The case for growth limits

Ahh, September, kids going back to school, cooler temperatures, leaves starting to change and the sound of ... bulldozers, tree pullers and brush shredders?!?

My side of town (Prec 2) has erupted the past several mornings to these sounds as more open space is lost, trees cleared, earth removed and construction developments under way. There's Wallace Ave and Anderson Way (clearing for a gentleman's farm ;), both under development from Planning Board chairman Dave Dellolis as well as the massive Leicester and Rochdale St "Auburn Hills" development.

It's all a bit disconcerting, partly due to the sheer size of the efforts and numbers of units potentially involved. The other part is that as I've pointed out, planned open space has once again been put on the back burner. Some of the concerns are for the waterways. Drainage of groundwater via runoff is a major contributor to contamination. There are no waterways in town at this point that satisfy the health requirements for eColi to make the water safe for swimming according to the water district. US Res, Dark Brook, Lower Stoneville as well as Camp Gleason are all too high. To blame it all on those pesky ducks while avoiding any look at increased development or runoff from increased population density is naive at best, self-serving to developers at least and deliberately negligent at worst. The other concern is that loss of habitat and town character which happens when land is cleared.

Many on my side of town are in an uproar over the 300 home development plans off Leicester St, and with the recent T&G article about Oxfords 300+ unit condo developments it's enough to drive you to alarming extremes! But before you do something drastic like posting messages to vote for Mike Robidoux (kidding just seeing if you're listening ;) there may be a rational solution at least in part to all this. I'm talking about growth limits.

The idea is that with all the growth, additional costs come for town services like sewer, water, police, fire and above all schools. The question with additional homes is not whether or not taxes will rise it's how much and how soon. With a growth limit on the number of new housing units developed in a year, the town could predict and manage the numbers so that rational plans could be put into place BEFORE things got out of hand and drastic measures were needed like overrides and such. This is in the backdrop of recent doubling of residential tax rates of course as laid out in a recent article in the Globe as well as blogged about here and on CLTG website.

Growth limits are in effect in neighboring Oxford, and there, a number of houses or condos are specified that can be developed in a given period of time. Ironically the developments in N Oxford off Rt 20 are in an area exempt from the limits (called the Merriam district, yes I believe the dictionary Merriam but historians can correct me there). It could be 30 or 50 or whatever the town decides it can "afford". That way we can predict the tax rate will go up by $.10/1000 this year, $.25 the next and so on. Maybe even (gasp) drop or stop the rate increases!

I predict, thanks to the predominance of influence by developers in town government on planning and elsewhere that this would be a tough sell. I'm pretty sure businesses AND developers will continue to see land in town as a scarce resource that needs to be exploited for maximum dollars.

But I also predict that without it, large projects like Auburn Hills, potentially Anderson Way and elsewhere will have serious negative impacts to cost of services for taxpayers. People need to realize the effects of unrestrained housing growth on town services and costs, not to mention open space and town character. Growth limits are one realistic way to address the issue and keep our town livable for residents.

This is a topic I will raise this week at the Master Plan Implementation Committee meeting; I think it's an appropriate place to consider such action in the Master Plan as well as possible by-law changes to affect them.