Four towns were destroyed in the 20th century in order to address the state’s major long-term challenges. What if the solution to overcoming the challenges of the 21st century involves constructing four?
In a significant move during the Depression era, several towns including Dana, Enfield, Greenwich, and Prescott were completely eradicated from existence. This drastic measure was taken to pave the way for the creation of the Quabbin Reservoir, which to this day remains the primary source of drinking water for the Greater Boston area.
The towns put up a strong resistance, and a Globe writer who reported on the drafting of the 1927 legislation that sealed the fate of the towns expressed clear unease with the state’s impending actions towards these long-standing communities.
A group of state officials has strongly criticized the potential consequences of meeting the water needs of the distant city of Boston, likening it to an army of occupation uprooting a 200-year-old civilization.
Rural towns face potential disincorporation, with plans to relocate their cemeteries and merge their land with neighboring towns. According to the secretary of state’s office, the list of incorporated places in Massachusetts still includes those four locations, but they are described as “drowned.” The reservoir was constructed and finished in the year 1940.
The submerging of those towns, along with the subsequent development of public infrastructure that still provides significant advantages to the public today, serves as a symbol of the successes and failures of a bygone era in public projects, a time that seems distant from our current reality.
Also Read: Texas Health Cleburne Earns Prestigious National Recognition for Cardiac Care
Fortunately, however, the current challenges necessitate the state to construct rather than dismantle. Last week, Governor Maura Healey highlighted the pressing issue of housing shortage in Massachusetts, describing it as the most significant challenge the state currently confronts. In a bid to tackle its traffic and transportation issues, the state is seeking growth that won’t worsen the situation.
The state’s approach involves encouraging towns to permit additional housing, particularly near transit, and offering subsidies to developers for construction. These approaches are expected to yield results gradually, even in the most favorable conditions.
Imagine if the state not only collaborated with existing towns, but also established brand new ones, complete with efficient transit systems and well-planned zoning right from the beginning.
In October, I inquired with Healey’s housing czar, Ed Augustus, about the state’s potential consideration of developing planned cities as a means to address the housing shortage. Despite appearing slightly confused by the question, he noticeably did not outright dismiss the idea.
A large plot of land would be required for such an endeavor. To provide a comprehensive understanding, further details about the scale are required. Can you explain how that operates? Is it considered a municipality? “Or is it within an existing municipality?” he inquired. “There are potential areas of land that could be explored,” he stated.
The concept is not entirely absurd.
A group of investors has put forward a proposal to construct a brand new city in California, a state grappling with a shortage of housing. The envisioned city would be home to approximately 400,000 residents. The concept is being widely ridiculed by many Californians, but it undeniably holds a certain disruptive appeal. The proposed city aims to significantly expand the state’s housing options, with developers envisioning a walkable metropolis that embraces contemporary transportation ideas.
Massachusetts has a smaller land area compared to California. Every square mile in the state has already been claimed legally, leaving no unincorporated land, except for a potential exception of one lighthouse. Some towns may raise concerns about the state’s plan to acquire land for the development of new cities.
