Neighbors working together to preserve our neighborhoods and beyond.
Filter Blog Posts
The Real Impact Of The MBTA Communities Act Revealed
On November 9, 2024, Millbury residents overwhelmingly rejected the MBTA Communities Act zoning amendments, preserving local control over downtown development. The Act’s burdensome compliance requirements would have imposed state oversight while exacerbating local resource challenges, including limited water, wastewater capacity, and an outdated power grid. By opposing the Act, Millbury reaffirmed its commitment to thoughtful, sustainable growth and community-driven solutions that balance housing needs with local priorities.
Millbury Rejects MBTA Zoning Amendments, Sends Clear Message
At Millbury's special town meeting, the majority of registered voters rejected the zoning amendments required by the MBTA Communities Act, effectively placing the town in non-compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as of January 1, 2025. With the threat of legal action looming, the Massachusetts Attorney General may need to seek a compromise with municipalities or reconsider the law. Millbury's proposed zoning overlay district, which allows defeated proposals to be reintroduced every 60 days, was seen as a strategy to push through unpopular decisions—a tactic that has sparked backlash in other towns.
The overwhelming vote against the zoning amendments sends a clear message that Millbury residents prefer smart, sustainable growth, not large-scale apartment developments. It’s time for the town to halt questionable waivers and variances and ensure that the Planning and Development Department, the Planning Board, and elected officials respect the will of the people. Civic engagement is critical for ensuring that Millbury remains a small town focused on its residents’ needs, not developer interests. Millbury’s residents must remain active in town meetings and hold officials accountable to secure meaningful, long-term change.
MBTA Communities Act Defeated By Millbury
Steve Stearns, a vocal opponent of the MBTA Communities Act, provided the most detailed remarks on the implications of the zoning amendments. He highlighted concerns over the town planner's alleged "bait-and-switch" tactics on the warrant article, raised issues about Home Rule, discussed ongoing lawsuits against the MBTA Communities Act, and addressed misinformation regarding grants. Steve Stearns urged registered voters to reject the warrant article, receiving a round of applause for his statements.
State Should Follow Its Own Law Before Enforcing Compliance By Others
The New England Legal Foundation (NELF) has filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, supporting the Town of Milton in the case Attorney General v. Town of Milton, SJC-13580. This case addresses the enforceability of zoning “guidelines” issued by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) under the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Communities Act. NELF argues that these guidelines are not legally binding because they were not promulgated through the proper regulatory process required by the state’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
MBTA Communities Act Is Not Just Zoning
Anyone who thinks the MBTA Communities Act is merely about zoning without resulting in the demolition and construction of much denser housing is mistaken. If developers spot profit potential, they will move in and build. In fact, one developer is already targeting property owners in Millbury, seeking to buy properties with the aim of maximizing profits through increased density and monopolizing the town's rental market with market-rate units. This poses a serious concern for those living in the Business 1 Zoning District, the Environmental Justice Population zone, and those with incomes at 65 percent or less of the statewide median household income. Many Millbury residents find the current rents neither reasonable nor affordable.
The Myth of Housing Supply and Demand: A Modern Trickle-Down Fallacy
In contemporary debates about affordable housing, a common argument suggests that increasing the overall supply of housing will naturally lead to more affordable homes for everyone. Proponents claim that by simply building more units, market forces will drive down prices, benefiting even those at the lower end of the income spectrum. This argument parallels the principles of trickle-down economics, which posits that benefits provided to the wealthy will eventually “trickle down” to the less fortunate, improving economic conditions for all. However, just as trickle-down economics has been widely criticized and debunked, the simplistic notion that increasing housing supply alone will solve affordability issues is fundamentally flawed.