Explanation of opposition

The demolition delay bylaw amendment (Article 4) that came before Town Meeting last night makes permanent what was a temporary demolition delay bylaw. The bylaw imposes a 12 month delay on developers who want to demolish buildings that are on the historic register. The amendment passed with a strong majority.

I wanted Town Meeting to oppose the amendment so the bylaw would expire, and I did a bad job of explaining reasons I believe we should have opposed it. I should have prepared my thoughts better ahead of time given that we typically only get one three minute chance to speak on any given article at Town Meeting.

For what it’s worth, here’s a better articulation of three reasons I think Town Meeting should have opposed the amendment.

First, the bylaw is objectionable on its face. I’ll explain using an analogy. Imagine that my neighbors and I have decided to create a list of buildings we think are Very Cool. We review all the town’s buildings and create our Very Cool Buildings list. We add your house to the list. You meanwhile want to rebuild your house, because while you’re flattered that your house is on the list, your house was designed for a different way of life and while it looks cool, it isn’t functional for you. You want to build a new house, so that your house is more energy efficient, is more fire safe, makes better use of your available land, includes a space like a home office, etc. My neighbors and I don’t want you to do that because your house is Very Cool. We will require you to wait at least 12 months before you can rebuild your house. I submit that many of us would find this imposition objectionable. The situation of the demolition delay bylaw is analogous, and so we have reason to reject the amendment and to let it expire. (For comparison, consider the Waverley Square Church which the church’s congregation voted to sell to a housing developer. The church sold the property, and some people wanted to impose a cost on the developer for wanting to redevelop the space into new housing.)

Second, the demolition delay bylaw imposes a 12 month delay without any compensating benefit. Given that a cost is imposed, it strikes me as unfair that compensation of some kind isn’t provided.

Third, the demolition delay bylaw is one of many laws in town that make putting land to its most productive use. Housing costs are very high in Belmont because demand greatly exceeds supply. Also, it’s hard to find space for new commercial development. If we want to make it easier for people to buy into the town, to have more housing that retirees can downsize into as they unlock equity in their single family homes, to get new businesses and additional tax revenue, to replace relatively less safe and environmentally unfriendly buildings with ecofriendly construction, etc., we ought to seriously consider elinating bylaws like the demolition delay bylaw that stand in the way of development.

For these three reasons, I wish Town Meeting had voted differently on the bylaw amendment. I would recommend anyone who wants to preserve a particular property to buy it or to pool resources with interested others to buy it.