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

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

The questions are closely related.

Zoning laws are local, and democratic. They represent an expressed wish of the voters, through their elected representatives. I think that overriding democratic choices is, in general, a bad thing: unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights and such.

40B allows direct zoning override, in exchange for insufficient or minuscule improvements of affordable housing.

Mosaic Commons was an "I want to do this", but the expressed democratic will of the town was "we don't want it". When should individual's rights trump the democratically expressed will of the residents? The fact that YOU want it, does not make it necessarily better, nor does that fact that it might be better in terms of energy usage make it better enough overall.

If you are not aware that developers of 40B projects have to return "excess profits" to towns under the law, and that the IG report points out they rarely do: you don't know 40B.

[shayde.livejournal.com]

You're making an fallacious argument that is, unfortunately, prevalent in the current economic and political climate.

"The will of the masses is always right."

When logical, detailed arguments are made that a planned change or plan is intelligently thought out, good for the town, good for the community, and good for the future, it is unfortunately rare that the community, when asked to vote on said change, will vote in favor of it. This is the flaw in a Direct Democracy - that 'mob rule' is always right, despite the needs of the society as a whole.

I understand that my stating this viewpoint goes at odds with your personal positions. But the constitution was set up with a representational governmental structure, where elected officials were put in place to make informed, detailed decisions on issues that arise. That I fully support. But the current trend toward "We don't trust our elected officials, lets rule by referendum" was in fact opposed by the authors of the constitution:

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" - James Madison

In the case of Mosaic, the expressed democratic will of the elected town officials and the boards set up to analyze our project was positive. It was portrayed as good for the town, good for the community, good for the tax rolls, just good in general. However, had we gone to town vote, history has shown, we would likely have been denied our variance. (It did NOT go to town vote due to 40b).

The arguments for developing something like MC are vast, not only from an energy conservation standpoint, but also in the realm of sane development practices and land use. In short, had we not built SawyerHill, the land would have been developed via a traditional manner, likely with mcmansions, acres of driveways, and cleared land - an anachronistic holdover from early agrarian designs ("Got a house? Gotta have LAND!"). Yes we wanted it - anyone wants their dream home. We just wanted to do it a certain way, and because of 50+ year old zoning laws, we couldn't. We had no choice but to use 40b as a path to success.

(For the record, I can state without equivocation, there were no excess profits from our project to be paid to the town :)

I'm honestly willing to let this lie with "we agree to disagree" but I wanted to state our position - we're not evil, we're not forcing our will on those who oppose us just because it will make us rich or feel good. We're doing what we believe to be right, not only for us, but for society in general. We're frustrated that every study, every model, every analysis done regarding communities such as ours says that we're doing the right thing - economically, ecologically, and sustainably - and still we get opposition for no logical reason. Why are we being punished for doing the right thing? We are forcing no one to live with us. We're simply asking that we be allowed to build our homes.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

::Dan, one last answer::

You attribute to me the thought: "The will of the masses is always right."

And yet, that is not what I said, and in fact I specifically mentioned at least one glaring exception to that. I'm don't care to speculate as to why you are incorrectly attributing what I said.

Let's pretend, just for a second, every one of your points: that Mosaic Commons is an unalloyed good, that it would have been voted down (although you are speculating), and that 40B was the only reason it was built.

Nothing in my general position about affordable housing and the value of 40B in general is obviated by this particular stipulated counter-example. What you have demonstrated is that Mosaic Commons was so important to those that wished to build it, that collectively it chose to add affordable housing to the project in order to get it built.

This makes Mosaic Commons exactly the same as a developer, except for the general sense that developers have a more overt motive of money. It is my understanding that Mosaic Commons was not primarily built as a tool for improving affordable housing, but rather affordable housing was a loophole that was exploited.

How did Mosaic Commons improve affordable housing in Berlin? Did it, at all? If so, how much? Did it provide as much or more benefit than Section 8 housing or other programs?

You aren't defending 40B, and you aren't accurately portraying my arguments against 40B. At best, you are merely defending Mosaic Commons, which exploited 40B for its own ends - whether those ends were good or not, those ends had (I would guess) little or nothing to do with affordable housing.

Out of curiosity: what are the price differences between 40B homes and regular homes in Mosaic Commons? Would a person who qualifies for a 40B unit also qualify for a regular unit? (I mean: compare the income required for qualification for both.) I see that many of the 40B units in Mosaic have been on sale for more than the minimum 120 days: is the group considering converting them to market rate (as is allowed in the law)? If not: why not? Is it because the market rate homes are also not selling?

I appreciate the fondness for Mosaic and Camelot: I've a lot of friends who live there. But you have not shown me, through your defense of Mosaic, that 40B is still an overall good for the State of MA, for the residents, for those that are too poor to afford market housing, for those that are too poor to afford even 40B housing, not have you overcome the flaws noted in the Inspector Generals report.