![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 21st, 2010
40B: what should I think about it?
Sep. 21st, 2010 10:20 pmPro: Every town should have housing affordable by the people who serve it, be they teachers, firemen, nurses, et cetera. Being ever the pinko, I'll add the baristas. Poverty should not be allowed to be contentrated and ghettoed off by snob zoning. And, towns should not be allowed to snobzone their neighbors into decrepitude. And, this part of the country is one of the few places where pre-1950's insanity tore up traditional towns and replaced them with ticky tacky.
40B allows developers to force through affordable housing projects in towns where less than 10% of the housing stock is affordable by mere mortals. At least in theory, this should solve the problem. Each town figures out how and where to build housing affordable by the lower middle class and fitting local conditions, or else the developers get the chance to do it.
Con: too many towns are too disfunctional or ossified to do it on their own, and when the developers do it, they plunk down a block of apartment buildings in locations that don't do anyone any favors. They still don't do it to the really hoity--toity towns like Lincoln & Sudbury, since land is expensive there, so the burden that comes from low income housing is still not spread evenly around the commonwealth.
So, should I vote to repeal 40B? Or just pray that Beacon Hill write something better in its place?
I am no fan of snob zoning. But I also don't think letting out-of-state developers put apartment blocks in the middle of nowhere, where the residents still have to drive long distances to find work, is the way to deal with it.
40B allows developers to force through affordable housing projects in towns where less than 10% of the housing stock is affordable by mere mortals. At least in theory, this should solve the problem. Each town figures out how and where to build housing affordable by the lower middle class and fitting local conditions, or else the developers get the chance to do it.
Con: too many towns are too disfunctional or ossified to do it on their own, and when the developers do it, they plunk down a block of apartment buildings in locations that don't do anyone any favors. They still don't do it to the really hoity--toity towns like Lincoln & Sudbury, since land is expensive there, so the burden that comes from low income housing is still not spread evenly around the commonwealth.
So, should I vote to repeal 40B? Or just pray that Beacon Hill write something better in its place?
I am no fan of snob zoning. But I also don't think letting out-of-state developers put apartment blocks in the middle of nowhere, where the residents still have to drive long distances to find work, is the way to deal with it.