Dear Lord, We Need Some Housing

Last night’s meeting delivered the all too rare philosophical-type of government puzzle that interests me much more than budgets and potholes. Specifically, at what level should “government be happening?”

I don’t know, Davey…let’s think this through.

If you held a gun to my head and made me pick my favorite treatise on American government by a 19th Century, French aristocrat, I guess I’d have to pick Alexis de Tocqueville‘s two-part banger Democracy in America (1835, 1840). These volumes still slap. Impressed with American democracy (notably New England town meetings), Alex T. riffed on the “principle of subsidiarity,” which, in a nutshell, emphasizes that decisions and actions should be taken at the lowest level of government necessary to achieve desired outcomes. This means that higher-level institutions should not interfere in the affairs of lower-level institutions unless the latter are unable to effectively address a matter themselves.

That tricky “unless” relates to last night’s meeting and the housing crisis.

What happens when the policies of lower-level institutions fail to provide sufficient housing to meet the needs of the population? What happens when neighborhood groups, planning boards, and zoning boards repeatedly veto opportunities to put roofs over heads? What happens when you kneecap the free market and create an artificial shortage of supply?

I’m not speaking specifically about Lowell here. However, the mindset plays out in the Mill City too. For example, what happens when you drag your feet and blather about crafting “an ADU ordinance that works,” yet never actually craft anything?

More powerful forces step in and take the keys away. Broad measures like state ADU laws, the MBTA Communities Act, and the Yes in God’s Backyard Bill start getting forced down your throat.

As to that “Yes in God’s Backyard” Bill, two of our State Reps, Tara Hong and Vanna Howard filed a bill seeking:

“No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit, unreasonably restrict or require a special permit or other discretionary zoning approval for the use of land owned by a religious sect or denomination for multifamily housing.“

In essence, churches would not be beholden to the same restrictive zoning ordinances you and I are. The bill is not an original creation. Similar bills are popping up around the country. At first glance, god and housing production may seem like an odd marriage. However, as our country recognizes religious liberty as a core value, these bills leverage constitutional free exercise protections against land use decisions that obstruct dense development. Further, yet another 19th-century thinker noted that “God is Dead” and society is slowly but surely catching up to that line of thinking. There is, apparently, a “tsunami of emptying houses of worship is washing across the U.S.” Thus, vacant buildings and the First Amendment could be a catalyst for housing production.

In response to the bill, much of our City Council is kinda pissed. Last night Councilor Gitschier filed the following motion:

C. Gitschier – Req. City Mgr. send a letter to our state delegation and the Speaker of the House in opposition of House Bill number 2347 (Yes, In God’s Back Yard), relative to zoning ordinances and taxation of land owned by religious sects or denominations for multi-family housing.

Of the ten councilors present last night (Councilor Jenness absent), all but Councilor Yem were opposed to the bill (and thus were in favor of the letter). Most, if not all, of those in opposition had issues with the substance of the bill, and many were upset that Reps. Hong and Howard failed to reach out to the Council and the administration before advancing the legislation.

Mayor Rourke noted that Rep. Howard reached out before the meeting seeking to discuss the matter in a subcommittee. As a courtesy, Mayor Rourke put forth a motion to do so, however, the motion failed 2-8 with only Councilors Yem and Nuon in favor. The original Motion seeking a letter in opposition passed by a vote of 8-1 with Councilor Yem in opposition and Councilor Nuon opting to abstain.

As to the bill itself…it’s an idea, perhaps a clever idea. Personally, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. In August of 2022 the Council received a list of tax exempt properties, from which we can identify the churches that could start developing land at a profit. The cynical atheist in me already sees a lot of grift happening here and granting special rights to these groups – while denying others those same rights – apparently in the name of god, is gross. On the other hand, I’m inclined to dismiss any and all NIMBY arguments that do not articulate alternative proposals that generate an equal number or greater housing units.

Like I said, it’s one of those philosophical puzzles and I am no Tocqueville or Nietzsche.