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.
Showing posts with label smart growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label smart growth. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
40B or not to 40B
Barbara Anderson posted a good column on this the other day.
We've definitely got an issue in our town according to the Commonwealth - by state standards we're at only around 3% "affordable" and we need to be 10%.
One of the remedies is to count mobile home park units (really affordable) towards the percentages. Our Rep Paul Frost has proposed this - here's the link. It seems to fit somewhat in that it's housing and it's cheap - it's part of the solution they are trying to afford. So far it's being fought - mainly by predatory 40B developers who like the fact they can make so much $$ off new developments while ignoring local zoning laws so they can build em quick and cheap. Even accounting for this, we're only around 8% - but it's not passed at this point.
It's certainly something that's been brought up as concerns at Planning and Master Plan meetings. The Master Plan even mentions it. There's support for it now among members like Dan Carpenter, who's voiced his opinion in support of 40B apartments in the past. He complains that young people who work in town can't afford to live here. I say then let's try and up their incomes and attack the equation that way.
To me, a regional approach makes more sense. We're right next to Worcester, the second largest city in New England with many affordable apartments. We shouldn't be in the business of trying to out-cheap the city, we'll never do it nor should we. I had to live in the City after college for a time until I could save enough to buy a place here - it was something to strive for and I think makes the town more appealing vs giving someone a cheap place artificially that they won't respect as much.
In any event, we're vulnerable right now to 40B apartment developments, which scare many folks because of the lack of control the town would have. They could literally plop one down in the middle of a bunch of houses and there would be little the town or residents could do, at least according to some officials. It's been used as a scare tactic in the Wallace Ave development to try and gain concessions. I think the best realistic approach is for the town to take the initiative and plan and promote some mixed-use areas with 40B where we decide, before neighborhoods become the target of some 40B developer. If there's so much commercial space vacant maybe it's time to put one on Rt 20 or Rt 12 for instance, near a bus line.
We've definitely got an issue in our town according to the Commonwealth - by state standards we're at only around 3% "affordable" and we need to be 10%.
One of the remedies is to count mobile home park units (really affordable) towards the percentages. Our Rep Paul Frost has proposed this - here's the link. It seems to fit somewhat in that it's housing and it's cheap - it's part of the solution they are trying to afford. So far it's being fought - mainly by predatory 40B developers who like the fact they can make so much $$ off new developments while ignoring local zoning laws so they can build em quick and cheap. Even accounting for this, we're only around 8% - but it's not passed at this point.
It's certainly something that's been brought up as concerns at Planning and Master Plan meetings. The Master Plan even mentions it. There's support for it now among members like Dan Carpenter, who's voiced his opinion in support of 40B apartments in the past. He complains that young people who work in town can't afford to live here. I say then let's try and up their incomes and attack the equation that way.
To me, a regional approach makes more sense. We're right next to Worcester, the second largest city in New England with many affordable apartments. We shouldn't be in the business of trying to out-cheap the city, we'll never do it nor should we. I had to live in the City after college for a time until I could save enough to buy a place here - it was something to strive for and I think makes the town more appealing vs giving someone a cheap place artificially that they won't respect as much.
In any event, we're vulnerable right now to 40B apartment developments, which scare many folks because of the lack of control the town would have. They could literally plop one down in the middle of a bunch of houses and there would be little the town or residents could do, at least according to some officials. It's been used as a scare tactic in the Wallace Ave development to try and gain concessions. I think the best realistic approach is for the town to take the initiative and plan and promote some mixed-use areas with 40B where we decide, before neighborhoods become the target of some 40B developer. If there's so much commercial space vacant maybe it's time to put one on Rt 20 or Rt 12 for instance, near a bus line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
