The Hidden Costs Of Overcrowded Housing: Why The MBTA Communities Act Misses The Mark
As Massachusetts communities navigate the housing crisis, state mandates like the MBTA Communities Act have been positioned as solutions. The Act requires communities to create zoning districts that allow for dense, multifamily housing near transit hubs. However, the lack of fundamental safeguards—such as bedroom size regulations, limits on the number of bedrooms per unit, and occupancy restrictions—raises serious concerns about the unintended consequences of this policy.
The Dangers of Overcrowding
When housing regulations fail to include reasonable restrictions on unit size and occupancy, the result is often substandard living conditions that negatively impact both residents and the broader community. Without bedroom size regulations, developers can cram multiple tiny bedrooms into units, prioritizing profit over livability. This approach disregards the well-being of those who live in these units, often leading to spaces that are barely habitable. Families and individuals forced into these conditions may find themselves in cramped quarters that compromise their health, safety, and quality of life.
One of the most pressing concerns with this model of high-density housing is the strain it places on local resources. Small communities, which are not designed to handle rapid population influxes, quickly find themselves struggling to provide adequate services. Schools may become overcrowded, with larger class sizes reducing the quality of education. Emergency services, such as fire and police departments, must stretch their already limited resources to meet the increased demand. Water and sewer systems, which were never built to support such high densities, can experience failures and increased maintenance costs, burdening local taxpayers.
Public safety is another significant issue. Overcrowded housing has been linked to increased fire hazards due to improper electrical wiring, limited exit access, and inadequate ventilation. Poor indoor air quality becomes a health concern, particularly in units that lack sufficient airflow and where too many occupants share a confined space. In some cases, landlords may exploit these relaxed regulations, leading to unsafe and unregulated living situations that put tenants at risk.
Beyond infrastructure and safety, the impact on community character cannot be ignored. Small communities often have a close-knit feel, with open spaces, quiet neighborhoods, and a sense of belonging among residents. When high-density housing is introduced without thoughtful planning, it can lead to a transient population, where residents are less invested in the long-term well-being of the community. Parking shortages become a persistent issue, with more vehicles than available spaces leading to congestion and disputes. The very essence of what makes these communities desirable places to live is eroded by haphazard growth that does not take long-term sustainability into account.
Warehousing People Is Not a Solution
While the need for more housing is undeniable, simply packing people into as many units as possible is not a responsible or humane solution. The MBTA Communities Act, as currently structured, encourages the rapid development of small, tightly packed units without considering the overall livability of these spaces. This approach, often referred to as "warehousing" people, does little to address the root issues of affordability and accessibility. Instead, it disproportionately benefits developers while leaving communities to deal with the consequences.
A better approach would involve enacting policies that prioritize the well-being of residents. Ensuring that bedroom sizes meet minimum standards can help prevent exploitative practices where tenants are forced into unreasonably small living spaces. Reasonable occupancy limits should be established to ensure that the number of residents in a unit aligns with its intended capacity, preventing overcrowding that strains both individuals and municipal services. Additionally, rather than focusing exclusively on high-density development, a more balanced mix of housing options should be pursued. This would include family-friendly residences with adequate living space, rather than an overabundance of micro-apartments that cater only to short-term or transient occupants.
The Fear of Non-Compliance: Misplaced Priorities
Local officials are often motivated by the fear of legal repercussions should they fail to comply with state-mandated zoning changes. Community leaders worry that if they resist or delay implementation, they may face lawsuits from the state, developers, or housing advocates pushing for rapid compliance. However, what many fail to recognize is that residents, too, have the right to take legal action. If community officials make decisions that cause undue harm—whether through overburdened infrastructure, increased taxes, or diminished quality of life—citizens can and will challenge these actions in court. Lawsuits can go both ways, and the failure to weigh the long-term consequences of compliance could leave communities vulnerable to backlash and legal battles.
Furthermore, community officials are not fully considering the financial burden that unchecked rapid growth will place on local taxpayers. Increased demand for municipal services, from schools to emergency response, will inevitably lead to higher property taxes. Infrastructure upgrades, such as expanded roadways, water treatment facilities, and public safety enhancements, will come at a steep cost. Yet, instead of engaging in a thoughtful cost-benefit analysis, many local leaders are rushing to comply out of fear, neglecting their duty to advocate for their communities’ long-term well-being.
The Rush to Compliance: The Millbury Example
In the town of Millbury, the rush to comply with the MBTA Communities Act is an example of how this flawed approach is playing out at the local level. With the Annual Town Meeting scheduled for May 6, 2025, officials are scrambling to develop and finalize zoning amendments without conducting any impact studies or engaging in meaningful public outreach. Working backward from that date, town officials must submit warrant articles and hold public hearings. However, the entire process is being rushed, allowing little time for thorough analysis, meaningful community input, or engagement with qualified professionals. Instead, the process lacks true leadership and has defaulted to the town planner—an out-of-town employee who routinely pushes for developer waivers with little concern for long-term community impact, handing them out as freely as Halloween candy. This will not result in a successful outcome for anyone. Assisting in this effort is a state-funded planning consultant, whose role has done little to inspire confidence among residents and local officials. Many perceive this consultant not as an impartial advisor but as a salesperson for state policies, prioritizing compliance with top-down mandates over the unique needs and concerns of the community. Compared to other similarly sized communities, Millbury's planning and development efforts are severely lacking—virtually nonexistent and, frankly, disgraceful. This failure seems to stem from a mix of complacency and lack of expertise, with community officials outsourcing decision-making to state-funded regional planning agencies and consultants rather than taking proactive leadership in shaping the process and its outcomes.
Rather than taking the time to assess the long-term implications of high-density development on infrastructure, public safety, and taxation, officials and employees are choosing the path of least resistance. The reality is that many simply do not want to put in the effort required to make informed, well-balanced decisions. This lack of due diligence threatens to saddle the community with zoning policies that could have lasting negative effects, from skyrocketing property taxes to overwhelmed public services and deteriorating quality of life.
The majority of the Planning Board has shown little interest in advancing the MBTA Communities Act, largely due to valid concerns that the state has not followed proper legal procedures and no final regulations to understand what’s being agreed to—particularly by implementing so-called “emergency regulations” despite no actual emergency. Additionally, zoning changes do not offer an immediate solution to any perceived housing crisis, and not the true crisis, which is a housing affordability crisis. However, some community officials or employees seem intent on putting the matter before voters again, following a pattern seen in other communities where votes are repeatedly scheduled until the state gets its desired outcome.
The Board of Selectmen appears to share a similar stance; however, some members are pushing forward out of fear of litigation from the Attorney General, while others seem more concerned with staying in lockstep with the state’s agenda. There is no clear consensus among community boards, nor any decisive leadership from the top—no one is willing to take a firm position on the MBTA Communities Act. Politically, it is unpopular.
One community official acknowledged that this is likely the most significant issue both residents and local officials have ever had to confront, and that assessment is probably accurate.
The people of Millbury, like residents of other small communities across the state, deserve better. They deserve a planning process that prioritizes their voices, accounts for the real-world impacts of high-density housing, and ensures that future development enhances—not diminishes—their quality of life.
A Smarter Approach to Housing Growth
Massachusetts must take a more thoughtful and community-focused approach to housing development, which more accurately must be predominantly focused on housing affordability. This means looking beyond short-term solutions and instead implementing policies that support sustainable growth. Local governments and residents should push back against state-mandated zoning changes that do not take their concerns into account. Instead, they should advocate for development that enhances the long-term livability of their communities, preserves essential services, and maintains the character that makes these places desirable.
Growth should be managed in a way that respects both the need for housing and the integrity of the communities where that housing is built. Thoughtful planning, not reckless densification, is the key to long-term success. By demanding responsible regulations and ensuring that housing policies consider more than just the number of units built, we can create solutions that work for everyone—not just developers looking to maximize profit.
A Better Approach Might Be
Avoid rushing any decisions on the MBTA Communities Act zoning amendments. The Millbury Annual Town Meeting should not include these amendments, as the meeting is already filled with numerous warrant articles. If town officials are determined to push forward with the MBTA Communities Act—despite the overwhelming rejection of previous zoning amendments—it should be addressed in a separate Special Town Meeting in late June or early July. This approach allows time for thorough impact analysis, genuine public meetings, and multiple public hearings where officials actively listen to residents and adjust warrant articles based on public input—something that has been lacking in Millbury in recent years. Residents should not be dismissed with "it is what it is" or told that their only option is to amend the town warrant article on the floor of the Town Meeting.