Michael.. I agree on the 40B thing -- Dracut Weekly Roundtable

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

Subject: Michael.. I agree on the 40B thing

Author:
Shawn

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:15:57 05/02/04 Sun
In reply to: Michael H. 's message, "Re: Dennis, What's the Scoop on this 40b Plan?" on 06:04:19 05/01/04 Sat

I understand the original need for 40B.. the anti-snob issue.

Many of the suburban and richer towns were redlining out anyone who was less affluent (be them a minority, poor, elderly, etc).

Passing a law to require a percentage of homes to be "affordable" was the result.

It's the definition of "affordable" that bothers me.

Why does a home have to be under the control of the state to be considered "affordable".

A lot of our homes in Dracut were built soon after world war II, by young men returning from war. Lots of salt-boxes and ranches line our streets.. and all of these homes are still "affordable" in a logical, but not legal sense.

There are towns that have large mobile home parks (Billerica and Chelmsford have a few that I know of). These homes are often "first" homes for young families these days.

Condominiums and "mother-in-law" apartments also seem to be reasonably priced and suitable for new home owners or elderly.

The idea that a home must be state "subsidized" to be considered "affordable" just seems wrong to me. This is a clear case of government taking on an issue that is beyond its scope.

I do believe that towns should be able to show statistics that show the range of home values within their town (based on home sales, not tax appraisals), and have a "master planning" committee that would work with developers to develop additional housing, and thus show that we are doing our job welcoming new people to our town.

I look at the hundreds of homes being built in my back yard on Marsh Hill and am depressed by the whole thing. Each home would be beautiful, if on a large lot of land. But as they are, they look like a bunch of half million dollar homes where everyone is looking into each other's living room and back yard. I would not be paying that much for a home, where I would actually feel like I was living in a condominium situation.

And I still feel a fear of focus on elderly (over-55) developments. A town thrives on new young families that grow up in it and make it feel like a home. Large elderly developments bring in a lot of people who have no connection to the town, little interest in the schools and services, yet tend to be very active in voting.

(on a side note, I was happy to get a letter recently from Senator Tucker in response to a question I had about a house of rep proposal to exempt seniors from paying for Prop 2-1/2 overrides. She indicated that she would oppose the change.. I applaud her for that).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Michael.. I agree on the 40B thing	Michael H.	09:18:23 05/03/04 Mon