Tuesday’s Lowell City Council meeting led off with a motion by Councilor Erik Gitschier that the council send a letter to “our state delegation” expressing the council’s opposition to House Bill 2347, “An Act to Promote Yes in God’s Back Yard.” The bill’s goal is to promote more housing by allowing religious institutions to bypass local zoning rules and avoid paying property taxes for multifamily housing constructed on land owned by the religious organization. The lead proponents in the measure are Representatives Andres Vargas of Haverhill and Tara Hong of Lowell, although Representative Vanna Howard of Lowell is a co-sponsor of the legislation.

The bill was filed on January 17, 2025, and was referred to the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government on February 27, 2025. A parallel bill in the state senate, Senate 1430, was also referred to that committee. According to the Bill History page on the legislature’s website, no further action has been taken. (The text of the bill is available at the same link.)

Councilors defeated a substitute motion by Councilor Paul Ratha Yem that the matter be referred to the council’s housing subcommittee for further discussion. Only Councilors Yem and Vesna Nuon voted for the subcommittee route with Councilors Corey Belanger, Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Erik Gitschier, Rita Mercier, Corey Robinson, Kim Scott and Mayor Dan Rourke all voting no. (Councilor Wayne Jenness was absent.) The original motion – to send a letter of opposition to the bill – passed with yes votes from Councilors Belanger, Chau, Descoteaux, Gitschier, Mercier, Robinson, Scott and Mayor Rourke. Councilor Yem voted no, and Councilor Nuon abstained.

The title of this bill – Yes In God’s Back Yard – likely comes from similar legislation filed a year ago in the US Senate by then Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) who filed the Yes In God’s Back Yard (YIGBY) Act, “legislation to support faith-based organizations and colleges wanting to build and preserve affordable housing on their land and reduce barriers to the development of this housing.”

YIGBY is a play on YIMBY which stands for “Yes in My Backyard” which is a grassroots movement and a political stance that advocates for increased housing supply in existing neighborhoods. It’s essentially the opposite of NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”), a common sentiment among some residents who oppose new development in their communities due to concerns about traffic, density, property values, and changes to neighborhood character.

Although I recently heard of the Vargas/Hong version of this bill, I didn’t pay much attention to it since, as someone long wise to the ways of Beacon Hill once told me, in a typical two year legislative session, state senators and representatives file nearly 7000 bills, yet only about 200 of them are enacted, so the odds of this one passing are extremely remote. My advisor also explained that for anything to happen on Beacon Hill, it must be supported by one of the six individuals who “run state government” with those being the governor; the Secretary of Administration and Finance; the president of the senate; the chair of the senate ways and means committee;, the speaker of the house; and the chair of the house ways and means committee. Although it’s still early in the life of this bill, none of those six are supporting it thus far which further diminishes its chance of passage.

Setting aside the inside politics of the legislature, the bill does seek to address a major problem in the Commonwealth which is a lack of housing that is affordable to those who live here. Several multifamily apartment buildings have recently been constructed in Lowell, but not nearly enough to meet the community’s needs. And if you believe that secure, affordable housing is a foundational requirement for reduced homelessness, better health and improved school performance, then building more housing should be a priority.

But as we’ve seen with (1) the outrage generated by this proposal; (2) similar ire at the city’s own effort to permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) several years ago; and (3) emerging opposition to the city’s implementation of the MBTA Communities Act, measures to build more housing trigger strong and vocal opposition. Although those speaking out against such measures may constitute only a minority of Lowell’s entire population, they constitute most of the six percent of city residents who vote in city elections, so councilors most likely will side with them. (In 2023, there were just 7500 votes cast in a city of 125,000.) Because that same dynamic is likely stronger in other communities, particularly suburbs, the only way the housing crisis in Massachusetts can be addressed is with a top-down approach from the legislature.

****

For those living in densely packed neighborhoods like South Lowell, the lower Highlands, and Centralville, concerns about parking are well-founded. Houses in those neighborhoods were constructed before cars were invented, so parking was never a consideration. Now, in a culture in which nearly every adult in a household needs their own car to function, the lack of space for parking degrades the quality of life in those neighborhoods.

New programs that promote more housing by cutting requirements for parking fall particularly hard on these neighborhoods. Many who own homes there are stretched financially to afford them which make revenue-generating options like ADUs more attractive than they would be to their more affluent neighbors in the suburban-like areas of the city. There are no complaints about a lack of parking in Belvidere, Pawtucketville and the upper Highlands because most homes in those neighborhoods have garages and driveways. While the presence of more vehicles could be more easily absorbed there, the financial incentives to create more housing are lacking (and political opposition to it is strongest). Consequently, the negative consequences of loosening regulations to permit more housing with less parking fall heaviest on the neighborhoods least able to absorb those consequences.

The city council does a disservice to these older, denser neighborhoods by ignoring planning strategies that de-emphasize cars. Houses built in Lowell in the 1800s were constructed on top of each other to make them more affordable but also to allow those who lived in them to walk to work. Granted, few residents work downtown today, but the housing density of these neighborhoods still makes them more walkable.

If you look at the evolution of Lowell’s built environment, the city was like a collection of villages clustered around the downtown. Each “village” (i.e., neighborhood) had its own shopping district, its own churches, its own schools, its own parks, and its own character and allegiances. Walking to work in a textile mill is not coming back; but other aspects of a neighborhood centric life could alleviate some of the parking and traffic problems that plague these neighborhoods.

Making the city more walkable can’t happen overnight. It requires a thoughtful strategy and the discipline to see it through over years not weeks or months. But the current council is so car-focused that anything else is relegated to a forlorn mention of “advocating for all forms of transportation” in reports from the city’s (superb) traffic engineer before councilors flock to their two favorite transportation topics: (1) paving more streets to allow motorists to drive faster; and (2) installing speed humps to slow down motorists who drive too fast.

****

The long-term consequences of misguided urban planning were evident at UMass Lowell on Tuesday night at a program hosted by the Greater Lowell Franco-American Digital Archives and the Lowell Franco-American Day Committee. Held at O’Leary Library on the school’s south campus, the program began with the screening of a 1979 film, “Le P’Tit Canada” which was produced by the Canadian National Film Board as part of a series on the music of Franco communities throughout North America. It’s a fascinating snapshot of Lowell’s Little Canada as it was at the time.

The film was followed by a panel discussion that featured children of some of those featured in the film (the panelists were Paul Paquin, Suzanne Frechette, and Dave Ouellette) along with UMass Lowell professor Bob Forrant to provide historical context.

Although the film was mostly about the role of music in preserving Franco culture in Lowell, most of the questions from the audience of nearly 100 dealt with the destruction of the Little Canada neighborhood by the Urban Renewal wrecking ball in the mid-1960s. It was clear that the wounds caused by the obliteration of that neighborhood remain painful and relevant to those who experienced it.

Urban renewal in Lowell is a topic deserving of more study and discussion, for like so many parts of our history, it has important lessons for us as we navigate the future.

The “Le P’Tit Canada” film is available online with English subtitles. It is a fascinating program, well worth 29 minutes of your time.

****

This week on richardhowe.com . . .

Steve O’Connor wrote about the importance of music in education;

Paul Marion made a surprising discovery of Robert Frost’s underappreciated life in Amesbury, Massachusetts;

Jim Provencher shared a nautically themed poem from his home in Australia;

Louise Peloquin translated a L’Etoile article from 1924 about protests against the high cost of gasoline.

****

This spring I’ll lead several tours of historic Lowell Cemetery:

On Sunday, May 18, 2025, at 10 am, I’ll lead a Memorial Day themed tour that highlights some of the military veterans buried in the cemetery.

On Saturday June 7, 2025, and again on Sunday June 8, 2025, both at 10 am, I’ll lead the traditional Lowell Cemetery spring tour (same tour on both days).

All three tours will begin inside the Lawrence Street Gate (1020 Lawrence Street, Lowell, for your GPS). Plenty of parking is available within the cemetery. The tours are free and require no advance registration. They last 90 minutes and include a moderate amount of walking. The tours will be held rain or shine (but not in thunderstorms or severe downpours). Further information is available on the Lowell Cemetery website.