The Senate Just Voted 40 to 0 for Its Housing Bill. What’s In It — And What’s Not?

Green affordable housing

Last night, the MA Senate voted unanimously (40 to 0) for its redraft of the Affordable Homes Act.

The Senate’s bill contains a $5.4 billion bond authorization, which — as it is important to acknowledge — is more than the $2 billion that the Governor actually plans to spend over the next five years. Not all of the spending authorized will materialize: the authorizations create potential, not hard reality.

But the policy components of bond bills are different: they are laws like any other laws. Their impact is not just potential, but reality.

Like Healey’s original version of the bill, the Senate bill would establish an Office of Fair Housing and legalize accessory dwelling units in single-family zoning districts without undue restrictions.

The Senate’s bill, like Healey’s, allows cities and towns to pass inclusionary zoning ordinances (i.e., requirements that a certain percentage of new construction be affordable units) by simple majority, but only allows it for requirements up to 13 percent.

The Senate’s bill, like Healey’s, creates a process for the sealing of eviction records and, importantly, allows this for cases that are dismissed or where tenants win (omissions in Healey’s original language), although the Senate did not streamline the process to make some of the sealing automatic to remove administrative burdens on tenants.

In a further win for tenants, the Senate bill bans brokers’ fees, requiring that real estate brokers’ fees be paid solely by the party that contracted with them and not born by renters for whom such fees can come as a costly and prohibitive surprise.

That all being said, the Senate’s exclusion of a local option real estate transfer fee was shameful and indefensible, a cowardly capitulation to the real estate industry, condescending a dismissal of cities and towns that want to take action, and sign that they simply do not take the housing crisis seriously. We can’t take tools off the table.

Recorded Votes from the Senate Session

Despite being in session from 10 am to midnight to work through the bill (with frequent recesses therein), there were almost no recorded votes, and there was little debate. Indeed, the third item that the Senate did was bundle 64 amendments — 1/5 of the total filed — and reject them en bloc on a voice vote (“All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay, the nays have it, and the amendments are rejected.” It lasts as long as it took you to read that.) The amendment to restore the local option transfer fee was among them.

They then adopted 71 amendments en bloc via voice vote. Later in the day, they rejected a bundle of 14 amendments and adopted a bundle of 30.

In other words, a total of 78 amendments were rejected via a bundled voice vote, and 101 were adopted via a bundled voice vote. Our deliberative body in action.

The remaining amendments did not get meaningful back-and-forth debate and deliberation either. Only three received recorded votes, and two of those were unanimous: the creation of a Crumbling Concrete Assistance Fund and the creation of First Time Home Buyers Savings Accounts. That those two received recorded votes is just a sign that their lead sponsors wanted to issue a press release or otherwise get public credit: the votes offer nothing in the way of transparency or accountability.

The only non-unanimous vote was on an amendment from Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) to enable cities and towns to evade compliance with MBTA Communities Act zoning requirements. It failed 6 to 34, with two Democrats — Edward Kennedy of Lowell and Walter Timilty of Milton — joining Republicans.

Status of Amendments We Supported

  • #119, Air Quality for Homes: Withdrawn
  • #141, HOMES Judiciary Committee Bill: Adopted
  • #150, Establishing local-option rent stabilization: Withdrawn
  • #214, Foreclosure Prevention Program: Adopted but redrafted
  • #235, Encouraging homeownership: Withdrawn
  • #242, Local Option Transfer Fee: Rejected en bloc via voice vote

Status of Amendments We Supported

The House and Senate now have until July 31 to conference their two bills and vote upon consensus language.

Support Key Amendments to the Housing Bond Bill

On June 24, the MA Senate released its redraft of Governor Healey’s housing bond bill (S.2834). Although the bill contains important provisions like legalizing accessory dwelling units, creating a process for sealing eviction records, establishing an Office of Fair Housing, and banning broker fees, it fails to meet the urgency of the housing crisis and leaves out key policies, such as a local option real estate transfer fee.

The bill can — and must — get better, so write to your state senators in support of the following amendments:

#119, Air Quality for Homes (Jehlen), which would create a task force to address identification and remediation of indoor air pollution and indoor mold contamination.

#141, HOMES Judiciary Committee Bill (Eldridge), which would substitute the eviction sealing language in the bill with language reported out of the Judiciary Committee which would also allow tenants whose case is dismissed or who win to petition to seal their eviction case. While 11 states have successfully adopted eviction record sealing protections, there is nothing right now tenants in Massachusetts can do now to seal their eviction records. In Massachusetts, the moment an eviction case is filed, a tenant has a permanent and publicly available eviction record on the Trial Court’s website. Even if a tenant paid off the rent, won the case, or did nothing wrong, they are rejected from housing regardless of the outcome of the case.

#150, Establishing local-option rent stabilization (Jehlen), which would allow cities and towns to pass rent stabilization ordinances. Cities and towns need an array of tools to combat displacement, and rent control is a key tool.

#214, Foreclosure Prevention Program (Gomez), which would create a statewide mediation program to prevent foreclosures, which is critical for homeowners across Massachusetts and particularly low-income, working-class, and new homeowners.

#235, Encouraging homeownership (Jehlen), which would give tenants the right of first refusal to buy their building when the owner decides to sell. This is critical to address the high cost of housing, to keep tenants in their homes, and to stabilize our communities.  

#242, Local Option Transfer Fee (Comerford), which would give cities and towns the ability to put a small fee on high-end real estate transactions to raise dedicated funds for affordable housing. We have to give cities and towns in Massachusetts all the tools possible to tackle the housing crisis, and the real estate transfer fee, only for the towns that want it, will give them the much needed resources to do just that.

Sponsored by

Progressive Mass

Statement on the Senate 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 Senate Leadership would care to listen.

While we are happy to see the bill preserve vital pieces of Healey’s bill like eviction sealing and accessory dwelling units, it in no way meets the urgency of our housing crisis. 

Rather than strengthening and building on Governor Healey’s housing bond bill, Senate Leadership has decided to cave to the real estate lobby, nixing the local option real estate transfer fee and relegating it to a commission that will likely never even meet.  

Let us be clear: the public wants to see robust action on the housing crisis. MA voters support a local option real estate transfer fee by 3 to 1 and routinely show strong support for a wide range of necessary policy solutions. 

Every day, more and more people are being displaced as they can no longer afford the crushing rents and sky-high housing prices. We need every tool in the toolbox, at every level. We can only tackle the housing crisis with investments from the federal level, the state level, and municipal level. Our State Legislature needs to stop preventing cities from playing their part. 

Around the country, right-wing Republican elected officials have been trying to prevent progressive cities from passing their own laws. Massachusetts Democrats, however, beat them to that by a century and—whether out of indifference, elitism, or plain-old corruption—uphold that system today. Our Commonwealth deserves better policy making than this.

Take Action: Our State Budget Is Being Finalized Right Now.

In April and May, the MA House and Senate voted on their respective budgets for the next fiscal year. As they reconcile the differences in a Conference Committee, it’s vital that chambers put aside the inter-chamber jockeying and procrastination that so often characterizes these negotiations and instead commit to embracing the best of both budget proposals.

What would that mean? It would mean doing things like the following:

  • Early Education and Child Care: Advancing the Common Start vision of a more robust early education and child care infrastructure with greater stability for providers, better pay for educators, and more affordability for families, as reflected by various parts of both the House and Senate budget
  • Universal School Meals: Fully funding universal school meals by dedicating $190 million to School Meals For All (Line Item 1596-2422)
  • Access to Counsel: Providing $2.5 million for implementation of a statewide Access to Counsel pilot program to increase access to legal representation for low-income tenants and low-income owner occupants in eviction proceedings (item 0321-1800 in the House FY 2025 budget proposal)
  • No Cost Calls Funding: Dedicating $35M in the Communications Access Trust Fund for no–cost calls in prisons and jails (item 1595-6153 in the House FY 2025 budget proposal)
  • No Cost Calls Reporting: Making technical fixes to the No Cost Calls reporting requirements, so that policymakers have the information they need to effectively monitor free communication (Section 29 A&B of the Senate FY 2025 budget proposal)
  • Voting Access: Eliminating barriers to voting access by ending MA’s outlier status as the only state where if a voter doesn’t return the annual municipal census, they’re placed on the Inactive Voter list (an amendment included in the Senate budget that also earned the support of a majority of representatives)

Can you write to your legislators to urge them to express their support for these provisions to the budget negotiators?

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.

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.” 

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.

Take Action: Your Legislator Needs to Hear from You about the Housing Crisis

Massachusetts has a housing crisis. It’s true all across the commonwealth, and it registers as a top priority in every poll.

We know that in order to address our housing crisis, we need every tool in the toolbox. Unfortunately, because of heavy lobbying from the real estate industry, one of those vital tools is under attack: the real estate transfer fee local option.

Under Gov. Healey’s housing bill, a community could 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.

Has your state rep heard from you yet in support of this?

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 the transfer fee for housing.

House Speaker Ron Mariano recently dismissed this urgency, but what that means is that state legislators are not hearing enough from the majority of voters who want to see real action on the housing crisis.

Tell your state representative to vote “yes” on the transfer fee for real estate to give municipalities an option to fund local housing solutions. It is time to give communities a choice, and a chance to preserve their hometowns for all residents – not just the wealthy.