The Massachusetts Senate today passed the first update to our statewide zoning law in 40 years. Because there have been statements flying in both directions on social media and in email chains, I wanted to provide a forum for discussion and some general information on the bill. In an effort to be as transparent as possible, I will provide some information from both sides of this debate.
The bill is sponsored by the Smart Growth Alliance. Here is their one page fact sheet.
Boston Globe: Make room for Granny, and other zoning fixes
The MMA Opposes the bill.
The Real Estate Coalition, a coalition of pro-development trade groups, opposes the bill as well. I will link if I can find a digital copy of their letter.
Note that the MMA and Real Estate Coalition oppose the bill for opposite reasons: MMA thinks it is too developer friendly, while the Real Estate Coalition thinks it gives municipalities too much power.
The bill now goes to the House where it faces less certain prospects.
Full disclosure: My office is working to pass this bill and in my official capacity I helped author and advocate for the Special Senate Committee on Housing’s Plan to Address the Housing Crisis.
Thanks, Bryan. This legislation is a major step forward in addressing the critical shortage of housing for low to moderate income families and individuals, as well as the middle class here in Massachusetts. Supporters have been working on this for a long time, and I am cautiously optimistic that the state may finally pass meaningful zoning reform, just as Newton embarks on its own substantive zoning reform (more on that in the weeks and months to come).
Sounds like this is “dead on arrival” in the MA House.
Philosophically, zoning laws should be local. As such, I am concerned about a locality’s ability to self-govern being usurped by the state legislature. I have not read the bill, so I will cross my fingers and hope that I am wrong.
Here is the good news. Some insiders think that this bill will not pass unless it is packaged with a deal that eliminates 40B. Since 40B is one of the two or three worst laws ever, the net effect might be an improvement.
While, ideally, most decisions concerning zoning and land use ought to be local, state and federal limits on self-governance are sometimes necessary to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The Fair Housing Act was a response by Congress to racial discrimination on the federal, state and local level. The Dover Amendment and Chapter 40B were both responses by the state legislature to local discrimination against religious institutions and affordable housing, respectively, in zoning and land use regulations. Newton is increasingly becoming a gated community where money is the key to coming here and staying here. The zoning reform act, like Chapter 40B, could be another key to unlocking the gate and offering equal housing and economic opportunities for all across the state.
Ted, are you saying that you would oppose the zoning reform act if it was packaged with a deal to eliminate 40B? The political reality seems to be that you can’t one or the other, but probably not both.
We have lived with 40B for 50 years. If what you say is correct, “Newton is increasingly becoming a gated community…,” then 40B has been an utter failure.
I meant to say, “The political reality seems to be that you can one or the other, but probably not both.”
What is considered affordable rent for a 40 B in Newton?
@Ted
Are you aware of any evidence that demonstrates that zoning reform is successful in “unlocking the gate”?
We’ve got housing stock of 70,000 (?) housing units that are priced at ~$400/sq ft at market rate. I don’t see how adding another, what, 5,000? is going to change that market rate. Is there any policy evidence that shows how many units need to be added to flood the market with enough supply to lower market rates? Is that the intent of zoning reform? Or is it just to create enough lower priced units to create some token diversity?
What specifically are you interested in achieving with zoning reform? Lowering market rates of Newton housing stock, or finding a way to add below market rate units?
Jeff and Ted, your respective points that “philosophically, zoning laws should be local” but that “limits on self-governance are sometimes necessary to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority” both resonate with me. Chris Steele has elsewhere argued that the law would empower cities as much as defang them, but the central thrust of this bill is evidently a power transfer from localities to the Commonwealth. While I am rooting for many of the policies within the bill, I can’t countenance that method.
Bureaucratizing local mandates deadens civic engagement at a time when local politics – with its emphasis on practicality over ideology – should increasingly be celebrated as the antidote to our national polarization. Citizens already don’t spend enough time disagreeing with one another within a mutually accepted forum of debate. We increasingly retreat to our partisan conclaves and dismiss the opponents’ claims to legitimacy, much less their arguments.
Zoning is one of the last great bulwarks of civil disagreement. We debate our neighbors at public hearings – in person, not over social media. We sign petitions and field protest candidates and form action committees. It can be tedious, frustrating, unseemly. But it’s also energizing and productive. It’s participatory government.
Ted and Bryan will argue that this energetic process is increasingly limiting participation to the wealthy, however, and that higher government must intervene when classes of citizenry are marginalized. With rare exceptions, though, all levels of U.S. governance have followed the Founders’ dictum to operate upon citizens as individuals, not as groups. And there is no indication that Newton is trampling upon individual rights.
Legalism aside, though, there are certainly indications that Newton and other cities and towns are becoming gated communities. Good research indicates that this is unhealthy, especially for children. The Charter Commission is Newton’s organic response to this challenge. Without wading into that thread here, it’s quite clear that the central impulse for the Commission has been to change the composition of the city council in order to foster development.
Again, without opining on whether this will be effective or desirable, I think that’s great! It’s a local response to a local problem. Citizens, not bureaucrats, will debate and decide. The same is true for Phase 2 of zoning reform. Before we throw up our hands and run to Beacon Hill, let’s give Newton and her fellow cities and towns the latitude to make policy for themselves. This evolutionary, rather than engineered, approach, is well in keeping with New England’s tradition of local governance.
And as we consider adding in more housing/mixed retail – WHY is the newly built one in West Newton – not even rented yet? Or if you drive over to Waltham or Watertown where they are doing the same thing – those are not fully rented either. And actually the ones on Pleasant Street have been put on hold.
Jake-“it’s quite clear that the central impulse for the Commission has been to change the composition of the city council in order to foster development.”
This comment surprised me, given your apparent lack of involvement in the work of the Charter Commission up to this point, so it would helpful for you to answer a few questions to flesh out where you received your information on this issue:
Have you attended any CC meetings?
Listened to the audios?
How many members of the CC have you spoken to about the work of the Commission in general, and specifically about the composition of the Council?
@Jane. Jake’s comment certainly did not come from the CC’s deliberations. I have not talked to Jake about this, but, just so you know, everyone who I have talked to, has said similar things as Jake. I know your experience talking to people is different–but it might be that people express things differently when they talk to someone on the CC.
Is this perception right or wrong? I don’t know, but the perception is what it is, and I see where it is coming from. I remember attending an Austin Street meeting where a string (4 or 5) of Charter Commissioners were lined up in support of Austin Street. No one on Charter Commission spoke against Austin Street. If I am wrong, please correct me. It seems to me, on the subject of increasing density, the CC lacks the same diversity as the community. Of course, you and the commissioners are free to engage in local politics. The danger in doing so is that it may have helped create the perception that Jake is echoing.
There are many good reasons to have ward-elected councilors. There may be good reasons to eliminate them, but I have not heard them.
I have asked a question like this twice on v14, “What mistake could have been avoided if all of our councilors were elected at-large?” Now I have asked this question three times. No one on the Charter Commission has answered. Maybe if I replay the Charter Commission audio tape (backwards while the Wizard of Oz is playing), I’ll figure it out.
People in the community have emailed me, and have offered their own answer–Austin Street would have gone through more quickly without ward elected councilor “interference.”
@Jake:
I believe you have stated things clearly and succinctly when you say “…it’s quite clear that the central impulse for the Commission has been to change the composition of the city council in order to foster development.”
It has also become clear there is a drive to centralize decision-making, and strip villages (Wards) of self determination, perhaps in part to fuel the stated impulse.
While I only served 2 years on the Board, I personally witnessed an inexplicable contempt for strong-willed Ward Aldermen by some. On numerous occasions, I heard comments such as “…they’re just worried about their Ward”. Aren’t they supposed to be?
The more the Charter Commission defend an indefensible position, the greater understanding and appreciation I have for the current structure that helps keep Newton the suburban city with 13 distinct villages.
@Jane-
I’m confused by your attack on Jake rather than addressing his point. A diversion?
Jeffrey – You’re asking a “gotcha” type of question on a blog about a complex issue, but my short answer has always been that I believe that elected officials who make citywide decisions should be accountable to all the voters. Accountability to voters is a very high priority for me – now that would be the 5th time I’ve said it!
My issue is that a Councilor made a statement that, seen through the best lens, is a supposition with no facts to back it up. Something along the lines of “this is what I think they were thinking”. To my knowledge, he has no evidence whatsoever to back up his supposition. Is that how he makes decisions when he votes on the Council?
My thinking on the composition of the Council has nothing whatsoever to do with development and my support for Austin St. was based purely on personal experience. I lived 4 blocks from the Austin St. lot for 25 years, thought it was ugly and a detraction from the village for all that time, and wished that something more appealing could be in its place, so I supported it from the beginning.
I’m more than happy to meet with you about any issues related to the charter, especially given that these issues are complex and require a thoughtful dialogue.
I don’t believe for a minute that the Charter Commission has any agenda whatsoever regarding “development.” I think they are suggesting changes to the City Council because they truly believe a smaller council will mean better government. I disagree with their proposal to eliminate ward representation, but I don’t believe they have any ulterior or nefarious motive. They are unquestionably responding to the fact that Newton voters have twice gone to the polls, and voted to reduce the size of the City’s legislative branch.
This Charter Commission has gone above and beyond the call of duty in terms of glasnost. They are the most transparent and open governmental body I can ever remember in Newton. Everyone has a right to disagree with the specifics of their proposals. But I simply don’t understand this criticism that infers they have an agenda beyond trying their very best to serve their public mandate.
What Mike Striar said
@Jerry: I’ll ask you what Jane asked Jake…what CC meetings did you attend? What audios did you listen to? I have been to almost all of their meetings and you happen to be correct! But, just how did you know that? And I disagree with a lot of their suggestions, too…just like Mike Striar!
No need to be so defensive, Jane, I didn’t criticize the Commission. Indeed, I agree with Mike that it’s been laudably transparent and competent. I merely noted – as part of a larger point – that like nearly every other politically sentient being in Newton, I recognize that the impulse behind the enterprise is to prevent anti-development obstructionism in the city council. And by the way, like I said, I think that’s great! It’s a locally sourced initiative for a locally perceived problem.
And as a side note, why does everyone treat the word ‘agenda’ like a four-letter word? There’s no smoke-filled back-rooms, no side deals, no nefarious tactics. Dueling agendas are how voters make decisions and how societies make progress. (One of the infinitely many problems with Trump, for example, is that he has no agenda – he’s unprincipled and unpredictable.)
It’s not hard to predict how the lines will be drawn once the Charter Commission’s report is released. The primary point of contention will be the elimination of ward councilors. Those active citizens in support will, generally but not exclusively, be in favor of denser, transit-oriented development; those active citizens opposed will, generally but not exclusively, advocate more restrictive zoning. This is hardly surprising given that development is the defining dimension of the political spectrum in Newton.
Describing the political context in which the Charter Commission operates doesn’t sully its integrity. It’s a political body. It’s doing exemplary work. All the more reason for the Commonwealth to not interfere.
Jake =- I am by no means being defensive. I merely asked you to explain how you came to the conclusion that the “central impulse for the Commission” was any particular perspective when you don’t appear have evidence to back up the statement. If you have evidence, then let’s see it (attended meetings, listened to audios, spoke with member of the Commission).
Jeffrey – It’s very clear that Jake’s comments did not come the Charter Commission. Trust me, I’m hearing every opinion under the sun! We really should have coffee.
Jane, I agree with most of Mike said. You, in particular, have done a great good with outreach.
I working overseas until August, so I’ll email you.
I should not write after 10:00pm. “Jake’s comment did not come from the Charter Commission.”
Council size reduction is a voter supported given, leveraging into the arena of ‘ward specific’ councilor negotiation. Will the CC compromise their full vested arrogance & perception of citizen superiority to negotiate a reasonable sell? – or will all their effort be for naught..
Jake says: “And there is no indication that Newton is trampling upon individual rights.”
Um, yes. Yes there is. The Engine 6 complaint/settlement is just one example of a broken local land use and zoning decisionmaking process run amok discriminated against chronically homeless people with disabilities. There are a number of other decisions I could cite that discriminate against folks with low to moderate household incomes. Every time a local elected official tries to limit 3 bedroom units because families might move into them, there is a violation of the fair housing laws, which protect individual rights based on familial status. The zoning reform act levels the playing field and requires every community to share the burdens and benefits of residential and economic development.
From the MMA: “S. 2311 does contain an inclusionary zoning provision, but the language has been watered down so that inclusionary zoning would only be allowed in exchange for municipal concessions, such as allowing greater density, even if those concessions are not economically necessary for the project to advance. If this is true, I don’t support the new bill.
I think these issues should stay mostly local for many of the reasons Jake pointed out. With Engine 6, wasn’t it the Mayor who stopped an ongoing process? Yes, the three bedroom unit discussions have to be squelched but that continues to happen locally. It takes education of fair housing legislation making the process longer and Ted, I am sure sure you are tired of continuously doing the educating. I hope, at least with elected officials, the consequences of not following the fair housing laws will lead to more respect of the law in the future. But with state control, the municipalities cannot negotiate mitigation fees instead developers receive many incentives from the municipalities if they build large market rate buildings with only a small percentage of affordable housing units most anywhere.
I have faith in the ongoing zoning reform in Newton,
Having no suspicions of nefarious proceedings within the deliberations of the CC, I also agree with Jake’s perception of the unspoken motivation behind [most of the] decisions of the charter commission. It’s elimination of Ward Reps, the quick unanimous decisions, the background of the leaders of Article 2 and now Bryan’s participation and support of this bill, for me and many others, point to a pro development stance. Jane and other CC members continue to give vague reasoning for most of their decisions without referencing why the changes would the best way to govern Newton, other than selecting the Model Plan that has the most resemblance to Newton’s. I think the question about a decision that has been negatively impacted by direct Ward Representation, will never be answered even if part of the question is changed from “has been” to “could have been” and will continue to be addressed in a defensive manner. When changed to “could have been” it seems clear to many the answer is Austin Street. Again we are dealing with perception but perception is everything.
I can express these observations and still appreciate the work they are doing, believe that the Charter Commissioners are sincerely doing what they think is the best for Newton and respect each member individually.
I’ll just throw in that I haven’t specifically heard anything about development at meetings or any other platform the commission uses and do not expect to. There are other ways of drawing conclusions.
Marti-I have provided my reasons for that decision on multiple occasions – that I believe that municipal elected officials should be accountable to all the voters in the city. I’m not sure what part of that is vague. As for the MCC, I’ve never referenced it, except to explain to a Councilor who developed it. It has no impact whatsoever on my decision making.
As for the “the quick unanimous decisions”, we’ve had one unanimous decision on one significant issue. All other straw votes have been divided. In addition, perhaps it’s not well known that the Charter Commission doesn’t have the luxury that the City Council has to deliberate for months about a single issue. The entire proposal needs to be completed in 16 months so that it can be sent to the Attorney General’s office for review before it’s voted on by the entire city. This process is governed by state law (GLM 43).
People who post on V14 assume the views expressed here are representative of the whole community. It’s simply not the case. The range of opinions on many issues is much wider than you can imagine. As for Jake, as a Councilor, he should know better than to make a public statement based on his perception when information is readily available to him. I have been and continue to be more than willing to speak with anyone who’d like to discuss any issue related to the Charter Commission.
@Ted: “Um, yes. Yes there is. The Engine 6 complaint/settlement is just one example of a broken local land use and zoning decisionmaking process run amok discriminated against chronically homeless people with disabilities.
But the Engine 6 project never made it to the Board. It was cut off before serious conversations could take place.
Engine 6 was a 40B project, that the administration originally got behind and then abandoned.
The Mayor abandoned Engine 6 by refusing to fund the project; it was depending on CDBG and HOME funds. Unless I’m mistaken, it was not a 40B. If it were, these funds would not be in play and the Mayor couldn’t have abandoned it.
Marti, that is not entirely correct. The Mayor’s office declined funding as well as support for the zoning relief required, which was a comprehensive permit under Chapter 40B. Rather than relitigate this issue, here is the link to the Engine 6 complaint.
Sorry for the double post, but I also meant to clarify that public funding for affordable housing and a comprehensive permit for the same project are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the SHI or “Subsidized Housing Inventory” of affordable housing that tracks progress toward the 10% threshold under Chapter 40B specifically includes housing that is partially or wholly subsidized by local, state and federal funds.