I'll give a go on my #2 spiel, hope you don't mind.
Question #2 is about repealing 40B. 40B is the mechanism the state chose to enforce the requirement that all towns have 10% affordable housing (where "affordable" is adjusted based on locality). 40B is a good tool for non-profits doing affordable housing development. It is also a mechanism the state hopes to encourage for-profit developers to build affordable units. It's a carrot for developers and a stick for towns that aren't at 10%.
Towns feel like this puts them in a spot where a big developer can come in and push them around just because they use a certain percentage (I don't recall the #) of their units as affordable. And it is true, 40B allows people in this particular situation to "fast track" some stuff. But towns can and have blocked 40B developments that they didn't like.
A debate on whether the law, 40B, could use some tweaking I think has value. It's a pretty complicated mechanism - what is the right degree of carrot and stick, what are the right percentages, etc.. But repeal is a hammer where a thoughtful legislative scalpel would be better suited.
This ballot is banking on throwing a confusing topic at the electorate and hoping all they read is "Development is bad" and vote to repeal.
Mixed income communities are things visionaries like Martin Luther King and RFK have advocated. It is a mechanism to get people out of the downward spiral of poverty and poor education. Teachers, janitors, firefighters and policemen should be able to afford to live in the communities they serve.
And last but not least, how will we ever develop empathy if we live in gated communities divided from people not like us.
no subject
I'll give a go on my #2 spiel, hope you don't mind.
Question #2 is about repealing 40B. 40B is the mechanism the state chose to enforce the requirement that all towns have 10% affordable housing (where "affordable" is adjusted based on locality). 40B is a good tool for non-profits doing affordable housing development. It is also a mechanism the state hopes to encourage for-profit developers to build affordable units. It's a carrot for developers and a stick for towns that aren't at 10%.
Towns feel like this puts them in a spot where a big developer can come in and push them around just because they use a certain percentage (I don't recall the #) of their units as affordable. And it is true, 40B allows people in this particular situation to "fast track" some stuff. But towns can and have blocked 40B developments that they didn't like.
A debate on whether the law, 40B, could use some tweaking I think has value. It's a pretty complicated mechanism - what is the right degree of carrot and stick, what are the right percentages, etc.. But repeal is a hammer where a thoughtful legislative scalpel would be better suited.
This ballot is banking on throwing a confusing topic at the electorate and hoping all they read is "Development is bad" and vote to repeal.
Mixed income communities are things visionaries like Martin Luther King and RFK have advocated. It is a mechanism to get people out of the downward spiral of poverty and poor education. Teachers, janitors, firefighters and policemen should be able to afford to live in the communities they serve.
And last but not least, how will we ever develop empathy if we live in gated communities divided from people not like us.