alexandercecil t1_jd6f99u wrote
I have a role in my town government, and I follow state and Boston developments. I understand the deep need for housing - there is a real crisis. That said, my town is a rural farming community. I literally live next to a vegetable and fruit farm, I raise my own chickens, and we have close to zero restrictions on keeping livestock on your property so long as you are doing normal agricultural things with them. There is no way we can support that level of dense development. It is not within our infrastructural capabilities.
This is a law that was drafted yet again with an eye on Boston, its suburbs, and Metro West. Then it gets applied to much smaller towns that happen to be adjacent to a different town with a far-flung commuter rail station. This is not about being a NIMBY for us. We do not even have the water and sewer capabilities to host such dense development. Most of us are on septic and have wells. The limited sewer and water runs we do have are not even controlled by the town, and they are at capacity.
Smart development? Yes, please! Thoughtful ways to increase the amount of housing that is affordable? I will champion that cause in my local government. Urban density development in the land of cows, vegetable fields, and sugar bushes? Our water, sewer, and schools cannot soak that kind of increase.
I am used to being ignored by Boston. I have lived in western or central Massachusetts for my entire life. I can tolerate having our needs ignored by a city that has not done enough to support itself. It is unfortunate, and frankly inappropriate, that we must now share the exact same burden for fixing Boston's housing crisis that its immediate urban neighbors do.
tjrileywisc t1_jd77qxh wrote
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!".
DrNostrand t1_jd6l28n wrote
Ive been a metro west/central ma resident my whole life as well. And some of these new zoning laws dont make sense in small rural communities. I wish Boston/State would figure out a way deal with the MBTA problems with funding from the communities that use it most.
hatred_outlives t1_jd70jcr wrote
Literally just a “not in MY backyard” argument
Developers aren’t going to start massive housing projects where there isn’t sewage or water available. If your town is at sewage capacity than the simple solution for everyone would be to increase sewage capacity instead of limiting housing development.
bcb1200 t1_jd7brpd wrote
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.
tjrileywisc t1_jd7eqvc wrote
Apartment buildings bring in property taxes, believe it or not
I was surprised to read this!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd754kl wrote
I love the vagueness of this post too. Anyone with a backyard could pretty easily have a chicken coop.
Proof that this is a rural town simply incapable of supporting a couple apartment complexes is that they have a few chickens and they live next to a farm. Sure, this could be the far flung frontiers settled sparsely by rugged, independent frontier-farmers, or just some suburb that allows backyard chicken coops. There are towns within the 495 belt that allow chickens for Christ's sake, this is a meaningless claim about rural living.
If this area is as rural and farm focused as claimed I very much doubt there's any real market interest in intense housing development. Somehow I doubt this is quite the pastoral community as being described.
The septic excuse is a time honored nimby cop-out. Refuse to build sewer systems then cite the inherent limitations of septic systems to impede further development.
tjrileywisc t1_jd77tbw wrote
I've heard of people in Somerville raising chickens at home!
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd7ia0t wrote
so you want to pay for building 100 new WWTPs and school additions in all these communities to "fix" the problem? It's not nimbyism that is fighting against this...its reality. A wastewater treatment plant costs millions. For a few hundred units this adds tens of thousands to the cost of each unit. Whereas Deer Island has plenty of capacity to add these same units at no additional cost. Same with the school problem. Most of the fix is in the urban core where the infrastructure already exists to handle it. An alternative is to pick one town to become a city and grow it...not little mini villas all over the state.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd7l9ac wrote
I'm not one of these people who thinks NIMBYs are solely motivated by racist motives like "neighborhood character", they often have very strong, material interest reasons to oppose further development. Investing in infrastructure improvements is expensive and inconvenient, no doubt about it.
That's the thing though, everyone recognizes the need for additional housing and other associated infrastructure, but nobody wants to deal with it.
There's a growing recognition that the need is simply too great to allow this game of every town saying "not us though" anymore and to just ram this shit down everyone's throat at the state level. That's a good thing, tough shit about how much of a pain it's going to be for you (and honestly everyone).
The population is growing, infrastructure improvements are desperately needed and it's good for the state to make towns do this whether they want it or not. You're always free to move away if rural living is that important to you, but creating de-facto zero-growth, gated communities is not in the public interest.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd84k99 wrote
For what it's worth, I have never advocated creating zero growth communities. This state brags about how smart it is but on this issue, how smart is it to build out farm land in Holden when you have much better options near actual MBTA stations? The roads are overloaded. Putting more apartments farther from the jobs is a bad strategy. Building hundreds of new wastewater treatment plants out side the MWRA system is also a costly mistake in my opinion. I recognize something is needed to be done, I work on housing projects all over eastern mass.
Two elements fix the supply bottleneck. 1) Zoning reform. Approve any building permit request that matches the zoning of any lot within 100' of the subject parcel. This would cut permitting times into a fraction of the time now. 1 year becomes 30 days. This would include dimensional and use reform (multi vs single fam). 2) Any site within 1/2 mile of an MBTA rapid transit or commuter rail station could build with the same density of any other building near an MBTA station (this would ramp up the TOD successes that have helped increase supply.
Anything else should be incentivized through the tax code to increase supply and not beat down people's throats. Carrot is better than the stick.
three-ple t1_jd9heiv wrote
> 2) Any site within 1/2 mile of an MBTA rapid transit or commuter railstation could build with the same density of any other building near anMBTA station
Do I understand then, you agree with the direct MBTA-adjacent-community portion of this law, just not the neighboring community portion? Your statement is very similar to the meat of this law, with the only caveat of "same density of any other building", which could vary greatly from station to station.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jdaigzp wrote
That is not what is in the news. The town of Holden is being threatened by the AG and it is miles from an MBTA station. I definitely agree (and have posted a few times in this thread) that we should build very densely near existing MBTA stations. The original TOD law did a good job at this and should be continued. I don't allowing a Prudential Tower at each station should be the result but something large enough and dense to both help plus allow direct access to the MBTA system.
three-ple t1_jdalkp4 wrote
Sure. But just to be clear then, you disagree with what the AG is doing because of the adjacent communities part of the law, but agree with all other parts of the law?
Holden isn't included because of some mistake. They qualify under what was put in the law itself.
AG is being heavy handed because there is a large risk a bunch of communities try to defect and ignore the law.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jddr4xh wrote
I disagree with law affecting other towns and not simply land within a short walk of a T Station. The AG may simply be doing her job. I have a problem with the law itself extending too far beyond the practical side of how best to create denser housing that has great options of mass transit. Forcing holden to build hundreds or thousands of units puts those people on the highways and not the MBTA.
three-ple t1_jddyiw6 wrote
:shrug: I mean I disagree with aspects of plenty of laws. Many still have a positive impact.
But your characterization is wrong. Holden doesn't have to "build hundreds of thousands of units". It has to *zone* 50 acres to allow up to 750 units to be built [1]. That is it.
The city doesn't have to build a damn thing. Private enterprise will do that.
Holden surface area is 23,000 acres. 0.2% of it will need to be designated as higher density. There is so much hand wringing going on over ultimately a minor change to zoning in the area.
Every other discussion point here is completely speculative. If Holden is such a terrible place to build, nobody will build the density. If Holden has problems with water/sewer, that will have to be figured out, but there won't be some magical fairy that comes in and forces them at gunpoint to build a new wastewater treatment plant overnight. If some other thing happens to Holden as part of this, I suspect they will have the intelligence and wherewithal to deal with it.
Let's. Move. Forward. Create the zoning. Work through the next steps.
​
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jdek8vh wrote
I said hundreds OR thousands. A small hyperbole as I wasn't aware of the 750...
How do you pay for the wastewater treatment for this project? You have two options: a large septic system (note that this uses a lot of land area) or a plant. Millions to build a plant. Divided over the 750 units will probably make the units cost prohibitive. Your ideas on "figure it out" ignore reality.
Most zoning should be local driven not state. It is better that way. We can certainly agree to disagree and I don't expect any change in peoples views on this but most people prefer local to state or national control for a reason.
alexandercecil t1_jd8t0sr wrote
Instead of being aggressive, why don't we just talk so I can answer your questions? My comment was already long. How many details do you want me to write for a discussion on Reddit when I do not even know if anyone will read my comment?
I have what others call a large flock of chickens for a typical family that, "has chickens," even in my community. I am a registered chicken farm with MDAR and can legally transport and sell my birds across the state. If we want to get technical, I let that certification lapse while I was fighting cancer this past year, but we will be renewing our registration this year. We are not a four-hen operation that makes some of the eggs my family eats. We are not a commercial enterprise in any meaningful sense, but what we do is real agriculture. I am not all that unique for my community.
The farm I live next to is maybe a hundred acres with more locations across the town. They sell food not only locally, but also in several more metropolitan municipalities. There are other farms similar to this in town for both animal products and produce.
Sewer is only economical on a certain scale and density. That is why the more densely developed parts of my town that are adjacent to more urban neighboring municipalities can support sewer lines. We do not have enough sewer use to afford our own treatment plant. Our sewer commission leases capacity from our neighbors. My understanding is that they are unable or unwilling to lease us more.
I am not against increasing housing in the state. My town needs to be a part of that solution. I am against this specific law that seems to view the housing challenge in every town as a nail because they happen to have already built a legislative hammer.
We could also get into unfunded mandates and how Boston rakes in taxes from businesses while leaving us to build revenue-negative housing to support their municipal economy. Development can be thoughtful. I get into some of my ideas in another reply to my original comment. If you want to discuss, I am open to listening and responding.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd8tev5 wrote
What town are you referring to and what kind of rezoning in your town is getting proposed that is simply too burdensome? Please be specific, the details matter a lot.
alexandercecil t1_jd93l1w wrote
I apologize, but I really do not want to get into the exact town I live in. I do not mean to be rude or stifle discussion, but I am a volunteer elected official in my town. Many people in this post seem to have a lot of vitriol on this topic. I am not comfortable doxxing myself at that level. I have shared more than I normally might in this circumstance because I feel that the discussion is important for all of us to be having.
I can get into the rezoning in a general sense, though. A major part of this legislation that gets glossed over is that the town cannot simply create a zone that is not feasible to be developed as intended. What does this mean? This is a good question, and my limited understanding is the lawyers from several municipalities are trying to figure that out.
In terms of water and sewer alone, my town cannot support this level of development. We literally cannot just choose to spend money and increase our capacity. The public water and sewer services in my town are separate entities from the town government. This is more common than people might realize in Massachusetts, though it is not the way the majority of municipalities are structured. Even if our sewer commission was willing to increase services, which they might be willing to do, they lease capacity from one or more adjacent municipalities since we do not have the density and demand to support a treatment plant. These municipalities are not looking to lease us more of their limited supply. Could this legislation force us to build a sewer processing plant for several million dollars that can only be used by a comparatively small number of people? It may. Again, the full repercussions are not yet known because the legislation is not as clear as it might seem.
In addition, the increased housing as specified by this legislation could cause a double-digit percentage increase to our town's population. Our school, fire, and police services are at capacity. Our budget is tight enough that our debt needs are planned out and maxed for many years in future. We cannot add capacity without new infrastructure.
Again, I am sorry that I cannot just come out and get into the exact name and previous details of my town. My desire to have my town email account flooded or my wife and kids harassed is pretty huge. I am not a politician and public figure in the way we think of them. I am a guy who was elected into his town government because he is one of the few willing to do the volunteer work to keep his town running. I have boundaries. I would share more if I could.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd96u7y wrote
>I apologize, but I really do not want to get into the exact town I live in. I do not mean to be rude or stifle discussion, but I am a volunteer elected official in my town. Many people in this post seem to have a lot of vitriol on this topic. I am not comfortable doxxing myself at that level. I have shared more than I normally might in this circumstance because I feel that the discussion is important for all of us to be having.
Fair enough. Please understand I mean this in a sincerely polite way, but NIMBYs have been caught exaggerating, if not straight up lying about, such concerns so many, many times in past campaigns to stifle much needed development and it's really hard for me to extend much generosity when it comes to such claims. Maybe it's true in your town's case that further development would propose near insurmountable challenges that should merit special exemption, but you'll forgive me if I have my doubts.
>In terms of water and sewer alone, my town cannot support this level of development. We literally cannot just choose to spend money and increase our capacity. The public water and sewer services in my town are separate entities from the town government. This is more common than people might realize in Massachusetts, though it is not the way the majority of municipalities are structured. Even if our sewer commission was willing to increase services, which they might be willing to do, they lease capacity from one or more adjacent municipalities since we do not have the density and demand to support a treatment plant. These municipalities are not looking to lease us more of their limited supply. Could this legislation force us to build a sewer processing plant for several million dollars that can only be used by a comparatively small number of people? It may. Again, the full repercussions are not yet known because the legislation is not as clear as it might seem.
Seems like a legit concern. The state legislation should be persuaded to make sure to hit these utility providers with their big anti-Nimby stick too to make sure they do their part to accommodate expansion. I'm sure the Big Bad state has enough energy to slap around any utility providers that cause problems. This seems like a far more fruitful avenue than trying to lobby to prevent all development, because the insane housing shortage is going to make such positions increasingly untenable. I imagine it's easier to influence such policies if a town has earned a reputation of dealing with this dire matter in good faith rather than those that reflexively oppose any development. Now is a great time to get on the winning team and secure some influence to steer policy.
>In addition, the increased housing as specified by this legislation could cause a double-digit percentage increase to our town's population. Our school, fire, and police services are at capacity. Our budget is tight enough that our debt needs are planned out and maxed for many years in future. We cannot add capacity without new infrastructure.
sounds like your town needs to reassess their budget, perhaps including taxes. A growing town means growing expenses, but also growing amenities that justify a tax hike. People who want to live in dirt cheap, rural areas always have the option to move to more remote, out of demand areas. Populations grow, the remote community of yesteryear become outer neighborhoods of a growing nearby metro. Such is life, nothing is forever.
alexandercecil t1_jd9e1tq wrote
I get your skepticism.
Look, I hate development. It bothers me to my core. But you know what? I don't get a choice in the matter! People need places to live. Property owners can do things like build more houses by right. My town has doubled in population in the past 20 or so years. It does not matter if I want the way things were - they are going to change.
My job in town government is to help facilitate that change being a positive one for my community. So in the end I am not anti-development. What I want is development that will improve my town in the process, or at least make it no worse.
A town's character is important. There is a problem that talking about character is often a dog whistle for all sorts of crap. That is not what I mean - I want my town to develop in a way that we can attract a more economically and racially diverse population than we currently have. A town's character is closely tied to things like its collective identity. Towns that lose their collective sense of who they are also lose things like democratic involvement. Also, many people feel it is nice to live somewhere a little unique and special.
I get into more details in other comments I made in this section, but there are strategies municipalities can employ to foster development that is more dense, preserves rural atmosphere, and actually increases the feeling of belonging within the community. It can even be done in ways that are more appealing to developers, rather than less. What the state requires in this legislation does none of that aside from attracting developers.
Changes to things like our water and sewer providers are not easy, politically difficult at best, and possibly an even greater legal challenge. I am not sure it matters, because there are other ways of fostering development than doing what more populous suburbs do.
My town is growing, but the key is that the rate of growth that could be created by this legislation is too much too quickly for my town to absorb. We plan on fairly rapid growth. We cannot effectively plan to add 10% or more to our town population overnight. It is not as simple as needing to raise taxes, because MA places severe limits on how much local taxes can increase. The key here is going to be thoughtful residential development policies balanced with improving commercial and industrial growth.
The way I am frustrated by all of this is that surrounding small towns are being required to take the hit for Boston and nearby cities not developing enough housing to accommodate their business growth. They get the tax boon and leave us with increased demands and costs. They want us to develop the arable land we use to grow the food they eat. To me that is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to do our part to meet housing needs, but it feels more than a bit unfair that we are also being asked to pick up the slack for those that have profited from business growth without matching residential growth. If that feeling makes me a NIMBY, then I am no worse than the ones who put us all in this predicament. I know this paragraph is a bit of a diatribe, but unfunded mandates bring that out in many municipal officials.
But yeah, growth is unavoidable. We need to make sure it happens in ways that support communities rather than break them. From what I have seen, this legislation does the latter in many places.
three-ple t1_jd9ibb0 wrote
>I imagine it's easier to influence such policies if a town has earned a reputation of dealing with this dire matter in good faith rather than those that reflexively oppose any development. Now is a great time to get on the winning team and secure some influence to steer policy.
This is a damn good point.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7olds wrote
Clearly a statement of someone that doesn't have a clue how the real world works. Developers will and do build in communities where water and sewer isn't available. The state forces the towns to allow them in. Then the town is forced to come up with money and resources to support this new building. Sewage and water are least of the concerns. It's the schooling and added municipal employees aka fire, police dpw that are the hardest and most expensive added costs that all of the city dwellers don't understand and could care less about.
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jd7u500 wrote
you know taxes are a thing. New residents bring in new income
alexandercecil t1_jd8wwhp wrote
You might be interested to know that is generally not the case. I mean they do bring in more revenue, but working-age residents generally cost a municipality more than those residents bring in with taxes. Increasing residential population without growth in commercial and/or industrial sectors ruins a town's budget and ability to meet the needs of its residents.
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jd90azu wrote
That assertion is unsupported by research: https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/03/15/massachusetts-housing-costs-local-resistance
The total tax revenue generated by new housing more than offsets the marginal cost of providing services in almost every case
alexandercecil t1_jd94oph wrote
This is interesting. Thank you for sharing! I skimmed the WBUR article but have not had the time to drive into the study it cites. I plan to do that. If the study matched the conditions in my town, and if our own budget can verify this is true with some drilling, then it changes some aspects of the equation for development in general.
Thanks again!
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jd999va wrote
it still might not help in the near term because the article / report does say that while overall revenue almost always positive, towns might still experience negative net revenue without state transfers because of how revenue is divided between states and towns
Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_jdesuyt wrote
I’ll add Somerville did a study when prepping for assembly square that’s briefly referenced in the neighborhood plan for assembly and it found that increased density offsets the cost of new housing, if you’re on a town planning thing maybe you could reach out to the city government for the full methodology and results of that study
http://www.somervillebydesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ASN_Plan-Update_Final.pdf
three-ple t1_jd9isvm wrote
I've seen no mention of this, so I'll bring it up. Many communities will qualify for various sources of funding to increase/improve the size of their wastewater treatment facilities. The narrative that "this cost is bore by the community alone" is not entirely accurate.
heavyiron382 t1_jd9jfw7 wrote
That's helpful for communities that have treatment plants but most rural communities don't have treatment plants and would have to add one. I'm not sure even with state aid most of those towns could justify building a treatment plant.
LetterheadNervous555 t1_jd7eoik wrote
Bet on this dude or his wife working in Waltham and his “rural” community is 45 mins away.
alexandercecil t1_jd8y2q7 wrote
Why not ask instead of being accusatory? My wife works for a company in Boston, though she is not expected to be in the office every day. Her commute is so far that when her company effectively put in a "maximum commute distance" she had to get grandfathered in. Her co-workers do not understand how she commutes the distance she does, and they marvel at how different our lives are compared to theirs in Boston, the cities surrounding, or Metro West.
Do some others from our community make the same commute? Yes. Is it what most people - the gross majority - consider reasonable? No. We know the lifestyle we value for our family and the career my wife loves, and we chose to make specific sacrifices to have that.
TiredPistachio t1_jd7mtvm wrote
Small towns got a huge break in a re-do of these rules last year. Carlisle for instance, only need to zone for 95 total units (was originally 750!). And again, thats just zoning, nothing needs to be done. If the builders cant deal with water and sewage they wont build. I'm not seeing anything in the rules that says the towns need to provide those services. My guess is a town like carisle will end up building a single apartment building sometime in the next 20 years, but no sooner than 10.
alexandercecil t1_jd8zvgo wrote
One of the tricky parts of this legislation is that the areas zoned for dense residential development must actually be developable as such. That makes sense from a legislative view, because otherwise every town would pick 50 acres of wetland and call it a day. Does this mean the town must have infrastructure that can support the development? My understanding is that this is not clear cut, and towns may well need to improve infrastructure to support the potential development. I think there are lawyers from several municipalities looking at this to gain a more clear understanding. My town does not control its own water and sewer districts, so this is not as simple as people might think. We are not unique in this.
In my town, we could be looking at a double-digit percentage increase in our population. Beyond the water and sewer we do not control, our school, fire and police departments are at capacity. Right budgets mean that our long term debt management is planned out carefully for many years based on upcoming needs, and there is not room for additional projects like new school buildings.
I really wish it was as simple as it at first appears. If it was, I would personally have no problem with the legislation.
TiredPistachio t1_jd9gugh wrote
Well with the sewage a LOT of these towns straight up have just septic systems. You can build an apartment with septic, but it requires a huge amount of space which will eat into 1) the profit for developers, 2) the # of units built, 3) useful space, although I wonder if they could build green space over the septic. Not sure if you wanna be walking around over leech fields that big though.
alexandercecil t1_jd9ksh3 wrote
Yeah, I do not know if the large scale septic systems can support the required 15 units/acre. If they can that is one problem solved at the potential cost of creating others.
I have no problems with developers struggling to make a buck on their developments. I do not begrudge them anything, but it falls squarely in the realm of "not my problem" unless the state says otherwise. I do worry that the state might actually say it is our problem, but this is all something for lawyers to figure out. Law is complex, and they are the ones who can find the most likely answers.
TiredPistachio t1_jd9tcgl wrote
They can but the leech fields are massive. They just built some huge apartments along rte 20 that I'm pretty sure have no sewer access. Must be septic.
The developer comment was just about how they'll be less likely to build it
giritrobbins t1_jd8kbvj wrote
I guess I have a fundamental question. How is the town sustainable long term? If you aren't developing or improving property, does that mean property taxes go up 2-3 percent every year? At what point do folks say that's unacceptable? What about when that infrastructure built in the sixties needs to be updated, bridges, schools or major buildings? Who is going to pay for that? Or how?
alexandercecil t1_jd8ruc4 wrote
I am glad you asked! This is a good question and worth diving into.
We absolutely need development. I would love for things to stay how they are, but that is not in the cards. Residential development is generally a drain on a town's finances, not a benefit. In general, residents use more resources than they contribute as taxes. This is less true for retired residents and more true for families.
Like most any town, we need to attract business. Not only do our residents need places to eat, shop, and work, but businesses are generally a net positive for a town's bottom line. In the long run, my town needs to evaluate its commercial and industrial zoning, see if it should be increased in some places (I think it should), and see if we need to improve infrastructure in some places to foster better growth (again, I think we should).
I am also not opposed to increased residential development. I am not even against density that is higher than typical in my town in specific circumstances. But again, this development should be thoughtful. We are a rural town where agriculture is a significant industry - we have several farms that sell their produce and animal products in the more metropolitan parts of the state in addition to feeding our own residents. We are also fortunate to still have forests and wild land that should be protected. Creating more one-acre rural-suburban parcels is not really going to help us, though owners can generally choose to do that by right.
One example of residential development I am in favor of involves building smaller micro communities that are fairly dense and also require the developer to put aside adjacent land to be preserved as conservation land or leased for agricultural use. There are names for this type of development, but they escape me. This style still allows land owners to create as much development as they could before, but with less environmental impact. It is cheaper for the builders to build less blacktop, rain gardens, etc., so they are incentivized to build this way as well. The micro communities that have been built like this in other places also show greater camaraderie between neighbors that we typically see in standard suburban sprawl, which is another benefit. But allowing agricultural leasing of the land, we can also support our tax base and lose less arable land - a resource we will never get back once spent. We do not need to build additional sewer or water lines to support this development, which my town government cannot simply choose to do. Finally, building this way can help the town keep its character. We could debate whether character is important or not, but my constituents have an opinion that it is.
What the state requires, at I believe 15 units per acre, does not exist in my town if memory serves. We have one development that approaches that, but it is in one of the few locations that could reasonably support such development. We do not control our own water and sewer systems - they are independent municipal entities with their own elected officials. Both are at capacity. Our available locations for new large scale wells in town are limited, and the town we effectively lease sewer processing capacity from is selling us all that they are willing to sell us.
The housing crisis in this state is real, but the biggest origin for these problems lies squarely in Boston's lap. They are raking in the business taxes while sticking us with the residential bills. I am not a fan of unfunded mandates from the state, and that goes doubly true when the mandates do not account for the wide varieties of communities that they are laid upon. One-size-fits-all is simply not true.
I could get into the importance of food security and hope the pandemic gave us great examples of why we need local agriculture, but I have probably written enough. Thank you for your time!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments