3A ‘No’ vote invites state takeover of zoning

My View

Carl Gustin

As early voting gets underway this week on the “3A zoning plan,” disinformation about a “No” vote built on speculation and falsehoods is a disservice to Gloucester voters, taxpayers, officials, and residents who expect and depend on accurate information about critical issues.

Monday’s comprehensive Gloucester Daily Times story, “Pro, con groups make pitches on 3A zoning as early voting starts,” on the two sides in the April 24 vote to determine whether the zoning plan approved unanimously by the City Council, revealed the extent to which proponents of a “No” vote will go to distort “facts.”

Four examples: One of the most telling comments came from a leading proponent of “No” who said the approved zoning plan contains “unintended consequences that you can’t foresee, but I can.”

Another “No” supporter, told the Times she was concerned that “the new multifamily housing would be swept up by institutional investors.”

One of them is “concerned the zoning would lead to hundreds of new units, putting a burden on city services.”

One of the most noteworthy statements came from a “No” vote proponent who said “We have the right to determine what kind of zoning, what we want in our zoning right now. If we embrace 3A we lose that right.”

“No” proponents are wrong on all points.

They either have not paid attention to the hours of public hearings, the extent of public input, the presentations by the Planning Board to the City Council or got carried away by points of view that either confirm a preconceived notion or unrealistically see “No” as the safest way to minimize change.

Like many campaigns, this one highlights the polarization around public issues based on preoccupation with media and “news” that align with one’s personal feelings. That’s unfortunate because many voters on a relatively esoteric topic are exposed to only one side of the argument.

So, what are the “facts?” Let’s start with No. 4 above. If “No” wins, the city will have only 90 days to come up with a new “approved” plan. And if it doesn’t, the “No” voters will get exactly what they say they say they want to avoid: Instead of a plan carefully developed over more than a year with extensive public input, the city will be forced to develop an expedited plan with limited input. If it fails, which seems likely, or if a plan is approved but there’s another petition, then the state takes over. A special master will be named by the attorney general to impose a plan on Gloucester. That’s in no one’s best interest.

Regarding No. 3, those in responsible positions have stressed repeatedly that the zoning plan simply streamlines an approval process to add living units to existing residential sites instead of going through a Zoning Board of Appeals approval process. Such an approval often involves hiring an attorney and a lengthy hearing process. There is no requirement to build anything.

On No, 2, comparisons to other communities with dense multi-family complexes are irrelevant and irresponsible because they are approved under different rules — not 3A. Under the plan approved by the City Council, simply streamlining the permitting process will not change the general trend of construction of 10-20 new living units annually in downtown districts.

Finally, No. 1, warning of “unintended consequences … you can’t foresee … but I can” is an absurd argument for a “No” vote. It suggests without merit that “No” proponents have special insight about a future that city officials and the public participants in the process reject. Voters are smarter than that.

The consequences are grave: Grants are important to the city. Last year, Gloucester received $8.7 million in state grants. Many such grants would be in jeopardy. Already at risk are more than $1 million for the Sawyer Free Library expansion, up to $500,000 for Gloucester Housing Authority operating funds, and loss of low interest rates for the wastewater treatment plant that could add many millions of dollars to the plant’s cost. With the loss of grants, the city’s funding gaps would be filled by raising property taxes.

So before voting, do some research, talk to those who are directly involved, and think of the consequences of a “No” vote.

The only answer is to vote “Yes.”

Carl Gustin is a Gloucester resident, retired executive and columnist who writes on local, regional and national issues.