Article 8 - A Threat To Millbury’s Future
The MBTA Communities Act, passed under the Baker administration, is now under the implementation of Maura Healey’s administration, but it's widely recognized that this rollout is far from smooth. The approach has felt punitive rather than cooperative, stirring more resistance than collaboration. The Massachusetts Supreme Court is currently reviewing challenges to the constitutionality of the MBTA Communities Act, with cases initiated by Town of Milton and resident of Rockport alongside substantial participation from other communities in a class-action lawsuit. Notably, Millbury residents represent the largest contingent from any single community, highlighting our strong commitment to preserving our town’s integrity through responsible, sustainable growth.
Lieutenant Governor Kim Driscoll as Thing 2 and Governor Maura Healy as Thing 1 - Halloween 2024.
The MBTA Communities Act mandates multifamily housing near MBTA transit stations to increase housing supply, but without any specific requirement for affordability. Affordability appears to be a misnomer because most local residents cannot actually meet the affordability standards. Instead, the state links compliance to grant funds, which to many feels like holding communities’ budgets hostage. This “one-size-fits-all” approach, much like the mischief and mayhem of Thing 1 and Thing 2 of The Cat in the Hat, has disrupted local zoning laws and community infrastructure, raising concerns about the negative impact on Millbury’s unique fabric.
In Millbury, officials have demonstrated troubling practices with Article 8, which proposes zoning changes. Despite initial public hearings, they revised the article’s narrative and map without the required public notice or hearing—seemingly a “bait-and-switch” maneuver that many argue violates state law. Town Planner Conor McCormack’s actions, in particular, have been controversial, as he provided what appeared to be legal guidance without the authority to do so. Moving forward with this article without addressing these legal and procedural deficiencies poses substantial risks for the town. Given these concerns, we should postpone any decisions on Article 8 until these issues are resolved and until the Supreme Court’s ruling and the class-action lawsuit are settled.
Voters must reject Article 8 at Millbury’s special town meeting on Saturday, November 9, 2024. This is not merely a zoning issue—it’s about protecting our town’s identity and integrity. Far from creating housing stock, the MBTA Communities Act may drive up rents, displace vulnerable residents, increase taxes, and strain schools, emergency services, and infrastructure. If fully implemented, Millbury as we know it may cease to exist, transforming into a high-density zone catering more to developers’ profits than residents’ needs. Some may believe that adding more housing will bring down costs, but can anyone point to a single instance of this happening in our town? It simply doesn’t exist. Developers are driven by profits, not philanthropy. The MBTA Communities Act is a 'by-right' giveaway to developers, stripping away important safeguards and restrictions. It's like Chapter 40B but without any requirement to include affordable housing.
Milton and Wenham studies indicate that each unit could bring in up to 0.8 children for market-rate units and 1.4 children for affordable units, potentially adding 645 new students to Millbury’s schools—an annual cost of over $10 million. That’s just Millbury. Now, let’s consider the other 176 communities that share the same requirements for adding multifamily units. These communities will also incur educational costs and local and state taxes that will be borne by taxpayers. What about the ongoing public safety and infrastructure costs? Millbury does not have sufficient water to sustain itself currently. None of these factors occur independently; they are all interconnected and must be considered collectively. Each of these factors entails a cost that must be borne by the taxpayers. Silo and reactionary thinking are significant challenges. To address these issues effectively, we require proactive and comprehensive thinking. The MBTA Communities Act is not a comprehensive solution to the issue, and Millbury’s proposed approach, like that of many other communities covered by the legislation, falls short due to a lack of thorough planning and consideration.
Millbury MBTA Communities Act Map v2
One notable example cited is in Cambridge, where a 16-bedroom apartment building, redeveloped under the MBTA Communities Act, was converted into a 50-bedroom building. This was achieved solely by reconfiguring the interior, with no significant changes to the building’s exterior, no additional floors, parking, open space, or land area added—just an interior redesign.
The MBTA Communities Act strips away essential protections like minimum bedroom size, limits on bedroom count, occupancy restrictions, and other safeguards originally established for public health and safety. This policy reduces housing to a warehousing model, showing little concern for the quality of life of future residents, their neighbors, or the wider community.
Proponents of the Act use buzzwords like "walkable communities" and "public transportation," but these ideas don’t fit Millbury’s reality. Our town lacks mass transit infrastructure, has only one bus line to Worcester, and has no direct access to the MBTA. With no major employers here, Millbury is fundamentally a car-dependent suburb.
Meanwhile, our planning and development department has failed to create meaningful growth opportunities for residents or to expand our tax base. Instead, they’ve promoted bypassing local rules and regulations (i.e., variances and waivers) to allow developers free rein, favoring developer interests over residents’ rights and disregarding our community statutes. This is yet another instance of the same, and it’s time for registered voters to send a clear message: no more.
Despite the state’s push for compliance, towns that have adopted similar zoning amendments find themselves subject to further state control, with new demands to align zoning regulations with shifting standards. The initial amendments passed with a simple majority, but future changes will require a two-thirds vote and approval from the attorney general, creating a near-impossible barrier to repealing or modifying them.
Let’s make it clear: this MBTA Communities Act zoning amendment, as proposed by the town planner and a state-sponsored planning group, is not right for Millbury. We support welcoming new residents through responsible growth that enhances—not erodes—our community. Voting “no” on Article 8 is a vote to protect Millbury’s future and keep it a place where all residents, current and future, can thrive.
Article 8 threatens the very heart of our downtown, home to many small local businesses and some of our most vulnerable neighbors. These are our friends, our family—the people who make Millbury feel like home. Do we truly want to risk their displacement in favor of strangers? Millbury is a stronger, more compassionate community than that—isn’t it?
Density doesn’t reduce housing or rental costs; it only increases developers’ profits.
The responsibility for Millbury’s future rests with those who show up and vote. Please do your due diligence—don’t take town or state officials or employees at their word without verifying. This issue is far too important to accept propaganda at face value. Facts matter.
Other Articles
The Myth of Housing Supply and Demand: A Modern Trickle-Down Fallacy
MBTA Communities Act Is Not Just Zoning
Housing Mandates Uses California As Template
Unpacking Urban Affordability: Reimagining Land Markets For Inclusive Housing