LETTER: State Legislature Should Go Back Into Session and Pass Multiple Bills

Charlo Maurer, “LETTER: State Legislature Should Go Back Into Session and Pass Multiple Bills,” Watertown News, August 19, 2024.

I was excited this year for our state to finally have a Democratic governing trifecta, with a Democrat leading in all three offices of Governor, Senate, and the House. However, this trifecta has been much less productive in passing legislature than I expected.

As has become the norm on Beacon Hill, the House and Senate ran out the clock on many important priorities, adjourning on the morning of August 1st with a long list of unfinished business. After the hottest summer on record, they didn’t manage to pass a climate bill. Several other bills, among them economic development bills and bills to address the Steward crisis, are stuck in potentially dead-end negotiations, and that’s not to mention all the common-sense bills that never even made it that far.

As of August 11, more than 90% of the bills signed into law this session were home rule petitions, bills about specific individuals, or budgets, which are required. We’ve seen a striking decline in basic deliberation and accountability in the Legislature, with both chambers taking fewer than half the recorded votes they did just a few sessions ago.

The economic development bill, which needs a recorded vote to pass, has important policy components, such as keeping high school seniors out of adult prisons and strengthening our public health infrastructure, and we shouldn’t have to wait until next year to start all over again.

Given Republican opposition, passing climate legislation will also require legislators to come back. Mother Nature doesn’t wait, and neither should the Legislature. Every month and every year, we break new heat records, and it is irresponsible for the Legislature to go a full session without passing meaningful climate legislation. We need a clear plan for transitioning away from fossil fuels and putting gas in the past, and we need a just transition that centers environmental justice and ensures that the communities who have borne the brunt of fossil fuel pollution don’t continue to suffer from pollution and lack of opportunity. Massachusetts has impressive climate goals, but goals won’t mean much if we don’t pass legislation to help us meet them.

Another important bill is the prison building moratorium which passed the House and Senate with wide support, but was vetoed by our previous Governor, a Republican. That roadblock no longer exists, and given the broad support, it should be easy to bring forward.

The formal legislative session ended at the end of July, and the Legislature will not be back in session until next January. We deserve more of a time commitment from our elected officials. Going back into session will mean the Legislature will do what it is supposed to: deliberate, legislative, and vote.

Sincerely,
Charlo Maurer
Watertown Resident

Legislative inertia at the State House

Published in The Dedham Times (August 15, 2024)

Author: John Kyriakis, Dedham

The Massachusetts Legislature ended its formal session on July 31. It was a remarkably unproductive session. Since 2005, there has been a near 50% drop in the number of laws passed in the second year of each session, culminating in a dismal 253 bills enacted in this session. A substantial percentage of these (192) were home rule petitions—legislation filed by cities and towns to address local, not statewide issues (Examples include changing the name “Board of Selectmen” to “Select Board.”) Massachusetts’ Legislature is now fourth from the bottom in productivity. Coincident with this plummeting productivity, since 2005, the number of recorded votes (as opposed to voice votes) has dropped by close to 80%. Inasmuch as conference committee proceedings and votes are kept secret, the Legislature continues to be depressingly non-transparent.

It wasn’t all bad. The Legislature did pass the Parentage Act, which expands parentage statutes to be inclusive to LGBTQ+ families and families formed through assisted reproduction. A gun safety bill was also finally passed. This new law tightens red flag and ghost gun provisions along with other important safety matters. Moreover, the Fair Share Amendment (passed in 2022 by the voters) continues to deliver, providing important support for child care, early childhood education, K-12 education and community college education.

It was heartening also to see passage of the Affordable Homes Act, a critically needed housing bond bill that includes provisions permitting accessory dwelling units, eviction record sealing provisions, and foreclosure mediation. However, the legislature caved to the real estate lobby and failed to include a voluntary real estate transfer fee. This fee would help local communities fund the construction of affordable housing. The Affordable Homes Act did approve $5.1 billion in bond authorizations. However, a bond bill is analogous to a to-do list or a restaurant menu. It merely allocates a lump sum and lists possible spending ideas, or priorities. It does not mandate timely spending on those priorities. Nor does it indicate where or when the money will be spent.

Most disappointing, however, was the lack of action on a climate bill. This year was the hottest on record, and will be the coldest year of the rest of our lives. Climate change is an existential threat. The still very real possibility of a second Trump administration raises the grim specter of a renewed push to abolish national climate legislation. Even if Vice President Harris wins in November, the Supreme Court’s nullification of the Chevron doctrine threatens the ability of federal agencies to competently monitor and regulate the industries that produce greenhouse gases. Moreover, as indicated in their 2024 platform, a Republican majority in either house of the US Congress would be expected to stall both existing and future federal climate-friendly legislation. Accordingly, bold, and immediate local action on climate change is critically needed. Given that environmental justice communities bear the brunt of the adverse effects of climate change, it is particularly distressing that the suffering of the state’s poorest communities will continue to be ignored.

The lack of productivity of the Massachusetts Legislature is particularly galling insofar as the Democratic Party has a legislative trifecta—veto-proof majorities in both houses, and a Democratic governor. The Legislature’s highly centralized power structure in which leadership rewards members with higher pay and committee chairmanships in exchange for loyalty, combined with the fact that many legislators run unopposed, has created a situation in which complacency and the status quo rule the day, and the Statehouse is beholden to well-funded interests rather than to the voters.

In the end, however, the voters and local advocates have the power to shake up this sclerotic system. Perhaps we should consider making state elections into real contests by nominating multiple candidates at both the primary and general election level. A ranked choice voting system would also be a welcome addition. There’s nothing like a rival chomping at your heels to motivate real action.

Letter: Legislators Should Finish Their Work on Bills that Can’t Wait

Heather Ford, “LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Legislators Should Finish Their Work on Bills that Can’t Wait,” Westwood Minute, August 18, 2024.

To the Editor:

Massachusetts has a Democratic governing trifecta (Governor, Senate, and House) again. However, when seeing the productive legislative sessions in other new Democratic trifectas like Michigan or Minnesota, I am disappointed.

As has become the unfortunate norm on Beacon Hill, the House and Senate ran out the clock on many important priorities, adjourning on July 31st (well, the morning of August 1st) with a long list of unfinished business. We’re experiencing the hottest summer on record, and they passed no climate bill. Several other bills are stuck in dead-end negotiations, and that’s not to mention all the bills that never even made it that far.

Our Legislature’s over-centralization of power, inertia, and complacency will require deep cultural change (or the shocks of election losses). But in the near term, the Legislature should do something simple: come back into session and finish their work. The economic development bill has important policy components, such as keeping high school seniors out of adult prisons and strengthening our public health infrastructure (both in the Senate bill), and we shouldn’t have to wait until next year to start all over again. The same for climate legislation: Mother Nature doesn’t wait, and neither should the Legislature. We need robust legislation that centers environmental justice and includes a clear plan to transition away from gas.

The Legislature struggled to pass bills that had wide support in the last legislative session. The SAPHE 2.0 bill, which would strengthen our public health infrastructure, passed both chambers unanimously in 2022 before being vetoed by our former Republican governor. A moratorium on new prison and jail construction was passed with wide support before the same fate. It would only be rational to think that the Legislature would prioritize such bills and take care of them at the start of the legislative session. Instead, the prison moratorium has yet to see a vote, and the SAPHE 2.0 bill is stuck in the conference committee for the economic development bill (with clear support only from the Senate).

Going back into session will mean the Legislature will do what it is supposed to: deliberate, legislative, and vote.

Sincerely,

Heather T. Ford

Westwood, MA

Letter: Beacon Hill’s legislative process is broken

Al Blake, “Letter: Beacon Hill’s Legislative Process Is Broken,” Berkshire Eagle, August 6, 2014.

To the editor: Thank you for your Aug. 3 editorial “This is (still) no way to legislate.”

This session was a missed opportunity to make the commonwealth a climate leader. The Legislature’s inaction is a grave disappointment to anyone who cares about saving our planet.

This session was a chance to make serious progress slowing the expansion of our dirty and expensive methane gas system, but instead legislative leadership got tied up in political spats and chose not to extend the session and finish the job.

This comes after a year and a half of advocacy that included hundreds of meetings and thousands of calls and signatures to legislators. Many of the most popular policy proposals received vast majorities of legislative co-sponsors, yet House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka did not allow them to come for a vote.

Many policies “died in committee,” where politicians take secret votes that their constituents are not able to see. Many more died in the backroom process where amendments to bills were withdrawn before they had a chance to receive a vote.

The legislative process is broken, and undue influence from corporations routinely blocks popular and effective legislation in favor of utility and developer profits.

We can do better, and we must.

Al Blake, Becket

Letter: “Beacon Hill’s two-bosses problem”

Jonathan Cohn, “Beacon Hill’s two-bosses problem (Letter),” Boston Globe, August 10, 2024.

When talking about the dysfunction and over-centralization of the Massachusetts State House, I often describe the building as having a “two-bosses problem.” In most jobs, the person who decides whether to hire and fire you and the person who controls your pay are the same person: what we call a boss. However, in the Legislature, there’s a split: The people who hire and fire you are your constituents, who can exert that power every election, and the people who decide your pay are the legislative leadership, who can dole out the perks with chairs, vice chairs, and other positions (something that’s been sharply detailed in Globe reporting).

Massachusetts is notorious for having among the least competitive elections in the country (in recent years, we’ve ranked dead last), and most legislators will skate by uncontested year after year, never having to meaningfully defend a record to their constituents. Next month’s primary is but the latest example. Whether through more competitive elections or more vocal advocacy, the collective boss of “we the people” needs to do more to remind legislators whom they ultimately serve.

Jonathan Cohn

Policy director

Progressive Mass

Boston

Letter: “The ‘benefit,’ Mr. Speaker, is more affordable housing, including in wealthier areas”

Jan Soma, “The ‘benefit,’ Mr. Speaker, is more affordable housing, including in wealthier areas” (Letter), Boston Globe, May 22, 2024.

Matt Stout’s March 16 article describes House Speaker Ron Mariano’s reticence to embrace the real estate transfer fee portion of Governor Maura Healey’s housing bond bill. Mariano is quoted as saying that relatively wealthy communities would disproportionally benefit from a local real estate transfer fee. Let’s consider the benefits: As clearly stated in the governor’s proposal, transfer fee proceeds would be deposited in affordable housing trusts that use the funds solely for low- to moderate-income housing. The benefit is more housing opportunities in communities that all but the very wealthy can afford as well as in other communities.

We need affordable housing across the state, not just in enclaves that segregate residents by income. I applaud communities that want to be part of the housing shortage solution. I am proud to live in one. Housing funds from the Commonwealth are generally more available to communities that are struggling economically. If wealthier towns are willing to help share the financial burden through a transfer fee, doesn’t everyone win?

Jan Soma

Needham

The writer is on the steering committee of the Needham Housing Coalition.

Letter: Mass. Can Do More to Lower Housing Costs”

Green affordable housing

Marianne Rutter, “Letter: Mass. Can Do More to Lower Housing Costs,” Newburyport Daily News, April 12, 2024.

To the Editor:

It should come as no surprise to my fellow readers that Massachusetts has a housing crisis. To rent the average 2-bedroom apartment in Massachusetts requires an income equal to $41.64 per hour, more than twice the minimum wage.  Do the math yourself:  Coming up with monthly rent is a near impossibility in a two-earner household working $15/hour minimum-wage jobs, even if both wage-earners are holding down two jobs.

Home ownership has become increasingly out of reach, as the state’s median home price has passed $600,000.   In parts of our northeastern corner of the Commonwealth, the average home price today is 25% higher than that.

The Legislature needs to take action before the crisis gets worse. 

Governor Healey (who, let’s remember, hails from our part of the state), has shown leadership in responding to this crisis by introducing the Affordable Homes Act, which combines funding authorizations for various housing programs with important new policy measures for affordable housing.  One of the most exciting proposals is the real estate transfer fee local option. 

This would enable cities and towns to levy a small fee on large real estate transactions in order to create a dedicated revenue stream for affordable housing production and preservation. Cities and towns across the state have already expressed a desire to do so, and the state should let them and ensure that the local option is flexible enough for cities and towns across the state to benefit.

I am grateful that the housing crisis will be at the center of the Legislature’s attention this year.  I’m urging Senator Barry Finegold and Representatives Dawne Shand, Adrianne Ramos and Kristin Kassner to advocate actively for the strongest legislation possible. Massachusetts must be a place where people can afford to live at any stage of life, and the only way to make or keep that a reality is through good policy.

Marianne Rutter

Amesbury

Letter: Transfer fee could boost affordable housing

Green affordable housing

Rachel Roth, “Letter: Transfer fee could boost affordable housing,” Your Arlington, April 4, 2024.

I am stunned by how much the cost of housing in Arlington has increased since my family moved here about 20 years ago. Renovated upstairs units in two-family condos routinely list for $1 million, and to rent the average two-bedroom apartment, someone must earn $41.64 per hour, more than twice the minimum wage – and that’s for the entire state, not just high-cost areas like greater Boston.1

We are fortunate to have Reps. Dave Rogers and Michael Day fighting for housing security, such as the right to have an attorney when facing eviction, yet there is so much more to do, including in the governor’s housing bill, unveiled last October.

The bill would be improved by adding options for cities and towns to raise money with local real estate transfer fees or implement rent control. According to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, with a robust real estate transfer fee, Arlington could raise almost $8 million each year for affordable housing, and Winchester could raise over $9 million.2

I ask our reps to keep pushing for strong housing laws with both statewide commitments to adequate and affordable housing production and allowances for some locally tailored options as well.

Letter: More Housing Helps Older Residents to Downsize

Jason Brown, “Letter: More Housing Helps Older Residents to Downsize,” West Roxbury / Roslindale Bulletin, April 4, 2024.

My older family members have lived here in Boston for a majority of their lives. As they grow older, their options to age-in-place or downsize are quite small: either stay in a too-big house (with too many stairs), or face a limited and expensive housing supply in Boston and across the Commonwealth.

Massachusetts faces an affordable housing crisis, and I’m hopeful of the proposals in Governor Healey’s Affordable Homes Act, which combines funding authorizations for various housing programs with important new policy measures for affordable housing.

For example, the Bill would permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) of <900 SF to be built by-right in single-family zoning districts in all communities and prohibit the parking mandates and owner-occupancy requirements used to make ADUs harder to build. This kind of thinking could open up new space for older residents to downsize without leaving the area.

In addition, communities across Massachusetts have shown interest in passing real estate transfer fees to raise much-needed additional funding for affordable housing, and the state should let them take action.

I am grateful that housing will be at the center of the Legislature’s attention this year, and I hope that our West Roxbury elected representatives will advocate for the strongest legislation possible. Massachusetts must be a place where people can afford to live at any stage of life, and the only way to make that a reality is through good policy.

More Letters to the Editor on the Affordable Homes Act

Nancy Phillips, “State delegation needs to support rent control along with governor’s Affordable Homes Act,” Cambridge Day, March 26, 2024.

Massachusetts is in the throes of a terrible housing crisis. A family trying to rent an available two-bedroom apartment in our expensive state (costing, as of February, $2,949 a month on average, according to Apartment Advisor) needs an annual income of at least $117,960. At $56.71 per hour, this is almost four times the state’s $15 minimum wage. (Here in Cambridge, which boasts some of the highest rents in Massachusetts, the average available two-bedroom unit rents for a staggering $3,592 a month, which requires an annual household income of $143,680.)

Meanwhile, waiting lists for rent-subsidized, affordable apartments are vastly oversubscribed, with applicants forced to wait at least three years – and in many towns as long as 10 years.

In response to this crisis, Gov. Maura Healey has introduced the Affordable Homes Act, which addresses the housing crisis in several useful ways, among them:

  • Making it easier to use public land for housing development;
  • Enabling cities and towns to establish real estate transfer fees as a means of raising funds for affordable housing development;
  • Enabling cities and towns to pass inclusionary zoning ordinances by simple majority rather than the currently mandated two-thirds vote. (Inclusionary zoning bylaws are those that require developers of new housing to include a certain percentage of affordable units.)

One critically important issue the bill doesn’t deal with, though, is repealing the 30-year-old statewide ban on rent control so those decisions can be made locally. Surely cities and towns can be trusted, and should be permitted, to make their own decisions on this as they do on other local matters.

I’m sure Cambridge’s state House members and senators will support the Affordable Homes Act. Equally if not more important, I hope they’ll make a strong effort to get the ban on rent control repealed. We in Massachusetts need to be able to do everything possible to provide affordable housing and keep people from being displaced.

Steven Leibowitz, “Healey’s Affordable Home Act gives local governments flexibility to increase housing,” Cape Cod Times, March 24, 2024.

We have talked about the issue of affordable housing on Cape Cod for decades. Our communities are working hard but struggling to find answers. We have the enormous challenge of second home ownership, environmental challenges and preserving open space, and the ever-present argument of the “character” of Cape Cod — something I’ve yet to see defined, especially in a way that overshadows the needs of residents. The people make the character.

Gov. Healey has filed the Affordable Homes Act, legislation that will create a new toolbox of opportunities for cities and towns to creatively address our housing crisis. This is an opportunity for the state to step up as a partner, unlocking options specific to one’s own community. It provides for a town such as Barnstable to have a local transfer fee on expensive real estate that could generate millions for affordable housing. This bill is the first serious effort in decades to provide money and strategies to create affordable, needed, workforce housing.

Please urge your state reps and senators to support this effort and amendments to strengthen the bill further, such as a flexible local transfer fee. The way to preserve Cape Cod is to keep people invested in and able to stay here.