Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bcb1200 t1_jd7brpd wrote

Reply to comment by hatred_outlives in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs

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.

6

tjrileywisc t1_jd7eqvc wrote

Apartment buildings bring in property taxes, believe it or not

I was surprised to read this!

1

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.

7

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.

2

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.

1

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).

1

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1