NAHANT — Nahant Town Meeting voters rejected a proposal to establish an Affordable Housing Trust on Saturday, defeating Article 17 in a 60-88 vote after debate over expanding housing tools while maintaining public oversight.

According to the Report and Recommendations document created by the Finance and Advisory Committee, the Affordable Housing Trust is a state-approved initiative intended to provide “affordable housing in the Town of Nahant for the benefit of low and moderate income households.”

Town Administrator Alison Nieto said the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) studied Nahant’s housing and demographics and found significant shifts between 2015 and 2020. The town saw a 40% increase in residents ages 65-69 and a 74% increase in residents ages 70-79, while the number of residents ages 22-29 declined by 57%.

To address those changes, the town envisioned the Affordable Housing Trust as “a funding entity that solicits ideas for project funding, including rental assistance programs, home modification programs, and first-time homebuyers’ programs.”

The proposed governing body would have included one member of the Select Board or its designee, representatives from the Community Preservation Committee and Planning Board, a designee of the Advisory and Finance Committee who is not a committee member, and Nahant’s Town Administrator.

At Saturday’s Town Meeting, Article 17 was presented by Tim Bell of the Finance and Advisory Committee, saying that the committee was “split” on the proposal. Following the vote, Nieto said she was “disappointed” the proposal was not approved, noting that 152 Massachusetts communities have already established Affordable Housing Trusts.

Nieto said the town’s work with MAPC on a draft Housing Production Plan found that 45% of renters and 36% of homeowners in Nahant are considered “cost burdened,” meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

She also pointed to Nahant’s aging population and declining number of younger residents, saying the town needs more downsizing options, home modifications, and broader housing choices. 

According to Nieto, the proposed trust would have allowed the town to focus specifically on local housing priorities.

Nieto added that the town offered several opportunities for residents to learn about the proposal before Town Meeting, including a March 31 public presentation from Shelly Goehring, senior program manager at the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, as well as additional public meetings and information sessions explaining the differences between the Affordable Housing Trust and the Community Preservation Committee.

Supporters of the measure argued the trust would provide flexibility and allow the town to act more quickly on housing issues. 

Opponents, however, raised concerns about the “broad powers” the Trust and its appointed members would hold, including “buying property, selling property, owning and leasing property, guaranteeing loans, employing staff at the Trust’s discretion and potentially without community input,” according to the Report and Recommendations document.

Several residents spoke during the Town Meeting, offering both support for the opportunities the trust could create and concerns over accountability and oversight.

One resident strongly supported the proposal, arguing that it would provide the town with “a flexible and responsible tool” to address housing challenges affecting many Massachusetts communities. 

The resident said the trust could help “create and preserve housing for seniors wishing to downsize, young families trying to stay in our community, veterans, teachers, first responders, and working residents who are increasingly priced out of our town.”

The resident also said the trust would allow the town to “leverage state grants, community preservation funds, private donations, and other outside resources” rather than relying solely on taxpayers.

Echoing Nieto, the resident noted that more than 100 Massachusetts communities have adopted similar measures because they promote “local control, long-term planning, and the ability to respond proactively.” The resident added, “This is not about changing the character of our town; it’s about preserving a diverse, vibrant, and sustainable community where people of different income levels can continue to live and contribute.”

Another resident opposed the proposal, arguing there were opportunities for it “to become more fair and more accountable” and saying it should “go back to the drawing board.” 

The resident stated the town already has “adequate, if not over, housing density” and referenced existing state housing measures, including “40B,” “80U,” and “3A.”

While acknowledging the state’s encouragement to create Affordable Housing Trusts, the resident argued the proposal “is way beyond flexibility” and criticized the lack of “criteria for fairness.”

The resident also questioned the appointment process, asking, “The trustees, are they elected as we elect library trustees?” When learning they would be appointed, the resident expressed that the process could become “solely subjective by these trustees.”

The resident suggested trustees should instead be elected, saying, “Let’s elect the trustees and send this article back to the drawing board, where it can be worked on and made to do the right thing for the town.”

Another resident echoed those concerns, saying the board would be “appointed, not an elected board.” While emphasizing support for affordable housing, she questioned “the necessity of creating this outside group that isn’t accountable to the town in any official way.”

She also expressed concern that the proposed board could “act quickly, have flexibility without town meeting approval, and without any oversight by any elected body.”

Instead, she said she would “prefer to see the existing structures that we have working to meet the needs, which we all agree exist, of affordable housing in town.”

“I think that the town is missing out on an important tool that can address current housing needs in Nahant,” Nieto expressed.