Editorial: Extended Approval
Hasn’t this economy been tough enough on developers?
Financing dried up some time ago for most projects, so the dust has gathered on backhoes and shovels throughout Central Massachusetts and the Bay State. The good news is that the economy does look like it’s improving. Certainly, it’s taking its sweet time, most of us are confident that things are getting better.
But that doesn’t help developers.
Construction projects rely on private financing, and there just hasn’t been much money to go around since the economic collapse in the fall of 2008. The result? There are a lot of permitted projects in the Bay State in danger of expiration.
Now, a permit may seem like a minor concern. But as anyone who has built an addition onto their house can attest, the local permitting process in Massachusetts — and New England for that matter — is laborious and costly.
That’s why we’re supporting a measure being debated on Beacon Hill that would provide some breathing room to developers. Specifically, it would extend permits issued between Jan. 1, 2008 and Jan. 1, 2011, for a period of three years.
Two Steps Back
The measure was gaining traction in the legislature, according to media reports, but was stripped from an economic development bill in the House. We strongly urge the members of the legislature to put this measure high on their priority list in what is shaping up to be a mad dash towards the July 31 close of the legislative session.
While we understand that the issue of expanded gaming deserves close attention from our elected leaders, we hope that this simple measure that would have real economic development implications isn’t lost in the shuffle of a harried July.
If approved, the Permit Extension Act would save time and money for developers and get construction workers back to work sooner.
We understand that some towns are already offering extensions to permitted projects. But for those larger and perhaps more controversial projects where a vocal minority is opposed, extensions will likely not be granted. The result will be added expense for both developers and municipalities.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association has come out against the extension, claiming it would interfere with local control. In a letter to legislative leaders the association writes that the Permit Extension Act would “establish dangerous precedent whereby the development community could circumvent local processes that are in place to protect the public interest.”
We disagree with that assumption. The proposed law would merely extend permits that have already gone through the very arduous permitting process. If the town has already approved the project, what is the harm in giving the developer more time to line up the money to start the project? Wouldn’t it be even more of a waste if a developer had to walk away from an approved project because he or she didn’t have the resources to go through the approval process for a second time?
We respect the desire and the need for local control. It’s a concept near and dear to the hearts of many in New England, and it’s partly to thank for the quality of life we all boast about. This measure wouldn’t undercut local control. It would simply extend it.
And in the spirit of supporting local control, we should also mention our support for the effort afoot to revise Chapter 40B, the state’s so-called affordable housing law.
On the books since the 1970s, 40B has done little to relieve the cost of housing in the Bay State, but it has done a lot to strip local communities of their authority when they don’t meet the state’s 10 percent threshold.
We believe that there is a need for real affordable housing the Bay State, but we have come to the conclusion that 40B as it stands today has done little to solve the cost problem and it should be scuttled.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments