Milton infill and small development

JeffDowntown said:
These NIMBYs really don't understand that the regional housing crunch is going to kill our economy.

I hope they enjoy their ghost town when that happens. Massholes!
Click to expand...

Agreed on the first point but the sad thing is Milton will never really bear the brunt of this. Sure, home values would collapse from their inflated peaks...but broadly affordable housing in Milton would *also* mean that. Milton wouldn't suffer nearly the same disinvestment as many other municipalities in a broader regional economic decline.
 
Shortsighted true but I’m glad to see it only bc im curious to see how the state responds. My guess is nothing really happpens and this whole thing goes up in smoke/no one takes it seriously.
 
Justbuildit said:
Yes, that's basically it. NIMBYism of course being a veiled vehicle for telling lies about your own community and the people therein (and those from adjacent communities). Let's hear it from the people themselves!
Click to expand...

I imagine there’s an element, too, of trying to keep property values up. If tons of new, modern, probably “luxury” housing gets built in Milton, then suddenly those 1960s ranches on side streets don’t seem to be worth $500k anymore.
 
Blackbird said:
I imagine there’s an element, too, of trying to keep property values up. If tons of new, modern, probably “luxury” housing gets built in Milton, then suddenly those 1960s ranches on side streets don’t seem to be worth $500k anymore.
Click to expand...
800k** small detail but had to fix that
 
617 said:
Shortsighted true but I’m glad to see it only bc im curious to see how the state responds. My guess is nothing really happpens and this whole thing goes up in smoke/no one takes it seriously.
Click to expand...

Disagree, but mainly because of the conspiracy angle (trying to dump poor people (... well their kids) in the burbs to avoid a K12 collapse)

We'll see if the State really goes to war with suburbia over this.
 
jklo said:
Disagree, but mainly because of the conspiracy angle (trying to dump poor people (... well their kids) in the burbs to avoid a K12 collapse)

We'll see if the State really goes to war with suburbia over this.
Click to expand...

It’ll be a huge middle-finger to Brookline, given all the work that town has done to get into compliance, if the state doesn’t meaningfully punish Milton for just saying “no thanks”.
 
I did a bit of digging into Milton's municipal finances. From FYs 2020-2024 of the big 3 grant programs whose funding Milton would be statutorily disqualified from (MassWorks, HousingWorks, Housing Choice) Milton has received exactly ... $0 Dollars. (The latter 2 programs are newer, but the last time Milton won MassWorks funding was in 2012)

Of the additional 13 programs recently announced as part of enforcement actions, Milton received just $212 thousand over the same time period, $80k of which was MBTA Communities Technical Assistance. Against a FY2024 general fund budget of $130M, that's absolutely peanuts. If you average the remaining $132k over 4 years, the impact on an average Milton home ($935,875 in FY2023) is a grand total of... $3.23.

Milton received $1.737M in all state grants from 2020-2024 , including DCR and MassDOT Complete Streets grants, which they are still eligible for as they weren't included in the enforcement notice, but I assume they'd be deprioritized regardless even if the exact scoring impact isn't made public. (they're currently in for a $239k Shared Streets grant) If they lost all their state grant funding, that still only amounts to $43 per household annually.

That isn't exactly enough to get folks to vote with their wallets. The vast majority of state aid that Milton gets is formula based, (Chapter 70 Schools, Lottery Funds, Chapter 90 Local Roads) so I don't think the governors office has any power to touch it. I think the legal budget of fighting the AG's office would dwarf the administrative penalty of grant ineligibility. Frankly, the vast majority of Milton's transportation projects appear to be funded through the MPO, for which noncompliance is only a 5 point down check out of 100 total points.

(Also, Milton isn't the only town out of compliance right now. The other town is Holden, which has gotten more from these programs than Milton has, but I also don't see that the state has begun legal action against them yet.)
 
Last edited:
Frankly, the vast majority of Milton's transportation projects appear to be funded through the MPO, for which noncompliance is only a 5 point down check out of 100 total points.
Click to expand...

That sounds small but is massive in practice. Will post some examples from the current TIP tomorrow to demonstrate.
 
Ruairi said:
I haven't paid close attention to this.
Without getting too political,
What were the reasons for voting no?
Good old fashioned nimbyism?
Click to expand...

I feel like there's an 'elephant in the room' that hasn't come up directly yet in this discussion that goes beyond NIMBYism but is often a basis for NIMBYs. I hope the state comes down on them hard.

Screenshot 2024-02-16 at 23.21.23.png
 
Lol. Is there a Godwin's Law for racism?

I'm on Milton's side here. A town resisting state-level preemption and wanting to retain local control over the zoning within its boundaries is a perfectly valid and understandable position to hold. The hysterical invective being directed at Milton is bizarre.

Anyone who actually believes this law will have even the slightest beneficial effect on housing costs is naive -- no offense. Even in the promotional materials put out by the supporters of this law it is strongly emphasized that a municipality can comply without effectively allowing a single new unit of housing to be built. This, in fact, has proven to be a popular approach taken by many towns already.

It’ll be a huge middle-finger to Brookline, given all the work that town has done to get into compliance, if the state doesn’t meaningfully punish Milton for just saying “no thanks”. -Blackbird
Click to expand...

According to this law, Brookline needed to accommodate over 3000 units of multifamily housing, but complied in such way that realistically would possibly add under 200 units. This is a town of 65,000, with essentially 3 spurs of the Green Line, and within walking distance of some of the region's largest employment centers like the Longwood Medical Area, B.U. and the office buildings of Boston's Back Bay. To hold Brookline up as some noble model town selflessly working to further the greater good of the people or some such nonsense is laughable.
 
Last edited:
Beantropolis said:
Lol. Is there a Godwin's Law for racism?

I'm on Milton's side here. A town resisting state-level preemption and wanting to retain local control over the zoning within its boundaries is a perfectly valid and understandable position to hold. The hysterical invective being directed at Milton is bizarre.

Anyone who actually believes this law will have even the slightest beneficial effect on housing costs is naive -- no offense. Even in the promotional materials put out by the supporters of this law it is strongly emphasized that a municipality can comply without effectively allowing a single new unit of housing to be built. This, in fact, has proven to be a popular approach taken by many towns already.



According to this law, Brookline needed to accommodate over 3000 units of multifamily housing, but complied in such way that realistically would possibly add under 200 units. This is a town of 65,000, with essentially 3 spurs of the Green Line, and within waking distance of some of the region's largest employment centers like the Longwood Medical Area, B.U. and the office buildings of Boston's Back Bay. To hold Brookline up as some noble model town selflessly working to further the greater good of the people or some such nonsense is laughable.
Click to expand...
Local control of zoning has obviously done a great job in creating adequate housing throughout greater Boston for our workforce. :rolleyes:

Thank you for your support of the homeownership price fixing racket (local NIMBY zoning controlled by current homeowners) that guarantees young workers have to leave the area in order to be able to own homes. May you enjoy the economic rewards you so clearly deserve.
 
KCasiglio said:
That sounds small but is massive in practice. Will post some examples from the current TIP tomorrow to demonstrate.
Click to expand...

So Milton is already at a small disadvantage when applying for MPO funding because of poor scoring in equity. Looking at the most popular program, community connectivity, out of 18 possible equity points they're only likely to get 6-9 (Concord and Canton scored 6 last year, Cambridge and Medford 9). Let's say they get 9. Take off another 5 from being out of compliance and it's setting their best possible score at 86 if their project is otherwise perfect scoring. No project received perfect scoring last year, so they are looking at a realistic ceiling in the low 80s if they have a home-run project, good for 5th or 6th out of the ten projects that applied to community connectivity last year versus 2nd or 3rd place if you give them the 5 points back.
 
Beantropolis said:
Anyone who actually believes this law will have even the slightest beneficial effect on housing costs is naive -- no offense. Even in the promotional materials put out by the supporters of this law it is strongly emphasized that a municipality can comply without effectively allowing a single new unit of housing to be built. This, in fact, has proven to be a popular approach taken by many towns already.
Click to expand...

I mean, as I've said a couple times in this thread already, I think this is totally accurate. At the same time, it's demonstrative of just how bad faith the "no" position was operating from. This is already a watered down, milquetoast concession to the nimbyest of municipalities. Yet, they still scream and cry victim about being allowed slightly less ability to impose their own vision on other people's property in a select grouping of parcels that they themselves get to choose. "No" has discredited itself as serious actors and there's no reason to continue to negotiate. If Milton can't comply with after the state met them 90% of the way, the state should go ahead and draw the zoning map.
 
Beantropolis said:
complied in such way that realistically would possibly add under 200 units.
Click to expand...

Well, this at least isn't true. The article here estimates the number of potential new housing units at ~1500.

In any case, my point wasn't that Brookline is a model town for fighting the housing crisis. It was that the town has put a lot of time and energy (town meetings, votes, etc) into changing its zoning to match the law. If I were a resident of Brookline and Milton faced no repercussions for choosing to ignore the law, I'd be mad at the state for wasting my time.

Just curious: if you had all the money and power in the world to alter the laws and economics of eastern MA to your heart's content, how would you go about solving the housing crisis? Because to your first point, I agree that even if all towns complied with the Healy Administration here, it would do next to nothing to lower the cost of housing. However, if we can't even do this much towards solving the problem, then I have no faith in MA being able to pull off any more radical reform such as doing away with zoning all together to replicate what happens in places like Texas.
 
Last edited:
KCasiglio said:
www.nbcboston.com

Healey administration revokes Milton grant due to MBTA housing law noncompliance

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey’s administration anounced Wednesday morning that they have revoked state grant funding for the town of Milton because it is not in compliance with the state’s MBTA Communities Law. After weeks of campaigning, voters in Milton, Massachusetts, chose last week not to...
www.nbcboston.com www.nbcboston.com
Click to expand...
surprised more people aren't talking about this. I guess Milton won't feel the worst of this until later, but it'll be interesting to see how the consequences play out
 
Justbuildit said:
“This wouldn’t have happened at all if they just complied and obeyed the law”

It’s not like the emergency housing budget would be any different if the Milton vote narrowly went the other way. These two ideas have nothing to do with each other. I think Milton should follow the law like every other applicable community.
Click to expand...
The MBTA Communities Act may be law, but its legality is yet to be tested. Granted I'm just a layman, but the selectiveness of the "MBTA Community" designation, as well as the arbitrariness of the requirement formulation lead me to believe that this statute won't survive a court challenge. This law also has other problems having to do with its enforcement.

It's pretty irrefutable that there is a housing affordability problem in this state and that zoning has played a major role in this. I often wonder about what this country would have looked like if the Euclid, Ohio case had gone the other way and zoning was declared unlawful. I tend to think that a far better, more organic building pattern in place of the horror show we currently have would have naturally been established in its absence. But, there are other factors that have contributed to the massive inflation of housing values besides zoning which are being ignored in this conversation. The general financialization of our economy, in addition to governmental policies which incentivize treating housing as investment assets play a huge role in this as well. It's sad that these factors are ignored by the proponents of this law who have chosen instead, in a very simple-minded way, to demonize a bunch of homeowners as the ultimate bad guys here. The authoritarian rhetoric coming from our supposed representatives is especially revolting.
 
Beantropolis said:
The MBTA Communities Act may be law, but its legality is yet to be tested. Granted I'm just a layman, but the selectiveness of the "MBTA Community" designation, as well as the arbitrariness of the requirement formulation lead me to believe that this statute won't survive a court challenge. This law also has other problems having to do with its enforcement.

It's pretty irrefutable that there is a housing affordability problem in this state and that zoning has played a major role in this. I often wonder about what this country would have looked like if the Euclid, Ohio case had gone the other way and zoning was declared unlawful. I tend to think that a far better, more organic building pattern in place of the horror show we currently have would have naturally been established in its absence. But, there are other factors that have contributed to the massive inflation of housing values besides zoning which are being ignored in this conversation. The general financialization of our economy, in addition to governmental policies which incentivize treating housing as investment assets play a huge role in this as well. It's sad that these factors are ignored by the proponents of this law who have chosen instead, in a very simple-minded way, to demonize a bunch of homeowners as the ultimate bad guys here. The authoritarian rhetoric coming from our supposed representatives is especially revolting.
Click to expand...

I don't really want to start an argument, but I find the idea that housing values would substantially decrease from a mdoest upzoning a little suspicious. Especially considering that multifamily and sfh are not wholly the same market. I can envision a future where there's enough housing that sfh stop their current rate of increase, but I doubt it will crater as a result of MBTA Communities or a similar act. That said, if we want homes to be substantially cheaper, then property owners need to lose their shirts. Landlords and homeowners alike. Difference is homeowners actually live in their home, so they get use of it either way.
 
Beantropolis said:
The MBTA Communities Act may be law, but its legality is yet to be tested. Granted I'm just a layman, but the selectiveness of the "MBTA Community" designation, as well as the arbitrariness of the requirement formulation lead me to believe that this statute won't survive a court challenge. This law also has other problems having to do with its enforcement.

It's pretty irrefutable that there is a housing affordability problem in this state and that zoning has played a major role in this. I often wonder about what this country would have looked like if the Euclid, Ohio case had gone the other way and zoning was declared unlawful. I tend to think that a far better, more organic building pattern in place of the horror show we currently have would have naturally been established in its absence. But, there are other factors that have contributed to the massive inflation of housing values besides zoning which are being ignored in this conversation. The general financialization of our economy, in addition to governmental policies which incentivize treating housing as investment assets play a huge role in this as well. It's sad that these factors are ignored by the proponents of this law who have chosen instead, in a very simple-minded way, to demonize a bunch of homeowners as the ultimate bad guys here. The authoritarian rhetoric coming from our supposed representatives is especially revolting.
Click to expand...

I was with you until the last few sentences. I don't think it's authoritarian when a state enforces a law against the one community that's refusing to follow that law. Milton is the only one out of over 150 communities that has done this (so far), and the state has been very clear what the outcome would be for a community that didn't comply. They made their choice, and the results follow. Pretty sure most of us have agreed as a country that it's worse when laws AREN'T enforced based on some nebulous idea of what's harmful and what's not.

I agree that the financialization of the economy is problematic, but Milton doesn't control Fed Fund Rates or mortgage interest tax deductions, or whatever (and part of the rub is that middle-class folks in Milton who bought their houses in the 70s have MASSIVELY benefited from said financialization and are fighting to protect it!). What you're talking about is a change to American culture and massive new legislation at the Federal level that is rife with conflicts. That's a huge question that will take decades to change. In the meantime, this law didn't even mandate houses get built or eliminate single family zoning town-wide. It did nothing to limit parking across Milton. It required small changes that were right-sized for towns that had various levels of transit access, and even that was too much for this small-c conservative enclave that has benefited from its proximity to one of the wealthiest cities in the world.

We'll see if the law remains enforceable. I don't believe any court challenges have been filed by either side yet, but if the pain increases I'm sure Milton will file suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top