Multi-Family Zoning Requirements for MBTA Communities

I doubt that would scare them very much because the majority of people in Franklin and most suburban towns do not work in Boston
 
Scott said:
I doubt that would scare them very much because the majority of people in Franklin and most suburban towns do not work in Boston
Click to expand...
I’d wager that the 1000 or so people who board the train daily in Franklin care much more about having transit access than the cranks care about eliminating housing. Otherwise, what are we even doing here?
 
We are discussing a law in which the only penalty for noncompliance is disqualification from certain grants. What are you talking about?
 
Scott said:
We are discussing a law in which the only penalty for noncompliance is disqualification from certain grants. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I’m half seriously adding that the state should go further and just remove non-compliant towns from the MBTA Communities by depriving them of mass transit.
 
That's certainly a reaction a lot of us have had. Unfortunately, those riding transit and those opposing zoning changes probably don't overlap much, so it's hard to say whether it would have any actual effect, while it would hurt transit ridership. It would also be nearly impossible to enforce, as some riders would drive to the next town's station, and some towns subject to the law don't have a station/route in their town at all.

If a stronger stick ends up being needed, I would suggest some combination of:
  • The state will no longer pay for any road maintenance or construction in the towns
  • Prop 2 1/2 no longer applies to that town
  • The town loses all local zoning control over multi-unit developments. If it's within building code, it's automatically approved.
  • The state will create a zoning plan for the town. Unlike those the towns create themselves, it will actually be feasible to construct all of the zoned units.
  • Any town-owned station parking lots (and other undeveloped land near transit) can be seized by the state for housing to be built.
 
I've said it before in this thread, but I'll say it again. This type of thinking:

> Oh, so you want to be a car-dependent exurb? Then we're going to take away your rail service! Take that!

is just bad game theory.
 
With 2025 right around the corner, the picture of communities that will not come into compliance by the December 31, 2024 deadline is becoming more clear. A total of 130 communities are running up against that deadline. About 100 have passed zoning they say will make them compliant, while approx. 30 communities will miss the deadline. Here's several of those communities:

Inside 128 Suburbs
Winthrop
Saugus

Very Wealthy, Historically Housing-Averse Suburbs
Weston - Weston is a tough town for housing, failed at December Special Town Meeting overwhelmingly
Wenham
Marblehead - Failed at Town Meeting, not brought back
Needham - Needham, to its credit, passed amendments to incorporate MBTA zoning. Opponents, arguing that the amendment would allow more housing than required by state, gathered enough signatures to force a referendum however.

Upper Middle Class Very Suburban Towns
Wilmington - Wilmington is firm in its opposition, not only did MBTA zoning fail at Town Meeting, but failed again at a Special Town Meeting held this month
Tewksbury - Failed at TM
North Reading - Failed overwhelmingly at Special Town Meeting
Middleton -Failed at two town meetings
Wrentham
Norton
East Bridgewater

Suburban-Rural
Ipswich
Hamilton
Duxbury
Hanson
Georgetown
Rowley

Working Class Burbs/Cities
Gloucester - Gloucester passed zoning, but opponents gathered enough signatures to require a referendum
Middleboro - Middleboro officials are pretty universally against law and recommended town vote zoning down, unsurprisingly voters followed suit
Saugus
Rowley
Halifax
kdmc said:
I've said it before in this thread, but I'll say it again. This type of thinking:

> Oh, so you want to be a car-dependent exurb? Then we're going to take away your rail service! Take that!

is just bad game theory.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Why not something simple and straightforward? Residents of towns and cities that are building a lot of housing, since that housing is helping the economy, pay a reduced income tax rate - say 4% versus 5% for everybody else. That would certainly capture the attention of all those officials complaining in anti-housing communities.
 
Last edited:
www.metrowestdailynews.com

Mayor asks state to deem Framingham compliant with MBTA Communities Act. Here's why

Framingham Mayor Charlie Sisitsky is asking the state to deem the city compliant with the MBTA Communities Act.
www.metrowestdailynews.com
Pointing to a zoning bylaw passed by Town Meeting in 2015, Mayor Charlie Sisitsky has asked the state to find that Framingham — now a city — is in compliance with the MBTA Communities Act.
[...]
Last week, the City Council voted to table discussion and voting on any plan addressing the MBTA Communities Act until February, which means the city will miss the state-imposed Dec. 31 compliance deadline.
Click to expand...
 
www.bostonglobe.com

Waltham, long a job growth center, may finally build the housing to match - The Boston Globe

The City Council is poised to approve a plan that would allow 4,000 units of housing to be constructed near two commuter rail stations.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
The Waltham City Council is poised to approve an MBTA Communities zoning plan that would enable thousands of new units of multifamily housing near two commuter rail stations on either side of the city. It’s just zoning allowing for potential construction, not actual projects, but if they’re in fact built, they’d represent the biggest expansion of housing this city of 65,000 has seen in decades.
Click to expand...
 
kdmc said:
I've said it before in this thread, but I'll say it again. This type of thinking:

> Oh, so you want to be a car-dependent exurb? Then we're going to take away your rail service! Take that!

is just bad game theory.
Click to expand...
Not that this could happen, but the right version of this would be okay, we'll disconnect your streets from the rest of the road network.
 
Is this a discussion of what is real or just vengeful fantasy? The problem is that the only penalty under law is a "twig" because the law is poorly written. The legislature needs to find the courage to amend this law.
 
Scott said:
Is this a discussion of what is real or just vengeful fantasy? The problem is that the only penalty under law is a "twig" because the law is poorly written. The legislature needs to find the courage to amend this law.
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Scott said:
The problem is that the only penalty under law is a "twig" because the law is poorly written. The legislature needs to find the courage to amend this law.
Click to expand...
Is it poorly written? Or is the law’s relative lack of teeth (the ‘twig’) part of a compromise that got any statewide zoning reform passed at all? Even municipalities that met the Dec 31 deadline aren’t necessarily going to start bringing a meaningful number of units online.

For example, the muni over is only in ‘compliance’ because one parcel in the wetlands on the outskirts of town was upzoned for 10 stories. And folks are still pissed the part of downtown next to the station now allows two stories as of right.


"There are two things that are top priorities for me - building more housing in the state and improving our transportation infrastructure," said Healey.

If taken at face value, ball is firmly in Spilka and Mariano’s court. Zoning authority in Massachusetts is vested in the commonwealth, who happens to (mostly) delegate it to municipalities. If the state government is serious about housing affordability, only political courage is needed to revoke local zoning authority and/or all Chapter 90 funding tomorrow from intransigent towns and be guaranteed to bring units online. Much better than the ‘stick’ being a reduction of transit.

Telling every person considering a 30 year mortgage in a TOD that the transit they would rely on may disappear in 12 months (see Middleboro/Lakeville) is a good idea how?
 
Last edited:
The law was written in a manner that allowed municipalities to get away with paper compliance, by legalizing existing housing, rather than demanding true compliance. Political reality wouldn’t allow otherwise.
 
RandomWalk said:
The law was written in a manner that allowed municipalities to get away with paper compliance, by legalizing existing housing, rather than demanding true compliance. Political reality wouldn’t allow otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hate to say it, but Scituate fits into this somewhat. Many of the zoned areas in North Scituate don't have access to sewer, so that pretty much eliminates the possibility of multi-family housing until North Scituate gets sewer. Plus, there is a serious water access issue, although Scituate is building a new multi-million dollar water treatment plant after researching joining the MWRA district. (That might still be a possibility, but it's a LONG way off.) So, Scituate has compliance on paper, but I doubt we will see much new development until Sewer is upgraded in Greenbush and available in North Scituate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top