9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_jd96u7y wrote
Reply to comment by alexandercecil in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs
>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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments