On Nov. 2, we will be asked to vote on referendum Question 2, the repeal of the Chapter 40B law. This law requires each town to have 10 percent of its housing stock be “affordable.” While the affordable housing goal is laudable, the design and implementation of the law is not. Harvard, for example, will completely change over time if this law is allowed to play out.

To evaluate the impact of 40B on our town, we ran some numbers. One of the major flaws in the law is that the condo development process is self-renewing. Every hundred new houses trigger 10 affordable condo units, which come (via 40B) with 30 market-rate condos, which in turn demand another three affordable condos, which open the door to another nine market-rate condos, and so on. The result is an ever-growing need to expand the 40B developments.

Harvard currently has about 1,800 houses (not including Devens), with another 200 or so probably to be built over the next 20 years. During the same period, if 40B is not repealed, we are likely to suffer about 1,300 condos (75 percent of which are market rates, not affordables) being built in town as a result of the law. If these continue to be built in clusters of 30 or 35 condos per development, Harvard will eventually be implanted with about 40 condo clusters. The average distance from any house to the nearest condo development would be about one quarter mile. Open space and views will be diminished. The traffic on our roads will become more crowded and dangerous.

Second, there will be a significant financial impact on current residents. Even the market condos that would be built would be a fraction of the value of the average house in Harvard. Therefore, each condo will add more to the town budget than it contributes in taxes. As a result, the taxes on all existing buildings and land will grow by 20 percent to maintain our services.

We urge votes to protect Harvard—vote “yes” on Question 2.

David and Laura Peterson
Jacob Gates Road

Nov. 2 will be an important election day. There are many highly contested races, and some important referendum questions.

A “yes” on Question 2 will repeal Chapter 40B, the “affordable housing law.” This ill-conceived, egregious law needs to be repealed and replaced with other, more effective approaches to building affordable housing stock.

The problems with 40B are well known and well documented. First, this 41-year-old law hasn’t achieved its objectives. Massachusetts is 49th in the nation in terms of affordable housing availability, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Many developers have made unconscion-able, illegal profits from these projects, as documented by the state’s inspector general. They have done this after having trashed the zoning regulations of the host towns. Just look at the 40B project on Littleton Road—12 units on less than two acres. This was the project built with a permit granted to MHOC, the “nonprofit” that was investigated by the attorney general.

Proponents say, “Without 40B, there would be no affordable housing.” Well, the number of affordable units built without 40B belies that statement. State housing reports indicate that less than 20 percent of the subsidized housing in Massachusetts resulted from 40B projects. For example, the senior housing project on Ayer Road will produce 42 affordable units and is not being built under that law. Yet another example of non-40B approaches in town is the Conservation Trust’s Harvard Inn and Great Elms. These are converted, historical buildings that saved the structures and produced low-income housing units.

A current example of a possible, non-40B, affordable housing project in Harvard is the McCurdy property on the intersection of Pinnacle and Littleton roads. A group of town committees is considering how to put the acreage into conservation and make the house into affordable units.

It is time to repeal 40B. I urge voters to get out on Nov. 2 and cast a “yes” vote on Question 2. Let’s put an end to this threat hanging over our community.

Anthony J. Marolda
Jacob Gates Road