Comments
tjrileywisc t1_jd5mxu3 wrote
It'll matter if the state just takes away zoning rights entirely from intransigent communities.
Desperate-River-7989 t1_jd64csj wrote
That's how California has started dealing with municipalities that refuse to build new housing. Builder's remedy allows developers to create housing in areas that don't meet their housing targets. The first projects are just getting started
heavyiron382 t1_jd7mkl1 wrote
MA already requires a percentage of affordable housing. Most of the "NIMBY" towns have hit that goal one way or another. A lot of these same towns also have minimal land available to allow this new mandate to happen. My question to everyone is, how are the schools going to handle the added population, who is going to pay for additional schools to be built, renovated and staffed? Everyone here is calling these town as NIMBYS, do any of you live in the towns currently? I'm willing to bet if you did you would be another "NIMBY". People that decide to move out of the city to a more rural town are doing it for the way the town is, not for it to be a part of the city.
SuperSpartacus t1_jd7q9sy wrote
Imagine living in one of the wealthiest areas of the entire world and pretending like you can’t afford a few poor people in your neighborhood 😂😂😂
Also, referring to MetroWest as “rural” (?) but simultaneously claiming they don’t have land to build housing…? Okay NIMBY
heavyiron382 t1_jd7rud3 wrote
Living in a northern worcester County town that is closer to NH than any major MA city, no Leominster, Fitchburg and Gardner are not major cities. We are far from the wealthiest area. We can't support building up and support your cities growth.
jbray90 t1_jd8sndm wrote
Two pieces here: First: Gardner isn’t even included in the MBTA zoning law. Fitchburg and Leominster are because they have actual train stations.
Second: Multifamily units provide more taxes to any municipality per sq/ft than the equivalent single family unit so the idea that any town or city “can’t afford” to build up is literally wrong. They cannot afford to NOT build up. Every single town and city in Massachusetts was built on a dense, multi-level core (usually mixed use) with more rural housing built around that center. The idea that we need to double down on the last century of loose sprawl that equates to a financial Ponzi scheme, requiring ever increasing subsidies to match it when the infrastructure supporting it breaks down, is foolish at best and criminally negligent at worst.
bionicN t1_jd83pwq wrote
lol, "rural."
some of the most NIMBY places are <10 miles from the city center, with T and commuter rail stations.
I'm in a NIMBY town, and I say build it. we can't afford not to.
it's wild to expect something a moderate bike ride away from Boston government center be called "rural."
heavyiron382 t1_jd84asr wrote
I am over 45 miles from Boston. I am in very much a rural town. We have a commuter rail station that is a 10 minute ride from my house. Other parts of the town 20 minutes to get there do to rural roads. I don't disagree that towns need to do something but it should be based on the towns wanting to not be forced to or else you lose funding. That is blackmail on the highest level.
bionicN t1_jd87yu3 wrote
then you're not in the most egregious places, like Wellesley, Newton, Needham, etc.
this isn't blackmail. the state has no obligation to give your town money - they've just attached some really reasonable strings to it.
your community has been helped by the existence of the commuter rail. asking for more moderate density (15 units per acre can be met with townhomes and 3 level multifamilies) in a tiny 50 acre parcel within a half mile of a commuter rail stop isn't going to do anything other than give some much needed places to live.
if you're 10 min (I assume drive) away, this won't even effect your neighborhood.
jbray90 t1_jd7tax2 wrote
The elementary and secondary student population has declined by 20,000 students since its peak in 2000. more than that, the table shared also shows us that the same population has lost over 30,000 enrollees since the pandemic, a number which has not since recovered. Perhaps you were unaware of this information and/ or perhaps you are further unaware about continued declines nationwide in childbirths (post Roe v Wade data pending although Massachusetts will be different than states that have banned abortions). Regardless, your post comes across as either uninformed fear-mongering to protect the status quo (which is the base reason for NIMBY protectionism) or you’re aware of this data and are actively ignoring it to make your appeal seem reasonable.
I’m going to guess you’re just unaware and are not acting maliciously, mostly because you also made an argument about land availability which is not related to this legislation given that the law forces MBTA adjacent communities to change current zoning from 1A exclusivity and does not force them to build anything. It allows currently developed land to be redeveloped by right instead of being forced through a zoning appeal process which generally favors protectionism on the grounds of nebulous concepts such as “preserved character” which ignores that most places don’t require 6 story apartment blocks but instead something more akin to townhouses which are part of the missing middle that is illegal to build in most of the state due to current local zoning practices.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7u1q9 wrote
Massachusetts is down 4.5 percent. That being said the Worcester County towns that are also being affected have seen overwhelmed elementary schools that were renovated or built in the past 10-20 years. So, yes our schools are packed and no it's not affordable to just build or renovate to add more space for the influx of additional students.
[deleted] t1_jd8b3uu wrote
>were renovated or built in the past 10-20 years
Sounds like they didn't build for an increase in students then. That wasn't a great plan.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8bb1k wrote
They did all plan on increases. The problem is that with all the new mandates increases are larger than anyone would plan for.
[deleted] t1_jd8cgje wrote
>are larger than anyone would plan for
Whenever your estimating capacity for the 1-3-5-10-20 year marks, you're supposed to go "how many X am I going to need/have in 20 years". Then you double it and then you double that number. Then you think about doubling or increasing it by 50%.
This was just sloppy design work combined with limited resources to build/restructure the schools.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8g2ts wrote
So based on your estimation. If your study estimate is 150 additional students per grade in 20 years you would then double that to 300 then double that to 600 then either double it to 1200 or 50% increase to 900. Yeah I don't think any municipality or national planning group would consider that making sense or feasible. By those standards you have created a once town into a city.
Now to staff said increases with fewer and fewer teachers. With your logic. A class room of say 20 students is now halved to 10 then halved again to 5 then halved or split 50% to 2.5 or 3.5 students to 1 teacher until the towns growth reaches your dream number.
Towns invest a lot in growth studies and ensure the school systems can last 20+ years without being strained. When new mandates come into play that are out of the usual then all those studies are thrown out the window and towns are told you didn't plan for the state to tell you that you need to grow at an unusual rate.
Face it, the only area gaining from this is Boston proper. There is a reason the rest of the state and towns are complaining and are being "NIMBYs". It's simply that the rest of the state doesn't want to be Boston and definitely doesn't want to be forced to adhere. Come live in the "sticks" for a few years and tell me, if you are still living here, do you still want these mandates put in place? Or is it just that you live in the city and want us to be as miserable as you with overcrowding?
[deleted] t1_jd8gjbx wrote
>It's simply that the rest of the state doesn't want to be Boston
What, specifically, is wrong with Boston, Springfield, or Worcester outside of "lots of people"?
heavyiron382 t1_jd8pvyf wrote
I didn't say there is anything wrong with Boston. But myself and the rest of the people not living in Boston or major cities don't live there for a reason. Personally crime, expense, congestion, lack of green space are just a few that comes right to my mind. I don't mind driving to see friends or going shopping. If I wanted to walk, bike or take public transportation then I would move to a city.
mrmackster t1_jd7wm8v wrote
For my town, it seems like 70-80% of the apartment units built around the trains have been 1-2 bedroom units. I don't think that's going to cause a massive influx in students in school.
TiredPistachio t1_jd9i5zb wrote
That's probably because towns were able to demand smaller unit sizes to avoid an influx of children. Many towns about 1/2 the budget is schools. Thats why they love 1-2 beds and 55+ communities.
With these new rules they will not be able to kill projects with larger bedroom counts.
mrmackster t1_jd9sjjn wrote
Most of ours have been 40R or whatever so I don’t think the town has much say.
Developers want more units, not bedrooms.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7x7go wrote
2 bedrooms I'm going to figure 2 adults 2 children. Let's say it's a 200 unit complex. That's 400 additional students. That may not seem like much to someone in the city but in central ma towns that is a huge amount of additional students.
mrmackster t1_jd7zxl8 wrote
I think you are greatly overestimating how many people would live in these kind of 2 bedroom apartment. A lot of these apartments are filled with 1-2 adults at most. They have been building these builds for a while in my town and we haven't seen any rush on schools. In fact our school population has been shrinking.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8277c wrote
Not sure what town you live in but my home town and the surrounding towns have seen nothing but student population growth. My current town and surrounding towns have also seen the same issue. In both cases there are more 2&3 bedroom units as opposed to 1 bedroom. I do agree the 1 bedroom would be only adults. Multi bedroom units I disagree as most are for either small families are single parents.
Also, it did take a few years to see the additional student population, because well, birds and the bees.
paddenice t1_jd8dfac wrote
You’re heavily arguing against this policy but sidestepping most of the impacts with your “northern Worcester county” region. Why are you carrying water for the other towns significantly more wealthy than you in your town? It’s baffling.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8gft3 wrote
Because my town is affected just as much as the much wealthier towns. We have to follow the same mandates as the 128 region. There are no compromises unless you want to and can afford to be "punished".
Desperate-River-7989 t1_jd7td1v wrote
We still need to plan on there being additional growth as long as the Commonwealth is growing. Most of the growth is happening in the metro Boston area, so that's where more housing needs to be built. If you don't build housing that's how you end up with large homeless populations and the unaffordability crisis we've seen in California and other places on the west coast over the last decade or two.
Saying the schools can't take it isn't a plan and it isn't sustainable. The state typically helps municipalities with the capital cost of building schools, but towns still need to allocate money for such a project, or end up with over-full schools. But if you're building more housing, that usually means that your tax base increases as well which should help fund the schools and other services that residents need.
Growth is coming whether we like it or not, all we can decide is how to react and plan.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7ukh7 wrote
I agree that growth is coming but it should be natural and not forced. And more building should supply nore taxes is a big should. Generally with complexes the tax revenue doesn't match the added municpal burden and thus it is placed on rest of the community who in central ma are already struggling with surging costs.
wittgensteins-boat t1_jd8aal3 wrote
Is zoning "natural"?
No, it is a human created institution.
There is nothing natural about one acre lots in one town, and multifamily housing on the other side of a municipal boundary.
Thus mandated zoning merely extends the human made institution.
bionicN t1_jd854wf wrote
natural growth would require lifting zoning laws.
there's nothing natural about forcing single family housing or low density. the demand for more housing is there.
more housing will reduce total costs by reducing absurd housing costs, which are a much bigger part of most people's finances than taxes.
thomastodon01027 t1_jd85b5p wrote
If you rezone for Smart Growth, the state gives funds for the new kids. That’s what we did in Easthampton. Beyond that, the child population of the state is declining, so an increase in enrollment is really the last thing most communities should worry about.
3720-To-One t1_jd5ymag wrote
They should
[deleted] t1_jd7tnj5 wrote
[deleted]
DeliPaper t1_jd5rldr wrote
Because it's easier to set precedent battering down Western Mass first.
Most_Past t1_jd8t0zo wrote
No MBTA communities out this way.
​
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/what-the-mbta-communities-law-means-for-your-town/
​
There's a list there, .xls though. Looks like buses don't count.
DeliPaper t1_jd8t7rd wrote
Don't worry, the east-west rail will take care of that.
three-ple t1_jd9e357 wrote
Definitely won't qualify. Stop playing the victim.
DeliPaper t1_jd9ld8b wrote
I'll believe you when the tolls on the last 4 of I-90 go away or S&W is allowed to operate unmolested or when our veterans get their full pay instead of pennies on the dollar.
three-ple t1_jdamf3r wrote
Ah, all things that have nothing to do with the east-west rail. Goodbye!
H2Omekanic t1_jd64kvl wrote
Outside of 495 is only vaguely recognized as Mass and past 91 is "Approaching Yankee Territory". Be thankful we gave you the Pike...serfs!
DeliPaper t1_jd64pmd wrote
With tolls. On the only east-west artery with a speed limit above 25 in the region. After promising not to.
H2Omekanic t1_jd6eyi0 wrote
Silence outlander! We have police OT and DMV lawsuits to fund
BlaineTog t1_jd7kf9e wrote
We have altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further.
DeliPaper t1_jd7ki0q wrote
That's been the way it goes since Bunker Hill.
wittgensteins-boat t1_jd85ep0 wrote
Wealthy communities will care about losing State funding / grants to improve roads in the amount of above a million dollars a year. Mass Works is one program.
And losing other grants, which could include grants for conservation lands, and in the fullnessvof time, eventually could include educational funding,
alexandercecil t1_jd6f99u wrote
I have a role in my town government, and I follow state and Boston developments. I understand the deep need for housing - there is a real crisis. That said, my town is a rural farming community. I literally live next to a vegetable and fruit farm, I raise my own chickens, and we have close to zero restrictions on keeping livestock on your property so long as you are doing normal agricultural things with them. There is no way we can support that level of dense development. It is not within our infrastructural capabilities.
This is a law that was drafted yet again with an eye on Boston, its suburbs, and Metro West. Then it gets applied to much smaller towns that happen to be adjacent to a different town with a far-flung commuter rail station. This is not about being a NIMBY for us. We do not even have the water and sewer capabilities to host such dense development. Most of us are on septic and have wells. The limited sewer and water runs we do have are not even controlled by the town, and they are at capacity.
Smart development? Yes, please! Thoughtful ways to increase the amount of housing that is affordable? I will champion that cause in my local government. Urban density development in the land of cows, vegetable fields, and sugar bushes? Our water, sewer, and schools cannot soak that kind of increase.
I am used to being ignored by Boston. I have lived in western or central Massachusetts for my entire life. I can tolerate having our needs ignored by a city that has not done enough to support itself. It is unfortunate, and frankly inappropriate, that we must now share the exact same burden for fixing Boston's housing crisis that its immediate urban neighbors do.
tjrileywisc t1_jd77qxh wrote
The development amounts required by this law are about the farthest from dense you can get. It's only 15 units per acre. See the images in this link to get an idea of what that density means:
https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april-2017/visualizing-compatible-density
heavyiron382 t1_jd7p35h wrote
15 units per acre may not sound like much to you but most of these communities have current 1-2 acre requirements per household to maintain your required green space. When a farm that is 100+ acres sells, that will literally drown an entire towns municpal structure according to your non impact full 15 units per acre thoughts.
oneMadRssn t1_jd7w7sj wrote
In defense of this law, the change required is just zoning. As I am sure you know, there is more to building and development than just zoning. Indeed, zoning is just one step of many.
All this law requires is that the zoning not prohibit development of 15 units per acre. It does not override any other limiting concerns, such as sanitation and water. If a developer cannot adequately provide safe sanitation and drinking water to the development, they won't be allowed to build it no matter what the zoning says. On the flip side, if that 100+ acre farm that is for sale can be turned into a denser subdivision of town houses with safe sanitation and drinking water, then why shouldn't it be built? You're right that it will infuse more students into the local schools and more cars into the local roads*, but it will also infuse a lot more tax revenue into the town coffers to pay for those things.
* This is the only issue I take with the law. I worry this denser housing will only lead to more cars on the road instead of more MBTA commuters. The purpose of the law - access to MBTA - will be a failure unless we first fix and drastically expand the MBTA. For this reason, I am actually generally against this MBTA communities thing.
dannikilljoy t1_jd86i85 wrote
Yeah a big problem with the whole MBTA communities definition is it includes towns that don't have an MBTA stop in or within a mile of the town, much less half a mile.
ex. Stow, MA to which the nearest MBTA stop (South Acton, Fitchburg Line) is ~1 mile from the town border. So communities like Stow literally can not comply with this law.
tjrileywisc t1_jd8vff0 wrote
This is accounted for already - search for 'MBTA communities with limited or no transit station area' in this page-
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/section-3a-guidelines
The short answer seems to be 'wherever it makes sense, just meet the contiguity and density requirements'.
dannikilljoy t1_jd8z435 wrote
Well it's good they addressed it at least, though requiring towns not directly serviced by the MBTA to zone for that kinda misses the whole point imo.
Like if we want to make outlying towns zone for more dense housing that's fine. I just want them to do it in a way that makes sense.
three-ple t1_jd9etlo wrote
And I think the idea is that towns near commuter train stops can still handle higher density as many people drive (or bike) to the commuter line station and ride in from there. So its a fairly smart way to increase density while still enabling people to not drive-commute long distances.
dannikilljoy t1_jdcqi4n wrote
Oh the base idea is smart, I'm just hung up on the unreliability of the MBTA and the lack of any parking infrastructure in the NIMBY towns that actually host commuter rail stops.
Like the point of adding these denser zones seems to be to enable shorter commutes, but if the closest commuter rail station doesn't have enough parking to make commuting to it viable for those who live too far to walk or bike, all this does is increase the number of cars heading into the city.
​
tldr; higher density requirements good, but need to mandate infrastructure improvements to support increased density first
three-ple t1_jdcsr20 wrote
Chicken and egg. If you always make it a requirement to "have everything ready at once", you'll never get anywhere. No single policy or law is going to get it all done at once.
Same argument could be said about parking.
"Why do we need more parking at the commuter rail station? It's not fully most days already?"
You have to start somewhere and then work on the other pieces. The housing/zoning law is a start. I'm all for legislation/policy that makes the MBTA more effective across the network. Let's see it! Is there anything in the works now?
tjrileywisc t1_jd7xs46 wrote
I just can't see a developer selecting a 100 acre plot of land unless there is enough around to justify sufficient demand to make the investment worthwhile. If it's a farm near or surrounded by a city, that would be snatched up, but I'm guessing this situation is pretty rare in the first place.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7zfp7 wrote
You would think it's rare but it's happening and has happened in my town. Luckily not the 100+ acre farms mainly due to the farmers not wanting to sell. But we had 2) 50 acre farms sell and put up 400 unit complexes that burdened the town and didn't add the needed tax revenue to support them.
three-ple t1_jd9dcya wrote
Why did they not add to the tax revenue? How was the town burdened by the new units? 400 should add substantial tax revenue.
heavyiron382 t1_jd9fez3 wrote
Apartment complexes aren't taxed per unit. They are taxed based on overall property value. So your 400 unit property may be valued at say 50 million but those same 400 units as single households average in my town are 400k each have a tax value of over 160 million. Simple math and economic knowledge shows how there is less income and larger municipal strain with housing complexes.
rolandofgilead41089 t1_jd7xdsp wrote
Maybe in the city 15 units per acre isn't a big deal, but I chose to live in a more rural Western MA town because I want an acre for myself. Call me a NIMBY all you want, I don't want to live in a densely populated neighborhood.
tjrileywisc t1_jd7yw8p wrote
I'm not going to say you can't have it- it's just that it's unreasonable to expect urban infrastructure on a rural tax base. Frequently suburbia is subsidized by taxes in denser neighborhoods. Even if you don't have sewer access, you're getting a lot of road infrastructure that isn't paid for by gas taxes.
rolandofgilead41089 t1_jd80oiz wrote
I don't expect urban infrastructure in my rural town and don't want it. I expect my local taxes to pay for what my town needs, which it does. Our roads are well maintained throughout the seasons and the school system is highly rated and desirable for young families.
tjrileywisc t1_jd85g1n wrote
Well I have suburban NIMBYs in my town who do have this infrastructure who also think our city shouldn't have to allow the housing, and they're expecting rural communities to allow it instead.
The only fair solution I see here is that everyone needs to relax a little and let the market get an equilibrium... which seems to be the approach the state is going for.
For what it's worth, the state put a cap on the amount of housing required in more rural communities after getting feedback during the comment session.
three-ple t1_jd9fczz wrote
Very true. A lot of people call for "why do we need the density? There is so much space out in X. Let them build there!".
DrNostrand t1_jd6l28n wrote
Ive been a metro west/central ma resident my whole life as well. And some of these new zoning laws dont make sense in small rural communities. I wish Boston/State would figure out a way deal with the MBTA problems with funding from the communities that use it most.
hatred_outlives t1_jd70jcr wrote
Literally just a “not in MY backyard” argument
Developers aren’t going to start massive housing projects where there isn’t sewage or water available. If your town is at sewage capacity than the simple solution for everyone would be to increase sewage capacity instead of limiting housing development.
bcb1200 t1_jd7brpd wrote
This is not a NIMBY argument. It is a fiscal argument.
Updated water and sewer costs millions upon millions to install. Who is paying for that?
More housing also fuels the need for more police, more fire / ems, bigger schools. For millions upon millions more.
These rural, farming communities also have little if any commercial tax base. So the costs falls directly upon residents whose taxes are already high.
So who is going to fund all the infrastructure development to meet the needs of this law? Are you? These towns and it’s residents literally cannot afford it.
tjrileywisc t1_jd7eqvc wrote
Apartment buildings bring in property taxes, believe it or not
I was surprised to read this!
bcb1200 t1_jd7t6zu wrote
Yes they do, but in rural farming communities the increased property taxes that are brought in are not enough to offset the capital expenditure required for the additional infrastructure needed (schools, sewer, fire/police), let alone the additional annual expenses for more police officers, teachers, DPW, etc etc.
This isn’t a feasible option for these communities unless the state funds these infrastructure investments.
three-ple t1_jd9ggym wrote
One of the things that gets me about these arguments: You suggests that each additional unit of housing is going to cost the community *more* than it brings in in taxes. Sewer. Schools. Fire. Police.
How can that be true? Larger communities exist. They all started out as smaller communities.
What's so different about your community that new housing will cost incrementally more than it will bring in?
I suspect in fact that zoning, such as this, could be really good. It's a concentrated, dense way to bring in tax revenue while keeping the impact to a small area. Higher density means fewer roads. Less plowing. Less school busses.
Find an area that is adjacent to your existing schools so there won't be bussing costs. Find an area that could be connected to any water/sewer systems that currently exist so you wouldn't have to build.
bcb1200 t1_jda89ss wrote
Every town is different. Some towns have capacity available in their schools or infrastructure to absorb this with little incremental investment needed.
My town does not. Schools already at max capacity. There is no ability to absorb a couple hundred more kids without building a new school for $100+ million. In a town of <5000.
Fire department already too small and need a new one. This will mean we now need a bigger one. More teachers. More police. More DPW.
three-ple t1_jdah5wl wrote
Sure, and I was about to write a post about how the immediate, sudden large costs you cite aren't totally real ("but you don't need to instantly build a new school, my 4th grade was in a temporary addition because our school was too small...").
But really, the issue here is mentality. If you wish to always point at reasons you can't build and bring in more residents (schools, roads, police, fire), then what you're saying is <<you want NO GROWTH>>.
Nothing you cite would be different if growth were lower density. Ok, maybe you have super low density growth so everyone can be on septic. But then you have more roads, you still need police and fire, you will still need schools, and now you need more buses.
Or maybe you want growth to be *slower*. But that doesn't really change your argument either. Still would need more X and Y and Z which would cost more $$.
So what you're saying is you can't imagine a world in which your area could grow, while effectively managing that growth. You want ZERO GROWTH despite all the demand.
The flip side to all of this would be: Envision a future of growth. Use that demand and channel it into effective growth in your community. Figure out where you want that growth and what you'd like it to look like. Be creative!
Advertise! "Small Town, MA: Come enjoy the good life". Or "Small Town, MA: A natural retirement community". Attract who you want to attract. "Shuttle bus to the commuter train!"
Go back to the state. "We'll zone for 2x the housing units you want, but we need help with a new school, could you help us with grants/funds?"
I just can't take the zero sum mindset anymore. I applaud what CA is doing in this space, and if the communities won't get on board, then communities in MA will probably lose their ability to control zoning as well (see builders remedy).
tjrileywisc t1_jd7th8n wrote
I have to ask why there is a sewer system in a rural community though, that doesn't seem like it ever makes fiscal sense.
bcb1200 t1_jd7ulg2 wrote
Agree but sometimes there a regulations on the size or quantity of septic systems allowed in an area depending on the water table, neighborhood etc.
alexandercecil t1_jd8swh4 wrote
Some parts of my town, those closer to more populous and densely developed neighboring municipalities, have sewer because an independent sewer commission exists that leases capacity from those neighbors. It is a great thing that allows us some more urban benefits while remaining rural. We do not have the ability to increase sewer capacity.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd754kl wrote
I love the vagueness of this post too. Anyone with a backyard could pretty easily have a chicken coop.
Proof that this is a rural town simply incapable of supporting a couple apartment complexes is that they have a few chickens and they live next to a farm. Sure, this could be the far flung frontiers settled sparsely by rugged, independent frontier-farmers, or just some suburb that allows backyard chicken coops. There are towns within the 495 belt that allow chickens for Christ's sake, this is a meaningless claim about rural living.
If this area is as rural and farm focused as claimed I very much doubt there's any real market interest in intense housing development. Somehow I doubt this is quite the pastoral community as being described.
The septic excuse is a time honored nimby cop-out. Refuse to build sewer systems then cite the inherent limitations of septic systems to impede further development.
tjrileywisc t1_jd77tbw wrote
I've heard of people in Somerville raising chickens at home!
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd7ia0t wrote
so you want to pay for building 100 new WWTPs and school additions in all these communities to "fix" the problem? It's not nimbyism that is fighting against this...its reality. A wastewater treatment plant costs millions. For a few hundred units this adds tens of thousands to the cost of each unit. Whereas Deer Island has plenty of capacity to add these same units at no additional cost. Same with the school problem. Most of the fix is in the urban core where the infrastructure already exists to handle it. An alternative is to pick one town to become a city and grow it...not little mini villas all over the state.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd7l9ac wrote
I'm not one of these people who thinks NIMBYs are solely motivated by racist motives like "neighborhood character", they often have very strong, material interest reasons to oppose further development. Investing in infrastructure improvements is expensive and inconvenient, no doubt about it.
That's the thing though, everyone recognizes the need for additional housing and other associated infrastructure, but nobody wants to deal with it.
There's a growing recognition that the need is simply too great to allow this game of every town saying "not us though" anymore and to just ram this shit down everyone's throat at the state level. That's a good thing, tough shit about how much of a pain it's going to be for you (and honestly everyone).
The population is growing, infrastructure improvements are desperately needed and it's good for the state to make towns do this whether they want it or not. You're always free to move away if rural living is that important to you, but creating de-facto zero-growth, gated communities is not in the public interest.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd84k99 wrote
For what it's worth, I have never advocated creating zero growth communities. This state brags about how smart it is but on this issue, how smart is it to build out farm land in Holden when you have much better options near actual MBTA stations? The roads are overloaded. Putting more apartments farther from the jobs is a bad strategy. Building hundreds of new wastewater treatment plants out side the MWRA system is also a costly mistake in my opinion. I recognize something is needed to be done, I work on housing projects all over eastern mass.
Two elements fix the supply bottleneck. 1) Zoning reform. Approve any building permit request that matches the zoning of any lot within 100' of the subject parcel. This would cut permitting times into a fraction of the time now. 1 year becomes 30 days. This would include dimensional and use reform (multi vs single fam). 2) Any site within 1/2 mile of an MBTA rapid transit or commuter rail station could build with the same density of any other building near an MBTA station (this would ramp up the TOD successes that have helped increase supply.
Anything else should be incentivized through the tax code to increase supply and not beat down people's throats. Carrot is better than the stick.
three-ple t1_jd9heiv wrote
> 2) Any site within 1/2 mile of an MBTA rapid transit or commuter railstation could build with the same density of any other building near anMBTA station
Do I understand then, you agree with the direct MBTA-adjacent-community portion of this law, just not the neighboring community portion? Your statement is very similar to the meat of this law, with the only caveat of "same density of any other building", which could vary greatly from station to station.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jdaigzp wrote
That is not what is in the news. The town of Holden is being threatened by the AG and it is miles from an MBTA station. I definitely agree (and have posted a few times in this thread) that we should build very densely near existing MBTA stations. The original TOD law did a good job at this and should be continued. I don't allowing a Prudential Tower at each station should be the result but something large enough and dense to both help plus allow direct access to the MBTA system.
three-ple t1_jdalkp4 wrote
Sure. But just to be clear then, you disagree with what the AG is doing because of the adjacent communities part of the law, but agree with all other parts of the law?
Holden isn't included because of some mistake. They qualify under what was put in the law itself.
AG is being heavy handed because there is a large risk a bunch of communities try to defect and ignore the law.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jddr4xh wrote
I disagree with law affecting other towns and not simply land within a short walk of a T Station. The AG may simply be doing her job. I have a problem with the law itself extending too far beyond the practical side of how best to create denser housing that has great options of mass transit. Forcing holden to build hundreds or thousands of units puts those people on the highways and not the MBTA.
three-ple t1_jddyiw6 wrote
:shrug: I mean I disagree with aspects of plenty of laws. Many still have a positive impact.
But your characterization is wrong. Holden doesn't have to "build hundreds of thousands of units". It has to *zone* 50 acres to allow up to 750 units to be built [1]. That is it.
The city doesn't have to build a damn thing. Private enterprise will do that.
Holden surface area is 23,000 acres. 0.2% of it will need to be designated as higher density. There is so much hand wringing going on over ultimately a minor change to zoning in the area.
Every other discussion point here is completely speculative. If Holden is such a terrible place to build, nobody will build the density. If Holden has problems with water/sewer, that will have to be figured out, but there won't be some magical fairy that comes in and forces them at gunpoint to build a new wastewater treatment plant overnight. If some other thing happens to Holden as part of this, I suspect they will have the intelligence and wherewithal to deal with it.
Let's. Move. Forward. Create the zoning. Work through the next steps.
​
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jdek8vh wrote
I said hundreds OR thousands. A small hyperbole as I wasn't aware of the 750...
How do you pay for the wastewater treatment for this project? You have two options: a large septic system (note that this uses a lot of land area) or a plant. Millions to build a plant. Divided over the 750 units will probably make the units cost prohibitive. Your ideas on "figure it out" ignore reality.
Most zoning should be local driven not state. It is better that way. We can certainly agree to disagree and I don't expect any change in peoples views on this but most people prefer local to state or national control for a reason.
alexandercecil t1_jd8t0sr wrote
Instead of being aggressive, why don't we just talk so I can answer your questions? My comment was already long. How many details do you want me to write for a discussion on Reddit when I do not even know if anyone will read my comment?
I have what others call a large flock of chickens for a typical family that, "has chickens," even in my community. I am a registered chicken farm with MDAR and can legally transport and sell my birds across the state. If we want to get technical, I let that certification lapse while I was fighting cancer this past year, but we will be renewing our registration this year. We are not a four-hen operation that makes some of the eggs my family eats. We are not a commercial enterprise in any meaningful sense, but what we do is real agriculture. I am not all that unique for my community.
The farm I live next to is maybe a hundred acres with more locations across the town. They sell food not only locally, but also in several more metropolitan municipalities. There are other farms similar to this in town for both animal products and produce.
Sewer is only economical on a certain scale and density. That is why the more densely developed parts of my town that are adjacent to more urban neighboring municipalities can support sewer lines. We do not have enough sewer use to afford our own treatment plant. Our sewer commission leases capacity from our neighbors. My understanding is that they are unable or unwilling to lease us more.
I am not against increasing housing in the state. My town needs to be a part of that solution. I am against this specific law that seems to view the housing challenge in every town as a nail because they happen to have already built a legislative hammer.
We could also get into unfunded mandates and how Boston rakes in taxes from businesses while leaving us to build revenue-negative housing to support their municipal economy. Development can be thoughtful. I get into some of my ideas in another reply to my original comment. If you want to discuss, I am open to listening and responding.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd8tev5 wrote
What town are you referring to and what kind of rezoning in your town is getting proposed that is simply too burdensome? Please be specific, the details matter a lot.
alexandercecil t1_jd93l1w wrote
I apologize, but I really do not want to get into the exact town I live in. I do not mean to be rude or stifle discussion, but I am a volunteer elected official in my town. Many people in this post seem to have a lot of vitriol on this topic. I am not comfortable doxxing myself at that level. I have shared more than I normally might in this circumstance because I feel that the discussion is important for all of us to be having.
I can get into the rezoning in a general sense, though. A major part of this legislation that gets glossed over is that the town cannot simply create a zone that is not feasible to be developed as intended. What does this mean? This is a good question, and my limited understanding is the lawyers from several municipalities are trying to figure that out.
In terms of water and sewer alone, my town cannot support this level of development. We literally cannot just choose to spend money and increase our capacity. The public water and sewer services in my town are separate entities from the town government. This is more common than people might realize in Massachusetts, though it is not the way the majority of municipalities are structured. Even if our sewer commission was willing to increase services, which they might be willing to do, they lease capacity from one or more adjacent municipalities since we do not have the density and demand to support a treatment plant. These municipalities are not looking to lease us more of their limited supply. Could this legislation force us to build a sewer processing plant for several million dollars that can only be used by a comparatively small number of people? It may. Again, the full repercussions are not yet known because the legislation is not as clear as it might seem.
In addition, the increased housing as specified by this legislation could cause a double-digit percentage increase to our town's population. Our school, fire, and police services are at capacity. Our budget is tight enough that our debt needs are planned out and maxed for many years in future. We cannot add capacity without new infrastructure.
Again, I am sorry that I cannot just come out and get into the exact name and previous details of my town. My desire to have my town email account flooded or my wife and kids harassed is pretty huge. I am not a politician and public figure in the way we think of them. I am a guy who was elected into his town government because he is one of the few willing to do the volunteer work to keep his town running. I have boundaries. I would share more if I could.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd96u7y wrote
>I apologize, but I really do not want to get into the exact town I live in. I do not mean to be rude or stifle discussion, but I am a volunteer elected official in my town. Many people in this post seem to have a lot of vitriol on this topic. I am not comfortable doxxing myself at that level. I have shared more than I normally might in this circumstance because I feel that the discussion is important for all of us to be having.
Fair enough. Please understand I mean this in a sincerely polite way, but NIMBYs have been caught exaggerating, if not straight up lying about, such concerns so many, many times in past campaigns to stifle much needed development and it's really hard for me to extend much generosity when it comes to such claims. Maybe it's true in your town's case that further development would propose near insurmountable challenges that should merit special exemption, but you'll forgive me if I have my doubts.
>In terms of water and sewer alone, my town cannot support this level of development. We literally cannot just choose to spend money and increase our capacity. The public water and sewer services in my town are separate entities from the town government. This is more common than people might realize in Massachusetts, though it is not the way the majority of municipalities are structured. Even if our sewer commission was willing to increase services, which they might be willing to do, they lease capacity from one or more adjacent municipalities since we do not have the density and demand to support a treatment plant. These municipalities are not looking to lease us more of their limited supply. Could this legislation force us to build a sewer processing plant for several million dollars that can only be used by a comparatively small number of people? It may. Again, the full repercussions are not yet known because the legislation is not as clear as it might seem.
Seems like a legit concern. The state legislation should be persuaded to make sure to hit these utility providers with their big anti-Nimby stick too to make sure they do their part to accommodate expansion. I'm sure the Big Bad state has enough energy to slap around any utility providers that cause problems. This seems like a far more fruitful avenue than trying to lobby to prevent all development, because the insane housing shortage is going to make such positions increasingly untenable. I imagine it's easier to influence such policies if a town has earned a reputation of dealing with this dire matter in good faith rather than those that reflexively oppose any development. Now is a great time to get on the winning team and secure some influence to steer policy.
>In addition, the increased housing as specified by this legislation could cause a double-digit percentage increase to our town's population. Our school, fire, and police services are at capacity. Our budget is tight enough that our debt needs are planned out and maxed for many years in future. We cannot add capacity without new infrastructure.
sounds like your town needs to reassess their budget, perhaps including taxes. A growing town means growing expenses, but also growing amenities that justify a tax hike. People who want to live in dirt cheap, rural areas always have the option to move to more remote, out of demand areas. Populations grow, the remote community of yesteryear become outer neighborhoods of a growing nearby metro. Such is life, nothing is forever.
alexandercecil t1_jd9e1tq wrote
I get your skepticism.
Look, I hate development. It bothers me to my core. But you know what? I don't get a choice in the matter! People need places to live. Property owners can do things like build more houses by right. My town has doubled in population in the past 20 or so years. It does not matter if I want the way things were - they are going to change.
My job in town government is to help facilitate that change being a positive one for my community. So in the end I am not anti-development. What I want is development that will improve my town in the process, or at least make it no worse.
A town's character is important. There is a problem that talking about character is often a dog whistle for all sorts of crap. That is not what I mean - I want my town to develop in a way that we can attract a more economically and racially diverse population than we currently have. A town's character is closely tied to things like its collective identity. Towns that lose their collective sense of who they are also lose things like democratic involvement. Also, many people feel it is nice to live somewhere a little unique and special.
I get into more details in other comments I made in this section, but there are strategies municipalities can employ to foster development that is more dense, preserves rural atmosphere, and actually increases the feeling of belonging within the community. It can even be done in ways that are more appealing to developers, rather than less. What the state requires in this legislation does none of that aside from attracting developers.
Changes to things like our water and sewer providers are not easy, politically difficult at best, and possibly an even greater legal challenge. I am not sure it matters, because there are other ways of fostering development than doing what more populous suburbs do.
My town is growing, but the key is that the rate of growth that could be created by this legislation is too much too quickly for my town to absorb. We plan on fairly rapid growth. We cannot effectively plan to add 10% or more to our town population overnight. It is not as simple as needing to raise taxes, because MA places severe limits on how much local taxes can increase. The key here is going to be thoughtful residential development policies balanced with improving commercial and industrial growth.
The way I am frustrated by all of this is that surrounding small towns are being required to take the hit for Boston and nearby cities not developing enough housing to accommodate their business growth. They get the tax boon and leave us with increased demands and costs. They want us to develop the arable land we use to grow the food they eat. To me that is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to do our part to meet housing needs, but it feels more than a bit unfair that we are also being asked to pick up the slack for those that have profited from business growth without matching residential growth. If that feeling makes me a NIMBY, then I am no worse than the ones who put us all in this predicament. I know this paragraph is a bit of a diatribe, but unfunded mandates bring that out in many municipal officials.
But yeah, growth is unavoidable. We need to make sure it happens in ways that support communities rather than break them. From what I have seen, this legislation does the latter in many places.
three-ple t1_jd9ibb0 wrote
>I imagine it's easier to influence such policies if a town has earned a reputation of dealing with this dire matter in good faith rather than those that reflexively oppose any development. Now is a great time to get on the winning team and secure some influence to steer policy.
This is a damn good point.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7olds wrote
Clearly a statement of someone that doesn't have a clue how the real world works. Developers will and do build in communities where water and sewer isn't available. The state forces the towns to allow them in. Then the town is forced to come up with money and resources to support this new building. Sewage and water are least of the concerns. It's the schooling and added municipal employees aka fire, police dpw that are the hardest and most expensive added costs that all of the city dwellers don't understand and could care less about.
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jd7u500 wrote
you know taxes are a thing. New residents bring in new income
alexandercecil t1_jd8wwhp wrote
You might be interested to know that is generally not the case. I mean they do bring in more revenue, but working-age residents generally cost a municipality more than those residents bring in with taxes. Increasing residential population without growth in commercial and/or industrial sectors ruins a town's budget and ability to meet the needs of its residents.
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jd90azu wrote
That assertion is unsupported by research: https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/03/15/massachusetts-housing-costs-local-resistance
The total tax revenue generated by new housing more than offsets the marginal cost of providing services in almost every case
alexandercecil t1_jd94oph wrote
This is interesting. Thank you for sharing! I skimmed the WBUR article but have not had the time to drive into the study it cites. I plan to do that. If the study matched the conditions in my town, and if our own budget can verify this is true with some drilling, then it changes some aspects of the equation for development in general.
Thanks again!
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jd999va wrote
it still might not help in the near term because the article / report does say that while overall revenue almost always positive, towns might still experience negative net revenue without state transfers because of how revenue is divided between states and towns
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jdesuyt wrote
I’ll add Somerville did a study when prepping for assembly square that’s briefly referenced in the neighborhood plan for assembly and it found that increased density offsets the cost of new housing, if you’re on a town planning thing maybe you could reach out to the city government for the full methodology and results of that study
http://www.somervillebydesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ASN_Plan-Update_Final.pdf
three-ple t1_jd9isvm wrote
I've seen no mention of this, so I'll bring it up. Many communities will qualify for various sources of funding to increase/improve the size of their wastewater treatment facilities. The narrative that "this cost is bore by the community alone" is not entirely accurate.
heavyiron382 t1_jd9jfw7 wrote
That's helpful for communities that have treatment plants but most rural communities don't have treatment plants and would have to add one. I'm not sure even with state aid most of those towns could justify building a treatment plant.
LetterheadNervous555 t1_jd7eoik wrote
Bet on this dude or his wife working in Waltham and his “rural” community is 45 mins away.
alexandercecil t1_jd8y2q7 wrote
Why not ask instead of being accusatory? My wife works for a company in Boston, though she is not expected to be in the office every day. Her commute is so far that when her company effectively put in a "maximum commute distance" she had to get grandfathered in. Her co-workers do not understand how she commutes the distance she does, and they marvel at how different our lives are compared to theirs in Boston, the cities surrounding, or Metro West.
Do some others from our community make the same commute? Yes. Is it what most people - the gross majority - consider reasonable? No. We know the lifestyle we value for our family and the career my wife loves, and we chose to make specific sacrifices to have that.
TiredPistachio t1_jd7mtvm wrote
Small towns got a huge break in a re-do of these rules last year. Carlisle for instance, only need to zone for 95 total units (was originally 750!). And again, thats just zoning, nothing needs to be done. If the builders cant deal with water and sewage they wont build. I'm not seeing anything in the rules that says the towns need to provide those services. My guess is a town like carisle will end up building a single apartment building sometime in the next 20 years, but no sooner than 10.
alexandercecil t1_jd8zvgo wrote
One of the tricky parts of this legislation is that the areas zoned for dense residential development must actually be developable as such. That makes sense from a legislative view, because otherwise every town would pick 50 acres of wetland and call it a day. Does this mean the town must have infrastructure that can support the development? My understanding is that this is not clear cut, and towns may well need to improve infrastructure to support the potential development. I think there are lawyers from several municipalities looking at this to gain a more clear understanding. My town does not control its own water and sewer districts, so this is not as simple as people might think. We are not unique in this.
In my town, we could be looking at a double-digit percentage increase in our population. Beyond the water and sewer we do not control, our school, fire and police departments are at capacity. Right budgets mean that our long term debt management is planned out carefully for many years based on upcoming needs, and there is not room for additional projects like new school buildings.
I really wish it was as simple as it at first appears. If it was, I would personally have no problem with the legislation.
TiredPistachio t1_jd9gugh wrote
Well with the sewage a LOT of these towns straight up have just septic systems. You can build an apartment with septic, but it requires a huge amount of space which will eat into 1) the profit for developers, 2) the # of units built, 3) useful space, although I wonder if they could build green space over the septic. Not sure if you wanna be walking around over leech fields that big though.
alexandercecil t1_jd9ksh3 wrote
Yeah, I do not know if the large scale septic systems can support the required 15 units/acre. If they can that is one problem solved at the potential cost of creating others.
I have no problems with developers struggling to make a buck on their developments. I do not begrudge them anything, but it falls squarely in the realm of "not my problem" unless the state says otherwise. I do worry that the state might actually say it is our problem, but this is all something for lawyers to figure out. Law is complex, and they are the ones who can find the most likely answers.
TiredPistachio t1_jd9tcgl wrote
They can but the leech fields are massive. They just built some huge apartments along rte 20 that I'm pretty sure have no sewer access. Must be septic.
The developer comment was just about how they'll be less likely to build it
giritrobbins t1_jd8kbvj wrote
I guess I have a fundamental question. How is the town sustainable long term? If you aren't developing or improving property, does that mean property taxes go up 2-3 percent every year? At what point do folks say that's unacceptable? What about when that infrastructure built in the sixties needs to be updated, bridges, schools or major buildings? Who is going to pay for that? Or how?
alexandercecil t1_jd8ruc4 wrote
I am glad you asked! This is a good question and worth diving into.
We absolutely need development. I would love for things to stay how they are, but that is not in the cards. Residential development is generally a drain on a town's finances, not a benefit. In general, residents use more resources than they contribute as taxes. This is less true for retired residents and more true for families.
Like most any town, we need to attract business. Not only do our residents need places to eat, shop, and work, but businesses are generally a net positive for a town's bottom line. In the long run, my town needs to evaluate its commercial and industrial zoning, see if it should be increased in some places (I think it should), and see if we need to improve infrastructure in some places to foster better growth (again, I think we should).
I am also not opposed to increased residential development. I am not even against density that is higher than typical in my town in specific circumstances. But again, this development should be thoughtful. We are a rural town where agriculture is a significant industry - we have several farms that sell their produce and animal products in the more metropolitan parts of the state in addition to feeding our own residents. We are also fortunate to still have forests and wild land that should be protected. Creating more one-acre rural-suburban parcels is not really going to help us, though owners can generally choose to do that by right.
One example of residential development I am in favor of involves building smaller micro communities that are fairly dense and also require the developer to put aside adjacent land to be preserved as conservation land or leased for agricultural use. There are names for this type of development, but they escape me. This style still allows land owners to create as much development as they could before, but with less environmental impact. It is cheaper for the builders to build less blacktop, rain gardens, etc., so they are incentivized to build this way as well. The micro communities that have been built like this in other places also show greater camaraderie between neighbors that we typically see in standard suburban sprawl, which is another benefit. But allowing agricultural leasing of the land, we can also support our tax base and lose less arable land - a resource we will never get back once spent. We do not need to build additional sewer or water lines to support this development, which my town government cannot simply choose to do. Finally, building this way can help the town keep its character. We could debate whether character is important or not, but my constituents have an opinion that it is.
What the state requires, at I believe 15 units per acre, does not exist in my town if memory serves. We have one development that approaches that, but it is in one of the few locations that could reasonably support such development. We do not control our own water and sewer systems - they are independent municipal entities with their own elected officials. Both are at capacity. Our available locations for new large scale wells in town are limited, and the town we effectively lease sewer processing capacity from is selling us all that they are willing to sell us.
The housing crisis in this state is real, but the biggest origin for these problems lies squarely in Boston's lap. They are raking in the business taxes while sticking us with the residential bills. I am not a fan of unfunded mandates from the state, and that goes doubly true when the mandates do not account for the wide varieties of communities that they are laid upon. One-size-fits-all is simply not true.
I could get into the importance of food security and hope the pandemic gave us great examples of why we need local agriculture, but I have probably written enough. Thank you for your time!
taguscove t1_jd55hu5 wrote
Look at Weston and Lincoln, it is no surprise why Boston real estate and rent is so high. This is what happens when you combine a red hot jobs and NIMBY supply restrictions.
Hottakesincoming t1_jd7dbmz wrote
Yeah, everyone seems to think that it's Boston proper thats the issue, but if you look at other major US cities, it's fairly obvious that our problem is an insistence on bucolic rural New England towns within a 20-30 min drive of the city.
giritrobbins t1_jd8k0cu wrote
Not even that far. Brookline has built some stuff but they're stuffing the biggest buildings onto tiny parcels and not allowing anything more dense pretty much anywhere
[deleted] t1_jd55uxk wrote
[removed]
Simon_Jester88 t1_jd5hd8k wrote
Imagine having no fucking life whatsoever so you create an account just so you can try to sow discord. Honestly a miserable existence.
[deleted] t1_jd5t9sh wrote
[removed]
-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_jd58fna wrote
>The real issue is a 1950s concept of endless growth economy in concentrated spots > >The call for housing is laughable and won’t do shit but sure keep screeching for your useless bandaid bc it makes you feel good
Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but I have never understood why the state doesn't incentivize businesses to move outside of 495.
Make Worcester/Springfield a desirable destination for businesses. The housing market would definitely cool down if the state made other cities viable.
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jd5mud7 wrote
You would really need to clean Springfield up a bit. I really don’t see that happening with that low class casino in the middle of downtown.
[deleted] t1_jd5scqq wrote
[removed]
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jd5tc4a wrote
How? I think it’s more racist for you to think that I was talking about race. And not the crime or the literal trash everywhere and the prostitutes or the buildings that are still destroyed from that tornado what 12 years ago.
-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_jd5vy11 wrote
>You would really need to clean Springfield up a bit. I really don’t see that happening with that low class casino in the middle of downtown.
Why did you pick the most diverse area in Springfield to deny the thought of the state incentivizing businesses moving there?
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jd5x41g wrote
Oh yes I forgot that low class casino is a dog whistle.
-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_jd7fnzo wrote
Nothing low key about what you said.
You picked the most diverse area in Springfield (downtown) and said it was not suitable for businesses because it needs to be cleaned up.
It is normal to not recognize your own internalized racism.
You should be demanding that businesses move to areas with a majority minority population instead of finding excuses why they shouldn't.
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jd7hcgy wrote
Excuse me sir your own racism is showing because you are the only one bringing up race here.
[deleted] t1_jd8kjj7 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jd5a7z8 wrote
[removed]
-Horatio_Alger_Jr- t1_jd5gt8n wrote
Well, that is aggressive and not helpful to any discussion to the subject at hand.
Vistaer t1_jd5abpa wrote
What I don’t get is why communities which don’t have MBTA access are subject to it. Newton has a stop, yep clearly should be subject. Same with Weston, but how the heck is “Holden” - west of Worcester - an MBTA community? It’s like getting stuck with the designation but not actually getting MBTA service. I’d say if they wanna add rail service to communities willing to comply and take it away from Weston as a cost-of-access for not complying then consider that.
theblinkenlights t1_jd6izo2 wrote
Some days I wonder if even Boston has MBTA service…
pro_auto_advisors t1_jd5kqie wrote
Yeah I’m drawing a blank on Holden being an MBTA community. The closest commuter rail is Worcester, right?
That place neighbors Boylston, Spencer, Paxton, and Worcester. There’s 0 public transit here.
Vistaer t1_jd5r569 wrote
Holden is a adjacent community: https://www.mhp.net/assets/resources/documents/MBTA_simple_category_combo_8-4-22.jpg
I just used them as an example - and it’s a fine line because I’m not agreeing with NIMBYs - I agree need for housing, especially near mass transit should supersede trying to keep prices high in exclusionary towns, but I also get towns who are pissed because “if we comply then can we at least get the benefit of MBTA?”
pro_auto_advisors t1_jd5sz6r wrote
Thanks for the resource!
I get it too. The communities that actually have commuter rail stops should have extra housing
But, who the hell living in Holden or Lancaster are going to drive 20 minutes, pay for parking, then take a 1.5hr train ride? Plus any connections to get to work? I live in that general area and never once have I thought it would be better to take the train than drive - and I love trains and think they’re great!
Encouraging housing where the stations are will be impactful. Adding a stop in some of these other communities would be great!
FrenchieFury t1_jd5ofrp wrote
It’s a town over but it is not “close” to Union station by any stretch 😂
pro_auto_advisors t1_jd5omlx wrote
Not even a little!
FrenchieFury t1_jd5ow31 wrote
On the other side is Grafton MBTA station
Which has literally no housing anywhere close to it
pro_auto_advisors t1_jd5psxr wrote
Truth be told I’ve only been in Grafton like half a dozen times but I have no clue where their MBTA stop is.
H2Omekanic t1_jd61jhr wrote
You can't see Holden from Newton or Weston McMansion is what it amounts to
[deleted] t1_jd5nhiw wrote
[deleted]
BostonUniStudent t1_jd5eav8 wrote
Oh no, does that mean they get free state money to encourage the building of more housing?
How will they survive?
Checkers923 t1_jd5q8v4 wrote
I like that holden is in quotes.
What is the requirement for a town like Holden? The article says that the zoning generally should be within a half mile of the transit stop, but no part of Holden is even within 5 miles of a transit stop.
TiredPistachio t1_jd68mwi wrote
Holden has to zone 50 acres at 15 units per acre. That's what this does. It's zoning
Checkers923 t1_jd7h9zx wrote
Thanks! I understand its a zoning requirement (not a building requirement), I’m curious where Holden is required to put those acres, or if its up to them to decide.
TiredPistachio t1_jd7jhax wrote
Wherever they want, but I mean they will put them in places that "make sense" for the town. They will also likely put them in parts of their town that already have apartments or density. I dont see anything on the official website that says it has to be new zones. Not sure about Holden though never been.
65fairmont t1_jd8vqy2 wrote
Holden is a ruralish suburb that's not a particularly easy commute to the nearest commuter rail station. There's no way to build "transit oriented housing" there, no one living in Holden is walking or biking to any public transportation.
TiredPistachio t1_jd9ahll wrote
Yeah my guess is nothing will really be built there because of this. Not sure why it didn't qualify for the "small community" adjustment. I'm guessing land area is decent. Dover for the small community adjustment and only has to zone for like 100 units. Its ridiculous
65fairmont t1_jd9atpx wrote
Yeah it has almost 20K people and it borders a town (Worcester) that has commuter rail, but it's still ridiculous. The zoning changes should only apply within a mile of transit, which would exclude Holden and most of the other further-off towns.
Vistaer t1_jd5qijh wrote
Even Paxton is an adjacent small town community: https://www.mhp.net/assets/resources/documents/MBTA_simple_category_combo_8-4-22.jpg
Checkers923 t1_jd5s5j6 wrote
Pretty sure a half mile zone of Paxton could fit the entire population of Paxton
its-a-crisis t1_jd5ybpg wrote
What defines community versus small town? The two shades of yellow.
p53lifraumeni t1_jd619q0 wrote
Why don’t they just build enormous housing projects within Boston proper? That’s where all the jobs are, anyway
3720-To-One t1_jd75u0u wrote
Why is it Boston proper’s job to house everybody?
Why do surubanites feel so entitled to live right next to a major city, but to not have to live near other people?
Your suburb doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7pnob wrote
Pretty sure this is as NIMBY of a statement as you can get.
3720-To-One t1_jd7shiz wrote
No it isn’t. I welcome Boston proper to build lots more housing. I greatly encourage it.
But Boston proper is not solely responsible for supplying housing for the state.
Suburbs don’t exist in a vacuum. They are part of the greater community, and would be nothing without their proximity to Boston. They can chip in too. And entitled NIMBYs can get bent and cry a River.
If you don’t want to ever have to live near other people, move out to the sticks, not inside of 495.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7t4nf wrote
I don't live inside 495 and my town as well as most towns that are within 10 minutes of a non operational commuter rail are required to support the city with affordable housing. And once this housing is built and everyone from the city moves here for a year and realizes that the convinces aren't there they moce back to the city and laugh about how the NIMBY towns don't want people from the city living here.
3720-To-One t1_jd7ztv1 wrote
That’s a nice fantasy that you made up in your head.
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but there is a shortage of housing throughout much of the state.
But I get it, you got yours, screw everybody else, right?
heavyiron382 t1_jd816o4 wrote
It's not a fantasy it's reality. Everyone moved out of the city during covid. Realized that rural life isn't for them and more are moving back to the city causing another "housing crisis". The housing crisis can be solved by building houses in rural areas not complexes. Costs to own a house is no more than renting. I currently own a house and struggle. If I were to sell it I would still struggle with a rental. Stop looking for the government to solve your financial issues and solve it yourself. Multiple jobs are sometimes necessary. Do we like to work more, no but unless you want to adjust your way of life then that's what's going to be needed.
3720-To-One t1_jd84r3w wrote
“Stop looking for government to solve your issues.”
Funny, the only ones looking for government to solve their issues are the NIMBY’s trying to use municipal governments to block housing from being built in their suburbs.
I’m in favor of less government involvement in housing. Which means letting the market having a much bigger say in what gets built where, much to the chagrin of whining, entitled NIMBYs like yourself.
And that’s literally what this push from the state is doing. It’s the state government telling local municipalities to get fucked, and to allow higher density housing yo be built.
And no, I’m not going to work a second job because people like you feel entitled to use the government to shield you from having to live close to other people.
You own your property, not your neighbor’s, not the neighborhood.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd7aj7m wrote
We bought in the suburbs because we don't like the noise or the crime of the city. You alter that dynamic and you will push people farther out. That said, I am in complete favor of increasing density close to the MBTA stations/routes. Including my own town.
3720-To-One t1_jd7b6aq wrote
Cool story.
Want to show me where in your dead it shows that your neighborhood is frozen in time from the moment of your purchase, and that you are entitled to your neighbor’s property?
It doesn’t? Didn’t think so.
NIMBYs can get bent.
The state is growing, there’s incredible demand for housing, and it isn’t Boston proper’s sole responsibility to house everyone.
If you don’t want to have to live near anybody, move to the Quabbin.
You also realize that at one point your suburb was all forest and corn fields. How come it was okay destroying that “neighborhood character” to make room for your cul-de-sac?
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd82kzk wrote
Nothing in my deed says its frozen in time. Zoning is presently decided on locally by local people looking out for their local community. Once you allow the state to start picking and choosing these elements for all zoning then Mass will have jumped the shark.
There is still a smaller population in Boston compared to the 1960's. The sewer and water infrastructure in place can handle any of this growth for the next few decades EASILY. Farm communities would have to build waste water treatment plants plus schools to do what can be easily done in the urban areas. Suburban communities would similarly have to increase the size of their piping systems and other infrastructure to handle large increases in population.
Plus most of the jobs are in the cities...so commuting shorter distances will put less a stress on both roads and rail infrastructure.
I never said it was BP's role to house everyone. There are other cities in the state plus I have stated here and elsewhere that I agree with increasing density near commuting options. I have these right in my backyard (defeating your main argument). I am 100% in favor of very dense housing options near MBTA stations.
I live near people now, I never said otherwise. You can't buy land near the quabbin anyways...its protected from development.
I don't live on a cul de sac...my house was built in the 80's from leftover scrub land (side of a hill) and wasnt much use for farming or anything. Removing the houses there now and replacing with triple deckers is not the answer to the housing "crisis".
FWIW, we should preserve rural farmland as much as possible so that we can feed people....building denser in the urban areas is the best answer to supply issues. Boston is going crazy building lab space...they should build more condos to go along with them.
3720-To-One t1_jd85elj wrote
Cool, and when every single suburb thinks they are special and that housing should be built somewhere else nothing gets built.
Your suburb isn’t special. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
I’m glad the state is finally telling these suburbs to shape up.
Lab spaces… you think the people who work in these offices and labs only live in Boston proper?
Funny, suburbanites have no problem outsourcing their office, labs, hospitals, museums, sports stadia, etc. to the city.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd8dmzc wrote
Gillette is in the burbs...128 has loads of office spaces as well as other cities like Worcester, Lynn, Springfield. You are missing the point that the infrastructure exists to handle the load IN THE CITIES. No need for special treatment plans or even large scale construction of new schools or roads. I am near an MBTA station for a reason. I expect that others will want that same thing and I think it makes sense. Evicting a bunch of cows because there is a T station half hour drive away (followed by a 90 minute commute) seems like a dumb place to harass a town over how many units they put in.
fight the good fight all you want. I hope this becomes a major issue in the next election and people will vote out the people that pass this style of reform. Feel free to vote how you wish.
3720-To-One t1_jd8wzcp wrote
So many cows in places like Weston, Wellesley, Newton, and Lexington…
giritrobbins t1_jd8kiu5 wrote
So you want the benefits of Boston without the externalities?
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd8th31 wrote
This doesn't even make any sense. Benefits of Boston? Car alarms, break ins, high cost of rentals, noise, traffic, lousy schools? I chose to live in a quieter and calmer town. I left whatever benefits you imagine for something else. This doesn't give everyone else the right to force their views on zoning on my town. I also don't get to force my views on Boston or other communities.
I am happy about my choices and everyone who wants to hinder that will find me an enemy in some fashion.
giritrobbins t1_jd8to4u wrote
You understand the value of Newton is it's proximity right? I bet the vast majority of people are employed in Boston, or because Boston exists there.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd8x5lw wrote
All those employers pay triple the RE tax compared to homeowners in Boston. I owe Boston nothing for my existence within its borders. Would love to have a 5 minute commute to my desktop.
What is the benefit to the state to build 100 units in 100 communities that have weak connections to get into Boston? would it not be better for the environment and for people's mental health that they have shorter commutes not longer?
creating long commutes is not a great solution to the "crisis".
pillbinge t1_jd6a4tc wrote
Because they're juggling a few things that don't work together. Dense housing is a neat idea for a static environment, but New York is dense. New York is still expensive. Building densely doesn't compare to building intelligently, and right now, companies want to be in Boston. Instead of making companies go to other locations, they're making towns build up like they're Boston, only at break-neck speeds.
bv8ma t1_jd78bbv wrote
Making some areas require zoning that allows 15 units per acre is not even close to building up like Boston. A big change from some suburban areas that have 1 acre zoning? Yes. Boston like density? Definitely not.
tjrileywisc t1_jd78cgi wrote
The densities required (15 units/acre) hardly fall under enormous and there are a lot of people working from home now.
Thiccaca t1_jd5lvq5 wrote
So, this would be a better idea if the MBTA actually provided usable service. They don't. Service gets worse every year. And nobody has a plan, or even any inclination to fix it.
This is literally gaslighting. Gonna really suck if they build out super dense units and everyone still has to use a car to get anywhere.
langjie t1_jd6ke3a wrote
you literally can't get on a red line train unless you get on by quincy center in the morning and they want to force what now?
Thiccaca t1_jd75tyy wrote
Exactly. How is more people riding the solution here? This also reeks of the "Olympic solution," they floated a few years back. "If we hold the Olympics, the MBTA will be forced to get better."
These people are sociopaths.
Also, I assure you, every single one of them drives to work.
Marco_Memes t1_jd7j2f8 wrote
They probably thought more people riding=more money for the T, while failing to consider that even if 50 million people packed into the T each day their funding would just get cut even more for a new highway and we would be back at square 1. Their thought process isn’t totally stupid, in a perfect world more riders WOULD equal more funding and better service. But we don’t live in a perfect world, we live in Massachusetts, where we canceled a gigantic public transport scheme (the urban ring project) because all the funding got directed towards the worlds most expensive example of induced demand. Who needs a project that’ll have a ridership of 300k per day and remove 50k cars from the road when we can build an highway that doesn’t actually fix the problem, and just puts it underground?
NativeMasshole t1_jd58xms wrote
So is this all suburbs of any community with a rail line? I saw they were going after Holden (rightly so), but I don't think Paxton has any high-density housing either.
Maleficent-Guess8632 t1_jd5koho wrote
I believe funding is also related to road repairs
[deleted] t1_jd5hxw1 wrote
[deleted]
andrewb610 t1_jd6e2cm wrote
Missed it by that much.
Itchy-Marionberry-62 t1_jd73p10 wrote
This is a good thing because it will cause even more wealthy people to flee the state…and further erode the tax base. 😀👍🏼
IDCFFSGTFO t1_jd7swxo wrote
There's a lot of lawyers in Newton, and I don't think they're scared. Just saying.
rattiestthatuknow t1_jd88ifx wrote
Weston resident here so here are random unorganized thoughts.
This article is stupid and poorly researched. Weston has 3 MBTA stops, the MBTA only stops at 1.
Also have fun getting dropped at that stop. Walk a mile to “downtown” Weston or walk a mile to Waltham Market Basket (love that plaza) where the sidewalk doesn’t even connect. There’s no bus that stops there either.
There is free parking at that site which is rare in the area. No mention of Lincoln where you pay is weird…
There is town owned land by the stop but it is rented to a business right now. Maybe that goes away?
Weston is struggling for affordable elderly housing. Already and has been looking for years to find a solution. The town owns VERY little land which is a problem for the fire department who needs at least 1 new station. More if you want to put larger buildings here.
There is over 1,800 acres of conservation land in Weston. Quick math days Weston has 11,000 acres of land so that’s 16%!
The tree huggers are making it challenging to change out the 3 water towers because they are on conservation land, so good luck getting that changed.
So do you want to protect the “wetlands” or allow more places for housing?
Also article doesn’t mention other 40B project in town that ARE happening. 40B is stupid. They don’t make as many of the unit be “affordable” as they should. It should be 50% not like fucking 5%.
I don’t know what the answer is, but as someone who is slightly involved in the local government (committee that relates to my profession, but certainly not this), I don’t think the state will do a better job than any other town will.
Don’t they run the MBTA? That thing is a fuckshow
tjrileywisc t1_jd9ml7a wrote
Requiring high percentages of affordable units in an inclusionary zoning policy, or a 40B development is a recipe for making them uneconomical for developers (this is why there are limits on this in the MBTA law).
Edit: I think they've also considered certain types of protected land in the worksheet and GIS layers they put out to assist local governments to determine zoning that works:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/compliance-model-components
heavyiron382 t1_jd8c3ev wrote
Actually it does affect my neighborhood because we are a boarder town. And if you go to any of the further reaching stops you will see empty commuter rail lots because people don't enjoy commuting on an unreliable system an hour and a half to with in Boston. But we as a community have to support Boston or else we are"NIMNYs"
Jew-betcha t1_jd8hott wrote
I mean hell Sudbury needs transit badly, we have exactly one bus stop and that's it. I hate it I don't have a car so I wind up wasting a bunch of money on uber anytime I need to get somewhere.
AustralisOccidentali t1_jd8l2aj wrote
This is a good start.
bcb1200 t1_jda8nc9 wrote
Anyone else see that Parking at commuter rail stations is another gap in this plan?
It would be one thing if the law forced towns to build within a 10 minute walk from the MBTA station. But the fact they are pushing this to neighboring towns means folks are going to need to drive to the T station and park. And at least near me there is no parking. Nor any plan or space for a nearby garage.
So…we will have these huge new housing developments in rural areas. And then folks will drive to the T station and park where, exactly?
rubbish_heap t1_jdezma7 wrote
Ayer is ready, they built a parking garage that I have never seen filled.
3720-To-One t1_jd5z0k0 wrote
Cry, NIMBYs
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jd4z9fx wrote
As someone who regularly looks at property to buy and only in metro west I have seen plenty of 3 unit buildings or condos in 3 unit buildings on 6-8000 sq/foot lots. That is already the 15 units per acre.
I have not looked in Weston because it is to far from the city for what I am looking for.
pro_auto_advisors t1_jd5lbtd wrote
Weston is too far from the city? There’s great access to 20 (to go through Waltham) and 95, and there’s a commuter rail. Where else in metro west is that close and convenient to Boston?
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jd5mlu6 wrote
Watertown, Newton, and Belmont all offer better faster access to transit. Weston you kinda need a car for. And route 20 is a pain in the butt. To many lights every light you need to get into the other lane because it’s a turn only lane.
pro_auto_advisors t1_jd5n94t wrote
Yeah rt 20 is tough. I commuted from Maynard to Watertown via 117/20 for years, but if you go at the right time it’s fine.
The towns you named though generally are not considered metro west…hell even Weston doesn’t make the cut by the states definition (looks like it stops at Wayland). I think all those fall into suburban Boston.
Any_Advantage_2449 t1_jd5nk5j wrote
Hm really I didn’t know that I figured because it wasn’t part of Boston and west of Boston that was metro west. I am going to need to look up what constitutes metro west now.
pro_auto_advisors t1_jd5nsax wrote
https://www.mass.gov/doc/495metrowest-regional-profile/download
Page 5 has a neat map! Good luck in your search.
superbbuffalo t1_jd4w8iw wrote
“However, many of the state’s wealthiest communities don’t receive that funding anyhow.”
This is why her “warning” won’t matter to the NIMBYS’s in Metrowest.