towns” (2). Other “key workers” include teachers, firefighters and

police officers—a vital part of a community’s well being and an essential part of the

workforce. Consequently, a mostly closed-response survey (Appendix 2) was developed

and distributed to members of the nursing profession at Cheshire Medical Center (CMC)

in Keene. Fourteen surveys were returned.

o A Correlation test was run to determine whether commute time has an effect on
workplace and household morale. This hopes to demonstrate that a longer
commute contributes significantly to an employee’s morale, both in the
workplace and at home.

37

o A second Correlation test was run to determine the relationship between town
of residence and length of employment. It was hypothesized that a longer length
of employment would mean a shorter commute time. This test hopes to
demonstrate that those who live closer to the CMC have been employed
significantly longer than those with longer commute times.

Health-Care Professionals Survey Results

Using the results from the health-care professionals’ survey, three correlation

tests were conducted. First, to determine a correlation between commute time and

workplace morale; second, to determine a correlation between commute time and

household morale; and third, to determine a correlation between commute time and

length of employment.

Table 4 shows the results of the first correlation test. It was determined that

there is no significant correlation between commute time and workplace morale,

therefore rejecting the hypothesis. The correlation was -.231, with a significance value

of .448, thus only a moderate and statistically insignificant correlation was found.

Table 4 Correlation between commute time and workplace morale.
9d) My commute time affects my morale
Commute affects
Commute Time
workplace morale
Commute Time Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.231
Sig. (2-tailed) .448
N 13.000 13
Commute affects workplace Pearson Correlation -.231 1.000
morale Sig. (2-tailed) .448
N 13 14.000

38

Table 5 shows the results of the second correlation test, which shows the

correlation between commute time and household morale. It was hypothesized that a

longer commute time would mean significantly affected levels of household morale. It

was concluded that there is no significant correlation between these two variables, as

the correlation was -.383.

While a majority of respondents commute to Keene from other towns, those

commutes affect neither workplace nor household morals. This could possibly be due to

the fact that the longest commute time among respondents was forty-five minutes, not

an extremely long distance to travel, though fairly substantial. Had commute times been

longer, a possible correlation might have resulted.

Table 5 Correlation between commute time and household morale.
9e) My commute time affects my household’s morale
Commute affects
Commute Time
household’s morale
Commute time Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.383
N 13.000 13
Commute affects household’s Pearson Correlation -.383 1.000
morale Sig. (2-tailed) .196
N 13 14.000

Table 6 shows the result of the final correlation test. It was hypothesized that

employees with a longer length of employment would have a shorter commute time.

The correlation coefficient was found to be -.418, hence having a weak relationship.

While eleven out of fourteen respondents have been employed at the CMC for ten years

or more, there was no relationship between length of employment and commute time.

39

Also, six of the respondents disclosed that their commute time was not a significant

determinant in choosing their employment. Employees, by and large, are drawn to an

income that can support themselves and their families, regardless of their commute.

Table 6 Correlation between commute and length of employment.
5) How long is your commute to work?
Commute Time Time of Employment
Commute Time Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.418
N 13.000 13
Time of Employment Pearson Correlation -.418 1.000
N 13 14.000

Among respondents, gas prices ranked highest for worst aspect of their

commute (Figure 17). This is no surprise given the relatively high gas prices, though

prices have declined lately. Other determinants were also cited. Many respondents

cited road conditions, likely due to the major road construction currently being

undertaken on Court Street, which is the main access road to get to the Cheshire

Medical Center. An employee wishing to get to the CMC must take several detours,

endure tedious waits at stop signs, and drive on uneven or unpaved roads. Weather was

also an issue; winters in New Hampshire are often unforgiving on vehicles and drivers

alike.

40

Figure 17 Opinions on worst aspect of respondents commute.

After running correlation tests there was found to be no relationship between

commute time and workplace and household morale. For both morales there was a

weak relationship in correlation to commute time, which disproved the hypothesis

stating that employees with longer commute times will show significantly affected levels

of workplace and household morale.

Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey

While decisions regarding planning and zoning are left to Planning Board

Members and Selectmen, many states have encouraged the public to play a more

prominent role in the process (Jorden and Hentrich 2003). Ballot-box zoning, “the

process of subjecting land use decisions to popular vote, usually on a local level” (Staley

2001, 26) allows citizens to express opinions and concerns about specific topics such as

land-use or open space programs. In 2004, voters in San Francisco, California, rejected a

proposal, which would have allowed for developers to construct middle-income homes

41

aimed at workforce housing families. Although none of the towns in the Monadnock

Region adhere to the ballot-box zoning initiative, the relative small size of each town,

enabled a survey to be developed which facilitated the acquisition of opinions of Town

Planners and/or Selectmen.

The survey (Appendix 4) was primarily a closed-response survey, containing

mostly Likert-scale questions for quantitative analysis and one open-ended question for

personal insights and qualitative analysis. Issues discussed were: changes in zoning, tax

increases, and incentives to developers. The survey was designed to obtain data, which

would be useful for Correlation tests and descriptive statistics.

Using the 2008-2009 New Hampshire Municipality Directory, the names and e-

mail addresses of all thirty-one towns’ Town Planners and/or Selectmen were compiled.

Surveys were sent and after two weeks, only one had been returned. A follow up survey

was sent via post to the same offices, along with additional surveys distributed to Keene

planners. Fifteen of 31 non-Keene surveys were returned as well as two Keene surveys;

responses represent 52% of the towns in the Monadnock Region (see Figure 18).

42

Figure 18 Survey respondents.

43

o Using SPSS Statistical Analysis, a number of descriptive statistics were found.
Specifically, the mode, to determine the opinions on rates of growth compared
to Cheshire County (Question 3) and to determine different levels of support
regarding specific issues pertaining to workforce housing (Questions 8a-8f)

o A Correlation test was run to determine if there was a relationship between a
town’s median income and the amount of available workforce housing options.
This hopes to demonstrate that towns with a higher median income will have a
significantly lower amount of available workforce housing options

Planning Board Members and Selectmen Survey Results

Using the results of the survey, several statistical analyses were run.

Respondents were asked to compare the growth of their town to the growth of Cheshire

County as a whole. Table 7 illustrates these findings. Interesting is the discrepancy

between Keene Planning Board members’ opinions: one believes Keene is growing

faster than Cheshire County, while the other feels that it is not growing as fast.

Table 7 Opinions of growth compared to Cheshire County.
3) Compared to Cheshire County, my town is growing:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Faster 3 9.4 18.8 18.8
About the Same 5 15.6 31.2 50.0
Slower 8 25.0 50.0 100.0
Total 16 50.0 100.0
Missing System 16 50.0
Total 32 100.0

Tests were run on two questions regarding officials’ opinions on two major

issues: changes in their towns’ Master Plan and tax increases. Question 8b posed

whether officials believed changes should be made to the town’s Master Plan so to

allow for undeveloped land to be re-zoned for workforce housing (Table 8). Of the

44

sixteen respondents, seven strongly disagreed that any changes should be made to the

Master Plan while two (Keene and Nelson) strongly agreed that changes should be

made.

Overall, this reveals a considerable resistance to any re-zoning for undeveloped

land. Seventy-five percent of respondents disagree or strongly disagree that any

changes should be made to the Master Plan, while less than twenty percent agree. This

demonstrates that rezoning is not likely to be a practical option for the development of

more workforce housing.

Table 8 Opinions on changes in Master Plan.
8b) Changes should be made in the Master Plan that would allow undeveloped land to be re-zoned
so that it can be used for new neighborhood housing developments that are specifically designed
for working families
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
Valid Strongly Agree 2 6.2 12.5 12.5
Agree 1 3.1 6.2 18.8
No Opinion 1 3.1 6.2 25.0
Disagree 5 15.6 31.2 56.2
Strongly Disagree 7 21.9 43.8 100.0
Total 16 50.0 100.0
Total 32 100.0

Table 9 shows results from Question 8d, which asked whether taxes should be

increased to help make more workforce housing options available. Taxes are always a

pertinent topic, especially in local governments, which makes this question very

essential. Not surprisingly, fourteen out of the sixteen respondents either disagreed or

strongly disagreed that taxes should be increased to make more workforce housing

45

available; the remaining two had no opinion (Rindge and Alstead). Towns that surround

Keene have considerably lower tax rates as it is (New Hampshire Department of

Revenue Administration) and given the chance, it seems few would agree to a tax

increase regardless of the reason.

Table 9 Opinions on tax increases which supplement workforce housing options.
8d) Taxes should be increased to help supplement housing options for working families
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Don't Know 2 6.2 12.5 12.5
Disagree 7 21.9 43.8 56.2
Strongly Disagree 7 21.9 43.8 100.0
Total 16 50.0 100.0
Total 32 100.0

Question 5 of the survey asked whether or not officials thought their town

currently had an adequate number of workforce housing options. Using these results, a

test was run to determine any correlation between a town’s median income and

adequacy of workforce housing options. As illustrated in Table 10, there is no

correlation between a town’s median income and the believed adequacy of workforce

housing. Also, only two (Greenfield and Winchester) of the respondents believed that

workforce housing was the top priority.

46

Table 10 Correlation results between income and housing options.
Correlation between median income and available housing options

Five Median Income

Pearson Correlation 1.000 .133

Five Sig. (2-tailed) .612

N 17.000 17

Pearson Correlation .133 1.000
Median Income Sig. (2-tailed) .612
N 17 32.000

As illustrated in Figure 19, Question 9 sought to determine planners’ opinions

regarding future land use in their communities. Of the seventeen respondents, two

supported the removal of barriers to development and encouraged construction of new

houses. Nine respondents believe “development of housing must occur with careful

consideration and some restraint”, and the remaining six were in favor of natural

environment preservation, one respondent felt that “rural property—forests and tillable

lands are a finite commodity. We rely on these for the air we breathe and the food we

eat but also for the beauty and wildlife. Can we afford to lose these?”

Figure 19 Officials' opinions regarding future land-use.

47

On the whole, there were no outstanding trends among local Town Planners and

Selectmen. The issue of workforce housing, though prominent in many towns in the

Monadnock Region, remains to be a “backburner issue” as evident by the fact that only

two town officials ranked it as the top priority in their town. For workforce housing to

become an effective and viable option, more town officials need to understand that

without it, their communities will suffer. Young families will choose not to live and work

in that area due to the fact that they are unable to afford housing within relatively close

proximity to their place of employment. Furthermore, employers will be unable to hire

skilled workers and retain valuable employees. This lack of workforce thus hinders

economic expansion and development.

48

Chapter 5________________________________________________________________

Case Study within the Monadnock Region: Walpole, New Hampshire

The increase in home values in Keene has forced a considerable number of

families to move to the surrounding towns, furthering the demand for affordable

housing in those towns. One town in particular, however, views land conservation as a

primary and everlasting concern. Walpole, New Hampshire, residents joined together

for the purchase of a 52-acre plot of land adjacent to the Connecticut River.

Walpole lies about fifteen miles northwest of Keene, its western border touching

the Connecticut River. Within the town lines are the villages of Walpole, North Walpole,

and Drewsville, which contain working farms, accredited primary schools, a small

business district, and charming Town Common (Figure 20). According to the 2000 US

Census, the population of Walpole is 3,594 and of that, a considerable number have

operating farms as their main source of income (http://www.walpolenh.us).

Figure 20 Town common, Walpole, New Hampshire. Source: Authors.

49

Sheldon Sawyer, Town Selectman and Planning Board Member, as well as a local

farmer, has strong opinions regarding zoning within the town and its effects on housing

costs. He explained that the Town of Walpole currently mandates that residential

development must lie on a parcel of land that is no less than 40,000 square feet and

furthermore possess no less than 200 feet of road frontage. Walpole’s town common

can be found as an exception to this rule. There are homes and businesses that do not

possess the 200 feet of frontage because they were grandfathered into the ordinance

(Figure 21). This is due to those specific homes and businesses being established prior to

the master plan being written. Ultimately, if Walpole chose to build a town common

today, it would look drastically different due to the regulations mandated by the

ordinance.

Figure 21 Home that does not adhere to 200-foot ordinance. Source: Authors

50

Mr. Sawyer also noted that subdivisions can be developed on a major or minor

scale. According to the Town of Walpole website, a major subdivision consists of

anything more than four dwellings, while a minor subdivision allows for four or less

residences (2006). Builders are choosing to develop minor subdivisions because the

approval process by the town is much simpler, and is more likely to be accepted over a

major development project. This significantly limits the amount of development in

Walpole. Furthermore, it may spur an inefficient “leap-frog” form of housing

development.

Currently fifteen percent of Walpole falls under a conservation plan and the

town hopes to see that number rise to 25 percent in the upcoming years. One step

towards the increase in conservation can be found at Ballam Farm, only minutes from

Walpole’s center. The Ballam Farm property was formerly part of Louis Ballam’s family

farm. Figure 22 shows the location of the Ballam Farm relative to Walpole’s town center

and the Connecticut River. When this land was first put up for sale in 2006 it was under

consideration as the future site of a car dealership and residential development. This

raised concern due to the fact that this property is located close to Walpole’s “River

Well”- the largest public water supply in town. The 52 acres of farmland and forestland

have frontage on the Connecticut River, good quality soil, and are positioned over the

town’s drinking water aquifer, covering about twenty-percent of the most productive

aquifers in the state of New Hampshire (http://www.nh.nrcs.usda.gov).

51

Figure 22 Location of Ballam Farm in Walpole, New Hampshire.

Many organizations played a role in the funding to help purchase this land. The

Trust for Public Land raised almost $200,000 of private funding that was matched with

public funds for the conservation land. The United States Department of Agriculture’s

Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program

52

provided a $290,000 grant. The Water Supply Land Grant Program of New Hampshire

provided a $153,000 grant as well. Locally, the Walpole Conservation Commission

contributed $50,000 in order to fund the purchasing of the Ballam Farm

(http://www.nh.nrcs.usda.gov).

After two years, The Trust for Public Land (TPL) and the Walpole Conservation

Commission has successfully closed on the Ballam Farm Conservation Commission. This

gives Walpole’s Conservation Commission a conservation easement on the land. Not

only are the 52 acres adjacent to the Connecticut River but there is an additional eight

acres in addition to the wellhead property which can hold a wellhead if it is needed in

the future. Now that this land is protected there will not be any development that may

pollute the water supply of Walpole. While conserving this land protects the water

supply of the community, it also removes 52 acres of land from potential housing

development.

In Communities and Consequences, authors Francese and Merrill report that

resistance to residential development is common in many towns.

A developer may propose a plan to build 90 homes on 300 aces of open
land—in conformance with the town’s three-acre minimum zoning.
Individuals opposed to that wasteful use of the land rally support for
buying up all 300 acres for permanent conservation as open space.
Federal and state grants are obtained and combined with a town bond
issue to purchase the land, and the development is stopped (2008, 23 –
24).

The repercussions of this particular act are both long term and most certainly

underestimated by the population who chose to conserve the land. The cost of housing

will increase because of the demand and young families will not have the option of

53

living there because of the lack of affordable housing, thus starting the vicious cycle.

Fortunately, there are many solutions and available options for towns like Keene and

Walpole to put into action.

54

Chapter 6________________________________________________________________

Conclusions and Solutions

When a family is left without a bed to sleep in at night, without a living room to

congregate in, and without a dining room to eat a meal in, they are not considered

houseless, but rather homeless. This issue is not just an issue of numbers and figures; it

has ramifications that transcend every family in every town. But what can be done?

What can communities do to help combat this issue?

Mikaela Engert, City Planner for Keene, New Hampshire, believes that ultimately

workforce housing involves having a choice. Workforce families should be able to

choose homes that are well built and well maintained, not homes that are so-called

“dumps” located in bad neighborhoods. Homes should be within close proximity to

town services (jobs, shops), which would decrease energy consumption and

transportation costs; homes should be energy efficient, further reducing energy costs;

and finally, homes should be family-specific: a fitting home for a family of three should

be suitable for a family of three, not a family of seven.

Engert suggests changing town ordinances and offering better incentives to

developers to make their metaphoric carrot bigger. This is something that Keene is

currently in the process of doing by making changes to the Master Plan, which will

address the broader issue of housing as well as workforce housing specifically. If

developers are solely concerned with making a substantial profit, then they either need

to rethink the situation realistically or walk away from the project. Developing

55

workforce housing should not only be about making money, it should be about creating

quality homes for families who need them.

While Engert works diligently with the City of Keene, Benjamin Frost spends his

time traveling across the State of New Hampshire to educate the public about the issues

surrounding workforce housing. He also works with the government officials of these

towns in their pursuit to find ways to offer more affordable housing within their

communities.

Further efforts, too, could be made to reduce minimum lot sizes which would

increase the density and allow for more housing options. For example, a single-family

house lot in Keene only needs to be 6,000 square feet, while in Alstead; a single-family

house lot must be five acres. This can be considered a form of exclusionary zoning,

which limits where families can live, work, be educated, and quality of life (Liberty

2003). Thus, more inclusionary zoning needs to be incorporated to help increase the

available options for families of low-to moderate-income levels.

Mixed-use development, too, would help increase the options for housing.

Mixed-use development involves combining commercial and residential lots, while still

maintaining property integrity and function. Keene’s Main Street is a prime example of

mixed-use development, with many residential apartments located above the numerous

shops and eateries. This also drastically limits commute times and provides a sense of

belonging to the community, all while allowing residents to live where they work.

Dispelling any myths will also help erase the stigma that accompanies workforce

housing. Workforce housing is not a low-income problem, it is a community issue that

56

affects the entire population. It is part of a community’s infrastructure, just like road

services, water supplies and communications, which are all used on a daily basis. More

and more “cultural and economic racism” is evolving (Francese and Merrill 2008, 38).

The “not-in-my-back-yard” (NIMBY) mentality percolates through communities when

faced with workforce housing issues. To many it conjures up images of low-income

housing projects in inner-city neighborhoods. What many fail to realize is that workforce

housing is for the workforce, those who teach children, put out fires, stop crime and

save lives. Without a workforce, a community would crumble.

Another myth that coincides with workforce housing is that if a family with

children moves into a town, schools will become overcrowded and taxes will increase

for the rest of the community due to school enrollment increasing. A study by the New

Hampshire Housing Finance Authority in 2005 found that each new home results in an

average increase of only one-half child (Francese and Merrill 2008, 8). Couple this with

the fact that no new development will be built overnight; a 100-home development will

not yield 200 (or even 50) children at the start of every school year. Homes take time to

occupy. If only twenty-five homes are filled in the first year after development, about

thirteen new children are likely to become enrolled in the schools, all presumably of

different ages. Children are an essential part of a community. They maintain a stable

population within a community and help preserve balanced housing efforts for the

middle-class. The bottom line, according to Ben Frost, is that “towns need kids” (2008).

Finally, without a doubt, the most important way to help find a solution for the

workforce housing issue is to stay involved and educated. This means taking the

57

opportunity to attend local housing coalition meetings to stay informed with current

issues regarding workforce housing (see www.workforcehousingnh.com/coalitions.cfm

for a full list of New Hampshire housing coalitions). It means attending planning board

meetings and learning what can be done and what has been done to address this issue.

Lastly, a simple, but extremely effective way to make a difference is with a letter to the

editor to a local newspaper. Especially in small towns where voices really can have an

impact, a letter to the editor has the power to create awareness that a larger-scaled

effort may be unable to generate.

In New Hampshire, the goal of providing adequate and well-maintained homes

for the workforce is just as imperative as any other town service. No community would

let unsuitable roads go unattended or educational facilities crumble. To achieve this

goal, communities must unite and take action through education, participation, and

legislation. Only then will New Hampshire be successful in housing its workforce.

58

Literature Cited___________________________________________________________

Affordable Housing. 2008. United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Accessible from www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/
Index.cfm (last accessed 15 October 2008).

Barnett, J. 2003. Redesigning cities. Chicago: American Planning Association.

. 1995. The fractured metropolis. New York: Icon Editions.

Benfield, F. K., J. Terris, and N. Vorsanger. Solving sprawl: models of smart growth in
communities across America. New York City: National Resources Defense
Council.
Bratt, R. G. 1989. Rebuilding a low-income housing policy. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

CNNMoney. 2008. Best places to live: Money’s list of America’s best small cities.
Available at www.money.cnn.com (last accessed 27 October 2008).

Engert, M. 2008. City of Keene. Received data from personal contact.

Francese, P., and L.S. Merrill. 2008. Communities & consequences: the unbalancing of
New Hampshire’s human ecology & what we can do about it. Portsmouth, New
Hampshire: Peter E. Randall Publisher LLC.

Frost, B. 2008. New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority. Received data from personal
contact.

Gober, P., K. E. McHugh, and D. Leclerc. 1993. Job-rich but housing poor: The dilemma
of a western amenity town. Professional Geographer 45 (1): 12-20.

Goodno, J. B. 2004. Voters reject San Francisco plan to encourage workforce housing.
Planning. Available at: www.planning.org/affordablereader/planning/news0504
.htm (last accessed 16 September 2008).

Green, R. K. and S. Malpezzi. 2003. A primer on U.S. housing markets and housing policy.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.

Gunderson, R.J. 2007. Housing affordability and workforce housing initiatives. Economic
Development 39-46.

Heading for Home. 2008. A regional housing coalition. Available at
www.headingforhome.org (last accessed 11 November 2008).

59

Hennessy, D.A. 2008. The Impact of Commuter Stress on Workplace Aggression. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 38 (9): 2315-2335.

Housing Park City’s Workforce 2005-2010: Housing Assessment and Demand Analysis.
2005. Executive Summary.

Jorden, D. A. and M. Hentrich. 2003. Public participation is on the rise: a review of the
changes in the notice and hearing requirements for the adoption and
amendment of general plans and rezonings nationwide and in recent Arizona
land use legislation. Natural Resources Journal 43(3): 865-886.

Lerman, B. 2006. Mandatory inclusionary zoning: The answer to the affordable housing
problem. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 33(2): 383-416.

Liberty, R.L. 2003. Abolishing exclusionary zoning: A natural policy alliance for
environmentalists and affordable housing advocates. Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review 30(3): 581-604.

McClure, K. 2008. Deconcentrating poverty with housing programs. Journal of the
American Planning Association 74(1): 90-99.

McGrew, Jr. J.C. and C.B. Monroe. 2000. Correlation. An introduction to statistical
problem solving in geography, second edition, 193. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill

Meck, S., R. Retzlaff, and J. Schwab. Regional approaches to affordable housing. Chicago:
American Planning Association.

New Hampshire Senate. Senate Bill 342-FN-LOCAL. Available at:
http://www.gencourt.state. nh.us/legislation/2008/sb0342.html.

Palmer, R. 2008. Affordable Housing elusive in Park City. Deseret News, 3 August.

Pendall, R. 2000. Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the

Sacks, S. D. 2005. Key worker housing : a demand analysis of middle-income workforce
housing in eastern Massachusetts. Thesis: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning.

Sawyer, S. 2008. Town of Walpole. Received data from personal contact.

60

Seacoast Workforce Housing Coalition. Portsmouth, NH. Available at
http://www.seacoastwhc.org (last accessed 28 October 2008).

Staley, S. R. 2001. Ballot-box zoning, transaction costs, and urban growth. Journal of the

Sullivan, T. 2004. Putting the force in workforce housing. Planning 70(10): 26-31.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. City of Keene,
New Hampshire.

. 2000. General Housing Characteristics: 2000. Keene, New Hampshire.

. 2006. Census 2006 Demographic Profile Highlights Cheshire County, New
Hampshire.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2008. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Available at: http://www.nh.nrcs.usda.gov (last accessed 5 November 2008).

Upper Valley Housing Coalition. White River Junction, VT. Available at
http://www.uvhc.org (last accessed 28 October 2008).

Walpole, New Hampshire. 2006. Land subdivision control regulations. Available at:
http://www.walpolenh.us/ordinances.htm (last accessed 20 November 2008).

Wells, W. 2007. Blueprint for greening affordable housing. Washington: Island Press.

Whitten, J.D. 2003. The cost of developing affordable housing: At what price? Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Review. 30(3): 509-554.

62

APPENDIX 1: List of Interviewees

Ms. Mikaela Engert, City of Keene Planning Department

Mr. Benjamin Frost, Director of Public Affairs, New Hampshire Housing Finance
Authority

Mr. Sheldon Sawyer, Town of Walpole Selectman and Planning Board Member

63

APPENDIX 2: Health Care Professionals Survey

Greetings, we are Keene State College Geography students completing our Senior Thesis. We are working
in collaboration with Heading for Home, a non-governmental organization which was created with a goal
of finding a solution to the lack of workforce housing in the Monadnock Region. Workforce housing
applies to all income levels within our workforce. A household’s total housing costs, according to federal
guidelines, should be no more than 30% of the household’s income. The purpose of this survey is to sample
local employees’ opinions about workforce housing. We appreciate your time and if interested, we will
gladly provide you with a copy of our results.

1. Position:____________________________________

2. Town of residence: ___________________________

3. Total number of persons in your household including yourself? __________

4. Do you rent or own? Rent _____ Own _____

5. Approximately how long (in minutes) is your commute to work? __________

6. How do you get to work?

_____ Drive my own car _____ Public transportation
_____ Walk _____ Get a ride/carpool with co-worker
_____ Bicycle _____ Other

7. The worst thing about my commute is:

Gas Prices _____ Road conditions _____

Weather _____ Other _____

Traffic _____

8. How many years have you been with your current employer? __________

9. Please rate your level of support regarding the following:

a. My commute time was a significant determinant in choosing my current employer

Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

b. I would like to live closer to my current employer
1 2 3 4 5

c. Housing costs are an important factor as to why I live where I do

1 2 3 4 5

64

d. My commute time can affect my morale

1 2 3 4 5

e. My commute time can affect my household’s morale

1 2 3 4 5

f. A lack of affordable housing contributes to a shortage of nurses in the Monadnock
Region

1 2 3 4 5

10. If you currently do NOT live in the community where you are employed, would you consider
moving to that community if you could find housing that was affordable for your
household?

____ Yes ____ No If NO, skip to Question 11.

If Yes, how interested would you be in moving to that community?
_____ very interested _____ somewhat interested _____not very interested

If Yes, what type of housing would you need in that community to make relocating to that town
desirable and feasible?

_____ Single family house _____ Multi-family housing/ Apartment
_____ Townhouse/ Condominium _____ Other (please specify) _______________

11. Please rank what you feel is most important in your town 1-6 (1 being the least, 6 being the
most important)

Open Space/ Recreation _____ Property Taxes _____

Education _____ Workforce Housing _____

Municipal Services (police, fire) _____ Other _____ (please explain below)

12. What is your opinion about the availability of affordable housing in the Monadnock region?

Workforce Housing in the Monadnock Region

Workforce Housing in the Monadnock Region

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (8)

Plus de Jenny Darrow

Plus de Jenny Darrow (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Workforce Housing in the Monadnock Region