The back and forth about the Hope Street parking lot spiked my curiosity and had me looking things up. I wanted to break down my interpretation of what I’ve absorbed while looking at census data, housing markets, income averages, and city budgets.

From my understanding, the mayor’s stated goal on the city’s website is to turn the parking lot into “market rate” housing. Other conversations I’ve seen are about “affordable” housing — but these are two very different things currently.

You can say Greenfield has a housing problem, but I would say the bigger problem is not the shortage of housing — it’s the fact that we have a shortage of livable income:

Greenfield Population: 17,662

Households: 8,206 (avg house hold size is 2.2)

Housing units: 8,670

Greenfield has roughly one house for every household. The median income for Greenfield is $53,961/yr. What does that income afford for residents here? Banks and housing agencies say a household shouldn’t spend more than 30% of its income on rent or a mortgage. Thirty percent of $53,961 is around $1,350 a month for mortgage/taxes/insurance. Estimating interest rates at 6-7%, that puts pricing around $200,000 to $230,000. The prices I’ve seen listed for a home for sale in Greenfield often ranges from $300,000 and higher. Zillow does have some listed for less, but a family with average income cannot afford a house here anymore. Rent in town sings the same song: most apartments list between $1,200 (on the cheap side) upwards to $1,700. 

Greenfield’s property tax revenue looks great on paper! Let’s say developers build 30 new houses valued at $300,000 each. The 2025 residential tax rate is $19.56 per $1,000. A $300,000 house × $19.56 tax rate/per $1,000 (value) = $5,868 in property tax per house/year. Thirty new houses x $5,868 tax for the year = $176,040 a year in new tax revenue to Greenfield. But what do those 30 new houses cost Greenfield every year?

Every house uses: 1. Road maintenance; 2. Trash; 3. Water & sewer/ upkeep; 4. Police, fire and emergency services; 5. Schools (even if not every house has kids); 6. General government services (Town Hall, DPW).

Based on Greenfield’s 2025 Budget and Census population it costs about $8,080 per household per year to provide these services listed above. While each new house in this scenario pays about $5,868 in taxes, Greenfield would spend about $8,000 to support it. That’s a financial loss per house, per year. Aside from this financial loss, our own citizens cannot afford to buy a house and keep up on the taxes! Instead, out-of-towners are often the buyers — and they won’t work in Greenfield because the wages are too low.

In my opinion, this housing idea is like putting a new roof on a house with a crumbling foundation. It really doesn’t make a lot of sense. Until everyone in local government understands that business growth funds everything else, why are we fighting to build housing, when our locals can’t afford it in this “city.” We seem to be leaving behind our own residents — in pursuit of transplants instead.

If we provide businesses and real work, our local people will begin to thrive, and everything else will start to follow. Otherwise, we’re just painting over rust and calling it progress. If we build more higher-wage jobs, the people will follow, and developers will see more demand for constructing houses people can actually afford. I know housing isn’t the villain here, it just shouldn’t be step one to tackle this problem. The challenge isn’t a shortage of homes, it’s a shortage of wages.

I urge Greenfield citizens to vote “Yes” on Question 1 to view housing needs with a wider lens that focuses on living wage jobs.

Kiara Bricault-Leno spent the first 13 years of her life in Greenfield, plus some years in her late teens to early 20s. She now lives with her family in Warwick.