Support the repeal of 40B, support local bylaws

To the Editor:

This letter is in response to Mr. Evenic's letter to the editor of December 7. Contrary to his comments on the "theme" of 40B opposition letters to the editor of the past month, most of the thoughts expressed by 40B opponents are motivated by a desire to provide good affordable housing opportunities. Concerns such as "bad for the environment" and "bad for the town's character" are not at all counter to this goal. The former expresses concern for the natural and the latter for the community environment. Both of these concerns are necessary components to the planning of any desirable housing units, weather or not they fall under "affordable" guidelines. No city or town should be targeted and unduly burdened with poorly planned housing schemes that they are powerless to change or alter in any significant way.

Mr. Evancic seems to think that promoting growth, rather than providing affordable housing is our ultimate goal and presumes to tell us who we should be targeting for that growth. In fact, growth and affordable housing do not necessarily go hand in hand. More often than not growth drives up housing prices. He also has trouble finding solutions to resolve the issue of housing affordability in any of the opinions that he's read. Actually the repeal of 40B will represent a huge step toward resolving this issue. Working solutions already exist in many cities and towns where the state has nothing like 40B (the other 49). One potential solution is inclusive zoning. This is where a city or town requires that developers set aside 20 to 25 percent of their units as affordable. If this sounds a bit like 40B it is except that it is not generally state mandated, special privilege is not given for these set asides, it's simply a zoning requirement, and affordability requirements are often flexible enough that they don't exclude all but a few of the people that really need these units.

He's upset that people in our 351 communities have different opinions and states that, "this cannot continue as a separate process and needs to be state mandated." Apparently he hasn't heard the news! It's been state mandated for thirty-eight years through 40B. We should celebrate this diversity of opinion along with its potential to generate productive and creative ideas. When it is repealed, it's likely that many towns will use some version of inclusive zoning, others will find a different model, and still others might come up with their own unique models. I urge all who care about their community to vote for the repeal of 40B next November. This will be a good first step toward providing for our affordable housing needs.

Richard Vaillette

Westminster