PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd7aj7m wrote
Reply to comment by 3720-To-One in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs
We bought in the suburbs because we don't like the noise or the crime of the city. You alter that dynamic and you will push people farther out. That said, I am in complete favor of increasing density close to the MBTA stations/routes. Including my own town.
3720-To-One t1_jd7b6aq wrote
Cool story.
Want to show me where in your dead it shows that your neighborhood is frozen in time from the moment of your purchase, and that you are entitled to your neighbor’s property?
It doesn’t? Didn’t think so.
NIMBYs can get bent.
The state is growing, there’s incredible demand for housing, and it isn’t Boston proper’s sole responsibility to house everyone.
If you don’t want to have to live near anybody, move to the Quabbin.
You also realize that at one point your suburb was all forest and corn fields. How come it was okay destroying that “neighborhood character” to make room for your cul-de-sac?
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd82kzk wrote
Nothing in my deed says its frozen in time. Zoning is presently decided on locally by local people looking out for their local community. Once you allow the state to start picking and choosing these elements for all zoning then Mass will have jumped the shark.
There is still a smaller population in Boston compared to the 1960's. The sewer and water infrastructure in place can handle any of this growth for the next few decades EASILY. Farm communities would have to build waste water treatment plants plus schools to do what can be easily done in the urban areas. Suburban communities would similarly have to increase the size of their piping systems and other infrastructure to handle large increases in population.
Plus most of the jobs are in the cities...so commuting shorter distances will put less a stress on both roads and rail infrastructure.
I never said it was BP's role to house everyone. There are other cities in the state plus I have stated here and elsewhere that I agree with increasing density near commuting options. I have these right in my backyard (defeating your main argument). I am 100% in favor of very dense housing options near MBTA stations.
I live near people now, I never said otherwise. You can't buy land near the quabbin anyways...its protected from development.
I don't live on a cul de sac...my house was built in the 80's from leftover scrub land (side of a hill) and wasnt much use for farming or anything. Removing the houses there now and replacing with triple deckers is not the answer to the housing "crisis".
FWIW, we should preserve rural farmland as much as possible so that we can feed people....building denser in the urban areas is the best answer to supply issues. Boston is going crazy building lab space...they should build more condos to go along with them.
3720-To-One t1_jd85elj wrote
Cool, and when every single suburb thinks they are special and that housing should be built somewhere else nothing gets built.
Your suburb isn’t special. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
I’m glad the state is finally telling these suburbs to shape up.
Lab spaces… you think the people who work in these offices and labs only live in Boston proper?
Funny, suburbanites have no problem outsourcing their office, labs, hospitals, museums, sports stadia, etc. to the city.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd8dmzc wrote
Gillette is in the burbs...128 has loads of office spaces as well as other cities like Worcester, Lynn, Springfield. You are missing the point that the infrastructure exists to handle the load IN THE CITIES. No need for special treatment plans or even large scale construction of new schools or roads. I am near an MBTA station for a reason. I expect that others will want that same thing and I think it makes sense. Evicting a bunch of cows because there is a T station half hour drive away (followed by a 90 minute commute) seems like a dumb place to harass a town over how many units they put in.
fight the good fight all you want. I hope this becomes a major issue in the next election and people will vote out the people that pass this style of reform. Feel free to vote how you wish.
3720-To-One t1_jd8wzcp wrote
So many cows in places like Weston, Wellesley, Newton, and Lexington…
giritrobbins t1_jd8kiu5 wrote
So you want the benefits of Boston without the externalities?
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd8th31 wrote
This doesn't even make any sense. Benefits of Boston? Car alarms, break ins, high cost of rentals, noise, traffic, lousy schools? I chose to live in a quieter and calmer town. I left whatever benefits you imagine for something else. This doesn't give everyone else the right to force their views on zoning on my town. I also don't get to force my views on Boston or other communities.
I am happy about my choices and everyone who wants to hinder that will find me an enemy in some fashion.
giritrobbins t1_jd8to4u wrote
You understand the value of Newton is it's proximity right? I bet the vast majority of people are employed in Boston, or because Boston exists there.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd8x5lw wrote
All those employers pay triple the RE tax compared to homeowners in Boston. I owe Boston nothing for my existence within its borders. Would love to have a 5 minute commute to my desktop.
What is the benefit to the state to build 100 units in 100 communities that have weak connections to get into Boston? would it not be better for the environment and for people's mental health that they have shorter commutes not longer?
creating long commutes is not a great solution to the "crisis".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments