View source for Arlington Redevelopment Board - Oct 26th, 2020

Held via video-conference.  Tonight's meeting consists of warrant
article hearings, in preparation for the Nov 2020 Special Town
Meeting.  Meeting materials were available from
https://arlington.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/DisplayAgendaPDF.ashx?MeetingID=1183.


'''Article 19 - Accessory Dwelling Units'''.   DPCD director Jenny
Raitt introduces the article.  This ADU proposal differs significantly
from what was considered last year.  It would allow ADUs in all
residential districts.  They would be allowed by right, rather than
requiring a special permit.  Ms. Raitt says that ADUs are common in
metro Boston and in other states, and that there are many options for
allowing ADUs.  ADUs are a way to add housing, and to meet the needs
of homeowners (e.g., housing caretakers, family members, or providing
rental income).

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton filed the article and gives a
presentation.  Article 19 proposes to allow ADUs in all residential
districts by right.  There are several reasons for this.  First,
Arlington is losing diversity and its ability to retain residents.
This applies to both seniors and young adults.  Second, ADUs benefit
families that need flexibility and more housing choices.  ADUs are an
inexpensive form of non-subsidized housing, and they're sustainable.
This ADU article was written around needs identified in the 2015
Master Plan -- the need for affordability, and to provide residents
with a way to age in place.  Arlington has large single-family houses,
which makes it to reasonable to contemplate ADUs.

To be successful, ADUs shouldn't have too many restrictions.  65% of
100 Metro Boston communities allow ADUs.  Most cities want them.  65%
of people in the MAPC area support them, and research from Zillow
corroborates this information.  We shouldn't place too many
restrictions on ADUs.  Town professional staff already administers the
building code and safety laws.  A homeowner that wants to build an ADU
is likely to need a professional builder to comply with all of these
regulations; it's already a complicated process.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks for an overview of the changes.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says her article would allow ADUs by
right, and wouldn't change any of the dimensional regulations in the
zoning bylaw.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says that the ARB submitted a substantially
different article last year, which failed by a few votes.  He points
out that our zoning bylaw makes a distinction between duplexes and
two-family homes.   He asks Ms. Thornton if she intended to allow ADUs
in duplexes as well as two family homes.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says she wants the broadest
applicability possible.  That would include duplexes.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks why the proposed definition of ADU
says "four or more rooms".  Why not three rooms?

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says she'd prefer three, but was trying
to be conservative with the definition.  

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if ADUs would be limited to
single-family homes.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says no, they wouldn't be limited to
single-family homes.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson asks if ADUs would be allowed in existing
houses, or another building.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton would prefer the most flexible option,
and that would included detached ADUs.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson says he was confused about restricting
the number of rooms in the definitions, but understands Ms. Thornton's
intent now.  He notes that last year's proposal was limited to the
existing building envelope.  He asks Ms. Thornton if she'd allow
ADUs in additions and accessory structures.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says yes.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson asks Ms. Thornton if she could envision a
garage being converted into an ADU.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says yes, she could envision garages
being converted to accessory dwelling units.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson says that there are nonconforming garages
within required yard setbacks.  He asks if those could be converted to
ADUs.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says the goal is to create more
housing.  Every circumstance will be different.  A homeowner that
wants to build an ADU will have to initiate that process.  She'd like
to limit the costs as much as possible.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson says he's working through the idea of not
having the processes proposed last year, and the concerns that caused
them.  He's worried about one-family to two-family conversions by
non-owner occupants.  He says the article needs to address short-term
rentals.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says there were a lot of discussions
about ADUs being used for Air BNB rentals last year.  She no longer
feels those concerns are warranted.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson asks why not include the processes proposed
last year, and then loosen those processes over time?

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says she'd prefer to start with an
open processes, and add restrictions when there's a reason to do so.
Too many restrictions will reduce the number of ADUs built.  She wants
to make this easy for people to understand and do.  She'd rather
adjust in response to problems that arise, rather than guess at what
those problems might be.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson asks if last year's estimates on the number
of ADUs that would be built considered the number of restrictions
being imposed.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt says that last year's estimates factored in
the number of restrictions.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson asks how many ADUs might be constructed.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton believes that ADU construction in
Lexington is probably a good indicator of what we might see in
Arlington.  She says that 60 ADUs have been built in Lexington since
their bylaws went into effect.

(Kin Lau) Mr. Lau asks if detached ADUs would have their own setbacks,
including garages that were converted to ADUs.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson says he was thinking about setbacks of
existing garages.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson believes there are four things to consider:
short-term rentals, whether the owner lives on the property, setbacks,
and open space.

(Katie Levine Einstein) Ms. Levine Einstein asks if the town is
prepared to handle the permitting and application process.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says she's spoken with the building
inspector and the fire chief.  Neither was concerned about having the
capacity to handle permit requests.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson asks if the 50% restriction on floor area
would apply before or after the ADU was built.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says that the 50% limit is supposed
to apply before construction.  The ADU could be up to 1/3 of the
building, after construction.

There are no more questions from the board, and the chair opens the
hearing to public comment.

(John Worden) Mr. Worden asks if Wynelle Evans can speak.  He says
that Ms. Evans has a substitute motion.  He asks that Ms. Evans gets
as much time to present her substitute motion as Ms. Thornton got to
present her article.

(Patrick Hanlon) Mr. Hanlon says he was a member of the Residential
Study Group, and he was spooked by Building Inspector's statement
about enforcement last year.  However, he feels okay about that now.
Mr. Hanlon says we need to consider whether there is a need for more
housing, and if ADUs should be considered only when absolutely
necessary.  The Housing Production Plan treats it as the former.  He
congratulates Ms. Thornton for not requiring a special permit.  He
doesn't want to see an ADU bylaw that exists on paper but can't be
used in practice.  He believes its important not to limit ADUs to the
single-family districts.  He thinks the substitute motion has a lot of
complexity, and puts more emphasis on land use than the needs of the
property owner.  He thinks the substitute is a stranger proposal than
we had last year.

(Patricia Worden) Ms. Worden says that Article 19 is a disgrace, and
she strongly opposes it.  She says that three minutes aren't enough
time to say how many things are wrong with this article.  She says
there's no affordability requirement.  She says that homeowners can do
all of this legally, with the exception of installing a stove, and
that many have done that.  She says that allowing this will be a
bonanza for developers, and that the planning department is opposing
the needs of residents.  She thinks the board should be making appeals
to real estate brokers instead.  She says this will be a vehicle for
teardowns and will cause higher residential taxes.

(Wynelle Evans) Ms. Evans says she was formerly a member of the
residential study group, and they only had one meeting to discuss
ADUs.  She says there are significant restrictions on ADUs in
communities surrounding Arlington.  She believes that Article 19 lacks
protections.  She's submitted a substitute motion, and hopes that can
be a consensus version.  She says she supports housing family members,
and that there won't be an explosion of ADUs because they're expensive
to build.  She says the rent will be expensive, and they'll be used
for short-term rentals.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak supports the article, and he applauds
Ms. Thornton's proposal for allowing ADUs by right in all residential
districts.  He says the proposal seems like something that's designed
to encourage ADU construction, and not an attempt to get an ADU law on
the books while permitting as few of them as possible.  He suggests
that the definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit be broadened to include
two- or three- rooms, to allow for studio-style apartments.

(Don Seltzer) Mr. Seltzer says that the building inspector spoke about
enforcement difficulties last year.  He says that inspectional
services can't prevent the creation of illegal ADUs today, and they're
only discovered when properties are sold.  He believes this bylaw
proposal will be abused and exploited.

(Steve Moore) Mr. Moore says that towns change slowly, and that's not
just because of NIMBYs.  He says that last years proposal was focused
on single-family districts because they have larger lots.  He's not
sure if these would fit into the two-family district.  He's concerned
about density.

Mr. Moore is also a member of the tree committee.  He says that
additional construction will require taking trees down, and that we
should focus on restoring the tree canopy in town.

(Alex Bagnall) Mr. Bagnall supports this proposal.  He says we need to
support housing.  We should encourage more housing, and not just make
it theoretically possible.  Too many encumbrances will lead to fewer
ADUs being built, and we need more housing choice.

(Carl Wagner) Mr. Wagner believes that Ms. Thornton and Mr. Bagnall
are mistaken.  He says the 2019 ADU article didn't have enough
requirements.  He says there should be an affordability requirement.
He says that ADUs will make the town a more expensive place to live,
and will cause a loss of diversity.  He notes this article can't go
before town meeting if the ARB says no.  He feels this article was
worse than the one which was proposed in 2019.  He says the planning
board works for the people, and that they're currently working against
the people of Arlington.

(Xavid Pretzer) Mr. Pretzer supports this article and thinks it's very
important to minimize barriers.  He prefers to see ADUs allowed by
right, rather than with a special permit.  He says there's not enough
subsidy money to meet all of Arlington's housing needs.  He hopes we
can increase the amount of housing in town.

(John Worden) Mr. Worden says the need for housing is overblown.
Arlington is the second densest town in the state and we don't need
any more people.  He says that affordable housing in the only kind of
housing we should provide.  He feels that Arlington won't get to 10%
SHI with Ms. Thornton's article.  He says it will just make things
worse.  He feels that the whole point of zoning is safeguards, to
protect the interests of people who've made an investment in this
community.

(Phil Tedesco) Mr. Tedesco supports this article.  He thinks it speaks
to the values of Arlington; being inclusive and allowing more people.
He sees people being priced out of town now, and believes this is an
elegant and simple proposal.

(Joanne Preston) Ms. Preston says she couldn't let this go by.  She
says that building more housing won't make the prices go down.  She
claims there's no economic study showing that more housing reduces
costs.  More people will mean more school children, which will mean
more taxes.  She says that Arlington is part of a regional market.
Stipulating that ADUs be affordable is the only way they will be.

(Chris Loretti) Mr. Loretti says that communities around Boston
prohibit ADUs completely, or require a special permit for them.  He
feels that a special permit requirement is absolutely necessary,
and claims that inspectional services is incapable of enforcing the
zoning bylaw.  He says that garages -- old or new -- can be built to
the property line if they adhere to the fire code.  He thinks the ARB
should put its own article forward, and that working with a citizen
article is inappropriate.  He says there was no outreach done and
suggests the ARB not support it.

Public comment ends.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson would like to make a follow-up remark on
income restrictions.  He said the board had that discussion last year
and felt that income restrictions were inappropriate.  He says that
ADUs are expensive to build; homeowners that build them will need a
way to recoup their costs.  He says it's not only about affordability,
it's also about meeting homeowner needs.


'''Article 18 - Improving Residential Inclusiveness, Sustainability, and Affordability by Ending Single Family Zoning'''
Jenny Raitt introduces the article.  The idea is to allow two-family
homes by right in the R0 and R1 (single-family) districts.  This
article is similar to conversations about single-family zoning that
have taken place in the region and elsewhere in the country.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak sends apologies to the board on behalf of
Ben Rudick, who filed Article 18.  Mr. Rudick had a mountain biking
accident a few days ago, and is recovering from injuries.  Mr. Revilak
will present in Mr. Rudick's place.

79% of Arlington's residential land is zoned exclusively for
single-family homes; no other kinds of housing can be built there.
We're proposing to allow two-family homes by right in these
districts.  We're not proposing any changes to dimensional
regulations: setbacks, height, open space, and so on.  We're simply
proposing that two-family homes be allowed in the envelope where a
single-family home can be built.

Note that we're not proposing to eliminate single family homes.
Instead we propose to eliminate the regulation that restricts the vast
majority of our residential districts to single-family and nothing
else.

There are four key reasons why we're putting this proposal forward.
First, we want to address the racist legacy of 20th century housing
policy.  Those policies had layers of discrimination, and zoning was
merely one of them.  However, zoning is a meaningful change we can
enact locally.  Second, we want to improve environmental
sustainability.  Multi-family homes tend to be more energy efficient
than their single-family counterparts.  And it is more sustainable to
add housing to a dense community like Arlington than it is to clear
undeveloped land at the fringes of the suburbs.  Finally, we want to
increase housing choice and provide for more affordable homes.  Note
that "more affordable" applies to new construction.  New single
family homes in Arlington typically sell for $1.5M while new
half-duplexes sell for around $1.1M.  They're expensive, but
$400,000 less than the single-family alternative.

These kinds of changes have been made elsewhere in the country -- the
city of Minneapolis and the state of Oregon, for example.  We could be
the first to do it in Massachusetts.

Mr. Revilak gives a brief history of how housing policies were used
for discrimination.  Shortly after zoning was created, cities and
towns tried to use zoning as a mechanism for segregation -- black
folks over here, white folks over here.  This was ruled
unconstitutional in a supreme court decision called Warley vs
Buchannan.  The supreme court determined that racially-based zoning
violated a white property owner's 14 amendment right to enjoy the
benefits of their property, by prohibiting them from selling it to a
black buyer.  Single-family zoning emerged as an "solution" to Warley
v Buchannan; it used class as the basis for segregation rather than
race.  Then secretary of Commerce Hebert Hoover was a big fan of
single-family zoning, and his department urged cities and towns to
adopt it.

Racial covenants were another form of segregation.  Here, there'd be a
deed restriction saying that a property could not be sold to or
occupied by people of color.  Mr. Revilak know of two farms that were
subdivided and put such restrictions in their deeds -- the Allen Farm
(across the street from the high school), and the Wynn farm (which
became Kelwyn Manor).

In 1937, the Home Owners Loan Corporation of America drew their
actuarial (aka redline) maps of Arlington.  There is no red on our map
whatsoever.  This is not surprising.  According to the 1940 census,
Arlington had 35 black residents out of 40,000.  This barely changed
in subsequent decades; in 1960 the black population of Arlington was
only 39 people.  These redline maps were used by the FHA in their
underwriting decisions, and the FHA was the country's largest mortgage
underwriter from the late 1930s to late 1960s -- the time when much of
Arlington's housing was built.

Mr. Revilak's neighborhood consists of 42 duplexes which were built in
the late 1940s, all using the same identical floor plan.  They were
advertised as "all mortgages 25-year FHA", so these homes would have
not been available to black buyers.

Because of these and other factors, Arlington developed as a
predominantly white town -- we were still 99% white in the 1970
census -- consisting of mostly single-family homes.  These
circumstances were not unique to Arlington, but we engaged in the same
bad behavior as everyone else.

Mr. Revilak's slides show examples of real estate advertisements from
the 1920's.  These include language like "A select location for
single-family homes in a refined and restricted community",
"Arboretum Heights is carefully and suitably restricted to single
family homes, with other restrictions to create and maintain an
agreeable residential community", and "these homes are situated in a
highly restricted residential section".  He thinks it's clear what
kind of restrictions these ads were talking about.

Even our current president knows what the dog whistles are.  A June
2020 tweet said "At the request of many great Americans who live
in the Suburbs, I am studying the Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing regulation that is having a devastating impact on these once
thriving areas".  The following month, in July, he said "Democrats
want to eliminate single-family zoning, bringing who know into your
suburbs so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values
will go down".

To summarize, multi-family zoning is better for the environment.  The
20th century approach to building housing involved clearing large
parcels of land, putting down roads and utilities, and building a lot
of single-family houses.  This clears trees, adds a lot of impervious
surface, and maximizes trips in single occupancy vehicles.  Two-family
homes will provide more housing choice, and new duplex units will be
less expensive than new single-family homes.

When writing this proposal we wanted to address some of the concerns
raised with last year's multi-family proposal, aka Article 16 from the
2019 town meeting.  Article 16 would have allowed taller buildings,
and there were concerns about additional height and shadows.  This
proposal doesn't change any dimensional regulations, so height and
shadows are no more (and no less) a problem than they currently are.
Article 16 would have concentrated development along Mass Ave and
Broadway, and several speakers saw this as an equity issue during
public meetings.  This proposal would spread new housing over 61% of
the town's land area, and it would not be concentrated into one place.
Article 16 drew concerns about displacement, from older apartment
buildings being replaced with newer mixed-use buildings.  This
proposal would affect single-family homes, 95% of which are owner
occupied.  We feel that minimizes the risk of displacement.  Finally,
any changes are going to happen gradually.  There are an average of 27
replacement homes built each year in Arlington; doubling that -- to
54/year -- is still a tiny change for a town with over 40,000 people.

Mr. Revilak concludes his presentation by showing photographs of
non-conforming two-family homes in single-family districts.  These
include sections of Summer St, Westminster Ave, Park Ave, Hillside
Ave, Wachusett Ave, Newport St, Mt. Vernon St, Irving St, Jason St,
and Pleasant St.  He'd like to make the point that two-family homes
are already woven into the fabric of Arlington's single-family
districts.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson says its interesting to see the number of
two-family homes that are already in the R1 district, and how well
they fit in.  He says their existence hasn't stopped people from
buying or selling in R1.  He asks if there have been studies about how
ending single-family zoning changed the cost of housing in Minneapolis
or Oregon.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak believes that the Minneapolis and Oregon
changes went into effect earlier this year, which isn't enough time to
see a meaningful difference.

(Eugene Benson) Mr. Benson would like to mention another supreme court
case -- Euclid, which legalized single-family zoning.  Euclid
recognized the need to separate industrial and residential uses, but
it also talked about the need to separate single and multi-family
uses.  The supreme court called multi-family uses parasites that would
destroy single-family districts.  He sees this article as related to
the legacy of Euclid.

(David Watson) Mr. Watson acknowledges that there are systemic
inequities in our system, and he notes that 15% of R1 parcels have a
use that's not a single-family zone.  He's not sure the board has
sufficient data to reason about the effects of this article.

(Steve Revilak) Mr. Revilak says he's aware of one comparison that
might apply: San Francisco and Seattle.  Randy Shaw devoted several
chapters to this in his book ''Generation Priced Out''.  San
Francisco was close to Silicon Valley's tech boom, and Amazon's
headquarters was located in Seattle.  Both cities saw a lot of demand
for housing; Seattle built it like crazy and San Francisco didn't.
Housing prices in Seattle are high, but not nearly as high as they are
in San Francisco.

(Katie Levine Einstein) Ms. Levine Einstein says there wasn't an
immediate permitting boom when Minneapolis ended single-family zoning,
and it hasn't led to an overwhelming number of tear-downs.  New
construction may cause tiny increases in surrounding blocks, but it
leads to a produce modest (not huge) reduction in prices overall.  San
Francisco's inability to produce housing has led to racial
segregation.

The chair opens the hearing to public comment.

(John Worden) Mr. Worden says that when a petition for a zoning map
change is filed, copies have to be sent to each abutter.  He asks if
copies of the petition have been sent.

(Jenny Raitt) Ms. Raitt says this is a use change in the zoning bylaw,
not a map change.

(John Worden) Mr. Worden says that if this isn't a map change, then he
doesn't know what is.  He says the proponents are trying to slip this
proposal by during a pandemic and deprive Arlington of its
single-family neighborhoods.  Mr. Worden says this article is an
abomination.  When Arlington recodified it's bylaw in 1975, we tried
to zone according to what was already in each district.  Mr. Worden
says that redlining was done by the banks, not by municipalities.  He
calls Article 18 an ADU bill on steroids.  He says it's the worst,
most stupid thing he's seen in 50 years.

(Patricia Worden) Ms. Worden asks the ARB to vote no on this
proposal.  She says that the two family homes on Jason street (shown
during the presentation) are on large lots, which can accommodate
two-family homes.  She says that trees and open space are more
important.  She says that Article 18 is the worst article she's ever
seen; she claims that it's shocking, exclusionary, and racist.  She
says it will raise housing costs, and it's shameful how the planning
department is promoting a racist article.  She says the article is
disgrace, ignores our greatest housing needs, represents the ultimate
hypocrisy of developers.  She says we need to protect our communities.

(Molly Brady) Ms. Brady feel that little has changed since redlining.
There were long-lasting effects.  One hundred years after those racist
maps were drawn, many areas are very much the same.  Ms. Brady moved
here 15 months ago, and feels very fortunate to be a homeowner at her
age.  She's still shocked at how expensive housing in Arlington is.
Undoing single-family zoning is only a first step.  All of the reasons
stated for keeping single family zoning amount to a shell game.  Please
increase the supply of housing.

(Wynelle Evans) Ms. Evans believes this article is well-intended but
will have the opposite effect.  She says that dispersing new housing
throughout the town goes against the master plan and principles of
transit-oriented development.  She feels this will drive up land
values, and developers will just try to make as much of a profit as
they can.  She thinks that single- to two-family conversions will
result in higher cost and clear-cutting.  She says the average sale
price of a new condo is $940k, so this will reduce prices at the high
end and remove affordable housing from the market.

(Xavid Pretzer) Mr. Pretzer is broadly in support of this article.  He
understands the concern about trees, but points out that the article
isn't changing any dimensional regulations.  He thinks we should
strengthen our tree laws if we want to protect trees.  He agrees that
Article 18 will not solve all of our housing problems, but that won't
prevent it from being a positive step.  And it will avoid displacement.

(Steve Moore) Mr. Moore thinks Mr. Revilak needs to remember that
correlation is not causality.  He feels that single-family zoning is
not directly related to discrimination.  Folks move to Arlington for a
lot of reasons, not just housing and the tradition of the town.  We
need to balance, and he hopes we can strike a balance.  He says that
two-family homes will result in the town getting denser, and that may
invalidate why people want to live here.  He asks the ARB to present
an integrated plan, and not make piecemeal changes.  He says we need
an integrated approach to the problem.

(Barbara Thornton) Ms. Thornton says she was trained as a city
planner.  When she was going to college, she thought that planning was
all about containing noxious fumes.  She points to the ''Color of Law''
as showing the horrific effects of our housing policy.  She'd
like to see that remedied.  Ms. Thornton says we're in a time of rapid
change, and she hopes we can have the courage and bravery to be a
model for other cities and towns to follow.  She supports Article 18.

(Jennifer Susse) Ms. Susse supports both articles, and is excited
about them.  These articles will distribute new housing throughout the
town.  This isn't the end, and we can have future articles to
encourage transit-oriented development.  Ms. Susse wants people to
consider what will happen if we do nothing.  Palo Alto has small
homes, but they're not affordable.  Arlington is losing age diversity,
especially in the under 35 and over 65 brackets.  These articles won't
solve all of our housing problems, but they will help to mitigate
them.  The housing shortage is a regional problem, but that's no
excuse for doing nothing.  Boston and Somerville have ambitious
housing production plans, and these will help mitigate the trends
towards rising prices.  The ADU article is a win-win.

(Don Seltzer) Mr. Seltzer says there's been a lot of speculation and
conjecture.  The proponents were estimating one new student per
seventeen households, but Arlington has three students for every ten
households.  Arlington is 15% denser than Minneapolis, and has a
healthy turnover of housing.  We've become a magnet for immigrants,
and one in five Arlington residents was born outside the US.  New
two-family houses will cost more than the ones they replace, and the
elimination of single-family zoning will open the floodgates to
teardowns.  This will accelerate gentrification, and lead to more
condos, not rental units.

(Carl Wagner) Mr. Wagner says the proponent spoke for ten minutes
about racism, and it was a bait-and-switch presentation.  He says that
Arlington is cheaper than all of our surrounding communities, except
for Medford.  We have inclusionary zoning and we're close to transit.
45% of Arlington's homes are multi-family.  He believes this is an
extreme article that won't accomplish any of its stated goals.
Mr. Wagner claims that all upzoning increases rents, increases taxes,
and displaces people.  He believes this will make Arlington less
diverse and more expensive.

(Phil Tedesco) Mr. Tedesco supports the article, and thought it was
compelling to see examples.  We need more housing for more families.
Today, every home sale is a bidding war, and even white-collar
professionals are being priced out of town.  We should be courageous
in setting an example.  This proposal is not radical or crazy.
Mr. Tedesco lives in a duplex and he's happy it was created for him.
Half-duplexes are much less expensive than single-family homes.

(Joanne Preston) Ms. Preston lives in the Webcowett neighborhood.  She
says there's so much wrong with Article 18, and that her neighborhood
is a living example of why it's such a disaster.  Seven single-family
homes were torn down to build duplexes.  A developer bought a
single-family home for $800k, tore it down, and replaced it with a
pair of townhouses that sold for $1M each.  That's a decrease in
affordability.  Ms. Preston doesn't like how new duplexes are built
with the same floor plans and look alike.  She thinks it's sad that
anyone would think this will help young families move into town.  She
believes it wont increase economic diversity.

(Alex Bagnall) Mr. Bagnall enthusiastically support Article 18.  He
owns a single-family home in a two-family district, and thinks his
neighbors are delightful.  Single-family zoning is part of an economic
wall.  It's not just about a preference for single-family homes.  More
regulations lead to higher affluence and a higher degree of
segregation.  Without measures like this, sprawl will increase,
leading to higher emissions.  This is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Bagnall closes with a quotation from the Color of Law, saying that
people have a responsibility to address the harms done by their
predecessors.

(Charles Blandy) Mr. Blandy says the past hasn't gone; it hasn't even
past yet.  There are no moderate-cost single family homes in
Arlington, and we're living through accelerated gentrification.
Multi-family homes are less expensive than single-family ones.  People
who move to Arlington work in high paying jobs, for companies that are
able to print money; ones in Kendall Square, on Route 128, Harvard,
and MIT.  We're an example of stasis.  This article is necessary,
though not sufficient.  My kids won't be able to afford to live here
when they finish college.  We have to decide what our values and
interests are.  Mr. Blandy says he wanted to move to Arlington for the
density, but misses the diversity found in other communities.

(Chris Loretti)   Mr. Loretti says he has nothing against two-family
homes, and it's unfortunate that the proponent played the race card.
He says Houston has segregation, in spite of the fact that they don't
have zoning.  This is about money, and people who want to build more.
He says that table three from the planning department memo shows how
this will lead to higher prices and less diversity.  This article
won't promote diversity or inclusiveness, it will lead to
gentrification.

(Brian Ristuccia) Mr. Ristuccia says it's a fallacy to compare the
cost of new construction to the cost of an old unrenovated property.
New duplexes are cheaper than new single-family homes, and we have a
small supply of unrenovated homes.  Mr. Ristuccia rejects any argument
that single-family zoning isn't racially motivated.

(Steve Moore) Mr. Moore says he was thrilled to hear Mr. Bagnall's
quote.  As a member of the tree committee, he points out that the town
has a tree protection bylaw.  However, it only applies to trees that
are in the required yard setbacks.  It's true that building further
out means removing trees there, and more emissions from
transportation.  However, he's still concerned about the effects of
new construction on Arlington's tree canopy.

(Jennifer Susse) Ms. Susse believes this has been a really good
discussion, and is heartened at the range of issues being raised.  She
urges the board to let this go before town meeting.  Arlington's
school enrollment has stayed pretty close to the McKibben report
predictions.  We're supposed to see peak kindergarten enrollment this
year, and adding a few units will not overwhelm our schools.
Ms. Susse is concerned about maintaining generational diversity.  If
people move here when they have kids and move away when they finish
school, that will put pressure on our school system.

(Don Seltzer) Mr. Seltzer says that the Metro Mayor's coalition stated
a need for 189k new housing units, and that Arlington's share of that
would increase the population by 34%.

(Joanne Preston) Ms. Preston says the McKibben report was based on
future projections.  Tax increases are causing seniors to move out.
We've lost trees due to construction, and trees are a major way to
remove carbon.   She doesn't see how new, luxury, market rate housing
will help.  She says that will not serve the needs of Arlington.  The
Arlington Housing Authority has 300 households on its waiting list --
that's what we should be talking about.

With no further comments from the public, the Warrant Article hearings
are continued to Oct 28th.

[[Category:Public Meetings]]