As towns struggle to take care of basic infrastructure like Police, Fire, Roads and Schools that has in turn sky rocketed property taxes in these same communities. Jobs with sufficient salaries to afford living in these semi rural areas tend to be concentrated inside 128 and the entire mess adds to the drain of younger families away from the Commonwealth with the lack of affordable homes as well as good paying jobs that are not a one hour commute away.
The core principle of Smart Growth is Transit Oriented Downtowns (make that train stops and commuter rail lines) with small business, professional offices, restaurants, pubs and specialty shops along a main street, surrounded by densely zoned neighborhoods of single family, multi family and condos (make that more affordable) that support a walking culture. Creating gate way areas along the main road leading to these downtowns of mixed development with limited commercial/ multi family residential use with historic guidelines in local zoning to protect the cultural nature of the town are also important considerations of Smart Growth. By further establishing commercial and industrial enterprise zones in out lying areas (not regional shopping malls) you decrease the town’s sole reliance on residential property tax to fund services with a balance of the commercial tax base as well as create local jobs by diversifying the types of companies encouraged to develop there.
In other words like the existing communities of Ayer, Shirley, Leominster and Fitchburg. But a drive through the downtown of these municipalities would indicate that while there is restoration and civic improvement going on there is still much that could be done to help. The connection to the Fitchburg Line and the transportation corridors of Route 2, 190 (to Worcester) and 495 further strengthens the economic possibilities of these communities.
Regionally there are the surrounding towns like Harvard, Groton. Lunenburg, Boxbourgh, Bolton, Townsend etc,that have seen the affects of the gentrification on their demographics as in those who have lived there for years having to leave as property taxes rise and those who can stay, having their children move away because they couldn’t afford to buy in. Many of those who reside in those communities now commute to inside of 128 creating more congestion of rural roads, which were never intended to be major transportation routes (not to mention the contribution to global warming). Imagine if there were more opportunities for business development within the region? By working in a cooperative manner (rather than the current and antiquated divisiveness of home rule that stifles such cooperation) the region becomes more self sustaining and less a contributor to the individual carbon foot print, than relying on the economics of a Boston concentrated economic engine for employment
The point is that the future of the Commonwealth lies not in destination Casino’s or continuing to focus on the concentration of business inside 128 but by looking to these clusters of traditional transit oriented towns and their neighboring towns. You can do this by reformatting zoning laws that encourage traditional small town (make that Smart Growth) development patterns, protect the valuable wildlife and open space corridors between them. Further you can strengthen their economic base by encouraging smaller diverse companies to move into these regions rather that scoring the big corporation inside 128 that is just one tax incentive away from moving to another state (if not another country). This is how we could develop our commonwealth’s long-term economic viability.
While it is not my intention to suggest that the rebuilding of the decaying infrastructures of Boston and it Suburbs is not needed or economic development not vital, I merely suggest that there are these clusters of traditional New England development patterns and it is looking to our past and concentrating our efforts to strengthen that with the actions taken by the Patrick Administration and Beacon Hill that should be strongly considered as an important part of the Commonwealth’s future economic sustainability and to the creation of more affordable places to live.
* low traffic
* walkable communities
… we already have higher traffic without encouraging or increasing walkable communities. Without this type of approach will see that just increase. The point is to trend backwards from reliance on car habitat within these core and surrounding towns but also to reduce the overall amount of traffic running into Boston. With Gas heading to $3.50+ not a bad goal.
<
p>And if you are going to work in Boston then you live in the Downtown area of these communities with a train stop and walk to the train (as many already do). I even know of several people who use the Nashua Rail Trail to bike from Groton to Ayer to catch the train to work.
<
p>Proposed transit improvements on the Fitchburg Line to encourage rider ship include adding the double track from Ayer to Acton (which would allow more express trains) and working to increase Commuter parking in or around these transit oriented downtowns which One: Encourages more Transit rail use by the bedroom community commuters and Two: adds parking capacity to support activities and growth in these core Downtown areas further making them attractive as places to live and for business to invest in.
<
p>Lisa Wong’s recent win (with over 75% of the vote) for Mayor of Fitchburg campaigned on this type of thinking.
You know we really need some good economic development down here on Cape Cod. Not greater congestion, but smart development. We have baby boomers, many out of state, buying retirement homes and there’s a big controversy here about a report by a hired demographics expert who says we’re quickly headed for a crisis here with not nearly enough young people (Sorry our local paper doesn’t have an online link). There’s a variety of reasons, one being the high cost of housing and the scarcity of decent rental property. But something people don’t talk about that goes hand in hand with that is that we don’t have many good jobs down here, besides tourism, real estate, and a few good scientific outfits.
<
p>San Fran did something remarkable recently. The Presidio was a military base right in the city that shut down. They converted it into a trust including park land, historical buildings and are leasing some space to high tech industry, including Lucas Arts. Now they’ve got an amazing world class high-tech campus right there in a beautiful location.
<
p>In parallel, we’ve got Otis Airforce base that is in continual threat of being shut down. It’s only an hour from Boston in that location and its on beautiful Cape Cod. The state and feds should start imagining a way to make it a Trust as well and include a biotech park or something similar and inject some economic and youthful life into our rapidly aging community. Otherwise the cape is going to continue down the path to becoming a senior citizen home for retired New Yorkers.
The Pentagon has extended the lease through 2026. The base is the site of the PAVE PAWS facility, the only NORAD Command on the east coast, as well as a new terrorism training camp.
<
p>AND – if the lease were to lapse, it would return to its original owner – the Shawme-Crowell State Park as part of the state park system. It was first leased from the state park system b the Pentagon for troop training in WWI. Not two, one.
<
p>It will not be available for development.
I thought that was in Iraq.
<
p>The Presidio is part park as well. Otis already has a jail in it and a county dump/station. In the Presidio the Lucas Arts campus is only 15 acres. They replaced the old military hospital buildings with the Lucas buildings basically, and its leased not sold to Lucas. Some vision for some combined function similar to that would be nice, not development of the whole area for McMansions. We’ve got enough of them. The base used to employ a lot of people in its heyday I understand. Now we don’t have any F15s left.
Who OWNED the Presidio land? Wasn’t it military? The DCR is the landlord for the base.
<
p>What makes you think the state will rent/sell the largest expanse of undeveloped space on Cape to ANYBODY?
<
p>Hell, maybe Deval can put a casino there! That’s how this administration thinks.
<
p>Plenty of people are STILL employed at the base – just ask the IBEW.
The Presidio is a National Park. The scenario is actually quite similar to Otis, except that its location is downtown SF. 15 acres is a tiny component of the Presidio (and comparatively Otis’ 22,000 acres). But the move gave Lucas Arts a campus of its own, and moved one of the best world digital arts companies into SF, while taking down an old (abandoned) military hospital. Talk about bang-for-buck economic development, it simply doesn’t get any better than that.
<
p>It’s no secret that the upper cape has been concerned about the gradual decline of Otis for a long time.
<
p>There was a Globe editorial sharing similar sentiments about this recently
OTIS is leased land, and part of the Mass. state park system when the lease is up in 2027.
<
p>The analogy with the Presidio is imperfect. As I suspected, it is Federal land – once a base, now a national park.
<
p>If the Federal base leaves in 20 years, the land in Bourne reverts to the state, not the Federal system.
<
p>And the Upper Cape supports the base.
Deval (or whomever is gov when they finally do something) can lead the way. Peter did you read the linked op-ed? 22000 acres for a intelligence facility is certainly more than is needed. Give 100 acres of the 22000 (0.5%) or less even to a new wind power turbine company or other new green technology industry on a 20 year lease to replace some of the now unused facilities.
<
p>I get depressed when I come back from somewhere with a vibrant population of all ages to standing behind the old man in the wheelchair at the deli counter yelling at the kids behind the counter and knocking over all the display items with his out of control motorized wheelchair (this is a true story, I’m not using hyperbole). The population here is unbalanced and that is a well known problem. I think Barnstable has one of the oldest average or median ages in Massachusetts. There’s a lot of temptation for the working population to move North Carolina or South Carolina where the cost of living is much cheaper and the older generation isn’t holding the reins so tight that the community is suffering. I get tired of the righteousness of cape codders who think they are fighting the good fight in stopping development, with no vision for trying to promote the community beyond their property values.
<
p>It is possible for Barnstable to turn the tide of continually losing its younger generations, even with the land/home prices are very high as they are here. But the State needs to promote quality jobs for those younger people to being able to put down some roots. All the pieces are here, an active state green movement, multiple potential proposals for wind energy (meaning that its possible that one will be built locally), and a large air force base that no longer has significant land use needs (or any F15s).
<
p>I always enjoyed seeing the F15s flying around.
The 102nd Fighter Wing held its redesignation ceremony yesterday, to recognize its status as a terrorist training facility – which you mocked when I first told it to you.
<
p>It doesn’t matter what the Glob, Herald, or any other op-ed thinks would be keen – the Pentagon has a signed lease through 2028, and they are not leaving. AND if they did – the land reverts to the state park system.
… on the former Army base out this way.
<
p>I edited out a section on it as my original piece was getting too long but it is exactly what you are referring to.
<
p>Don’t we already have such underutilized space in this state? Seems to me they’re calling something like “cities”. Why not concentrate on them first? Everything is already there, including a lot of dense housing only in need of simple upgrades to allow it to compete with brand-new construction.
<
p>What is the difference between one of the state’s so-called gateway cities and the towns (excluding Fitchburg) you mentioned? Poverty. In fact, I’d argue that the idea behind “Smart Growth” is simply “creating cities without the problems.” Why do I say that? Because everything I hear about these smart growth areas already exists in cities, but one thing the smart growth advocates leave out are social services such as public health care facilities, subsidized housing, homeless shelters, etc. Things no one wants in their back yard.
<
p>Cities are being redefined away – all the good things (including easy access to transportation and concentration of commerce and business) are being replicated elsewhere, it is being done in a way that directly competes with existing urban areas, and is being facilitated by the government in various ways (like subsidies for high speed internet in areas where it is un-economic to do so privately).
If living close to Boston (or in Boston) was affordable and the problems Boston has were addressed: crime, school safety and quality of education being the first ones in my head — wouldn’t we have a walkable city with lots of economic opportunities and a small energy footprint?
<
p>Making strong business communities outside of Boston will surely lead to sprawl. Transit problems in and out of the city are more easily fixed than transit problems all around the city.
…should Boston itself adopt smart growth principles you would be correct:)
<
p>But Boston is a Big City with Big city problems so a different context which to solve its problems in than what I am presenting.
<
p>Welcome to Ayer Shirley Leominster and Fitchburg (and my larger point that they are not unique as you travel around the commonwealth)
<
p>Also my point
<
p>
<
p>You are correct if you try and apply Smart Growth to those rural gentrified areas. It doesn’t work
<
p>But out of control Sprawl is what we have now with current growth and development patterns. Concentrating Smart growth Principles in existing communities that historically are already smart growth oriented is the point I am making. But it is setting development in a regional context rather than town by town is how you can balance the demands of growth, hence control sprawl
<
p>And how you deal with the “Problems” is by having a tax base sufficient to pay for dealing with them. Hence Commercial Development that makes no demands on Schools so the tax revenues are net positive to towns whereas residential oriented towns are usually net tax income losers requiring the property tax increases to make up the difference.
But are Ayer and Shirley, “cities”? Hardly. Ayer has a population of 7,287. Shirley has a population of 6,373. If you said “Fitchburg, Holyoke, North Adams, Lawrence, and Fall River”, I’d be 100% in agreement with you, but your point seems to ignore areas that need redevelopment in lieu of smart new development.
<
p>It’s certainly harder to redevelop than it is to develop something new; why not put our focus on fixing what we have rather than building up new places?