On The Front Lines Of Being Green

We are all looking for ways to save on our energy bills. Sometimes all we need to do is to look to our past. How many of us remember fresh sheets or towels straight off the clothesline? Who would have thought these simple devices would wind up defining the battlefield over being green, energy savings, and property rights? The following articles from the NY times provides a little enlightenment:

Debate Follows Bills to Remove Clotheslines Bans

A Line in the Yard: The Battle Over the Right to Dry Outside

Recently, local energy companies have challenged us to reduce our energy use by 3%. Given both these aticles suggest that dryers consume 6% of household energy use, line drying would make this an easy to accomplish goal.

For years homeowners associations have been trying to enforce uniformity, establishing prohibitions on clotheslines, placing requirements on lawn cutting, etc. They see it as "protecting property rights." But whose rights are they protecting? In establishing these "protections" they are trampling all over the rights of individual property owners.

Clotheslines are just one restriction. Many also restrict solar panels and other energy savings devices that may change the look of the outside of the home. It is clearly time for homeowners associations to realize that the "rights" they are protecting are actually infringements on the rights of many.

Right Sizing

Make the Motor City Smaller, I have seen several articles lately about how Detroit is changing. Much of it addressing how the city is adjusting to the loss of jobs and over a million residents. The changes taking place will be interesting to follow. Right sizing the city could create many new opportunities for promoting the greening of the city, urban gardening and new, urban, homesteading. However, the changes also could threaten many historical resources. Thereby losing much of what created the Motor City. You can look at some of our older cities here in Massachusetts at similar impacts, but on a smaller scale. The Valley Arena in Holyoke had a great history, hosting many famous boxers. It became vacant, burned, and was never replaced. Many of the paper and silk mills in Holyoke are also gone, or are barely shells of their old selves. As cities right size, we will all have to work towards preserving the history, through promoting reuse, that will otherwise be lost forever.

WOW! Harsh

Saw this article last week, Appeal of 'illegal' Milford two-family house denied, there is one quote I found telling. The comment that the owners of the million dollar homes were the only ones who mattered when it came to the vision for that particular neighborhood. There is no denying the property owner in question violated zoning and was in the wrong. It is too bad though that the people who seem to have recently moved to the area believe that the people who do all the grunt work do not deserve to live near the water.

And We Thought The ANR Process Was Bad...

It is not statewide, but can you imagine a zoning by-law that essentially gave family land transfers a free walk when it came to subdivision? That is what the following article suggests is allowed in Suffolk Virginia. From the tone of the editorial, the process if far more ripe for abuse than even our Approval Not Required process!

Developers chummy with family land law

Interesting Smart Growth Discussions

A couple of interesting items on "Smart Growth." What makes them interesting is that they point out some of the flaws in the thought process.


New study shows promise and pitfalls of 'smart growth' planning


Smart Growth Policies

The Lincoln Institute Survey, and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation opinion piece point out that smart growth should not be taken up in a piece-meal fashion where everyone gets a piece of everything. The Pinelands, Meadowlands and Highlands regions of New Jersey are highlighted. I have been to a couple presentations on the Pinelands Commission and can recognize what they are doing, at the regional level, is far superior to some proposals currently floating around.

The idea of smart growth needs to start with the idea that not all areas are equal. Some areas should be seen for their value as recreational areas, some as farm lands, and some as urban nodes. Not every community will have all three. Certain parts of the state need to be recognized for their ability to meet a set of needs, and be protected against competing state interests.

For instance, housing is important in areas where there are jobs, transit facilities and pedestrian access. Housing replacing farmland because everybody must have more homes, simply is not smart growth. These policies cost us open space, increase the use of the automobile and places needy families into areas without job support. Hardly smart.

As the discussions continue on zoning reform, an emphasis needs to be placed on knowing what particular regions of the state are all about, and establishing a zoning reform package that can really achieve this. The Community Planning Act comes close to achieving these goals.

Pulling The Rug Out From Under The Recovery

Mortgage deductions may change Scary story. Just as the housing market has begun to recover, changes are being contemplated to change the ground rules.

The mortgage tax deduction is a political minefield. On the one hand, renters are not provided an opportunity to deduct any portion of their rent from their income. Thus making the mortgage deduction an easy target in the name of housing equity.

However, the mortgage deduction is quite attractive to homebuyers and removing the mortgage interest deduction will make many by-pass home ownership. This in turn will eliminate many of the jobs that are just beginning to recover from the past couple of years downturn.

Just something to think about.

A Dangerous Affordable Housing Mandate Precedent

I saw the article below and started to worry. We have towns that have met their Chapter 40B requirements in the state. We have already seen how the statute has been used to suggest that a community which has met its target can still be required to approve a project that came forward before they had achieved the target. Basically rendering the Chapter 40B attainment meaningless.

The entire Chapter 40B concept has followed closely the affordable housing policies and legal path that has occurred in New Jersey, the case discussed below puts a further burden on communities in New Jersey by establishing that, even though they may meet their mandate, that achievement means nothing and they are still subject to even greater affordable housing levels.

Nonprofit wins appeal to build low-income houses

I know the posts here suggest that I have a problem with affordable housing. That is not the case. We clearly need affordable housing. However, we need to see protections put into place for wetlands, appropriate design, and sustainable densities.

Several communities on the Cape are faced with a double whammy, pursuing Chapter 40B while also facing down sewer mandates that may be put into place under litigation. Chapter 40B clearly puts into place densities that are not always sustainable. We need to recognize this and protect our communities, in appropriate means. This can only be done with proper planning. The Community Planning Act provides such a mechanism for proper planning to achieve appropriate local goals - including appropriate levels of affordable housing.

When In Doubt Change The Rules?

Base redevelopment is never easy. It is even more difficult when there are several communities involved. I grew up near Westover Air Force Base when it was closed. I would say that it has never met its full potential. When I worked in NH I got to see first hand the process with Pease Air Force Base. Even there, the redevelopment process has always been a challenge.

At Fort Devens the redevelopment process has three towns to satisfy. This is a real challenge. The process requires endorsement by all three communities. If one community says no, then a zoning action is vetoed. This recently happened:

BASE NEWS: Towns deadlock on ex-base redevelopment
Fort Devens' Vicksburg site abandoned since '96 closure

Now some may say that the action of one community should not be able to block the development desires of the other participants. It actually provides an interesting twist on home-rule, should one town be able to veto the vote of the other two participants in the process? However, should two communities be able to dictate to a neighbor? Clearly base redevelopment is tricky and requires agreement at the beginning of the process. That agreement appears to have been put into place at Fort Devens. However, as the article notes, the single town veto has raised the ire of those with particular development desires. Now they want to change the rules.

Without getting into the merits of a particular zoning plan, the idea that changing the rules when you cannot get what you want just does not sit well. Rules need to be agreed to at the beginning for a multi-community effort, otherwise, why should towns consider surrendering even a slice of their home rule powers.

Hopefully those at Fort Devens seeking to change the agreed to rules will reconsider and pursue a new development strategy that leads to buy in by all involved, rather than trying to force one community to do something the town does not believe to be in their best interest.

How Can This Be A Chapter 40B Project?

Reading Boston.com and saw the following article:

His home for sale, Hastings says he’s fine

What struck me in this article was that the particular developer had a Chapter 40B project with "market rate" housing units selling for over $1 million while the affordable housing was selling in the $170,000 range. This seemed like quite the range of prices. The story below provides information on these affordable units.

Affordable housing available in Hingham

Looking further at the project the "market rate" units start at $825,000. These "market rate" housing units exceed the average household in Hingham's ability to pay by nearly doble what they could pay. The median household income in Hingham being $110,699 in 2007 which would qualify them for just under a $400,000.

In fact, this affordable housing project, if it could be called that, will mix households with incomes of about $60,000 with households of about $170,000 to almost $275,000 annually.

Chapter 40B is intended to provide "equivalent" housing, such that you cannot tell the difference between the Chapter 40B units in a project and the market rate housing units. In a project with and 800% difference in unit sales prices, it is hard to imagine that the units are equivalent on the inside and outside.

Perhaps, the project in question could have been of greater benefit to Hingham than the 5 units (as a Chapter 40B project 25% would require at least 12 of the units be affordable???) of housing described by the Patriot Ledger article had the developer been required to provide a local housing trust with 25% of the gross project value to be used for development of appropriate mixed income housing.

Scaling The Hill: 40-B Abuse

I have posted a few discussions on Chapter 40B. This post is linked to a blog posting by the Massachusetts Senate Republican Caucus. It points out some of the problems. Their proposal will provide a start on reforming Chapter 40B, but there will still be a long way to go.

Scaling The Hill: 40-B Abuse