[Ed note: My Southborough accepts signed letters to the editor submitted by Southborough residents. Letters may be emailed to mysouthborough@gmail.com.
The following letter is from Michael Nute.]
To The Editor:
I read the letter of September 27 from the residents of Darleen and Southville roads with interest but also some ambivalence. I wish we could be a bit more honest with ourselves about why we are opposed to denser development in Southborough. Must we tell ourselves that we are deeply concerned that families in these proposed developments will have higher asthma risk or have to cross a busy street, so therefore they should not be built? If that concern is genuine, I propose that we do something about a roadway abutting my property with far worse diesel emissions and even-higher-speed vehicles, one that my poor daughter walks to kindergarten beside, surely choking on exhaust the entire way and terrified of being flattened like Wile E. Coyote.
We’re all Southborough-ans here. This is a safe space. The truth is that development like that imposes some venal and mostly minor costs on us but the benefits accrue to someone else, so it’s a simple calculus. Nearly all of us are acutely financially exposed to the downside risk in the price of our homes created by new development. It risks reducing the median income of the town or, more frightfully, the performance statistics of our school district, and it risks creating additional local supply that may depress selling prices. And the traffic—who wants to wait an extra light cycle on 85 so some developer can make a buck and some out-of-towner can settle near the commuter rail?
It’s true that Massachusetts has a painful shortage of housing particularly in the context of its booming biotech economy, and it’s true that in the long run this kind of NIMBY-ism will create problems for the state similar to what the Bay Area is facing today. (Eventually, you do need people within a reasonable radius to work as daycare providers and nurses and first responders.) But those problems are in the future, and they will not be solved by Southborough alone opening its doors. The whole state would have to do the same, and as Howard Rose noted in his earlier letter, 16 towns have taken up the same opposition to this law. Nobody else is doing it, so why should we?
The unfortunate truth is that we are NIMBYs and we have been for some time. Witness the decline in issuance of single-family residential building permits in town for the past 30 years (see page 22 of this report). That feeds on itself. Again, we are not the only town that has done this, and that restriction in housing stock has led to the staggering rise in home prices especially in recent years which we are all now unfortunately incentivized to protect. That is even now a major reason for the decline in school enrollment which is the basis for the current plans to rebuild Neary elementary, which will then further entrench this incentive if it moves forward.
Finally, let’s also at least acknowledge the effort of the Planning Board with this proposal. They have done what they could to appear to be amenable to the state’s efforts to increase housing stock while quietly dragging their feet, even getting the state to relax 80% of the requirement related to distance from the station and pushing the limit of compliance with previous iterations of the map. They have faithfully represented our interest here by buying time, and by voting this proposal down we are just playing along further.
So I will be following suit and voting no on Monday, but I will do so with sadness and a quiet apology to my children for this small contribution to the housing shortage, perpetuating it into the future. What I will not do is couch this position in disingenuous concern for asthma risk, lack of sidewalks, biodiversity or additional car trips, not even the ones coming down Parkerville road to terrorize my daughter from a whole new direction.
Sincerely,
Michael Nute
49 Wildwood Drive
Michael,
I would strongly caution against making such broad strokes regarding the motivations of residents concerned about the potential of having a significant new property development in their neighborhood and backyards.
I agree with you that NIMBY is likely a real consideration among some MBTA zoning opponents. Nonetheless, the concerns of the residents living within the MBTA zoning at the train station should not be so easily dismissed.
As someone who has lived through the experience of fighting against having a 4-story building in my backyard, I fully empathize with their concerns about density, traffic, lighting, noise, etc. Speaking only for myself (not my neighbors), I was never per se against the development of the 250 Turnpike residential land (including the associated affordable housing) but rather my issue was having a massive apartment building in my backyard. Is it wrong that these other residents should feel any differently?
It’s far too simplistic to argue that NIMBY or clinging to “privilege” (or some other socioeconomic consideration) is the main basis for opposing the MBTA zoning. Ultimately neither you nor I nor the vast majority of the town residents will have to live with the downside of having a massive development abutting their homes.
My final point is around the notion of “affordable” housing tied to the MBTA zoning. If indeed we are being honest about the MBTA zoning, only 10% is currently under consideration as affordable, which of course is NOT the same as “low income.” This consideration should probably be a more critical threshold to argue for if the town is indeed serious about chipping away at our challenges.
Erik Glaser
9 Skylar Drive
Michael,
Thank you for your thoughtful letter. I hope I can address two of your points and allay one of your concerns. My opinion is obviously no secret, but as a member of a debating club and an economics student, I really can talk about this for ages (with some annoyance to my family), and hope I can add something helpful.
First, I would argue the challenges of the housing shortage crisis are not just in the future, but affecting us in many ways today. Families are being forced to leave Massachusetts because of the high cost of housing. 83% of major employers in Greater Boston say the high cost of living is affecting their businesses. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, stated last week that persistent housing inflation (5%, above the Fed’s 2% target) is because we “continue to have not enough housing… It’s hard to zone lots that are in places where people want to live.” As for the effect on Southborough, consider how many people who work for the town (teachers, first responders), who can’t find somewhere to live in town, let alone nearby. I expect we’ll hear more about this at Town Meeting tonight.
Can Southborough alone fix a statewide crisis by itself? No, but to address your point that “Nobody else is doing” anything, I’d disagree: Southborough is not an island, and we can make a real difference by working with other towns and the state, not against them.
74 other towns, including Westborough and Northborough, have adopted new zoning. Of the 12 communities that have voted down a proposal, 7 (including Hopkinton) are proposing new plans to voters to be in compliance. The MBTA Communities Act is part of a broader effort to fight the housing shortage statewide: Other efforts include support for public/affordable housing and legalizing ADUs (in-law suites) statewide.
This ties into the legal basis of the opposition, the idea that some towns can simply filibuster against the majority of voters who support the MBTA Communities Act. Henry Korman, a fair housing lawyer, detailed this week why Milton’s court case is so precarious, and in my opinion, likely to fail. Besides the particular issue (unlike Milton, Southborough is not disputing its classification as a Commuter Rail Community), the Supreme Judicial Court has repeatedly decided that “it does not serve the general welfare of the Commonwealth to permit one particular town to deflect … onto its neighbors.” This same standard has even been applied to Southborough. When Town Meeting tried to ban all abortion clinics in town in 1976 (through a zoning bylaw!), the SJC rejected the town’s arguments:
Finally, as for the concern for the property value of your home, I hope I can reassure you that new homes will not negatively impact your property values, nor will they have any negative effect on your taxes or public services in town. If I had to take an educated guess, I’d argue that diversifying our tax base will have a slightly positive, if small, fiscal impact. It’s easier to fund a growing community than a stagnating or shrinking one. Southborough continues to be an attractive community with a lot going for it, and I am certain that if we put our minds to it, we can be our best as a growing community. Looking forward to seeing you tonight!
Best,
James Nichols-Worley
94 Main Street