“However, many of the state’s wealthiest communities don’t receive that funding anyhow.”

This is why her “warning” won’t matter to the NIMBYS’s in Metrowest.

As someone who regularly looks at property to buy and only in metro west I have seen plenty of 3 unit buildings or condos in 3 unit buildings on 6-8000 sq/foot lots. That is already the 15 units per acre.

I have not looked in Weston because it is to far from the city for what I am looking for.

Look at Weston and Lincoln, it is no surprise why Boston real estate and rent is so high. This is what happens when you combine a red hot jobs and NIMBY supply restrictions.

[removed]

>The real issue is a 1950s concept of endless growth economy in concentrated spots > >The call for housing is laughable and won’t do shit but sure keep screeching for your useless bandaid bc it makes you feel good

Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment, but I have never understood why the state doesn't incentivize businesses to move outside of 495.

Make Worcester/Springfield a desirable destination for businesses. The housing market would definitely cool down if the state made other cities viable.

So is this all suburbs of any community with a rail line? I saw they were going after Holden (rightly so), but I don't think Paxton has any high-density housing either.

[removed]

What I don’t get is why communities which don’t have MBTA access are subject to it. Newton has a stop, yep clearly should be subject. Same with Weston, but how the heck is “Holden” - west of Worcester - an MBTA community? It’s like getting stuck with the designation but not actually getting MBTA service. I’d say if they wanna add rail service to communities willing to comply and take it away from Weston as a cost-of-access for not complying then consider that.

Oh no, does that mean they get free state money to encourage the building of more housing?

How will they survive?

Well, that is aggressive and not helpful to any discussion to the subject at hand.

Imagine having no fucking life whatsoever so you create an account just so you can try to sow discord. Honestly a miserable existence.

[deleted]

I believe funding is also related to road repairs

Yeah I’m drawing a blank on Holden being an MBTA community. The closest commuter rail is Worcester, right?

That place neighbors Boylston, Spencer, Paxton, and Worcester. There’s 0 public transit here.

Weston is too far from the city? There’s great access to 20 (to go through Waltham) and 95, and there’s a commuter rail. Where else in metro west is that close and convenient to Boston?

So, this would be a better idea if the MBTA actually provided usable service. They don't. Service gets worse every year. And nobody has a plan, or even any inclination to fix it.

This is literally gaslighting. Gonna really suck if they build out super dense units and everyone still has to use a car to get anywhere.

Watertown, Newton, and Belmont all offer better faster access to transit. Weston you kinda need a car for. And route 20 is a pain in the butt. To many lights every light you need to get into the other lane because it’s a turn only lane.

You would really need to clean Springfield up a bit. I really don’t see that happening with that low class casino in the middle of downtown.

It'll matter if the state just takes away zoning rights entirely from intransigent communities.

Yeah rt 20 is tough. I commuted from Maynard to Watertown via 117/20 for years, but if you go at the right time it’s fine.

The towns you named though generally are not considered metro west…hell even Weston doesn’t make the cut by the states definition (looks like it stops at Wayland). I think all those fall into suburban Boston.

[deleted]

Hm really I didn’t know that I figured because it wasn’t part of Boston and west of Boston that was metro west. I am going to need to look up what constitutes metro west now.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/495metrowest-regional-profile/download

Page 5 has a neat map! Good luck in your search.

It’s a town over but it is not “close” to Union station by any stretch 😂

Not even a little!

On the other side is Grafton MBTA station

Which has literally no housing anywhere close to it

Truth be told I’ve only been in Grafton like half a dozen times but I have no clue where their MBTA stop is.

I like that holden is in quotes.

What is the requirement for a town like Holden? The article says that the zoning generally should be within a half mile of the transit stop, but no part of Holden is even within 5 miles of a transit stop.

Even Paxton is an adjacent small town community: https://www.mhp.net/assets/resources/documents/MBTA_simple_category_combo_8-4-22.jpg

Holden is a adjacent community: https://www.mhp.net/assets/resources/documents/MBTA_simple_category_combo_8-4-22.jpg

I just used them as an example - and it’s a fine line because I’m not agreeing with NIMBYs - I agree need for housing, especially near mass transit should supersede trying to keep prices high in exclusionary towns, but I also get towns who are pissed because “if we comply then can we at least get the benefit of MBTA?”

Because it's easier to set precedent battering down Western Mass first.

Pretty sure a half mile zone of Paxton could fit the entire population of Paxton

[removed]

Thanks for the resource!

I get it too. The communities that actually have commuter rail stops should have extra housing

But, who the hell living in Holden or Lancaster are going to drive 20 minutes, pay for parking, then take a 1.5hr train ride? Plus any connections to get to work? I live in that general area and never once have I thought it would be better to take the train than drive - and I love trains and think they’re great!

Encouraging housing where the stations are will be impactful. Adding a stop in some of these other communities would be great!

[removed]

How? I think it’s more racist for you to think that I was talking about race. And not the crime or the literal trash everywhere and the prostitutes or the buildings that are still destroyed from that tornado what 12 years ago.

>You would really need to clean Springfield up a bit. I really don’t see that happening with that low class casino in the middle of downtown.

Why did you pick the most diverse area in Springfield to deny the thought of the state incentivizing businesses moving there?

Oh yes I forgot that low class casino is a dog whistle.

What defines community versus small town? The two shades of yellow.

They should

Cry, NIMBYs

Why don’t they just build enormous housing projects within Boston proper? That’s where all the jobs are, anyway

You can't see Holden from Newton or Weston McMansion is what it amounts to

That's how California has started dealing with municipalities that refuse to build new housing. Builder's remedy allows developers to create housing in areas that don't meet their housing targets. The first projects are just getting started

https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/12/120313-first-full-builders-remedy-application-filed-santa-monica

Outside of 495 is only vaguely recognized as Mass and past 91 is "Approaching Yankee Territory". Be thankful we gave you the Pike...serfs!

With tolls. On the only east-west artery with a speed limit above 25 in the region. After promising not to.

Holden has to zone 50 acres at 15 units per acre. That's what this does. It's zoning

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.

Missed it by that much.

Silence outlander! We have police OT and DMV lawsuits to fund

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.

Some days I wonder if even Boston has MBTA service…

you literally can't get on a red line train unless you get on by quincy center in the morning and they want to force what now?

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.

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.

This is a good thing because it will cause even more wealthy people to flee the state…and further erode the tax base. 😀👍🏼

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.

Exactly. How is more people riding the solution here? This also reeks of the "Olympic solution," they floated a few years back. "If we hold the Olympics, the MBTA will be forced to get better."

These people are sociopaths.

Also, I assure you, every single one of them drives to work.

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.

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

I've heard of people in Somerville raising chickens at home!

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.

The densities required (15 units/acre) hardly fall under enormous and there are a lot of people working from home now.

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.

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?

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.

Yeah, everyone seems to think that it's Boston proper thats the issue, but if you look at other major US cities, it's fairly obvious that our problem is an insistence on bucolic rural New England towns within a 20-30 min drive of the city.

Bet on this dude or his wife working in Waltham and his “rural” community is 45 mins away.

Apartment buildings bring in property taxes, believe it or not

I was surprised to read this!

Nothing low key about what you said.

You picked the most diverse area in Springfield (downtown) and said it was not suitable for businesses because it needs to be cleaned up.

It is normal to not recognize your own internalized racism.

You should be demanding that businesses move to areas with a majority minority population instead of finding excuses why they shouldn't.

Thanks! I understand its a zoning requirement (not a building requirement), I’m curious where Holden is required to put those acres, or if its up to them to decide.

Excuse me sir your own racism is showing because you are the only one bringing up race here.

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.

They probably thought more people riding=more money for the T, while failing to consider that even if 50 million people packed into the T each day their funding would just get cut even more for a new highway and we would be back at square 1. Their thought process isn’t totally stupid, in a perfect world more riders WOULD equal more funding and better service. But we don’t live in a perfect world, we live in Massachusetts, where we canceled a gigantic public transport scheme (the urban ring project) because all the funding got directed towards the worlds most expensive example of induced demand. Who needs a project that’ll have a ridership of 300k per day and remove 50k cars from the road when we can build an highway that doesn’t actually fix the problem, and just puts it underground?

Wherever they want, but I mean they will put them in places that "make sense" for the town. They will also likely put them in parts of their town that already have apartments or density. I dont see anything on the official website that says it has to be new zones. Not sure about Holden though never been.

We have altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further.

That's been the way it goes since Bunker Hill.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pretty sure this is as NIMBY of a statement as you can get.

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

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.

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.

There's a lot of lawyers in Newton, and I don't think they're scared. Just saying.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[deleted]

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.

you know taxes are a thing. New residents bring in new income

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

Wealthy communities will care about losing State funding / grants to improve roads in the amount of above a million dollars a year. Mass Works is one program.

And losing other grants, which could include grants for conservation lands, and in the fullnessvof time, eventually could include educational funding,

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.

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.

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.

Weston resident here so here are random unorganized thoughts.

This article is stupid and poorly researched. Weston has 3 MBTA stops, the MBTA only stops at 1.

Also have fun getting dropped at that stop. Walk a mile to “downtown” Weston or walk a mile to Waltham Market Basket (love that plaza) where the sidewalk doesn’t even connect. There’s no bus that stops there either.

There is free parking at that site which is rare in the area. No mention of Lincoln where you pay is weird…

There is town owned land by the stop but it is rented to a business right now. Maybe that goes away?

Weston is struggling for affordable elderly housing. Already and has been looking for years to find a solution. The town owns VERY little land which is a problem for the fire department who needs at least 1 new station. More if you want to put larger buildings here.

There is over 1,800 acres of conservation land in Weston. Quick math days Weston has 11,000 acres of land so that’s 16%!

The tree huggers are making it challenging to change out the 3 water towers because they are on conservation land, so good luck getting that changed.

So do you want to protect the “wetlands” or allow more places for housing?

Also article doesn’t mention other 40B project in town that ARE happening. 40B is stupid. They don’t make as many of the unit be “affordable” as they should. It should be 50% not like fucking 5%.

I don’t know what the answer is, but as someone who is slightly involved in the local government (committee that relates to my profession, but certainly not this), I don’t think the state will do a better job than any other town will.

Don’t they run the MBTA? That thing is a fuckshow

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.

>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.

They did all plan on increases. The problem is that with all the new mandates increases are larger than anyone would plan for.

Actually it does affect my neighborhood because we are a boarder town. And if you go to any of the further reaching stops you will see empty commuter rail lots because people don't enjoy commuting on an unreliable system an hour and a half to with in Boston. But we as a community have to support Boston or else we are"NIMNYs"

>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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

>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"?

I mean hell Sudbury needs transit badly, we have exactly one bus stop and that's it. I hate it I don't have a car so I wind up wasting a bunch of money on uber anytime I need to get somewhere.

Not even that far. Brookline has built some stuff but they're stuffing the biggest buildings onto tiny parcels and not allowing anything more dense pretty much anywhere

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?

So you want the benefits of Boston without the externalities?

[deleted]

This is a good start.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

No MBTA communities out this way.

&#x200B;

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/what-the-mbta-communities-law-means-for-your-town/

&#x200B;

There's a list there, .xls though. Looks like buses don't count.

Don't worry, the east-west rail will take care of that.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

Holden is a ruralish suburb that's not a particularly easy commute to the nearest commuter rail station. There's no way to build "transit oriented housing" there, no one living in Holden is walking or biking to any public transportation.

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.

So many cows in places like Weston, Wellesley, Newton, and Lexington…

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

>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.

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