Addressing the housing crisis

[Aprehensive_Words]

I realize the law is a bit clunky, and some work needs to be done to improve it, I do support the ultimate goal. However, could the MBTA simply say "If you don't follow our new law, you lose your train station?

When Newton was debating its zoning, the Healey administration and Newton's congressman weren't too subtle about threatening to deep-six the commuter rail station rebuilds if something didn't get passed and if it didn't include more density around Auburndale.

 

[jklo]

When Newton was debating its zoning, the Healey administration and Newton's congressman weren't too subtle about threatening to deep-six the commuter rail station rebuilds if something didn't get passed and if it didn't include more density around Auburndale.

That would be a little ironic given the Riverside Station debacle.

 

[ritchiew]

However, could the MBTA simply say "If you don't follow our new law, you lose your train station?

This doesn't seem like a good idea. We should want more and better public transit for everyone so that people actually use it and want it funded better. If we give towns the power to shut down transit, some might just want to. And the harms are unlikely to fall on actual decision makers. We could easily cut down our transit network for no benefit.

If you want to get compliance, the state could threaten to withhold road funding. I'm not saying we should, but that would be better at getting towns to act.

 

[TallIsGood]

The state could just pass a rezoning law setting zoning in these towns. Or it could remove zoning entirely and see what gets built. Just go direct if that’s what you want.

 

[Justbuildit]

There’s no way that bill gets out of committee. As a formal matter, yes, they could, but in reality it would be a total dead end. This law is modest and very easy to not violate.

 

[TallIsGood]

There’s no way that bill gets out of committee. As a formal matter, yes, they could, but in reality it would be a total dead end. This law is modest and very easy to not violate.

I know it wouldn’t pass but why pass round about sticks regarding bypassing existing train stations. Just over rule them if the state is that adamant in forcing the zoning.

 

[Justbuildit]

I don't think the current law contemplates bypassing train stations...? The sticks are related to direct funding from the Commonwealth for infrastructure and related programs. Details below, just so we're clear:

MBTA Communities Law Q&A

This page provides answers to frequently asked questions regarding the MBTA Communities Law.

www.mass.gov

Communities that fail to comply with the MBTA Communities Act automatically lose certain state funding, including funding: for local infrastructure generally, such as road, bridge, water and sewer improvements (known as MassWorks); for local infrastructure projects that support housing (known as HousingWorks); for EOHLC grants to communities with a “Housing Choice” designation; and state funding under the Local Capital Projects Fund.

In addition, the Healey-Driscoll Administration has notified communities that compliance with the MBTA Communities Act will be considered when dispensing certain discretionary local aid. Several programs potentially affected by that consideration are catalogued here.

In addition, intentional or persistent non-compliance may result in an enforcement action against the municipality by the Attorney General. Any such action would seek a court order requiring the community to comply with the law. Such a lawsuit is currently pending in the state supreme court against the Town of Milton.

The reason this law covers the scope that it does is because it's the local maximum between political possibility and policy improvements (from the perspective of those who passed the bill). While Tall is indeed Good, we shouldn't make Perfect the enemy of It.