BY NOW, it should be abundantly clear that housing is the greatest public policy and societal issue of our time. In Massachusetts, the effects of years of housing underproduction are on full display, but it’s also threatening our future. An alarming amount of younger residents are giving serious thought to moving elsewhere, citing cost and availability of housing as the top concern.
It’s worth reiterating how deep the shortfall stands on housing because it informs the level of action required. We need to produce a staggering figure of 200,000 homes to get back on track. With the size of the housing deficit, we cannot address the crisis at the edges. We need to be building housing at scale (e.g., 200 units) and that will not happen if we don’t find cooperation to make this both possible and palatable.
The factors that led us to this moment, particularly restrictive zoning and deference to resident pushback, are also the greatest barriers to building housing at scale. Overcoming these hurdles will require a change in the way we approach the issue. We need collaborative, large-scale effort akin to the moonshot.
Fortunately, we have seen momentum on addressing zoning, but there is still room for improvement. Cynical workarounds by municipal planning staff to rezoning efforts like the MBTA Communities Act achieve compliance – on paper – with little expectation of impact. Zoning needs to reflect the current situation by creating real opportunities to build housing at scale, rather than adding a few additional units here and there.
While rezoning conversations have understandably focused on the Greater Boston region, the rise of remote work and the growth of e-commerce have shifted the dynamics of where people want or need to live. Areas of the state that did not offer proximity or access to traditional job centers, but now site industrial properties, may offer newfound appeal that can be capitalized on through rezoning. These areas might need improvements in roads or other infrastructure to accommodate residential development, but an experienced developer would relish the opportunity to establish an attractive community.
Resident pushback, on the other hand, will require a more comprehensive and hands-on approach. If everyone agrees on the problem but doesn’t want to be part of the solution, we cannot make progress. We need to meet this massive crisis with an all-hands-on-deck approach from all corners of the public sector. At the same time, development needs to be respectful of the existing residents.
Improving the communication between the state and municipal counterparts can serve to dispel misnomers and authentically communicate what inaction will mean to that particular community. Hearing these messages from local electeds, rather than representatives of the state, helps to avoid “us vs. them” dynamics we’ve seen play out in recent months.
We also need to acknowledge that development can be disruptive, while also pointing out that the disruption can be a positive. Large-scale development can be a mechanism for solving large-scale problems, like remediation of a contaminated site. Problems that the public sector may lack the resources or expertise to solve often can be addressed through private sector investment. We should not shy away from making this known.
Animosity toward development is often rooted in concerns of change, so modifying Main Street, the community’s heartbeat, is a surefire way to exacerbate tensions. The thought of a 200-unit development likely conjures images of high-rise residential towers. In areas where space is at a premium, density is a matter of practicality, but there are different ways to create abundant housing while maintaining the character of a community.
Garden-style apartments – a series of low-rise multifamily buildings surrounded by green space – offer the necessary volume of housing units with a style of living that aligns with suburbia. Enabling this style of development by right, where there is sufficient land and low risk of impacting main throughways, offers an ideal compromise between production and continuity.
We cannot accept an outright refusal to allow development, but we can be more thoughtful about the concerns raised. Currently, private development is tasked with assessing the impact of their proposals. If this became a state-driven cost benefit analysis, we could standardize impact and support towns that lack resources and help residents to understand pros and cons associated with development. Working collaboratively, the various departments of the state can identify solutions that can address the concerns that surround development. For instance, is there money that could be awarded for municipal programming or improvements in exchange for permitting housing?
The need for housing will not be eradicated overnight, but failing to address the issue will continue to negatively impact quality of life. Tackling the housing production deficit will require empathy and education, and it will need everyone moving in the same direction. Although this feels like a daunting task, it’s not impossible. If we can put a man on the moon, we can get housing production back on track.
Gary Kerr is senior managing director of development in the Northeast for Greystar
The post How to move beyond local resistance to more housing appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.