Housing study was skewed heavily toward developers
Many thanks to the Globe for the housing article on the front page of the Jan. 8 Globe and also the follow-up in the Jan. 15 edition of Globe North (''Restrictive zoning faulted for home costs"). What a great way to wake us up and start out the new year. I hope it will be a warning to all the hamlets and villages in the Commonwealth to prepare for an attack on zoning regulations, lot-size requirements, and environmental protections by developers.
The article refers to a housing study by Professor Edward Glaeser of Harvard's Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston. This so-called statewide study excludes Boston and areas beyond 50 miles of Boston, Cape Cod, and Western Massachusetts, making it in fact a regional study. Is there any reason for this omission? This point was not addressed in the articles. I suspect it might be because inclusion might have weakened the pro-development position. Immediately, you have to suspect that this is a skewed report.
Professor Glaeser is a director of the Rappaport Institute, one of the groups funding the study. It should come as no surprise that the conclusion would come out to support the funders. The Rappaport Institute and the Pioneer Institute share the view that all the development is positive. What we have here are two leading business/development organizations funding a study, the results of which just happen to support their view. The view being (a) that there is a problem and (b) that the solution is to allow developers free rein to pillage and plunder towns and exit with the profits.
The results of development that is left unchecked are often detrimental to the community, causing strain on the infrastructure of a town, i.e. schools, water, sewer, and traffic. Most of us are confronted by the impact of overdevelopment on our areas daily as we drive to and from our work place and do our daily errands. We have all learned the hard way that developers would pave paradise to put in a mall/parking lot and call it progress.
Professor Glaeser states that ''we are hurting the region, we are hurting the country, by not letting the region develop to its economic potential." This is a great example of hyperbole. What this statement seems to suggest is that we (the people) exist only for economic development, and gain. Perhaps the state could sell the Bunker Hill Monument and Plymouth Rock to China to help us achieve our economic potential.
I would like to think that existence should include the development of humanity. When does it become wrong for the citizens of an area to protect their quality of life?
These developers seem to believe that as long as there is a postage-size lot anywhere, it is their right to build something on it. I do not see what good and positive reasons result in this overbuilding. Should we aid and abet the destruction of additional towns and a way of life so that developers can take the money and run? The big question is why do we allow this from a group who are never around to suffer and share in the consequences.
If the developers find the rules and regulations in Massachusetts too restrictive, perhaps Kansas might be more to their liking.
David Pierotti
Topsfield 