by Jordan Stocker | Jul 7, 2026 | Housing News
The House Committee on Ways and Means has released its version of the 2026 Economic Development bill (H.5562), a $425.1 million package the House plans to take up this Wednesday. This is one of the last major bills expected to pass before the legislative session ends this month and one of the best remaining opportunities to advance significant housing policy this year!
The bill already includes major housing wins:
- Allows multifamily housing as of right on land owned by religious institutions (Yes In God’s Back Yard, or YIGBY)
- Codifies and streamlines a state framework for site plan review
- Supports the conversion of commercial properties into new multifamily and mixed-use housing
- Adds $120 million in housing grants, including $50 million to help municipalities convert commercial properties into homes, $50 million to remediate former state-owned buildings for housing, and $20 million for a veterans housing initiative
CHAPA is also advocating for several additional amendments to be included in the final bill, detailed below.
Creating new homes and preserving the affordable housing opportunities we already have are both crucial to the state’s economic development. High housing costs drive talent out of Massachusetts and make it harder for employers to fill jobs and remain competitive. Spending most of a household’s income on increasing housing costs also means impossible decisions for people—often between food, medical care, other necessities, and rent—and less choice in where they want to live.
Take Action
You can reach your legislators directly through our Action Network form. Click here to contact your State Representative and ask them to: (1) co-sponsor and support CHAPA’s priority housing amendments; and (2) protect the housing reforms already in H.5562, including YIGBY and site plan review. It takes just a minute—the form fills in a message to your Representative that you can send as-is or personalize with your own story.
Protect What’s Already in the Bill: YIGBY & Site Plan Review
YIGBY (Yes In God’s Back Yard) lets faith-based organizations across Massachusetts build multifamily housing by right on land they already own—development that local zoning often blocks or delays. It cuts red tape while requiring meaningful affordability, and one analysis found that using just a quarter of faith-owned vacant land could support more than 250,000 new homes.
Site plan review varies from town to town today, making permitting slow and unpredictable. H.5562 creates one statewide framework that keeps local oversight while making reviews objective and time-limited: predictable standards, 90-day decisions for as-of-right projects, and automatic approval if a town misses the deadline. Please protect both YIGBY and site plan review as the bill moves forward.
Priority Housing Amendments
CHAPA thanks Representatives LeBoeuf, Owens, Fluker-Reid, and Madaro for filing the amendments below. Each would strengthen the bill’s housing provisions, and we’re urging legislators to adopt them in the final version.
Amendment #25: Eliminate the Notice to Quit Requirement for RAFT Eligibility (Rep. LeBoeuf)
This amendment removes the notice to quit (and a utility shutoff notice) as prerequisites for Residential Assistance for Families in Transition (RAFT) eligibility, and directs the Executive Office to establish criteria for demonstrating that a household is experiencing or at risk of homelessness. This lets families access emergency rental assistance earlier and prevent evictions before they start.
Amendment #135: Special Commission on Affordable Housing Insurance (Rep. Owens)
This amendment establishes a special commission to develop a statutory and regulatory framework addressing the rates insurers set for properties with affordability restrictions and properties where tenants use vouchers, with a report due by December 31, 2026.
Amendment #195: Promoting Economic Mobility Through Matched Savings (Rep. Fluker-Reid)
This amendment creates a matched-savings program—up to $4 in matching funds for every $1 saved—for households at or below 80% of area median income. Savings could be used toward goals such as buying or renting a home, education or job training, home repairs, starting a small business, or building credit, supported by a new Matched Savings Trust Fund.
Amendment #544: Ending Housing Discrimination (Rep. Madaro)
This amendment strengthens fair housing enforcement in real estate. It requires the licensing board to suspend brokers or salespersons found to have violated fair housing law (60 days for a first violation, 180 days for a repeat), makes those referrals mandatory, adds fair housing and diversity training to licensing and continuing-education requirements, and requires annual public reporting of complaints and disciplinary actions.
by Jacob Love | Jul 6, 2026 | Featured News, Housing News
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people across the U.S. have long suffered from high rates of housing discrimination and homelessness. Recognizing these issues, the federal agency in charge of national housing law—the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)—has adopted protections for LGBT people to ensure they have equal access to HUD programs and HUD-funded housing. These protections, collectively known as the Equal Access Rule (“EAR”), have been in place for over a decade.
Recently, however, HUD issued a proposal that would eliminate the EAR. The proposal is not yet finalized because, under federal law, HUD is required to solicit and review public feedback before implementing changes. With that in mind, CHAPA has spent months advocating for Massachusetts organizations to oppose HUD’s proposal, and it has also submitted its own comment letter urging HUD to reverse course.
HUD’s deadline for the submission of public comments has now passed. Over the coming weeks, as HUD reviews public feedback and works toward finalizing the proposal, it is critical to spread the word about how harmful the proposal would be for the LGBT community. CHAPA will continue doing so alongside its partners and, as part of those efforts, is now publishing the full text of its comment letter.
A PDF of the letter, including footnotes, is available here. You can also read the text of the letter below:
I. Interests of CHAPA
CHAPA is a Massachusetts non-profit advocacy organization with over 1,200 members. Our mission is to encourage the production and preservation of housing that is affordable to low and moderate-income households and foster diverse and sustainable communities through planning and community development. CHAPA’s membership is comprised of people and entities from across Massachusetts housing community, including developers and owners, community development corporations, tenants, tenant organizations, civil rights groups, lenders, investors, and community finance institutions
II. Introduction
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people in America experience disproportionately high rates of homelessness and widespread discrimination that limits their access to housing. These issues are acute in the trans community, which also faces heightened barriers to shelter access. Historically, many single sex shelters have excluded trans people; and, due to risk of mistreatment, trans people often avoid shelters designated for their sex assigned at birth.
HUD’s Equal Access Rule (“EAR”) is tailored to address these well-documented issues. To ensure the vulnerable LGBT population has equal opportunity to benefit from HUD resources, the EAR requires that: (1) HUD-assisted housing be available “without regard” to “sexual orientation” or “gender identity”; and (2) facilities funded by the Office of Community Planning and Development (“CPD”) provide “access … benefits, services, and accommodations … in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.” In short, these provisions prohibit gender- and sexuality-based discrimination in HUD-funded housing and require CPD supported shelters to place and serve people based on their gender identity.
However, the Proposed Rule operates to eliminate these LGBT protections. It does so by removing all references to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in the relevant provisions and replacing them with the word “sex,” defined as “an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female.” Thus, if finalized, the Proposed Rule would transform the EAR into a fundamentally different policy—one that is silent on LGBT discrimination and access.
In attempting to rationalize this change, HUD neither disputes the existence of the LGBT housing challenges underlying the EAR, nor claims the EAR is ineffective in addressing those challenges. Instead, HUD asserts the Proposed Rule is necessary to address three primary problems with the EAR, namely that it: (1) compromises privacy and safety for cisgender women; (2) imposes an “unacceptable burden” on the religious exercise of “many” faith-based shelters; and (3) conflicts with the policy and directive of Executive Order 14158.
This explanation is woefully insufficient to justify HUD’s wholesale abandonment of the EAR’s LGBT protections. Those safeguards have formed a longstanding bulwark against LGBT housing discrimination and are necessary to facilitate meaningful shelter access for the trans community. Any decision to rescind them will not only create an enforcement vacuum that facilitates unfair treatment against the LGBT population, but also—especially for trans people—exacerbate homelessness levels that have already reached a crisis point.
As discussed in more detail below, the Proposed Rule: lacks support in its threadbare record for key factual assumptions; ignores a mountain of publicly available evidence undermining its claims; and fails to show how its sweeping policy reversal is a remotely rational response to existing circumstances.
III. The EAR is a Targeted Solution to Two Real Problems: LGBT Homelessness and Anti-LGBT Discrimination
A. LGBT Homelessness
Research across the country has repeatedly found that LGBT people suffer from elevated rates of homelessness compared to cisgender straight people. For example, one study of adults by UCLA’s Williams Institute found higher rates of recent homelessness—i.e., homelessness in the past year—for both trans people (8%) and non-trans sexual minorities (3%) relative to cisgender straight people (1%).1 It also examined the proportion of non-trans sexual minorities who have been homeless at any time in their life (“lifetime homelessness”), finding that 17% had homelessness experience vs. only 6% of the general population.
While this research lacked data on the prevalence of lifetime homelessness among transgender people, other studies support that it’s very high. One point of reference is the 2015 National Transgender Survey. In that survey’s sample, which included over 27,000 transgender people from all 50 states, 30% of respondents reported having been homeless at least once.
LGBT people also make up an outsized share of homeless youth. In 2022, the Trevor Project cited considerable data showing that “LGBTQ youth are overrepresented among young people experiencing homelessness.” This builds on reports from many other organizations, like the Center for American Progress (“CAP”), which have outlined support for this point.5 According to a 2013 CAP report, LGBT people make up only 5-7% of all American youth, but estimates suggest that they represent 9-45% of homeless youth.
B. Anti-LGBT Discrimination and Mistreatment
The LGBT population is also subject to pervasive housing discrimination and mistreatment in the United States. HUD itself has generated strong empirical evidence, through large-scale paired testing, that same-sex couples experience less favorable treatment than heterosexual couples in the private rental market.7 Moreover, as part of the EAR rulemaking process, HUD cited a similar testing study conducted by Michigan fair housing centers. That study uncovered disparate treatment of gay and lesbian home seekers on a variety of issues.
Trans people encounter similar prejudice when they pursue rental housing. For example, a matched pair testing study of the Boston, Massachusetts rental market found that transgender and gender non-conforming people received “discriminatory differential mistreatment 61% of the time.”
The trans community also faces a unique set of barriers to shelter access. Trans individuals, by their nature, have an internal gender identity that differs from their sex assigned at birth. Many trans people choose to live in accordance with that identity, including by changing their pronouns and aligning their external appearance to match how they feel. This sense of self is deeply held. Thus, when trans people are misgendered—that is, have their identity invalidated, often through words or actions—many feel stigma and psychological stress.
Prior to the current version of the EAR, this kind of misgendering, and other forms of mistreatment based on gender identity, were common for trans shelter seekers. According to the 2015 US Transgender Survey, of the respondents who experienced homelessness and sought shelter: “almost 30% reported being denied shelter due to being transgender or due to their gender expression,” and 44% experienced some form of mistreatment at a shelter, including harassment, assault, or requirements to dress or present as the wrong gender.”
C. The EAR is Narrowly Tailored to Address Those Problems
The current version of the EAR, amended in 2016 to require that CPD-funded shelters place, serve and accommodate transgender people based on their gender identity, is finely tuned to address the housing challenges faced by the LGBT community. In particular, through the rule’s current structure, HUD is proactively seeking to address the discrimination, mistreatment, and unequal housing access that have long plagued LGBT people in the United States.
Notably, the final rule is clear that, to the extent anyone in shelter needs an accommodation based on privacy concerns, such accommodations should be made available to the extent they are not discriminatory.
IV. HUD Has Failed to Justify Its Sweeping Policy Reversal
A. Privacy and Safety Rationale
HUD initially attempts to justify the Proposed Rule as somehow necessary to protect the safety and privacy of cisgender women. Regarding safety, the Proposed Rule notes that “Homeless women are at increased risk of sexual assault by biological males” and that requiring admission of trans women into “shared sleeping, bathroom, and other intimate settings continues to place [cisgender homeless] women at risk of sexual harassment and assault.”
But neither of these claims are borne out by the facts. The reality is that, in jurisdictions that permit trans people to access sex segregated spaces, crime rates do not increase. One empirical analysis of Massachusetts municipalities provides compelling evidence. Specifically, the study compared crime data between jurisdictions with and without gender identity inclusive public accommodations laws, finding that “the passage of such laws is not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces.”
The Proposed Rule also contends that allowing trans women, who it refers to as “biological men,” into women’s only shelters will expose cisgender women to “trauma” and fear. This is pure speculation. And even if it wasn’t, HUD’s proposed solution to this problem is paradoxical. If its Proposed Rule goes into effect, it will mandate that transgender men—including those that have undergone hormone therapy, gender conforming surgery, grown beards, etc.—can only stay in single sex shelters designated for women. This would mean that cisgender women would continue to be exposed to people who look like men.
Ultimately, if this kind of fear was even a problem, HUD does not explain why the current rule’s allowance for privacy accommodations would not solve it in individual cases raised by shelter residents.
B. HUD’s Other Assertions
None of HUD’s other assertions justify abandoning its longstanding EAR. Not only does the LGBT community rely on it, but so do the many shelter providers whose policies reflect the longstanding rules. Additionally, HUD only cites to one shelter in Alaska that raises religious objections. One shelter provider’s objections cannot justify the recission of an entire policy, especially when there are narrower alternatives available within the ambit of the current rule.
V. Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Again, we oppose implementation of the Proposed Rule and urge HUD to rescind it immediately.
by Jordan Stocker | Jul 1, 2026 | Housing News
The State House and Senate Conference Committee released its FY2027 budget, H.5555, this week, with a total appropriation of approximately $63.4 billion. Below is a summary of where the final conference budget lands on CHAPA’s priority housing items, compared to the FY2026 final budget.
Thank you to everyone who reached out to their legislators and engaged in advocacy throughout the budget process.
A full side-by-side of funding figures is available in CHAPA’s updated FY2027 Budget Tracker.
What’s Next
With the conference committee’s budget released, the House and Senate take final votes on the conference report, after which it moves to the Governor. The Governor then has 10 days to act on it, and may sign the budget, veto or reduce individual line items, veto outside sections, or return items with recommended amendments. The Legislature may then vote to override any vetoes.
CHAPA respectfully urges the Governor to approve the budget as passed, preserving the key housing priorities it contains.
Rental Assistance
MRVP (7004-9024)
- FY2027 Conference: $278,341,728 | FY2026: $253,311,840
- The conference budget funds MRVP approximately $25 million above FY26. Provides funding for current mobile vouchers and approximately 350 project-based vouchers in the development pipeline.
AHVP (7004-9030)
- FY2027 Conference: $19,263,183 | FY2026: $19,461,214
- Approximately $198,000 below FY26; this funding supports the vouchers already in use.
Housing Assistance for Re-Entry Transition (7004-9034)
- FY2027 Conference: $3,320,000 | FY2026: $3,120,000
- Approximately $200,000 above FY26.
DMH Rental Subsidy (7004-9033)
- FY2027 Conference: $17,548,125 | FY2026: $16,548,125
- Approximately $1 million above FY26.
Homelessness and Supportive Housing
HomeBASE (7004-0108)
- FY2027 Conference: $82,322,001 | FY2026: $57,322,001
- Approximately $25 million above FY26. HomeBASE’s quarterly reports must also cover EOHLC’s efforts to work with the Office for Refugees and Immigrants and resettlement agencies.
Home & Healthy for Good (7004-0104)
- FY2027 Conference: $8,890,000 | FY2026: $8,890,000
- Level-funded with FY26.
Unaccompanied Homeless Youth (4000-0007)
- FY2027 Conference: $10,539,590 | FY2026: $10,645,850
- Approximately $106,000 below FY26.
Sponsor-Based Permanent Supportive Housing (7004-0105)
- FY2027 Conference: $10,572,875 | FY2026: $10,072,875
- Approximately $500,000 above FY26. Allows at least $2.1 million to be spent to keep running the low-barrier “sponsor-based” leasing model, where a nonprofit holds the lease and rents to tenants, that was previously funded through the pay-for-success projects.
New Lease for Homeless Families (7004-0106)
- FY2027 Conference: $250,000 | FY2026: $250,000
- Level-funded with FY26.
Public Housing
Public Housing Operating (7004-9005)
- FY2027 Conference: $117,840,000 | FY2026: $115,600,000
- Approximately $2.2 million above FY26.
Public Housing Reform (7004-9007)
- FY2027 Conference: $1,243,831 | FY2026: $1,250,000
- Approximately $6,000 below FY26.
Housing Stability and Homeownership
RAFT (7004-9316)
- FY2027 Conference: $209,000,000 | FY2026: $207,477,715
- Approximately $1.5 million above FY26.
Housing Consumer Education Centers (7004-3036)
- FY2027 Conference: $5,700,000 | FY2026: $5,850,000
- Approximately $150,000 below FY26.
First-Time Homebuyer and Foreclosure Counseling (7006-0011)
- FY2027 Conference: $1,500,000 | FY2026: $1,500,000
- Level-funded with FY26.
MassAccess Registry (4120-4001)
- FY2027 Conference: $150,000 | FY2026: $150,000
- Level-funded with FY26.
STASH (7004-0107)
- FY2027 Conference: $500,000 | FY2026: $500,000
- Level-funded with FY26.
Access to Counsel (0321-1800)
- FY2027 Conference: $3,000,000 | FY2026: $2,500,000
- Approximately $500,000 above FY26. The program provides free legal representation to low-income tenants and owner-occupants facing eviction.
Administrative Capacity
EOHLC Administration (7004-0099)
- FY2027 Conference: $22,400,301 | FY2026: $16,017,804
- Approximately $6.4 million above FY26. Includes $175,000 to help towns carry out the new “seasonal community” designation.
Housing Production and Zoning (Outside Sections)
The conference budget includes a set of zoning changes, outside sections that started in the Senate, meant to make it easier to build housing. They amend Chapter 40A, the state zoning law:
- Electronic notice (Sections 40, 41, 48, and 49): lets cities and towns send notices of zoning hearings by email, not only by mail.
- Earlier protection for projects (Section 42): locks in the zoning rules that apply to a project when the developer applies for a permit, rather than when the permit is issued, so a project is not derailed by rule changes during the wait.
- Improvements on nonconforming lots (Section 43): lets owners of lots that do not meet current size, shape, frontage, lot-coverage, or floor-area-ratio rules extend or alter their buildings as of right, without needing a finding from the special permit granting authority, as long as the work meets today’s height, story, and setback rules.
- Protection for nonconforming structures (Section 44): extends existing protections for nonconforming uses so they also cover nonconforming structures.
- More time to build (Section 45): protects a project from later zoning changes if construction starts within 24 months of getting its permit (up from 12 months), and pauses that clock while the developer is still obtaining other required permits.
- Broader residential exemption (Section 46): widens an existing exemption so it applies to more kinds of residential use, not just single- and two-family homes.
- Easier variances (Section 47): replaces the hard-to-meet “substantial hardship” standard for a variance with a “practical difficulty” test that weighs the public interest in producing housing, and gives an approved variance two years (up from one) before it expires.
Streamlined Disposition of Public Housing (Outside Section 75)
Section 75 amends Chapter 121B to remove the rule that public housing property must sit unused for at least two years before a housing authority may dispose of or redevelop it, allowing vacant public-housing sites to be put back into use more quickly.
Tenant Protections (Outside Sections 84 and 85)
Two laws enacted in 2025 pause certain evictions and foreclosures during a federal government shutdown for tenants and homeowners who are “impacted federal workers,” meaning Massachusetts residents furloughed or required to work without pay because of the shutdown, including members of the military and National Guard. One is the summary-process (eviction) law, Chapter 239, Section 17; the other is the foreclosure law, Chapter 244, Section 42. Each defines a “federal government shutdown” as a period in which non-essential federal functions cease. Sections 84 and 85 change that definition from “all” non-essential functions ceasing to “any,” so the protections apply during a partial shutdown, not only a complete one.
by Matt Noyes | Jun 29, 2026 | Housing News
This Thursday, July 2, the Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures, and State Assets will hold a hearing on H.5527, the 2026 Economic Development Bill, also known as “Mass Wins.” This legislation is likely one of the last major bills that will be considered before the end of formal sessions at the end of July, and perhaps the best opportunity to pass significant housing policy.
In addition to its impact on people’s lives, health outcomes, and more, housing is a major economic driver for Massachusetts. High housing costs contribute to an outmigration of talent and an inability of employers to find workers to fill open jobs. It is vitally important that we address housing to ensure that the Commonwealth will thrive.
CHAPA calls on the Legislature to include three specific housing policies in Mass Wins that will help the state build the homes we need:
- Codify Site Plan Review
- Make it easier to build multi-family housing on land owned by religious institutions (Yes In God’s Back Yard – YIGBY)
- Reform municipal parking requirements
Information about how to submit written or verbal comments to the Bonding Committee is available on the Legislature’s website.
by Matt Noyes | Jun 24, 2026 | Housing News
In a major legislative victory for housing affordability this week, Congress passed the 21st Century Road to Housing Act. The bill, which enjoyed strong bipartisan support, was a result of legislation crafted by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate over the past year. On Monday night, the Senate passed the bill with a 85-5 vote, and the House followed suit the next day with a 358-32 margin.
The final bill includes a wide range of provisions, including:
- an increase in the Public Welfare Investment cap from 15% to 20%,
- a requirement for HUD to evaluate the impact of the Build America Buy America (BABA) program on affordable housing using HOME funds,
- streamlining of environmental reviews,
- increasing the cap on RAD conversions by 100,000 units, and
- reauthorization of the CDBG-DR program for three years.
It also maintained language preventing private equity investors from purchasing for-sale homes, but eliminated earlier problematic language that would have done the same for build-to-rent housing, which could have hindered rental housing production.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren was instrumental in the passage of this legislation. As ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, she worked extensively with Committee Chair Tim Scott of South Carolina in the initial draft of what was then the ROAD to Housing Act. That bill was passed unanimously out of committee last year, a rare occurrence in recent Congressional history. Her and her staff’s critical work helped get the bill across the Congressional finish line.
On the House side, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, successfully secured the inclusion of several initiatives in the final bill, including the $200 million Innovation Fund Act, the Appraisal Modernization Act, and the Renter Resource Center Act.
At the time of this post, there is unexpected uncertainty surrounding the future of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Despite the overwhelming bipartisan support in both branches of Congress, the President announced two hours before a scheduled ceremony that he would not sign the bill until Congress passed unrelated immigration legislation, which does not appear to have sufficient support in the Senate to clear that branch.
CHAPA strongly urges the President to reverse course and sign the legislation into law.
by Jordan Stocker | May 28, 2026 | Housing News
The Senate wrapped up work on its FY2027 budget late last week, adopting $70.5 million in additional spending over three days of deliberations, including various housing amendments, bringing the total to $63.4 billion. The House passed $63.4 billion with approximately $50 million more in spending.
Thank you to everyone who reached out to their Senators and engaged in outreach throughout the week. Below is an overview of where CHAPA’s priority items stand following the Senate budget.
A full side-by-side of funding figures is available in CHAPA’s updated FY2027 Budget Tracker.
What’s Next
The focus now shifts to conference, where negotiators from the House and Senate will work to resolve differences between the two budgets. CHAPA will be advocating for the highest funding levels passed by either chamber for each priority line item.
CHAPA will share specific updates as the conference process moves forward. To stay engaged in the budget-advocacy process, please join us for the next Building Blocks Coalition meeting on June 3rd. Please register here.
NOTE: MBTA Communities Act
- The Senate defeated all three amendments that sought to weaken or delay the MBTA Communities Act (#5, #39, #191, and #298).
- These amendments would have added burdensome municipal reporting requirements, delayed compliance deadlines, or exempted municipalities based on factors outside the scope of the law.
- With 167 communities having adopted compliant zoning, the Senate vote reflects the progress the law has made and keeps it moving forward.
Amendments Adopted During Debate
Re-Entry Voucher Program (7004-9034)
- The Senate budget included $3,120,000, matching FY2026 and $80,000 below the House. CHAPA is requesting $3,620,000.
- A floor amendment raises this line to $3,620,000, matching CHAPA’s full request and $420,000 above the House.
Sponsor-Based Permanent Supportive Housing (7004-0105)
- The Senate budget included $10,072,875, matching the House and FY2026. CHAPA is requesting $12,072,875.
- A floor amendment adds $500,000, bringing the line to $10,572,875 – $500,000 above both the House and FY2026.
Housing Consumer Education Centers (7004-3036)
- The Senate budget included $5,200,000, matching the House but $650,000 below FY2026. CHAPA is requesting $8,974,000.
- A floor amendment adds $500,000, bringing the line to $5,700,000 – $500,000 above the House, though still $150,000 below FY2026.
KEY ITEMS HEADING INTO CONFERENCE
MRVP (7004-9024)
- Senate: $278,341,728 | House: $281,341,728 | FY2026: $253,311,840 | CHAPA request: $300,000,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the House amount in conference.
RAFT (7004-9316)
- Senate: $201,205,991 | House: $210,060,000 | FY2026: $207,477,715 | CHAPA request: $300,000,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the House amount in conference.
HomeBASE (7004-0108)
- Senate: $82,322,001 | House: $82,322,001 | FY2026: $57,322,001 | CHAPA request: $125,000,000
- Both chambers match on funding and both include 90-day advance-notice language requiring EOHLC to report to the Legislature before reducing benefits or eligibility. CHAPA will advocate for maintaining this funding level in conference and for adopting the Senate’s stronger policy language, which includes:
- No 12-month cap on the income-increase grace period (the House limits it to 12 months).
- $2,500,000 floor to keep available for families whose housing crisis requires more than the standard $30,000 cap (the House converted this to a cap of “not more than” $2,500,000).
- Domestic violence shelter eligibility, explicitly making families in DV shelters eligible for assistance (not in the House version).
- Note: The House includes stronger quarterly reporting requirements, with data on shelter exits, families diverted from emergency shelters, and collaboration with the Office for Refugees and Immigrants and resettlement agencies. CHAPA will advocate for retaining these reporting requirements in the final budget
DMH Rental Subsidy (7004-9033)
- Senate: $16,548,125 | House: $20,000,000 | FY2026: $16,548,125 | CHAPA request: $23,548,125
- CHAPA will advocate for the House amount in conference.
AHVP (7004-9030)
- Senate: $19,263,183 | House: $19,263,183 | FY2026: $19,461,214 | CHAPA request: $30,000,000
- Both chambers match on funding. CHAPA will advocate for maintaining this level in conference and for the Senate’s stronger policy language, which preserves EOHLC’s flexibility to implement a payment standard or utility allowance that could reduce tenant payments below the 25% floor – a notable protection for AHVP households on fixed incomes. The House makes the 25% household payment floor unconditional.
Re-Entry Voucher Program (7004-9034)
- Senate (as amended): $3,620,000 | House: $3,200,000 | FY2026: $3,120,000 | CHAPA request: $3,620,000
- A floor amendment raises this line to $3,620,000, matching CHAPA’s full request and $420,000 above the House. CHAPA will advocate for the Senate amount in conference.
Public Housing Operating (7004-9005)
- Senate: $117,810,000 | House: $117,840,000 | FY2026: $115,600,000 | CHAPA request: $132,900,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the House amount in conference.
Public Housing Reform (7004-9007)
- Senate: $1,269,215 | House: $1,243,831 | FY2026: $1,250,000 | CHAPA request: $1,600,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the Senate amount in conference.
Unaccompanied Homeless Youth (4000-0007)
- Senate: $10,439,590 | House: $10,539,590 | FY2026: $10,645,850 | CHAPA request: $15,000,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the House amount in conference.
Sponsor-Based Permanent Supportive Housing (7004-0105)
- Senate (as amended): $10,572,875 | House: $10,072,875 | FY2026: $10,072,875 | CHAPA request: $12,072,875
- CHAPA will advocate for the Senate amount in conference.
Housing Consumer Education Centers (7004-3036)
- Senate (as amended): $5,700,000 | House: $5,200,000 | FY2026: $5,850,000 | CHAPA request: $8,974,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the Senate amount in conference.
First-Time Homebuyer and Foreclosure Counseling (7006-0011)
- Senate: $1,500,000 | House: $3,000,000 | FY2026: $1,500,000 | CHAPA request: $3,050,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the House amount in conference.
Access to Counsel (0321-1800)
- Senate: unknown | House: $3,000,000 | FY2026: $2,500,000 | CHAPA request: $4,000,000
- This item does not appear in the Senate budget sections available for this analysis. CHAPA will advocate for at minimum the House amount in conference.
STASH (7004-0107)
- Senate: $2,670,000 (no directed STASH funding) | House: $1,065,000 (incl. $500,000 for STASH) | FY2026: $3,999,000 | CHAPA request: $1,000,000 for STASH
- The Senate budget did not include a dedicated earmark for STASH. CHAPA will advocate for the $500,000 STASH earmark included in the House budget in conference.
EOHLC Administration (7004-0099)
- Senate: $22,160,301 | House: $22,025,301 | FY2026: $16,017,804 | CHAPA request: $22,000,000
- CHAPA will advocate for the Senate amount in conference.
- CHAPA will advocate for the Senate amount in conference, which preserves the $200,000 earmark for the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center and the $75,000 earmark for SouthCoast Fair Housing.
HOUSING PRODUCTION, ZONING, AND PUBLIC HOUSING (OUTSIDE SECTIONS)
In addition to line-item appropriations, the Senate budget includes outside sections that would make meaningful changes to Massachusetts zoning law to support housing production. The House final budget did not include these provisions, making them a key point of negotiation in conference. CHAPA will advocate for the inclusion of the Senate language on these outside sections in the final conference budget.
- Section 28 – Vested Rights and Permit Protections: Vests zoning ordinances at the time of building permit application rather than at issuance, giving developers more certainty and reducing financial risk during administrative delay.
- Section 29 – As-of-Right Extensions for Nonconforming Lots: Allows extension or alteration of structures on lots with pre-existing nonconformities (size, shape, frontage, or coverage) as of right, so long as the work meets current dimensional regulations on height, stories, and setback.
- Section 30 – Nonconforming Structure Protections: Amends Chapter 40A to protect nonconforming structures from zoning changes.
- Section 31 – Bylaw Vesting During Construction: Vests bylaws so the rules don’t change mid-project. If construction starts within 24 months (up from 12) and finishes as quickly as reasonably possible, the project is not subject to subsequent bylaw amendments. Also extends the nonconforming-use abandonment period from 2 years to 4 years.
- Section 32 – Expanded Residential Use Exemption: Extends the existing exemption and five-year grandfather period beyond single and two-family residential uses to other kinds of residential uses.
- Section 33 – Variance Standard Reform: Replaces the current “substantial hardship” standard with a “practical difficulty” balancing test that explicitly requires boards to consider the public interest in housing production. The variance lapse period is also extended from one year to two years, excluding time spent in appeals.
- Section 55 – Public Housing Disposition: Removes the requirement that public housing property be unused for at least two years before a housing authority may dispose of or redevelop it, helping bring vacant public housing sites back into use more quickly.
CHAPA will advocate for the inclusion of the Senate language on these outside sections in the final conference budget.
