:shrug: I mean I disagree with aspects of plenty of laws. Many still have a positive impact.

But your characterization is wrong. Holden doesn't have to "build hundreds of thousands of units". It has to *zone* 50 acres to allow up to 750 units to be built [1]. That is it.

The city doesn't have to build a damn thing. Private enterprise will do that.

Holden surface area is 23,000 acres. 0.2% of it will need to be designated as higher density. There is so much hand wringing going on over ultimately a minor change to zoning in the area.

Every other discussion point here is completely speculative. If Holden is such a terrible place to build, nobody will build the density. If Holden has problems with water/sewer, that will have to be figured out, but there won't be some magical fairy that comes in and forces them at gunpoint to build a new wastewater treatment plant overnight. If some other thing happens to Holden as part of this, I suspect they will have the intelligence and wherewithal to deal with it.

Let's. Move. Forward. Create the zoning. Work through the next steps.

​

1. https://www.mass.gov/doc/mbta-communities-community-category-designations-and-capacity-calculations/download

Chicken and egg. If you always make it a requirement to "have everything ready at once", you'll never get anywhere. No single policy or law is going to get it all done at once.

Same argument could be said about parking.

"Why do we need more parking at the commuter rail station? It's not fully most days already?"

You have to start somewhere and then work on the other pieces. The housing/zoning law is a start. I'm all for legislation/policy that makes the MBTA more effective across the network. Let's see it! Is there anything in the works now?

Ah, all things that have nothing to do with the east-west rail. Goodbye!

Sure. But just to be clear then, you disagree with what the AG is doing because of the adjacent communities part of the law, but agree with all other parts of the law?

Holden isn't included because of some mistake. They qualify under what was put in the law itself.

AG is being heavy handed because there is a large risk a bunch of communities try to defect and ignore the law.

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).

I've seen no mention of this, so I'll bring it up. Many communities will qualify for various sources of funding to increase/improve the size of their wastewater treatment facilities. The narrative that "this cost is bore by the community alone" is not entirely accurate.

https://www.epa.gov/small-and-rural-wastewater-systems/funding-sources-small-and-rural-wastewater-systems#general

>I imagine it's easier to influence such policies if a town has earned a reputation of dealing with this dire matter in good faith rather than those that reflexively oppose any development. Now is a great time to get on the winning team and secure some influence to steer policy.

This is a damn good point.

> 2) Any site within 1/2 mile of an MBTA rapid transit or commuter railstation could build with the same density of any other building near anMBTA station

Do I understand then, you agree with the direct MBTA-adjacent-community portion of this law, just not the neighboring community portion? Your statement is very similar to the meat of this law, with the only caveat of "same density of any other building", which could vary greatly from station to station.

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.

Very true. A lot of people call for "why do we need the density? There is so much space out in X. Let them build there!".

And I think the idea is that towns near commuter train stops can still handle higher density as many people drive (or bike) to the commuter line station and ride in from there. So its a fairly smart way to increase density while still enabling people to not drive-commute long distances.

Definitely won't qualify. Stop playing the victim.

Why did they not add to the tax revenue? How was the town burdened by the new units? 400 should add substantial tax revenue.