three-ple t1_jd9ggym wrote on March 22, 2023 at 7:59 PM

Reply to comment by bcb1200 in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs

One of the things that gets me about these arguments: You suggests that each additional unit of housing is going to cost the community *more* than it brings in in taxes. Sewer. Schools. Fire. Police.

How can that be true? Larger communities exist. They all started out as smaller communities.

What's so different about your community that new housing will cost incrementally more than it will bring in?

I suspect in fact that zoning, such as this, could be really good. It's a concentrated, dense way to bring in tax revenue while keeping the impact to a small area. Higher density means fewer roads. Less plowing. Less school busses.

Find an area that is adjacent to your existing schools so there won't be bussing costs. Find an area that could be connected to any water/sewer systems that currently exist so you wouldn't have to build.

bcb1200 t1_jda89ss wrote on March 22, 2023 at 11:04 PM

Every town is different. Some towns have capacity available in their schools or infrastructure to absorb this with little incremental investment needed.

My town does not. Schools already at max capacity. There is no ability to absorb a couple hundred more kids without building a new school for $100+ million. In a town of <5000.

Fire department already too small and need a new one. This will mean we now need a bigger one. More teachers. More police. More DPW.

three-ple t1_jdah5wl wrote on March 23, 2023 at 12:06 AM

Sure, and I was about to write a post about how the immediate, sudden large costs you cite aren't totally real ("but you don't need to instantly build a new school, my 4th grade was in a temporary addition because our school was too small...").

But really, the issue here is mentality. If you wish to always point at reasons you can't build and bring in more residents (schools, roads, police, fire), then what you're saying is <<you want NO GROWTH>>.

Nothing you cite would be different if growth were lower density. Ok, maybe you have super low density growth so everyone can be on septic. But then you have more roads, you still need police and fire, you will still need schools, and now you need more buses.

Or maybe you want growth to be *slower*. But that doesn't really change your argument either. Still would need more X and Y and Z which would cost more $$.

So what you're saying is you can't imagine a world in which your area could grow, while effectively managing that growth. You want ZERO GROWTH despite all the demand.

The flip side to all of this would be: Envision a future of growth. Use that demand and channel it into effective growth in your community. Figure out where you want that growth and what you'd like it to look like. Be creative!

Advertise! "Small Town, MA: Come enjoy the good life". Or "Small Town, MA: A natural retirement community". Attract who you want to attract. "Shuttle bus to the commuter train!"

Go back to the state. "We'll zone for 2x the housing units you want, but we need help with a new school, could you help us with grants/funds?"

I just can't take the zero sum mindset anymore. I applaud what CA is doing in this space, and if the communities won't get on board, then communities in MA will probably lose their ability to control zoning as well (see builders remedy).