In her State of the Commonwealth address, Governor Maura Healey emphasized Massachusetts' embrace of the California model for housing initiatives. She highlighted the forthcoming Affordable Homes Act and acknowledged the groundwork laid by her predecessor, Governor Charlie Baker, particularly with the MBTA Communities Act, as foundational elements of this pioneering strategy. The video "Housing Mandates In California" delves deeply into the shortcomings of this model, illustrating how it has failed and become synonymous with a statewide encroachment on housing, characterized by a rigid and uniform "one-size-fits-all" methodology. The state legislature is working on a takeover of statewide zoning to make it easier for developers. Although lengthy, this video is essential viewing. Without citizen engagement and action, the depicted future is bleak and detrimental to all.

As previously mentioned, elevated density, as outlined by Patrick Condon, Chair of the Urban Design program at the University of British Columbia, correlates with notable spikes in both rental prices and property ownership expenses. This only serves the interests of profit-driven developers, offering no benefits to anyone else.

Neither the MBTA Communities Act nor the forthcoming Affordable Homes Act prioritize affordability; instead, they focus on market-rate units. Consequently, more Chapter 40B projects will be necessary, with only 25% designated as affordable (the bare minimum of the law). However, these so-called "affordable" units are not truly affordable. Moreover, as the number of market-rate units increases, the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) of communities decreases, so the 10% affordable units mandate is never achieved.

Individuals who believe that the MBTA Communities Act solely pertains to zoning are overlooking a crucial aspect. For instance, in a 50-acre area with a density of 15 units per acre, "as of right" zoning could permit up to 750 multi-family dwelling units in Millbury alone, and 296,806 across 177 communities. Those who perceive this solely as a zoning matter are buying into the narrative espoused by local and state officials. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts would not invest this much effort and issue lawsuits merely for zoning changes. The next step might entail state bonds, financing, and tax incentives to incentivize profit-driven developers to erect these market-rate units across the 177 communities currently under state mandate.

Local and state officials consistently assert that we're facing a critical housing deficit, yet they provide no substantiated evidence to support their claims whatsoever. Whereas, Belinda Carr outlines 5 reasons why there isn’t a housing shortage.

Governor Maura Healey's administration seeks to persuade residents to relinquish their self-governing rights voluntarily. This is evident in the implementation of the MBTA Communities Act zoning district, followed by the proposed Affordable Homes Act, and ultimately statewide zoning, all of which primarily favor developers and eliminates local governance and public input.

Should residents of Massachusetts fail to recognize the unfolding situation, we risk experiencing similar consequences to those faced by Californians: the potential elimination of single-family homes, exacerbated traffic congestion, significantly elevated taxes, rents, and homeownership expenses, ultimately jeopardizing the quintessential American dream of owning a home.

Christopher Naff, a Vice President at Kelleher & Sadowsky and soon-to-be former selectman in Millbury, advocates for increased housing in Millbury. His alignment with this cause stems from the clear incentive: his employer, a real estate firm, profits from real estate transactions. Kelleher & Sadowsky specializes in commercial real estate brokerage across Worcester, Central Massachusetts, and the MetroWest region. Their services include advisory, representation for landlords/sellers and tenants/buyers, mortgage brokerage, capital markets access, and business brokerage. As a Vice President, Christopher Naff's role includes generating profits for the firm. He's emerged as a vocal critic of the Millbury Planning Board, openly challenging their rulings. He denounced their initial rejection of the proposed Rice Pond Village project and criticized their deliberations regarding the marijuana cultivation facility with equal fervor. Christopher Naff's push for greater density in Millbury warrants scrutiny, particularly in light of his profit-oriented motivations. It's crucial to view his arguments within this context and recognize that his emphasis on supply and demand dynamics represents just a small aspect of the broader picture, a fact he is undoubtedly aware of, which does not have significant impact on affordability, as articulated in depth by Patrick Condon.

With public policy, it's crucial to discern who benefits and who loses. Whether it's housing initiatives, zoning regulations, or economic development plans, understanding the stakeholders' interests is paramount. Delving deeper, we often find that certain groups stand to profit while others may face adverse consequences. By scrutinizing the motivations behind policy decisions, we can better advocate for equitable solutions that prioritize the well-being of all individuals and communities. In Millbury, our Environmental Justice Population, primarily residing in the proposed MBTA Communities Act zoning district, represents our most vulnerable group. Identified by an annual median household income that is 65 percent or less of the statewide annual median household income, they are particularly emblematic of this vulnerability.

Remaining neutral or inactive (i.e., contributing by doing nothing) is not a favorable stance in this scenario. Should the MBTA Communities Act, the forthcoming Affordable Homes Act, and further Chapter 40B developments persist, discontent may grow regarding the future of Millbury and the broader Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Similar to California, whose model is being replicated, residents may find themselves dissatisfied with the direction of housing initiatives and people are leaving California. No one disagrees that affordable housing should be a priority. The point of contention lies in the fact that current public policies fails to address the root causes of the affordability issue. Millbury's Master Plan reflects residents' desires for smaller houses on smaller lots, rather than large apartment complexes situated in locations that worsen public safety concerns.