By Philip J. Carver

In the off chance that you have been living in a cave for the last five years or so, let me clue you in on one of the state's worst kept secrets … the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is suffering from a severe housing shortage. The reasons for this malady are as debatable and as they are varied. Simply put, however, there are more prospective buyers than there are homes to sell. In an attempt to remedy the shortage Governor Mitt Romney has pledged to "tackle our housing crisis," restating his campaign promise to double the number of annual housing starts to 32,000 by the end of his first term. He went so far as to pledge $100 million to build 5,000 units of mixed income housing during the next three years.

This governmental commitment to ease the housing shortage statewide has proven to be a double-edged sword, welcomed by eager homeowners yet rebuked by many communities. Towns like Kingston and Holbrook voted in opposition to mixed income housing developments near their town's respective commuter rails. In Reading, residents voted down the development of a 33-acre former landfill, as did residents of Southborough. In Bedford neighbors opposed a large-scale development due to the fact it would exacerbate the communities traffic and congestion. Sadly these communities all choose to shirk the responsibilities and blatantly disregard Chapter 40B. Chapter 40B or as it is more commonly referred to as the "Anti Snob Zoning Law" is Massachusetts's Comprehensive Permit Law that was enacted in 1969 in an attempt to: increase the supply and improve the regional distribution of low and moderate income housing by allowing a limited suspension of existing local regulations which are inconsistent with construction of such housing."

This was the Legislature's attempt to create more housing statewide rather than have it centrally located in "urban" areas like Boston, Lowell, Springfield, and Worcester. Creating a statewide balance of housing would reduce density and infrastructure concerns that result in the overburdening of cities.

The burden of overdevelopment that the Legislature attempted to alleviate is, sadly, alive and well here in Boston. We are faced daily with the ramifications of overdevelopment, as many of our city's neighborhoods are stretched beyond critical mass. While the suburbs continue to limit their amount of housing starts, our urban areas continue to grow, last year Boston alone added 7,500 new housing units. The statewide housing shortage coupled with the City's renaissance has led to a development boom in Boston the likes of which has never been seen. Bostonians watched as gentrification or urban renewal changed the face of communities like the South End and Charlestown.

As developers devoured most of the city, Dorchester was content to muddle along, a jewel to only its inhabitants. The realty anomaly Dorchester had hidden under was short-lived, however. Soon, as all the trendy areas reached critical mass and the ability to develop properties evaporated, the eager developers began to cast their insatiable eye toward our fair section of the city. Dorchester, the largest section of the city of Boston through design and configuration, is less dense than other parts of the city. We are defined, not divided by our individual neighborhoods, and these neighborhoods are as varied as the housing stock contained within them. From the stately homes of Ashmont and Jones Hills to the larger single family post-Civil War homes of Neponset to the three families (not three-deckers) of Savin Hill and Upham's Corner and everything in between. Dorchester's rich architectural landscape and unparalleled communal atmosphere is proving to be fertile territory for many would be housing barons. The developmental onslaught has been so ubiquitous that it has given rise to a new term that is increasingly becoming a part of Dorchester's lexicon…."Southieization."

Main Entry: south·ie·ization

Function: adjective

1: an act, process, or instance of turning all available apartments into condominiums: a: neighborhood expansion past critical mass benefiting no one except developers; also: the development of housing with no viable parking plans b: a change to a different substance, form, or appearance:

2: the process of taking any and all available yards and or open space and cramming as many housing units as possible onto that site.

"Southieization" is a term coined with no malice intended to our friends on the point; it is used strictly from a developmental standpoint. It is a reference to the condo conversion that dominated South Boston's real estate market for the past ten years and now grips Dorchester. How can you tell if a neighborhood has become a victim of "Southieization"? It starts with the purchase a multiunit house, preferably a three family, then you remodel it and lastly you resell each unit as a condo and make a tidy profit. Arguably, if done correctly by quality developers, these conversions can be a welcome addition to a neighborhood, giving folks who may not be able to afford a house a chance at ownership. Also, civically you welcome the influx of new owners because with ownership comes a vested interest in your community. That being said the city should make every effort to enact some form of safeguards for residents that would address the long-term effects caused by the proliferation of condos such as renter displacement and parking concerns.

The newest and most troubling aspect of "Southieization" to hit Dorchester is called razing. This is where the truly greedy developers purchase a property that sits on a large lot of land with the sole intent of knocking down the existing house and maxing the space out by replacing with several condos or town houses. In fairness, some houses are truly beyond repair and demolition is warranted, however more often than not it is plain and simple avarice. In the Pope's Hill section alone there are currently four separate proposals to demolish existing property in order to build, you guessed it, more condos.

One of the aforementioned properties that was slated to be demolished turned out to be the third-oldest house in Dorchester. The local civic association teamed with the preservationist community in an attempt to dissuade the developer from proceeding. Yet rather than agreeing to leave the house where it has stood for over 200 years, the developer has opted instead to relocate the house, proving that nothing stands in the way of the almighty dollar, lest of all history. Dorchester has continuously been victimized by this not so subtle urbanization and sadly we have lost most of the tangible glimpses into our past for no other reason than lining some developers' pockets. Another example of this was the Lucy Stone house, which was demolished to make way for townhouses. Most developers do not care about symmetry and are not bound by a community's architectural integrity. Where you and I as residents see beautiful homes with side yards, back yards, driveways and green space, developers see nothing but "developmental opportunities" and dollar signs.

Dorchester is becoming a victim of her own success; our overall commitment to improve our quality of life has paid off. Our hidden jewel is hidden no more, yet if development is allowed to continue unabated it will systematically destroy the very fabric of our community. "A Villager and his wife had a Goose that laid a golden egg every day. They supposed that the Goose must contain a great lump of gold in its inside, and in order to get the gold they killed it. Having done so, they found to their surprise that the Goose was no different from their other Geese. The foolish pair, thus hoping to become rich all at once, deprived themselves of the gain of which they were assured day by day". This allegory penned by Aesop dates back centuries, but its prophetic message is as timely as ever. For us here in Dorchester, our golden goose is our community, and sadly developers intent on getting their gold are subsequently killing our goose.

Philip J. Carver is president of the Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association.