The lawsuit against the Town of Holden for not adhering to the 2021 MBTA Communities Act aimed at increasing housing supply was dismissed by Judge Daniel Wrenn. The plaintiffs failed to prove how the Town of Holden's noncompliance specifically harmed them. While the law requires certain zoning near transit stations, the Town of Holden, despite not having such stations, is still affected due to its proximity to Worcester, which does have transit access.

The plaintiffs argued that the Town of Holden's refusal to comply with the law exacerbated the housing shortage in the region. However, the judge found their claims lacked a direct link between the Town of Holden's noncompliance and the harm experienced by them. Instead, it was described as a general issue faced by many in Massachusetts due to the overall lack of affordable housing.

The Town of Holden's decision not to submit an action plan under this law has led to ineligibility for certain state funding opportunities. Despite this, the town has not confirmed compliance with the law. Town Manager Peter Lukes mentioned they're considering informing other municipalities of their stance and the legal reasoning behind it.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Town of Holden's noncompliance strained resources at the Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance (CMHA) and made housing harder to find. However, the judge pointed out that the harm experienced was general and not specific to the Town of Holden alone.

Jennifer Lish, a Holden homeowner and plaintiff, argued that the town's decision not to comply would result in residents missing out on various benefits. Yet, the judge viewed this concern as a general harm rather than a specific injury to Lish or other residents.

The Town of Holden sees the dismissal as a victory, criticizing the lawsuit as frivolous and aimed at intimidation. On the other side, Lawyers for Civil Rights, representing CMHA, expressed disappointment with the dismissal and plan to appeal the decision.

Ultimately, the court found that the lawsuit lacked evidence connecting the Town of Holden's noncompliance to the specific harm experienced by the plaintiffs. The legal battle continues with the possibility of an appeal.

Lack Of Standing

The complaint makes clear that [Central Massachusetts Housing Alliance, Inc.] CMHA and [Lydiana] Morales are overburdened by a lack of affordable housing in Massachusetts. But the complaint contains no allegations connecting the town's failure to comply with § 3A to any harm or injury specific to CMHA and Morales. Rather, CMHA and Morales allege a general, indirect harm that they, like many other individuals and organizations across Massachusetts, suffer from the lack of affordable housing in the state. CMHA merely operates in Worcester County, where the town is located, while Morales lives in Westborough, a different town in the same county. Holden is only one town among many in Massachusetts where Morales would consider living, if she could find affordable rent.

[Jennifer] Lish has a more direct link to Holden: she has owned a home in town and lived there since 1999. But the complaint similarly fails to set forth facts alleging a specific and plausible harm she suffers from the town's failure to comply with § 3A. Lish alleges broad concerns that all of the town's residents may share: that noncompliance could result in the loss of benefits such as funding grant eligibility, increased housing infrastructure, a larger and more diverse population, and a greater tax base. Such speculation does not allege a specific injury that would establish Lish's standing. See Kennedy v. Commonwealth, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 644, 648-649 (20 18).

Certainly, this summary might not cover all angles of the case, possibly missing key elements of the MBTA Inclusionary Zoning statute. It primarily focuses on establishing a zoning district allowing for 15 dwelling units per acre, rather than directly enforcing housing unit construction. In Millbury, this requirement applies to 50 acres despite the absence of a transit station. However, the specific location for the designated zoning district in or around the town's downtown area has been suggested but not officially confirmed.

Furthermore, it's crucial to note that the MBTA Inclusionary Zoning does not mandate the creation of affordable housing units. Instead, it sets a maximum limit of 10% for units designated as affordable. Hence, 90-100% of MBTA Inclusionary Zoning will consist of market-rate units. This contrasts with Chapter 40B, which requires a minimum of 25% affordable units. Also, there's a common misunderstanding that “affordable” always means “low-income,” which isn't necessarily accurate.