Home Rule is better

To the Editor:

Mr. Evancic thinks that he and other developers need a defense mechanism to protect them from local boards. Although he acknowledges that relief is given from the local zoning bylaws of a community, he seems to feel that going back to the local zoning board which the 40B law has rendered practically powerless and to "developer friendly" MassHousing for final approval is far too burdensome.

He blames conservative local boards for the shortage of affordable housing, despite the fact that the 40B law has been effectively usurping the authority of these boards for almost forty years. This developer does not seem to feel that the ability to maintain an attractive rural community that is appealing to both long-time residents and newcomers is particularly important. Mr. Evancic would rather scrap Home Rule and probably other vestiges of local democracy. He favors oversight by county officials with direct reporting responsibility to the state "unless there is another method to force municipalities into making affordable housing decisions."

Even more developer control over cities and towns through the use of state government will only worsen the affordable housing situation. Under the current model only 20 to 25 percent of the 40B units that are built on each project are set aside as "affordable" to low and moderate income households. The remaining units are typically upscale and have a tendency to drive up home prices in the area thereby creating even less of an inventory of housing that is "affordable." To make matters worse, duel restrictions to keep units affordable are limited to 20 years. Hence, 53 percent of the few low to moderate income units that the state does have, will no longer be affordable because the deed restrictions will soon expire. This will continue the spiral of upscale housing that will further reduce our "affordable" stock.

Relying on inadequate state wetland protections and expecting the state to be able to be responsive to our local needs will only lead to the degradation of both our natural environment and our quality of life. Some of the likely consequences of poorly controlled development, including destruction of valuable and diminishing wetlands, heavy traffic, unnecessary clear cutting, and the strain that rapid growth puts on our already overburdened school systems and other town services, must be addressed locally if we are to maintain our natural environment and our quality of life. Mr. Evancic seems to feel that addressing these and other concerns amounts to "countless hours of wasted engineering review."

We can implement our local planning to insure that our children will be able to afford to live here. The defense mechanism that is really needed is the protection of our local boards and democratic institutions through the repeal of 40B.

Richard Vaillette

Westminster