1. It's an "I got mine, screw everyone else policy" where the local government essentially picks winners and losers. It would also make it more difficult for the city to maintain its high standard of living

2. If the "luxury" units aren't built, the people who would live in them would still move in and raise housing prices, they'd just move into the older units. Stopping new housing construction won't stop gentrification, it will just result in more wealthy people moving into older housing.

3. I'd have to read more about it but it seems better than indefinite rent control. New York also isn't exactly affordable despite this and other rent control measures

4. Has this been attempted anywhere else, and why would any developer agree to it?

5. Implement more statewide zoning measures to promote new construction while restricting local zoning and community input policies. Expand transit service in areas where people will actually use it (i.e. stop wasting money on projects like south coast and east-west rail)

Lmao what kind of argument are you looking for?

Yes it is, which matches what the city of Boston says.

I don't think very many families would be piling into the studio/1bd apartments in these buildings, which leaves only some 2bds. It's not a genuine concern so much as it's a common way for towns to block new development.

Unless you have parking included, work somewhere outside of downtown Boston, or carpool, it's almost certainly cheaper to take the commuter rail compared to driving. Regardless, even if it isn't cost effective for you personally, it is for many people who commute into the city a couple days a week but not often enough to need a monthly pass. As for the commuter rail zones, the Newburyport/Rockport line isn't the only one with multiple stops within the same zone.

180 of these units would be for people over 55, meaning they wouldn't be adding children to the school system while they would be adding tax revenue to expand school capacity.

180 of the 495 housing units in this proposed development would be over 55 units. Those people will be adding to the town's tax base without adding children to the school system.

They can be used within 30 days; that's hardly a short amount of time and it isn't based on calendar months like monthly passes are. Obviously it's not cost effective to buy them if you don't take the commuter rail at least 5 days a month, hence these being for people who commute a couple times a week. The 10 ride pack is just 10 individual tickets with no discount so I'm not sure how that's relevant (or why the MBTA even offers it). I'm not sure how you're calculating what's cost effective or not, but the flex passes are 10% cheaper than single tickets which makes it pretty easy to see how they're more cost effective. Salem and Swampscott are also in the same zone, hence their fares being the same.

Why are you putting the burden of a state agency's funding on the city of Boston?

Edit: Just so we're clear, BPD's budget isn't in the billions, it's just under $400 million

They're not charging above market rate, they're charging the market rate. The market rate for a 1bd apartment in Braintree in a new building is $2500 because people in towns like Braintree think a couple new apartment buildings next to a highway and a giant mall would add too much density.

They added the 5 day flex pass for this exact scenario

Cutting $475+ million from a transit agency that's already looking at 9 figure deficits going forward doesn't seem like a good way to improve our public transit

There have been taller buildings built down the street from there with more to come in the Boston Landing area. It's ok to have some redevelopment in the city without turning everything into a skyscraper

The existence of these new buildings doesn't mean we're building enough to address our housing issues, nor does make rent control any better of a solution. 2022 was the worst year for new housing construction in Boston since 2015, so you really aren't seeing that much new housing being built.

Any word on whether bike lanes have anything to do with homicides?

Laughing stock according to who, and why do we care what they think? If you moved here without realizing it's one of the most expensive cities in the country I'm not sure what to tell you. LA and San Francisco, like Boston, are expensive cities because there is such a high demand to live in them. Sure you could save some money and move to a city like Detroit, but there's a reason why people aren't doing that.

I'm sorry the Globe isn't using all its resources to validate your vague conspiracy theories

Papa Genos

I used to be a member until the pandemic so it might be outdated, but I never had issues canceling in person. When they were shut down during the pandemic they charged everyone for April of 2020 when they had been closed since March which was obviously horrible, and they made it impossible to cancel memberships until they reopened a few months later. In general they were like most gyms with all sorts of fees and regular price increases, but they also were the most widespread gym in the city (it was the only gym with locations near work and home for me at multiple offices and apartments).

It's only an easier commute from the surrounding towns, compared to downtown Boston which offers commuting options from the entire metro. Like, if Lego decided to put their headquarters in Norwood then they're going to struggle to hire someone from Arlington, but putting their headquarters in Boston makes it possible to hire from both.

Sounds better than turning Boston into the next Detroit by stopping businesses like Lego from coming here.

This gets said about every neighborhood. In another response someone claimed Coolidge Corner is getting taken over by banks, it's constantly said about Harvard Square, and last time I made this same comment someone insisted the same about Central Square. I get that bank branches aren't desirable compared to other neighborhood businesses, but I don't think they're the plague that they get made out to be, nor do I think Centre St., Coolidge Corner, Central Sq., Harvard Sq., etc. are exceptions.

Have bank branches actually been opening more in Coolidge Corner or does it just feel that way? Because feelings aren't always the reality, and I don't feel like they're taking over Coolidge Corner at all.

Banks have been reducing branches for over a decade now, and this trend is stronger in major metro areas and was accelerated by the pandemic. I don't think the opening of this specific new branch is a sign of insanity when the overall trend is the opposite

I'm thinking John Wick. May as well go all out to get the airpods back