How can a state that is the only one in the nation that is losing population have a housing problem? The answer out of Boston from the state house and the Globe is that it is an affordability issue that is the real problem. That answer of course does not hold up under scrutiny because there are a number of older urban areas across the state that have inventories of much older housing and commercial space that could be converted to new housing at very affordable prices. There are a number of reasons why people involved in this issue don't care about that fact.
From the development perspective lower housing costs and less desirable locations mean less profits. Why develop in Springfield, New Bedford and Lawrence when you can try to enter the Burlington, Woburn, Reading, Canton, Needham and Tewksbury markets and get substantially higher prices? Opposition by suburban communities have been over come with the onerous chapter 40B "snob zoning" legislation but they may become more difficult in the future as these communities finally wise up to that developer and Boston led scam.
From Boston's perspective, money spent and state resources allocated to other parts of the state means less money for Boston. How does money spent in Springfield, Pittsfield and New Bedford benefit Boston they ask?
The real issue here is found in the smoke screen of "Smart Growth". Smart growth is a euphemism for this disturbing thought. Boston as a city is simply a failing model. It is dominated by free loading institutions that pay few if any taxes and continue to gobble up prime tax revenue producing property in the city. In order for Boston to sustain itself it needs to develop ever more densely on the remaining commercial property in order to generate sufficient revenues to sustain its municipal infrastructure.
This point is no secret to the mayor of Boston and he has recently responded to the problem with a proposal such as this http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/18/mayor_urges_1000_foot_skyscraper/. A thousand foot sky scraper proposed for a city in which it is already nearly impossible to make a reasonable commuter trip into and out of the city on a daily basis?
I live North of the city and work in a building 11.6 miles from my house and five miles out side of Boston. If I take route 93 to work in the morning it turns an 11.6 mile ride into a 55 minute bumper to bumper comedy. From what my co-workers tell me, it is even worse trying to get to work from the South side of the city.
The media did a nice piece the other day on how the trip through the tunnel had been reduced from 19 minutes to less than three minutes as a result of the "Big Dig". I guess it is comforting to know that 14 billion dollars was spent on the project for this type of imrovement, however forgive me if I point out that the project only resulted in moving faster to another bottleneck that keeps you waiting endlessly. In American public works history the "Big Dig" will stand as a testament to pork barrel waste on a monumental scale.
How does "Smart Growth" figure in this? Well it is very simple. The power structure in Boston wants the surrounding communities to be built up more densely in housing along major rail lines and traffic routes so that Boston can continue to grow without any alteration to its current makeup. That build up in density means that the outlying communities will be responsible for more population, more school and public safety costs so that Boston can have more workers.
From Boston's perspective, the surrounding communities should be glad and be willing to do this to support a cosmopolitan city that is a mecca for education, science and medicine. The suburban point of view is that if we are such a mecca for these things why are we the most expensive area in the world to send a child to college or God forbid if we get sick is it the most expensive place in the world to get health care?
How bad is Boston's revenue problem? The city itself laid out the problem in a report that can be found here http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/bra/PDF/Publications//pdr_562.pdf
Currently, more than 50% of Boston's property is held by entities that are not required to pay taxes. In fairness to the institutional community it is also the state that contributes to the problem with the huge amount of tax exempt land it holds.
The bottom line is this, Boston as currently constituted is not going to be able to grow it's commercial base in order to sustain itself financially over the long run. Instead of following a strategy of building thousand foot office buildings, the city would be better served adopting a program of stability and slow growth. Revenue generation should be vigorously pursued from those who are not contributing their fare share. If housing is to be required it should be built within the city at higher density and affordable rates. Why not several nice high rise apartment buildings from which, people can walk to work?
Think what might have been accomplished had 14 billion dollars been invested more wisely in addressing the core problems of Boston.
