|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The process for permitting residential housing construction in Massachusetts is contributing to the state’s lack of housing production and increasing costs because it is “too lengthy, complex and discretionary,” according to a new study.
Pioneer Institute researchers interviewed 22 planners, lawyers, developers, municipal and state officials, and scholars and concluded that the process, which largely falls under local zoning control, should be streamlined to reduce delays and dubious appeals.
The study arrives as Gov. Maura Healey’s administration implements a 2024 housing law that features policy changes and borrowing authorizations to make a dent in a housing production crisis that has existed for years and makes it more difficult for people and businesses to thrive here.
The study, co-authored by Andrew Mikula, found that public hearings associated with housing production can sometimes stretch over years. Rezoning efforts face hurdles due to infrequent town meetings and mandated approvals from the attorney general. Wastewater disposal, wetlands protection and design review processes are also factors for some developments, the study said. And local decisions are not always the final word.
“Plaintiffs can usually appeal to land court or another superior court,” the study said. “Developers often favor land court, where judges are seen as both more technically adept and more favorable, while opponents of development are more likely to choose superior court, where the lack of subject matter expertise makes it less likely that cases will be expedited.”
Study co-author Salim Furth said “many opponents will appeal even if their claims have dubious merit because developers often find compromise cheaper than delay.” He suggested that “help may be on the way” in the form of bills awaiting attention this legislative session.
The study recommends reforms such as limiting the scope of site plan review, reducing the required notice times for continued hearings, requiring abutters appealing land use decisions to submit a written opinion substantiating the appellant’s allegation from a certified professional, and establishing training requirements for local board members.
New Bedford is currently rolling out a series of zoning reforms to make development easier. Smaller projects can now bypass Planning Board approval, and the city recently created a special zoning district to promote denser development near one of its new MBTA stations. Mayor Jon Mitchell plans to propose more ordinances to reduce minimum lot size and parking requirements this spring.
New Bedford Light reporter Grace Ferguson contributed to this story.
It’s ironic New Bedford has no open land left, but old dense housing everywhere where you look, without any parking and people living on top of each other. Instead of going after the absentee land lords for jacking up the prices, the solution is to use up the little land the city has left and jam in even more dense housing without fixing any of the problems with the old housing nobody wants to live in. Essentially helping developers to build more unaffordable housing, people don’t really want to live in, while we loose every bit of breathing room the city has left.
You’re conflating what government can do (“go after” landlords, whatever that means) and what private landowners choose to do with their land (build more housing). There was reporting on this site all last year about the housing supply shortage. How does “going after landlords” get more people housed? The city needs more quality housing to force absentee landlords to step up their product or drop their prices.
Really, this article could be short and more precious. If you look at this problem with commonsense. 1. The permitting process is way to long and over regulated.
2. The energy code is way to complex and harder to understand.
3. The building codes are way over the top with unnecessary requirements .
4. The building officials are over work and unpaid for what they are responsible for. All code requirements like FEMA regs, zoning & General bylaws, Energy codes, mechanical, accessibility codes, Fire codes, not to mention the everyday dance around for the local mayor, select person, administrator, and all other politicians that think their important.
4. Then there’s the other local boards and departments that believe they should be involved also and charged another fee & more requirements that in most case don’t make any sense.
5. Then you have the utilities water,sewer ,gas, electricity that muddy up the water even more.
The bottom line is you should be talking to some building officials because nobody know more about the development process and it’s pitfalls.
Please write the model regulations.
Politicians are important. Think Trump.
I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, the last thing New Bedford needs is more “Affordable Housing”, which really means, low income/rent controlled/public housing projects/ section 8 housing/subsidized housing, they all mean the same thing, but “Affordable Housing” is just a nicer way of describing “Housing with rent prices based on income”, or “Tax Payer Subsidized Housing”. Any increase in low income housing will draw more low income residents added to New Bedford, a city that’s already overpopulated with low income residents, with more students in public schools, more cars, will require more police, fire, and EMT”s that will increase property taxes that will result in higher rent prices. It’s a vicious cycle with no positive end.
What should New Bedford do about it’s poor people?
Deport them?
Gitmo?
Keep New Bedford Nice
Drive out the poor.
Fact
The sad fact is that people want a small house on a decent sized lot with a driveway big enough for two to three cars. Unfortunately none of the proposed housing is going to give anybody those things, and the new zoning laws will chop up any lots that have that kind of space. Building are way out of the problem means building apartment buildings with high rents that most residents can not afford and do not really want. The only people making out are the developers making sure that the price of housing will always be dictated by the developers themselves.
…the developers making sure that the price of housing will always be dictated… by making a profit.
Capitalism in action.
Thank you for your article on the obstacles which prevent the creation of more housing. I agree with your points, and I would add the following. One reason for inflation in the construction costs for new housing is the influence and costs of the construction unions. It is not politically correct for any elected official to support an open shop approach to construction contracts and sub-contracts, but that would lower the cost of housing and speed up the process. Affordable housing cannot be produced without a subsidy, and when the subsidy comes from the developer or owner, the rent on the market rate units must go up or the cost of the land must go down to subsidize the affordability. Affordable housing can be created efficiently if the federal, state or local government provides the subsidy. Let the markets work.
Construction unions should be banned?
Police unions too?