Testimony on the Affordable Homes Act

Green affordable housing

Thursday, January 18, 2024

Chair Edwards, Chair Arciero, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

Massachusetts faces a growing affordable housing crisis. To rent the average 2-bedroom apartment in Massachusetts requires an income equal to $37.97 per hour, more than twice the minimum wage. Home ownership has become increasingly out of reach, as the state’s median home price has passed $600,000. The high cost of housing has led to displacement, and in a growing number of municipalities, the local workforce can no longer afford to live there.

We are glad to see that Governor Healey recognizes the need to use a variety of tools to address our housing crisis and strongly support the comprehensive approach in the Affordable Homes Act, H.4138.

We were delighted to see the inclusion of key provisions like the following:

  • Creating a five-year housing plan (which should focus not only on supply but also on affordability to different income levels)
  • Enabling cities and towns to pass inclusionary zoning ordinances by simple majority—a vital tool for increasing affordable housing supply and diversifying communities
  • Making it easier to use public land for housing development
  • Establishing an Office of Fair Housing
  • Launching a Social Housing pilot program
  • Authorizing $150M for public housing decarbonization and $115 million for sustainable and climate-resilient affordable housing
  • Permitting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) of <900 SF to be built by-right in single-family zoning districts in all communities and prohibiting the parking mandates and owner-occupancy requirements many municipalities use to make ADUs harder to build
  • Enabling cities and towns to pass real estate transfer fees as a tool to raise money for affordable housing production and preservation
  • Creating a process to enable individuals to seal eviction records

All of these are essential to a three-pronged approach to the housing crisis: protecting tenants, increasing housing production, and investing more in affordable housing. We can do all three, and this bill does.

However, we would like to outline how to make some of these provisions more accessible and effective as well as some additional measures to consider including.

Real Estate Transfer Fee Local Option

Cities and towns across Massachusetts want to take action to address the housing crisis, but they are often unable to do so without state approval. Seventeen communities have now requested the ability to use this tool, beginning with Provincetown in 2010. In the years since this initial request, circumstances have only become more dire, and more cities and towns have passed such home rule petitions or are actively considering doing so.

Our housing crisis is simply too great to leave funding and financing tools on the table. All communities must be able to use this tool that will allow us to generate additional resources for desperately needed local affordable housing.

To ensure that the transfer fee language in the bill can best meet the needs of diverse cities and towns, we urge the following:

  • Setting the Right Threshold: Home sale prices vary greatly across Massachusetts, with rural communities and Gateway cities often having property values well below $1 million. They should still be able to benefit from this tool. Similarly, communities should be able to set higher thresholds if that is best for local needs and market conditions.
  • Maintaining Flexibility: Communities should be able to determine whether buyers or sellers of a property bear fees and should be able to create local exemptions that best apply to their community.
  • Applying Fees to the Full Transaction: Allowing municipalities to apply fees to the full amount of transactions, rather than only the amount in excess of a threshold, will allow communities with higher needs and sales prices to generate more desperately needed revenue.

Sealing Eviction Records

Having an eviction record is creating a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing. Records are created as soon as a case is filed and are publicly available forever–– regardless of the outcome. These records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many and disproportionately impacting women and people of color.

Regardless of whether one does anything wrong or is actually evicted, being party to an eviction or housing case is being unfairly held against tenants when they try to rent a new place. Even winning in court hurts tenants.

We are delighted to see eviction sealing language in this bill, but we would recommend several steps to ensure that tenants can best be protected:

  1. Ensuring that dismissals, cases that tenants win, and no-fault evictions be automatically sealed by the court as opposed to a petition process which involves extra steps for the court and all parties.

  2. Ensuring that in non-payment cases, tenants can seal after 14 days of paying a judgment and after 4 years if they were unable to pay because of an economic hardship or other good cause reasons.
  1. Ensuring that in a fault eviction, where one must wait 7 years to seal, that an intervening eviction which prevents one from sealing can only be a fault eviction and not just any type of eviction case, such as a no-fault eviction.

  2. Clarifying that the court has the direction to consider disability and domestic violence issues in fault cases and to adjust the sealing process accordingly.

Additional Measures to Include

We join with over 240 organizations to call for the inclusion of Access to Counsel in the Affordable Homes Act. 9 out of 10 tenants are unrepresented in eviction court, leading to higher rates of displacement and community instability. Evictions negatively affect people’s physical and mental health, and result in job loss and decreased school attainment for children. Guaranteeing legal representation to all tenants facing evictions would have a major positive impact.

We also urge you to use this opportunity to repeal the ban on rent control and enable municipalities to enact local rent control ordinances to stabilize housing costs and prevent no-cause evictions. We have been seeing a growing interest in rent control across the Commonwealth, with multiple municipalities filing home rule petitions to be able to take action. Rent control is an essential tool to combat displacement, and cities and towns should be able to pass such policies as fit their local housing situation.

Cities and towns that want to take action should be able to do so, and we urge you to include a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase local option (along the lines of S.880/H.1350), which would enable cities and towns to pass laws allowing tenants to join together to match a third-party offer when their homes are being sold.

We also urge you to use this bill to establish a statewide Foreclosure Prevention Program to require servicers to participate in pre-foreclosure mediation with homeowners to explore alternatives to foreclosures, an idea put forth in S.653 and H.942.

We also urge you to take additional steps to increase our supply of affordable housing, such as by funding and writing into statute the Small Properties State Acquisition Fund, which would provide subsidies for nonprofit acquisition of homes from the market, and by including funding for the production of affordable homeownership units that can be kept affordable in perpetuity. We also urge you to add an affordability requirement to the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP) so that public subsidies to development address the need for affordable housing stock.

Lastly, A Technical Correction

We stand with the Massachusetts AFL-CIO in asking you to address a major concern about Section 35 of the bill. As written, this section would remove the application of prevailing wage laws to certain private development projects on public land. We hope that this was a drafting error and such language can be removed. The state should be using public land to both advance housing goals and create good-paying jobs, and these are not in conflict.

Thank you for all your work on this important bill and vital topic.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Book Ban Attempts Are Happening in Massachusetts Too

Chair Lewis, Chair Garlick, and Members of the Joint Committee on Education:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.2528/H.4229: An Act Regarding Free Expression, filed by Senator Julian Cyr and Representative John Moran.

Over the past few years, we have seen attacks on schools and libraries across the country aimed at removing books by and about LGBTQ people, communities of color, and other marginalized groups.

Many people would like to think that Massachusetts is different, but we are not. According to the American Library Association, in 2022 there were at least 45 attempts to restrict access to books in Massachusetts school and public libraries, with 57 titles challenged. This puts us among the top 5 states with the highest book ban attempts.

Students learn best when they see themselves and the issues that impact them reflected in their education. Education should be about opening up students to the world and to themselves, and that requires a focus on inclusivity and equity. And it means not seeking to exclude parts of history or identity.

Beyond being simply a moral issue, this is a constitutional issue. The First Amendment protects the right to share ideas, including educators’ and students’ right to receive and exchange information and knowledge. These bills would ensure that selection of age-appropriate library materials is based on the professional expertise of librarians and educators, and would establish a process and standards for handling book challenges so that books are not taken off the shelves based on political or personal views.

Thank you for all your work on the hearing, and, again, we urge you to swiftly advance these important bills.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

A Clean Slate and a Second Chance Shouldn’t Be a Bureaucratic Nightmare.

Testimony for H. 1598/ S.979. & H.1493/S.998

Right now in our state, numerous people have made mistakes in their lives, served their time, and returned to society only to find they are unable to fully reintegrate into our community because, even though they are eligible to clear their records, they have been unable to do so. We tell people they have the right to a clean record after 7 (felony) or 3 (misdemeanor) years but then we make them jump through complicated hoops in order to actually receive a clean CORI. Requiring people to go through a complicated procedure in order to clear their name is unnecessary and hurts not just them but the people of our state. It is time to implement an automatic sealing process.

When our forefathers founded the United States, they embedded the concept of due process in our Constitution which states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Due process requires that our government develops fair and just procedures. Yet in Massachusetts we seem to have forgotten this fundamental right. How can our state consider instituting a system that constantly punishes someone long after they have served their sentence (and sometimes when they have never been convicted of any crime) to be a fair and just process? Yet, we use CORIs to deprive people of being able to live their lives fully all the time. 

While this is unduly harsh to the people and families who suffer from the never ending punishment they receive long after having served time for a crime, the negative impact ripples through our entire society. By preventing someone from accessing work, housing, training and other vital services, it is not just tragic for that person and their family, but our society is deprived of their work and contribution to our community as well. And, worse, if they end up homeless and without income, the state often ends up paying for their care. The consequences of creating a class of unemployable people isn’t just unjust to them, it’s unfair to the rest of society as well. 

Our founders understood that we need to allow everyone to have access to a fair process. They also understood that once people have served their time, we need to allow them to reintegrate into society instead of creating permanent pariahs, which is what these CORIs do.  We need to return to our foundational principles – not only because it is due process for someone who has violated the law, but because it is also better for our society as a whole. Sealing these CORIs automatically will result in helping to create Justice for All.

Caroline Bays

Progressive Massachusetts

MA Needs a Strong Regulatory Framework for Facial Recognition Technology

Tuesday, November 21, 2023

Chair Eldridge, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did back in 2020 in passing police accountability legislation. But there is more work to be done, including stronger regulations around the use of facial recognition technology. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.1728 and S.927: An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology.

After passing limited regulations for facial recognition technology in 2020 (due to opposition to stronger regulations from Governor Baker), the Legislature created a special commission to study and recommend a regulatory framework. That commission, made up of diverse stakeholders, met, held hearings, and researched and discussed the issue. And that commission—including the AGO, the State Police, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CPCS (among others)—agreed on a set of recommendations, reflected in this bill.

From past debates, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety).  

The provision of this bill help to address those problems by doing the following:

  • Requiring a warrant in order for police to conduct a facial recognition search—a necessary guardrail to protect privacy rights
  • Centralizing the use of facial recognition at the State Police in order to curb the potential for misuse, abuse, and wrongful arrests
  • Ensuring due process protections around the use of facial recognition technology in court cases
  • Prohibiting mass surveillance and emotion analysis in order to forestall the dystopian futures already happening in places like Russia and China

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1728 and S.927. When the Legislature creates a commission to do the hard work of studying an issue, and that commission puts forth reasoned recommendations, it should be incumbent upon the Legislature to advance them.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Rent Control and TOPA are Vital Parts of a Housing Policy Toolkit

Green affordable housing

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Chair Edwards, Chair Arciero, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge a favorable report for S.1299 / H.2103: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants, S.872 / H.1304: An Act enabling local options for tenant protections, and S.880 / H.1350: An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal.

Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #45 in affordability. [1] A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 91 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate. [2] 

Clearly, Massachusetts has an affordable housing crisis. This is unsustainable. It has led to expanding economic inequality, increased homelessness, and damage to our economy, as talented workers often leave the state for less expensive regions.

Solving this affordable housing crisis will require us to use every tool in the toolbox. That requires zoning reform that encourages the creation of walkable, sustainable, and inclusive communities. It requires public investment. And it requires strengthening tenant protections that ensure that communities can remain affordable, inclusive, and stable.

However, municipalities across Massachusetts are blocked from taking the necessary steps to address the housing crisis. The misguided statewide ban on rent stabilization policies and a stringent home rule system that prevents municipalities from passing their own laws to govern the basic aspects of civil affairs hamstring municipalities.

By enabling our cities and towns to pass rent control ordinances tailored to their local needs, we can stem the displacement that is hitting so many communities.

We cannot build our way out of the crisis alone because the people at the highest risk for displacement will already be pushed out before they can benefit from any medium to long-term reduction in rents.

There is a lot of fear-mongering around rent control, but I want to make a simple point. If you don’t think a landlord should be able to double or triple someone’s rent in a year after doing no work on the property, you believe in rent control, and the question is just a matter of percentages and exemptions.

On too many issues, Massachusetts is haunted by the ghosts of ill-advised ballot initiatives past. It’s 2023, and we need to act like it.

Empowering cities and towns to respond to our housing crisis also requires passing the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). The TOPA bill, which is similarly an enabling bill, recognizes that we need to preserve our affordable housing stock. Too often, when large landlords sell a building, a mass eviction or rent hike follows for the tenants. TOPA shows that there is another way: as has been a proven success in DC for decades, we could enable tenants to come together to purchase the building—and be granted the right of first refusal in doing so. It’s a common-sense policy for community stability and affordable housing at no cost to the state.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts 

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability

[2] https://nlihc.org/oor/state/ma

Mass Can Lead the Way on Medicare for All

Medicare for All

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Chair Friedman, Chair Lawn, and members of the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.744/H.1239: An Act establishing Medicare for All in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts has a storied role in the history of the fight for universal health care in the US. Our former senator Ted Kennedy was a longtime champion of single payer, and our 2006 health care reform law was a model for the Affordable Care Act nationally.

Although our health care reform law, boosted by the ACA, has helped Massachusetts achieve near-full universality in health insurance coverage, we still see underinsurance, high premiums, high rates of medical debt, and significant disparities—all inevitable outcomes of a reliance on private sector provision. Universal coverage alone doesn’t guarantee affordability, quality, or equity without additional steps.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the flaws of our current system clear. As we recognize the central public health message that our health is intertwined, we must build that recognition into health care delivery and ensure everyone can access the best-quality care possible. When anyone is too afraid of medical bills or debt to seek the care they need, we are all worse off.

The US remains the only advanced industrial country that has not recognized this as a fundamental right, but Massachusetts can lead the way. A single payer system would save the Commonwealth money through increased efficiency; take the burden of rising health care costs off small businesses, municipalities, and families; eliminate medical debt and medical bankruptcy; and finally guarantee access to quality, affordable health care as a right for all residents of the Commonwealth.

We often hear rhetoric around “choice” in our health care system. And indeed, there are plenty of places where “choice” is important, where it provides a valuable outlet for self-expression. Health insurance is not that. “Choice” in health insurance only means “you get as much as you can afford, and no more.”

The way we design our health care system has a significant impact on the lives of all residents of the Commonwealth, and putting equity and justice at the center of such a design is vital to ensuring that every person is able to live up to their full potential.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

It’s Well Past Time to Retire Offensive Mascots

Chair Lewis, Chair Garlick, and members of the Joint Education Committee:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.477/S.245 (An Act Prohibiting the Use of Native American Mascots by Public Schools in the Commonwealth).

The use of such mascots has serious social and emotional consequences for Native American youth, including lower self-esteem and more hostile school climates. For non-Native people, they promote a false understanding of Native Americans and culturally insensitive behaviors and stereotypes.

Whether or not someone’s dignity and rights are respected should not be a factor of which school they attend or in which city or town they live. This is a state matter.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has been fighting to eliminate Native American mascots since the 1960s. Here in Massachusetts, the Chappaquiddick Tribe of the Wampanoag Nation, Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, and Nipmuc Nation have all called for the elimination of such mascots, and they are joined nationally by such organizations as the National Education Association, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

It’s time we listen.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

A Pro-Worker and Pro-Consumer Approach to “Gig Economy” Industries

Monday, November 6, 2023  

Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint committee on Financial Services:  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1158 and S.627: An Act establishing protections and accountability for TNC and DNC workers, consumers, and communities.

Big Tech companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and InstaCart have been flagrantly violating Massachusetts labor law by misclassifying their workers. Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”). As a reminder, those three parts are (1) that the work is done without the direction and control of the employer, (2) that the work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business, and (3) that the work is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work. None of these apply to gig economy work. For example, there would be no Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, or InstaCart without their drivers; the claim that their companies are merely an app is a clear fallacy intended to evade the law.

These bills offer a solution a solution. By writing into law that drivers are employees, they make sure that drivers have the full range of protections employees have under the law, especially relating to wages, rights, and benefits.

Big Tech companies have been seeking to narrow the scope of what counts as “work time” for their drivers. These bills mandate that drivers and delivery workers are paid at least the MA minimum wage for all working time, and by requiring companies to reimburse workers for gas mileage at the IRS standard rate and pay for accidental liability insurance, they ensure that the drivers are actually receiving these full wages.

Importantly, these bills are also good for consumers. They would require these Big Tech companies to provide itemized charges, including surge pricing and fees and require them to provide a panic button system to guarantee safety.

The bills also establish a clear and strong regulatory framework for the industry, including reports on working conditions to the Department of Public Utilities and a requirement that rate hikes be approved by the DPU.

We would also like to go on record in opposition to H.961: An Act establishing portable benefit accounts for app-based-delivery drivers, an attempt by companies like DoorDash and InstaCart to codify their own violations of the law.

To reiterate a point we have made before, the ability to define away terms like “employee” and “independent contractor” sets a dangerous precedent, enabling companies across sectors to gut labor rights. Will we see restaurants claiming that the “restaurant” is only the physical building and physical infrastructure, relegating all employees to independent contractor status? Or hospitals claiming that the “hospital” is just the brick-and-mortar building, rather than the doctors, nurses, aides, and other health care workers that make it run? The list goes on.

That is not the future we want to live in, and we hope it is not one you want to live in either. We need to be proactive to set the right protections for workers and consumers and the right regulations for industry.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Why We Need a Zero-Carbon Renovation Fund

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Chair Roy: and Members of the House Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy:  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to An Act establishing a zero carbon renovation fund (H.3232), filed by Rep. Andy Vargas.

I think it is fitting that today’s hearing is held on Halloween because the present and future of climate change contains a litany of frights. This past summer, when this hearing had been originally scheduled, provided an ongoing series of warning signs of the need to take bold and comprehensive action on climate change. We experienced several of the hottest days on record globally. We saw extreme flooding hit neighboring states, and the same for the dystopian impacts of raging wildfires in Canada.

Fortunately, we know what we need to do to mitigate climate change. According to the recent Massachusetts Clean Heat Commission Final Report, achieving our state’s climate goals will require retrofitting an additional 500,000 residential homes and roughly 300 million square feet of commercial buildings to utilize energy-efficient electric heating by 2030, with a pace of 20,000-25,000 home installations a year ahead of 2025, ramping up to 80,000 a year in the latter half of the decade, and over 100,000 residential homes per year thereafter. If we want to meet our goals, we need to start accelerating and scaling our actions.

This bill would allocate $300 million for a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund (ZCRF), administered by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, to jumpstart the market for zero carbon renovations. Such renovations would include (1) maximizing energy efficiency through building envelope upgrades, (2) electrification of building systems, (3) maximizing usage of on-site renewable energy, wherever possible, and (4) use of building retrofit materials that are low embodied carbon.

Importantly, this bill understands that our sustainability transition must be an equitable one, and that some of the oldest housing stock is that where low-income communities and communities of color live. Accordingly, the ZCRF would prioritize affordable housing, public housing, low- and moderate-income homes, schools, BIPOC- and women-owned businesses, and buildings located in Environmental Justice communities.

We’ve seen positive steps from Gov. Healey about investing in green retrofits, but we must scale up that work.

The Legislature has made an ongoing commitment to passing climate legislation. Last session, you took important steps to expand the wind energy industry and to decarbonize transportation, among other steps. Decarbonizing buildings must be at the center of new climate legislation, as buildings make up a large share of our carbon emissions.

To go back to Halloween, perhaps the only thing more frightening than the scenarios of a much warmer world is the knowledge that we have the ability to act today and might not.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Why MA Needs a Public Bank

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Financial Services:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

A Massachusetts public bank would strengthen local economies, especially those in underserved communities. It will help provide cost-effective financing for small businesses and municipalities, land trusts and cooperatives, and projects for climate change adaption and mitigation.

A public bank would put public money to work for the public. Much of our Commonwealth’s funds are deposited in the Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust, which invests nationally and internationally. With a public bank, we could be bringing some of that money back home to Massachusetts in service of a more equitable and sustainable state and local economy.

A public bank would be good for our cities and towns. Cities and towns, constrained in how they can raise money, often lack the resources for necessary long-term investments. A public bank would offer cities and towns an affordable and flexible alternative to the bond market for important local infrastructure projects.

A public bank would be good for our small businesses. Many small businesses are still struggling due to the disastrous economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A public bank would be able to extend loans to small businesses, helping them to weather such difficult time as well as to grow and expand to better serve the community. The bill would specifically target rural communities and underserved neighborhoods, where entrepreneurs often face significant obstacles to securing seed funding for new businesses, and it can help encourage the flourishing of cooperative businesses and worker-owned coops, business models that exemplify shared prosperity.

A public bank would address long-standing economic inequities. We know that women and communities of color have faced longstanding barriers in securing access to capital. A public bank can help to level the playing field.

A public bank would be good for the environment. A public bank could support initiatives to mitigate the dangers of climate change, and it could help local farms adopt and promote sustainable agricultural practices.

Importantly, the bill recognizes that while all of these are exciting possibilities unlocked by a public bank, we need the right governance in place to make them a reality. That’s why the bill ensures that the board of advisors for the bank would represent the concerns of municipalities, underserved neighborhoods, small business, community development and community development finance, community banks and credit unions, sustainable agriculture and food security, workers’ interests, climate change and green finance, and environmental justice.

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing. Again, we urge swift action to advance S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts