by 
The
Town
of
Needham
is
a
picture-perfect
Boston
suburb
on
the
Charles
River,
replete
with
a
classic
downtown
main
street
with
a
coffee
shop,
a
commuter
rail
line
to
the
city
and
old
New
England
knitting
mill
buildings.
But,
since
last
fall’s
Town
Meeting
—
whose
240
elected
members
control
the
budget
and
zoning
—
Needham
has
become
an
unlikely
ground
zero
in
a
battle
over
how,
or
if,
to
allow
higher-density
housing
construction
to
help
address
the
Massachusetts
combination
of
housing
shortage
and
high
prices.
It’s
come
to
exemplify,
in
the
process,
what
can
happen
when
an
overly-prescriptive
state
government
tries
to
override
a
history
of
local
control
—
and
creates
more
backlash
than
the
new
homes
the
state
needs,
Or,
as
Kevin
Keane,
chair
of
the
Needham
Board
of
Selectman
puts
it,
“when
you
talk
density
in
the
suburbs,
people
get
hesitant.”
That
understates
what
happened
here,
when
a
plan
to
permit
construction
of
3296
new
apartments
in
a
town
of
32,000
sparked
a
referendum
that
rolled
it
back,
and
called
into
question
the
practicality
of
a
state
law
aimed
at
forcing
“upzoning”
in
177
towns.
The
phrase
“forced
housing”
comes
to
mind.
It’s
a
case
study
in
how
not
to
do
YIMBY.
The
background
is
a
consensus
that
Massachusetts
needs
more
new
housing,
if
it
is
to
attract
and
retain
newcomers
to
provide
the
talent
for
its
biotech
and
financial
services
industries,
and
research
universities.
A
February
report
released
by
Democratic
Governor
Maura
Healy
found
that
“the
state
needs
to
increase
its
year-round
housing
supply
by
at
least
222,000
units
from
2025
to
2035.”
Said
Healy,
“High
housing
costs
are
holding
too
many
of
our
residents
and
our
businesses
back.”
One
can
imagine
lots
of
ways
to
address
that
problem,
including
allowing
newcomers
to
keep
more
of
their
earnings
by
lowering
the
state’s
8.5
percent
capital
gains
tax
rate
or
permitting
new
pipelines
to
bring
in
more
natural
gas
that
powers
the
state’s
electricity
grid.
But
the
Commonwealth
had
a
very
specific
approach
in
mind:
through
its
“MBTA
Communities
Act”,
a
law
requiring
every
town
in
or
near
the
Boston
transit
system
to
“have
one
district
of
reasonable
size
in
which
multifamily
housing
is
permitted”,
“that
must
have
a
minimum
density
of
15
dwelling
units
per
acre”
and
“must
be
located
within
.5
miles
of
a
rail
station”.
In
other
words,
green,
“transit-oriented”,
mid-rise
development
or
bust.
What’s
more,
new
housing
would
also
subtly
force
Needham
and
other
towns
to
permit
more
subsidized
“affordable”
housing
somewhere
—
thanks
to
a
state
law
requiring
every
community
to
have
at
least
10
percent
of
its
residences
in
that
category.
Not
just
green
development,
in
other
words,
but
“inclusionary”
development,
based
on
the
social
engineering
premise
that
all
communities
should
include
an
income
mix.
It
would
all
mean
no
small
change
for
a
town
such
as
Needham,
with
a
population
of
just
32,000
and
almost
exclusively
single-family
zoning.
When
its
Town
Meeting
last
October
went
even
further
—
backing
a
plan
permitting
more
than
3200
new
apartments
—
the
backlash
began.
It
was
led
by
Town
Meeting
member
Gary
Ajamian,
who
says
that
the
“extremely
controversial
plan”
led
to
“anger
and
distrust”.
Ajamian,
however,
did
more
than
speak
out;
he
helped
start
and
lead
“Needham
Residents
for
Thoughtful
Zoning”.
In
the
dead
of
New
England
winter,
the
group
had
20
days
to
gather
enough
signatures
to
force
a
referendum
on
the
3200-unit
plan,
the
first
such
vote
to
overturn
a
Town
Meeting
decision
in
decades.
They
did
it,
and
the
vote
in
January
was
decisive:
6,904
residents
opposed
the
zoning
changes,
4,914
in
favor—passing
the
required
bar
not
only
for
a
majority
vote
but
a
majority
of
registered
voters.
“If
I
were
a
betting
man,
“says
Selectman
Kevin
Keane,
“I
wouldn’t
have
bet
that
they’d
get
the
signatures,
or
bet
they’d
get
enough
turnout.
As
it
turned
out,
there
were
more
voters
than
in
the
presidential
primary”
(7635).
The
perceived
threat
to
the
New
England
tradition
of
local
control
mattered.
In
Massachusetts,
this
is
an
issue
that
goes
well
beyond
one
town.
Another
near-in
Boston
suburb,
Milton,
has
also
voted
against
a
Communities
Act
rezoning
plan
—
a
vote
which
led
to
litigation
at
the
state’s
Supreme
Judicial
Court
testing
the
law’s.
constitutionality.
Although
the
Court
upheld
the
law
in
January,
it
deemed
its
regulations
as
written
to
be
“legally
ineffective
and
must
be
repromulgated
in
accordance
with
state
law,”
throwing
the
situation
into
limbo.
The
backlash
has,
perhaps
most
surprisingly,
has
split
the
progressive
Democrats
who
run
the
state.
State
Attorney
General
Andrea
Campbell
has
backed
the
law,
including
before
the
state’s
highest
court,
while
state
auditor
Diana
DiZiglio
has
deemed
it
an
“unfunded
mandate”
in
response
to
a
protest
by
yet
another
town,
Wrentham,
over
the
costs
involved
with
redoing
its
zoning
laws.
Her
office
is
conducting
a
broader
review
of
costs
the
law
will
impose
on
municipalities;
in
Needham
those
costs
were
seen
as
including
a
potential
need
for
new
water
and
sewer
lines
or
school
classrooms.
The
town
manager’s
office
in
the
Town
points
out
that,
even
if
a
plan
is
ultimately
adopted
—
it
will
be
on
the
agenda
at
the
upcoming
May
Town
Meeting
—
land
costs
in
the
Town
are
so
high,
that
it’s
far
from
inevitable
the
rezoning
will
actually
mean
new
building.
Or
that
the
current
owners
of
the
land
will
choose
to
sell.
Market
forces,
in
other
words,
can’t
be
repealed,
even
in
Massachusetts.
The
Bay
State
and
the
whole
Northeast
needs
new
home
construction.
But
there
are
many
ways
imaginable
to
spark
it,
including
such
historic
expedients
as
permitting
two
and
three-family
homes
in
single-family
districts.
Or
accessory
dwelling
units
in
large,
empty
yards,
as
even
California
is
encouraging.
Rolling
back
local
control
for
a
bureaucrat’s
idea
of
what
historic
towns
should
look
like
today
seems
destined
to
lead
to
resistance,
not
construction.
Exclusionary
zoning
has,
without
doubt,
stood
in
the
way
of
home
construction
and
pushed
prices
artificially
high.
But
overcoming
it
must
be
handled
with
political
care.
Howard
Husock
is
a
senior
fellow
in
Domestic
Policy
Studies
at
the
American
Enterprise
Institute
(AEI),
where
he
focuses
on
municipal
government,
urban
housing
policy,
civil
society,
and
philanthropy.
Before
joining
AEI,
Mr.
Husock
was
vice
president
for
research
and
publications
at
the
Manhattan
Institute.
Former
Needham
Center
Station
Building,
repurposed
as
a
cafe,
Wikimedia,
under
CC
3.0
License.
Go to Source
Author: Howard Husock
