tjrileywisc t1_jd77qxh wrote
Reply to comment by alexandercecil in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs
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!".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments