Here’s the last of our ballot question polls: Voters in most Newton Wards will have the added opportunity on election day to weigh in on two non-binding ballot questions.
No matter how many times I read this question, I don’t understand this. So I won’t be voting for it. For those who are smarter than me here’s the text.
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote for legislation that would allow local elected officials, in communities that have taken steps to promote affordable housing at a local level, to have binding input regarding density, required parking, and other project characteristics to the extent that those changes would help to protect existing neighborhoods and businesses from negative impacts on infrastructure and public services, when a local zoning board of appeals is deciding whether to approve an application for a comprehensive permit to build affordable housing in that locality under Chapter 40B of the General Laws?
[polldaddy poll=”8406236″]
I’d like to ask any of the 10 people who so far have voted yes on this question to explain what this question actually means….not what you hope it means, but really what does it, as written, mean.
I won’t vote for any ballot initiative written in a way that’s too hard to decipher, because that means that if it’s passed it will be too easy for it to be twisted whichever way people want to. Yes, they may interpret it the way I’d like, but I certainly can’t count on that.
@mgwa – Agreed
From my reading of the language above, it appears to be a non-binding resolution to instruct our legislative leaders, to vote for a piece of legislation, that hasn’t been written yet. Furthermore, that legislation would be written so as to pretty much eliminate the entire 40B program without saying that’s what it’s doing.
The essence of 40B (like it or not) is that it removes most local input on 40B projects if the town hasn’t met a threshold of affordable housing yet. Replacing that threshold with “have taken steps to promote affordable housing” is nearly identical to repealing 40B. If that’s what proponents want to do then they should have been clear about it rather than pretend that they are proposing a fine tuning of the 40B program.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA… [The sound of 40B developers laughing all the way to the bank].
We had a presentation to the Highlands Area Council, I think by the author of the ballot item, earlier this month. We asked for some additional information but as I recall the goal was to have some other tools to allow communities local control to enforce zoning on 40Bs. I thought that the Housing Production Plan was already in place as a tool to accomplish the goal which, unlike the text of the item, is a specific and measurable metric to reign in this type of development.
So now 21 people have said they would vote yes….really? Yes to what?
I’m voting Yes because I’m not happy with the excessive size of 40Bs and the resulting loss of trees and open space. And I’m really not happy with the way that the threat of 40Bs is used as a figurative gun to the head of abutters objecting to oversized Special Permit projects to intimidate them into withdrawing their objections. I’d say this is a misuse of the law, but for all I know it was an intended consequence, not an unintended one. It seems to work great for developers who want to put in lots of luxury townhouses and need a Special Permit.
It’s true this ballot question is wordy, non-specific, and non-binding, and our state reps may ignore it and very possibly will. But it’s a way for anyone who takes the trouble to vote in this election to express an opinion on whether they’re happy with 40B the way it is, or would like some changes. As Ken Parker said on Common Ground, if you’re happy with 40B, you vote No. If you’re not happy with 40B, you vote Yes. This is not the same as being for or against affordable housing.
If you think you don’t have to worry about 40Bs in your neighborhood, think again. Two adjacent multi-family properties on Court Street are going to be turned into a 36-unit building. Why 36? Because that’s what the developer said they needed for it to be a viable project, and the ZBA basically said, ‘oh, okay.’ It doesn’t matter if a property is zoned single-family, multi-family or commercial. Just about anything can be turned into 40B. And the lesson from Court Street is that it doesn’t really matter how expensive it is to acquire the land; the developer can just say they need to build a lot more units.
I say “just about” anything, because the Wells Ave property is protected by the Wells Ave Office Park covenant from being involuntarily converted to residential use, assuming the Board of Aldermen choose not to waive the covenant. That question is currently with Land Use Committee. The Rowe Street property is just plain commercial property, as are properties on and around Needham Street which are being mentioned as potential 40Bs. I’d like to avoid losing any more commercial property, because it brings in more tax revenue than it costs in services.
Groot, we have no Housing Production Plan in place. It is an option in the state law, but to date the Planning Department appears to have no interest in trying to develop one. Amy Sangiolo has a docket item to try to change that.
@Julia, my comment on the HPP was to illustrate that other legislation was put in place that could actually allow communities to exercise control of 40Bs. I think a Yes vote on this item is a vote in frustration with the current situation and a No vote is an indication that this item, if passed and followed, would have no affect on improving the situation. I applaud the person that got an item on the ballot but am disappointed it was not something that could effect any change.
Julia: Thanks for taking the time to explain your totally understandable concern about 40B and desire for reform. The problem is this question — as written — is more than “wordy,” it’s a mess.
“this question — as written — is more than “wordy,” it’s a mess.(Greg Reibman)
Is it more of a mess than the well-intentioned but badly abused MGL 40B? That is really the question.
It is well enough written for me. I’ll be voting yes. The project on Court St shows just how far from the original intent this law has gone. I was told by someone who has worked in the 40B world for years that there used to be a limit on the scale of 40B projects such that the upper limit was 4 times what would be allowable by right. For Court St since 6 units would be allowable by right on the land that is being sold, a development of 24 units would be as big as it would get. And that would still be an enormous change on a street of single and two family homes. But instead it’s 36 units, 6 times what would be allowable by right.
@Emily: Can you explain to me what it says? Not what you want it to say, but what it says.
How a bill becomes a law
A bill is written that says:
When
Someone wants to build a 40b and files an application.
The local ZBA will discus granting a permit
If
The community it represents has taken some kind of steps to promote affordable housing (converted 2 units?)
While
Local elected officials decide the project’s density, required parking, and other characteristics (color?)
To protect
Existing neighborhoods and businesses (from linguini?)
Infrastructure and public services (from ghosts?)
Then
Local Rep votes for it (other reps too)
And it becomes a law (?Really?) that means nothing
Its a poorly-worded, non-binding ballot question that enables people to state their concerns with 40B.
Yes if you want changes to 40B, no if you’re content with the status quo.
Chill out Greg.
Emily said:
That is not correct. Prior to 2013, the Department of Housing and Community Development had adopted numerical density guidelines that applied to homeownership developments, equivalent to the greater of 8 units per acre or four times the surrounding density. It is important to note that these were guidelines, not requirements, and applied only to Chapter 40B homeownership developments as opposed to rental developments. Moreover, numerical density guidelines based on by-right limits would defeat purpose of Chapter 40B, since any community seeking to circumvent would simply adopt greater minimum lot size requirements for each housing unit. (Chapter 40B was enacted in response to “snob zoning,” e.g., bylaws requiring a minimum size lot of 2 acres per housing unit, which created an insuperable obstacle to creating affordable housing.)
In 2003, in response to concerns about the effectiveness and impact of Chapter 40B, Governor Mitt Romney convened a task force to make findings and recommendations. Among other things, the Chapter 40B Task Force recommended that each affordable housing funding agency in Massachusetts adopt guidelines for considering project design and density for rental developments under the general oversight of DHCD. The Task Force recommended that these agency guidelines should:
In May 2013, DHCD issued new design guidelines that eliminated numerical density limits for 40B developments.
*Moreover, numerical density guidelines based on by-right limits would defeat the purpose of Chapter 40B, since any community seeking to circumvent the law would simply adopt greater minimum lot size requirements for each housing unit.*
Me speak pretty one day.
TH-M says “(Chapter 40B was enacted in response to “snob zoning,” e.g., bylaws requiring a minimum size lot of 2 acres per housing unit, which created an insuperable obstacle to creating affordable housing.)”
I am sick and tired of hearing about anti-snob zoning when there is a 36 unit condo going up on our street. Please TH-M, how is Court Street a snobby area? Our average assessed valuation is $467,400. This development by the Englers is a perfect example of why MGL 40B must be fixed. It is used by for-profit developers to enrich themselves and their families.
What Paul said.
Bob, I cannot and will not comment on specific 40B projects in Newton because I am a member of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee, which may end up hearing an appeal (from which I would also be recused). I was simply correcting an inaccurate piece of information about the implementation of the law. I would add, however, that the current maximum price for an affordable 3-bedroom unit for a low to moderate income household of 4 would be $218,700; The corresponding rent for an affordable 3 bedroom apartment would be $1,525-$1,965 a month. And rather than argue about the purpose of the law, I refer you to this document on the Newton city website.
This ballot question asks voters to “instruct” their state representatives how to vote on a particular bill. The very idea of instructing representatives how to vote is appalling. Whatever happened to the democratic process, whereby we elect state representatives who listen to the concerns of constituents on all sides of an issue, become informed on said issue, then make a decision as to how s/he will vote on a particular bill? If the author of this bill wanted to have a referendum on whether Newton voters support the 40B law, then s/he should have written a ballot question that asks that very question.
Not to mention in any fifth grade classroom, as it is written, this ballot question is referred to as a “run on sentence” – as it goes on and on an on (and on). Any old timers want to try to diagram this sentence?!
“author of this referendum”…
From a July 2014 TH-M post
“And, for your information, if the developer had chosen the 40B route, it would have built 500-600 units of housing on the site instead of 290, and would not have been required to contribute over $6 million in mitigation funds as required by the special permit granted by the Board of Aldermen. And the city could not have required much of the roadwork that is required by the special permit.”
This speaks volumes about why MGL 40B needs to be revised and reworked.
Jane writes “If the author of this bill wanted to have a referendum on whether Newton voters support the 40B law, then s/he should have written a ballot question that asks that very question.”
Aah, if life were only that black & white. It is not an either/or proposition. Affordable housing is certainly in much need (ask my children) but MGL 40B is 45 years old and needs to be reworked. It really has not done a very good job no matter what statistics developers throw out there
I agree with what Mike Striar, Bob, Paul and Emily said.
Greg, I will be voting yes because I wish to send a message to our political class that 40B needs to be reformed or replaced. Newton residents are committed to excellence in affordable housing, but let’s keep in mind that we live in a city, not the personal Monopoly boards of Scott Oran, Bob Engler or Bob’s boy Geoff Engler.
40B has not been successful in creating affordable housing and it imposes a cost to taxpayers while lining the pockets of crony capitalist real estate developers.
That’s all fine Josh etc. but the reality is, you are all voting for this ballot question based on what you believe it says , not what it actually says, because actually it is incomprehensible.
Greg, the reality is that when you and Gail ran the Newton TAB, you opposed the ballot question effort to repeal the 40B housing law, which helped influence Newton voters to vote against repealing it. You also endorsed Setti Warren (a known cheerleader for 40B backed by Newton’s Political Establishment) for mayor against Bill Heck (a reform-oriented candidate who did not support 40B and who was independent of the Newton PIG).
As I said on the Newton TAB blog, part of the reason why Newton is overrun by 40B developments is because of you, Gail and the guy who you endorsed for mayor. Part of the problems Newton is facing with 40B housing projects can be laid at your doorstep. You used your positions as Publisher and Editor of the TAB to advocate for bad policies and politicians that have had a negative impact on Newton’s quality of life.
And now, you flippantly dismiss efforts by reform-oriented citizens to clean up your mess that you made?
@Josh: I’m blushing. It’s flattering and humbling when you talk about how mighty and powerful Gail and I were. However I’m quite confident that 40B would still be state law even had we opposed it and I’m 100 percent certain that Bill Heck would not have been elected mayor even had we endorsed him.
It certainly seems that 40B needs to be studied again and reformed. What is happening on Court Street is a good example of this need mostly because it is in one of our most affordable neighborhoods and is changing it for the worse. This question is not the solution; it is just a massive conglomeration of words that mean nothing comprehensible. From its first words, instructing a representative how to vote (btw, who does the instructing), as Jane pointed out, to its last, it is wrong. A “no” vote doesn’t show you are happy with the status quo, as Paul says, it shows you applied critical thinking and realized it was the only vote that made sense.
TH-M says “(Chapter 40B was enacted in response to “snob zoning,” e.g., bylaws requiring a minimum size lot of 2 acres per housing unit, which created an insuperable obstacle to creating affordable housing.)” If that is true, it shows just how far from its intention it has strayed.
@Jane, nearly every day I receive an email — or many — from Newton residents “instructing” me as to how they want me to vote on something. Not sure why you would find that “appalling”. I think it’s democracy?
Aside from that, it is my understanding that the Secretary of State’s office has a lot of say in ballot initiative question phrasing, so that may not have been up to the petitioners.
Marti, maybe not. There is a lot we could do to make the creation of affordable housing easier here in Newton through our zoning laws. We did pass an inclusionary zoning ordinance that requires 15% of units in developments over 6 housing units must be affordable, but that has created only a small fraction of the total affordable units in Newton. But we could do so much more.
Among other things, we could make it easier to create accessory apartments and provide incentives to keep them affordable (I worked on getting the Accessory Apartment Incentive Program passed using CPA funds to provide grants to create units and keep them affordable, but no one could use it because the current zoning makes it hard if not impossible to do even with a special permit.) We could allow greater density in more village centers (e.g., the special zone we created for the Austin Street lot). We could reduce the minimum lot size to 5,000 sf (4000 in villages like Nonantum and Upper Falls). But all of these measures are difficult to pass in Newton, which is generally averse to residential development. And the city’s recent history with using federal funds to create affordable housing is mixed, at best. Chapter 40B, by far, is responsible for more affordable units in Newton than any other single source.
So, public funding, inclusionary zoning and Chapter 40B are just about the only ways that affordable housing has been created here in Newton, other than through CPA and federal funds. If someone can come up with a way to create even half as many affordable units in Newton as have been created with 40B, I am all ears. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Emily -I have no doubt that you receive impassioned letters from constituents on a daily basis telling you how they’d like you to vote on something before the BOA. Though it may feel to you that you’re being “instructed” to vote a certain way, you are not. This ballot initiative “instructs” the state legislators how to vote. Receiving impassioned emails and calls is qualitatively different from being “instructed” how to vote as a result of a ballot initiative.
@Ted – that “inclusionary zoning” sounds great, until you find out that developers can make a payment to avoid actually including any affordable units. How many units have actually been created as a result of those payments?
@Jane you will have to take it up with Secretary of State Bill Galvin. P. 16 of these instructions say “It is recommended that a petitioner submit a public policy question in the following form: “Shall the (senator or representative) from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation (describe the legislation you wish to be enacted)?”
Hmm link did not work – here it is http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/State-Ballot-Question-Petitions-7-2013.pdf
Emily-“It is recommended…”, so I don’t have to take it up with Sec. of State Galvin. Instructing reps how to vote is very bad idea.
Why is it a bad idea when it’s non-binding? It’s just another way of saying “let your representatives know that you want them to vote this way”, only it allows the reps to know how many of their constituents feel that way. Seems to me that having this way of letting reps know what their constituents want is a good thing.
@Jane: The Secretary of State’s office will only put something on the ballot once they have approved the language. So when they say “It is recommended”, they are saying you better do it if you want your proposal to be approved.
Let’s try to understand the basis for the two STATE ballot initiative Questions 5 and 6. What is Sarah Quigley (an author of these two signature-gathered proposals) trying to do? Sarah spoke at our Waban Area Council meeting and asked our Council to make our catchment area voters aware of these two questions. I also heard her speak at the Newton League of Women Voters meeting last Thursday night at the Waban Library Center. I read the questions and was puzzled (as most of us are at first) as to what, exactly, we were being asked to do.
Re: Question 5: In my mind, it boiled down to this: Sarah and her supporters are not comfortable with the current process for selling off surplus city land (Question 5). At the moment, that land is put on the sales block after a City appointed committee studies the value and virtue of selling it and recommends to the BOA that it be sold. The BOA then must approve its sale by 2/3 majority. All of this at public meetings. But we must all realize that we are weakened by poor communication from our City Moms & Pops since few of us become aware of these sales unless they show up in something that effects our daily lives/neighborhoods/schools. And that is our bad! So, Sarah would ask that we have referenda for surplus lots of 7500 sq. ft. or more. A local vote on selling off City owned land would then get the attention it merits (Just remember Mark Twain said: BUY land, they ain’t makin’ any more). I must note that better communication with voters in our City would do the same!
Now, re: Question 6: It is the Petitioners’ way to ask the voters to share their dissatisfaction about 40B. As I pointed out to Sarah: A) it is non-binding; B) it suggests that 40B’s intentions be ignored (remember, we had a failed state-wide referendum on that just a few years ago); C) It is confusing wording that asks NEWTON voters on a STATEWIDE ballot to opine on a subject local to them (i.e., 40B’s in Newton). Why not have Newton voters tell our State and local legislators directly that 40B is not working as envisioned in our City (Too few affordable units being created, so we NEVER reach 10%; too much density; developers running rough-shod over abutters on their way to the bank; and non-accountability of the developers in limiting their profits to the allowed 10% (I have not heard a peep in 2 years of conversation about 40B as to how those developer profits are monitored, either for condo/home sales or rentals). (Does anyone check tax returns? Are they monitored for double-bookkeeping? Are there fines and are they ever imposed?)(TH-M or anyone else, can you enlighten?)
Then, the reason for these two STATE questions came out: For the State Question Initiatives to be put on the State Ballot, the supporters needed about four-hundred registered voters for each Question to sign the petitions to get the questions listed. To have a referendum on the same issues in Newton alone (not on a STATE Ballot) petitioners would have to gather 20% of the registered voters in NEWTON (to tell the Aldermen and Mayor their opinion). So this is a relatively easy-on-the-shoe-leather way (~400-800 rather than many thousands of signatures necessary) to take the Newton electorate’s pulse on two very important issues:
1. Should we the voters (not the BOA) determine when to sell City owned land 7500 sq.ft. or more? (Question 5)
If you think so: VOTE YES.
If you think not: VOTE NO.
2. Do we think IN NEWTON that 40B is not doing what it set out to do well and effectively or is it broken and in need of repair? (Question 6)
If you think 40B needs repair in Newton: VOTE YES.
If you think 40B is fine, as is, in Newton: VOTE NO.
NEITHER QUESTION IS BINDING. THIS IS JUST A MECHANISM FOR VOTERS TO SPEAK THEIR MINDS ABOUT THESE ISSUES TO THEIR LOCAL AND STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS!!!!!!!!! (Now do you understand, Greg?)
“2. Do we think IN NEWTON that 40B is not doing what it set out to do well and effectively or is it broken and in need of repair? (Question 6)
If you think 40B needs repair in Newton: VOTE YES.
If you think 40B is fine, as is, in Newton: VOTE NO.”
Sorry, to be perfectly clear and parallel in my writing, I should have said:
“2. Do we think IN NEWTON that 40B is broken and in need of repair or is it doing what it set out to do well and effectively? (Question 6)
If you think 40B needs repair in Newton: VOTE YES.
If you think 40B is fine, as is, in Newton: VOTE NO.
@Ted H-M. If we are really advocating for affordable housing to be built in Newton, why not change inclusionary zoning to 20-25% and eliminate the option to pay a fee to the city instead of building said unit.
Peter, we could. But a special permit granting authority has more discretion to grant a special permit with conditions under Chapter 40A than a comprehensive permit granting authority has under Chapter 40B. Moreover, there are times when I wish developers could pay a fee under Chapter 40B to create affordable housing on a site which is closer to public transit, and other amenities.
TH-M writes “create affordable housing on a site which is closer to public transit, and other amenities.”
Does MGL 40B talk about these criteria? If so, why is MGL 40B referred to as anti-snob? And if it doesn’t, why is this even a consideration?
Emily – Then you don’t do it. I’d rather fight a the Sec. of State than be bullied into writing a ballot question that in my opinion undermines the democratic process. Would you approve of an edict about how to write a city ordinance? Methinks the Alderwoman might object, and rightly so.
@Jane: You would have all citizens forgo the opportunity to submit any and all ballot initiative questions because you’re offended by how the Secretary of State suggests they word it? I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Emily – That’s not what I said. But I think you know that. It says that certain wording “is recommended”, not required. If the Sec. of State is in reality making a recommendation, then take him at his word and write a well written question and make your case.
It strikes me that the issue here is that this was written in such a sway as to be very difficult to understand its intent.
@Dan: Even inn this most paranoid of all possible worlds…why would anyone do that? It isn’t easy to collect 400-800 signatures!
The wording is unfortunate…but if you are looking for a way to understand it, my explanation above is very robust! I think there is no harm in reading Question 6 in that light. It might even allow people to show their displeasure with the current implementation of the law.
@Sallee – Yes, that’s how the proponents are pitching it but your explanation is somewhat at odds with what it actually says. The “repair” that is actually mentioned in the text is to effectively gut the entire 40B program rather than repair it.
If the text clearly spelled that out – i.e. repeal 40B or not, I think we wouldn’t have so many people having problems with its garbled and misleading wording.
@Jerry: I said the wording was unfortunate…I can’t get inside the heads of the authors…but, if you can see their frustration with the way the law works in Newton, you can appreciate their actions. This is their way of saying “We don’t like it or understand it and we want it fixed. If our City is trying to meet a moving target (10%), don’t punish and threaten us with this sword over our heads. Let us have a say in how dense these developments can be.” Nowhere does it say that they don’t want affordable housing!
Remember, this is non-binding. They simply want to send a message of discontent to our State and local elected officials. They aren’t trying to abolish 40B, but to tame it in Newton. I also wish their language had been refined by someone who understood the regulation better. But remember also, 400 people signed their petitions, even with all the ambiguities. That, in itself, says something!
By the way, I want to ask again…does anyone know the mechanism for monitoring the developer profits (limited to 10%) on 40B’s; whether monitoring is actually done and what fines can be imposed (and if fines are actually imposed) if the developer over-earns? I am asking about the mechanism for monitoring developer profits on sales of condos/townhouses as well as on rentals. Surely someone must know or else how can those profits being limited be meaningful?
All I can really do is to send a message that I’m dissatisfied with the way 40 B is being implemented and would like my rep and state senator to initiate legislation to modify the most egregious effects. This is an imperfect way to do this, but the only one available in this election cycle. I think a no vote would be interpreted as saying the majority of voters in Newton are in favor of current development laws and practices. I’m almost certain this is not the case.
Sallee and Bob, thank you, thank you, for your common (or unfortunately not-so-common) sense! Sallee, I wish I knew the answer to your question, but no one else seems to either!
@Julie. To be lumped in positively with Sallee is a compliment of the highest order.
@Bob Burke: Back atcha!
@Julia: I can’t believe that none of our Aldermen know the answer to my question about 10%developer profit limitation monitoring for 40B’s. This is one case where FOLLOW THE MONEY should apply for the public good!
@Ted: you didn’t answer when I asked this earlier. Can you answer it now? Or can you send us to a comprehensible source for the information? Please.
@Sallee, there is no short answer. But here are some facts:
DHCD’s Chapter 40B regulations define a “reasonable return” for an ownership project to be a range of 15-20% of total development costs. The subsidizing agency must determine a reasonable developer’s fee for a rental development, which is not less than 10% of total development costs. Costs are calculated using DHCD’s Chapter 40B guidelines.
The subsidizing agency is responsible for reviewing and certifying compliance with cost limitations. Municipalities are afforded the opportunity to review the cost examination report and submit comments to the subsidizing agency. Excess profits are distributed to the municipality for the purpose of developing or preserving affordable housing. DHCD enforces sanctions for noncompliance, including suspending or disqualifying a developer from participating in programs administered by the subsidizing agencies.
Since Chapter 40B was passed in 1969, there have been a number of amendments to the law as well as DHCD’s regulations and guidelines to address some of the perceived inadequacies of the original law. Notably, Chapter 40B now has a “safe harbor” that exempts municipalities from its provisions when a community can establish that it has made significant progress toward the 10% threshold (i.e., development and implementation of housing production plans). In addition, as noted above, there are limits on developer profits and a cost certification process that ensures compliance and distributes excess profits to the relevant community for affordable housing. The inclusion of 100% of units in rental developments in the subsidized housing inventory that a number of bloggers decry was actually adopted with pressure from communities that were having difficulty reaching the 10% threshold, and in order to offer an incentive to build much-needed affordable rental units.
While the law is by no means perfect, Question 6 is too vague to provide clear guidance to our representatives. More importantly, it offers no viable alternative that will actually produce any affordable housing, but would instead prevent it by gutting the existing affordable housing law. Put another way, you can’t beat something with nothing. It offers no solutions to fix the perceived problems with Chapter 40B (other than those which have already been adopted), and will not result in the creation of a single unit of affordable housing in Newton, which I suspect is precisely what some proponents want. I strongly urge Newton residents who support the creation of affordable housing to vote against Question 6.
@Tricia, I do not have exact figures, but I can confirm that IZ fees in lieu of housing were used to assist in obtaining 10 affordable units for the Newton Housing Authority on Wyman Street in Waban.
Ken Parker is voting Yes on Question 6. This is from an email on how he’s voting on everything, which he said was his first broadcast email in three years:
The ironic truth to the entire 40B issue, is that the fastest and most effective way to never see another 40B in your neighborhood is to encourage their expedited approval until the City reaches its state-mandated “local need threshold,” which is defined as either (A) 10% of all its housing units are affordable; or (B) 1.5% of the City’s land area zoned residential, commercial, or industrial is used by affordable housing units.
According to Newton’s Planning Department:
(A) Newton needs 792 more affordable housing units.
(B) Newton needs less than 10 more acres of “affordable land.”
Given that those goals are readily achievable in the near term (combined, 40B proposals already in the pipeline might actually put Newton above 1.5%), the strategy shouldn’t be to painstakingly lobby against the entire 40B issue via non-binding and hard-to-interpret ballot initiative.
Instead, the City and its citizens should strategically create public-private partnerships with 40B developers, build relationships, and cut deals where the developer has an incentive to make a meaningful and significant investment into the surrounding community as a condition of their approval.
The Wells Avenue proposal strikes me as an excellent example of how 40Bs could be achieved with everyone’s best interest in mind.
— With 334 units on a 6+ acre site, the proposal would eliminate 42% of threshold (A) and contribute over half of the land needed for threshold (B).
— There is not a smaller residential neighborhood that would be “overwhelmed” by the building.
— The developer has offered to entirely reconstruct and reconfigure two major intersections that today are nearly inoperable. Those upgrades will allow for much more commercial development on Wells Ave, which otherwise couldn’t go forward on the basis of traffic conditions.
— Cherry on top is that putting housing next to commercial has proven to draw in large corporate commercial users – something that Wells Avenue hasn’t seen.. ever.
What’s not to like here?
I agree that 40B developments are sometimes implemented in a manner that is undesirable to the community, and that the community’s voice should be heard and considered. However, the fact remains that the Newton will continue to be exposed to 40Bs unless it can usher in affordable housing projects in a responsible fashion.
Eric, may I ask how close to your current residence is a large scale 40B project? You write as if you would have no problem if a large scale project went in next to your home. Am I understanding you correctly?
Thanks