Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mrmackster t1_jd7wm8v wrote

Reply to comment by heavyiron382 in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs

For my town, it seems like 70-80% of the apartment units built around the trains have been 1-2 bedroom units. I don't think that's going to cause a massive influx in students in school.

2

TiredPistachio t1_jd9i5zb wrote

That's probably because towns were able to demand smaller unit sizes to avoid an influx of children. Many towns about 1/2 the budget is schools. Thats why they love 1-2 beds and 55+ communities.

With these new rules they will not be able to kill projects with larger bedroom counts.

1

mrmackster t1_jd9sjjn wrote

Most of ours have been 40R or whatever so I don’t think the town has much say.

Developers want more units, not bedrooms.

1

heavyiron382 t1_jd7x7go wrote

2 bedrooms I'm going to figure 2 adults 2 children. Let's say it's a 200 unit complex. That's 400 additional students. That may not seem like much to someone in the city but in central ma towns that is a huge amount of additional students.

0

mrmackster t1_jd7zxl8 wrote

I think you are greatly overestimating how many people would live in these kind of 2 bedroom apartment. A lot of these apartments are filled with 1-2 adults at most. They have been building these builds for a while in my town and we haven't seen any rush on schools. In fact our school population has been shrinking.

8

heavyiron382 t1_jd8277c wrote

Not sure what town you live in but my home town and the surrounding towns have seen nothing but student population growth. My current town and surrounding towns have also seen the same issue. In both cases there are more 2&3 bedroom units as opposed to 1 bedroom. I do agree the 1 bedroom would be only adults. Multi bedroom units I disagree as most are for either small families are single parents.

Also, it did take a few years to see the additional student population, because well, birds and the bees.

1

paddenice t1_jd8dfac wrote

You’re heavily arguing against this policy but sidestepping most of the impacts with your “northern Worcester county” region. Why are you carrying water for the other towns significantly more wealthy than you in your town? It’s baffling.

3

heavyiron382 t1_jd8gft3 wrote

Because my town is affected just as much as the much wealthier towns. We have to follow the same mandates as the 128 region. There are no compromises unless you want to and can afford to be "punished".

1