There is a battle going on over whether or not to repeal the Commonwealth’s MGL, Chapter 40B, that allows developers the right to totally disregard town zoning law and planned growth initiatives to provide housing affordable to low income housing. The position of the developers and the legislature has been and remains that the cost of housing in Massachusetts is too high for people of low-income to buy property; that there are too few affordable rental properties available for low-income earners, and that something must be done to provide them with assistance.
To quote SouthCoastToday.com:
Critics say the affordable housing law, Chapter 40B, benefits developers while taking away communities’ ability to control the density of development.
Defenders of the law charge their opponents with snobbery, saying suburban zoning discriminates against the lower end of the income scale.
Both cases seem to have some rationale behind the stated positions. Here’s still more from SouthCoastToday.com:
For their part, the pro-repeal camp is supported by the Chelmsford-based Massachusetts Slow Growth Initiative, a project of the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population. This group believes anyone who wants a marriage license should be forced to undergo “counseling regarding family planning, the economic benefits of small family size and the environmental consequences of population growth.”
Maybe that’s less about snobbery than social control.
This last part is exactly right! Social control is the goal of both Democrats and Republicans; especially, those on the far wing of each party. Far left Democrats would like to plan a utopian society where everyone is literally equal in every way (except, of course, those planners who ultimately decide how the rest will life (or die). The far right, appear to be Fascist and different from the Socialists, but in reality, they are two peas from the same pod.
Each wants to rule over everyone else and run society according to their visions and are willing to exert whatever power they have to get their way. Ultimately, unless one is ever vigilant, both lead to totalitarianism by placing more value on the collective than on the individual. And what is a collective, if not a collection of individuals united in a common cause, but able to walk away or to change their minds so long as they are free men allowed to express their own free will without fear or government or mob retribution?
I’d like you to pay particular attention to the use of the word “force” in the quoted paragraph above. The Chelmsford-based group is being open and honest in that they believe that the power of a collective should outweigh the free will and choice of the individual when it comes to meeting requirements for marriage.
Similarly, the developer associations and the Commonwealth feel that it is appropriate to force towns to submit themselves under force of law, Constitutional or otherwise, to the interests of the Commonwealth and those they choose to support. In cases, the free choice, power and liberty of the individual is being usurped and taken over by a collective under the guise of doing what is right and just.
However, if one thinks for just a moment about the dichotomy between liberty and force, it is readily apparent that one cannot flourish in the presence of the other. This dichotomy is what sparked the founders to hand over the majority of power to the people and limited powers to government. Even back then, they recognized that any amount of power granted to government would never be enough to satisfy government’s appetite for more. So, they warned us repeatedly in both the Declaration of Independence and within the United States Constitution to be ever vigilant and to even consider the possibility of revolt and reinstituting a new government should the government fail in its duty to serve the people.
Now, let’s consider this: Has the Commonwealth, via MGL, Chapter 40B operated with the consent of the governed? The answer is, yes. There is no evidence that the people demanded a repeal of the law. There is no evidence that the people were not given the right to stop the implementation of the law. By their silence, the people have consented are now getting their just dessert for allowing the servants to sit at the table and for assuming the role of servant, themselves.
The government and the Chelmsford group in opposition to 40B are both set on operating a “planned society”. A society that fits their vision and their desire for how ALL men should live. Neither cares what you want or what you think; they only care that you do as you are told.
In the case of the government, they simply pass a law and expect you to obey it because you didn’t object in sufficient numbers to have the proposal pulled from consideration at its inception or to repeal it after it had been mandated. Those who voted were YOUR representatives and YOUR silence gave them the power to express YOUR voice as if it were their own.
In the case of the Chelmsford group’s position on forced premarital counseling, how would it work? Would they have the power to force Moslem couples into counseling on marriage and divorce, even though most of those marriages are prearranged and with more strident and radical sects, divorce takes second place to honor killings under Sharia law?
Would a Jewish couple be forced to undergo counseling under the authority of a Christian Justice of the Peace, or are we supposed to mandate that Rabbis, Priests, Ministers, Shaman, the Dahli Lama and others become unpaid agents of the State forced to conduct mandated counseling even though they can have no voice in government without losing their tax exempt status?
I suppose the reason for the separation of church and State was to avoid the black hole and cleansing that resulted from Christendom during the “Middle Ages” and their many “Holy Wars”; some, still underway at the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment.
People tend to forget that Christendom and the many divisions of religious sects that rose from past desires to plan societies to fit the visions of those in power or positions of influence. In every instance, innovation, growth and knowledge suffered, was reduced or lost. It was only during the enlightenment that man was allowed to act as man (he was, for the first time, allowed and expected to act via reason and his intellectual capacity); particularly in England. Over time, this new found freedom spread east from England through much of Europe.
In all instances one beneficial unexpected consequence was consistent. Where man qua man was allowed to live according to his own rational self-interest and where property rights were more securely available, productivity increased dramatically. As productivity increased, so did the generation of wealth, industry, science and knowledge. These were the early days of capitalism that we have since forgotten.
Capitalism, for all of its faults, is the only system of socialization that is compatible with liberty. If only the Republicans and Democrats would give the same consideration to repairing what is wrong with capitalism as they seem to be willing to do with health care, they may find that one fixes the other. Opinions, anyone?
John Belskis said:
Just to keep things in perspective, the Reform 40B / Repeal 40B Coalition was organized 10 years ago, the Chelmsford SGI organization appeared on the scene about three years ago. While SGI has been a supporter of the repeal petition effort, some of their philosophies have absolutely no resonance with the 40B repeal effort.
You stated “Has the Commonwealth, via MGL, Chapter 40B operated with the consent of the governed? The answer is, yes.” Fact, consent consisted of a majority of one vote. The law was promulgated for the provision of rental housing, it was changed to include ownership units in the 80′s, that consent was accomplished by changes in regulations and not with the consent of the people, i.e. the Legislature. Basically the law was hi-jacked by a concerted lobbying effort by the development and banking interests. Now why would they do that? Simple, rental project profits were much more controllable than ownership units.
The repeal effort came about when after almost four years and over 300 submitted reform Bills, which never got out of committee while developers continued to use 40B as a weapon of choice over local bylaws and regulations. It was the organization’s consensus that the only way to obtain a more effective and well administered housing law, was to repeal the four most abusive sections. And thus allow a legislative initiative to openly debate and with a recorded vote enact a better affordable housing law.
After 40 years of 40B and the State being number 47 of 50 states in the provision of afffordable housing it is obvious that 40B is a failure especially when one considers that we are the only State with this type of law. As the State Inspector General’s recent audits have indicated, this isn’t an anti snob zoning law, it’s a developers welfare program.
The people spoke, when almost 100,000 registered voters in a 66 day period signed the initiative petition to place the fate of 40B before the citizens of Massachusetts in November. That’s democracy in action.
--Rick said:
I have no dispute with any of your facts. In fact, I support your movement fully. Groups such as the Chelmsford SGI, however, are about as helpful as those on the far right religious fringe are to the Republican Party, or those on the far left who favor outright nationalization are to the Democrat Party. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of the Chelmsford SGI’s support for your position, but the Reform/Repeal 40B Coalition should put out a statement distancing themselves from these anarchist kooks.
As to the consent of the governed, whether it be by one vote or one thousand, our representatives have spoken for the majority. If voters didn’t like the message, they’ve had more than ample opportunity to clean out the legislature. So far, they’ve failed to do so. No change in leadership – no change in policies or viewpoints. 40B is nothing more than another redistribution of wealth program similar to welfare, progressive taxes schedules and other immoral political policies that under force take from one group and give to another who have no claim to the stolen property (money, property values, etc).
The fact that this particularly offensive program has been in existence for so long indicates strongly that the people of the Commonwealth prefer handouts to hard work and a productive life, or at the very least, don’t find them offensive enough to act. The fact that the program started out concentrating on rental properties is mute in that a little socialism is no better than a lot. Socialism is the unjust use of force, and to have allowed that force to be used against property owners who rented out property set the stage for more brutal and malignant opportunities by the legislature and those driving the power bus. Had people acknowledged this program was socialist in nature in the 60s and 70s and stood up against it (Section 8) when it was first proposed, we wouldn’t have the rapidly worsening nightmare most communities are now living with.
It’s easy to blame lobby’s for our political problems, but we have had a say on that topic everytime we voted. And yet, everytime we vote, we seem to vote for the same people who these so called lobbies have influenced. So, again, the problem of 40B rests more so with the people of the Commonwealth, as does its solution. With all of the towns being adversely effected by some of the monstrous developments and additional burdens on schools and services, it amazes me that communities keep electing the same officials election after election. A petition campaign is very helpful and a good first step. Somehow, though, more people have to become engaged to make the change sought and that can only happen by educating them and stirring up a sense of rebellion that will finally get 40B supporters out of office.
40B is a policy compatible with socialism, but incompatible with liberty (in a property rights sense and to a fair and predictable system of economics). People have finally begun to see how devastating socialism can be to the economy and how restraining capitalism beyond necessity stifles productivity, job creation and employment. Some have become politically active, but most have not. Perhaps this mindset will always prevail in a free society until people are faced with even more severe conditions. But, the bottom line is that programs like these can only go into effect with the consent of the governed and those who sit silent are the primary voice of that consent.
Thanks for your willingness to fight this obscenity and thank you for stopping by.