What’s the status of the Housing Choice Bill? It’s in limbo, having been passed by both the House (H4887) and the Senate (S2842), and now in conference committee to reconcile their differing versions of the Bill.
Limbo is an appropriate place for this Bill, a bad idea that refuses to die. It was put forth in 2016, revised in 2018, and has arisen again in 2020.
This Bill proposes to overturn decades of authority and responsibility vested in the governing bodies of local communities, by removing the 2/3 vote requirement to enact zoning bylaws and replacing it with a simple majority vote. It would open the door to by-right development of multi-unit projects and remove current requirements for public review. (By-right is defined as "without the need for a special permit, variance, zoning amendment, waiver or other discretionary zoning approval.") It would also allow projects that formerly required a special permit review to be built by-right if they are within ½ mile of commuter rail lines, and have a meagre 10% of their units designated “affordable”—at 80% of AMI. This equates to almost $80,000 per year in income per household, far above the annual incomes of most low- and middle-income people.
In other words, it gives enormous incentives to developers to build market rate projects, which have been shown to lower prices at the top only, cause a decrease in the number of affordable units, and increase the ratio of market rate to affordable housing.
 |
 |
 |
Representative Denise Provost of Somerville has offered this analysis of some of the flaws in the 2018 version, which remain today: |
As far as what we might predict about likely outcomes, Rep. Provost says this:
And as representative Mike Connolly of Cambridge has pointed out:
§ Affordability requirements are extremely limited
§ Boston is exempt
§ This is one-size fits all legislation
§ Zoning changes are one way—that is, they can be passed by a simple majority but only reversed by a 2/3 super majority.
He notes that House Speaker Robert DeLeo, after meeting with members of the MMA (Massachusetts Municipal Association), NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate Development Association, formerly the National Association for Industrial and Office Parks), builders, and other pro-development interests, said, “I've had some initial meetings with the folks at MMA, NAIOP, and some of the other building contractors, and I can tell you with NAIOP and the MMA in particular, they've made an agreement that the bill that was filed by the Governor is the bill that they are supporting, and that they will not support on either side any idea about any amendments to that legislation, so that really severely limits us in terms of those folks who want to file something further."
Connolly’s reaction?
Interestingly, Geoffrey C. Beckwith, MMA Executive Director & CEO, in reference to the 2016 version of this bill, wrote this in his open letter to our state senators on behalf of MMA:
The MMA has since become a supporter of the Bill, even though the problematic issues with it they identified have not been changed. One can only speculate as to why this change of heart.
In summary, the Housing Choice Bill allows top-down ideas about development to be applied to all communities, indiscriminately, making the gross assumption that Arlington is like Braintree is like Revere.
The bill is buried in a huge economic bill, the Partnerships for Growth Bill, which contains over 120 sections, and has now had almost 500 amendments appended to it. If the Housing Choice Bill is such a good idea, it deserves to be debated on its own merits.
Further, if it’s such a good idea, perhaps Governor Baker will allow the currently required 2/3 vote to overturn his vetoes to be replaced by a simple majority vote.
About as likely as finding a Lamborghini at Camry prices.
