Boston Tea Party 2.0 Unfolding
Both the Boston Tea Party and the resistance to the MBTA Communities Act involve acts of protest against perceived injustices or grievances, but they occur in very different contexts and with different motivations.
The Boston Tea Party, which took place in 1773, was a seminal event in American history and a key moment in the lead-up to the American Revolutionary War. It was a protest by American colonists against the British government's imposition of taxes on tea imports to the colonies without representation in the British Parliament. The colonists, feeling that their rights were being infringed upon and that they were being unfairly taxed, staged a dramatic act of defiance by dumping crates of British tea into Boston Harbor. This act symbolized their resistance to British tyranny and their demand for greater autonomy and representation.
On the other hand, the resistance against the MBTA Communities Act reflects contemporary concerns regarding governmental intervention in local zoning and land use policies. Communities may oppose the Act due to concerns that it could impose a standardized approach to development, disregarding the unique needs and characteristics of each locality. This resistance mirrors a modern-day struggle for community autonomy in shaping their own land use and zoning regulations under the “Home Rule” amendment to the state’s constitution, opposing a “one-size-fits-all” approach imposed from a higher level of government. Communities standing up against the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General in this context are motivated by a desire to protect their interests, assert their autonomy, or advocate for alternative solutions.
While both the Boston Tea Party and resistance to the MBTA Communities Act involve acts of defiance against governmental authorities, the motivations and historical contexts of these events are quite different. The Boston Tea Party was a foundational moment in the struggle for American independence, while resistance to the MBTA Communities Act is part of ongoing debates about governance, public policy, and community rights in a modern context.
Communities across Massachusetts are facing decisions on whether to adopt or reject amendments to their local zoning laws as prescribed in the MBTA Communities Act. Some view this legislation as government overreach, compelling them to surrender their "Home Rule" rights to the state. The pressure includes the threat of losing state grants, funded by taxpayers, and potential legal action from the Attorney General if they resist relinquishing their autonomy to the state.
A courageous coalition comprising individuals from Danvers, Gloucester, Halifax, Malden, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Marblehead, Marlborough, Millbury, Rowley, Wakefield, Wayland, Wenham, and Winthrop has united with the aim of elevating the Rockport lawsuit to a class-action status. They aim to challenge the constitutionality of the MBTA Communities Act and shift the discourse away from a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Instead, they advocate for a framework that allows each community to tailor solutions to their specific needs and characteristics. Their vision is for the Act to serve as an asset rather than a hindrance, empowering communities to thrive on their own terms. Despite the administration's assertions, the MBTA Communities Act lacks provisions mandating affordability; in reality, it even discourages it. Instead, the Act threatens to place undue strain on small localities by imposing additional infrastructure and service requirements, leaving these communities to shoulder the financial burden.
Foxborough, Hanson, Hopkinton, Littleton, Marblehead, Marshfield, Milton, Norwell, Rowley, Tewksbury, and Wakefield have collectively decided to decline the MBTA Communities Act zoning amendment during their respective town/city meetings. Additional outcomes are emerging as the town/city meetings season progresses, which are consolidated and available on our “unoffical” MBTA dashboard.
Affordable housing is universally recognized as crucial, yet conflicting state laws such as Chapter 40B, the MBTA Communities Act, and the pending Affordable Homes Act present challenges. While the latter two aim to boost market-rate housing, they also reduce a community's Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) percentage, necessitating the construction of even more affordable units, which truly are not affordable. The belief that increasing density automatically reduces rents or homeownership costs is unfounded, akin to the supply-and-demand arguments put forth by some.
Tackling the issue of housing affordability is a significant endeavor, demanding a holistic approach. However, the existing and forthcoming conflicting legislation is unlikely to effectively address this challenge. California, often cited as a model for such measures, demonstrates their limitations, as evidenced by their ineffectiveness in that state. It's imperative that we learn from California's missteps and make more informed decisions moving forward. Consider the exodus from both California and Massachusetts as evidence. If we aim to retain and empower residents to flourish in Massachusetts, we must adopt a new, all-encompassing strategy to address housing affordability.
The current iteration of the MBTA Communities Act is not the answer, and communities should oppose the zoning amendments at their local meetings and then be diligent thereafter. Let's collaborate to devise a superior solution tailored to the needs of each community, rather than imposing a dictatorial mandate accompanied by threats and legal action. Collaborative efforts often yield greater support.
For more information, please refer to MBTA Communities Act Myths & Facts, Housing Mandates Uses California As Template, Unpacking Urban Affordability: Reimagining Land Markets For Inclusive Housing, and 5 Reasons Why There Isn’t A Housing Shortage for starters and we encourage you to do your own due diligence.