Some Notes on the Economic Development Bill
Over the years, Governor Baker’s attempts to end local control and open up the region to greatly increased development have taken many forms, Bill numbers, and names (most ironically, the Act for Housing Choice), and until now have always been defeated. The latest version, the Act Enabling Partnerships for Growth, finally passed. Zoning-related changes that had failed time after time on their own merits were here combined with other economic proposals and pushed through, during a global pandemic, in a great boon to the development industry.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2020/Chapter358
How Is The Bill Likely to Affect Arlington?
· Changes to Required Vote for Zoning Proposals
One of the more significant changes is abolishing the current 2/3 vote for zoning changes and replacing it with a simple majority vote. The 2/3 vote has a long history, and is considered an important check on hasty passage of proposals that have long-term and difficult-to-reverse consequences. Communities use it to make sure that zoning changes are well considered, and have the support of more than a simple majority. This change will make it quicker and easier to enact zoning changes—but will continue to require a 2/3 vote to reverse them. (In a fine example of "Do as I say, not as I do," Baker has chosen to retain the traditional 2/3 vote required to override his own vetoes …)
· MBTA Community Overlay Districts
The Bill includes a mandate for so-called MBTA communities to change their zoning in areas within a half-mile radius of certain public transportation hubs. An MBTA community that fails to comply will not be eligible for various state funding sources: the Housing Choice Fund, the Local Capital Projects Fund, or the MassWorks Infrastructure Fund. In our case, that hub is the Alewife MBTA station. (It’s unclear if the Arlington Heights bus depot will be considered an MBTA hub.)
Since the designated area of Arlington already exceeds the 15 unit per acre requirement, with approximately 17 units per acre, our Redevelopment Board needs to figure out how to meet this mandate. The penalty of funding ineligibility doesn’t kick in until next year, so the ARB has voted to delay any action at this year’s Annual Town Meeting while they study the issue. But our Department of Planning and Community Development has already drafted an amendment to our Zoning Bylaws that meets the MBTA mandate more than half-way by proposing dimensional changes not required by the mandate, that would do away with minimum lot areas and frontage, all front and side setbacks, and open space. Four stories and 40 feet height in this area would now be allowed. This could mean the sacrifice of the small businesses that line Massachusetts Avenue in the half-mile radius area, as well as the transformation of the R2 housing in this flood-prone area into an extremely dense semi-urban zone.
· ADUs By Right
A proposal to allow Accessory Dwelling Units by right in one- and two-family homes will only need support from a simple majority of Town Meeting, instead of 2/3 of those voters. There are many issues of enforcement to be worked out, as well as how to protect neighbors, what effect this would have on property values, infrastructure, parking, etc., not to mention that this is essentially a back-door means of eliminating single- and two-family zoning. And, per the Bill, it would still require a 2/3 vote to reverse if the Town later determined that adverse effects were significant.
· $50,000 Bond for Special Permit Appeals
This is a somewhat mystifying section of the Bill, and extremely punitive for citizens attempting to appeal Special Permit decisions. It will allow a judge to require “a party appealing a decision to approve a special permit, variance, or site plan to post up to a $50,000 bond to secure the payment of costs if the court finds that the harm to the defendant or to the public interest resulting from delays caused by the appeal outweighs the financial burden of the surety or cash bond on the plaintiffs.”
This requirement will almost certainly put an end to appeals, even though in Arlington we have had only one such appeal in the last year.
What Is This Bill About?
· It’s About Removal Of Local Control
When the 2016 version, the Act Promoting Housing and Sustainable Development, was being deliberated, even the Executive Director of the developer-friendly Massachusetts Municipal Association argued against allowing expansion of by-right projects, and said,
· It’s Not About Climate Resiliency
Baker vetoed the climate provision of the Bill, citing the possibility of increases in the cost of housing, possibly preventing the construction of affordable developments, and potentially having adverse affects on large sectors of the economy. This, even though the bill has won the backing of environmental groups who criticized his decision to veto the measure.
· It’s Not About Affordable Housing
Despite its promises, the Bill fails to require any realistic mechanisms to provide affordable housing or prevent destruction of existing “naturally occurring” affordable housing. The provisions to encourage affordable housing only require it to be an anemic 10% of various projects, meaning 90% of new housing will be at market rate. The need in the Commonwealth is for housing for low- and moderate-income people. The luxury market is doing just fine without help from the state. It would also make affordable housing available at 80% of Area Median Income, even though when wealthier communities are included in the calculation, this can mean eligibility includes families with 6-figure household incomes.
Of the 2017 version, Rep. Mike Connolly of Cambridge noted: “Governor Baker introduced H.4075, An Act to Promote Housing Choices, on December 14, 2017. Astoundingly, the text of the bill is seven-pages long and yet does not include any of the following words: affordable, affordability, tenant, or displacement.” In the 2021 version, Baker went so far as to veto tenant protections from evictions, and a provision for allowing tenant participation in the purchase of their rental properties.
For an incisive comment on the vacuum of affordable housing initiatives, and underlying causes, see this letter to the Boston Globe:
This online version of the letter contains a number of useful links:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/02/opinion/governors-bill-does-little-affordable-housing/
