Two state legislators have proposed a new bill that, among other things, would limit municipalities ability to block multi-family housing near transit. Bill SD.1640 would require covered cities and towns — Newton is covered — to create at least one “district of reasonable size … within .5 miles of a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal, or bus station” where multi-family housing is available by right. Alternatively, the district could be within .25 of bus or boat routes.
This bill recognizes what is becoming more and more apparent to housing and environmental advocates: we need more housing density around transit to ease demand for housing in coastal cities and to reduce carbon-intensive land use patterns, i.e., suburban sprawl. Last year, for instance, California came close to adopting a bill that would have allowed development of multi-family housing near transit, even over local objections. A new version of the bill is working its way through the California legislature.
The Massachusetts bill, filed by State Senator Joe Boncore and State Representative Kevin Honan, is not as aggressive. It requires covered communities to have a single district near transit that allows multi-family housing by right. Newton already has that around Newtonville and Newton Corner, so it would impose no change. More subtly, it reduces the requirement for a special permit to a simple majority for multi-family housing near transit. Keeping in mind that zoning restricts what’s available even by special permit, that provision would also have limited impact on Newton. The areas in Newton around transit that don’t have much multi-family housing don’t allow multi-family housing, even by special permit. It will make it a little easier to build more multi-family housing in already denser areas of the city.
Bottom line: the new bill wouldn’t lead to a bunch of new triplexes along the Green Line.
Personally i would like to see an ongoing high density tax surcharge for developers or residents of luxury $1 million dollar+ units..
Lets be honest, its either this or 1 or 2 tax overrides to address the crazy school overcrowding which will ensue…
While Newton has multi-family housing near the Commuter Rail, it needs to consider more near the Green Line (aka Investment Banker track) in Newton Center, Newton Highlands and Riverside stops.
The argument for high density along the commuter rail is “access to commuter rail”. Its kind of ironic because the commuter rail is pretty poor as a “public transportation”
– caters strictly to 9 to 5 folks
– need to use it in the middle of the day? good luck finding a matching schedule
– its very expensive, especially compared to T
– doesn’t run on weekends. Hard to believe, but true
– miss the train, tough luck. The next one won’t get you to your destination anywhere close to the desired time
I would like to see a tiered approach. For the units already agreed upon by kroff+austin, let approve another 300 more to get to say 500-600 units.
If we don’t see any IMPROVEMENT in commuter schedule. ie
– another train added during the work hours or weekend service, or reduce in fare then we will not approve any more large scale high density along the commuter rail. Because, what’s the point? the commuter rail still sucks.
– or perhaps we see an introduction of a Uber Bus OR anything which can be used to get to downtown frequent enough.
– We can discuss if that number should be 500 or 1000 before we see improvement… but just dumping several thousand units and hoping the MBTA is going to “do the right thing” is silly. We have to see some gradual improvement and approve more density as we see results. The same goes for schools, if we start seeing too much overcrowding, we have to step back and pause the increase in units to decide on WHO pays for the extra resources….