The proposed merging of residential zones was discussed extensively at the April 7 BOA meeting on the new zoning. The planning department’s pitch is based on a particular framing of the development issues that face our city. In order to address the philosophical differences that Alderman White and others have highlighted, it may be helpful to expose this framing, and the more or less hidden assumptions and agendas behind it. This would be a useful step towards reframing the issues in way that’s more beneficial to the community. The key assumptions that need to be challenged are as follows:

1. “Density will increase no matter what.” Somervision and the MAPC study are cited as justification for this claim, along with loose talk about “doing our regional duty.” In fact Somerville was at one time the densest city in the US and remains the densest city in New England. Many of our neighboring towns and cities have relatively huge minimum lot sizes and are in no danger of sacrificing themselves on the altar of regional duty. And more importantly, there is no amount of housing that could be added to Somerville that would restrain demand, because additional housing will only increase demand in a vicious cycle. If the goal is to preserve something like the current character of Somerville’s neighborhoods, the RA/RB zones in particular are already “built out.”

2. “People have the right to bloat up their houses.” This is a classic “tragedy of the commons.” If everyone is permitted to maximize their self-interest by bloating up their house, the city’s character and open space are irreparably lost, harming everyone (except developers). What’s the justification? Increased house values? But if houses are viewed primarily as investments, rather than as a means to fulfill the fundamental human need for shelter, the battle for affordability is lost. Any buyer knows exactly what size their prospective house is, and if it subsequently no longer meets their needs, they should sell it.

3. “Open space is low priority.” One of the charts in planning’s presentation showed how different cases play out under the old and new zoning, and made it abundantly clear that under the new zoning, vacant lots get houses on them, period. This is a recipe for eliminating what little open space remains.

4. “Simplification is good.” In fact, simplification is dangerous. Generalizations and averages hide the gritty complexity of actual houses and actual people who inhabit them. “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

5. “Predictability is good.” In fact, predictability is only good if the outcome is something you want. If the outcome looks like Fort Lauderdale, you’d rather have uncertainty. And who is “we” here? Developers?

6. “Progress is inevitable.” But this only begs the question, progress towards what? Stratospheric house prices? A tsunami of teardowns? We are rushing headlong towards poorly examined ends.

Chris Korda
Somerville Development Watch
http://somervilledevelopmentwatch.org/