As I mentioned earlier, the MBTA Communities Act originated as a few short paragraphs in an omnibus bill that consisted of thousands of pages. One of those paragraphs was devoted to specifying the penalties for non-compliant municipalities, and that penalty was... disqualification from receiving four, relatively minor, explicitly named state grants. That's all.
At the time that that letter was issued, this was commonly understood to be the extent of this law. It was only under Healey that these guidelines became comply-or-be-"crushed" edicts. In a shamelessly punitive move, she added many more grants to the list of those that noncompliant towns would be disqualified from. Last I saw, that number was around 20 or so, and, I believe, included those funding things like schools and libraries. She also sicced the AG on non-compliant towns, threatening to remove local control of zoning within their borders. All this taking place in an atmosphere of increasingly threatening and authoritarian rhetoric emanating from the governor and her supporters regarding this law and its implementation.
You'll notice that the issuer of that letter, the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, no longer exists. It was replaced under the Healey administration by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, which has a different and expanded mission. Also note that the "final guidelines" mentioned in the letter have changed at least four times since that letter. Final, indeed.
My point is, Healey has transformed this law into something far larger and more impactful than it was originally intended to be under Baker, and her administration continues to shape it to best serve its agenda. When it was enacted, no one dreamed this little law would be used the way that Healey is using it today. To pretend this was the intention all along is just dishonest.
It's a little bit difficult to tell exactly what your specific objections to the requirements are Bean, but it's pretty clear that you think Healey misappropriated and vastly expanded the law. I disagree for a few reasons.
Was the law unfairly expanded? The law requires, and I'm quoting directly from the law, municipalities to adopt "a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre... and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable." The MBTA Communities regulations enforce exactly this. If the law simply said municipalities shall encourage more housing opportunities, then I would agree with you that the law was unfairly expanded and/or misappropriated. But the intent of the law is very clear.
Importantly, the law says communities SHALL do this. Shall is a very important statutory word. It means obligations are mandatory. The Legislature and Gov. Baker could have instead said communities may do this or lose certain grant funding opportunities. They did not choose to do that.
Will the requirements radically change communities? I would argue not. Let's take one example - say Andover. Andover has 32 square miles or 20,480 acres of land. The Regulations require Andover to zone an area equivalent of 0.2% of its land area, or 50 acres, where multi-family housing is a permitted use. If anything, I would argue that regulators under-estimated what a district of a reasonable size constituted.
Back in the 1980s, the New Hampshire Supreme Court required municipalities to zone for multi-family housing. "Towns may not refuse to confront the future by building a moat around themselves and pulling up the drawbridge..." Have New Hampshire towns radically changed since that decision went into effect 35 years ago?
Will the requirements make a big dent in housing supply/affordability? Unfortunately not. It's been widely reported that the fear and promise of the law in actually producing measurably new housing units is overblown. Many communities have adopted a "paper compliance" model to minimize the number of new housing units that will be built.
An MBTA Communities Reality Check:
Days after the SJC ruled on the MBTA Communities Act, proponents consider the way the housing law was pitched and debated. Greg Reibman, president of the Charles River Regional Chamber, and Luc Schuster, executive director of Boston Indicators at the Boston Foundation.
commonwealthbeacon.org
For a number of reasons, I just don't understand all the animus towards this law.
www.bostonglobe.com
www.masslive.com
