Our community is facing a housing crisis fueled by an imbalance between demand and supply. More people want to live in Greenfield than our current housing stock can support. We know that when demand is high for something in short supply, its price goes up. The city is subject to economic forces outside its control, but the city government should do everything it can to make Greenfield an affordable place to live.

It has become important to address affordability now, as housing production has dramatically slowed. Only 70 homes have been permitted in the last decade, while up until the 1990s more than 600 homes a year were typical. The reasons for this are varied, but one of the most significant causes is overly restrictive zoning. We have seen a 34% increase in home prices since 2014, adjusted for inflation. Consequently, a majority of renters are cost-burdened by their housing, as well as a majority of homeowners in downtown Greenfield.

Greenfield’s population has remained relatively stable for several decades, but hidden in that fact is an argument to build more housing. There are hundreds of three-plus-bedroom senior households occupied by 1-2 people. These homes have rapidly increased in value, and with that the property taxes, rendering them less affordable for more and more folks, especially those on fixed incomes.

Simultaneously, families moving into Greenfield are settling for smaller homes because they either can’t afford a larger one or those units remain occupied by seniors who struggle to downsize due to a lack of senior-appropriate housing. We need to build so that both of these groups have places to go.

I worked with Planning Director Eric Twarog, who drafted language for several amendments to the zoning ordinance. The first two amendments would make it easier to build multi-family homes for four-plus families. Currently, a single-family home, duplex, or triplex can be built by right anywhere in the city, but multifamily homes may only be built by right in downtown’s central commercial district.

The first amendment would allow multifamily homes to also be built by right in the semi-residential districts that border downtown. (Note that “by right”can be misleading, since anything built “by right” must still follow rules regarding setbacks, dimensional requirements, etc. for that zoning district.)

The second amendment increases the number of units allowed in a building. Nonprofit developers have made it clear that the current arbitrary cap on the number of units makes it nearly impossible to build anything. Supporting multifamily construction has the potential to bring new life to downtown and add affordable housing options.

The third amendment would allow first-floor dwellings in mixed commercial-residential lots on street sides with the lowest traffic use. Such units would be conveniently located and most importantly could be wheelchair-accessible, which is desperately needed in Greenfield. Commercial spaces on Main Street would remain protected. This amendment would simply mean that someone could have housing facing the back parking lot while maintaining commercial space out front.

The fourth amendment is actually a requirement under the new state housing law: to allow detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right without requiring owner occupation. An “accessory unit” is any structure on a property beyond a house — a shed, garage or “dwelling unit” where someone could live. ADUs present opportunities to build accessible housing that could be ideal for seniors and those who might need a smaller space.

As with multifamily dwellings, construction of ADUs would be subject to setbacks, open space restrictions and other regulations.

A group of citizens has submitted a petition against ADUs, which is allegedly about preserving open space by prohibiting ADUs on less than a half-acre. Their proposal is effectively a shadow ban; there are few downtown properties greater than a half-acre. In a recent My Turn column [Oct. 29], it was stated that if ADUs were built in the lots of 10% of single-family homes, “our neighborhoods” would be “crowded.”

Why is it a problem for an ADU to be built behind someone’s house, but a garage or a shed is not? There are equal requirements for building them regarding setbacks and open space. They both equally “crowd” or “clutter” a neighborhood, except one is home to somebody.

If you support these zoning amendments please attend the Economic Development Committee or Planning Board meetings in November and December.

No zoning change will solve the housing crisis on its own, but we must start making progress in solving the problem.

John Garrett is a resident of Greenfield, a history teacher and a city councilor.