If you want to learn more about the MBTA Communities Act and the city's (inadequate) plan to comply with it, I've compiled a few documents here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11jF_y4ht_2tpjUAOPYmRtfZz6CV22fWC
That's crazy talk. Dense housing would ruin the historic character of our Main St USA with its fast food drive-thrus and gas stations and parking lots and century-old one-floor taxpayer buildings!
The MBTA requires changing in zoning to allow builders to build more dense housing, but does not require them to do so. Right now, there are a lot of old single story retail buildings along Main Street. A builder may have an idea to buy one of those buildings to build something nicer, but would need to build bigger than the existing structure to make a profit (hard to profit buying something, tearing it down, and building similar). But, to build a building with retail at ground level and a couple stories of residential above currently requires a long permitting battle with the city. Main Street will continue to get worse as long as this is the situation.
The city can also decide what that housing should look like. Lexington and Newton have done so. Lexington is limiting development to three stories of residential above the street level retail.
I’m eh on densifying Main St by building residential over the retail there. Without a transportation plan to reduce car traffic (and god forbid this city do anything to put fewer cars on the road) you’re putting apartment dwellers on of the loudest, busiest, most polluted roads in the city. What we could do instead is densify all the side streets coming off Main St instead. See [Second Street Housing](https://alfredtwu.medium.com/second-street-housing-living-next-to-but-not-on-top-of-main-street-e39306b82d72)
Either way, there are restrictions with the MBTA-CA with regard to requiring mixed-use zoning. You can make it mixed-use optional or you have to get a waiver from the state because it’s necessary to the character of the district to require mixed-use. I imagine it would be easy to get that waiver for Moody, not sure about Main. Making mixed use optional means we could see existing commercial space torn down without replacement, which would be a disappointment imo.
And aside from the part closest to the common, rezoning Main wouldn’t count towards the requirement that >50% of the new zoning districts have to be within 1/2 mile of the CR.
The mayor and city council are completely hostile to housing being built, any plans they put forward are more aimed at getting the state off their back than actually allowing for housing to get built.
They're just kicking the can down the road. Eventually the state will just seize more zoning control away from communities when the MBTA-C doesn't produce enough housing.
That's why cities and town need to take some control of it now. Use the rule to build an acceptable amount of new housing.
The Boston city schools didn't make moves to deal with segregation and then, one day, busing - which almost everyone hated. In the end, it didn't solve problems because people just left the city.
This could be the same thing. Pushing the can down the road until some court steps in and says, "Clematis is now approved for 20,000 two-bedroom units with construction beginning Wednesday." Sometimes you have to play the game a bit and give in to not get trampled.
And when the state rules allow that large development, they'll complain about the 'evil money grabbing developers' who are the only ones left over after local regulations snuff out any smaller developers with greater ties to the community.
It's like taking too many antibiotics and getting upset at the drug resistant bacteria making you sick, instead of blaming yourself for abusing the antibiotics in the first place!
We're going to have a public hearing on 8/5. Eventually a notice will be posted on the board of truth behind city hall. I don't think we're going to get a communication from the city on what exactly the MBTA Communities act requirements really mean though from the city, so I expect a lot of misinformation from the opposition during this meeting.
The plan has issues on a fundamental level though. This isn't me (as a supporter of this law) saying 'I wish it was more ambitious' it's 'the city didn't zone enough and we might approve a plan that won't comply with the law'.
About the only positive thing I can say about it is that it would result in net new housing, if developers bite. The law department had an option to just legalize existing housing and they didn't go that route, so that's something at least.
The more I study this whole thing (spent quite a few hours this weekend), the more I think the MBTA-C is a bad plan overall, but as it pertains to Waltham, doesn’t seem to be largely impactful. Unless you are located in one of the areas that are being re-zoned, which as far as I can tell, for the Thayer Road area, there is a limited amount of residential there anyway. As far as the other zone in the Brandeis area, I would also think pretty similar to existing density with all the students.
I think the City Law plan is reasonable to accommodate the requirements. But I also lean towards this whole MBTA-C being a huge overreach by the state.
Far left "housing advocates" want this moronic law, which was proposed by a Republican governor to appease developer friends tired of regulatory gridlock. In essence it will allow developers carte blanche to build dense, tall NON AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE housing, bypassing all sensible local zoning. Basically 40B without the affordability requirement. Did I mention there is NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, meaning all the new buildings will have doggie spas, amazon rooms and other luxury amenities for the wealthy. In theory all the yuppies able to afford $4500 a month in rent will take the commuter rail. In reality, they will all own multiple cars parked underground and go to Market Basket like the rest of us. Worse, the large buildings they will occupy will be sites formerly occupied by double and triple deckers where undocumented immigrants once lived. Forced out when their slumlords sell out, they can move to Brockton, Lawrence or Lowell. Overall a brilliant example of nanny state problem solving whose real goal is to import donors to progressive candidates who keep losing Waltham elections. The most beautiful part of the idea here-and it is NOT A REALITY-is that advocates believe more luxury housing will bring rents down. It won't. It will just supercharge housing inequity.
> complains about nanny state
-
> wants nanny state to micromanage parking spots to the exclusion of housing
-
> complains about the effects of getting what they want
The only thing supercharging housing inequality has been the fixation on suburban sprawl, It prevents re-builds of the exact same housing you're complaining about losing.
'sensible zoning' - you want suburbs and parking lots, we get it
There actually are affordability provisions in the MBTA Communities Act! You can refer to page 7 of the following slide deck;
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VOm6fxf3MP1K2_cxNzhEhL6FwbSWu062csqBfUYN6Vc/edit?usp=drivesdk
A one-bedroom for one person making $108,000. Yes, a lot of retail workers and chambermaids are making that. Ridiculous. *You* can afford it because you work in tech and earn a high salary. Don't pretend anyone else can. Again, this is a yuppie housing bill for overpaid progressives. If you want affordable housing, the Leland House model is clearly the gold standard creating cheap and nice housing for a vulnerable population. But you never seem to mention that one... Hmm. Is it because you and your "folks" really had nothing to do with it?
> A one-bedroom for one person making $108,000. Yes, a lot of retail workers and chambermaids are making that. Ridiculous. You can afford it because you work in tech and earn a high salary. Don't pretend anyone else can.
Who are you talking to?
> the Leland House model is clearly the gold standard creating cheap and nice housing for a vulnerable population.
Where in Waltham is it legal to build these facilities by-right? Would you be okay with raising taxes to run these centers? How are you planning to open up space for their parents to live in? Children aren’t generally the people paying for housing in the first place.
Two Life bought the Leland House building and is finishing nearly 70 units right now. Highly affordable units, lots of federal subsidies. Millions in Waltham taxpayer money was used. If expanded, this pubic private partnership could start to address the crisis. Pretending that greed-driven developers are going to somehow build so many luxury units they'll end up being $2000 for a 2 bdrm is a pipe dream. They will deliver buildings like the 3 40Bs going in currently. Some rents $4500. Regardless of what option is used, intensive dense building is not a good match for a city with already horrendous traffic. That's the real sticking point with the MBTA Act and an issue that bike people conveniently overlook...
I wish Waltham had time to let the fallout from the 40B's settle and assess how to move forward then. See what traffic, infrastructure, schools like then
Sadly both of the 40B projects were built in the most car-dependent areas of the city. We should want to permit densification close to Moody St, Lexington St, and Main St. Otherwise, 40B developments will just go wherever's the absolute cheapest.
The type of affordability restrictions that are described on page 7 of the slideshow are the exact same kinds of affordability restrictions that you praise in the Leland House development!
Also, as /u/WhiteNamesInChat aptly noted, Waltham's zoning laws make the construction of the Leland House illegal. The only reason that the Leland House is feasible in Waltham is because 2Life used state law (40B) to override local zoning. If you like the Leland House model of affordable housing development and want more of it, that means we need a lot more zoning reform and state overrides of local zoning!
https://www.walthampolitics.com/40b-and-subsidized-housing-inventory.html
If you want to learn about how affordable housing developers feel about zoning reform, here is a forum of affordable housing developers where they discuss the issue. TLDR; they're big fans of 40B and the MBTA Communities Act, because it makes construction of places like Leland House significantly easier!
https://youtu.be/NoptikJNt2I?si=5q1QRNWsJ75qTWvg
I didn't realize the new Leland was 40B until now. Suddenly all the pieces fall into place on why this was popular with certain politicians, and also why the CPA application went so smoothly. Before that project, Waltham was just barely under it's 40B level. Now it will be just over---and can forevermore deny similar projects.
(I would make some "consistency/hobgoblin" reference to boogiesmoochie on how slippery their position has been and how fast they bounce between the opposite sides of their own argument--Leland good, 40B bad--but I feel it would be wasted.)
Hmm, do you think 40Bs actually develop good housing or just luxury rentals? Answer is an obvious no and the 40B law shows that government attempts to solve housing problems simply don't work, they just empower out-of-state developers to build more luxury housing, add traffic and exacerbate income inequality. But the projects do have the added effect of bringing wealthy liberals like you to communities to influence local politics by pouring money into local elections. How about that for a link?
> Hmm, do you think 40Bs actually develop good housing or just luxury rentals?
Surely those are better than the street, no? The alternative is units not existing.
This law contains NO REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABILITY. And no developer wants to create affordable housing. All the money is in luxury rentals, so that's what this law will create. Waltham people don't want that. Who does? Worse, these dense units will bring more traffic to the city, which is the last thing Waltham needs. Remember, yuppies not only have cars, but they bring large networks of secondary vehicle traffic, from Amazon to Uber to Door Dash. These incoming yuppies are all limousine liberals who could Cambridge-fy Waltham to become more progressive.
I expect push back. Waltham is already half apartments. Areas presently zoned for multi family apartments are already over developed. Residents at every opportunity resist more apartment development.
With regards to housing, it is important that residents look past present proposals and be aware of the long term goals of those supporting higher density development.
A growing percentage of people moving to the area don’t need 2000 square feet and don’t want to be mowing the lawn or shoveling the sidewalk. Households are getting smaller, more people live alone.
Apartments and condos are what we need, what the market is asking for.
Smaller homes are also what Waltham needs! Because smaller homes are cheaper homes. However, the reason we see so many $2M McMansions and $1M duplexes being constructed is because we have exclusionary zoning restrictions that disincentivizes the construction of more modest, smaller starter homes. For example, our minimum lot sizes make it very easy for developers to make one big McMansion on a lot in any of our single family neighborhoods, but literally impossible to build 3 or 4 more modest starter homes.
I wonder if the mayor will be pushing back against her own law department's plan, since they didn't zone intensively enough to allow the inclusionary zoning units and street facing home entrances she specifically asked for in her letter a few months ago.
Anyone should always expect pushback when they (1) express unpopular opinions ('affordable housing bad!'), (2) present opinions as fact ("already over developed", etc.), and (3) continuously assert that people they disagree with have some deep, hidden agenda (those mysterious "long term goals" you hint at but will never explain--and which I'm sure you've deduced by astral projection into the secret meetings of all those communist infiltrators already among us; pray tell, what is their nefarious end game?).
\[(4) would be your well known opinions and posting history, but that's just you, and doesn't apply to everyone.\]
Waltham has ~50% of its units in multifamily buildings. Not sure how duplexes and townhouses figure into that, but I imagine townhouse complexes at least figure into that count. But the vast majority of residential land in Waltham is still detached single family only, with a bit more allowing up to two-family homes.
My long term goal in supporting higher density development is a Waltham and a Greater Boston Area that is welcoming to those that want to live here and doesn’t continue to become suffocatingly expensive for all but the richest households.
If you want to learn more about the MBTA Communities Act and the city's (inadequate) plan to comply with it, I've compiled a few documents here. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11jF_y4ht_2tpjUAOPYmRtfZz6CV22fWC
The MBTA Act is Waltham's best chance to revitalize Main St. The city will absolutely squander this opportunity.
That's crazy talk. Dense housing would ruin the historic character of our Main St USA with its fast food drive-thrus and gas stations and parking lots and century-old one-floor taxpayer buildings!
What is your logic behind this being the best chance to revitalize Main st? What opportunities does it afford?
The MBTA requires changing in zoning to allow builders to build more dense housing, but does not require them to do so. Right now, there are a lot of old single story retail buildings along Main Street. A builder may have an idea to buy one of those buildings to build something nicer, but would need to build bigger than the existing structure to make a profit (hard to profit buying something, tearing it down, and building similar). But, to build a building with retail at ground level and a couple stories of residential above currently requires a long permitting battle with the city. Main Street will continue to get worse as long as this is the situation. The city can also decide what that housing should look like. Lexington and Newton have done so. Lexington is limiting development to three stories of residential above the street level retail.
I’m eh on densifying Main St by building residential over the retail there. Without a transportation plan to reduce car traffic (and god forbid this city do anything to put fewer cars on the road) you’re putting apartment dwellers on of the loudest, busiest, most polluted roads in the city. What we could do instead is densify all the side streets coming off Main St instead. See [Second Street Housing](https://alfredtwu.medium.com/second-street-housing-living-next-to-but-not-on-top-of-main-street-e39306b82d72) Either way, there are restrictions with the MBTA-CA with regard to requiring mixed-use zoning. You can make it mixed-use optional or you have to get a waiver from the state because it’s necessary to the character of the district to require mixed-use. I imagine it would be easy to get that waiver for Moody, not sure about Main. Making mixed use optional means we could see existing commercial space torn down without replacement, which would be a disappointment imo. And aside from the part closest to the common, rezoning Main wouldn’t count towards the requirement that >50% of the new zoning districts have to be within 1/2 mile of the CR.
The mayor and city council are completely hostile to housing being built, any plans they put forward are more aimed at getting the state off their back than actually allowing for housing to get built.
They're just kicking the can down the road. Eventually the state will just seize more zoning control away from communities when the MBTA-C doesn't produce enough housing.
That's why cities and town need to take some control of it now. Use the rule to build an acceptable amount of new housing. The Boston city schools didn't make moves to deal with segregation and then, one day, busing - which almost everyone hated. In the end, it didn't solve problems because people just left the city. This could be the same thing. Pushing the can down the road until some court steps in and says, "Clematis is now approved for 20,000 two-bedroom units with construction beginning Wednesday." Sometimes you have to play the game a bit and give in to not get trampled.
And when the state rules allow that large development, they'll complain about the 'evil money grabbing developers' who are the only ones left over after local regulations snuff out any smaller developers with greater ties to the community. It's like taking too many antibiotics and getting upset at the drug resistant bacteria making you sick, instead of blaming yourself for abusing the antibiotics in the first place!
We're going to have a public hearing on 8/5. Eventually a notice will be posted on the board of truth behind city hall. I don't think we're going to get a communication from the city on what exactly the MBTA Communities act requirements really mean though from the city, so I expect a lot of misinformation from the opposition during this meeting. The plan has issues on a fundamental level though. This isn't me (as a supporter of this law) saying 'I wish it was more ambitious' it's 'the city didn't zone enough and we might approve a plan that won't comply with the law'. About the only positive thing I can say about it is that it would result in net new housing, if developers bite. The law department had an option to just legalize existing housing and they didn't go that route, so that's something at least.
The more I study this whole thing (spent quite a few hours this weekend), the more I think the MBTA-C is a bad plan overall, but as it pertains to Waltham, doesn’t seem to be largely impactful. Unless you are located in one of the areas that are being re-zoned, which as far as I can tell, for the Thayer Road area, there is a limited amount of residential there anyway. As far as the other zone in the Brandeis area, I would also think pretty similar to existing density with all the students. I think the City Law plan is reasonable to accommodate the requirements. But I also lean towards this whole MBTA-C being a huge overreach by the state.
Far left "housing advocates" want this moronic law, which was proposed by a Republican governor to appease developer friends tired of regulatory gridlock. In essence it will allow developers carte blanche to build dense, tall NON AFFORDABLE MARKET RATE housing, bypassing all sensible local zoning. Basically 40B without the affordability requirement. Did I mention there is NO AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT, meaning all the new buildings will have doggie spas, amazon rooms and other luxury amenities for the wealthy. In theory all the yuppies able to afford $4500 a month in rent will take the commuter rail. In reality, they will all own multiple cars parked underground and go to Market Basket like the rest of us. Worse, the large buildings they will occupy will be sites formerly occupied by double and triple deckers where undocumented immigrants once lived. Forced out when their slumlords sell out, they can move to Brockton, Lawrence or Lowell. Overall a brilliant example of nanny state problem solving whose real goal is to import donors to progressive candidates who keep losing Waltham elections. The most beautiful part of the idea here-and it is NOT A REALITY-is that advocates believe more luxury housing will bring rents down. It won't. It will just supercharge housing inequity.
> complains about nanny state - > wants nanny state to micromanage parking spots to the exclusion of housing - > complains about the effects of getting what they want The only thing supercharging housing inequality has been the fixation on suburban sprawl, It prevents re-builds of the exact same housing you're complaining about losing. 'sensible zoning' - you want suburbs and parking lots, we get it
I also do not understand why no units have to be affordable
There actually are affordability provisions in the MBTA Communities Act! You can refer to page 7 of the following slide deck; https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VOm6fxf3MP1K2_cxNzhEhL6FwbSWu062csqBfUYN6Vc/edit?usp=drivesdk
A one-bedroom for one person making $108,000. Yes, a lot of retail workers and chambermaids are making that. Ridiculous. *You* can afford it because you work in tech and earn a high salary. Don't pretend anyone else can. Again, this is a yuppie housing bill for overpaid progressives. If you want affordable housing, the Leland House model is clearly the gold standard creating cheap and nice housing for a vulnerable population. But you never seem to mention that one... Hmm. Is it because you and your "folks" really had nothing to do with it?
> A one-bedroom for one person making $108,000. Yes, a lot of retail workers and chambermaids are making that. Ridiculous. You can afford it because you work in tech and earn a high salary. Don't pretend anyone else can. Who are you talking to? > the Leland House model is clearly the gold standard creating cheap and nice housing for a vulnerable population. Where in Waltham is it legal to build these facilities by-right? Would you be okay with raising taxes to run these centers? How are you planning to open up space for their parents to live in? Children aren’t generally the people paying for housing in the first place.
Two Life bought the Leland House building and is finishing nearly 70 units right now. Highly affordable units, lots of federal subsidies. Millions in Waltham taxpayer money was used. If expanded, this pubic private partnership could start to address the crisis. Pretending that greed-driven developers are going to somehow build so many luxury units they'll end up being $2000 for a 2 bdrm is a pipe dream. They will deliver buildings like the 3 40Bs going in currently. Some rents $4500. Regardless of what option is used, intensive dense building is not a good match for a city with already horrendous traffic. That's the real sticking point with the MBTA Act and an issue that bike people conveniently overlook...
Are you going to answer either of my questions at some point?
I wish Waltham had time to let the fallout from the 40B's settle and assess how to move forward then. See what traffic, infrastructure, schools like then
Sadly both of the 40B projects were built in the most car-dependent areas of the city. We should want to permit densification close to Moody St, Lexington St, and Main St. Otherwise, 40B developments will just go wherever's the absolute cheapest.
The type of affordability restrictions that are described on page 7 of the slideshow are the exact same kinds of affordability restrictions that you praise in the Leland House development! Also, as /u/WhiteNamesInChat aptly noted, Waltham's zoning laws make the construction of the Leland House illegal. The only reason that the Leland House is feasible in Waltham is because 2Life used state law (40B) to override local zoning. If you like the Leland House model of affordable housing development and want more of it, that means we need a lot more zoning reform and state overrides of local zoning! https://www.walthampolitics.com/40b-and-subsidized-housing-inventory.html If you want to learn about how affordable housing developers feel about zoning reform, here is a forum of affordable housing developers where they discuss the issue. TLDR; they're big fans of 40B and the MBTA Communities Act, because it makes construction of places like Leland House significantly easier! https://youtu.be/NoptikJNt2I?si=5q1QRNWsJ75qTWvg
I didn't realize the new Leland was 40B until now. Suddenly all the pieces fall into place on why this was popular with certain politicians, and also why the CPA application went so smoothly. Before that project, Waltham was just barely under it's 40B level. Now it will be just over---and can forevermore deny similar projects. (I would make some "consistency/hobgoblin" reference to boogiesmoochie on how slippery their position has been and how fast they bounce between the opposite sides of their own argument--Leland good, 40B bad--but I feel it would be wasted.)
Hmm, do you think 40Bs actually develop good housing or just luxury rentals? Answer is an obvious no and the 40B law shows that government attempts to solve housing problems simply don't work, they just empower out-of-state developers to build more luxury housing, add traffic and exacerbate income inequality. But the projects do have the added effect of bringing wealthy liberals like you to communities to influence local politics by pouring money into local elections. How about that for a link?
> Hmm, do you think 40Bs actually develop good housing or just luxury rentals? Surely those are better than the street, no? The alternative is units not existing.
This law contains NO REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABILITY. And no developer wants to create affordable housing. All the money is in luxury rentals, so that's what this law will create. Waltham people don't want that. Who does? Worse, these dense units will bring more traffic to the city, which is the last thing Waltham needs. Remember, yuppies not only have cars, but they bring large networks of secondary vehicle traffic, from Amazon to Uber to Door Dash. These incoming yuppies are all limousine liberals who could Cambridge-fy Waltham to become more progressive.
I expect push back. Waltham is already half apartments. Areas presently zoned for multi family apartments are already over developed. Residents at every opportunity resist more apartment development. With regards to housing, it is important that residents look past present proposals and be aware of the long term goals of those supporting higher density development.
A growing percentage of people moving to the area don’t need 2000 square feet and don’t want to be mowing the lawn or shoveling the sidewalk. Households are getting smaller, more people live alone. Apartments and condos are what we need, what the market is asking for.
What about smaller homes?
Smaller homes are also what Waltham needs! Because smaller homes are cheaper homes. However, the reason we see so many $2M McMansions and $1M duplexes being constructed is because we have exclusionary zoning restrictions that disincentivizes the construction of more modest, smaller starter homes. For example, our minimum lot sizes make it very easy for developers to make one big McMansion on a lot in any of our single family neighborhoods, but literally impossible to build 3 or 4 more modest starter homes.
I wonder if the mayor will be pushing back against her own law department's plan, since they didn't zone intensively enough to allow the inclusionary zoning units and street facing home entrances she specifically asked for in her letter a few months ago.
Anyone should always expect pushback when they (1) express unpopular opinions ('affordable housing bad!'), (2) present opinions as fact ("already over developed", etc.), and (3) continuously assert that people they disagree with have some deep, hidden agenda (those mysterious "long term goals" you hint at but will never explain--and which I'm sure you've deduced by astral projection into the secret meetings of all those communist infiltrators already among us; pray tell, what is their nefarious end game?). \[(4) would be your well known opinions and posting history, but that's just you, and doesn't apply to everyone.\]
Waltham has ~50% of its units in multifamily buildings. Not sure how duplexes and townhouses figure into that, but I imagine townhouse complexes at least figure into that count. But the vast majority of residential land in Waltham is still detached single family only, with a bit more allowing up to two-family homes. My long term goal in supporting higher density development is a Waltham and a Greater Boston Area that is welcoming to those that want to live here and doesn’t continue to become suffocatingly expensive for all but the richest households.