Dear City Councilors,
We write to share compelling evidence that voters in our community — and across the state — are ready for bold action to make housing more affordable. Recent polling reveals that clear majorities of voters support the action needed to build more homes that people can afford, even when that choice is put up directly against protecting neighborhood character from change. In fact, when asked to choose, 71% of voters prioritized building affordable homes over preserving traditional neighborhood character.
The community acceptance of necessary change is widespread. Housing has emerged as voters’ top concern, ranking above cost of living, immigration, or taxes. And remarkably, this pro-housing sentiment crosses all demographic lines, spanning age, race, income, education, and homeownership status.
These results come as Watertown considers new plans and priorities that can make a meaningful difference in housing affordability in the coming months. The results of the upcoming affordable housing incentives study will help us better understand what zoning and process changes we can make to support nonprofit housing developers in their efforts to build more deed-restricted affordable housing.
Similarly, the response to the WestMetro HOME Consortium’s recent fair housing audit study, which showed widespread evidence of illegal racial and income-based discrimination regionally and in Watertown, will need to incorporate staffing, policy, and zoning solutions to mitigate future exclusionary practices.
As election season nears, we urge you to take a stand for the pro-housing policies and priorities that are widely popular, economically necessary, and morally just. Lowering the cost of housing by building more of all types — public housing, deed-restricted affordable housing, and market rate housing — is both the right thing to do and the politically expedient thing to do. It’s rare that a choice is so clear, but the evidence shows that voters want action now. We urge you to meet that demand.
Sincerely,
Rita Colafella, Sam Ghilardi, Dan Pritchard, Josh Rosmarin, Jacky van Leeuwen
Housing for All Watertown Steering Committee
I wouldn’t call a statewide poll from 803 registered voters neither compelling nor representative of Watertown residents’ views. I hope the councilors (most of them, anyways) can see through the smoke and mirrors.
Leave our City alone. Let the market dictate what’s being built and sold. I don’t want every attic or garage converted for residential purposes. Same goes for “tiny houses” in every postage stamp yard.
Incidentally, you do realize that we now have more renters than homeowners in Watertown?
BOSTON (WBZ NewsRadio) — The American dream traditionally included home ownership, but a recent study indicates the number of renters is now surpassing owners, especially in Brookline and Watertown.
We don’t solve the housing crisis without creating more housing. A+B=C!
Sure. Good luck with that.
We’re talking “affordable” housing here. Some of us who happen to live in OUR City of Watertown don’t want it [as proposed] as it will increase density. Again, if you live in a single room with a single light bulb, don’t live in Watertown, or both, density will not bother you.
In any event:
“ The standard of ‘affordable’ housing is that which costs roughly 30 percent or less of a family’s income. Because of rising housing costs and stagnant wages, slightly more than half of all poor renting families in the country spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs, and at least one in four spends more than 70 percent.”
Matthew Desmond
Go ahead, check the real estate prices in Watertown, do the math and fix it. It ain’t that easy, is it?
And we do create more housing all the time. For instance, single home conversions to town houses all over the place. Are they “affordable”? Yes for some, not for most. Life is not fair.
A show of hands who wants greater population density in their OWN neighborhood… looks to be significantly less than 71%. At four square miles, Watertown is what it is: small, one of the smallest and densest cities in the Commonwealth. Unless you want to live in a city like any of the following (shout out when we get there): Somerville, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Boston, Malden—hello, anyone there?—Lawrence, Revere, Lynn… maybe Arlington. Maybe. It’s a tautology that geographically larger towns have more space to work with, but it’s true. Among our neighbors, we are far denser than Belmont, Waltham, and Newton; Cambridge is a hybrid of high and low density, but West Cambridge, our immediate neighbor, is more like us than jam-packed Cambridgeport.
I have been reading in local media about lifelong residents being priced out of town for almost the entirety of my own thirty years’ residency. I am sympathetic but resigned. Blame Cambridge, which lost rent control in a statewide vote; blame the Arsenal for spurring development; blame the beauty of the neighborhoods surrounding the Oakley or near the Charles River. Blame the size.
Anyhow, we are soon to get a boost up the density tables with the proposed redevelopment of Watertown Square. At least 1,701 units, likely far more, some of which will be priced below market. What’s that, maybe 5,000-8,000 more people—over the same 4 sq mi? I’m a booster of that idea, if the MBTA lives up to its responsibility to provide credible public transportation. (A mega if.)
Elsewhere, just what exactly are you proposing? To knock down existing single-family residences for multi-family? No one moved to Watertown to have an apartment building put up next door, no matter how they answered a generic poll question. I said “maybe Arlington” above, but the Watertown Square development by itself will put us on par with Arlington in population density. You want to go for Lynn, Everett, Chelsea? Demi-Edens all, but not what anyone wants for our town. Dream big, by all means, but live modestly. You’ve got four square miles to work with, no more. If you think you can do better, I’d say you’re facing 71% skeptics.
For clarification, the MBTA Communities Law does not require any number of units to be built. The number is the by-right allowed if all the properties in the area were to be redeveloped. The final number was over 3,000, but that is not the number that must be built. It is one of he most confusing parts of the MBTA Communities Law.
Yes, it does require a minimum of units. It is based on the 2020 housing stock and the applicable % of the municipality – among other unfathomable calculations that only our legislature could mandate. Bottom line is that Watertown was assigned a “Minimum Multi-Family Capacity” of 1,701 Units. It sounds compulsory to me.
https://www.mass.gov/doc/section-3a-regulations-community-categories-and-reqs/download
The requirement is to have properties zoned to allow that many, but there is no requirement that they be built. As I said it is a very confusing part of the law.
Density Sucks!
Given the economic climate and demands for new housing, I believe Watertown has a unique opportunity to innovatively lead conversions from empty office buildings into living spaces.
I have to agree with Erik (someone please mark this moment in history). A poll of 803 residents statewide shows absolutely nothing conclusively and so therefore I find this letter misleading. The fact that it was taken online introduces further bias in the results.
In fact I find this letter and some previous letters from this group to be glib and lacking in deeper analysis. Allowing more banal cookie cutter high priced housing will not greatly impact affordability.
I do firmly believe that we must address the affordable housing problem. But this will only be done by consciously building affordable housing. The city of Watertown must make positive moves to make this happen. Commercial developers will not.
It is also a firmly held belief of mine that we can build quality affordable housing and maintain community character at the same time. That will be a heavy lift that requires commitment and deep thinking. The fashionable and facile sentiment that we must remove all barriers and zoning will not, in the long run, produce healthy communities. It is a co-out.
Watertown and other communities must address the affordable housing crisis. Bold ideas are needed. The market so far has not produced much in the way of affordability and it will not in the future.
Thanks. Some common ground after all. I did not notice this was an online poll; it makes the whole thing even more suspect. Good catch.
About the group conducting the poll, Abundant Housing Massachusetts. It lists the following among its priorities:
An Act to Promote Yes in My Backyard
Sponsors: Rep. Andres Vargas (D) & Rep. Kevin Honan (D) / Sen. Brendan Crighton (D)
(In Part)
“ The “YIMBY” bill is a comprehensive zoning reform bill that creates several new tools for unlocking missing middle housing production, including:
Allowing 5 homes by-right on all lots served by water and sewer and 3 homes by-right on all other lots
Eliminating minimum parking requirements for new residential developments
Creating a new process through which a property owner can subdivide their lot into smaller lots, which can only be used for new housing
Eliminating minimum lot size requirements”
Talk about increasing density at any cost. It’s NYMBY for me.
From the approved Watertown Square Area Plan, top of p. 49:
“Per the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) Watertown is required to approve zoning that results in a capacity of at least 1,701 multi-family housing units.”
Without arguing over semantics, I think this is the minimum target of units agreed upon for WSq. I believe there was a maximum discussed as well, with many people involved saying the number was not yet fixed, but would fall somewhere in between after further planning. Which is entirely in keeping with the Square redesign: more people support more local businesses. How and when it will happen, and by what degree, are to be determined; but it will happen.
I raise this point only to place the need for more housing, and more affordable housing, in the context of what’s already in the pipeline (including the Willow Park development). And to point out that WSq is the focus of greater density for particular reasons (public transportation, beautification) that do not easily apply to the rest of the town.
Our neighbors in Belmont, Newton, and Waltham live in significantly less dense—and geographically larger—communities. And all use WSq as a cut-through. I’d rather see Belmont approach Melrose in density than Watertown approach Revere (both about 10% increases).
Yes, target is a good word, but it is not a requirement.
Arguments for “No more density in my neighborhood” are just selfish. It’s immoral to enjoy your own little slice of the pie while denying it to others. Just because you got to Watertown first, it doesn’t mean you can keep other people out!
We have a housing crisis in our state because we haven’t built enough housing. The high price of housing is what has skewed the ratio of renters:owners toward renters. Housing prices will never come down until we build enough housing *to meet demand.* I’m all in for building more affordable housing, but someone has to pay to build it. Therefore, we must have smart incentives to encourage risk capital to take that risk. I find it “rich” that people who failed to save any of their earnings throughout their life, and now have no capital, have so many opinions about how others should spend their capital.
By your argument, aren’t Belmont, Newton, Waltham, and West Cambridge significantly MORE selfish and immoral than Watertown? You may be right, I wouldn’t presume to say so. But I think they have a lot more work to do on their souls than we do on ours. Of course, by your argument, Somerville is the most moral place of all, which might be a stretch. Maybe population density is a crude measure of morality.
I am neither selfish not immoral; I just don’t want more density in our City, but I understand that those who now live in a studio with no parking would not care about it. Those who can’t afford it, feel free to seek shelter elsewhere. There is demand, they just can’t afford buying here. Not my problem. Hey, I would love to have that $20M mansion in Manchester-By-The- Sea – but I can’t and I do not complain to others about it.
I was a renter once. I saved, worked hard and became a homeowner 40 years ago. If I could do it, anyone can. Spare me the righteous commentary.
Our State government has had no problem whatever spending $1B+ in shelter for illegal aliens. How much affordable housing could have been created with those funds?
I find it “rich” that you said “people who failed to save any of their earnings throughout their life, and now have no capital, have so many opinions about how others should spend their capital.” It’s an elitist attitude because many people have low-paying jobs and, after paying their bills, don’t have any money left over to save! A lot of people live paycheck-to-paycheck.
“I find it “rich” that people who failed to save any of their earnings throughout their life, and now have no capital, have so many opinions about how others should spend their capital.”
How about people who have struggled to make enough to survive and have had little extra to save? I find the hostility on the part of newcomers toward those who lived here before them appalling. Not that I have lived here that long comparatively.
It is not selfish or immoral to care about the quality and character of one’s town. It’s sensible. To allow developers to put up bad buildings willy nilly will not make for a better Watertown. Giving in to twenty-first century ticky-tack is not the best route forward.
I submit that we can preserve a distinct community while building affordable housing for populations that have traditionally called Watertown home, that is the working class and immigrants.
New arrivals in town must stop looking down their noses at their neighbors who have lived here longer and perhaps don’t have status jobs and large paychecks as they do. That is class bias at its ugliest.
Watertown is not yours alone.
As I have said before, Watertown should use CPA monies and perhaps other funds to purchase land while the lab and office markets are in recession. Maybe a small transfer tax is in order.
Once land is acquired, proposals for 100% affordable housing should be solicited. Winning proposals would be deeded the land free and clear as long as the housing is kept affordable. Other incentives may also be given.
For many reasons, the markets have failed to produce affordability in housing despite incredible amounts of building. The problem will only get worse with the increasing cost of living and the fallout from tariffs.
In the near future, at least, governments must fill the gap with robust programs to get affordable housing to market. There are many examples of how this is done throughout the world. Eliminating zoning restriction is the lazy way out and will not provide much in the way of sorely needed results.
Good news, you can!!! In fact, CPA money can be used for a myriad of items related to affordable housing – land purchase for housing, rehabing existing units, converting abandoned commercial space into housing, rental assistance programs, first time home-buying assistance programs, adding more housing for seniors, vets and special needs, etc. — https://www.communitypreservation.org/
There is also the opportunity to learn more about the Watertown CPA at the Annual Public CPC Meeeting, this Thursday at 7PM at City Hall. You can also send an email.– https://www.watertownmanews.com/2025/06/18/watertown-community-preservation-committee-holding-annual-public-meeting/
You can ask the commission how the public can work with an organization or developer who can submit a proposal for funding. After all, it is Watertown tax payer money and the CPA was adopted 2 to 1 via the ballot. Why shouldn’t a senior citizen not have more options for housing in Watertown or the workforce that educates children, renders aid or protect not get help with paying rent in Watertown?
The Affordable Housing Trust is also having a meeting tonight and it is always open to the public. They are discussing the 2026-2030 Housing Plan.–
https://watertownma.portal.civicclerk.com/event/7768/files/agenda/11800