Massachusetts needs 222,000 new homes by 2035 and we need every tool available to reach that goal. Unfortunately, there are several proposed amendments to the FY2026 House budget that would hold us back if adopted.
Please call your state representative and urge them to oppose these amendments when they are considered by the House this week:
#311 – Eliminates State Enforcement of MBTA Communities Act by removing the authority of the Attorney General to enforce the MBTA Communities Act. This change would have profound implications not only for the future of this law, but for the Constitutional authority of the Office of the Attorney General.
#572 – Allows Towns to Claim Compliance Without Meeting Requirements and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the MBTA Communities Act. The law is not about what is on the land now – it is about what will be allowed to be built in the future. To produce homes that people, our communities, and the Commonwealth need, local zoning needs to allow for it.
#585 – Exempts Municipalities by Narrowing “MBTA Community” Definition, significantly limiting the number of new homes that could be permitted through the law and ignores the good-faith efforts made by nearly four dozen adjacent communities and small towns to comply with the MBTA Communities Act.
#606 – Limits The Use of Grant Funding to Encourage Compliance, letting communities that choose not to do their part to address the Commonwealth’s housing challenges off the hook from the consequences established by the law.
#1196 – Repeals Chapter 40B, the Commonwealth’s most effective tool to create affordable housing. Over the past 50 years, Chapter 40B has been responsible for creating nearly 70,000 homes across the Commonwealth. Losing this tool would make it exceedingly difficult to build homes that low and moderate income households can afford.
#1643 – Calls for the SJC to determine if Chapter 40B is constitutional, which ignores the history of previous rulings on the law. The SJC has heard many cases related to Chapter 40B and has consistently chosen not to determine the statute to be unconstitutional.