Many momentous decisions are made by default. And sometimes you bring the most radical changes upon yourself by what you didn’t do.
Jonathan Cohn’s recent letter to the Globe addresses potentials shortcomings in Gov. Baker’s housing bill:
We need to make sure that we are building for all income levels and that we are aware of the ripple effects that come with new development. Bills filed by the House and Senate Democrats struck a far better balance: They liberalized zoning rules while also authorizing inclusionary zoning authority for cities and towns and enabling cities and towns to impose fees on developers for associated infrastructure costs. And there’s more that needs to be done beyond this, as state Representative Mike Connolly (D-Cambridge has pointed out, from strengthening tenant protections to simply investing more in housing.
Let’s note that Baker’s bill contains necessary measures. We need growth in housing stock, as a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition of housing security and economic justice. Boston City Councillor Lydia Edwards (eg.) has been right to move the conversation away from just liberalizing zoning. As Cohn says, we need to make darned sure that we’re building for all income levels, not just hope for the best through the good intentions of developers and the magic of free markets.
In addition, through development, a new housing law gives us a two-birds-with-one-stone opportunity. The creation of dense, highly efficient, multi-unit buildings in walkable, bikeable, transit-ready neighborhoods is widely seen as a necessary tool to drive down greenhouse gas emissions:
Though urban areas generate 70 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide, that also makes them a good place to start making a difference. Toward a Healthier World, a report by the C40 network, argues that with a strict series of policy changes—including bolstering cycling, walking, and public transit; enacting more energy-efficient building codes and retrofitting old structures; and a rapid investment in renewable power—cities could achieve an 87 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”
(See also Paul Hawken’s list of climate solutions at Drawdown; and the new book Designing Climate Solutions by Harvey/Orvis/Rissman. It is uncontroversial that city planning is a critical part of fighting global warming.)
But part of our obstacle, even in my town of Arlington, is people who don’t want any new building at all. While Arlington’s town manager [and Town Meeting broadly – cf TrickleUp’s comment] seems very sympathetic to principles of smart, transit-oriented development, some of my Arlington neighbors —many presumably die-hard liberals — are dead-set against density; against infill; against transit-centered housing; even allowing in-law apartments. I’ve heard “density” described as just a trendy buzzword. Some say things like “renters don’t pay property taxes” (but landlords do). Particularly with regard to schools, one hears that “we’re full up here”. (Schools can’t be funded by the state for projected future populations; only what they’ve got right now; so in essence, we’re always “full up here”.)
We’ve seen this movie before: Arlington basically gave up on larger housing developments back in the 70’s, and despite the presence of many large apartment complexes on the Mass Ave and Pleasant Street corridors, not much has been built since then. This is not exceptional in Greater Boston, where permitting has been stingy in many municipalities. “Liberalism ends at the driveway” has been the rule, not the exception in Greater Boston. The effects of our actions — or refraining from action — may not be what we intended.
Those resistant to change have a case, even if I don’t ultimately agree. People are understandably concerned with changes to a neighborhood’s or town’s “character”, which any large-ish development is bound to bring. Large developments are … large. But the character of a neighborhood also changes when there’s little or no development, although it may not manifest itself driving down Main Street: The high salaries offered by some of our high-flying local industries, combined with tight housing supply, has driven the price of housing ever upward. People of moderate means, even the children of residents, are pushed out — or simply never arrive. Over time, a middle-class, mixed-income neighborhood with amenities becomes an exclusive, posh — and older — monoculture. Things are already changing, and fast.
This stuff is really hard. We cannot bring back a cherished past — or even hold on to the present — but we can try to manage the future. There is nothing more radical than an unfettered free market — even one that exists within the confines of a restricted housing market. And the radical nature of climate change itself is forcing us into quite serious modes of adaptation. The challenges are real and the tradeoffs are consequential. We have to decide what set of problems we’re willing to live with.
As for me, I do not want to live in a “boutique [town] for educated elites”, as economist Ed Glaeser has put it — where everyone has to work for a hotshot Kendall Square biotech firm to afford to live here. And I certainly will not accept a hellish future climate for my children: Arlington ought to do its part for sustainability, which means favoring win/win conveniences like fast buses, bike lanes, and access to the T.
I hope that my town can be part of regional, statewide solutions to these very stubborn problems. It can seem like one town’s work is a drop in the bucket. But we’re not acting alone; this will be played out town-by-town, and other towns will look to our example for how to make affordable, sustainable development work. Let’s do the right thing — you know, for the kids.
Trickle up says
I don’t think I disagree with Charlie’s point, which seems to be that snob zoning is bad. But I take issue with his depiction of my town, Arlington. His is a caricature that I do not recognize.
There are anti-housing people in town, but they are a minority. Meanwhile, a master plan for the town that emphasizes transit-friendly housing has broad support.
A zoning change to allow mixed-use development passed Town Meeting (by more than the required two thirds, please note) and has already led to new apartments.
The Town owns and continues to construct affordable housing, something that many towns do not do.
Like Charlie, I hope that my town can be part of a solution to “these very stubborn problems,” though I doubt that can happen under the current market regime, which favors luxury construction. Unfortunately, local government cannot solve that problem. But Arlington is doing its part.
Charley on the MTA says
Respectfully, I don’t think I overstated the scope of the opposition, nor caricatured the whole town. I did say “even in Arlington”, “some of my Arlington neighbors”, not all, nor a majority. I agree that we seem to be generally moving forward. The point was that the kind of arguments that we see in opposition to development in Arlington are indeed the kinds of arguments that have prevailed in other places.
And Arlington’s history is what it is, as this article recounts, Of course you know the Red Line story.
More broadly in Greater Boston, opposition to inclusive development has prevailed for decades. There’s a reason why the passage of a housing bill is only looking promising in 2019.
Trickle up says
“Generally moving forward” is (1) contrary to your original depiction of our town as a poster child for parochial boutiqueism and more to the point (2) the very best you can hope for if you want to build consensus and continue to move forward.
I appreciate the stories that you link to in your reply, in no small part because I know the family of one of the authors (and served in Town meeting with his mother). But Arlington has changed a very great deal since the events described therein. I won’t repeat it, but how about my list of the things that are going on today?
(To which you can add, sustainable transit projects such as the Mass. Ave. refurb and the ongoing bus-lane proposal.)
petr says
The very first question that springs to mind is… why is Arlington a town to begin with? From what I gather, Cambridge once incorporated all the way to Concord, including what is now Lexington and Arlington. Lexington first became it’s own parish and then was spun off in the 1600’s. It wasn’t until 18o7 that Menotomy, a section of Cambridge became independent (it was renamed ‘Arlington’ in a fit of post-civil war fervor in 1867). A cursory google of the respective histories of the town doesn’t explain the reasons or motives for independence. Lexington, I’m thinking, was possibly due to religious differences. Arlington? Who knows why they sought, and received, independence.
But it is independence and that’s just another way of expressing the wish to act alone. That just might be part of the New England DNA: Roger Williams left Boston and founded Providence and claimed that which became Rhode Island. Brighton disassociated itself from Cambridge in 1807 (but was later subsumed by Boston). At least early in the history of New England, digging in your heels and arching your back in defiance might have been the preferred method of drawing boundaries: topography as conflict resolution, if you will.
Of course, you are right, and we shouldn’t act alone because that kind of conflict resolution — even if legitimacy of it wasn’t so dubious — is unsustainable. But I daresay it’s there. Parochial is as parochial does. I think we need to get over that before we can move forward
I lived in Arlington about twenty years ago. In fact, I was married by a justice of the peace on the banks of Spy Pond. At that time, Arlington was 3 miles from my work (I love to walk) had a profusion of nice restaurants (which it still may have, I dunno) as well as easy proximity to Cambridge and Boston. We left when the landlord offered to jack up the lease renewal by some 15%. We moved to Leominster and I commuted the 30 miles to the job that had been just 3 miles from our place in Arlington. We spent 18 years in Leominster and the rent never went up more than 3% at a time and at the end of the 18 years we still were not paying the original price we were paying in Arlington. I hated the commute, though: not walking as much contributed to weight gain and knee problems.
Christopher says
Seems a little too late in history for church matters to be the primary motivator behind the split, but when you hit critical mass of population and still relying on 19th century methods of getting around the split does make sense geographic sense,
Pablo says
Generally, the trend of towns splitting are a function of local governance.
In 1713, the parish of Cambridge Farms became the Town of Lexington. In 1807, as petr notes, the western parish of Cambridge separated to become part of the Town of West Cambridge (now Arlington). (The portion of town north of Warren Street was formerly in the Town of Charlestown, which ceased to exist when the eastern portion was annexed by Boston in 1874. Somerville separated from Charlestown in 1842.) The portion of Belmont, north of the railway station, was a part of West Cambridge until Belmont was incorporated in 1859.
What’s with all this division? Town meeting, schoolhouses. Our current government is based on the ability of folks to gather to hold a town meeting, and to have a schoolhouse accessible for town residents. As population grew, folks wanted their town meeting and schoolhouse closer to home, and towns split to fulfill this desire. This is the story across most of Massachusetts (with the exception of Boston, which annexed neighboring towns). For example, the original Town of Dedham extended to the Rhode Island border.
Is this a good thing? On many levels, yes. The smaller towns are much more accountable to voters than larger city or county governments.
petr says
But you are begging the question: if geography was a limiting factor in times past, yet the triumph of modern public transportation does not leave us going in the opposite direction…
It seems, as this entire diary attests, that the present (or relatively recent past) resistance is specifically to the geography obliterating power of public transportation. So, color me skeptical that geography ever was the sole factor in carving up land into the present day systems of towns and cities. And I’m speaking in general here, not specifically about Arlington.
Well, I think that Charley’s larger point is that if the majority of the voters of a specific town are higher-income professionals who commute to their Kendall Sq job by car, this can be construed as discrimination against a minority in that town (or in a neighboring town needing to travel through) who, for whatever reason, do not own a car. Town should be accountable to voters but only to a point: voters should not be so powerful as to make car ownership a de facto requirement of citizenship and/or residency.
Pablo says
As a long-time Town Meeting Member in Arlington, I have fairly consistently supported the recommendations of the Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB). I view greater density, particularly along the Massachusetts Avenue and Broadway corridors, to be a key element to maintaining a vibrant, viable town.
I see Arlington Town Meeting as much more willing to support density, and the recommendations of the ARB, though it is a fairly recent trend.
Arlington Town Meeting endorsed the ARB Master Plan in 2015 by a vote of 136-41, which includes this key recommendation:
In 2016, a proposal to allow mixed-use zoning passed by a substantial margin (186-35), despite the usual folks rising in opposition. “We are the second-densest town in the commonwealth, I don’t think we need more people here,” Town Meeting member John Worden said. A similar article was defeated by Town Meeting in 2012.
Additionally, a bylaw amendment to reduce the amount of parking required by developers in business, industrial, and multi-family residential zones was also approved (180-34).
According to the Arlington Advocate, ARB Chairman Andrew Bunnell “was filled with joy seeing both articles pass with resounding support.
Arlington is changing, and Charley is looking in the rear-view mirror when he says:
Those obstacles are falling in Arlington. The Representative Town Meeting, the legislative body that enacts zoning bylaws, is much more willing to embrace smart growth proposals and zoning changes.
Zoning bylaws require a 2/3 vote for enactment. Having more thoughtful proponents of smart growth and inclusionary zoning at the local level will advance the cause. If you live in a town, please get involved in Town Meeting. If you live in Arlington, the town election is on April 6, and blank nominating papers are available at Town Hall until (approximately) February 14. Candidates for Town Meeting Members need the signatures of 10 registered voters from their home precinct to get on the ballot.
Charley on the MTA says
Ok, again, I believe that my characterization is being, uh, mischaracterized as a mischaracterization.
I am not characterizing Arlington as being broadly anti-density, today. It has acted that way in the past. I am pleased that’s changing.
In speaking of the resistance to such change, I am referring to recent conversations that I have witnessed, or been party to. (I believe I used the phrase “even in my town of Arlington”; I had thought that indicated that I was somewhat surprised.) If that’s the rear-view mirror, that’s only a few weeks ago.
In any event, my point was not even to characterize Arlington one way or another. I was addressing the arguments I’ve seen used here and elsewhere. They used to carry the day here; hopefully that’s in the past. But they still prevail in other places.
And that’s the last I’ve got to say about that. I’ll never comment on Arlington again! Uncle!
Pablo says
Well, I don’t want to bring your poor uncle into the conversation. I did want to point out just how much we have changed, politically, in the past few years, with an invitation for any like-minded folks to join us in Town Meeting. We need Town Meeting Members who are socially-engaged and see the big picture.
Being so close to Harvard Square, we are filled with academics who want to label Arlington as the place that didn’t want the Red Line. That was almost 40 years ago, and I am sure the Red LIne would be met with today’s Arlington residents throwing rose petals in front of the boring machine.
Trickle up says
I didn’t live in Arlington then, but I think it is important to distinguish between the racist parochial opponents of the Red Line Extension under any scenario, and those who only opposed the extension after Lexington rejected it, shifting the terminus of the line from vacant land next to Route 128 to Arlington Center.
I honestly cannot imagine the equivalent of the Alewife Garage, with all its traffic, smack dab in the center of town.
If you want to point fingers on the Red Line Extension, point them at Lexington’s “no” and the state authorities that honored it.
Trickle up says
Charlie and others fail to grasp that the roots of much of this opposition, however it is expressed, lie with the state’s policy of impoverishing local government.
Families with children impose costs on municipalities that greatly exceed local ability to pay. So, communities swoon when they can get an assisted-living facility sited. Housing for families not so much.
Rail against this if you like, and it is ungenerous. But an honest pro-housing policy would have state taxpayers assume these costs—would cover the shortfall for communities that build new housing.
nopolitician says
I think that the root cause of the housing issue needs to be addressed; Proposition 2.5. This Grover Norquist law has turned voters into accountants when it comes to evaluating housing. The conventional wisdom is that no housing unit should be built that is valued at less than about $400,000, because that is the break-even point for each family that will allegedly move into that unit with their 2.5 kids. This law has created a generation of ignorant snobs who do not have to co-exist with people more than one standard deviation away from their income bracket – our communities are horribly segregated by income to the point where poor Massachusetts families are seen exposed to the general public less often than poor families featured in UNICEF commercials on television.
Is it any wonder that we even have a massive hole in our Chapter 40B law which allows for senior housing to count as “inclusive”? The breakdown between “family” and “age restricted” affordable housing for each community isn’t even published. “The schools!” is the rallying cry that everyone uses to rise up in opposition to any proposed housing.
Read this article about a proposed 50-unit complex in Ludlow (a 97% white city of 21,000 people with an affordable housing percentage of 2.2%). Here are some factors raised:
Those were the comments made in public. Here’s a sample of the anonymous comments:
These comments are about Ludlow, a community that has a median household income of $55,000. So basically you have a bunch of lower-middle-class people rising up in opposition to some upper-lower-class people. It is ingrained in every Massachusetts community to oppose anything other than “luxury” housing.
If you want communities to build more housing, make it worth their while by changing the way they can get money for local services, and gear that to an indicator that doesn’t make it attractive to chase high-income residents. For example, giving local communities a piece of the income tax collections of their residents would just make communities chase the millionaires. However, something based on the sales tax would not have the same distortion between rich and poor residents, since consumption between the rich and poor differs only by a multiple, not an order of magnitude.
We could index state aid to a community’s density, however every city and town knows that state aid is undependable – it is the first thing to be cut in a recession, and is the last thing to be increased in a boom.
drikeo says
I think Cohn and Connolly are chasing their tails on this. There’s a lot of bills. Baker’s got a bill MA Smart Growth has a bill. Connolly has a bill. No point in pretending the Massachusetts Legislature is going to devise the genius bill that solves the housing crunch in Greater Boston in one fell swoop. That will not happen.
Also, I think a decent percentage of the core communities in Greater Boston have inclusionary housing and linkage fee provisions (Boston, Brookline, Cambridge and Somerville off the top of my head). Would it be nice to see that expand? Sure, but I’m doubtful reps are going to vote for something the folks at home won’t do themselves (even though they could).
However, the 2/3 rule is straight up poison. It’s been used to obscene effect to prevent needed housing developments. It’s not a bad place to start, and maybe some of the more progressive folks in the state should be kicking themselves for allowing Charlie Baker to beat them to that punch.
I’ve seen the argument from some that developers want the 2/3 rule gone so they can make fat stacks of cash, but my experience over the last 20+ years is big money projects still get approved while more modest efforts get shot down. And I hate to break it to people, but if you want denser housing you’re going to need some developers to build it.
So, start moving on some of these bills and chip away at the problem.