Here’s a microcosm of how hard it is to get new housing approved in many parts of Massachusetts. As the Standard-Times reports, in Mattapoisett one road to just two new houses must present to & get approval from:
- Planning Board
- Conservation Commission
- Police Dept
- Fire Dept
And that’s just the road! The houses are going to have to make it through their own regulatory steeplechase.
Of course, if you tried to build denser housing to accommodate more families at a lower price – townhouses, apartments, etc. – you’d be immediately laughed out of the room altogether.
We don’t explicitly ban new housing for young families, but we try pretty hard, don’t we?
Please share widely!
“Young families”? Is this housing specifically for young families?
Hmm. I’ve served on both a finance committee and a planning board.
.
I’m not sure I understand the alternative. No matter who the contemplated buyers are, I’m pretty sure that it’s in everybody’s interest to ensure things like:
– No wetlands are disturbed
– The road is wide enough to handle police and fire equipment
– The new road doesn’t create traffic or safety issues with existing roads
– Water and sewer service can be extended to the properties on the new road
etc., etc., etc.
The link you cited correctly identifies these concerns — the proposed road is “undersized” (18-feet wide) and traverses a “swampy area of the site”.
It sounds to me as though these town boards in Mattaposett did exactly the right thing.
What would you have them do differently?
18′ is undersized?!?!
I don’t know the specific proposal, but a road for two houses need not be wide, especially if parking is prohibited.
So yeah, I’m all for review of a new road (whether public or private). I’m also all for narrow neighborhood streets.
Also, “we must protect these wetlands” and “we must pave over 18′ of these wetlands to build a two-lane road for two houses, because rules” seem to be goals in contradiction with another
Maybe you don’t build those two houses on wetlands.
It might worth checking out the proposed site on Google maps.
Or maybe check out the site on street view.
It doesn’t look like like a neighborhood of starter homes to me.
I’m not trying to argumentative or oppositional. I just think that I think that in this particular example, the town seems to be doing pretty much the right thing.
Sorry, I seem to have snagged the wrong URL for the streetview.
Hopefully this is better.
Jeesh! I wish we could preview or edit these.
Street view.
According to state regulations, 18′ is the bare minimum:
Here’s another guide that seems to arrive a similar recommendation (see table 5, “Summary of Road Types”).
I read the cited piece, and in particular read the reported comments of town officials and their recommendation:
This strikes me as a reasonable dialog among reasonable officials seeking to make a reasonable decision.
Sure feels like it, looks like we’ll have to crash with the folks first and then get an apartment. My hunt was unsuccessful last week.
I think OP is on to something, without outlining the why.
In my community, schools make up 50 percent of the budget, plus or minus. This means that any home that houses zero kids is almost certainly a net payer, whereas any home with two or more kids is almost certainly a net receiver. One kid? Dunno.
In any case, if you’re the local bean counter for nearly any community in MA, residential property taxes pay the bills, and schools are 1/2 the bills. If you’ve got budgetary pressure, you want seniors and youngsters to live in your community. They pay property taxes, they support local businesses, but they don’t drive your school costs. What you don’t want are kids. Similarly, you want new homes to be big, sprawling homes, to maximize property taxes paid over the 2.5 line. What you don’t want are those 1600 sq ft starter homes — less property tax over the line, and attractive to those pesky young families that are driving your budgetary costs.
So long as we pay for schools with property tax raised locally, we’ll continue to have this pressure.
That was certainly the dynamic when I served on the finance committee in Billerica. Though it was a long time ago (early 1980s) the economics were exactly as you describe.
Another factor at play is water and sewer. For towns with town water/sewer, big houses mean big consumption. For towns with wells and private septic systems, big houses mean more issues.
It’s even more complicated than that. Residents don’t want the big houses either, as it changes the “character of the town” and means it becomes even less affordable to live there. It essentially becomes a “get inside and slam the door after you” mentality. Resistance to ANY change in housing stock.
Until the state makes changes such that the property tax isn’t the primary way municipalities pay for their services (or the crushing demand for housing – especially close in to Boston – abates) there will be no good answers.
Or we could build 6 story wooden buildings for the young families. Or we could build high rises for the young families and not bother to check if the cladding is flammable.
For the young families..