If the legislature were to allow another city to develop, like Springfield or Worcester, it would alleviate this problem.

It might mean Boston losing its death grip on power, but it sure beats this.

Housing is pricy

If we just allowed developers to develop, we wouldn’t have this problem.

Not allowing people to have a voice is how you get domestic terrorism, something Massachusetts is very comfortable with.

Why should a neighbor have a voice over property they don’t own? If you don’t want more housing within a mile of you, buy up all the property within a mile of you, but don’t tell other people what they can or can’t build on THEIR property.

Also, I’d love to see a NIMBY blow themselves up trying to rig an improvised explosive together. That’d be hilarious.

>Why should a neighbor have a voice over property they don’t own? If you don’t want more housing within a mile of you, buy up all the property within a mile of you, but don’t tell other people what they can or can’t build on THEIR property.

It keeps people from shooting up/bombing/bulldozering a building or city.

>Also, I’d love to see a NIMBY blow themselves up trying to rig an improvised explosive together. That’d be hilarious.

Here you go

> It keeps people from shooting up/bombing/bulldozering a building or city.

Better to have freedom than peace. I’d rather have property rights, affordable market-rate housing, and the occasional NIMBY terrorist than the status quo.

>brings up the killdozer

You’re just making a case for the 2nd amendment covering RPG launchers.

In fact, you will have the opposite because it's not occasional, it happens all the time.

So be it. I reserve the right to shoot terrorists that seek to do serious harm to my family and/or property.

So did black Southerners. How'd that go?

If enough people hate you, you will lose. It's better to negotiate an acceptable settlement if you don't have the power to use force

> So did black Southerners. How’d that go?

They’re free now, so apparently it worked. But at least you understand what side of history you NIMBYs stand on.

> If enough people hate you, you will lose. It’s better to negotiate an acceptable settlement if you don’t have the power to use force.

Lol. You greatly overestimate the number of people willing to commit violence against someone else over an apartment building. Even if they were willing, it’s better to die free than live on your knees.

The article said they wont move but could someone please explain this to me? If your living in your car why would you not just drive an hour south or west and find a cheaper place in CT RI or western MA? You can always drive back to eastern MA to see your old community and still have a place to sleep thats a bit further out.

Are any of these women getting in contact with their local Council on Aging? There is also a housing authority in most if not all towns that can get people into income based apartments.

I frankly found the article to be pedestrian with little information as to why these women are living outside, not in a shelter, or otherwise engaged with housing support.

Since these women are fully functioning adults, should they not be able to get into a homeless diversion program until permanent housing can be found.

>They’re free now, so apparently it worked.

They didn't do that. Sympathetic White Northerners and the 101st Airbourne did. If you don't have the force to back up your proclamations, they don't matter.

>But at least you understand what side of history you NIMBYs stand on.

History is not a narrative or a grand march to a leftist utopia. It doesnt end. There are no "sides of history". If Hitler stayed out of France and we'd be singing the praises of the Nazis for standing up to the genocidal Soviets.

The problem is that NIMBYs prevent developers from developing and building new housing all over the state.

Everyone thinks that their precious little neighborhood was ordained by god and that they are all entitled to never have their neighborhood ever change, and that new housing should be built somewhere else.

The key is to link it to something else. Want rail service? Allow this housing. Want a road repair grant. Allow this housing. You know. Negotiate.

Or, you build an alliance against them, like how WMA was brought on board for a law requiring places with MBTA service to allow higher-density housing because it protects WMA from further encroachment.

> They didn’t do that. Sympathetic White Northerners and the 101st Airbourne did. If you don’t have the force to back up your proclamations, they don’t matter.

I’m guessing we’re going to ignore hundreds of major riots and mass-marches… But yes, Northern Whites and their philosophy did push it through Congress.

> History is not a narrative or a grand march to a leftist utopia.

In case you didn’t notice, I’m critiquing you from the right.

> It doesnt end. There are no “sides of history”. If Hitler stayed out of France and we’d be singing the praises of the Nazis for standing up to the genocidal Soviets.

There is a right side of history: The side that won.

>I’m guessing we’re going to ignore hundreds of major riots and mass-marches… But yes, Northern Whites and their philosophy did push it through Congress.

Marches mean nothing when you don't have the guns to make it work. Selma was a tactical disaster, for example. What it did was draw support from people with guns who would otherwise not have been sympathetic.

>There is a right side of history: The side that won.

The side that won so far. There is no permanent victory. It's entirely possible that in 200 years, the fall of the nazi regime is discussed as the greatest tragedy ever to befall mankind.

Yeah! Jusssss wan more city! 🥴 More toxic capitalism will fix it!

Or you know, just basic safety nets and social services

You’re all that brainwashed aren’t you 🙄 boomer mindset go home. Ya done.

Breaking news: building new housing associated with more housing construction

Yeah if there’s a car I don’t get it. If they don’t have transportation it absolutely makes sense to me that someone will need to be around where they get services, where their doctors office is, whatever. But when I worked in Chelsea Massachusetts and I ended up moving in with my friend in Maine I drove to work until I found a new place to work closer to home. I didn’t live in my car. WTF?

I don’t know how it works in Massachusetts but I’m in New Hampshire the shelters are pretty much always full. I also know that a lot of the housing authorities have stopped taking waitlist applications for section 8 because it’s a wait list is about nine years long in most places. Public housing is probably a shorter wait, but it still takes a couple years.

Why do you all act like piddly housing will even touch the monstrosity that is wealth inequality and systemic greed?

Extra housing is good but you’re chasing your tail by focusing primarily on that as a solution

Empty housing units are a drain on resources, landlords like renting them out.

It’s piddly twiddly widdly winks

Festering capitalism and wealth inequality blow that out of the water, you’re just spinning wheels on bandaid concessions. It helps maybe short term but not much overall

Bernie was right

This is is hostile society that half of the people here push forth just because they bought into the idea that they need to hollow their humanhood out so the wealthy asshole can get 5 more jets or sports cars

Enjoy supporting an inefficient system and stagnating economically and technologically.

OkBoomer

Social safety nets and capping obscene inequality isn’t that but we all know hyperbole is all you enablers have

You’re your own captives. But hey at least your feelings feel special when you say that emotional stuff right?

The state literally passed legislation to force communities with or near MBTA access (including CR) to loosen their zoning laws: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

I really don't think it's accurate to present it as if the state government is preventing other municipalities from developing, generally zoning laws are local so its the municipalities themselves who are preventing the development. The state government is far from perfect, but on this issue they are pushing municipalities to loosen their zoning restrictions, not the other way around.

I mean, that's basically what this new law is: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-communities

The question is whether the penalties on the towns who don't comply actually get enforced.

That is the law I was referring to with my comment. That solves one problem, but not others. You still need to negotiate

>The state literally passed legislation to force communities with or near MBTA access (including CR) to loosen their zoning laws:

Forcing people to comply only works if you're able to make it work. They can force Lowell to follow that law, but that law doesn't apply outside of the zones.

>I really don't think it's accurate to present it as if the state government is preventing other municipalities from developing,

Massachusetts has an illustrious history of crippling local economies to benefit Boston. The most famous example is Shays' Rebellion, where wealthy Bostoners elected to use militia instead of stop scamming farmers. More recently, the tolls on I-90 that were definitely certainly temporary to repay installation costs fund the big dig~ ~fix the budget hole from the big dig fund Boston.

and a high speed rail between these cities and Boston

Fuck that. High speed rail to Boston would just continue enlarging Boston. Independent development is key. Making Boston larger is what's causing this issue, killing civil society and making things worse for everyone

>There is also a housing authority in most if not all towns that can get people into income based apartments.

And there is a huge waiting list.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

They can apply for section 8, but it takes years to come up on the list, and even then they only give you 30 days to secure section 8 approved housing - which can be damn near impossible, especially with discriminatory landlords who conveniently loose emails and applications from those on section 8.

The waiting list for Income-based apartments is up to ten years. Properties that could have been developed into affordable housing have been purchased by corporate landlords who, instead of offering units at reasonable rents, drive up market values by listing vacant apartments going for twice what they did three years ago. They do not care if they remain vacant until the people making $30/hr+ rent them, and wages are half that - if you’re lucky.

>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.

>Adding to Judith's challenge was her determination to stay in the Newburyport area where she has friends, family and medical providers but where housing costs are high.
>
>Judith's desire to stay near her home community is not uncommon, according to Renata Rouke, director of Individual Homeless Services at CTI, who works with the many experiencing homelessness around Lowell.
>
>“They won't move,” said Rourke. “We explain to them, ‘There's more vacancies, there's more affordable housing in other parts of the state.’ But they will stay homeless rather than leaving their community.”

TL;DR she wants to be close to what little support she has left. Makes perfect sense to me. There is no affordable housing in those states for her either, if she was already struggling to pay ~$600/mo in rent, and she also would likely not qualify for as much support as she does in MA.

The article covered everything you mentioned. Shelters are full, and housing vouchers can be attained but the section 8 housing supply is far too low to meet demand.

Developers only want to build "luxury" trash.

[deleted]

Housing is housing and every extra unit is good. We don’t tell watermelon farmers they aren’t allowed to grow watermelons just because there’s a shortage of affordable wheat somewhere.

Not if no one can afford watermelons and so they just rot in the stands. These luxury units get built in droves, go for insane rates, and sit empty while people who could afford a cheaper unit are out on the street because there's not enough affordable supply.

Meanwhile we are telling families to live 2 hours out of the city they work in if they want to be able to afford kids on a 200k salary. Why is it unreasonable for her to commute to her support community, or build a new one elsewhere for that matter? She’s had her whole life to make decisions to set herself up for a decent retirement but now we’re all supposed to subsidize her having no savings while not being able to provide good education to inner city kids at the beginning of their lives?

That’s when I swoop in.

[deleted]

Housing is spicy

That's what they get for voting Democrat for the last 30 years.

Cha-cha-cha

It’s too exhausting to even think about explaining how fucked up this whole response is

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

Hush now honey, the adults are talking.

"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.

Different states are not interchangeable. Massachusetts has unique features that make living here desirable, plus people should not be forced to leave their home communities because of housing costs. We should make it affordable to live in Massachusetts instead of telling everyone who isn't rich to just leave.

Emergency shelters are overwhelmed and the waiting lists for subsidized permanent housing are years long. This state is in the midst of a housing crisis that requires institutional level intervention. Individuals cannot be expected to just beat the system on their own.

The things that make MA nice for locals make it nice for immigrants too. You would need protectionist policies and to limit immigration significantly to house everyone even if we built like crazy. This is impractical being the state with the most colleges driving a huge influx of young talent every year.

This is such short sighted privileged thinking.

Fuck off. Just admit you made a bunch of terrible life mistakes. You are the reason why communities are falling apart.

I don’t feel bad for Judith, you can get in your car and drive south like any common sense individual would do to not live in a car. Or heck even better, north! Rural NH

You can’t call yourself an adult and have cartoon pony porn all over your profile.

[deleted]

Yeah the men are already homeless...

Are they?

> These luxury units get built in droves, go for insane rates, and sit empty while people who could afford a cheaper unit are out on the street

[Citation Needed]

I wonder when all these seniors living alone in their great big family homes will finally start taking on roommates and cohabitating

lmao, how about you prove that the luxury units actually get occupied? or you could just google it

[deleted]

Looooool

Everyone acts surprised this is happening…..what do you expect? The people in power here are not doing the job. Wu, and now healey, ARE the problem.

Ohh now it makes sense: You’re just miserable. Feel better!

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of supply and demand. If there's less of the luxury units, then people will bid more for the limited available ones and the ones that get priced out will go down a tier. It just trickles down.

Her car is also a Volvo XC90.