It’s also worth noting that the town of Holden isn’t being sued by the state. It’s a third party- the central Massachusetts housing alliance, a Holden property owner and a low income homeless mother who claims their noncompliance is reducing her chance of finding a home (I don’t think she read the 10% rule, either…)
The lawsuit itself and the response from Holden are worth reading, and IMO it’s likely to be dismissed as soon as a judge reads it (they just had a change of counsel due to a conflict of interest). In the very least we should see how it plays out before being scared about an impending lawsuit… Sarah Postlethwait On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 11:18 AM Sara Mattes <samat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, we are only allowed to require UP TO 10%. > The exception would be a prospective developer approving an economic > analysis that proved the 15% usually required by Lincoln be profitable. > And what do we think the chance of that is? > > I agree with your analysis-this act is a wolf in sheep’s clothing…couched > as eco- friendly “transit oriented development” while it includes towns > with NO public transit (adjacent communities), and a addressing a housing > crisis while limiting the amount of affordable housing. > All this, brought to you by the former Governors and a legislature > unwilling to address a real crisis - a failed public transit system. > > I am interested to see the law suit in Holden plays out. > The firm of our own Town Counsel is defending Holden. > > The AG has NOT issued a legal ruling, but rather issued a statement, > threatening towns. > So far, there has been no follow-up following her press conference over 6 > months ago. > > This is an ever-evolving story and why I keep asking- “Why rush?” > > Slow, thoughtful, deliberate has made us leaders and models in both land > conservation and affordable housing. > Let’s keep on keeping on. > > > > > > > ------ > Sara Mattes > > > > > On Oct 11, 2023, at 10:40 AM, Colleen Katsuki <coll...@shadowtracks.org> > wrote: > > > Do I understand correctly that the new sate law requires new buildings > under this new law to have only 10% or less affordable housing? Why is > that? Why can we not have 25% as in Oriole landing? The cynic in me > suggests that this is a sop to the developers, not any real intent to have > more affordable housing. > > > > Colleen Katsuki > > Concord Road > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > > > -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to Lincoln@lincolntalk.org. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
