Don’t Boston My Millbury
Save the date for Monday, July 8, 2024, at 7:00 PM. The Millbury Planning Board is holding a public hearing at the Millbury Town Hall, located at 127 Elm Street, Millbury, Massachusetts, to discuss amending our local zoning bylaw to comply with the MBTA Communities Act. The proposed amendment would increase the maximum density for multifamily dwelling units from 4 units per acre to 15 units per acre (a 3.75-fold increase) in at least one zoning district containing a minimum of 50 acres. Additionally, parking requirements, minimum bedroom sizes, number of bedrooms, and maximum occupancy limits will be eliminated. These changes are proposed for the downtown business zoning district (Business 1) and will ultimately be decided by registered Millbury voters at the Town Meeting in the fall.
This is the approximate area within the Business 1 zoning district that could be directly impacted by any zoning amendments proposed by the Town Planner, subject to change during the public hearings. There were prior discussions of expanding the Business 1 zoning district to include other properties.
Currently, the focus is on zoning with no immediate obligation to build, but securing significant funding is the next crucial step. If the State Senate approves, over $6 billion will be allocated over the next four years for various housing initiatives. This raises concerns that investor developers might acquire properties, demolish existing buildings, and construct higher-density developments with little to no parking. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General have warned that communities could lose public grant money and face potential lawsuits if these plans do not proceed, indicating a strong push to implement these changes. Some communities have already rejected the mandated zoning amendments. In Milton, the mandated zoning amendment was initially passed, but residents overturned the decision through a referendum. Meanwhile, Holden did not complete the action plan and is refusing to comply. Other communities have also rejected the mandated zoning required for the MBTA Communities Act to advance to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) and the Attorney General’s Bylaw Review, which is the next step in the process. To date, only two communities have had their compliance with the MBTA Communities Act approved.
Our state legislature claims there is a housing crisis, yet provides no evidence to support this assertion, insisting that everyone should do their fair share. However, not all communities are being required to participate. Only 177 out of the 351 communities in Massachusetts are mandated to comply, or risk losing grant money (our money), and potentially facing a lawsuit from the Attorney General. Notably, leading communities such as Holden and Milton have chosen not to comply. This includes 32 residents from Millbury who have joined a class-action lawsuit along with residents from 23 other communities. These individuals are challenging our state government’s overreach, arguing that Chapter 40A §3A, the related guidelines, and punitive actions for noncompliance are unconstitutional.
It’s noteworthy that the state legislature has opted for punitive measures for noncompliance rather than providing incentives for voluntary compliance. Interestingly, the law does not provide provisions for the Attorney General to enforce M.G.L. c. 40A §3A. While many acknowledge there is a housing affordability crisis in Massachusetts, the MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A §3A) is not aimed at increasing affordable units. It sets a maximum limit of affordable units to just 10%. By law, developers are not required to include affordable units unless a community mandates it in its zoning bylaw. The state is not mandating affordable units, so it is intentionally misleading for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and other administration officials to claim that the MBTA Communities Act is about creating affordable units. They argue the "supply and demand" principle. However, despite the construction of more large-scale apartments in Millbury, rents have not decreased; in fact, some might argue that they have increased. Some have observed that the latest apartment building constructed does not seem to be fully leased out, suggesting that rents may be too high and that demand in the area has possibly reached its peak. According to one town official, these apartments are not intended for existing Millbury residents. Instead, they are being leased to individuals from the metro-Boston area who choose to commute or telecommute, as the rent in Millbury is more affordable than in metro-Boston.
There are inconsistencies in state laws, such as Chapter 40B, the MBTA Communities Act, and the pending Affordable Homes Act, that need to be addressed to genuinely increase affordable housing throughout the Commonwealth. Contrary to the Governor’s statements, that this is about creating much needed affordable housing; it’s about enriching developers and transforming communities so that suburbs turn into highly dense communities that support the economy of major urban areas served by the MBTA (subways, buses, ferries, and more) and the MBCR (the commuter rail). Many people prefer living in small towns over cities for personal reasons. Additionally, a significant number are moving to the suburbs due to the high cost of urban living and a desire to avoid issues like congestion and crime associated with cities. Most people need more space to live and are not suited to the close quarters contained and proposed in many of the state laws. The state now aims to push these urban issues into the suburbs, eliminate private transportation, and reduce private homeownership, forcing people into apartments. The MBTA Communities Act and the pending Affordable Home Act could be seen as “social engineering”, raising concerns about their potential to disrupt established communities and penalize homeowners who have invested significantly in their properties. Critics argue that these laws may not effectively address housing affordability and economic disparity and could instead impose blanket solutions that do not consider local contexts and the efforts of existing residents. Most people tend to agree that a one-size-fits-all approach is not something they can get behind or support. Some of these laws are based on California's legislation, which many believe has been ineffective in addressing the intended problems in that state.
Communities are unique, each with its own character, culture, and resources that distinguish it from others. Individuals often choose to reside in a particular community based on their personal needs, preferences, and aspirations. These choices are influenced by factors such as the quality of schools, availability of jobs, access to healthcare, safety, recreational opportunities, social connections, and overall lifestyle. People seek communities that align with their values and offer the amenities and environment that best support their personal and familial goals. As a result, the diversity of communities reflects the diverse needs and desires of their residents.
There is a growing trend of corporations purchasing large apartment developments and single-family homes for their investment portfolios, which raises rents and reduces available inventory, some of these properties remain vacant for future value proposition, contributing to a housing shortage and affordability crisis.
If you think this isn’t happening, read Stanley Kurtz’s book “Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.” This isn't a political statement but rather a reflection of the reality where the privileged are imposing on the less fortunate.
What’s concerning in Millbury is that the Business 1 zoning district also includes the town’s Environmental Justice Population, a particularly vulnerable group consisting of individuals whose income is less than 60% of the Area Median Income. Enacting the MBTA Communities Act in Millbury could likely increase rents and displace these households, along with others. Is this really something residents want to do to struggling individuals—push them out of our town or potentially into homelessness? Increased taxes to fund necessary services could also drive out long-term senior residents and those on fixed incomes who have resided here for decades.
Exercise Your Rights
Millbury voters have a choice. We do not have to comply with the state’s mandates. We should push back and stand up for our local sovereignty and our right to control our own zoning before it is no longer ours. The state legislature is considering taking zoning control away from local communities and establishing statewide zoning, which would make it easier for developers to shape our communities as they see fit without input from the local government or concerned residents. For some, this is seen as a test case to see if communities will object to giving up their local rights. In certain communities, officials are disregarding the concerns of their constituents, leading to their removal from office by the residents. Organized residents are increasingly taking lawful action to ensure that their representatives genuinely represent their interests. Officials who choose to remain silent also face the risk of losing their positions in local government.
Everyone is encouraged to attend this public hearing and contribute to shaping our local zoning bylaw, rather than simply conceding to the state's demands. Other communities have said no to the state, and we, as a town, need to consider our options based on facts, not propaganda or salesmanship from state-paid consultants.
This is the next major issue for Millbury residents and voters to address, akin to the Clearview Golf Course, The Shoppes At Blackstone Valley, the replacement of the Raymond E. Shaw Memorial Middle School, the new Fire Headquarters, the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project, and other significant projects and decisions. Will we stand up and make our voices heard, or will we remain passive and voice concerns only after decisions are finalized? The choice is yours. Choose to be a part of the solution.
Every resident of Millbury has a stake in the town's future, which is why we've embraced the slogan, "Don’t Boston My Millbury." For many of us, this is deeply personal. We love our town and cherish its small-town character and charm. Let's preserve what we love about our community while responsibly planning for sustainable growth, rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-all approach mandated by Boston, which is exempt from the MBTA Communities Act. The MBTA Communities Act does not promote sustainable or smart growth. If the potential 750 apartments are constructed in the future, residents should consider the potential increase in taxes to support necessary infrastructure, public services, education, and other essential community needs. This could result in higher costs for taxpayers. Rising taxes are prompting some of our seniors, who have called Millbury home for decades, to consider moving out because they can no longer afford the higher costs. We have a responsibility to provide better support for our seniors, who have contributed to our town for decades and love their homes and neighborhoods.
Creating truly affordable housing is an admirable goal we should strive to achieve. However, the current and proposed laws are unlikely to create affordability and may instead raise taxes, housing, and other real costs to unsustainable levels. As a result, people may leave the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in record numbers, just as they are fleeing California and other states due to similar failed policies. People are already leaving Massachusetts, something the Governor admits. This is not an easy problem to solve, otherwise it would be solved already.