Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BasilExposition75 t1_j6j3vp6 wrote

" the so-called MBTA Communities law — requires communities served by the MBTA and commuter rail to zone for denser housing near transit systems."

I get the point of this law, but this is a little ridiculous how it is implemented. I can see building dense housing within walking distance of train stops, but they are doing this by town and even the ones next to them. Example, there is a train stop in Natick, but Dover and Sherborn count. I used to live in that area and it is a 20 minute drive to the train station. Sherborne doesn't have a lot of amenities..

Same with Billerica. Carlisle is impacted but had like one country store and very sidewalks. In some towns, the train is on the border and you can be a long ways from the station.

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

2

jbray90 t1_j6j75k5 wrote

All that’s changing is the zoning though. Developers will still have to determine if the market wants high density in a given location. The law only prevents towns from denying the ability to build densely if that’s the will of the market.

16

BasilExposition75 t1_j6j7sxh wrote

If you build a 2000 unit apartment complex in Sherbone, all you are doing is ensuring traffic. Zoning is designed to maximize the use of public utilities. Shit, I don't even thing Sherbone has a public water system. I know Carlisle doesn't.

−10

alohadave t1_j6jizb2 wrote

> Zoning is designed to maximize the use of public utilities.

And to limit development, and to limit density, and keep out undesirable people.

In Quincy, with the current zoning, I could not build my house on my lot. I cannot add a floor to my house. I cannot add an accessory dwelling unit.

12

BasilExposition75 t1_j6jqxb1 wrote

I am not arguing that zoning is never used irresponsibly. It surely is.

Does your lot have town water and sewage? Gas? If there is town sewage. I don't know about the infrastructure, but I imagine an accessory might not impact the infrastructure in you area. If everyone on your street did, it might require a major overhaul. That is a decision that needs to be made at the local level.

My section of town has wells. A newer subdivision installed 10 wells some years back and everyone else's wells went dry. Now, our zoning requires subdivisions to have on shared well with an impact study done prior. The state rules would allow developers to skip that.

I hear what you are saying, but zoning laws are often there for a reason and it isn't usually to keep people out.

3

jbray90 t1_j6j9dak wrote

All things any developer would have to consider when deciding how to utilize a property. This is exactly why the law was created. The mindset has assumed that only single family detached homes are reasonable and so we’ve zoned for that exclusively. Developers could literary just build single family attached homes under the new zoning that would have been impossible before. The assumption that developers are going to spend a fortune building a property with 2000 units in a location where that demand doesn’t exist is silly. Now places can be upbuilt over time without NIMBYs shooting down anything that isn’t single family detached homes

11

BasilExposition75 t1_j6jflnu wrote

It really isn't lack of demand that is the issue. I am sure 2000 people would love to get into the Dover/Sherborn school system. You drop a big development into these smaller towns, the school system might not have enough seats.

There are other issues at play here. Transportation and infrastructure need to be considered. Not every street in every town has city water/sewage/gas. Not every town has public transportation and sidewalks. Each town is unique and has their own sets of challenges, thus why we have local zoning.

0

snorkeling_moose t1_j6k7cv1 wrote

I mean nobody would build a 2000 unit building in a town that doesn't have water/sewage/gas to support it. You think they're just gonna slap up a building without functioning toilets, heat, or water? And if they somehow miraculously pull that off, that the building will be occupied?

And yeah, you're right, the issue ISN'T lack of demand. It's lack of supply. Hence the zoning proposition.

4

Yakb0 t1_j6kb7fi wrote

>You think they're just gonna slap up a building without functioning toilets, heat, or water? And if they somehow miraculously pull that off, that the building will be occupied?

I'm sure Alpha management would be interested.

2

snorkeling_moose t1_j6ke7e3 wrote

True, but to be fair I think they're like one mismanaged building away from drawing arsonists to their properties

1

ABucs260 t1_j6ka0ga wrote

North Billerica station already has multi-family units within the radius of the station, and is also pretty well used by those in the surrounding towns as well, considering Tewksbury, Lowell, Chelmsford etc

1

BasilExposition75 t1_j6kkwft wrote

Yeah, that makes sense to me and is what we should be encouraging. The other option is to build more tracks, but with more bike paths being built on the old ones I don't think that will be happening...

1

Roszo21 t1_j6kmhb0 wrote

I really love this law, but I do LOL at Healey taking public credit for the Baker administration's work.

I do think there's further to go, in that this law is best coupled with additional investment in the bus and commuter rail system. Many towns have access to the MBTA, but it's not really usable access.

1

BasilExposition75 t1_j6kotwn wrote

Right, like let's built dense near rail... Maybe next near the highway... but encouraging people to sprawl with cars based upon being "close" to rail seems like they are using the MBTA community law as an excuse.

1

asmithey t1_j6le5ax wrote

It'll be up to her administration and all subsequent administrations to enforce it. Writing the law was the easy part, getting towns to agree to it and do the re-zoning will be the hard part.

1