MBTA Communities Act: Follow The Money
The legal battle between Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and the Town of Milton over the MBTA Communities Act has become a focal point in the state's ongoing efforts to address its housing crisis. This case, currently before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), centers on whether municipalities like Milton can opt out of state-mandated zoning reforms aimed at increasing multifamily housing near public transit.
Background: The MBTA Communities Act and Milton's Challenge
Enacted in 2021, the MBTA Communities Act requires 177 cities and towns served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to establish at least one zoning district of reasonable size where multifamily housing is permitted as of right. The goal is to promote transit-oriented development and alleviate the state's housing shortage.
Milton initially took steps to comply by enacting an MBTA Communities Multifamily Overlay District. However, in February 2024, a local referendum overturned this zoning change, prompting Attorney General Campbell to file a lawsuit seeking to compel the town to adhere to the law. The case raises critical questions about the enforceability of state housing mandates and the extent of local autonomy.
Supporters of Enforcement: A Broad Coalition
More than 70 organizations have filed amicus briefs supporting the Attorney General's position, arguing that the MBTA Communities Act is a vital tool for addressing Massachusetts' housing affordability crisis. These supporters include:
Abundant Housing Massachusetts (AHMA): Alongside 16 local housing organizations, AHMA emphasized the necessity of housing production to meet current and future demand, noting that restrictive zoning in towns like Milton exacerbates the crisis.
Massachusetts Housing Partnership (MHP): MHP highlighted the extensive stakeholder engagement and public comment process undertaken in developing the law's guidelines, countering claims that the law was improperly implemented.
Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA): Representing over 30 organizations, CHAPA's brief underscored the collective responsibility of municipalities to foster vibrant communities through inclusive zoning practices.
Massachusetts AFL-CIO and Associated Industries of Massachusetts: These organizations stressed the importance of affordable, transit-accessible housing for retaining workers and supporting economic development.
Real Estate Bar Association for Massachusetts (REBA): REBA argued that the law's provisions are mandatory and that municipalities cannot selectively choose which state laws to follow.
Affordable Inclusive Milton (AIM): A local advocacy group, AIM supports the Attorney General's enforcement action, viewing compliance with the MBTA Communities Act as essential for promoting diversity and affordability in Milton.
These supporters generally share the motive of increasing housing supply, promoting economic growth, and ensuring equitable access to affordable housing across the Commonwealth.
Opponents of Enforcement: Emphasizing Local Control
Opponents of the Attorney General's lawsuit argue that the MBTA Communities Act infringes upon local governance and was implemented without proper procedural adherence. Key opponents include:
Town of Milton: The town contends that the law's guidelines were not adopted through the required state rulemaking procedures and that enforcement should be limited to the loss of certain state grants, not legal compulsion.
Eastern Massachusetts Small Business Coalition: Representing local businesses, this group argues that the law's implementation did not adequately consider economic impacts on small businesses.
New England Legal Foundation (NELF): While acknowledging the need for affordable housing, NELF believes that the law must be enforced through proper legal channels and procedures.
These opponents are primarily motivated by concerns over local autonomy, procedural integrity, and the potential economic implications of mandated zoning changes.
Implications and Outlook
This case carries significant implications for both current and future housing policies in Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the constitutionality of the MBTA Communities Act, affirming the Attorney General's authority to enforce it. However, the court also determined that the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) failed to adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act when issuing the implementing guidelines. As a result, these guidelines were unenforceable until they are properly repromulgated in compliance with the Act.
This situation underscores the need for a more balanced approach—one that emphasizes meaningful input and buy-in from individual communities, focusing on local solutions rather than top-down state mandates. Additional court challenges are currently underway to further contest these regulations.
The court's decision will likely set a precedent that shapes the balance of power between state mandates and municipal autonomy in addressing housing challenges.
Supply and Demand Argument
The Governor continues to promote supply and demand and trickle-down economics as pathways to affordable housing, but these approaches have been widely debunked when applied in this context, as they fail to address the root causes of housing inequality. While increasing housing supply is often cited as a solution, simply building more market-rate or luxury housing does not automatically result in more affordable options for lower-income households. In fact, the trickle-down effect assumes that benefits for the wealthy or developers will eventually "trickle down" to lower-income individuals, but this rarely happens in practice. Instead, wealthier buyers or renters often absorb new high-end housing, while the demand for affordable housing outpaces the supply, leaving lower-income residents with limited options. Research has shown that without targeted policies like rent control, income-based housing subsidies, and zoning reforms, simply increasing supply does little to alleviate the affordability crisis for those who need it most.
Millbury has already added significant multi-family housing in recent years, including the 72-unit Cobblestone Village Apartments and the 59-unit development at 19 Canal Street. Despite the increase in housing stock, these projects have not resulted in lower monthly rents. In fact, many residents report that rents have continued to rise, not fall. This local trend mirrors broader evidence that simply increasing the number of units—especially when they are priced at or above market rate—does not lead to greater affordability for most renters. Instead, without targeted affordable housing policies or income-based protections, new developments often attract higher-income tenants, contributing to gentrification rather than addressing the needs of those struggling with housing costs. There is both speculation and some supporting evidence that a significant number of tenants in these apartment complexes are individuals who have been priced out of the increasingly unaffordable metro-Boston rental market. This trend suggests that new developments in towns like Millbury may be serving as spillover housing for those unable to find affordable options closer to the city, rather than addressing local housing needs. While the people of Millbury are welcoming, our priority is ensuring that local residents can continue to live and thrive in their hometown. Unfortunately, the MBTA Communities Act does not directly address this concern or provide meaningful solutions to keep housing accessible for those already part of our community.
Follow The Money
As you conduct your own due diligence, it’s important to examine any financial or other potential benefits linked to the individuals and organizations involved. Many supporters of the MBTA Communities Act appear to be in a position to gain—whether through funding, influence, or other advantages. For instance, the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), a known advocate of both the MBTA Communities Act and Chapter 40B developments, and a filer of an amicus brief in support of the Act, was engaged by Millbury’s Town Planner, Conor McCormack, to deliver a presentation before the Millbury Board of Selectmen on the MBTA Communities Act.
There is a recognizable pattern in which the Millbury Town Planner frequently advances positions that align with developers’ interests, often at odds with the expressed concerns of residents. This pattern has been evident in several matters brought before the Millbury Planning Board, including the Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project. In that case, Barrett Planning Group, LLC was retained despite objections from at least one Planning Board member, reflecting a broader trend in zoning-related decisions that appear to prioritize development over community input.
Millbury should engage professional, impartial consultants who can provide guidance free from bias or underlying agendas. The organizations mentioned above are state-funded advocacy groups, and their objectivity should be critically evaluated in light of the information they present and the recommendations they make.
Millbury needs planners who are committed to upholding local bylaws, rules, and regulations, and who actively represent the concerns of residents—rather than dismissing legitimate community input in favor of developer interests. With each new project brought before the Millbury Planning Board, a growing number of residents share this sentiment, yet their feedback increasingly appears to be ignored.
The table below should be reviewed alongside the membership of Governor Maura Healey’s Housing Advisory Council and Commission on Unlocking Housing Production. You may notice that several individuals or organizations represented on these committees also submitted amicus briefs or expressed support for the MBTA Communities Act. The connection—and potential motivations—should be clear. How many of these organizations are incentivized through the receipt of funds from the state?
| Entity or Individual(s) | Filed Amicus Brief | Support for Amicus Brief |
|---|---|---|
| 2Life Communities, Inc. | Proponent | |
| A Better Cambridge, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Abundant Hosuing Massachusetts et al | Proponent | |
| Acerra | Opponent | |
| Acton Housing For All | Proponent | |
| Affordable Inclusive Milton | Proponent | |
| American Planning Association, Massachusetts Chapter | Proponent | |
| Associated Industries Of Massachusetts | Proponent | |
| B’Nai B’Rith Housing New England | Proponent | |
| Beacon Communities, LLC | Proponent | |
| Belmont Town Of (More!) Homes | Proponent | |
| Black Economic Counsel Of Massachusetts, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Brookline For Everyone, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Building A Better Wellesley | Proponent | |
| Business Roundtable, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Capstone Communities LLC | Proponent | |
| Central Mass Housing Alliance et al | Proponent | |
| Charles River Regional Chamber, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Chris Herbert | Proponent | |
| Citizens Housing And Planning Association (CHAPA) | Proponent | |
| Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation | Proponent | |
| Disability Policy Consortium, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Eastern Bank | Proponent | |
| Eastern Massachusetts Small Business Coalition | Opponent | |
| Engine 6 | Proponent | |
| Father Bill and Mainspring, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Greater Boston Interfaith Organization, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Greater Boston Latino Network | Proponent | |
| Greater Boston Real Estate Board | Proponent | |
| Haitian-American United, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Harborlight Community Partners, Inc. (d/b/a Harborlight Homes) | Proponent | |
| Home Builders And Remodelers’ Association Of Massachusetts, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Homes For All Massachusetts et al | Proponent | |
| Housing Medford | Proponent | |
| Housing Navigator Massachusetts, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Immigrant Family Services Institute | Proponent | |
| Inquilinos Boricuas En Acion | Proponent | |
| Jeremy Shuetz | Proponent | |
| Jewish Alliance For Law and Social Action, Inc. | Proponent | |
| John Infranca | Proponent | |
| Kolackovsky et al | Opponent | |
| Limited Partnership | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts AFL-CIO | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Association of Realtors | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Business Roundtable, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Former Attorneys General | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance et al | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency | Proponent | |
| Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund Board | Proponent | |
| Metro Area Planning Council et al | Proponent | |
| Metro West Collaborative Development, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership, Inc. | Proponent | |
| NAIOP Massachusetts Inc. | Proponent | |
| New England Legal Foundation | Opponent | |
| Newton Housing Advocates | Proponent | |
| O'Halloran et al | Opponent | |
| Pioneer Public Interest Law Center et al | Proponent | |
| Planning Office For Urban Affairs. Inc. | Proponent | |
| Planning Office Of Urban Affairs, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Preservation Of Affordable Housing, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Real Estate Bar Associaton Of Massachusetts | Proponent | |
| Redgate Capital Partners | Proponent | |
| Revere Housing Coalition | Proponent | |
| Swenson et al | Opponent | |
| The Community Builders, Inc. | Proponent | |
| Town Of Hamilton | Opponent | |
| Town Of Middleborough | Opponent | |
| Transportation For Massachusetts | Proponent | |
| United Way of Massachusetts Bay, Inc. | Proponent | |
| William J. Driscoll Jr. | Opponent | |
| Winn Development Company | Proponent | |
| Winthrop Committee | Opponent | |
| Wright | Opponent |
Information complied by Diane Sands.
Path Forward
On Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at 7:00 PM, we have the opportunity to stand up for our town, our voice, and our future. The vote on the MBTA Communities Act is not just about zoning—it’s about preserving local control, protecting the character of Millbury, and ensuring that decisions reflect the will of our residents, not outside interests or state-funded agendas. Join us at the Millbury Memorial Junior/Senior High School at 12 Martin Street and vote NO on the MBTA Communities Act (Article and Article 29). The decision is ours to make—let’s make it together, for Millbury.
There are alternative paths forward—outlined by residents themselves through the Master Plan (2019) and the Housing Production Plan (2025)—which emphasize the need for moderately sized and priced housing on smaller lots. These community-driven plans offer practical, locally tailored solutions that better reflect Millbury’s character and the needs of its residents.
Other communities will soon face their own town meetings, where they too must vote with integrity and conviction.