Letter: ‘No’ vote on zoning is a ‘yes’ for more taxes
Feb 16, 2025
To the editor: A big thank you to Paul Lundberg for his insightful commentary, “Zoning good for Gloucester” in the Feb. 7 edition of the Times. Mr. Lundberg highlights some excellent points, particularly noting that the area by the Railroad Avenue Shaws is excluded from the Multi-Family Overlay District, as are Burham Field and Emerald Forest. I’ve heard those rumors, too!
When I first heard about MFOD, I had my reservations. As Mr. Lundberg reminds us, there were months of hearings and information sessions. Initially, it wasn’t very clear. However, the more I attended and engaged with members of the Planning Board, the clearer it became — and the more I supported it.
MFOD zoning adds a layer to our zoning. Currently, the limit is two stories and requires a multi-step process. MFOD allows homeowners to upgrade to three stories by right through a streamlined process, giving them more property rights.
Unfortunately, some see this as “government overreach.” Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and it’s OK to disagree with the zoning plan. We encounter things we disagree with daily. 3A zoning is the law. Voting against complying with any law isn’t a good idea, even if it’s not to everyone’s liking.
There’s so much at stake for Gloucester. Non-compliance puts Gloucester in a fiscally challenging situation. Many projects, including the wastewater treatment plant, must be completed with or without state assistance. Without state assistance, we may need to raise taxes, which no one wants. A “no” vote is essentially a “yes” vote for a tax increase.
Judy A. Steiner Gloucester