Ed. note: Corrected to reflect fact that a family of three would need two bedrooms, not three, and that the BPDA requires rental units be available to people making up to 70% of the area median income, which drops the monthly rent from nearly $1,900 to $1,400.
In Boston, developers putting up buildings with at least 10 units are required to set aside 13% of the units in new buildings as "affordable" (or contribute even more to a fund that acquires such units elsewhere). Typically, this means they have to be affordable to people making up to 70% of the "area median income" for apartments and 80% for condos.
The BPDA last week released its 2018 calculations for just what that means:
For an apartment, 70% of the area median income would mean an annual income of no more than $52,850 for a single person and $67,950 for a family of three - with rents ranging from $984 a month for a single person to $1,459 for that family of three.
For a condo, with a limit of 80% of the area median income, that translates to a maximum sales price of $147,100 for a studio and $217,000 for a two-bedroom unit.
Over the past year or so, the city has been making noises about increasing the amount of "workforce" housing, for people making up to 120% of the area median income. That would let single people making up to $90,550 and a family of three bringing in $116,450 enter the lottery (and most of the units have lotteries) for an apartment. For the corresponding condos, the maximum prices would range from $226,800 for a single person to $343,000 for that family.
In some neighborhoods, such as Roxbury, Dorchester and Jamaica Plain, non-profit community development corporations have won approval for projects that include some units available to people making as little as 30% of the area median income.
The area that the city uses to define median income consists of Boston, Quincy and Cambridge.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 2018ami.pdf | 7.3 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Huh?
By bosguy22
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 9:36am
?
True
By adamg
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 9:37am
I'll work on the wording.
You forgot to add:
By Toneye
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 5:41am
Along with the so called 'affordables' of the 13%, which is a lottery, you can't have more than $70,000 in assets. So, if you're saving to buy a house or Condo and have saved at least 71,000, you're screwed. Also, Mission Hill lottery for these 13% 'affordable' housing they are using 70% AMI. There is no in between for middle class. Either you have housing for super poor or super rich. Where's the middle? I read recently the 13% 'affordables' in East Boston you have to be 120% AMI..................
If you've got $70,000
By Waquiot
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 12:51pm
You have 20% down for a $350,000 property, or 10% down for a $700,000 property. Say you put $50,000 down on a $350,000 property (leaving you with $20,000) with a 4% mortgage, you are talking about a mortgage payment of about $1,850 a month. Per the story, that is affordable for a family of three.
10 years ago renting a 2
By Joe X
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 4:54pm
10 years ago renting a 2 bedroom apartment in an average East Boston triple decker would cost anywhere from $650 to $900 .today it’s more like $1,900 to $2400 . Unreal ,, where does it stop... bring back rent control!!!!
Rent control
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 5:47pm
Well, if I can only charge X, then I'm not spending my money to build anything...and then people never move here from elsewhere, and we end up with a community full of old people and no innovators.
Innovators???
By Gee Junior the Third
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 6:30pm
Landlords and developers are not innovators. I guess from your dismissive response that affordable housing is of zero concern to you.
This thread
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 12:48am
Has really brought the atrocious anons out of the woodwork.
When did I say that landlords and developers were and weren't innovators? I was talking about prospective tenants who might come live in Boston, but might have a harder time getting in at a desired price because incumbent tenants in some places (smartly) won't punt on a fixed rent.
Affordable housing is of concern to anybody who needs to pay money for shelter (which, again, is essentially all of humanity.) To that end, I have advocated in these threads for market-based solutions to the dilemma of a lot of great people wanting to live in a great, but small, city.
Our current unaffordable mess
By anon
Wed, 04/25/2018 - 7:09am
Our current unaffordable mess is the "market-based" solution. We need strategies that have an end-goal of helping lower and working-class people who are being hurt in our current system, not strategies with an end-goal of making sure they meet your "market-based" religion.
And you can take your racist "prospective innovative tenant" garbage out of here. No we do not need even more white, upper-class people with plenty of options of where they could live comfortably displacing residents who have been here and need things like train access to survive. They are not better or more deserving than Bostonians who don't have a tech degree.
So you're saying
By Will LaTulippe
Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:27pm
Only white people can be innovative? That's how your post reads. This wasn't a race debate until you made it one.
I'm not agreeing with the anon
By Waquiot
Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:56pm
But they probably interjected race into the debate because in a truly unfettered market, racist attitudes by some landlords makes the market less than open, thereby screwing minorities by constraining where they can rent. Throw in the idea that the minority pool of renters or buyers is growing while the possible market is kept at the same level, bad things happen. It's the theory behind what happened in most major cities from the start of the Great Migration.
Of course, that assumes the Fair Housing Act was never passed, or that you for some reason are thinking that it should be repealed (which of course you don't want, hence my lack of agreement.)
Doesn't work.
By anon²
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 7:43pm
You create slums, and favoritism for the lucky lotto winners. Then there's the losers.
You need to build to meet demand and let wages / income catch up.
Problem is right now Boston is building and nowhere else in MA is allowing it. Then you have our transportation woes.
So people are coming here.
Joey, Joey, Joey...
By Stevil
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:04pm
When anon deuce and I agree, you got a problem.
The reason Boston real estate is so expensive is:
A) we have lots of good jobs, especially if you have an education
B) our zoning laws are ridiculous - drive around Boston and look at all the one story commercial buildings. We don't have to build gigantic, but 3-4 stories of condos in Allston, Brihhton, JP, West Roxbury etc would solve a lot of the problem in short order.
C) thanks to these affordable housing requirements, costs go up and supply goes down. Other than the lucky lottery winners, everybody else pays more. Only the landlords and developers win, which keeps them lining the politicians' pockets.
D) similarly, the residential exemption just gets used to bid up property values. It's a crappy law, but easy to dupe the dopes with " but it lowers your taxes"
All this keeps the money flowing to the incumbents. Dump these stupid rules and thanks to "A" above, it will always be expensive to live here, but it won't be ridiculous.
Don't hold your breath though. If you support these rules, you won't get any campaign donations from the big property developers who are the power brokers in this town.
Amazon
By anon²
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 9:41am
There's been rumblings that Amazon has widdled down HQ2 to Boston or DC. If we get it, it's going to blown this metric out of the harbor like George Washington on Telegraph Hill.
The immigrant communities
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 9:55am
In the N. Shore are screwed!
I hope they don't choose Boston
By Miaow
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 10:26am
I am sorry to say but I think if they come to Boston the greater Boston area and surrounding suburbs will become even more out of reach for many working people in terms of housing. And I don't just mean the working poor I also mean middle and moderate income people too.
What, wha?
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:14am
There are 240,000 households in Boston proper. Amazon is what, up to 50k jobs but with the labor living throughout the region. So let's say you get a new 15,000 households in Boston proper, and let's say every one of them is above the median.
You've raised the median from the 120,000th best income to the 127,500th best income. No question it will push up the median a smidge, but the thing about medians is that they're pretty stable.
And, don't forget, the 15,000 new homes built in Boston -- most will be in buildings of 10 units or more, which means that Boston will get more affordable housing as part of the effort to house the people who work for Amazon HW2 and don't need Affordable. Net result: there will be more Affordable units for Boston residents living here now who are eligible for Affordable.
uh
By hux
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 4:14pm
Sure those 50,000 jobs may only raise the median slightly, but they need somewhere to live. So in a place where supply is far outpaced by demand, you are adding a further 50,000 people to that demand. So even considering we hit Walsh's goal of 35k additional apartments, that supply will evaporate in a second if Amazon comes here.
If you don't think Amazon will have a negative affect on the average Boston renter, then you should probably do some research on what's happened in Seattle because non-Amazon residents would not agree.
Will evaporate in a second
By bgl
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 6:10pm
Those 50k jobs are projected over a 10-20 years period, they aren't all just showing up at once. Even if Amazon doesn't come here we will probably beat those numbers anyways.
130,000 new residents
By anon²
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 7:40pm
By 2030 is the latest projection. I mean sure, you can say what's another 50,000 families. But the truth is, it is going to make it worse.
Especially with a city / region that refuses to tackle transportation issues, and towns outside of Boston proper refusing to build housing.
Not here, not here, not here,
By RoseMai
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:04pm
Not here, not here, not here, not here.
PLEASE not here.
Once again...
By Brian Riccio
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 3:59pm
Amazon is not coming here.
I believe you mean whittled.
By Sally
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:43pm
“Widdled” implies that Amazon did something really awful to their headquarters.
$1,900 a month
By adamg
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 10:08am
Timing is everything
By Parkwayne
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 10:27am
Like more than a few posters on here I think, we were lucky enough to buy a house in Roslindale in the early 2000s. At my kid's school though, the parents skew younger (and more minority) and it feels like classmates move away on a monthly basis to places like NC, GA and TX because the parents have a better opportunity to raise a family there without putting everything they earn into the cost of living.
See that, Cinnamon Girl?
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 10:36am
There's an open place in Greater Boston. A family just moved away because they can't and won't pay $1,900 a month. So, one of two things will happen:
1) Someone else will try to pay that price and maybe fail or,
2) The owner will lower the price eventually to attract a tenant.
Eventually, you'll run out of people who can and will pay $1,900 a month to live in Medford. I know I wouldn't. Unless that place has three bedrooms, forget it. See you schmucks in Tewksbury or Las Vegas.
Also, serious question: What does a kid cost in a year? I don't have one, so I don't know.
You have no clue
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 10:53am
This is a very complicated mess, and it will take more than families moving away to make it work out for anybody.
It is complicated
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:00pm
Guess who made it so? (queues Final Jeopardy! cue)
I pay 1900 a month
By Brian Riccio
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:02am
to live in Medford and it's a whole lot better than living in a one bedroom shithole a mile away in Davis Square for 2500.After being gentrified out of Belmont.
And who do you mean when you say "schmucks"?
Gentrified?
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:09am
Or outbid? The latter is the word that I would use.
I used "schmucks" with love.
The problem keeps moving
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:34am
We were priced out of Arlington when the rent control cash hoarders from Cambridge moved there, so we bought in Medford. Now all our neighbors owned in Somerville and then bought in Medford when the kids and dogs overran their space.
Medford is now getting ridiculous. I couldn't afford if I didn't already own a place.
I don't see how anyone can even think of buying now unless they bought 15-20 years ago.
Fun fact about kids and dogs
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:02pm
Ownership of both is, in this secular community with proper reproductive freedom for all, voluntary.
And if you're reading this and think that your access to reproductive freedom has been compromised, what can I do to help you?
Chosen not to procreate Will?
By 02120
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:43pm
Our nation thanks you for your service
You're welcome
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:53pm
You want so desperately for that to be an insult, but it isn't.
So is...
By Anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 3:06pm
Living in Boston is just as voluntary. So if you don't like the tax code and laws, that's on you.
To quote The Game
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 5:48pm
I ain't goin' nowhere, so you can get to know me.
There really isnt a return
By Pref Anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 3:53pm
There really isnt a return policy on kids though
How
By geep9
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 3:39pm
Does one get gentrified out of Belmont. It’s been richy rich Gentry for hundreds of years
Not in Waverly Square...
By Brian Riccio
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 4:05pm
Belmont is not as tony as it's perceived. Still a lot of two family houses with old lady landlords. Like mine who charged 1250 a month for a two bedroom for nine years, finally raises it to 1750 after doing some repairs that had not been done for years before the increase and then the landlord's son decided to close the place for six months, renovate it and charge 2650, which he'll get all day long.
It's a two minute walk to the bus and the commuter rail. Ask the many, many people from Lincoln and towns like that who park in the streets around Waverly and take the T into Cambridge so they don't have to pay to park at Cambridge rates every morning.
That's not gentrification
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 4:20pm
That's a market correction! I paid $850 a month in the early 90s over on Slade, and that was low at the time.
Medford is on its way up in
By Joe X
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 8:36pm
Medford is on its way up in rents and home buying prices. North Medford close by the wegmans supermarket is coming up.
That's not North Medford
By anon
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 3:08pm
North Medford is up on the hill by I-93.
You are talking about Riverside/Haines Square.
Not much? They only eat a
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:03am
Not much? They only eat a little bit of food, and need diapers, but they don't care if you get them second-hand clothes and toys, and you should because they're just going to puke on them and grow out of them a month later. I suppose they double your water usage because you're always washing them and everything they've soiled.
If you do daycare, then yeah, that's expensive. It's like in-state tuition for u-mass. It's not clear to me that having both parents work actually increases household disposable income when you have to hire childcare, especially with 2 or 3 kids.
Ah, childcare
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:07pm
That thing that's expensive, because the purveyors are - wait for it - businesspeople who know that you can't and won't leave your kids home alone. Those damned markets!
Civilized countries subsidize it
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:48pm
That's because they want parents in the workforce.
Really civilized countries circumvent the dilemma
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:48pm
And give their citizens a proper sexual education.
Seriously, somebody called me "conservative" on UH today. Soak that in.
Well they circumvented birthrate growth dilemma
By 02120
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 3:49pm
and pushed it negative. Decreased need for daycare..Yeah! However now they have negative birthrates--causing increased deficits to support their aging populations...Boo! (see southern European countries and places like Japan)
It's almost as if
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 3:52pm
Japan could and should be more welcoming to immigrants!
Agreed, they should
By 02120
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 4:02pm
Immigration does help the decreased birthrate. Immigration has been great for the US in this regard.
You know what also helps? Increase social spending on childcare, family leave, etc. Denmark, Sweden and Norway increased spending on these programs after the decrease in birthrate in the late 1960's and early 1970s and birthrates went up again. Oh yeah and they also provide conception and have legal abortion (95% of Danes support legal access to abortion).
Here's the trick
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:47pm
Having one parent at home, even if it is cheaper than childcare, doesn't help you qualify for a mortgage.
Having a second income, even if it goes entirely to childcare, helps you qualify for a mortgage.
Here's the real trick
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:49pm
Don't buy things with money that you don't have.
Grownups to Will
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 7:13pm
That isn't spending money you don't have on anything.
That's simply the way things get rearranged in our society. You still can't get a mortgage if you don't have the money to support it.
You really need to grow up. Like, ten years ago.
I'm trying to parse your comment
By Will LaTulippe
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 1:02am
But I can't, so instead, I'll address your wussified swipe that you took without registering as a user:
Define "grow up." I have a good financial position, no debts, and no dependents. I live largely as I please. If that's not grown up, then what is? Are you suggesting that I become a careerist and/or a breeder and/or some kind of toxic monogamist?
I mean, seriously, "you can't get a mortgage if you don't have the money to support it?" That's the point, right? Houses in an efficient market wouldn't cost more to the end user than what it costs to acquire the land and build it. I have no sympathy for people who fail at turning human shelter into a profit center.
"Waaaah, this will hurt my property values." I don't care about your plight. I really don't care.
Boston is now like Manhattan
By Mot
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 10:51am
The quip was "get rich or get out".
Boston Housing Prices
By MARY MARINEAU
Sun, 04/29/2018 - 7:48pm
I feel you and know that the landlords here in Boston are cray cray because they keep raising the rents on tenants who are on Section 8 and know that they can't afford to pay $2300/$3000 for a 2 or 3 bdrm apartments! I have been living in mine for 8 yrs and then the landlord up and raised the rent to $2300 which I couldn't afford even on Section 8 and my landlord turned around and evicted me stating he was selling the building and wanted the tenants out! Now come Monday April 30th I will be homeless with my 2 esa dog's!
Boston landlords only care about credit scores and high rents and don't care how much that they are destroying people's lives by making them homeless!
The City of Boston
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 10:38am
Does not care about the lower and middle class families. The last two administrations have done everything to discourage affordable housing and pushing families out of the city. Everything from a crappy school system to horrendous parking can be blamed on the current and last administration.
The City needs a people’s mayor right now.
Really?
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:17pm
Yes - cause why would we not want to prevent house prices and property value to increase in the City? How and why would the previous/current administrations stop capitalism? Would you rather be in a situation like Flint, MI where they cannot get homeowners to fill the amount of vacancies? I lived in the City my entire life, the house I wanted, in the neighborhood I wanted, with the traits I wanted were not affordable in Boston - so I moved out of Boston.
Crappy school system? Yes, because an education in BPS is so much worse than most public educations.
It's not 1974 anymore
By adamg
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 1:29pm
And BPS isn't what it used to be. Yes, it still has some major problems, but compared to other big cities, it's a lot better. Now if only they didn't force parents to work so hard to get their kids a decent education.
I know there has been a lot
By Matt Frank
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:15am
I know there has been a lot of focus on Air BnB and people using luxury condos to house money... but these quite frankly are only the tip of the iceberg. Maybe they affect some centralized markets but they can not be pulling the whole market with them.
The issue really comes down to supply and demand with a bit of a bubble. The 2000's run up was running on a bubble , anticipating where we are now. So when it exploded it really did a number to the housing costs. This is different because what we have now really is more people needing places to live in an area than there are currently places to house them. IMO this stems largely from Boston (and San Francisco and other cities) never quite getting over the exodus from the cities all those decades back to begin with. We allowed the expanse of Mass Transit to dwindle, people built out instead of up, neighborhoods that were never designed to be quiet little enclaves became quiet little enclaves and then got used to it. Even though there was development over the past few decades it was minimal compared to what is now happening but now it is being fought street by street, house by house.
This is where the rubber should hit the road. We need to invest more in Mass Transit and with it insist that areas around a transit station should be built up. Every expansion should come with promises of increased zoning along the corridor. Conversely the state should look at transit stations across the Greater Boston area and threaten to close stations in any suburb that does not meet its quota for affordable housing and does not meet new guidelines for increasing density by other means by a reasonable amount. Currently the weight of these issues seems to be falling on the shoulders of Boston and the inner suburbs but lets face some of these other close suburbs are not an option because they have zones condos and other high density units out of their towns BUT have kept their transportation infrastructure.
One of the biggest issues is areas that have allowed dense planning over the past decade have not seen a return on that investment in the form of lower rents because others have not contributed. So they get upset and assume there are other forces at work.
Stop it
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:26am
Close a train station? I can name precisely zero citizens whom I've ever heard say "let's close that train station", because:
1) That citizen uses it, or
2) Doesn't give an (expletive) because they don't use it
Your advocacy that government use force and make threats to answer a question that nobody asked is irritating. Explain to me what part of closing a train station serves citizens.
Every station on the line
By Matt Frank
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:49am
Every station on the line costs money.
If your station in a wealthy suburb is surrounded by very very low density homes and your town is chronically low on its required affordable units requirement (a state law passed by ballot I believe in which those same suburbs voted yes to) then I see no reason to continue to subsidize that station when that money could be used elsewhere and an additional station could be added to a higher density area.
Part of living within walking distance of a mass transit station is living in a higher density area. While our control over what these towns do with their own zoning is minimal, what we can do with our transportation system is fully in all of our control.
With low ridership at least you have a chance to increasing usage. With super low density neighbors ridership is tapped out at a certain level.
Fair
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 11:59am
But there's a difference between "we're not subsidizing this" and "we're shutting it down."
Sure, if the town wants to
By eherot
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 9:11am
Sure, if the town wants to pay out of pocket for its share of the operating cost of the line, then it can stay open. In practice I dont think there are many towns that could afford to do this. The commuter rail is the most expensive service to subsidize by far.
Tapped out
By downtown-anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:11pm
While it may be a worthy cause to make low density towns pay in the way of T service. I see a bigger problem with the Commuter Rail in that it can't adequately service the demand there is now. Commuter Rail parking lots are filling up early in the morning, and at least on some lines people can't get into trains because there is no room. They need to wait the 20 minutes or whatever for the next line. And given this choice, I think people will continue to choose to drive. So shutting down stations because of low density is just moving the transit problems on to higher density towns.
In terms of the parking lots,
By anon
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:19pm
In terms of the parking lots, the state should really start working with private developers to build 3-story garages (or whatever zoning allows) on these sites in return for some stories atop the garage of residential or office space in these suburbs.
The jam-packed commuter rail lots aren't good for anyone.
Shawmut Vs. Union Square
By Oscar Worthy
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 12:21pm
2 very different models. (And dare I say, value systems.) So which one is the more desired . .
Shawmut / Red Line : Middle of Boston, 5 or 6 stops from downtown, nestled into a long-standing residential neighborhood, with no commercial abutters, and surrounded by many single family homes on large lots. No new density, no new development.
So should we start cluster-packing multi-story infill housing around Melville Park and the surrounding streets due to it's proximity to the T station and the relative 'under use' of that station by the surrounding district? Like is being done in . .
Proposed Union Square / Green Line : Where Somerville has seized acres of land and multiple businesses and some homes by eminent domain in anticipation of delivering up the land for for-profit mixed use developments that can be marketed as 'steps from the Green Line!' As opposed to the Shawmut model, which has basically kept the existing neighborhood around transit intact, the Union Square model is essentially either bulldozing or rezoning the existing neighborhood within a quarter-mile radius of the station to pack in that new density and new development.
So if Somerville sounds right, then when does the demolition around Shawmut start? And if Shawmut is any kind of ideal, then what the hell is Somerville doing . . ?
No need to start demolition around Shawmut yet...
By ScottB
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:11pm
But what Somerville is doing is indeed exactly what Boston should be doing. That said, there is no shortage of places closer to downtown and within a few blocks of rapid transit where one could easily find underutilized property to redevelop. Heck, with appropriate planning for sea level rise and a pedestrian bridge, the Bayside Expo Center would be an awesome location for hundreds, if not thousands, of units of new housing. Plus UMass Boston needs the money! Maybe we should think about decking over the MBTA Cabot Yard or parts of the Southwest Corridor which aren't parks.
Look around Sullivan Sq., Broadway, Ruggles, and Roxbury Crossing -- there are many places to build. It's just difficult AF to get any project past the NIMBYs. One of our city councilors opposed adding one floor and one unit to a triple-decker in Eastie because it would bring too much traffic! Ridiculous!
Bingo bango bongo
By Will LaTulippe
Mon, 04/23/2018 - 2:17pm
If you participate in seeking to acquire human shelter, that is to say, you're a (expletive) human being, then a vote for this councilor ever again is a vote against your interests.
How closing stations helps
By Mot
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 11:25am
> Explain to me what part of closing a train station serves citizens.
Trains on won't stop there and that saves valuable transit time for others that ride the train. Save 5000 people 5 minutes/day less the cost of maintaining a station and that is real economic benefit.
I've seen the train stations around here
By Roman
Tue, 04/24/2018 - 11:38am
There is no evidence that they are "maintained."
Furthermore, if you have two stations each serving 250 people per day, all of them will take a hit if you close down one and make the other one take 500 people. Half will have to drive further, and all will have to deal with more traffic at the station.
There is no free lunch. This is something that needs to always be said because people who think they alone are smart enough to figure out a way to get a free lunch aren't.
Pages
Add comment