The House Passed Its Version of the Affordable Homes Act. Here Are the Votes.

On Wednesday, the House voted 145 to 13 to pass its redraft of Governor Healey’s Affordable Homes Act. The bill contains many important provisions, such as authorizing increased investment in housing (including rehabilitating public housing stock and decarbonizing our housing stock), allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right, making it easier to convert unused commercial space into housing, creating an Office of Fair Housing, and creating a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) local option. Unfortunately, the bill left out important parts of the Governor’s bill as well, such as a local option real estate transfer fee, eviction sealing protections, and reducing the threshold for passing inclusionary zoning ordinances. It now goes on to the Senate.

The 13 NO votes came from two Democrats — Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton) and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) — and 11 Republicans — Rep. F. Jay Barrows (Mansfield), Rep. Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick), Rep. Angelo D’Emilia (R-Bridgewater), Rep. David DeCoste (R-Norwell), Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Rep. Steve Howitt (R-Seekonk), Rep. Susan Gifford (R-Wareham), Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), Rep. Norman Orrall (R-Lakeville), Rep. David Soter (R-Bellingham), and Rep. Alyson Sullivan-Almeida (R-Whitman).

The House voted 131 to 27 against an amendment from Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica) to exempt communities from MBTA Communities Act requirements if at least 10 percent of the housing units in the city or town are low or moderate-income (the “40B” threshold).

Two Democrats — Colleen Garry (D-Dracut) and Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) — joined Republicans in supporting the amendment.

The House voted 126 to 32 against an amendment from Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading) to make it easier for communities opposed to building more housing to evade compliance with the MBTA Communities Act.

Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton), Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Pat Kearney (D-Scituate), Rep. Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston), and Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury) joined Republicans in voting for it.

The House voted 130 to 28 in favor of an amendment to preserve language allowing for the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) by right without any of the unnecessary obstacles and poison pills conservative representatives tried to add to the language. The amendment made one modification that was acceptable to advocates: requiring a special permit process for building more than 1 ADU on a property.

Rep. Bill Driscoll (D-Milton), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), and Rep. Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop) voted against it with Republicans, and Rep. Donnie Berthiaume (R-Spencer) joined Democrats in support.

The House voted 127 to 30 against an amendment from Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn) to automatically count all mobile homes toward a community’s 40B threshold (i.e., that 10% of all housing units need to be for low or moderate incomes). The amendment was driven by NIMBY opposition to building affordable housing and would make it harder to achieve affordability goals.

Rep. Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Rep. Sally Kerans (D-Danvers), Rep. Dave Robertson (D-Tewksbury), and Rep. Thomas Walsh (D-Peabody) joined Republicans in voting for it.

The House voted 133 to 25 for a consolidated amendment that, among other positive measures, added a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) local option to the bill. Under this, cities and towns could choose to pass ordinances giving tenants the right of first refusal to buy their building if it goes up for sale.

The House unanimously passed an amendment to add a veterans preference for housing and 153 to 5 to add a series of earmarks.

PM in the News: “Business groups cheer, progressives knock House axing transfer fees”

Jennifer Smith, “Business groups cheer, progressives knock House axing transfer fees,” CommonWealth Beacon, June 4, 2024.

“Jonathan Cohn, policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, cited the poll in critiquing the House’s proposed bond bill. He said axing the transfer tax option was “taking tools off the table.”

“Let’s be clear: members of House leadership are being dishonest when they claim that they oppose a local option real estate transfer fee because it is a ‘piecemeal’ solution that doesn’t help every city and town,” Cohn wrote in a statement. “Such concerns were nowhere to be found during the budget process, when those very same representatives had no problem stuffing the budget full of outsized perks for their own districts.”

Take Action: The MA House Should Listen to the Public on Housing

Yesterday, UMass Amherst and WCVB released a poll on what voters think about different solutions to our housing crisis, and voters were clear that we need to use every tool in the toolbox.

Here’s just one example: by 3 to 1, voters supported allowing cities and towns to levy small fees on high-end real estate transactions to raise dedicated funds for affordable housing.

Governor Healey agrees, and in her housing bond bill (the Affordable Homes Act), she included a local option real estate transfer fee, allowing communities to choose to impose a small fee on high-end real estate purchases to build and preserve affordable homes if this tool is important to them in preserving their community.

Cities and towns across MA have shown that they want to do this. And it’s not hard to see why. In Nantucket, for example, you need to be earning 7x the area median income to afford the median value home. That’s why voters, including local realtors, support this proposal.

But, unfortunately, the the House left this key tool out of the housing bill that it’s voting on TOMORROW, capitulating to the heavy lobbying from the real estate industry. But the fight isn’t over.

Can you write to your state representative in support of Amendment #165 to add the local option transfer fee back into the bill and ensure that it’s flexible enough for all communities across the Commonwealth?

Mass Voters Show Strong Support for Progressive Housing Action

A newly released UMass/WCVB poll shows strong support for progressive housing policies, showing yet again how out-of-touch the State House can be.

Rent Control: 72% of voters supported allowing local governments to set a limit on how much rents can be increased each year, with only 13% opposed.

Local Option Real Estate Transfer Fee: 62% of voters supported allowing cities and towns to tax real estate transactions above $1 million to help raise funds for local affordable housing, with only 21% opposed.

Accessory Dwelling Units: 66% of surveyed voters supported allowing homeowners to add small, add-on living spaces called accessory dwelling units to their property, with only 9% opposed.

And despite the buzz around opposition in a few towns, the MBTA Communities Act, which requires cities and towns with MBTA proximity to rezone near transit, had the support of 55% of MA voters, with only 18% opposed.

Statement on the House Redraft of the Affordable Homes Act

“Massachusetts has a housing crisis, and voters across the state are calling for bold action. If only the Massachusetts House Leadership would care to listen.

Rather than strengthening and building on Governor Healey’s housing bond bill, House Leadership has decided to cave to the real estate lobby, axing the local option real estate transfer fee, eviction sealing protections, and measures to increase affordability of new development. We need every tool in the toolbox, and at every level, to address our housing crisis.

Let’s be clear: members of House Leadership are being dishonest when they claim that they oppose a local option real estate transfer fee because it is a “piecemeal” solution that doesn’t help every city and town. Such concerns were nowhere to be found during the budget process, when those very same representatives had no problem stuffing the budget full of outsized perks for their own districts. Dedicated funding for dog parks in the North End don’t benefit even the full city of Boston, but giving Boston the ability to tame real estate speculation and preserve and expand affordable housing has benefits far beyond the city itself—not to mention the many cities and towns that want to take actions well.

The House is certainly not acting with an eye to public opinion. MA voters support a local option real estate transfer fee by 3 to 1. 

Last year, when state representatives passed tax cuts for the rich proposed by Governor Healey, many of them emphasized the importance of giving the Governor a “win.” Now that the Governor wants a “win” for working and middle-class residents across the Commonwealth, the House sings a different tune, showing that they care less about Healey’s legacy or their everyday constituents than they do about their donors.”