The Massachusetts Appeals Court today rejected an effort by Canton to block a proposed apartment complex because of concerns about an intersection two miles away and fears the apartments would lead to "an unreasonable overage" in the number of affordable units in town.
At issue is a proposed 227-unit complex on Randolph Street. The town zoning board rejected plans because of possible impact on an intersection with Rte. 138, two miles down Randolph. The state Housing Appeals Committee overturned the zoning decision because, at the time, Canton only had about 8% of its housing units designated as "affordable," compared to state goals of 10%. The town then approved another project that would bring Canton past the 10% margin, so it sued the appeals committee.
But no town is an island, and the committee has the right to approve projects if the region around the town still doesn't have enough affordable housing to meet state goals, the court ruled today - in Canton's case, this means 12.6% of the town's housing stock would be considered affordable. Also, the court added, cut the crap about traffic - the intersection in question is too far away and, at most, new traffic would mean "merely an inconvenience," not a "significant public safety concern" worth stopping the project over.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Also, the court added, cut
By Dave
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 4:04pm
Easy for the court to say. The court doesn't have to sit in a 1-2 mile backup on 138 or Washington St. to get to work every day.
This would change, how?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 4:26pm
Do you have a reputable traffic study that demonstrates that this development will somehow make things any worse than they are now? Otherwise, your attitude simply illustrates one more reason why this area is so very stagnant and will remain so - complete antipathy toward actual planning for change and endless stall tactics by people who want payouts and special perks.
Is any new change supposed to make your life better and guarentee puppies and rainbows and an end to sitting in suburban sprawl traffic to all the special people who live in a perfect community? Otherwise, the court is simply clarifying that yelling "traffic oh noes" isn't sufficient grounds to stop people with modest incomes from living in a town when there is no evidence that traffic will change in any important way.
Calm down. I didn't say
By Dave
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 5:54pm
Calm down. I didn't say anything pro or con against anything other than to point out that the current traffic situation is already miserable in several locations for at least as far away from this proposed project to 138. I don't need a traffic study to confirm what I see every day. Traffic-wise I'd rather see this go through than I would the Westwood Station one.
Rt. 138 traffic
By aging cynic
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 2:57pm
Spot on. I'm in real estate. In 1979, I saw a fully-engineered plan at MA DPW in Taunton for widening of Rt. 138, (a la Rt. One), from 2 to 4 lanes. At that time I was told that "it'll never happen" because of the "Friends of the Blue Hills", other environmental organizations and some old Yankee families with estates adjacent to where 128 was built, not to mention the cost of eminent domain takings for widening. (Their idea was that more cars would degrade the local air. Of course those same cars idling in traffic were not considered, but I digress). After WWII, most of 138 in Canton and Stoughton was zoned "industrial", a political move at the time since the same properties were already unbuildable wetlands. This meant that the upland sites on 138 were snapped up, despite being farther south. Canton Corporate Center and other tax-producing developments went up, requiring police to direct traffic at peak times up to this day. 138 looks like a two-lane Morrissey Blvd. already. I'm not sure it could take another big development.
They just don't want to let
By anon
Thu, 03/18/2010 - 5:12pm
They just don't want to let "those people" into their town. They would lower property values.
no kidding!
By Lando
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 10:20am
I own an affordable housing unit in the burbs. I'm a college educated professional who has chosen a career in the non-profit sector, which helped me easily qualify for the income restriction :)
I have heard very snide comments from neighbors who don't realize I'm one of "those people"
There is such an economic prejudice - it's really unbelievable. I'm a single person who works hard and has never caused trouble for my neighbors, but somehow people like me are bad for the community.
chat?
By notwithnot
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 12:17pm
Lando,
I'm seeking to speak with people who have benefited from affordable housing in Mass. and would appreciate it if you could email me at [email protected].
Thanks.
Jeff
Really?
By Marc
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 1:02pm
Hey I hear where you're coming from. But, do you really, really think that the concern your neighbors expressed is for people like you? Do you really not think there could ever be any legitimacy to such concerns? Just curious.
yes
By Lando
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 1:40pm
it was pretty clear and pretty unwarranted. Someone after a condo meeting basically felt like another affordable owner raising valid concerns about the property should keep her opinions to herself because "she has one of those affordable units"
Hmm...
By Marc
Fri, 03/19/2010 - 2:48pm
Hmm. This is interesting to me. Do you think they regard you as a "free-rider"?
Do the "affordable units" in this condo complex pay a reduced Condo Association fee?