After months of discussion, and what felt like a months long City Council meeting last night, here are a few observations from a once neutral observer on the topic of ADU’s:

First, a quick disclaimer; I live in a house that has an ADU in the Town of Chelmsford. In that unit live my wife’s grandparents, our primary source of daycare, as like many (most?) middle class Americans, the misses and I both work multiple jobs and rely on people to help with the kids.

To the best of my knowledge, our neighbors are not in any way affected. None of them showed up to protest at the 2018 meeting where I had to get approval from the town. Hell, I’d be shocked if any of them even know the house has an ADU, and I’d be more shocked if those who know actually give a crap. If they do, they’ve never voiced any concerns to us. If anything, they’re probably more perturbed by having an ass like me as their neighbor than the quiet, loving, elderly folks watching our young children while trying to enjoy their retirement years.

Despite the ADU in my own house, I honestly entered the Lowell debate pretty neutral. Didn’t really give it much thought until it began to overtake the homelessness hysteria as the hottest topic going.

There are some good, and some not so good, arguments on both sides. I even hosted a debate on the subject between Councilor John Drinkwater and  Planning Board member Jerry Frechette. Found both to be good advocates, but if forced to pick a winner of the debate, I’d have told you Frechette scored more points.

Still, I came away from that session thinking something wasn’t quite adding up with the opposition arguments, but it wasn’t until last night’s meeting when things finally came into focus. This, despite the fact that in general, my vision for the city aligns more with ADU opponents than supporters. Believe me, there were more than a couple of instances where I almost threw up in my mouth realizing I was agreeing with certain speakers. Politics sure makes strange bedfellows, and also helps drive mouthwash sales.

Which reminds me, do the alphabet soup organizations really need multiple speakers on one agenda item? The repetitive and time wasting practice is bothersome enough when I’m opposed to what they’re saying. But when I’m in agreement and still annoyed, it’s probably a sign one speaker per organization should suffice. But we digress.

Back when he was a State Rep, now City Manager Tom Golden and I would often discuss challenges and how they could be overcome. He had this go-to saying; “how do we get to yes?”

As I watched the never-ending debate play out on the council floor last night, I realized the speakers weren’t really trying to get to yes. Felt more like they were looking for an excuse to say no, despite the constant refrain of “I’m not opposed to ADU’s. I’m willing to accept them if (insert obstacle here).”

But as Councilor Wayne Jenness pointed out, there are eleven City Councilors. What’s an acceptable amendment to one might be a dealbreaker to another. We actually saw this play out when they started voting on amendments, before they had to go night-night, or whatever was more important than finishing this important piece of Council business. Some who voted yes on one amendment voted no on another, and vice-versa. Now extrapolate that over the two dozen or so passionate speakers last night. Then do the same for 120,000 residents.

See how this can quickly go awry and you end up without a finished product? Before you know it, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good and nothing gets done. (is that the ultimate goal of the opposition?)

The real reason I have now sided against the ADU opponents, however, is that despite protestations to the contrary (“I’m not opposed to ADU’s), a good number are 110% opposed to them in any way, shape or form. How do I know? Because they try so hard to avoid admitting the real reason they want to stop them, that their talking points start to contradict their own arguments in the process.

Think I’m kidding?

One speaker argued in one breath that Lowell would be overrun by ADU’s if this ordinance passed (completely false, as evidenced by every other community that has them and barely experiences a trickle), yet in the next breath he spoke about how expensive they are to build and to rent.

So which is it? Are we to believe one of the poorest communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is going to drown in a wave of people with the money to build these things, while at the same time there’s a stampede of undesirables living in a unit they can’t afford? Or is it more likely Lowell won’t really be overrun by ADU’s and the typical people who occupy them will resemble my wife’s grandparents?

The next argument that made me go “hmmmm” was from the gentleman who spoke of having the same discussion surrounding ADU’s in 2006. Now he says he’s on team “maybe, but we need more time.”

17-years and Lowell still needs more time? The rest of the country can figure this out, but the wheels of progress in Lowell spin so slowly we can’t figure this out in the two decades since?

Hell, had we allowed ADU’s in 2006, 99% of the original occupants would probably be dead by now! How much more time do we need?

There were a couple of other contradictory arguments, but you get the point. Besides, last night was a 2017 deja vu moment for me, crystalizing the real reason Lowell still hasn’t figured out this neighborhood issue.

If we’re being honest here folks, the biggest impediment to ADU’s in the Mill City is another acronym; NIMBY.

I know, I know. I said it. The shock! The horror! The only five letter arrangement that triggers folks more than NIMBY is Trump. Bring up Not In My Back Yard in reference to a neighborhood issue and people recoil as if they just heard about a MAGA hat wearing redneck committing an imaginary attack on a washed up actor.

Why that is, I’ve never understood. NIMBY does not make your argument wrong. In some ways, it’s almost virtuous. If we’re honest, we all are NIMBY about something next door to us; prisons, casinos, nuclear power plants, high schools. Everyone has something they don’t want to deal with when they come home. Absolutely nothing wrong with that and nothing to shy away from.

Except when that something we’re talking about is people. Poor people in particular. Then it gets a little dicey from a public relations perspective, doesn’t it?

So instead of just coming out and saying NIMBY, we embrace moldy brick school buildings and look for endangered species to protect, or we wax poetic about “neighborhood character” and say “I’m not opposed to ADU’s, but only if…”

And that’s what I finally realized last night. Doesn’t matter how many amendments are added, or what changes are made to the ordinance. There is a certain segment of Lowell (and every place in the world, for that matter) that will never accept any neighborhood change, no matter how big or small.

I believe Lowell is better than what last night and this issue display. Other communities have figured ADU’s out in less than 17-years. None of them have been “destroyed.” Haverhill, which many point to as a Gateway City on the move over the last decade, recently figured it out. I’m pretty sure Lowell can, too.

Now, our ADU ordinance won’t be exactly like your preferred one. It can’t be, because what you prefer is a line in the sand to one of your neighbors. The reality is, you are either for ADU’s in Lowell or against them. The “amendment” discussion is just political theater.

The time has come for our elected leaders to act. This is the ordinance. Vote on it one way or another, even if it means, GASP, working after 10pm. Then, as with every vote won or lost, live with the political consequences. If it turns into a debacle, fix it or nix it, like so many other pieces of legislation and ordinances. You can even say “I told you so!”

17-years is more than enough time to figure it out, Lowell.