Why I'm voting No on removing 40B.

[dsrtao]

(Relevant only to Massachusettsians.)

40B is not perfect, and isn't even exceptionally good, but the way to overturn it is to propose something better, not to kill it and hope that someone will come up with something better later.

Comments

[dlevey.livejournal.com]

That was my thinking, too. In my town (Framingham) I've heard anti-40B talk coupled with talk about "those people". That's what would win if 40B were removed.

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

100% agreed.

[tpau]

100% with you on that one...

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I've gotten to know the fellow that sponsored Question 2 (online: I wouldn't know him on the street).

41 years, and no substantial reform. No substantial improvement in housing. The housing built doesn't help the really poor. The Inspector General's report concluded 40B was rife with fraud.

But the developers love it.

For my town to reach its 40B goals through 40B alone, we'd have to double the amount of housing in the town overall. We can't.

It's a bad law.

Why doesn't it change through the legislative process? Because the law (because of its flaws) has the support of powerful interests that have lots of campaign money.

Vote as you see fit. I voted in favor.

[galaneia.livejournal.com]

That was my thought. It's flawed, but I don't want to get rid of it without some alternative in place.

[hfcougar.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I have been really irritated with the baby-with-the-bathwater argument that the best way to get 40B reformed is to throw the whole thing out and then cross our fingers that someone replaces it with something better. I have a gut feeling that if 40B is thrown out, it just won't be replaced at all.

I am deeply distressed on a personal level to have learned how many of my friends are so in favor of eliminating the program that's the only thing allowing me to buy a home. To the point I don't see many of them quite the same way anymore - especially since all of them are coming from pretty privileged places. It's easy to say we should toss out something that gets less wealthy people into home ownership, when you have already achieved that goal and weren't really at risk of not being able to achieve it.