Battle heats up for future of 40B

Like many others that have commented I support 40B. As long as towns are unwilling to impose different zoning and the State and Local governmnet continue to impose harsher regulations housing will be forever unaffordable for many people.

Another Supporter wrote:

Like many others that have commented I support 40B. As long as towns are unwilling to impose different zoning and the State and Local governmnet continue to impose harsher regulations housing will be forever unaffordable for many people.

Only a small percentage of these projects goes to affordable housing, and then only for 10 years. You're really supporting high-density and high-profit developments with ephemeral affordability. The law is a sham and worse than nothing without permanent affordability of the units.

Supporting What wrote:

<quoted text>Only a small percentage of these projects goes to affordable housing, and then only for 10 years. You're really supporting high-density and high-profit developments with ephemeral affordability. The law is a sham and worse than nothing without permanent affordability of the units.

In addition, the zoning bylaws are circumvented, resulting in wetlands issues, etc

I'm looking forward to ramming the Repeal of 40B down the throats of all the developers who have rammed their rediculous 40B down the throats of small towns. We don't need a state law that encourages over development - that's ridiculous. Repealing 40B will let towns take back control over development. 40B gives control to a corrupt state board and developers who care much more about their profits than poor people or the neighborhoods they ruin.

Supporter wrote:

Repeal of Ch 40B will send this state further into recession. CH 40B provides thousands of people with jobs AND discount housing to lower income families NOT at the cost of the taxpayer.
Look at who supports Ch40B repeal, it's a bunch of Liberals!

This is utter nonsense. The benefits of discount housing only last for 10 years until units become market rate again. And, only 25% or so of the total units are affordable, the remainder are market rate. If you want an effective law, make ALL the units PERMANENTLY affordable. Repealing 40B will not send the State further into recession. Stop ramming projects down Towns' throats, violating zoning that a single-family home couldn't bypass, and address the issue of affordable housing by making all units permanently affordable - this will still keep construction jogs. As the law is currently constructed, it is a ponzi scheme that benefits developers. BTW, I'm not liberal, either.

What about the farm land in Mass that the contractors are putting 40B in. Did you know!!!

Local farmers contribute more in taxes than they require in local services. On average for every $1.00 in revenue raised by residential revenue, governments spend $1.17 on services which means higher taxes on all of us. For each dollar raised in revenue by farm, forest or open space, governments spends only 34 cents on services. I’m not CPA but thats quite a savings.

So YES it is a huge BURDEN on the small towns.

It's just a developers welfare program supported by millionare lobbyists, lets face it for being a law for over 40 years it has created basically NOTHING for low income people, and just made smarmy developers rich and given them the ability to disregard any local zoning laws. How come we have not heard from a single family that this has helped if it is such a great law, where are all their faces on Gornstein's CHAPA web site?? It's time to get rid of this non functional law and create a new law that actually helps people not rich developers. The time has come, this law will be repealed, and the voice of the people WILL be heard finally.

If the social strategists want to continue this law I'm all for placing "transitional housing" right in Belmont Hill, Wellesley, Andover, Lincoln, Carlisle, Boxford, Westford, and dozens of other carefully chosen locations. If I can afford to live an attractive, uncrowded safe town with great services I have a right to keep it this way. I resent government telling me to spoil our pristine community with multi family units and more traffic.

To Concerned Tyngsboro Citizen: Tom Finneran was a teenager when Ch. 40B was passed; lets keep the facts straight. All these personal attacks and no real facts make me question your motivation.

Pick Our Nighbors wrote:

If the social strategists want to continue this law I'm all for placing "transitional housing" right in Belmont Hill, Wellesley, Andover, Lincoln, Carlisle, Boxford, Westford, and dozens of other carefully chosen locations. If I can afford to live an attractive, uncrowded safe town with great services I have a right to keep it this way. I resent government telling me to spoil our pristine community with multi family units and more traffic.

Good point. Lets count the 40B projects in Dover, Weston, etc. Oh what, there arent any?

40b is absolutely ridiculous. In a free market there will be places where you can not afford to live. This is working as intended. I'd love to live in Newton, but I can't afford it so I live where I can afford the place.

40 b stinks look at the john sullivan case over in tewsbury,what a joke,that town of tewsbury is a joke