This past year we have seen record-breaking housing costs in Lynn and across the commonwealth. In August, the median price for a single-family home in Massachusetts was $535,000, up 27.4 percent from the same month in 2019. Homeownership is becoming increasingly out of reach, particularly for low-income families and families of color.

We must tackle our homeownership gap if we are going to address the racial-wealth gap. But we cannot turn to unproven policy ideas that might be appealing at first glance but actually harm vulnerable consumers and homebuyers in the long run.

Locally, we have had a robust discussion about housing with a wide range of stakeholders as part of Lynn’s housing production plan. We have a lot to be proud of and to look forward to, but the proposal for shifting from a traditional 30-year mortgage to 40-, 50- or 60-year mortgages is short-sighted and will only undermine families’ abilities to build wealth in the long term. Not to mention that local government cannot enact such banking policies, which are heavily regulated at the state and federal levels.

As the Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Financial Services, I am responsible for reviewing legislation related to banks and credit unions. I am strongly opposed to the recent mortgage program proposed locally, referred to as a “generational mortgage.” These proposed 40-, 50- or 60-year mortgages would significantly increase the amount of interest a homeowner pays over the life of a mortgage and severely limit the typical first-time homebuyer’s ability to build equity in their home.

Let’s take a look at the numbers with the most conservative proposal, the 40-year mortgage.

A homeowner with a 30-year $200,000 mortgage at a fixed 4 percent interest rate would pay about $144,000 in interest by the end of the mortgage.

All else held equal, a homeowner with a 40-year mortgage would pay about $201,000 in interest, a whopping $57,000 more in interest.

In addition, the homeowner with a 40-year mortgage would build equity much more slowly than their 30-year counterpart.

Most first-time homebuyers stay in their home for six to 10 years. In our scenario, a homeowner with a 30-year mortgage would have gained about $23,500 in equity by the end of year six, while a homeowner with a 40-year product would only have gained $14,000.

After accounting for property taxes, the cost of maintenance, and insurance, the homeowner with a 40-year mortgage may well have been better off financially had they been renting.

As we extend the life of a mortgage, increase the amount of interest paid over time, and slow the rate at which we build equity, the financial trade-offs of homeownership no longer make sense. The 40-year scenario undermines the financial benefit that makes homeownership an attractive and worthwhile investment in the first place.

A 40-year mortgage would result in a lower monthly payment. In the scenario we are using, it would lower the payment by $120 a month. While not an insignificant sum, this lower monthly payment is typically not worth the financial cost of a longer mortgage for most homebuyers.

President Joe Biden announced that the federal government would roll out a 40-year mortgage, but not because it is a good wealth-building tool. Instead, he viewed it as an option for borrowers who are facing financial hardship and are at risk of foreclosure. They urgently need lower monthly payments because they are already behind on their mortgage.

A 40-year mortgage is a last-resort option to prevent people from losing their homes. It is not a policy solution for increasing homeownership in order to build wealth and financial security for prospective low-income homebuyers and homebuyers of color.

Rather than pursuing ideas like a 40-year mortgage, we should pursue down-payment assistance programs or buying down interest rates to empower prospective homeowners. We must also address our housing shortage by aggressively building more housing at all income levels, particularly affordable housing.

Let’s invest in proven practices like the tools recommended in Lynn’s housing production plan, including an affordable housing trust fund, to create homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers who have historically been left out of the housing market. Gimmicks like a 40-, 50- or 60-year mortgage distract from the ultimate goal of advancing homeownership.

State Sen. Brendan Crighton represents the Third Essex District. He is the Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Financial Services, and the former Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Housing.

Read Lynn Item article here