This week, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey threw her support behind a November ballot question that would override local zoning ordinances to allow homes to be built on small lots across the Commonwealth.
The Democrat says the initiative — backed by the Pioneer Institute and real estate groups — would make starter homes more accessible. But, opponents to Question 7 include the Massachusetts Municipal Association, an advocacy group that serves as the voice for the commonwealth's 351 communities.
Berkshire Bureau Chief Josh Landes spoke with MMA Executive Director and CEO Adam Chapdelaine about why the group says the initiative is bad for the cities and towns of Massachusetts.
INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Editor's note: this conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Chapdelaine: I describe us as a trade association for cities and towns. We represent all 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth.
We do legislative advocacy, we do professional development, we do communications, and we really try to be the voice of cities and towns in Massachusetts.
Landes: We're talking today about Question 7 on the Massachusetts ballot: the core of this would essentially remove a lot of the autonomy for for zoning regulations on these 5,000 square foot lots from cities and towns to offer this sort of blanket free pass for developers trying to build homes on these smaller lots. They have framed this as a way to promote starter homes, a way to to help out an expensive and limited housing market. What is your take on this as the head of the MMA?
Chapdelaine: So I'd make three major points. One, at the MMA, we're always interested in protecting local control. We think local leaders, mayors, select board members, town managers, city councilors — they're best positioned to make decisions about what's best for their community. So, any measure that would take away that control, we start by expressing concern. But in a more detailed fashion, there're two other big concerns.
One, unfortunately, there's nothing in this ballot question that would make any homes constructed coming out of this ballot question either a starter home or affordable.
Sure, they might be built on a smaller lot, but they could maximize the size of that lot and still go for a number that would not be deemed affordable by any reasonable person.
Finally, though the ballot question does wisely make sure that there would be water and sewer available in the road for a lot to be eligible, it doesn't talk about the actual capacity of the wastewater or water system, which is a pretty important aspect of it. Do you have enough water for the housing growth that would be generated? Do you have enough wastewater capacity to handle the housing units that would be generated? So, that's sort of the our three pronged concerns about this ballot question.
Landes: Listening to the messaging from the Yes on Seven campaign, I wanted to know what you make of what they're arguing that this will do to help communities in Massachusetts. If there are any misconceptions or points of disagreement within that, you want to sort of push back on a little bit.
Chapdelaine: I think the big point I would push back is in the name, calling this a starter home ballot question.
It's attempting to lead a voter or a resident to believe that this will produce small homes that will be financially affordable to all people from all walks of life, and the reality is, without there being some type of policy or guide or protection in the law, there is nothing about this ballot question that will guarantee that the homes produced will be affordable.
In fact, I do worry that more than anything, it will produce pretty significant gains for savvy developers who come in, find these lots, build a home, sell it at market rate, and thereby do little to actually enhance affordability or start a home availability.
Landes: Digging into the numbers, and I mentioned this in my conversation with the Yes on Seven campaign, an inordinate amount of support for this push to pass this ballot question is coming from realtors, from construction entities, from from private equity, from developers. What do you think that says about the question?
Chapdelaine: Well, I go back to the old adage of if you want to understand how someone behaves, try to figure out how they get paid, and I think that answers the question, right?
This measure would benefit developers. It would benefit the real estate industry. It would benefit those who make a living from building and selling homes, so you know finding ways to increase housing stock is important, but I think doing it in a deeply, more deeply, a more thoughtful manner than what's being proposed here is what is important.
Landes: Speaking with folks in smaller communities out here in Berkshire County, I hear a lot of frustration from people about how there's a sort of top-down approach to zoning in the Commonwealth, and this certainly, if passed, would add to the perception of that trend. Do you feel like smaller communities in the Commonwealth have enough of a voice, even at this point, in how Massachusetts governs zoning?
Chapdelaine: I've been hearing the same from our members in western Mass., that this ballot question, they start similar to where we start with not wanting to lose local control, and are then even more worried that this ballot question really takes a one-size-fits-all approach — and suggest that what may or may not work in a western Mass. or southeastern Mass. community would also work in a western Mass. community, and we just know that's not true. And those folks that you talk to in Berkshire County, they also know that's not true. So, I guess I could add to the list avoiding anything that promotes a one-size-fits-all approach to the true diversity and differentiation amongst our 351 communities is something that we're always on the watch for.
Landes: Does the MMA have a preferred approach to expanding affordable housing in the Commonwealth? Is there something that you feel like will work for municipalities in this effort to address such a pressing need?
Chapdelaine: What we are really interested in is working with the Commonwealth to find ways to reduce the cost of actually producing housing.
I think the economics behind producing housing right now are really challenging to create affordable homes without significant subsidy coming from the government.
So, Gov. Healy and her administration, through their Housing and Livable Communities Secretariat, are just launching something called Move-in Mass, where they'll be working to see if there's ways to construct off-site. We used to call it modular homes or manufactured homes. Now, the terminology is 'offsite homes,' to see if there's a way to do that, sort of efficiently and affordably in Massachusetts, and she's actually put out a request for information for cities and towns to cooperate with the state in finding sites to test how this could work for these offsite homes, and that's the exact type of thing that we want to do, and I know our members want to do find innovative ways to bring down cost and produce housing that will actually create affordability for Massachusetts residents.
