45° and Sunny
Image
10-31-2026 8:15am
OPINION: Ballot Question 7 Is a Developer's Dream that Could Change Character of Westwood
Darlene Cancell
Editor
The following opinion article represents the views and opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of Westwood Minute.
By Alex Becker
Long before I became a residential land developer, my father was fighting development.
I grew up in Westwood, where he was involved in efforts to protect forested land from clear-cutting and development. Much of that land remains preserved today through Hale Reservation and the Westwood Land Trust.
There is some irony in the fact that I ultimately made a career out of residential land development.
But I also believe development should be thoughtful – balancing the need for new housing with open space, environmental considerations, and the existing character of a community, not simply maximizing lot count.
That background is one reason Question 7 caught my attention. Another is practical: I know how developers will look at it.
Question 7 would establish a statewide right to build a single-family home on a lot of at least 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage where public water and sewer are available. Towns could retain “reasonable” regulations, but could not “unreasonably restrict” that right.
For Westwood, the scale of that change is significant.
Much of Westwood is zoned around one- to two-acre (or 43,560 to 87,120 square foot) minimum lots. Against that backdrop, a 5,000-square-foot threshold is a fundamentally different development scale.
The argument is intuitive: smaller lots lower land cost, so they should produce less expensive homes. Sometimes they do. But smaller lots do not require cheaper homes.
I have watched that distinction play out in Nashville. Across much of East Nashville, modest older homes have been demolished and replaced with pairs of narrow detached houses commonly called “tall-skinnies.” A house worth roughly $600,000 can disappear and be replaced by two homes selling for approximately $1.2 million each.
That is housing production. It is not attainable housing.
It is the market doing what markets do: making the most profitable use of a development opportunity.
While 5,000 square foot lots are common in urban areas like East Nashville, they exist within a pattern designed around that density: tighter setbacks, compact blocks, alleys, and infrastructure built for smaller lots.
Westwood was built around something very different. In parts of town with an 80,000 square foot minimum lot requirement, 5,000 square feet is just one-sixteenth of the existing minimum.
Westwood was built around something very different. In parts of town with a nearly two-acre (80,000 square foot) minimum lot size requirement, a 5,000 square foot lot would represent just one-sixteenth of the existing minimum.
That is not a minor zoning adjustment. It is a complete rewrite of the development potential of those communities. It would fundamentally alter the lot sizes, spacing, and neighborhood character that Westwood has deliberately shaped over generations.
Question 7 does not require the resulting home to be affordable, modest, or small. There is no statewide price restriction, affordability requirement, owner-occupancy requirement, or cap on house size.
Question 7 would certainly increase housing production. It does not ensure that the homes produced will be attainable.
Massachusetts already has a more targeted approach. Chapter 40Y, the Starter Home Zoning District program, uses favorable zoning to encourage an actual starter-home product. It permits homes as of right at four per acre, caps qualifying homes at 1,850 square feet, requires at least half to have three or more bedrooms, and includes an affordability component in larger developments.
Allow smaller lots. Allow meaningful density. Make approvals predictable and by right. But do it alongside thoughtful open-space, environmental, and neighborhood-character standards. Make it easier to build modest, family-oriented homes without sacrificing what makes communities like Westwood worth living in.
Additional development rights are valuable. If the public grants them in the name of affordability, it should expect affordability in return.
Thanks to Alex Becker, a Westwood native and residential land developer based in Nashville, Tennessee, for contributing this opinion article to Westwood Minute.
Westwood Minute takes no position on the opinion articles that it publishes, but seeks accurate and thoughtful commentary on topics that matter to our community, from a variety of differing viewpoints. Feel free to reply with your reaction below, or submit another perspective to WestwoodInAMinute@gmail.com.
