It is so commonly understood that South County needs more housing that Carole Owens’ recent column caught me unawares. The disconnect in Ms. Owens’ “Connections” column is the failure to recognize that we should lower barriers to housing opportunities rather than question “new laws [that] seek to grease the wheels and remove obstacles” to housing. Ms. Owens argues that local control should supersede housing and environmental considerations, concluding, “[w]e may want to preserve that which makes Stockbridge Stockbridge and Lee Lee.” While these old-fashioned views appear quaint, the modern reality is that South County cannot thrive, cannot preserve its character, and cannot continue to viably exist without challenging impediments to the housing status quo.
The objects of Ms. Owens’ ire are provisions of the recently enacted Affordable Homes Act (AHA) mandating that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) be permitted by right in single-family residential zoning districts; that is, state law now overrides local zoning bylaws by providing that smaller homes may be built without needing special permits or discretionary approvals from local zoning boards. Presumably, Ms. Owens finds it just dastardly that the Commonwealth has the impertinent gall to insist that ADUs sit beside Stockbridge’s beloved Gilded Age cottages. How dare they!
The AHA is consistent with various state statutes that do exactly what you would expect a parent to do when the children consistently misbehave; that is, identify and rectify issues of critical importance where local leaders or town populace have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to take necessary, though perhaps unwelcome, steps. That is not gall. That is good policy.
Towns blocking the development of affordable housing? The Commonwealth enacted Chapter 40B (the Comprehensive Permit Act) to address the shortage of affordable housing by allowing developers to bypass certain local zoning restrictions. If a town does not meet the 10 percent affordable-housing threshold, developers can apply for a single permit from a local zoning board of appeals instead of needing multiple permits, and if the permit is denied, the developer has special appeal rights. It is estimated since its passage in 1969 that approximately 70,000 additional housing units have been developed.
Towns need to be encouraged to create denser residential or mixed-use zoning districts? In 2004, the state enacted Chapter 40R to encourage denser residential or mixed-use growth districts, requiring that 20 percent of developed housing be affordable.
Towns blocking updated zoning bylaws by requiring two-thirds supermajority for passage? The Commonwealth enacted the Housing Choice Act in 2020 to amend the Zoning Act by reducing the threshold for housing-related zoning changes to a simple majority. This revision should facilitate the adoption of ordinances promoting housing production.
Towns prohibiting density in communities served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) where denser multifamily housing should be encouraged? In 2021, the state stepped in to enact the MBTA Communities Law to meet three worthy goals: promote higher-density housing near transit, reduce traffic congestion, and support the environment. Obstacles removed. Problems solved.
Towns inhibiting construction of more affordable starter homes of up to 1,850 square feet? In 2022, the Commonwealth enacted Chapter 40Y providing for Starter Home Zoning Districts, overlay districts to facilitate development of smaller, more affordable starter homes by providing for reduced lot sizes and more flexible requirements.
All of the above statutes overriding local zoning ordinances are aimed at the greatest single challenge to housing opportunities: the mandated one-, two-, and four-acre single-family-home lot. Single-family homes on large lots make lovely depictions in Norman Rockwell illustrations but are properly disdained by the housing challenged. A Great Barrington Planning Board member has repeatedly stated that the town has only about 1,000 acres of developable land left. A mere five hundred single-family homes will not meet the town’s housing challenges in the decades to come. It is time to slice and dice lots in South County to let thousands of houses bloom.
In arguing against the state’s Climate and Clean Energy Bill, Ms. Owens expressed concern that under the statute, Berkshire County could host a disproportionate number of wind turbines and solar panels, suggesting that the burden of clean-energy development should be shared equitably statewide. And yet, over decades, Stockbridge has refused to accept its share of the housing burden as the state’s population has nearly doubled. Ms. Owens, although your objection to the AHA is founded in a fear that the tourist mecca that is your village will be imperiled if Main Street does not remain postcard perfect, why should Stockbridge refuse to pull its housing weight beyond the Red Lion’s sight lines?
When Stockbridge first introduced zoning bylaws in 1939, its population was about 2,042, it had minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet, and the nation’s population was about 130 million. In 1961, Stockbridge’s population increased to about 2,500, yet the town also increased its minimum lot sizes to 20,000 square feet. Today, the nation’s population is just over 340 million, the town’s population has dipped to 1984, and current town zoning provides mostly for two- and four-acre lots. Ms. Owens, how is that sharing the housing burden equitably? And against this backdrop, can you not see that the state has rightfully stepped in because Stockbridge is strangling housing growth?
Ms. Owens, let me introduce you to NIMBYs’ less well-known opponents: the YIMBYs. YIMBYs argue that that the lack of housing supply relative to demand is the primary driver of skyrocketing rents and home prices. YIMBYs call for the removal of housing-construction barriers, such as burdensome zoning and permitting processes. YIMBYs advocate for the removal of zoning laws that limit development to single-family homes, arguing that large-lot restrictions perpetuate inequality. Ms. Owens, if you are going to argue for fairness in clean-energy production, you should consider YIMBY arguments seeking fairness in housing equality as well.
Ms. Owens, please consider that growing Stockbridge’s housing stock need not come at the expense of the preservation of Stockbridge’s Main Street. The AHA will not deprive Stockbridge of its picture postcard, but it can meaningfully provide for abundant additional housing. Stockbridge had many chances over about 90 years to get housing right. Rather than wait decades more, the state finally had to say that, yes, Stockbridge, you will now have housing in your backyard and possibly front yard too. That is not galling, it is simply good policy.
Survey Monkey Question
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Should South County communities ease large-lot zoning rules to encourage housing development?”
Survey Monkey Results
Here is the result of the following recent survey question: “Do you support the Affordable Housing Trust Fund’s proposal to the Selectboard that property taxes should be exempted in whole or in part for a property owner’s creation of new affordable housing units to help alleviate Great Barrington’s housing shortage?”
As of publication, 56.25 percent of respondents said “yes.”
Days Great Barrington has wrongfully withheld Community Access Fees: 311
