Multi-Family Zoning Requirements for MBTA Communities

Beantropolis said:
Affordable. Housing. Crisis.

There isn't a housing shortage. There's an affordable housing shortage. The idea that we're going to build our way out of this problem by zoning little districts of Roslindales next to cow pastures in places like Sudbury is misguided and unrealistic. This is a global problem which was created and is being perpetuated by the policies of national governments and central banks (especially our own) , and it can only be solved at this level. To believe the MBTA Communities Act will do anything to alleviate this is naive. It will merely further enrich developers, landlords and others connected to the real estate industry at the expense of citizens and municipal governments who will be left to deal with the externalities.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the trusted chief NIMBY talking point: “Developers will be ‘enriched’ if we build more housing.” Do you have a job? Because if you do, you participate in the capitalist framework where you are compensated or “enriched” for providing a good or service. Why under NIMBY code, this is acceptable for you and everybody else except for developers, landlords, and those in “the real estate industry” is beyond me.

And what exactly are these “negative externalities” you are so terrified of? More economic growth and dynamism? Oh, the horror! But yes, that would likely be a consequence of more housing. States with lower housing costs are experiencing much faster economic growth than high cost ones: Cheap housing states dominated post-pandemic jobs boom: https://stateline.org/2024/05/29/lo...ousing-dominated-the-post-pandemic-jobs-boom/

Let me guess, you’re also worried that more families with children will move to your community, because the second favorite NIMBY talking point is: “more children will overwhelm our schools.” Newsflash, public school enrollment is lower in Massachusetts today than it was in 2000. You mentioned Sudbury, well enrollment in Sudbury, according to the Department of Education, is down more than 400 students or 14% since 2000. And the most recent round of financial stress for Districts in Mass was due to sudden drops in enrollment, not increases: https://www.wbur.org/news/2024/09/04/massachusetts-public-schools-budget-shortfalls-cuts Your local school district could use more students; it would help them, not hinder them.

These arguments are so exhausting because they are not tied to facts; it is simply an emotional response some people have to growth that somehow their quality of life will suffer. Unfortunately these folks dominate seats on local regulatory boards and Massachusetts is suffering the consequences: Record number of Massachusetts residents moving out of state, report says: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/202...residents-are-moving-out-of-state-report-says
 
Beantropolis said:
This is a global problem which was created and is being perpetuated by the policies of national governments and central banks (especially our own) , and it can only be solved at this level. To believe the MBTA Communities Act will do anything to alleviate this is naive.
Click to expand...
Never mind that the extent of this problem is highly correlated to local policies, and that municipalities that allow market actors to run freely have much more affordable housing. If this was purely an economic problem where housing is only held back by the financing, demolition and construction costs, there would be no need for this gigantic coordinated political push to restrict development activity.
 
Smuttynose said:
These arguments are so exhausting because they are not tied to facts; it is simply an emotional response some people have to growth that somehow their quality of life will suffer. Unfortunately these folks dominate seats on local regulatory boards and Massachusetts is suffering the consequences:
Click to expand...
This is not really the whole story. When the economic future of millions is tied up into one single asset, their home, is it really unreasonable to expect them to act in any way other than the one that best preserves that future? This is not (entirely, not quite as true for places like Milton or Weston) some strange groupthink where everyone has got it into their heads that anything other than what exists today is bad, this is the natural conclusion of weak social/welfare programs that leave everyone to fend for themselves, and those who are able doing just that.
 
I agree with the above, and it's not surprising that people whose primary asset is tied to the status quo are opposed to the idea of upzoning or any change that could erode the value of said asset. I just get a bit dismayed with (presumably young, liberal) people who rail against building more because it's some kind of giveaway to those darned capitalist developers who are only out to make a buck.

The reason rents have fallen in Austin is not due to their virtue as community-centric equity seekers. It's because they built a lot of housing. Detroit doesn't have good housing policy, they just have a bunch of abandoned and neglected units and plots of land that stand in the smoking wreckage of a collapsed, once-great city, and are selling for $1. The reason Boston is expensive is because a lot of people want to live here and we don't have enough housing. If expensive housing is a bad thing to you, then standing in the way of new development, especially in places that are at risk of "gentrifying" is only exacerbating the issue. Go ahead and stick it to those greedy crony capitalist single family homeowners who have thwarted you, young millenial, from living the American dream.
 
Justbuildit said:
I just get a bit dismayed with (presumably young, liberal) people who rail against building more because it's some kind of giveaway to those darned capitalist developers who are only out to make a buck.
Click to expand...
It's misplaced blame that comes from a simplification of the property sector, IMO. If you see developers building new luxury condos which are then immediately bought by large investment firms, it's tempting to see the whole industry as corrupt and complacent in this crisis. But this is an area where we could actually benefit a lot from just letting the market do its thing. Property prices are high, therefore it's attractive for developers to build. If we let them build through upzoning, relaxing permitting, etc, then more homes will get built, prices will come down, and the market will move back towards equilibrium.

The other missing piece is that legislation is needed to:
  1. Stop large investment corporations from effectively hoarding all the housing, leaving many homes vacant as simple investment assets
  2. Prevent (or at least significantly slow) gentrification by preventing landlords from imposing absurd rent raises to force people out of their homes. This legislation should also severely restrict evictions to prevent them from working around this. What should not happen is more traditional rent control, such as rent caps. This would limit the construction of new housing and make the problem worse, not better. The Netherlands is a major example of this.
 
Beantropolis said:
There isn't a housing shortage. There's an affordable housing shortage.
Click to expand...
You don't consider scarcity to work against affordability? There is no glut of empty but too expensive housing sitting around Massachusetts. Vacancy rates are pretty low, low enough that demand pushes prices upward.
 
themissinglink said:
www.lowellsun.com

Billerica Town Meeting approves MBTA Communities zoning

Town Meeting representatives approved Billerica’s proposed zoning to comply with the MBTA Communities law ahead of the Dec. 31 deadline and with legal cases still pending in other communities. Nee…
www.lowellsun.com www.lowellsun.com
Click to expand...
As a Billerica native, I'm actually kind of surprised. I'm sure there will be lawsuits, and I'm willing to bet that the old timers on the Billerica Residents facebook page are losing their minds.
 
Sorry if we don't feel a need to kiss the ring. Federal law is enforced by the feds. Massachusetts is only required to enforce state laws.
 
Scott said:
Sorry if we don't feel a need to kiss the ring. Federal law is enforced by the feds. Massachusetts is only required to enforce state laws.
Click to expand...
We passed a Mass law to audit the legislature but they are ignoring it. We also have Mass FOIA laws that folks often ignore. If the state doesn’t care about federal law why should towns care about state law?
 
Those are good points but on immigration we cannot blame the State for not enforcing Federal law.
 
I always thought that once the ADU rule was law, I would build a detached ADU in my lot, and rent it out. It makes a lot of sense - It would cost me maybe 200 K, but the rent would easily be > 2000. An economical no brainer, if I decide to stay put in Groton.
But part of me wants to bolt to a cheaper town (Shirley, where I used to live, for example). Not sure as a immigrant I would have the gall to put up the first ADU to give out for rent in a neighborhood where the lot size has to be 2 acres. My eldest who is in college and loves the area is not sure whether she wants to settle here because of affordability concerns. So I think I am in all parts of this debate :)
 
commonwealthbeacon.org

Winthrop rejects MBTA Communities zoning plan

With the December 31 MBTA Communities Act deadline fast approaching for 129 cities and towns, the Winthrop town council has rejected the only viable zoning plan that would allow the community to comply with the law, which was passed to help alleviate the housing shortage plaguing Massachusetts.
commonwealthbeacon.org commonwealthbeacon.org
www.metrowestdailynews.com

Framingham won't meet deadline to comply with MBTA Communities law. What's next

Framingham city councilors have voted to not meet the Dec. 31 deadline to comply with the MBTA Communities law.
www.metrowestdailynews.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top