The Housing Production Plan's Good Intentions Don’t Always Lead To Great Outcomes

This letter was originally sent to the Nantucket Select Board and Planning Board

To the editor: I may not be a “Planner," but I am a local resident with a modicum of common sense, and that needs to come into play. Just having read this 92-page document, the town's Housing Production Plan, leaves me incredulous. Suggesting that zoning intensity regs and HDC review of housing development are regulatory constraints that should be eliminated from the equation to achieve housing goals is very concerning.

Nantucket is on the map as a number one tourist destination because of the very vigilant care we take as an island to preserve our historic integrity. The entire island is a national historic landmark. If you want to divide the island into segments of “less concern” to promote uncharacteristic development, you will ultimately ruin what keeps us all afloat.

To even suggest changing the HDC’s Special Act legislation is self-serving and presumptuous. I cannot believe it’s considered in this report as a possible action that would be a viable answer to achieve your goals. (Pg 45)

Revise zoning to enable housing development on a meaningful scale - what is that? It appears that most of the potential for overbuilding is slated for mid-island because it has sewer and water. If increasing density of structures will solve your mission, how will you deal with the very real conundrum for parking and cars? There is a huge misconception that people who need a place to live don’t have cars. I do not think Old South Road development would be approved if there had been the slightest bit of insight into the congestion it has created. It is 10 pounds of apples in a 5-pound bucket. Cars and traffic are really a significant issue. It’s been the worst summer of traffic anyone can remember. (Pg 70)

Your plan cites that town regulations “grant too much discretionary power to several permitting authorities which lengthens approval timelines and increases development costs”. What increases costs is these projects being heavily subsidized by state and federal monies. Labor costs increase because of prevailing wage mandates and union pay scales. The massive amounts of bureaucratic reports and red tape paperwork raise prices as well. I have a grave concern that by taking the subsidies, it is allowing people from anywhere to apply to the lottery and move here. That is not solving the problem at all. We vote at Annual Town Meeting to house essential workers, teachers, police and firemen…are they in fact, getting the housing? I may have misunderstood but I thought that tertiary dwellings and ADUs were initiated to help with “year-round” housing. There is no mechanism to oversee mandates like that. Can anyone verify if this happens and that the added units are year round? (Pg 71)

Lastly, our underground infrastructure is probably the most crucial item that seems to be overlooked by experts. I question the viability of the existing sewer and water systems with such a vast increase of capacity added to them. Haven’t we been told that we are in drought conditions all summer with our water already? I understand waiving fees for sewer tie-ins when the entire project is affordable housing. However, waiving fees for development that is not affordable, because they throw a few units into the affordable “pool” should not be waived. Those developers are making money- lots of it. The average existing “workforce” resident who has saved enough to build their own housing must pay through the nose to tie in. A payment plan for locals could be considered to pay these exorbitant fees over time instead of all at once.

Our housing advocates claim they are altruistically helping the island in the name of housing more people who want to live here. What has been lost along the way is lack of consideration for taking care of the residents who are already here and are in the workforce too. Most of us work to survive and take immense pride in our properties in mid-island. We built houses that fit in and are appropriate architecturally. We also provided more than enough parking spaces as was required when we were building them. Overbuilding is not a solution. Sometimes, you just cannot live where you want and there will never be enough of it to go around…it doesn’t matter what community or state. I understand this is not a reality you want to accept.

I think this is the start of a cautionary tale that good intentions don’t always lead to a great outcome. Trying to solve one problem with tunnel vision might just end up creating a whole bunch of new ones that we will regret. I believe that collaborating with the appropriate regulatory entities will bring the best outcome for everyone.

Respectfully,

Vallorie Oliver
Mid-island lifetime resident