2021 Real Estate Observations (Boston, Newton, Brookline: homebuyer, public transportation, affordable housing)

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by maclel

I might be obtuse, but what land have you identified that would accommodate more growth? I have only read people saying partition existing plots or use eminent domain to raze buildings. I think you do not understand the cost of replacing existing infrastructure once a town has been built up would be astronomical and hugely disturbing to the resident population. It is a completely different game than shaping mostly empty or rural land. That is why it just NEVER happens.

The role of the state is NOT to "nurture and foster growth where there is demand". The market can figure that out with no assistance, thank you. The role of the state is to intervene where there are clear material externalities. This is not such a situation. I would not call what you describe progress but the wanton destruction of human fabrics and natural ecosystems. Also, FWIW, the NIMBY gov't is as much the state as the state politicians are and I will say a much more important and generally altruistic one.

I just identified- 53% of land in MA is undeveloped and unprotected. Let’s round it down to 35% in Greater Boston. That’s nearly 2 million acres. Why on earth would you need to raze buildings. I for one will now say for a third time that’s not what I’ve suggested.

Yes this is all obtuse as far as I can tell. We understand how government in MA works- that’s the issue.

[msRB311]

'It's very common for a guy to earn $45K-$65K/year, and the wife/mother $30K-$50K/year working PT, FT pink collar or whatever. Far more common than your dual income $250K/year each couple. Please tell me you understand that.'

Maybe in other parts of the US but not in the Boston area.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by WestieWhitie

I am talking about the current "affordable" requirement in general, where no project gets approved unless a certain percentage of units is given away for next to nothing in the name of green new equity. And as I have stated previously, it only takes one or two problem renters to ruin the entire building and ultimately the entire neighborhood.

I don't think anybody here was talking about that though. Market rate middle-class housing is not going to turn your precious Metro-West suburb into a ghetto, despite that being the common fear tactic promoted. In a lot of those towns anyway that kind of housing ould still realistically have a very high entry (not attainable for the middle-class), but it would help mitigate the problem on a regional level.

[maclel]

Originally Posted by massnative71

More nonsense and fear mongering. The suburbs of Baltimore are also isolated from the city. Baltimore "County" is entirely separate from Baltimore "City".

I do not mean that the path would have been the same as Baltimore but the end result. What do you think would have happened to Brookline post WWII if it hadn't made the fatal decision to remain a distinct entity from Boston in the 2nd half of the 19th century? It would have become an extension of Brighton. Do you think the academics, liberal professionals and businessmen would have stayed put? Of course not, they would have voted with their feet and moved to greener pastures. And when I say Brookline, I mean every other suburb of Boston. Decentralized government is the cornerstone of America's success.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

Maybe in other parts of the US but not in the Boston area.

You need to get out more then. Maybe venture outside of Duxbury over to (gasp) Whitman or Hanson.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by msRB311

'It's very common for a guy to earn $45K-$65K/year, and the wife/mother $30K-$50K/year working PT, FT pink collar or whatever. Far more common than your dual income $250K/year each couple. Please tell me you understand that.'

Maybe in other parts of the US but not in the Boston area.

Obviously- it is.

You’re gonna argue every census, publication, survey, study and ACS estimate in the history of Massachusetts is wrong? Is there anywhere in the country where that’s not common.? We’re here in delusion again.

I’m sorry but just how high do you think incomes are- I’ll bite. If you think the Census and everyone is just flat out wrong- what do you think is going on. What exactly do you think people in Peabody and Saugus and Sutton and Wrentham and Quincy and Beverly are making?? And what do they all do for work?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by maclel

I do not mean that the path would have been the same as Baltimore but the end result. What do you think would have happened to Brookline post WWII if it hadn't made the fatal decision to remain a distinct entity from Boston in the 2nd half of the 19th century? It would have become an extension of Brighton. Do you think the academics, liberal professionals and businessmen would have stayed put? Of course not, they would have voted with their feet and moved to greener pastures. And when I say Brookline, I mean every other suburb of Boston. Decentralized government is the cornerstone of America's success.

I have no idea what you are talking about. To all my knowledge, the problem is Baltimore City, not Baltimore County or its other suburbs. Just like the trouble was mostly contained to the city of Boston back in the 80s and 90s.

[maclel]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

I just identified- 53% of land in MA is undeveloped and unprotected. Let’s round it down to 35% in Greater Boston. That’s nearly 2 million acres. Why on earth would you need to raze buildings. I for one will now say for a third time that’s not what I’ve suggested.

Yes this is all obtuse as far as I can tell. We understand how government in MA works- that’s the issue.

That percentage is absurd beyond belief and it is telling as why we can't have bureaucrats helicoptering in and dictating us development plans. I think it is not an exaggeration to say Lincoln is probably one of the most (probably the most) conserved town in the Greater Boston. Well, Lincoln itself is not quite at 35% https://www.lincolntown.org/245/Conservation "Almost 35% or 5 square miles of the Town is protected by permanent conservation deeds or restrictions and users enjoy over 80 miles of trails." I can assure you that all the towns inside 95 have tiny fraction of conserved land, just take a glimpse in Google Earth.

Having debunked your premise, I will explain why even that land cannot (or should not) be for the most part developed. 1) The infrastructure in these towns is not prepared. There is no septic, in many cases no gas, no trash collection and the roads are winding and narrow. As I have explained above, adding these once a town has been developed is a nightmare. 2) The schools in many towns (not all) are already bursting to the seams and expansions are not always possible and could take years. 3) The conserved land is in many instances in private foundation hands and in many cases it was bought at top dollar prices. 4) Those conserved lands provide the greenery that many in the area consider critical for their QoL. 5) Some of us do value our natural environment. I am sure you can criticize some of the finer point but together they provide a very strong case for preserving our conserved lands.

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by maclel

I do not mean that the path would have been the same as Baltimore but the end result. What do you think would have happened to Brookline post WWII if it hadn't made the fatal decision to remain a distinct entity from Boston in the 2nd half of the 19th century? It would have become an extension of Brighton. Do you think the academics, liberal professionals and businessmen would have stayed put? Of course not, they would have voted with their feet and moved to greener pastures. And when I say Brookline, I mean every other suburb of Boston. Decentralized government is the cornerstone of America's success.

The same Brookline with tons of apartment buildings as well as some subsidized apartments? The same Brookline that borders Roxbury?

[maclel]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I have no idea what you are talking about. To all my knowledge, the problem is Baltimore City, not Baltimore County or its other suburbs. Just like the trouble was mostly contained to the city of Boston back in the 80s and 90s.

That is exactly my point! The trouble in the second half of the last century was contained to Boston. If Boston had engulfed (or a regional planning board had superseded local gov't decisions) Brookline and Newton and Belmont, etc. the problem would have spread geographically and those who could would have fled the scene, taking that human capital with them forever.