If you want to understand exactly why the state has enacted legislation mandating that Newton and other municipalities create zoning districts with greater density, watch Councilor Marc Laredo at this week’s meeting of the City Council’s Zoning and Planning Committee.
This portion of Councilor Laredo’s comments comes at 1:59:20 of the full meeting video.
I’ll just … one more comment, Madame Chair. It seems to me that there is nothing to prevent us from establishing multi-unit districts if we so choose, the question is whether we’re going to do it within the framework of the state constructs or not. And my view is that the state constructs create significant issues for us in limiting our ability to manage and control what gets built here. And, I think we need to weigh that against, in my mind, what is a very small amount of funding at stake. I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.
Councilor Laredo is right (as was Councilor Lisle Baker, later in the meeting). At any time, Newton could have created more housing opportunity through our zoning. The fact that we could create more housing opportunity through our zoning and haven’t, despite a severe regional housing crisis and a global climate crisis, is exactly why the state is mandating that we create more housing opportunities through our zoning. The whole point of the legislation is to take away “our ability to manage and control what gets built here,” because we’ve used that ability to create exclusionary zoning that limits housing production. Newton (and similarly exclusionary municipalities) are the express target of the legislation.
The law is newly enacted Section 3A of MGL Chapter 40A, which states:
Section 3A. (a)(1) An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to any further limitations imposed by section 40 of chapter 131 and title 5 of the state environmental code established pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A; and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable. (b) An MBTA community that fails to comply with this section shall not be eligible for funds from: (i) the Housing Choice Initiative as described by the governor in a message to the general court dated December 11, 2017; (ii) the Local Capital Projects Fund established in section 2EEEE.
Note the word “shall.” The requirements are non-permissive.
I’ve explained the new law and its impact on Newton here.
The icing on the cake is that Councilor Laredo has the gall to suggest that Newton should ignore the mandate, because Newton is rich enough to forego the state funds that will be withheld if Newton does not comply. Adding insult to injury, the very exclusionary zoning the state law is trying to change has created the concentration of wealth that make Newton able to afford the penalty.
To be fair, while Councilor Laredo distinguished himself at the meeting with his rudeness to Planning staff and his colleagues, by his breathtaking ignorance of the basics of the legislation, and by his hyperventilating about the consequences, he was not alone in characterizing the city’s compliance as optional. In fact, every single councilor and every member of the Planning staff who spoke framed the decision as whether, not how we would comply.
Even the councilors who are generally friendly to the pro-environment and pro-housing intent behind the MBTA Communities zoning requirements expressed excitement about the “opportunity” the legislation and its regulatory framework provide and are open to the city complying. Again, on this point Councilors Laredo and Baker are absolutely right. This is not an “opportunity.” There is nothing in the state law that prevents or has prevented Newton from upzoning 550 acres to allow 15 unit-per-acre density by right. The MBTA Communities legislation and regulations are a mandate to do what what we could always have done voluntarily, but didn’t. Because. We. Didn’t.
There should be no question about complying with Section 3A. The law is clear. We must.
Let’s discuss how.
Is the state law implemented as a cliff?
If zoning only meets 90% of target, do you get 0 funding?
Also, i believe the law does not consider affordability. If only $2M condos with 4 parking spaces each are built&sold then its still good
Bugek,
I think you answer your own question. The law mandates that Newton create zoning opportunities for 8,330 units of housing over up to 550 acres. Do you think the market can absorb 8,330 $2 million condos? At 15 units an acre?
391 Walnut St. is an 11-unit building on a little under an acre. Twelve units an acre net (not including surrounding public right-of-way). Much less gross. A 2,220 s.f. unit is currently listed for $1.75 million in a building with units ranging from 970 to 3,039 s.f. Do you think there are 8,000 plus households willing and able to pay $2 million for 2,500 s.f. or so in a significantly larger building than 391 Walnut St. on the same size lot?
What we’ll actually get out of new zoning is a bunch of single- and two-family homes converted to triplexes and four-plexes, with a wide range of unit sizes. These new units will be more affordable than single-family alternatives. Over time, the additional housing capacity will bring down housing prices, making Newton generally more affordable.
Will the transit district zoning create truly affordable, subsidized units? Probably not. That’s a separate problem that requires different solutions.
@Sean Roche – I think one detail in your post is not quite correct.
Whether your agree with Councilors Laredo and Baker position or not, clause b) seems to clearly spell out that a town can legally not comply, and spells out the penalty they would incur (loss of some state funding).
By all means urge the Councilors that the City “should” comply but I think its misleading to say they “must” comply
Jerry,
I get your point, but I think there’s an important ethical and moral distinction. All laws carry with them a penalty for non-compliance. You can kill, steal, evade taxes, park in a handicap spot, if you are willing to pay the penalty. But, we don’t think of those as permissive laws. Similarly, there are incentives for doing certain things that we favor, but don’t think of them as mandatory. You can get a paper bag at the grocery store if you’re willing to pay a nickel. The nickel bag fee isn’t a sanction, it’s an incentive.
The transit districts could have been developed and framed as incentives. The Secretary of Housing and Economic Development could have announced new requirements for MassWorks and other grant programs. Those municipalities who decided not to create transit districts would sacrifice their eligibility for grant money, but not creating transit districts would be a viable alternative, according to the program design. But, that’s not the case here. The language of the statute is clear. MBTA communities are not offered a choice (note the word “shall”), except in as much as every law inherently has an option not to follow it.
I’ll continue to milk the handicap parking analogy. We don’t think of handicap spaces as open to either people with handicap placards or those who can afford the $100 fine. We understand that they are only open to those with placards. Others forfeit $100 if they violate the rule.
Councilors Laredo, Baker, Malakie, Wright, and others are proposing that we flout a rule that applies to Newton, indeed was designed specifically with places like Newton in mind, because we can afford the penalty. That’s not principled or ethical. I’d go so far as to say it’s immoral.
YMMV
The weak link in this argument, is the MBTA. In less eloquent terms, they suck.
Pre-Covid, I was a weekday, daily rider – from Elliot to Government Center – and more often than not, trains were very crowded, not enough were run resulting in long wait times (which were not fun on mornings like today ), “signal delays” in any temperature above or below 68 degrees, and riders being asked to disembark at random times and stops for “schedule adjustments”.
The philosophical argument is, “if we build more housing around the MBTA, there will be more riders…and more riders will lead to greater revenue and improved service.” Yet history as shown, that more likely than not, the MBTA will mismanage their way into squandering the added revenue, and what we end up is “Seanmageddon” – more density AND MORE CARS on the road.
Until the MBTA can prove to hold up to their side of the bargain, the penalty of Seanmageddon is far greater than the penalty of non-compliance.
Matt,
I think the idea is DEEP pocketed developers will spend millions lobbying the MBTA so that their buildings and a rent can appreciate 50% overnight
Its called developer arbitrage or land lottery ticket. Purchase cheap land with X zoning and lobby local politicians to change zoning to Y. Dramatic overnight increase in value
Matt, during COVID track and signal work has continued on the D line. It’s a major undertaking, but will help the trains run faster.
Note: while I work for the MBTA, I am not a spokesperson, and this is a personal statement. I also couldn’t be bothered to look up the amount of repair on the GLT website.
Newton got a shout out in Slate today re. the state’s new zoning law.
https://slate.com/business/2022/01/massachusetts-zoning-apartments-housing-transit.html
While the acronym NIMBY was not used, the condition was made rather evident. Good job Newton! Way to be a bastion of progressive conservatism or maybe conservative progressivism. Whichever it is, we are model for the nation.
An important, definitive, discussion Newton MUST have is the type of relationship we want to have with regional power. Be it Housing, roads, Schools, bike paths, street lights, whatever we get from non-local mandates $$ wise; is it worth ceding local control in planning to regional, state or Fed decision making. Let’s go, take it head on before we lose local control.
Hey lets correct the current zoning laws so twice as many structures get razed in the name of “Green Construction” Maybe the amount of waste produced by tearing down more useable structures will increase to 50% of the city’s total. In 50 years people will be wondering how all of the this preventable waste could result in “Green Construction”. The sensible future lies in more rehab, some expansion and only tearing down what can’t be improved. Oh I forgot we will increase the tax base by building more new residences in the affordable 2-4 million dollar range, wonderful.
FYI: 2million for a unit new construction in a multi-family zone. At least one or maybe 2 more units available?
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Newton/70-Walker-St-02460/unit-3/home/177922441
winner: developer. Hats off to the developer, many thanks for the far left progressives for making this possible