“More than two dozen people gathered on the steps of City Hall Wednesday afternoon to call for more affordable housing in the city.”

That was the lead to an Item story a week ago covering a protest – billed as a “rally” – that was convened to express displeasure with what is being billed as the largest private investment ever in Lynn.

The project in question is a proposal to build 850 units of housing at the South Harbor site on the Lynnway – a prime piece of waterfront property that has been vacant for three decades. The project won the support of the City Council by a 10-1 vote. The developer is Samuels & Associates, a Boston-based firm with a five-star reputation, having done eye-catching work in the Fenway and at the Hingham Shipyard, for example.

Samuels is proposing to invest $450 million in the 1-million-square-foot project, which will include more than 25,000 square feet of retail and an 8-acre public park on the waterfront. 

It seems incomprehensible that anyone would be against this, unless, of course, opposing progress is your cottage industry.

The primary argument put forth by those with an obstructionist agenda is that the 10%  affordable housing component is insufficient. You can use simple, grammar-school math to counter that: 85 > 0. 

As a result of an inclusionary zoning ordinance put forth by Mayor Jared Nicholson and approved by the City Council last year at this time, new developments must reserve 10% of units for those whose family income is no more than 60% of area median income (AMI). That is exactly what the South Harbor proposal calls for: 85 new units of affordable housing.

That isn’t enough for those who seemingly would not be happy with anything less than 100 percent of the units being classified as affordable, if not subsidized – but 85 units is the number with which the developer can make the project financially feasible.

Also at issue is the fact that the City is providing tax increment financing (TIF) that will result in the developer saving approximately $45 million on tax payments over 20 years. That is a significant tax break, which is why the City contracted with consultant RKG to review the agreement to ensure it is warranted. The conclusion: It is.

Back to simple math: Over 30 years, this development is projected to bring in $120 million in tax revenue: 120 > 45. 

The advocates said they opposed the project because they didn’t have a chance to voice their opinions. Actually, there were ample opportunities.

The City passed a master waterfront plan after 19 public meetings. The public said it wanted mixed-use development on this site. The project is mixed-use. 

The City passed an open-space plan after four more public meetings. The public asked for green space.  This project has 8 acres of park space.  

The City passed a housing plan after 12 public meetings, during which the public said it wanted all new developments to have 10% affordable units at 60% AMI and to use tax incentives to make that happen. This project used a tax incentive and it has 10% affordable at 60% AMI. 

It’s hard to escape the irony of a protest about affordable housing on the steps of City Hall, where now resides a mayor who is ultra-sensitive to that issue. Before the affordable-housing ordinance was passed, the City negotiated a voluntary $3 million payment to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund from a developer planning to build 218 units on the other side of the Lynnway from the South Harbor site. Yes, voluntary. That company, VPG Development, was not required to include any affordable units in the project, yet the mayor and his development team arranged for the payment, which can be used for affordable units down the line.

It is irrefutable that the cost of housing has skyrocketed and there is an urgent need for more affordable units. That’s a supply-and-demand issue. Build more and get more. That need does not justify, however, opposing a project of this magnitude, which can be a game changer for the waterfront and the City as a whole. The option is simple: Build it and reap the tax benefits, or leave it vacant and continue to reap nothing.

Not that difficult a call.

Ted Grant is the publisher of Essex Media Group and The Item.