To the editor:
I am writing in support of an editorial letter recently submitted to your paper by Attorney John DiPiano.
I’m also concerned that last May’s Town Meeting vote rejecting Article 36 and the MBTA Communities Housing Act may come under consideration for a new vote later in the year.
Shopping for a different outcome on a vote fairly decided at Town Meeting seems disrespectful to the will of the public — the assumption appears to be that the public was poorly informed but the voters I saw attending Town Meeting seemed very aware of the implications of Article 36 and chose to reject it.
Town administrators may have forgotten Marblehead’s historic roots — this town was founded by people who opposed the laws of Britain. The ‘It’s the law” argument is unconvincing. Bad laws are often rejected.
But there are other aspects of this housing mandate that bother me and as a lifelong liberal Democrat this isn’t about NIMBY (Not in my backyard).
For starters, the bill was passed with the intent of building housing near public transportation. However the cookie-cutter housing formula passed by the Legislature does not work equally well for all towns serviced by the MBTA in the Commonwealth.
Marblehead is geographically unique and bottlenecked at both ends — it is difficult to navigate traffic now as anyone who has tried to drive West Shore Drive on a weekday morning can attest. The same is true of Atlantic Avenue almost any time of day. It is often a clogged parking lot.
As a remedy to our limited public transit access, the Marblehead housing proposal provides two car parking per unit. With the potential of 600 new housing units, that represents a possible increase of 1200 cars in town.
Adding an additional 1200 cars to Marblehead seems like an environmental nightmare. Where is concern for air quality and the health of the environment?
The Chapter 40B state statute was also partly intended to reduce reliance on cars — the Marblehead housing proposal exacerbates it.
No one seems to be addressing this issue and it IS an issue.
Town administrators seem to unanimously favor this plan — more growth would appear to be a future fix-it for our financial woes.
But building a broader tax base to fill coffers depleted by lawsuits, poor decision-making, endless squabbling and sloppy fiscal management is a lousy way to run a town.
Another concern largely undiscussed in this rose-colored proposal is increased infrastructure costs; more police, more firefighters, expanded schools and a greater demand for other costly community services.
Additionally, the fact that Marblehead is densely settled is not an argument for MORE settlement (because we will barely notice the increase in population and cars). It’s an argument to protect what surviving open space remains.
Multiple towns have rejected the MBTA Communities Housing Ac. It seems poorly conceived and riddled with contradictions — less like a genuine remedy for today’s housing crisis and more like a sweetheart developers’ dream wrapped up in the sheeps clothing of enhanced public welfare.
Voters made their choice in May and irrespective of the opinions of town leaders and the bias of this newspaper the will of the people should be respected.
Any voting on this issue should remain suspended until after October when the State Supreme court makes its decision regarding Milton’s challenge to the directive.
In the meantime, I agree with MIlton. This 40B mandate seems to be excessive state over-reach and an unconstitutional squelching of the long-held right of towns to self-determine expansion and quality of life for themselves.
Alicia Hart
Pond Street
