Jay Abdella

MPA-3999
Frechette
4/30/23

Frogs Before People: NIMBYism and How Massachusetts Municipalities Can Overcome

Opposition to Affordable Housing Developments

You may hear about it on the town Facebook forums or through the grapevine; “the town

is going to build 150 new apartment units by the wildlife marsh”. The first reaction in your head

may be, “What about the sewage runoff? Or wouldn’t this increase pollution and car traffic

around my neighborhood?” For many people that fear is perpetuated by hundreds of other

citizens with similar concerns. You and many other homeowners show up at the Zoning Board of

Appeals demanding that the town cancels the project due to the environmental and other hazards

that could occur. Proponents of the development argue that it will provide sorely needed

affordable housing to the community. One person speaks up and says, “We all love living here.

That’s why we live here because we love it. We don’t want anything changed. We love it just the

way it is. Why would you want to change something so perfect (Vandehey, 2013, p. 57)?” After

similar pushback, the Zoning Board rejects the development to the cheers of many. If this sounds

familiar to your experience in your town and city, you have most likely experienced “Not in my

Backyard” opposition to a project, or more commonly known as NIMBYism. NIMBYism has

become a foil in many higher socio-economic municipalities aiming to mitigate the current

affordable housing crisis in Massachusetts and the United States.

This paper delves into several areas regarding affordable housing. First, this paper

examines the housing crisis and its impact on Americans, including low-income and minority

1
families. This area will also focus on how systemic racism plays a role and its consequences on

Black homeowners. The second area of this thesis looks at NIMBYism and its sociological,

economic, and racial overtones. This section will also incorporate how the phenomenon impacts

affordable housing development. Third, this paper will look at potential measures that

policymakers and municipal leaders can utilize to combat NIMBYism in their communities.

The research question from this paper is as follows, “what is the impact of NIMBYism

on affordable housing development?” My thesis is, “As an evolution from unjust racial policies,

NIMBYism has arisen as a social and racial construct by wealthier white neighborhoods to quash

affordable housing developments designed to assist low-income and minority families. It

manifests itself in public comment and spurs distrust within communities to oppose constructing

affordable housing. A resulting consequence of the reduction of supply is that many low to

middle-income families are seeing their rents increase and are being forced out of their homes.

To mitigate NIMBYism, municipalities must foster a culture of trust in their communities by

building coalitions of support with influential community members.”

This hypothesis argues that NIMBYism has arisen from unjust racial policies in the 20th

century and is utilized as a vehicle for individuals to defeat affordable housing developments.

Modern-day NIMBYism takes the form of opposition to building multifamily housing in single-

family zoned municipalities. As increasing the supply of houses is a way to mitigate the crisis,

reducing development opportunities will have consequences. Due to the reduction of affordable

housing units, rents will increase and cause financial stress on low- and middle-income renters

and households. My paper first discusses the housing crisis from a Massachusetts lens, explores

the benefits of affordable housing and the detrimental impact a lack of housing can present. I will

then utilize my literature review to back up my initial analysis. Following that, I will then

2
evaluate the efforts of municipalities that have attempted to build affordable housing units and

try to determine a correlation between NIMBYism and the failure of affordable housing. I will

then conclude with suggestions on how towns can work on building coalitions to combat

misinformation.

Definitions:

Affordable Housing: Housing units that are available for rent at prices that fall below the

market rate and are supported by government subsidies or nonprofit organizations.

(Commonbond Communities, 2022).

Comprehensive Permit: Enables projects to be expedited through Zoning Board of

Appeals. It does not waive state requirements (Massachusetts Housing Partnership, 2017, p. 3).

Exclusionary Zoning: Zoning laws that place restrictions on the types of homes that can

be built in a particular neighborhood (Rouse et al, 2021).

Chapter 40B Zoning: A state statue which enables the local Zoning Board of Appeals to

approve affordable housing developments under flexible rules if at least 20-25% of the units

have long-term affordability restrictions (Mass.Gov, 2023). The law is designed to make at least

10% of every community’s housing stock affordable for low and moderate-income households.

Chapter 40R Zoning: A law that seeks to increase the supply of housing by increasing

the amount of land zoned for dense housing. It targets the shortfall in housing for low- and

moderate-income households by requiring the inclusion of affordable units in most private

projects (Mass.Gov, 2023).

3
 Market Rate Housing: Housing that already exists or is part of proposed development

that is based on existing area market values and demand, rather than relying on any kind of

subsidies or government assistance (CommonBond Communities, 2022).

Background:

Massachusetts, like many other states, is in a state of crisis. The nonprofit Up for Growth

found that the Bay State has a production deficit of 108,000 homes (Rios, 2022). For extremely

low-income households (income below 30% of their area’s median income), this number

becomes 175,367 units (NLIHC, 2023). While housing production has increased over the last

few years, it is not enough to equitably house everyone. The lack of housing units is

compounded by soaring rents in Massachusetts. Image one shows the increase in rent for a 2-

bedroom apartment. The average monthly rent jumped 51% from $1,740 in 2018 to $2,635 in

2023 (Rent Data 2023).

Median Rent In Boston

$3,000.00
$2,635.00
$2,500.00
$2,198.00
$2,025.00
$2,000.00
$1,740.00
Average Rent

$1,500.00 $1,421.00
$1,253.00

$1,000.00

$500.00

$-
0BR 1BR 2BR
Cost of Different BedRoom Apartments In boston

2023 2018

4
Image one shows how median rent in Boston has changed over the last five years. A 2-bedroom
apartment has increased from $1,740 in 2018 to $2,635 in 2023 (Rent Data, 2023).
At the same time, wage growth was only around 4% (Davidson, 2023). As a result,

families are paying more for housing and less for other necessities. As this crisis progresses,

households are already seeing the ramifications of rising rents, with Black and Latino families

being disproportionally affected by the rising rents. The inability to pay rent leads directly to

housing insecurity.

When a family spends more than 30% of their income on rent, they must reduce spending

in other areas. As a result, many families sacrifice necessities such as nutritious food, healthcare

and risk experiencing homelessness. This scenario becomes much severe for those paying more

than 50% of their income towards housing. In Massachusetts, experts estimate that 248,200

homes are paying more than 50% of their income on housing (Spotlight, 2023).

Evicted families face risks surrounding mental health problems, drug use, and job

maintenance (Homeless, 2023). Terwilliger finds that for children, housing insecurity directly

affects academic performance and social skills (Terwilliger, 2017, p.259). Being housed goes so

much farther than just having a place to live. When families have consistent housing, they can

place their energy and money in other fields to provide for their families.

The presence of affordable housing goes further than families being able to afford their

neighborhoods. Affordable housing enables businesses to retain employees and improves

educational outcomes for children. Generating low-cost housing in higher socio-economic

communities is beneficial for reducing inequalities in educational funding. According to the

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the largest source of local revenue for public schools is property

taxes (Kenyon, Paquin, Munteanu, 2022). Due to how property values impact funding, more

5
property-wealthy municipalities can invest more money in their students compared to property-

poor communities. The resulting disparities manifest themselves in a racial and socio-economic

educational gap. The United Negro College Fund finds that students of color are concentrated at

institutions with lower resources. It also finds that schools comprised of 90% or more of students

of color spend $733 less per student per year than schools with 90% or more white students

(UNCF, 2023). By providing opportunities for affordable housing in property-wealthy

communities, low-income and minority families have a fighting chance at attaining educational

equity. Furthermore, having affordable housing is beneficial for retaining employees who may

work for a school or municipality but cannot live there due to living costs. This application is

known as workforce housing.

The idea of workforce housing is not new. Previous literature points to conceptual ideas

with providing housing to teachers who cannot afford to live in the communities where they

teach. One such example is Teachers Village in Newark, New Jersey. Teachers Village is a

mixed-use community incorporating schools, retail spaces, a daycare center, and residential

housing (Herskind, Tegeler, 2018). The housing space is notable because of its design to

encourage teachers to stay in Newark. 70% of the 204 units are reserved for teachers and offered

at a 10-15% discount compared to market-rate housing (Herskind, Tegeler, 2018). Similar

projects have been implemented in Hartford, Connecticut and are currently in production in

Chicago, Illinois. In Santa Clara, California and Nags Head, North Carolina, school districts have

built subsidized apartment complexes for teachers to reside near where they teach. While not

perfect, the projects have had success with retention and recruitment (Loewus, 2018). Beyond

the application for teachers, workforce housing would benefit businesses and communities.

The inability to afford housing has driven families and young professionals out of

6
Massachusetts, impacting the ability of businesses to retain employees. It is estimated that over

110,000 residents have left the Bay State for other areas in the country since March 2020 (Nanos,

2023). The departure of many of these people was due to rising prices and lack of housing. As a

result, businesses are struggling to keep employees, and municipalities are losing out on critical

tax revenue. Between 2018 and 2020, the Massachusetts Business Roundtable found that the

departure of residents between 2018 and 2020 cost Massachusetts $2.5 billion dollars (MBR,

2022). Affordable housing goes farther than teachers and families, it would enable towns and

cities to maintain a steady workforce and reduce expenditures in training new employees.

Literature Review:

This literature review will first examine the housing crisis in the United States and

highlight the impacts that housing has on individuals. I will then survey literature analyzing the

shortcomings of housing policy on racial and socio-economic lines. Afterward, the review will

delve into the factors for the housing crisis, including NIMBYism and zoning regulation. Finally,

the literature review will look at the discussion regarding NIMBYism and public comment.

           In their corporate report, Housing Underproduction in the U.S., Mike Kingsella and Leah

MacArthur present a troubling picture about housing production in the United States. The two

authors found that the United States is 3.8 million homes short of meeting its housing needs. In

addition, Kingsella and MacArthur discovered that Americans are paying higher rents and are

paying more of their income towards housing. They establish the connection between high rent,

housing vulnerability, and health conditions, including decreased quality of life, higher air

pollution, and more time traveling away from family (Kingsella and MacArthur, 2022, p. 5). The

two authors note that housing shortages across the United States are regional. They cite that

Detroit finds itself with uninhabitable units, Sacramento has a lack of housing, and Washington

7
D.C.’s underproduction is caused by a lack of household formation. Localizing this study to

Massachusetts, they mention several statistics.

First, each county in Massachusetts has 40% or more of their renter-occupied households

spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing. Second, Boston’s median rent has

risen by 36% between 2012 and 2019. Finally, The Black-White homeownership gap is 32%

(Kingsella and MacArthur, 2022, p. 67). Each of these statistics lines up with how heavy this

crisis looms on people and how it manifests through racial disparities. It also establishes that a

lack of supply is a problem. One of my critiques of this article is that it is too broad as it aims to

evaluate the housing crisis on a national scale. While it provides useful information, it is hard to

get a Massachusetts-level view of the housing crisis outside of their statistics. 

In Out of Reach: The High Cost of Housing, Andrew Alrund, and his team find

Massachusetts has an affordability problem. The authors in their report find that the Boston-

Cambridge-Quincy area is the 5th most expensive area to live in within the United States, and

Massachusetts is the 3rd most expensive state, behind Hawaii and California (Alrund, et al, 2022,

p. 21-22). They found that to afford a monthly fair market rent of $1,975, a renter must earn

roughly $79,000 a year, or $37.97 an hour. With the minimum wage in Massachusetts set at

$15.00 an hour, many people cannot afford their rent and risk becoming homeless. This report

lines up well with the previous literature examined. It demonstrates the current crisis of how rent

has skyrocketed and has become unsustainable for many people in the country. It also paints a

picture of those impacted by the inability to pay their rent. A section of the report provides

narratives from people who are cost burdened and pay more than 50% of their income towards

housing costs. Each person interviewed discussed their troubles with affording rent and told the

stories of those who had multiple jobs or were on social security benefits. Alrund and his team

8
also highlight several issues, including rental increases when new owners take over an apartment

complex. They also discuss barriers to renting and elaborate more on the racial disparities in

homeowning and renting. A critique I have for this piece is a lack of background information on

the policies that have contributed to this crisis. Despite it highlighting statistics behind the

situation, no historical information exists. 

In Housing Affordability and Affordable Housing, Katrin Anacker supplants Kingsella

and MacArthur work with analyzing the housing crisis. She reviews how a lack of available land,

overregulation, increased costs, reduced funding in affordable housing production, and the

practice of landlords tearing down old affordable units and replacing them with units designed

for higher-income residents all contribute to the current situation (Anacker, 2019, p.4). Anacker

then delves into how household incomes have not increased to match the new housing costs,

incorporating arguments around technology, corporate culture, and the drop in unionization. She

notes how solving household affordability is difficult because of the limitedness in decreasing

household expenses (health insurance, rent, mortgage). In addition, any increases in family

incomes are slow, making federal intervention difficult. As discussed, current minimum wage

rates are insufficient for families to rent two-bedroom apartments in cities and suburbs. As

shown above, to afford fair market rent in Massachusetts, an individual would have to make

$37.97 an hour, almost 2.5 times the minimum wage in Massachusetts. She also notes the role of

policy on the housing shortage, namely exclusionary zoning and lack of government subsidies

(Anacker 2019, p.8). Anacker then concludes by suggesting how pressure may be mitigated by

building on zoned vacant land, adding units to existing single-family homes (accessory dwelling

units), developing affordable single-family housing, and accelerating permitting, among other

ideas. Anacker’s article provides contextualization on why the housing crisis exists and how

9
municipalities can alleviate the housing burden. My only criticism of this piece is that it lacks an

analysis of multifamily housing.

Systemic Racism and Housing by A. Mechele Dickerson highlights the different actors in

modern and early housing policy. She first delves into how the federal government restricted

nonwhite families from attaining housing through redlining during the 20th century. If a house

was deemed unsafe due to redlining, then a borrower who applied for a federal loan to pay for a

mortgage for that residence would be denied. All Black or racially heterogenous neighborhoods

were declared unsafe. As a result, Black Americans could not receive the same low-cost or low-

risk federal loans to buy homes (Dickerson, 2021, p.1540). Dickerson further discusses how the

Supreme Court ruled that apartments in neighborhoods could be denied based on “ruinous to the

character” of a municipality (Dickerson, 2021, p. 1545). This chain of thought applies to the

NIMBYism that exists today in Massachusetts.

           In addition to her previous discussions, she highlights the intersectionality of low income

and the inability to find affordable rental housing. She notes how these exclusionary zoning laws

make it cost-prohibitive to build affordable housing in higher-income and predominately white

neighborhoods. She notes that, 

“local zoning laws often mandate large minimum lot or floor sizes for single-family homes or impose large
minimum lot sizes for multi-family housing. Other zoning regulations limit the number of occupants who can live in
one home, require that all residents be related, limit the number of structures that can be built on a single lot, or
prevent property owners from placing additional smaller homes on their land (Dickerson, 2021).”

Dickerson finds that as these laws are not racially based, they cannot get struck down, but

due to the discrepancies in housing policy, it benefits wealthier white families. She then hints at

NIMBYism in how homeowners can use their power to push the development of multifamily and

affordable housing out of their affluent neighborhoods and transfer them into lower-income

communities. Furthermore, residents will fearmonger by using the environment as an excuse to

10
resist development proposals. In these arguments, residents argue that the developers did not

consider the environmental impact that the housing would have on the community. As a result,

projects become delayed, increasing costs, and reducing the amount of available land. She finally

delves into NIMBYism and its impact on the community.

Dickerson analyzes the idea of NIMBYism as individuals who desire to control who and

what can be in a neighborhood. They typically present themselves as higher-income, white

homeowners and argue that new housing would change the character of their community.

Additional focal points include concerns about school overcrowding, traffic, and weakening

neighborhood schools’ academic strength (Dickerson, 2021, p. 1562). While not outwardly

expressing racist language, they mask their exclusionary language through concern. The need for

control and the ability to mobilize support against the development has enabled NIMBYism to

overwhelm elected officials who may support affordable development. As a result, suburban

development of affordable housing is generally restricted or voided. Dickerson’s analysis is

extremely useful to my hypothesis because it exemplifies the policies that have caused the

housing emergency and demonstrates the impact of NIMBYism on the affordable housing crisis.

It also provides contextualization with the link between Black families and the impacts of unjust

housing policy. Continuing the analysis of NIMBYism, Mark Wexler dives into the framework

of what motivates NIMBYism.

Mark Wexlers A Sociological Framing of the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard)

Syndrome  analyzes the sociological framework of NIMBYism. He finds that the rising distrust in

others (government, developers) spurs the growth of opposition across the United States. The

author explains how a NIMBY is an individual who solely opposes a land-use program

(affordable housing) based on its location. Wexler argues that due to this prerogative,

11
NIMBYism reduces nuance and imposes a status quo-oriented “center-periphery” perspective

upon a complex situation (Wexler, 1996, p. 95). Wexler’s approach is beneficial in solidifying

how NIMBYism is location driven with a desire to maintain the status quo. It also relates to

Dickinson's approach as it demonstrates the impact of NIMBYism on affordable housing. When

high-income, predominantly white suburbs exhibit NIMBY “syndrome”, they aim to maintain

the current situation by preventing any attempts for lower-income families who are often non-

white from moving into those neighborhoods. My critique of Wexler’s article is that it does not

focus on NIMBYism and housing but a broader approach towards NIMBYism, analyzing

“locally unwanted land use (LULU).” LULU refers to any development, not just housing. While

some may label affordable housing as a LULU, I would have liked to see more analysis on

NIMBYism and housing within the article. Overall, it provides a good framework for my

hypothesis.

           Georgina McNee and Dorina Pojani’s NIMBYism as a Barrier to Housing and Social Mix

in San Francisco examines a more recent example of the not-in-my-backyard phenomenon

concerning housing. The two authors find that rising housing costs and decreasing rental units

have made San Francisco unlivable for low-to-medium-income families. They examined public

participation by those in the “NIMBY” wing and noted that those who commented against new

housing developments tended to be in the 40-60 age range, white, wealthier, and predominantly

English-speaking (McNee, Pojani, 2021, p. 563). The commentary from this group delves into

the idea of neighborhood preservation, view access, and often incorrect thoughts about housing

values decreasing. McNee and Pojani also note NIMBYs share the same distrusting mentality

that Wexler notes in his piece. The perspective that the commenters present toward developers

paints an entirely negative outlook on the field, despite those who are interested in developing to

12
create affordable housing. This analysis further adds to the sociological framework of what a

NIMBY is and its motives. They conclude that NIMBYism dominates public hearing forums and

can overwhelm pro-affordable housing advocates due to the higher-class privilege of the ability

to have time to attend planning board meetings. 

This article is beneficial for my thesis because of how it threads the needle on the

sociological and economic aspects of NIMBYism. It builds upon the outline of not-in-my-

backyard syndrome and its motivations for opposing affordable housing development. It also

outlines the class and wealth nature of housing and the intersection of political participation in

these matters. As highlighted by Wexler, Dickerson, and now McNee and Pojani, those who

fight against developments are often older, whiter, are homeowners, and have higher

socioeconomic status compared to more yes-in-my-backyard individuals (YIMBYs). This article

has elements that support my theory. The research here provides insight into the impact that

NIMBY advocates have on the affordable housing process, namely through the political and

planning realms.

McNee and Pojani note that limited representation is partly because of the

inconveniences of meeting times. As most planning meetings are during the day and

unpredictable in timing, it becomes inconvenient for many working-class people and those with

childcare duties to attend (McNee, Pojani, 2021, p. 567). NIMBY's representation at planning

forums at higher rates than working-class people is notable as meetings are often during the

workday, and it advantages those who are more likely to have flexible work schedules or not

work at all. Generally, these reflect the white, wealthy, single-family homeowners that exhibit

NIMBY-esque values. This understanding is crucial because it shows how NIMBYs exercise

their political power to influence elected officials into turning down affordable housing

13
developments. Second, it also highlights the impact of single-family housing as it bolsters the

psychological need to maintain the status and prevent any possible change to a neighborhood.

While useful, my critique of this article stems mainly from the lens of San Francisco rather than

the Massachusetts suburbs. Despite the connections one can make between the Bay Area and

communities in Massachusetts, both areas are geographically different which impacts the

response to the housing crisis. Overall, this piece helped establish several metrics with my

thesis. 

Katherine Einstein, Maxwell Palmer and David Glick’s research on Who Participates in

Local Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes also reveals similar themes related to

previous literature. The three authors seek to explore who participates in public comment with

regards to housing development. They found that those who spoke were typically whiter, older,

voters, and overwhelmingly opposed construction of new housing. They also note that the

population who speak at public comment are often unrepresentative of the broader public

(Einstein, Palmer, Glick, 2018, pg. 5). It was also found that opposition towards affordable

project would materialize in delay efforts. One housing lawyer noted, “delay is the biggest

enemy of development… the ability to delay development is the ability to kill it” (Einstein,

Palmer, Glick, 2018, p.24). The article gives credence to the impact of NIMBYism in public

comment. It relates to McNee’s and Pojani’s work through the discussion of “who” opposes

affordable housing. Those more likely to attend these meetings are those who have the most time

and are more socioeconomically advantaged compared to those who may be constrained by a

job. Furthermore, the authors agree with the above analysis that those who directly benefit from

affordable housing are yet to move into the municipality, and as such, are more likely to not have

a voice at public comment. This analysis is useful for my thesis because it provides a lens into

14
how NIMBYism directly impacts affordable housing through public comment, and through

delaying projects.

David Foster and Joseph Warren’s, The NIMBY Problem, discusses NIMBYism through

the lens of a bargaining relationship between developers and residents. This departs from the

standard perception of opposition solely due to local costs, and that the benefactors who would

benefit from affordable housing are not represented in local decision making. The two authors

note how NIMBY’s often use land use institutions to generate extra regulatory fees for

developers. These regulatory fees include permitting, environmental reviews, public relation

campaigns and community benefit arrangements (Foster, Warren, 2022, p.148). When

developers invest capital into regulatory fees, there is less direct compensation that goes to the

current homeowners. As a consequence, opposition is high because residents are unable to be

visibly compensated for local costs of the project. Local costs include changes to neighborhood

character, increases in traffic and historical preservation.

Furthermore, the two authors note that opponents have many different opportunities to

obstruct and delay housing projects through different political, legal, and planning arenas

(Foster, Warren, 2022). They contrast their ideas with previous concepts including moving land-

use decisions from project-by-project review to uniform policies set at a municipal or regional

level. They recommend empowering formal neighborhood level institutions to act as

intermediaries with builders to approve projects. This would ease the burden of developers

blindly figuring out who to talk with in a neighborhood. Their proposal would allow developers

to secure approval of a project without being obstructed by smaller groups of rouge actors

(Foster, Warren, 2022). This piece was useful in finding potential avenues for how municipalities

15
can manage NIMBYism. This article provided a new measure that could be incorporated into

creating affordable housing projects.

The articles in the literature review that I have found provided a look to how NIMBYism

has erupted due to historical racial policies that limited Black families to housing access.

Dickerson, Wexler, and others all concur that NIMBYism upholds the status-quo nature of

housing segregation between wealthier, predominantly white communities, and the development

of affordable family housing that would benefit minorities and low- and middle-income families.

Furthermore, Kingsella, MacArthur, and Alrund discuss different reasons for the housing crisis

at hand. From these articles, we learn that NIMBYism has an impact on the housing crisis by

enabling the loudest wealthiest voices to impact the development process, but it is not fully

responsible for the situation at hand. NIMBYism also is shown to impact housing projects

through delaying measures. Strict zoning regulation to protect housing values may be a primary

reason for the fermentation of NIMBY attitudes. This would support my theory as NIMBYism

often uses restrictive local land regulation laws and public feedback channels to maximize their

impact as demonstrated by McNee and Pojani. To test my research question “What is the impact

of NIMBYism on affordable housing development”, I looked at three different communities

where affordable housing was delayed and ultimately reduced or completely denied.

Methods:

To answer my question regarding the impact of NIMBYism affecting affordable housing

development, I analyzed three projects that were squashed or altered due to opposition. I

conducted this research through analyzing the minutes and video records of Planning Board and

Zoning Board of Appeals and any other situations for public comment in each town in this study.

After reviewing each municipalities’ minutes and public comments, I plotted feedback from both

16
supporters and opponents to get a holistic view of public sentiment towards a project. If I build

upon the research of McNee, Pojani, Einstein, Glick and Palmer, it would be expected that

higher opposition in public comment comes from municipalities that are whiter and wealthier. As

discussed in my literature review, much of NIMBYism opposition is coded in concern towards

schools, environment, traffic, and preserving the character of a municipality.

The three communities I analyzed: Wayland, Weston, Pepperell, all had similar

characteristics that would ferment conditions for potential NIMBYism to arise. Each

municipality had a median household income of over $100,000, is more than 74% white, and

typically is considered a suburban locality (U.S. Census, 2023). In addition, each locality fell

under the 10% safe harbor as designated by Chapter 40b except for Wayland which is at 11%

(Wayland Housing Production Plan, 2021).

Population That Identifes as White

90
88

85
Percentage of Population

80
77

75 74

70

65
Wayland Weston Pepperell
Town

Table one shows population that identifies as white. Pepperell has the highest percentage of
residents who identify as white, and Wayland and Weston have a white population above the
median white population in Massachusetts which is 70.1% (Census Bureau).

17
 Household Income
250,000
221,000
204,000
200,000
Income Level

150,000
112,000
100,000

50,000

0
Wayland Weston Pepperell
Town

Table two demonstrates the differences in average household income between the four
municipalities covered. Each municipality has a higher median household income compared to
the median in Massachusetts which is $89,026 (Data for Zip Codes, 2021).

Population
14500
14000
14000
Number of Residents

13500

13000

12500
12000 12000
12000

11500

11000
Wayland Weston Pepperell
Town

Table three shows the different populations of each municipality.

For my hypothesis to be correct, I would expect Wayland and Weston to have the highest

pushback due to their socio-economic status. My literature review indicated that NIMBYism

18
surfaces when owner’s property values feel threatened. This would be the case if the percentage

of opposition in these towns was higher than that in Pepperell. If Pepperell had higher opposition

than Wayland and Weston, an argument could be made that NIMBYism is stronger entrenched

in a racial argument than a socio-economic one. This methodology has some limitations. First, it

removed nuance from the overall housing debate. My analysis graphed individuals into two

boxes: support and opposition. While someone may have supported affordable housing in the

past, they may have different reasons for opposing such a project over time. Secondly, while we

have a working definition of NIMBYism as described by Wexler, I found it hard to differentiate

between true environmental concerns, versus those who used the environment as an excuse.

While it was easier to determine NIMBYism through coding concerns about traffic, and property

values, this piece generally lumps all the concerns together. Finally, I also coded comments

made by the same people as individual commenters. For example, if someone discussed

opposition at two different meetings, they would be coded as two in the negative.

Results:

The first community I researched was Weston, Massachusetts. This community is the

wealthiest of the three and has the highest average home values and household incomes in the

case study. It characteristically lacks a supply of multifamily houses. The municipalities housing

production plan finds that 89% of homes (3380 in total) are considered single-family units, and

roughly 10% (411) of homes are considered multifamily units (Weston Housing Production Plan,

2021). The municipality has a lack of inclusionary zoning provisions to encourage affordable

housing development, and the only zoning district in the town that allows multifamily housing

(Multiple Dwelling District B) contains less than 0.5% of the total zoned area. Overall, residents

of the community recognized the need to establish affordable housing and generally supported

19
the increase of affordable units (Weston Housing Production Plan, 2021). However, the

restrictions of the Housing Production Plan discouraged the construction of multifamily units.

Introduced in 2020, the project, 20 Riverside Road, was a planned housing addition

supported by the Town of Weston to add to the redevelopment of the abandoned “Liberty Mutual

Campus” by Greatland Reality (Wyner, 2021). The initial plan provided 100 units of multifamily

housing at 20% affordability to the property. While supported by the town government, it was

deeply unpopular with the surrounding neighborhoods, and residents penned a memo expressing

opposition to the housing component of the plan.

Image two shows a potential redevelopment of the Liberty Mutual Site (Town of Weston, 2020).

The opposition framed arguments by invoking concerns about traffic, population growth,

and property value reduction. One group sent a memo detailing their concerns, including how the

20
project “violates many Weston rules, norms and standards”, and “none of the principal

stakeholders want it” (Gold et al, 2021). The group argued that the tax proceeds from the

investment of the Greatland facility could be used to support affordable housing development

elsewhere in the Town. Eventually the 100-unit idea was scrapped and replaced with a

compromise of Weston building 20 units on acquired property through a land swap.

Furthermore, Greatland Reality, the developers, would donate $2,000,000 towards affordable

housing development in Weston among other requirements (Town of Weston, 2021). The

compromise proposal was then approved at Town Meeting on May 15th, 2021.

Using public comment as a plot point, I interpreted several months’ worth of public

hearings comments from planning board meetings in Weston. In addition to the memo sent by

neighbors of the proposed project, community members attended meetings to ask questions and

give opinions about the proposal. Between 3/17/21 and 5/12/21; the first time the project was

opened for public comment from the planning board, and before Town Meeting on the 15th, there

were 27 comments made regarding the housing component of 20 Riverside, and the Multiple

Dwelling Transit Oriented District Rezone Amendment (Town of Weston Planning Board 2021).

Out of these 27 comments made, one leaned in support of the housing component to the

compound. When controlling for only yes and no opinions, out of nine opinion comments, there

were eight in opposition and one in support, hence 11 % approved of the project.

As of now, the Town of Weston controls the parcel of land and will be collecting

feasibility studies to determine housing development (Aiu, 2023). Looking at the language

written out by the opposition, one can see aspects of NIMBYism interwoven into the arguments

by residents. As discussed by Dickerson, many of the arguments generated focused on material

concerns including worries about property value damage, increased traffic congestion, and

21
population growth. After reviewing Weston, I am looking at Wayland, a similar town with

similar demographics. If my research can back up my findings, I would expect a similar level of

opposition to affordable housing as in Weston.

Percentage of those in opposition through public

comment towards 20 Riverside Road Weston,
MA

0.11%

0.89%

Y N

Table four shows the percentage of those who opposed 20 Riverside Road.

Wayland had similar characteristics to Weston in terms of size, socioeconomic status, and

demographics. Like Weston, Wayland’s zoning regulations discourage affordable housing

development. The town suffers from limited housing diversity and has 91% of its units zoned as

single family (4,656) (Wayland Housing Production Plan, 2021). The remaining 9% of units

(485) include dwellings that are two or more households. To examine whether Wayland behaved

like Weston in terms of affordable housing, I looked at a project that would take a single-family

unit and convert it into multifamily dwellings. The reason that I chose this project is due to the

already low number of constructed units. Interestingly, the pushback for this proposal was much

more widespread compared to 20 Riverside.

22
Image three shows a rendering of 24 School Street (Town of Wayland MA, 2017)

Introduced in 2016, 24 School Street intended to build 12 townhouse rental units, with

three of them considered affordable 2-bedroom apartments (D’Antonio, 2016). These units

would be affordable for those who made 80% of the average median income of the Boston-

Cambridge-Quincy Metro Area which is $86,650 for a family of three (MA Department of

Housing and Community Development). The location of the property featured a single-family

home and barn. Both artifacts would be torn down to accommodate the new construction. With

news of the development, opposition quickly formed, with close to 240 residents signing

petitions and sending letters to make their opposition clear. Furthermore, more individuals stated

their opposition in Zoning Board of Appeal, Conservation and Planning Board meetings. I was

unable to find any support from community members. The concerns from citizens primarily

stemmed from environmental, traffic, and how the project would, “seem out of character with the

surrounding, rural/suburban context of Cochituate and would detract from the area’s historic

character” (Kablack, 2017). Furthermore, the Wayland Select Board also opposed the

development, as did the Wayland Historical Commission, the Wayland Conversation

23
Commission, and the Wayland Fire and Police Departments as well. Despite immense pushback

from community members, and a long-drawn-out permitting review, 24 School Street was

approved a comprehensive permit on August 13th, 2019. As I was unable to find any documented

support for this project, it seems to stand that 100% of the voiced public opposed the project.

Percentage of those who opposed 24 School

Street through public comment and letter writ -
ing.

N
100%

Y N

Table five shows opposition on 24 School Street Project in Wayland.

As of right now, the developer has indicated that he is scaling down the units from 12 to

7 to accommodate changes from multiple stakeholders and is currently in talks with the

Conservation Commission to rectify concerns (Town of Wayland Conservation Committee

2023). The data collected in the sample partially departs from the idea of opposition towards

affordable housing. One perspective is that as Wayland is less economically prosperous and has

lower home values compared to Weston, I would have expected less opposition. A different

outlook shows that as Wayland is whiter than Weston, it is more likely to oppose affordable

housing. This creates a racial vs economic comparison for NIMBY attitudes. Compared to

Weston, Wayland had opposition from all places in the town, where Weston’s was localized to

24
the neighborhood by 20 Riverside. Furthermore, while Weston town officials supported the idea

of housing in the Greatland Complex, many Wayland officials and departments were initially

hostile to the proposal. Analyzing additional towns may provide insight to whether this theory

holds. To add to my analysis, I decided to look at Pepperell, Massachusetts.

Finally, the last town I examined was Pepperell. The town had a similar size of 14,000 to

Weston and Wayland. Pepperell had a lower number of single-family houses compared to the

previous towns. Compared to around 90% from Wayland and Weston, roughly 81% of

Pepperell’s homes (3772) were single family. This compared to about 19% (893) of the town’s

homes which were non-single family (Pepperell Housing Production Plan, 2020, pg.24).

Pepperell gave an interesting comparison between the two other communities as I

reviewed a vote conducted by residents during a town meeting in November of 2022. The town

sought to implement a Smart Growth Zoning District to increase the amount of zoned land for

dense housing, which would have increased the housing supply (Rhodes, 2022). As the town had

3% of its housing stock dedicated to low- or moderate-income individuals, expanding housing

options through 40R was one of its goals (Pepperell Housing Production Plan, 2020, pg. 41).

According to town leaders, the project would have generated 230 housing units for the

municipality, and place Pepperell close to the 10% Chapter 40b requirement (Pepperell Special

Town Meeting, 2022, 59:05). The municipality currently had 130 units in its housing inventory,

and had a waiting list of 5,553 applicants, emphasizing the need for housing. Town officials

supported the proposal but faced opposition from residents. Opponents tied the zoning change to

unrelated issues such as water contamination or infrastructure concerns (Rhodes, 2022).

Furthermore, the opposition utilized a web site (Growsmartpepperell.com) and coordinated

25
organized resistance against the proposal.

Image four shows a diagram of the locations where Chapter 40R zoning would be

implemented in Pepperell (Pepperell Town Meeting, 2022, 58:54)

Grow Smart Pepperell’s message centered upon three themes: “Secure an

uncontaminated, sustainable water supply”, “Use planning to balance housing growth, costs and

resources” and “preserve our rural character” (Grow Smart Pepperell, 2022). The group

maintained that the town is rushed the process and must slow down to discuss the implications of

the zoning change. According to the website, between 6/1/22 and 11/14/2022 more than 30

civilians sent letters to oppose the development (Grow Smart Pepperell, 2022). During the

special town meeting, despite being told accurate information from Town Engineer and Town

Planner about the realities of 40R, the zoning amendment was voted down by a vote of 90-309

(Pepperell Special Town Meeting Minutes, 2022 pg.5). For this vote, about 22% of the town

supported the proposal, much higher than any municipality. While table six only shows the total

26
vote, I also incorporated public sentiment through public comments and letter writing. When

combining those two factors, I found that out of 36 people who sent and received public

comment and signed letters, 8 out of 36 people supported the proposal or 22% (Town of

Pepperell 2023, Town of Pepperell Planning Board, 2022). Interestingly this is the same

percentage who voted on the zoning amendment during town meeting.

Pepperell Vote Share on the 40R Zoning

Amendment

22.50%

77.50%

Y N

Table six demonstrates the final vote for the 40R zoning change at Pepperell Town Meeting on
November 15th 2022. 77.5% of the town opposed the zoning change while 22.25% supported it.

So far, with each data point, the impact of NIMBYism points to a murkier picture. While

being the whitest municipal in the case study, Pepperell demonstrated higher support for

affordable housing. Again, this may be due to the factor of the special town meeting. When

accounting for wealth, Wayland and Weston showed immense opposition towards affordable

housing in their neighborhoods. Wayland demonstrated a much larger spread of opposition

compared to Weston, despite having a limited number of units proposed. What is interesting is

that in each of these cases, the proposal had the support of the planning board. 24 School Street

was given a comprehensive permit to start the process of building, the 20 Riverside land swap

27
was successful, and while the 40R zoning bylaw failed at Town Meeting, it was approved

through the planning board. These findings bring us to why this data is important.

Implications

The data I found backs up the literature review in how NIMBYism manifests itself in

public comment and opposition. My results and literature review both provide credibility to my

thesis. We should care about this data because it portrays the risks of NIMBYism when

constructing new units. My research points to NIMBYism having the largest impact during the

public comment process. In each scenario, the opposition outnumbered supporters and caused a

reduction of housing units. As one solution to the housing crisis is constructing more homes, a

lack of supply is problematic. In addition, the data backs up my literature review about how

NIMBYism develops through fear and distrust. Pepperell is one example of how NIMBYism

uses mistrust to alter opinion.

When faced with overwhelming opposition, proponents of a plan may be more hesitant to

support a proposal because of public pressure. As a result, it may skew perception of who

supports a project. Each data point is backed up by literature discussing NIMBYism. In

Pepperell, despite evidence provided by the Town Engineer and Director of Public Works that

proposed 40R projects would not place an undue burden on existing infrastructure, a

supermajority of voters did not believe officials (Pepperell Special Town Meeting, 2022,

1:04:26). The lack of trust in officials is a hallmark of NIMBYism as discussed by McNee and

Pojani. When mistrust is established among an opposition group, it makes educating much

harder for town leaders to do so. Pepperell stood out as an example for potential development,

and opponents used the fear of the unknown to make people weary of construction. When

applying research to the results in Wayland and Weston, we see a divergence in theory.

28
 For 24 School Street, Wayland residents opposed the project at much higher rates than

Weston did, despite having less units. The opposition from Wayland was also notable because as

it is less socio-economically wealthy than Weston, I would have expected higher resistance from

Weston. The result potentially implies that a wealthier town does not automatically link to higher

opposition for affordable housing. The limitation of the connection is that there are only two

comparisons in the case study, so further research is warranted to see whether a true relationship

exists. Additionally, as both Wayland and Weston already have high household incomes as

shown in Table two, there may be a limit on such correlation. Regardless, this information

provides a lens into the impact of NIMBYism on affordable housing development and opens a

view of how municipalities can combat the phenomenon. This data also shows that towns have

more work to stem the housing crisis. Now that we understand how NIMBYism manifests,

municipalities can work together with supporters to mitigate opposition through coalition

building.

I want to acknowledge that due to time constraints, I could not find an explicit racial

connection in these towns. As Dickerson discusses, NIMBYism evolved from racial policies in

the 20th century. While many of these policies have intricacies that lead to exclusionary zoning,

I did not find opponents who outrightly used racial tropes to justify their opposition. Despite that,

the demographics of these towns skew heavily white, and it was apparent in those who spoke.

More research should be conducted to find a stronger link between manifestations of racial

sentiment and affordable housing development.

Moving Forward

As NIMBYism is spread by fear and distrust (Wexler, 1996), municipalities must work to

flush suspicion with trust. To do so, building a coalition of influential community members that

29
support such a project increases the odds that other towns people may support it. Pew Research

found that people generally have the highest amount of trust in k-12 principals, police officers

and religious leaders compared to others (Hart, 2019). Town officials can use this information

for their benefit. When neighbors see that the people, they trust support a project, they are more

likely to support it. Town leaders must grasp this idea and work with cultivating endorsements

for affordable housing projects from influential people in the community. One such example of

success with a similar approach was in Lexington, Massachusetts.

Lexington, a town similar in demographics to Weston and Wayland, approved new

multifamily zoning at their Town Meeting on Wednesday, April 12th, 2023 (Brinker, 2023). The

approved zoning ordinance is notable as Lexington has struggled with maintaining affordable

housing in its community. Lexington’s vote was to signify compliance with the MBTA

Communities Law. The law mandated that municipalities shall have at least one zoning district

near a transit station where multifamily is permitted as of right among other criteria (Mass.Gov,

2023). The purpose of the policy is to increase production of multifamily housing in

communities. While the vote to pass the zoning change passed easily, there was concern that

several amendments would cripple its potency.

While the main vote passed by a sizable margin, amendments to the proposal that would

weaken its potency failed by only six votes. A potential reason for the close save was Mike

Kennealy, the former State Secretary of Housing and Economic Development under Charlie

Baker. As a resident of Lexington and the main leader in crafting the MBTA Communities law,

he was able to answer questions that may have sown angst in community members (Culpepper,

2023). Furthermore, Lexington's state legislative delegation backed the zoning change. The

support of influential members may have mollified potential defectors who had their own

30
concerns. Other towns can take the lessons of Lexington to heart and incorporate influential

community members in their plans to build support for affordable housing legislation. Aside

from political officials, towns can garner support from those who would benefit from affordable

housing like teachers, nurses, or those looking to downsize (Blaze, 2023). While one cannot

predict the strength of resistance from opposition forces, having allies and recruiting trusted

community residents can go far in squashing concerns. By combatting NIMBYism,

municipalities are one step closer to building more units to support low- and middle-income

families and workers to ensure people stay in their communities.

The housing crisis is a complex and multifaceted issue. Combatting NIMBYism is only

one of many objectives a town should strive to mitigate the housing crisis. The sociological

phenomenon is a pressing issue, and it can happen anywhere. NIMBYism stems from racial

discrimination and embodies itself through suppressing affordable units for those most affected

by unjust housing laws. I found NIMBYism primarily presented during public comment to sow

distrust towards developers and town officials. Wayland and Weston's results signal that

opposition may not fully correlate with wealth, and Pepperell demonstrates fear’s role on public

opinion. More research is needed to determine the validity of environmental concerns of

opponents versus using the environment as a political tool. To ensure our communities have a

place to live without the worry of homelessness, rooting out NIMBYism through trust is

essential for a better world.

Bibliography:

Aiu, I. (2023). Town planner. Town Planner | Weston, MA. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from
https://www.weston.org/328/Town-Planner

Aiu, I. (2023, April 25). Question regarding 20 Riverside Affordable Housing Project.

31
Anacker, K. B. (2019). Introduction: Housing affordability and affordable housing. International
Journal of Housing Policy, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2018.1560544

Barett, J. (2017, March). Chapter 40B Handbook for Zoning Boards of Appeal. Boston;
MassHousing.

Blaze, D. (2021, November 29). 9 tips for overcoming nimby opposition. Shelterforce. Retrieved
April 27, 2023, from https://shelterforce.org/2021/11/23/9-tips-for-overcoming-nimby-
opposition/

Brinker, A. (2023, April 14). With high costs and little new housing, Lexington becomes first
town to meet ambitious new zoning law - The Boston Globe. BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved
April 27, 2023, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/04/13/business/with-high-costs-
little-new-housing-lexington-becomes-first-town-meet-ambitious-new-zoning-law/

Chesloff, J. D. (2022). A Talent Agenda to Drive Massachusetts’ Competitiveness FRAMING

HOW TO ATTRACT, RETAIN, DEVELOP, AND DIVERSIFY TALENT. Boston;
Massachusetts Business Roundtable.

CommonBond Communities. (2022, November 1). Market-rate housing vs. affordable housing:
Commonbond. CommonBond Communities. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from
https://commonbond.org/market-rate-housing-vs-affordable-housing/

Community Media, P. (2022). Pepperell Special Town Meeting. Castus VOD Widget. Town of
Pepperell. Retrieved April 29, 2023, from https://pepperell.vod.castus.tv/vod/?
video=e5f99a67-23c9-47ea-92d3-ea59c4f31f3b&nav=search
%2Ftown+meeting&volume=.65.

Company, H. (2019). Project Narrative. Weston; Hanover Company.

D'Antonio, C. (2016). New Construction Townhouse Rental Project. Wayland; Chadwick Homes
LLC.

Davidson, P. (2023, February 22). Waiting on a raise? it may be smaller than you hoped. new
survey indicates US wage growth will slow. USA Today. Retrieved April 29, 2023, from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/02/22/pay-increases-to-slow-
2023/11315673002/

Dickerson, M. A. (2021). Systemic Racism and Housing. Emory Law Journal, 70(7), 1537–
1576.

D’Antonio, C. (2017). Digital Rendering of 24 School Street. Wayland; Chadwick Properties.

Einstein, K. L., Palmer, M., & Glick, D. (2018, June 29). Who Participates in Local
Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes. Boston; Boston University.

32
Foster, D., & Warren, J. (2021). The nimby problem. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 34(1), 145–
172. https://doi.org/10.1177/09516298211044852

Gingras, J. (2023). Planning department: Pepperell, MA - Official Website. Planning Department

| Pepperell, MA - Official Website. Retrieved April 20, 2023, from
https://town.pepperell.ma.us/260/3245/Planning-Department

Gold, T., Loeber, M., & Nitsch, J. (2011, March 11). In Support of Greatland Partners’ Plan for
Rezoning its “Liberty Mutual Campus” for lab uses . Weston.

Goldson, J. M. (2021). Weston Housing Production Plan. Weston; JM LLC.

Grow Smart Pepperell. Grow Smart. (2022). Retrieved April 25, 2023, from
https://www.growsmartpepperell.com/

Hatcher Group. (2017, September 25). Massachusetts. Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity.
Retrieved February 4, 2023, from https://spotlightonpoverty.org/states/massachusetts/

Hummel, R. (1970, January 1). Planning Board & Department. waylandma. Retrieved April 20,
2023, from https://www.wayland.ma.us/planning-board-department

Income statistics for massachusetts ZIP codes. Massachusetts Income Statistics - Current Census
Data for Zip Codes. (2021). Retrieved April 29, 2023, from
https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/massachusetts#:~:text=The%20following%20data
%20are%20the,Average%20Household%20Income%3A%20%24123%2C174.

K-12 disparity facts and Statistics. UNCF. (2020, March 20). Retrieved April 29, 2023, from
https://uncf.org/pages/k-12-disparity-facts-and-stats

Kablack, M. (2017, July 5). Application for Comprehensive Permit. Westborough; M.A Kablack
and Associates .

Kingsella, M., & MacArthur, L. (2022). Housing Underproduction in the U.S. Washington D.C;
UpForGrowth.

Kenyon, D., Paquin, B., & Munteanu, S. (2022, April 12). Public schools and the property tax:
A comparison of education. LILP. Retrieved April 29, 2023, from
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-04-public-schools-property-tax-
comparison-education-models#:~:text=Public%20schools%20are%20typically
%20supported,a%20preference%20for%20local%20provision.

Kornegay, C. (2019, July 1). MassHousing Project Eligibility. Boston; MassHousing.

MA Goverment. (2023). Chapter 40 B Planning and Information. Mass.gov. Retrieved April 20,
2023, from https://www.mass.gov/chapter-40-b-planning-and-information

33
MacLean, A. (2022, November). Pepperell Town Meeting. Pepperell Special Town Meeting
October 2022. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from https://pepperell.vod.castus.tv/vod/?
video=e5f99a67-23c9-47ea-92d3-ea59c4f31f3b&nav=search
%2Ftown+meeting&volume=.65

MacLean, A. (2022, November). Town of Pepperell Special Town Meeting Minutes. Pepperell;
Town of Pepperell.

Massachusetts Housing and Economic Development. (2023). Chapter 40R. Mass.gov. Retrieved
April 20, 2023, from https://www.mass.gov/service-details/chapter-40r

McNee, G., & Pojani, D. (2022). Nimbyism as a barrier to housing and Social Mix in San
Francisco. Journal of housing and the built environment : HBE. Retrieved March 25, 2023,
from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8149917/#CR43

Mullen, A. (2023). Emergency Rental & Mortgage Assistance Program Income Guidelines.
Boston; State of Massachusetts.

Municipal finance visualizations. Mass.gov. (2023). Retrieved April 7, 2023, from

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/municipal-finance-visualizations

Multi-family zoning requirement for MBTA communities. Mass.gov. (2022). Retrieved April 29,
2023, from https://www.mass.gov/info-details/multi-family-zoning-requirement-for-mbta-
communities

Nanos, J. (2023, February 22). 'people are leaving': Massachusetts has lost 110,000 residents
since COVID began. is life better out there? - The Boston Globe. BostonGlobe.com.
Retrieved April 29, 2023, from https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/02/18/business/people-
are-leaving-massachusetts-has-lost-110000-residents-since-covid-began-is-life-better-out-
there/

Of Wayland, T. (2019). Opposition to 24 School Street. Wayland; Town of Wayland.

Of Wayland, T. (2019). Wayland ZBA Minutes 8/13/19. Wayland; Town of Wayland.

Of Wayland, T. (2022). Wayland Housing Production Plan. Wayland; Town of Wayland.

Of Wayland, T. (2023, March 29). Wayland Conservation Commission Minutes. Wayland;

Town of Wayland.

Of Weston, T. (2021). Planning Board Meeting May 12 2021. Weston; Town of Weston.

Of Weston, T. (2021). Select Board Meeting January 26 2021. Weston; Town of Weston.

34
Of Weston, T. (2021). Town of Weston 3/17/21. Weston; Town of Weston.

Of Weston, T. (2021). Town of Weston Planning Board Meeting 4/14/21. Weston; Town of
Weston.

Of Weston, T. (2021). Town of Weston Planning Board Meeting 4/28/21. Weston; Town of
Weston.

Of Weston, T. (2021). Town of Weston Planning Board Meeting March 31. Weston; Town of
Weston.

Real Estate, W. (2019). Weston Real Estate. Facebook. Retrieved April 21, 2023, from
https://www.facebook.com/WestonRealEstates/posts/stop-the-weston-whopper-
httpswwwpreservewestonorgwe-are-a-group-of-concerned-nei/1463315017156680/

RentData. (2023). Massachusetts fair market rent for 2023 accurate rental price data. 2023 Fair
Market Rent in Massachusetts | RentData.org. Retrieved April 29, 2023, from
https://www.rentdata.org/states/massachusetts/2023

Rhodes, S. (2022, October 16). Town looks to expand affordable housing. Sentinel and
Enterprise. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from
https://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/2022/10/16/pepperell-to-host-public-meeting-on-
smart-growth-overlay-district/

Rouse, C., Bernstein, J., Knudsen, H., & Zhang, J. (2021, June 17). Exclusionary zoning: Its
effect on racial discrimination in the housing market - CEA. The White House. Retrieved
April 29, 2023, from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-
effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/

Tamarack Media Cooperative . (2023). Massachusetts. National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Retrieved February 4, 2023, from https://nlihc.org/housing-needs-by-state/massachusetts

Tegeler, P., & Herskind, M. (2018). Coordination of Community Systems and Institutions to
Promote Housing and School Integration. Washington D.C; Poverty and Race Research
Action Council.

Terwilliger, J. R. (2017). Solving the Affordable Housing Crisis: The Key to Unleashing
America's Potential. Jstor. Retrieved February 5, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). U.S. Census Bureau quickfacts: Massachusetts. U.S. Census
Bureau Fast Facts of Massachusetts. Retrieved April 24, 2023, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MA/PST045221

35
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau quickfacts: Pepperell Town, Middlesex County
... U.S. Census QuickFacts. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/pepperelltownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts

U.S. Census. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau quickfacts: Wayland Town, Middlesex County ... U.S.
Census QuickFacts. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/waylandtownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts/
PST045222

U.S. Federal Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau quickfacts: Weston Town, Middlesex
County, Massachusetts. U.S. Census Quickfacts. Retrieved April 7, 2023, from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/westontownmiddlesexcountymassachusetts

Vandehey, S. (2013, July 1). Civics in the suburbswhere Nimbyism reflects community.
University of California Press. Retrieved April 29, 2023, from
https://online.ucpress.edu/boom/article/3/2/52/106505/Civics-in-the-SuburbsWhere-
NIMBYism-reflects

Weston, T. O. (2021). AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

Weston; Town of Weston.

Wexler, M. N. (1996). A SOCIOLOGICAL FRAMING OF THE NIMBY (NOT-IN-MY-

BACKYARD) SYNDROME. International Review of Modern Sociology, 26(1), 91–110.

Wyner, M. (2021, February 3). Proposal to turn 16-acre Weston property into Life Sciences
Complex. Wicked Local. Retrieved April 22, 2023, from
https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/weston-town-crier/2021/02/03/brand-new-life-liberty-
mutual-site/4336351001/

36