In Al Norman’s April 2 column [”The growing crowd next door”], the politics of fear were in full display. His discussion of the changes in zoning to accommodate the state’s ADU law, presented some truly alarming statements and assumptions.

Let’s talk about facts. City Planner, Eric Twarog, stated that in Greenfield during the last decade, approximately two homes per year were converted from one family to multi-family houses. Any homeowner in Greenfield can convert a single-family home into up to three apartments “by right.” Assuming that all were conversions to three apartments, that is a total increase of 40 apartments over the last 10 years. Twenty single-family homes added two apartments each. This is hardly an avalanche of housing.

In my neighborhood, we have multi-family houses mixed in with single-family homes. Most of the multi-family homes began as single-family houses and are somewhere between 1,600 and 2,000 square feet. Most apartments in those homes are occupied by one or two adults.

Next door to me is a house with two apartments: housing a parent and three children in one apartment and a parent and two children in the other. Seven people are living in about 1,800 square feet of space. Under our present zoning and the state ADU requirements, the owners of this house next door could build a 900-square-foot ADU, separate from the primary building without a special permit. An ADU housing four people increases my neighbors from seven people to 11 people. Is that a problem? I don’t think so.

Mr. Norman stated that an ADU could house seven people based upon the minimum square footage required by the state. The idea that seven people would be living in a 900-square-foot building is nothing more than a vision designed to scare us all. Today, any apartment or even a single-family house could cram people in like that, but that is not what we see in Greenfield. Why are ADUs the bogeyman? Why are we even presented this scenario?

Most single-family houses in the 1990s had 3-4 bedrooms. They were built to hold 2-parent families with three children, more if there were children who shared bedrooms.

Let’s do the math using Mr. Norman’s assumptions. A home designed to house five people is converted into three apartments each housing two parents and two children: 12 people in all. That house has a 900 square foot “by right” ADU built behind it that houses another four people, two of whom are children. The single-family house has become a 3-family house with an ADU: 16 people in residence. That is a significant increase, but as is demonstrated by my neighborhood, not every apartment is going to house four people. Apartments are more likely to house 1- 3 people. The 3-family home with the ADU may now house perhaps 8-10 people. Even if it houses the full 16 people projected by Mr. Norman, is that really a “mini-subdivision,” as he described it? Is such a characterization designed to make us think or make us feel afraid and confused?

We should base our ordinances on the facts and the history of our community not on worst-case scenarios designed to make us fear change. We have a zoning ordinance that allows for conversion of one-family homes to 3-family housing by right. It works. We have defined ADUs as residences independent of the principal house for about 10 years. It works.

These ordinances work for all of us and have track records to prove it. There is no need for the changes that the citizens’ petitions request. Let’s keep what works for Greenfield. Let us not give in to fear.

Susan Worgaftik lives in Greenfield. She is a member of Housing Greenfield and writing on her own behalf.