Legal saber-rattling over local housing cuts | Righting a decades old travesty of justice | Globe, enviros seeing red over green hydrogen | A progressive fail in Plymouth County DA race raises questions | Quick Hits | About Contrarian Boston | News tips? Story ideas? Email us at email@example.com
Interesting points. There are clearly perils in trying to describe a complicated issue in a broad, understandable, relatable, and yes, accurate way, which is a key part of journalism. Will take another look at how I am describing the new MBTA Communities law - yes, I under of communities that don't have T stations are still covered, because they are in the service area. I'd argue the law doesn't go far enough - no town should be able to wall itself off multifamily housing, or require one or two acre lots for single-family homes, which ensures that only very large homes affordable to the relatively well off get built.
On the one hand I applaud you calling out the Globe for engaging in the group think of climate activists. On the other hand, I have to point out your participation in group think that the Globe and others participate in with regards to housing issues and specifically the MBTA Communities housing law. You write "the new law requires local communities to open their doors to new apartments, condos and townhomes near T stations" which is false, inaccurate, and deserves a correction.
The new law requires almost every city and town east of Worcester-who are SERVED by the MBTA-to create zoning for multi-family housing. I know this is a rehash of past comments, but your above statement is false. Yes, you can cite other media outlets, housing advocates and govt agencies who describe it in the same way--hence the group think. But can you tell me where in Saugus or Halifax a T station is? There are none. So how can--as the sentence cited above explicitly states--Saugus or Halifax build multi-family housing near a T station when they ave no t-station within their borders?.
We can't have a serious conversation about "affordable housing" if one side continually misrepresents the facts and it gets reported as truth. Related to this, I look forward to a story about what EXACTLY is affordable housing as defined by the state. You maybe surprised to find out that it is NOT based on the income of the family or the monthly rental costs or the cost of a house/unit in the area. These factors do play a role in the definition of "Affordable Housing" but ultimately it is housing inventory the state controls and dictates who lives in the housing. So many of the solutions like increasing ADUs will never be considered "affordable" even though they are.
Affordable housing in the state is a complex issue and you make it sound simple. It's not.