From Commonwealth Magazine…
A bill approved earlier this month by the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Housing would … require that every city and town plan for multifamily housing and designate areas where it is allowed as-of-right. It would also require every community to allow single-family homes clustered on modest lots in compact, walkable neighborhoods surrounded by open space. Cities and towns would be compensated for any net increases in school costs that result from their approval of multifamily and cluster developments.
“Cities and towns would be compensated for any net increases in school costs”
Please – no more! My sides ache! Oh, gosh! Please, I can’t catch my breath.
That is so rich! I love these unfunded mandate yarns in which edicts are enacted but it’s ultimately up to those most negatively impacted to fund the bill.
What?
You insist that they WILL pay?!
Oh, you’re killing me! Please, stop! I can’t catch my breath!!!
“Cities and towns would be compensated for any net increases in school costs”
Please – no more! My sides ache! Oh, gosh! Please, I can’t catch my breath.
That is so rich! I love these unfunded mandate yarns in which edicts are enacted but it’s ultimately up to those most negatively impacted to fund the bill.
What?
You insist that they WILL pay?!
Oh, you’re killing me! Please, stop! I can’t catch my breath!!!
Every time the government tries to “fix” the housing problem, they end up making it worse. These people should try looking in the mirror every once in awhile, because they are the problem. Recently the prevailing mindset among legislators has been to reduce “urban sprawl.” This is entirely inconsistent with the goal of increased housing, and ends up putting enormous pressure on suburban communities like Newton, which are already thickly settled.
I’ve made reference before to a 50 acre parcel of undeveloped land I own in Sharon. 50 acres would easily support a very comfortable suburban neighborhood of fifty or more homes. And it was my intention to build modestly priced homes on this property. But the Town of Sharon, like many other exurban communities, have passed what are referred to as “length of road provisions.” A length of road provision limits how long a new road can be beyond the last existing intersecting road. Its effect is to render huge swaths of land undevelopable. So instead of building fifty or more modestly priced homes, this regulation has limited me to building just three homes on estate sized lots, all in the $800K range.
The proposed legislation that is the subject of this thread, does not address, nor would it correct length of road provisions or similar zoning regulations passed by towns that have far more developable land than Newton.
Every time the government tries to “fix” the housing problem, they end up making it worse. These people should try looking in the mirror every once in awhile, because they are the problem. Recently the prevailing mindset among legislators has been to reduce “urban sprawl.” This is entirely inconsistent with the goal of increased housing, and ends up putting enormous pressure on suburban communities like Newton, which are already thickly settled.
I’ve made reference before to a 50 acre parcel of undeveloped land I own in Sharon. 50 acres would easily support a very comfortable suburban neighborhood of fifty or more homes. And it was my intention to build modestly priced homes on this property. But the Town of Sharon, like many other exurban communities, have passed what are referred to as “length of road provisions.” A length of road provision limits how long a new road can be beyond the last existing intersecting road. Its effect is to render huge swaths of land undevelopable. So instead of building fifty or more modestly priced homes, this regulation has limited me to building just three homes on estate sized lots, all in the $800K range.
The proposed legislation that is the subject of this thread, does not address, nor would it correct length of road provisions or similar zoning regulations passed by towns that have far more developable land than Newton.
Mike: This sounds surprisingly like a math problem! I bet a geometrical pattern can be found that meets the requirements and allows more than three houses. Maybe not 50, but more than three! A labyrinth, maybe? A spiral? A hub? Concentric hubs? Maybe if I sleep late tomorrow I can think of a solution! 😉
Mike: This sounds surprisingly like a math problem! I bet a geometrical pattern can be found that meets the requirements and allows more than three houses. Maybe not 50, but more than three! A labyrinth, maybe? A spiral? A hub? Concentric hubs? Maybe if I sleep late tomorrow I can think of a solution! 😉
The only thing we haven’t tried is a crop circle. But you’re right about it being a “math problem.” The bottom line… hundreds of more apartment units in suburbs like Newton.
The only thing we haven’t tried is a crop circle. But you’re right about it being a “math problem.” The bottom line… hundreds of more apartment units in suburbs like Newton.