heavyiron382 t1_jd7mkl1 wrote
Reply to comment by Desperate-River-7989 in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs
MA already requires a percentage of affordable housing. Most of the "NIMBY" towns have hit that goal one way or another. A lot of these same towns also have minimal land available to allow this new mandate to happen. My question to everyone is, how are the schools going to handle the added population, who is going to pay for additional schools to be built, renovated and staffed? Everyone here is calling these town as NIMBYS, do any of you live in the towns currently? I'm willing to bet if you did you would be another "NIMBY". People that decide to move out of the city to a more rural town are doing it for the way the town is, not for it to be a part of the city.
SuperSpartacus t1_jd7q9sy wrote
Imagine living in one of the wealthiest areas of the entire world and pretending like you can’t afford a few poor people in your neighborhood 😂😂😂
Also, referring to MetroWest as “rural” (?) but simultaneously claiming they don’t have land to build housing…? Okay NIMBY
heavyiron382 t1_jd7rud3 wrote
Living in a northern worcester County town that is closer to NH than any major MA city, no Leominster, Fitchburg and Gardner are not major cities. We are far from the wealthiest area. We can't support building up and support your cities growth.
jbray90 t1_jd8sndm wrote
Two pieces here: First: Gardner isn’t even included in the MBTA zoning law. Fitchburg and Leominster are because they have actual train stations.
Second: Multifamily units provide more taxes to any municipality per sq/ft than the equivalent single family unit so the idea that any town or city “can’t afford” to build up is literally wrong. They cannot afford to NOT build up. Every single town and city in Massachusetts was built on a dense, multi-level core (usually mixed use) with more rural housing built around that center. The idea that we need to double down on the last century of loose sprawl that equates to a financial Ponzi scheme, requiring ever increasing subsidies to match it when the infrastructure supporting it breaks down, is foolish at best and criminally negligent at worst.
bionicN t1_jd83pwq wrote
lol, "rural."
some of the most NIMBY places are <10 miles from the city center, with T and commuter rail stations.
I'm in a NIMBY town, and I say build it. we can't afford not to.
it's wild to expect something a moderate bike ride away from Boston government center be called "rural."
heavyiron382 t1_jd84asr wrote
I am over 45 miles from Boston. I am in very much a rural town. We have a commuter rail station that is a 10 minute ride from my house. Other parts of the town 20 minutes to get there do to rural roads. I don't disagree that towns need to do something but it should be based on the towns wanting to not be forced to or else you lose funding. That is blackmail on the highest level.
bionicN t1_jd87yu3 wrote
then you're not in the most egregious places, like Wellesley, Newton, Needham, etc.
this isn't blackmail. the state has no obligation to give your town money - they've just attached some really reasonable strings to it.
your community has been helped by the existence of the commuter rail. asking for more moderate density (15 units per acre can be met with townhomes and 3 level multifamilies) in a tiny 50 acre parcel within a half mile of a commuter rail stop isn't going to do anything other than give some much needed places to live.
if you're 10 min (I assume drive) away, this won't even effect your neighborhood.
jbray90 t1_jd7tax2 wrote
The elementary and secondary student population has declined by 20,000 students since its peak in 2000. more than that, the table shared also shows us that the same population has lost over 30,000 enrollees since the pandemic, a number which has not since recovered. Perhaps you were unaware of this information and/ or perhaps you are further unaware about continued declines nationwide in childbirths (post Roe v Wade data pending although Massachusetts will be different than states that have banned abortions). Regardless, your post comes across as either uninformed fear-mongering to protect the status quo (which is the base reason for NIMBY protectionism) or you’re aware of this data and are actively ignoring it to make your appeal seem reasonable.
I’m going to guess you’re just unaware and are not acting maliciously, mostly because you also made an argument about land availability which is not related to this legislation given that the law forces MBTA adjacent communities to change current zoning from 1A exclusivity and does not force them to build anything. It allows currently developed land to be redeveloped by right instead of being forced through a zoning appeal process which generally favors protectionism on the grounds of nebulous concepts such as “preserved character” which ignores that most places don’t require 6 story apartment blocks but instead something more akin to townhouses which are part of the missing middle that is illegal to build in most of the state due to current local zoning practices.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7u1q9 wrote
Massachusetts is down 4.5 percent. That being said the Worcester County towns that are also being affected have seen overwhelmed elementary schools that were renovated or built in the past 10-20 years. So, yes our schools are packed and no it's not affordable to just build or renovate to add more space for the influx of additional students.
[deleted] t1_jd8b3uu wrote
>were renovated or built in the past 10-20 years
Sounds like they didn't build for an increase in students then. That wasn't a great plan.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8bb1k wrote
They did all plan on increases. The problem is that with all the new mandates increases are larger than anyone would plan for.
[deleted] t1_jd8cgje wrote
>are larger than anyone would plan for
Whenever your estimating capacity for the 1-3-5-10-20 year marks, you're supposed to go "how many X am I going to need/have in 20 years". Then you double it and then you double that number. Then you think about doubling or increasing it by 50%.
This was just sloppy design work combined with limited resources to build/restructure the schools.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8g2ts wrote
So based on your estimation. If your study estimate is 150 additional students per grade in 20 years you would then double that to 300 then double that to 600 then either double it to 1200 or 50% increase to 900. Yeah I don't think any municipality or national planning group would consider that making sense or feasible. By those standards you have created a once town into a city.
Now to staff said increases with fewer and fewer teachers. With your logic. A class room of say 20 students is now halved to 10 then halved again to 5 then halved or split 50% to 2.5 or 3.5 students to 1 teacher until the towns growth reaches your dream number.
Towns invest a lot in growth studies and ensure the school systems can last 20+ years without being strained. When new mandates come into play that are out of the usual then all those studies are thrown out the window and towns are told you didn't plan for the state to tell you that you need to grow at an unusual rate.
Face it, the only area gaining from this is Boston proper. There is a reason the rest of the state and towns are complaining and are being "NIMBYs". It's simply that the rest of the state doesn't want to be Boston and definitely doesn't want to be forced to adhere. Come live in the "sticks" for a few years and tell me, if you are still living here, do you still want these mandates put in place? Or is it just that you live in the city and want us to be as miserable as you with overcrowding?
[deleted] t1_jd8gjbx wrote
>It's simply that the rest of the state doesn't want to be Boston
What, specifically, is wrong with Boston, Springfield, or Worcester outside of "lots of people"?
heavyiron382 t1_jd8pvyf wrote
I didn't say there is anything wrong with Boston. But myself and the rest of the people not living in Boston or major cities don't live there for a reason. Personally crime, expense, congestion, lack of green space are just a few that comes right to my mind. I don't mind driving to see friends or going shopping. If I wanted to walk, bike or take public transportation then I would move to a city.
mrmackster t1_jd7wm8v wrote
For my town, it seems like 70-80% of the apartment units built around the trains have been 1-2 bedroom units. I don't think that's going to cause a massive influx in students in school.
TiredPistachio t1_jd9i5zb wrote
That's probably because towns were able to demand smaller unit sizes to avoid an influx of children. Many towns about 1/2 the budget is schools. Thats why they love 1-2 beds and 55+ communities.
With these new rules they will not be able to kill projects with larger bedroom counts.
mrmackster t1_jd9sjjn wrote
Most of ours have been 40R or whatever so I don’t think the town has much say.
Developers want more units, not bedrooms.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7x7go wrote
2 bedrooms I'm going to figure 2 adults 2 children. Let's say it's a 200 unit complex. That's 400 additional students. That may not seem like much to someone in the city but in central ma towns that is a huge amount of additional students.
mrmackster t1_jd7zxl8 wrote
I think you are greatly overestimating how many people would live in these kind of 2 bedroom apartment. A lot of these apartments are filled with 1-2 adults at most. They have been building these builds for a while in my town and we haven't seen any rush on schools. In fact our school population has been shrinking.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8277c wrote
Not sure what town you live in but my home town and the surrounding towns have seen nothing but student population growth. My current town and surrounding towns have also seen the same issue. In both cases there are more 2&3 bedroom units as opposed to 1 bedroom. I do agree the 1 bedroom would be only adults. Multi bedroom units I disagree as most are for either small families are single parents.
Also, it did take a few years to see the additional student population, because well, birds and the bees.
paddenice t1_jd8dfac wrote
You’re heavily arguing against this policy but sidestepping most of the impacts with your “northern Worcester county” region. Why are you carrying water for the other towns significantly more wealthy than you in your town? It’s baffling.
heavyiron382 t1_jd8gft3 wrote
Because my town is affected just as much as the much wealthier towns. We have to follow the same mandates as the 128 region. There are no compromises unless you want to and can afford to be "punished".
Desperate-River-7989 t1_jd7td1v wrote
We still need to plan on there being additional growth as long as the Commonwealth is growing. Most of the growth is happening in the metro Boston area, so that's where more housing needs to be built. If you don't build housing that's how you end up with large homeless populations and the unaffordability crisis we've seen in California and other places on the west coast over the last decade or two.
Saying the schools can't take it isn't a plan and it isn't sustainable. The state typically helps municipalities with the capital cost of building schools, but towns still need to allocate money for such a project, or end up with over-full schools. But if you're building more housing, that usually means that your tax base increases as well which should help fund the schools and other services that residents need.
Growth is coming whether we like it or not, all we can decide is how to react and plan.
heavyiron382 t1_jd7ukh7 wrote
I agree that growth is coming but it should be natural and not forced. And more building should supply nore taxes is a big should. Generally with complexes the tax revenue doesn't match the added municpal burden and thus it is placed on rest of the community who in central ma are already struggling with surging costs.
wittgensteins-boat t1_jd8aal3 wrote
Is zoning "natural"?
No, it is a human created institution.
There is nothing natural about one acre lots in one town, and multifamily housing on the other side of a municipal boundary.
Thus mandated zoning merely extends the human made institution.
bionicN t1_jd854wf wrote
natural growth would require lifting zoning laws.
there's nothing natural about forcing single family housing or low density. the demand for more housing is there.
more housing will reduce total costs by reducing absurd housing costs, which are a much bigger part of most people's finances than taxes.
thomastodon01027 t1_jd85b5p wrote
If you rezone for Smart Growth, the state gives funds for the new kids. That’s what we did in Easthampton. Beyond that, the child population of the state is declining, so an increase in enrollment is really the last thing most communities should worry about.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments