Share This Article
Dear Select Board, Finance Committee, and Sudbury Residents
Thank you to the Select Board for your decision to not support Article 46. Residents of Sudbury appreciate your thoughtful questioning of the Sudbury Housing Authority’s proposed duplex project, comments about the sentiments of the community, acknowledgement that alternative options were not explored, lack of financial clarity/prudence by the SHA, and the importance of preserving a variety of affordable housing options in Sudbury including single-family homes.
Finance Committee Members, as you weigh your decision to support or not support Article 46, residents respectfully ask that you consider these same foregoing factors when making your decision. There are more logical and financially prudent options available to increase affordable housing in Sudbury. A vote to not support Article 46 is not a vote against affordable housing but is instead a vote FOR responsible affordable housing.
To Members who have chosen to support Article 46, it’s disappointing that we couldn’t earn your support on this issue, but I would still encourage you to listen to the questions and concerns raised by the community surrounding this duplex project. You may choose not to believe this, but I assure you that those advocating against Article 46 really do support affordable housing. We are not enemies of affordable housing, and this is not a NIMBY situation. To the contrary, looking at Sudbury with a wide lens, Pine Lakes is one of the LAST neighborhoods in Sudbury where single family housing is affordable. SHA affordable housing already exists in, and is integrated into, Pine Lakes and has been for decades. We are the neighborhood where “starter homes” often turn into forever homes with residents raising their families and aging in place. The SHA residents are our neighbors who deserve the right to live in well-maintained single-family homes that merge into the community, which are sadly the last four that remain in Sudbury. If the SHA were asking for funds to preserve these homes, or to develop affordable housing in fiscally responsible locations like Frost Farm or Fairbanks Circle, this community would be vocal advocates and support those initiatives. In fact, residents have attended every SHA meeting and public hearing, met with several members of the SHA to share these sentiments, and they were disregarded. Residents spent long hours looking for viable solutions, including discovering that three of SHA’s large properties had expired deed restrictions since 2020, allowing them to develop more duplexes at these sites while preserving the single-family options. Could residents have withheld this information to show a lack of diligence and sprung it on the SHA at Town Meeting as a “gotcha” moment? Yes. Instead, residents chose to provide SHA with this information to HELP them learn about more viable options when they claimed none existed. Residents have been trying to be the SHA’s allies for responsible affordable housing since we became aware of this project. Contrary to some SHA Board Member’s unfair characterizations of opponents of Article 46, including assertions about the “onslaught” of opposition residents have brought and refusal to work with SHA, that is just not accurate. Still, despite these inaccurate portrayals, if the SHA wanted community support to push a plan like Fairbanks Circle or Frost Farm forward, residents would support them.
Finally, it is very concerning that on the last two Select Board meetings a Select Board Member made statements suggesting that residents of Pine Lakes “are afraid to speak up” on this matter. The frequency with which this sentiment has been expressed seems to imply that residents of Sudbury who are opposed to this specific SHA project are somehow pressuring others not to speak on this issue. That is not only inaccurate, but a misrepresentation of your constituents. These residents are good, reasonable people who happen to disagree with a project that, through extensive research, they feel is poorly thought out and financially irresponsible. Residents are exercising their right to advocate for what they feel is in Sudbury’s best interest. Expressing a contrary opinion is not the same as silencing others—suggesting otherwise is both incorrect and not fair to people who care about their town. Good governance is built on everyone being able to express their point of views.
As the Finance Committee deliberates, we hope they follow the Select Board and vote to not support Article 46 at Town Meeting. This decision will demonstrate a commitment to ensuring that affordable housing initiatives are both fiscally responsible and beneficial to all residents.
For more information visit: http://change.org/stoprecklessspending