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.
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.