Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WinsingtonIII t1_j42ux4j wrote

Reply to comment by Banea-Vaedr in In MA, single women over 65 are more economically vulnerable than in any other state. Housing cost is a major factor. by Creative_Law_1484

I mean, fair, but I just think it's weird to say the state doesn't want to allow Worcester to develop when Worcester is literally one of the municipalities impacted by that law who is being told "you have to allow development."

I'm fine with more development in Springfield too (is the state gov preventing that?), but prioritizing the Boston metro area towns with transit access for more development arguably does make a lot of sense given Boston is where a lot of jobs are and people need to be able to live commuting distance to those jobs. The housing crunch is a problem across MA, but it is much worse closer into Boston than it is in Central or Western MA, the prices are significantly higher in the Boston metro.

2

Banea-Vaedr t1_j42vhp5 wrote

Worcester isn't really impacted by the law because the requirements are already met in Worcester. The stuff that stops Worcester and Springfield from growing is shit like shuttering a major manufacturer out of hate and putting 550 people out of work, or putting tolls on the only major east-west highway (which turns a 45 minute drive between the two into a 2 hour drive),

The bigger issue is that policies are enacted that benefit Boston at the cost of harm to smaller cities. Boston alone can no longer deal with the issue. They need to play ball.

−2

WinsingtonIII t1_j42wc7i wrote

The fact Worcester already meets the requirements is not "not allowing" Worcester to develop.

I agree that development needs to happen outside of Boston too, but I'm not in agreement that the state government is preventing that development. Local municipal zoning laws and NIMBYs at town meetings are far more likely to be preventing development in individual municipalities than the state is, the state isn't really directly involved in local zoning decisions.

The traffic issues here are hardly just due to tolls, pretty much all of which are automated with EZPass at this point here anyways. Worcester to Springfield is roughly an hour drive as it is 50-55 miles, the issue is more than once you get inside of Worcester the population density goes way up so the traffic goes way up. Getting rid of every toll on the Pike wouldn't change that population density and traffic problem.

Either way, though more development in Springfield would obviously be great, I really don't think it would make much of a difference for metro Boston housing costs. Springfield is 90 miles from Boston, that's too far away to be a viable alternative for people who work in and around Boston and need to commute. Worcester is indeed a viable alternative, not so much Springfield.

3

Banea-Vaedr t1_j42xayi wrote

>The fact Worcester already meets the requirements is not "not allowing" Worcester to develop.

These are two different issues:

  1. Worcester meets the requirements, so the law doesn't help anybody.

  2. State policies have only further perpetuated the issue you're seeing in most of Eastern MA, which is that regular people can't afford to live so that Boston can fuel its lust for lab workers and support staff. It destroys the local economies and displaces more people from Blacstone or wherever else when the real solution is to fix Watertown and Peabody.

>I agree that development needs to happen outside of Boston too, but I'm not in agreement that the state government is preventing that development.

The decisions the state makes are all based on what benefits Boston the most. However, those things frequently harm other areas with fewer resources. Instead of, say, supporting Springfield's arms manufacturers to provide jobs, the State has been trying to force them out.

>I have no idea how you expect removing tolls to magically turn Springfield to Boston into a 45 minute drive. It's 90 miles! Are you driving at 120 mph?

Firstly, I'm talking the drive from Springfield to Worcester. It's 45 minutes on I-90, and 2 hours on US 20. I've taken both. Slap tolls on 495 or something, where people have other choices. Don't hold independent development in the West back in exchange for a tidbit of money.

1

WinsingtonIII t1_j42z8y0 wrote

I would absolutely support more development in Springfield, but does Springfield itself have a housing crisis? I just checked zillow and there are many houses in the $200,000 to $300,000 range in and around Springfield, it doesn't exactly seem like housing prices there are out of control. The issue seems to be more that there aren't enough good-paying jobs in Springfield, not housing.

Does Springfield need more economic development? Sure. More housing? That's not really clear looking at the current housing availability and prices there.

4

Banea-Vaedr t1_j4348y7 wrote

>I would absolutely support more development in Springfield, but does Springfield itself have a housing crisis? I just checked zillow and there are many houses in the $200,000 to $300,000 range in and around Springfield, it doesn't exactly seem like housing prices there are out of control. The issue seems to be more that there aren't enough good-paying jobs in Springfield, not housing.

There's not enough economic development in Springfield. A few labs or expanding the armored would solve that issue pretty quickly. Economic development there would solve some of the issues for people further East and put a solid dent in homelessness.

1

GreatAndPowerfulNixy t1_j44jxpa wrote

Fuck S&W, they chose to shutter the factory instead of simply complying with a very reasonable law.

3

Banea-Vaedr t1_j44ki6y wrote

"Reasonable" my ass. A law that bans manufacture of guns to be sold out of state is not reasonable. Imagine telling a lab in Boston they cannot do research for use out-of-state and see how quickly they'd run away.

0