Scott Coldwell
As president of the Homebuilders and Remodelers Association of Massachusetts Inc., I read with great interest the pointed article by Susan Gittelman entitled “A Case For Smart Growth Legislation As A Complement To Chapter 40B – Zoning Reform Bill In Early Stages For Next Legislative Session” published in the Aug. 21, 2016, issue of Banker & Tradesman. Ms. Gittelman and her firm have done great work to enhance affordable housing production within the commonwealth. And she makes two points that we can certainly agree with.
First, Massachusetts continues to suffer from a housing crisis – one that has been present and has been well-documented for more than 15 years. This crisis has directly impacted the commonwealth’s ability to compete economically with other states for its greatest asset – its skilled and educated workforce. Second, any proposed zoning reform efforts should not be tied to any changes to Chapter 40B.
That is where the agreement ends. Although Ms. Gittelman suggests that “the biggest obstacle to that goal [of providing a lot of places to live in the commonwealth] is obsolete local zoning,” the real issue is the rampant anti-development and anti-schoolchildren attitude that pervades the local approval process. Although there are some communities that do understand the benefits of housing production and the implications of not providing a variety of housing types available for persons of all income levels, the sad reality is that most towns in Eastern Massachusetts are reflexively and virulently opposed to new housing development of any kind.
Is zoning reform of the magnitude suggested by the Smart Growth Alliance, and its predecessors over the past 12 years, the answer? Absolutely not. Chrystal Kornegay, undersecretary for the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, hit it right on the head in her testimony late last year on the Baker-Polito Administration’s efforts to increase housing production before the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Housing. Kornegay noted that “ultimately, housing production is about execution. Our job is to empower municipalities by sharing best practices and data. We will collaborate with cities and towns, to build local capacity, to incentivize smart growth production, and to build a pipeline of quality, community-driven housing opportunities.”
The Baker-Polito Administration gets it. That is evidenced, in part, by the sweeping economic development legislation signed into law by the governor less than two weeks ago, including amendments to the Chapter 40R Smart Growth Housing Law to allow communities to take advantage of the financial incentives offered by the state to facilitate the production of “starter homes” – defined as smaller homes (maximum 1,850 square feet) on smaller lots (maximum 1/4 acre) that are affordable to young families and other entry-level buyers. This Starter Home Program, after all, is designed to bring back the smaller lot zoning that was prevalent in the ’50s and ’60s. Those subdivisions did not seem to bankrupt our cities and towns when many of us were growing up in those smaller neighborhoods. Other additional tweaks to the Zoning Act were also signed into law that extend the duration of special permits, and extend certain so-called “freeze” protections for special permits issued locally.
Comprehensive reform of the state Zoning Act is not needed. Municipalities already have at their disposal all of the legal tools to encourage housing production. What many municipalities lack is the political will to embrace housing production as a priority. Those municipalities that continue to plod along and fail to take advantage of the many new and existing housing production tools and incentives at the state level, and which fail to employ best practices by amending their zoning and local regulations to encourage housing in the right places, and which fail to implement their plans, are now being left in the dust.
Those municipalities which have been embracing change are finding that their once vacant downtown areas are now coming back to life, their existing businesses are becoming more vibrant, and new businesses are adding life to their downtown areas with new local spending supporting the local economy.
The bottom line is that we do not need a radical rewriting of the Zoning Act. We need smart municipal leaders to stop doing business the old way (refusing to rezone for multifamily and single-family housing; or by allowing anti-growth abutters to dominate the debate) so that Millennials, seniors and others from the middle class have an affordable place to live. These municipal leaders need to realize that they are being left behind by the more progressive cities and towns which are serious about changing the way they do business locally by using both existing and new tools to embrace housing production as a jumpstart to the local economy.
Can we always look at new ideas? Absolutely. That is what the Legislature and governor just did. Let’s now work to shed this pervasive anti-housing attitude embraced by many at the local level, and start to emulate those cities and towns that are creating positive change in their communities to encourage housing production, and most importantly, that are actually producing results.
Scott Colwell is president of the Homebuilders and Remodelers of Association of Massachusetts Inc. and is president of Colwell Homes, a third-generation residential builder and developer based in Medfield.
