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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
In poll after poll in Massachusetts, the #1 issue on voters’ minds is housing. And it’s no surprise why. Escalating rents and soaring housing prices have forced people out of their communities or out of the state entirely. That’s not sustainable, and we need robust policy action to address this growing housing crisis.
Over the past few months, the MA Legislature has been working on its main piece of housing policy this session: Governor Maura Healey’s H.4138, the Affordable Homes Act (known as the “housing bond bill”), with the House expected to vote soon.
Among the key provisions of the bill are a real estate transfer fee local option, which would provide cities and towns a critical tool for addressing their local housing crises, and allowing for accessory dwelling units (ADU) as of right, a way to boost the supply of affordably priced housing.
Your legislators have been hearing from a well-funded real estate lobby trying to block the transfer fee proposal.
And your legislators have been hearing from those who want to preserve the exclusionary nature of their local zoning laws.
But the question is: have they been hearing from you?
Last year, Massachusetts passed critical legislation to guarantee free communication in prisons and jails, the most comprehensive such legislation passed in the country so far. With No Cost Calls in effect, the number of calls made from MA’s prisons rose by more than 60% in January relative to just a few months prior, and the number of electronic messages sent nearly tripled, meaning that people who are incarcerated are better able to stay connected with their loved ones back home.
But the larger work of keeping families connected is not done. We need to make sure that there is robust reporting to ensure full and effective implementation by the Department of Correction and county jails, and we need to build on the win of No Cost Calls by improving access to in-person visitation as well.
Please contact your state representative by next Tuesday (4/23) to urge them to co-sponsor the following amendments to the FY 2025 budget:
#975 and #986, amendments to No Cost Calls (These amendments make technical fixes and improvements to reporting requirements with the aim of maximizing effective implementation of free communication in prison and jail)
#1263, “Strengthening Community Connections” (This amendment mirrors legislation to improve access to in-person visits)
Other amendments worth highlighting for your state rep:
#788, “Lift Kids out of Deep Poverty” (This amendment would provide 10% grant increases for very low-income families with children, elders, and people with disabilities.)
#1479, “Access to Counsel” (This amendment would clarify that the Access to Counsel pilot would be statewide, that it would be for full legal representation, and that the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, the fiscal administrator, would in consultation with an advisory committee, determine how to implement the program)
788, “Lift Kids out of Deep Poverty” (This amendment would provide 10% grant increases for very low-income families with children, elders, and people with disabilities.)
1479, “Access to Counsel” (This amendment would clarify that the Access to Counsel pilot would be statewide, that it would be for full legal representation, and that the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation, the fiscal administrator, would in consultation with an advisory committee, determine how to implement the program)
