Newton vs. Affordable housing
If you live in Newton you have probably seen countless areas be torn down to undergo construction throughout your lifetime. While some projects are beneficial to the prosperity of the city the completed projects stress a larger issue in the community. While Newton may claim to take the stance of an environmentally friendly community, their actions belie such a sentiment. The constant greenhouse gas emissions from construction, along with the type of businesses going up, calls into question both Newton’s commitment to climate activism and their commitment to their neighbors. If we are going to be a town that prioritizes developments that we know cause emissions, why have the developments in Newton consistently reflected a commitment to new shopping areas and not more affordable housing?
We know that updating zoning laws would encourage more types of housing and lead to more growth but Newton families have consistently fought the zoning laws. Despite presenting themselves as a liberal community, Newton families choose to support new construction plans that hurt the working class and lower-class families, as smaller affordable homes are being torn down in order to construct fancy new developments. Newton has had many problems with affordable housing, as their zoning laws are far more favored towards larger single-family houses than they are towards multi-family complexes and denser housing. These zoning laws have limited the number of houses available for families in Newton and therefore caused prices to skyrocket, unfairly excluding low and middle income families. As Newton’s school-systems and businesses have flourished, we have continuously tried to keep others out. This is not only failing Newton, but failing our state as a whole. Chapter 40B was created by the Massachusetts state legislature, encouraging towns to create more affordable housing by creating an easier process to maintain permits and the right to bypass certain zoning regulations if at least 20-25% of the units in a new development are considered to be “affordable housing”. This law states that each town must have at least 10% of their units as affordable housing or have at least 1.5% of their total land area be affordable housing. Failure to adhere to these regulations may result in override projects in order to create more affordable housing. Both of these numbers are ones that Newton has floated around for years, failing to go much further beyond these minimal thresholds. Newton has shown that their commitment is to avoiding these overrides while not creating a more liveable neighborhood for less-affluent people. But it's not just city council setting back affordable housing, it's the community that built a city on strict zoning and environmental regulations. The Riverside Development Project was designed to create more affordable, transit-oriented housing close to Riverside train station in Auburndale. It was extremely unpopular among many Newton parents who voiced their various complaints across list-serves. This project would have paved the way for more affordable housing in Newton but it was ultimately delayed due to strict zoning and environmental regulations, and a lack of funding to overcome those. These setbacks on projects that would reshape Newton and create more affordable housing seems incongruous from the very values of our city.
The Zoning laws in Newton have been updated once since 1987, with most of the regulations for residential areas dating back to the 50s. Though it is possible to receive an exception to these zoning laws, it is difficult, and strict zoning regulations discourages developers. The data shows that Newton is not a financially equitable city. It is near-impossible for low-income families to maintain a residence here. Across the country we are facing a housing epidemic. This issue is personal for us. As the youth of this city, buying a house here in the future is not realistic. And as the youth faces a housing crisis, stirred on by NIMBYism, Newton stays stagnant: building more shopping complexes and mcmansions then affordable rental units. Lest you mistake us for innocent kids, we are fully aware how hard it is to build and pass plans through the government. But we do have comparable cities – in terms of school systems, quality of life, proximity to Boston, etc. – such as Brookline, Cambridge, and Sharon, that have significantly cheaper housing costs. This problem is definitely not exclusive to Newton, but if we want to live up to our inviting lawn signs, we must follow the models of the aforementioned cities and allow more people to live here, not just millionaires.
