p53lifraumeni t1_jd619q0 wrote
Why don’t they just build enormous housing projects within Boston proper? That’s where all the jobs are, anyway
3720-To-One t1_jd75u0u wrote
Why is it Boston proper’s job to house everybody?
Why do surubanites feel so entitled to live right next to a major city, but to not have to live near other people?
Your suburb doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7pnob wrote
Pretty sure this is as NIMBY of a statement as you can get.
3720-To-One t1_jd7shiz wrote
No it isn’t. I welcome Boston proper to build lots more housing. I greatly encourage it.
But Boston proper is not solely responsible for supplying housing for the state.
Suburbs don’t exist in a vacuum. They are part of the greater community, and would be nothing without their proximity to Boston. They can chip in too. And entitled NIMBYs can get bent and cry a River.
If you don’t want to ever have to live near other people, move out to the sticks, not inside of 495.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7t4nf wrote
I don't live inside 495 and my town as well as most towns that are within 10 minutes of a non operational commuter rail are required to support the city with affordable housing. And once this housing is built and everyone from the city moves here for a year and realizes that the convinces aren't there they moce back to the city and laugh about how the NIMBY towns don't want people from the city living here.
3720-To-One t1_jd7ztv1 wrote
That’s a nice fantasy that you made up in your head.
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention, but there is a shortage of housing throughout much of the state.
But I get it, you got yours, screw everybody else, right?
heavyiron382 t1_jd816o4 wrote
It's not a fantasy it's reality. Everyone moved out of the city during covid. Realized that rural life isn't for them and more are moving back to the city causing another "housing crisis". The housing crisis can be solved by building houses in rural areas not complexes. Costs to own a house is no more than renting. I currently own a house and struggle. If I were to sell it I would still struggle with a rental. Stop looking for the government to solve your financial issues and solve it yourself. Multiple jobs are sometimes necessary. Do we like to work more, no but unless you want to adjust your way of life then that's what's going to be needed.
3720-To-One t1_jd84r3w wrote
“Stop looking for government to solve your issues.”
Funny, the only ones looking for government to solve their issues are the NIMBY’s trying to use municipal governments to block housing from being built in their suburbs.
I’m in favor of less government involvement in housing. Which means letting the market having a much bigger say in what gets built where, much to the chagrin of whining, entitled NIMBYs like yourself.
And that’s literally what this push from the state is doing. It’s the state government telling local municipalities to get fucked, and to allow higher density housing yo be built.
And no, I’m not going to work a second job because people like you feel entitled to use the government to shield you from having to live close to other people.
You own your property, not your neighbor’s, not the neighborhood.
PLS-Surveyor-US t1_jd7aj7m wrote
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".
pillbinge t1_jd6a4tc wrote
Because they're juggling a few things that don't work together. Dense housing is a neat idea for a static environment, but New York is dense. New York is still expensive. Building densely doesn't compare to building intelligently, and right now, companies want to be in Boston. Instead of making companies go to other locations, they're making towns build up like they're Boston, only at break-neck speeds.
bv8ma t1_jd78bbv wrote
Making some areas require zoning that allows 15 units per acre is not even close to building up like Boston. A big change from some suburban areas that have 1 acre zoning? Yes. Boston like density? Definitely not.
tjrileywisc t1_jd78cgi wrote
The densities required (15 units/acre) hardly fall under enormous and there are a lot of people working from home now.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments