The Motivations Of Massachusetts Housing Policies
The motivations behind state officials promoting the MBTA Communities Act and the Affordable Homes Act as “affordable” are complex and often steeped in a mix of political expediency, economic pressures, and broader urban planning goals. These acts are framed as solutions to Massachusetts’ growing housing crisis, but the reality is far murkier. Despite the rhetoric, the housing produced under these laws often falls short of true affordability for the very populations they claim to support.
State officials, including the governor, lieutenant governor, and attorney general, frequently emphasize the need to increase housing stock as a way to address the affordability crisis. At face value, this is a logical approach. Massachusetts faces a significant housing shortage, and adding units can theoretically relieve demand pressure, stabilizing or lowering prices. However, much of the housing created under these initiatives ends up being market-rate or “affordable” in name only—priced well beyond the reach of low- and moderate-income families.
So why the disconnect? For one, these officials are navigating a landscape shaped by powerful developers and real estate interests. The development of high-density, market-rate housing is a lucrative venture that aligns well with these stakeholders’ goals. By framing these acts as “affordable housing solutions,” officials can claim to be addressing housing inequities while also facilitating profitable development projects. This duality allows them to appeal to a broad base of voters and donors, including those with vested interests in real estate.
Another motivation is the political need to show action on housing issues. With the housing crisis dominating headlines and public discourse, officials face mounting pressure to deliver results. Laws like the MBTA Communities Act provide a ready-made policy framework that can be marketed as bold and transformative, even if their impact on actual affordability is limited. It allows leaders to point to new developments and density increases as tangible achievements, regardless of whether these measures truly serve the communities most in need.
Additionally, there’s a broader ideological component at play. Many state officials subscribe to the belief that increasing housing density near transit hubs is inherently beneficial, both for environmental sustainability and economic growth. While these are noble goals, the one-size-fits-all application of such policies often overlooks the nuanced needs of individual communities. The pursuit of density and transit-oriented development becomes a proxy for progress, even if it sidelines affordability and displaces existing residents.
The rhetoric surrounding these acts also reflects a fundamental misalignment between policymakers and the lived realities of working-class and low-income residents. Income-restricted housing units created under these acts are often pegged to Area Median Income (AMI), which can be misleadingly high in wealthier regions. For families struggling to make ends meet, even “affordable” units remain out of reach. Yet, officials continue to tout these laws as victories for equity, glossing over the growing gap between policy goals and actual outcomes.
Ultimately, the motivations behind promoting these acts as affordable are a blend of genuine intent, political pragmatism, and economic pressures. While the housing crisis does require bold action, the current approach falls short by prioritizing quantity over accessibility. Until state leaders prioritize true affordability—grounded in local income realities and the needs of underserved communities—the promise of these acts will remain unfulfilled. In the meantime, residents are left to grapple with the consequences: rising rents, displacement, and communities that look less like the vibrant, inclusive neighborhoods these laws claim to foster.
This is why it is essential for individuals of integrity and conscience to stand firmly against this overreach, halting its progress and forging a new path that ensures true affordability—not the facade of affordable housing crafted by profit-driven developers seeking to exploit the crisis for their own gain.
In the movie “Wall Street”, Michael Douglas, portraying Gordon Gekko, famously declared, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good." epitomizes the mindset that has seeped into housing policy, where profit takes precedence over people. This ideology, embraced by profit-driven developers and supported by policymakers who prioritize economic metrics over human needs, has transformed a housing crisis into a lucrative opportunity for exploitation. Instead of creating genuine solutions that ensure safe, affordable homes for working families, these policies encourage the construction of market-rate units masked as “affordable,” catering to investors rather than communities. The result is a system that exacerbates inequality and displacement, perpetuating the illusion of progress while leaving the most vulnerable further behind.
Communities such as Carver, Dracut, Duxbury, East Bridgewater, Freetown, Halifax, Hanson, Marblehead, Marshfield, Middleborough, Middleton, Millbury, Milton, North Reading, Rowley, Seekonk, Tewksbury, Westminster, Weston, Wilmington, Winthrop, and Wrentham—along with individuals like John Kolackovsky, Zenas Seppala, Jonathan Ring, Geoffrey Watson, William Proposki, Anne Hyde, Michael Seaton, Jeffery Santos, Tim Rose, and Phil Hopkins, representing themselves and countless others across 32 communities and growing—stood together to oppose the government overreach entrenched in the MBTA Communities Act.
Discovering the truth behind these housing policies is just the beginning. Take action today by joining your local community and statewide efforts to challenge this misguided policy. Together, we can push for real solutions that tackle the affordability crisis head-on!
As a commonwealth, let’s take lessons from the failed policies of California, which inspired the MBTA Communities Act and the Affordable Homes Act. We need bold, transformative policies that truly serve all people—not just the affluent, developers, investors, and landlords.
Patrick Condon, Chair of the Urban Design program at the University of British Columbia, draws on insights from 19th-century economist Henry George to argue that merely increasing density without addressing affordability only serves to inflate urban land values, benefiting speculators while exacerbating inequality.
Building more dense housing, like apartments, without making it affordable only inflates land prices, benefiting developers, investors, and landowners. Meanwhile, it deepens inequality, drives up rent and mortgage costs, and forces hardworking people out of the market—leaving many displaced, living in their cars or on the streets, as we see in California. We are better than this. Instead of repeating the mistakes of other states, we must hold our leaders accountable and demand real solutions. We cannot let politicians create the illusion of progress while worsening the crisis, pushing people closer to homelessness and kicking the can down the road.
A stark local example of greed overriding the public interest can be seen in Millbury. A local builder, whose latest project is currently being challenged in court, stands to control 56% of the town’s residential housing market if it succeeds—owning properties with eight or more units on a single lot. Ahead of the special town meeting for the MBTA Communities Act zoning amendments, this builder was reportedly reaching out to landowners within the proposed overlay district to purchase their properties. The goal? To amass even more power, influence, and control over the rental market in Millbury and beyond—without regard for the people who already live here, or the burden it would place on local taxes, infrastructure, education, and essential public services like police, fire, and emergency medical response. Most importantly, without concern for the rising costs of rent or mortgages that will further strain existing residents. At the special town meeting with a little more than 300 registered voters attending, the overwhelming majority rejected the MBTA Communities Act. The next step is to replace entrenched elected and appointed officials who consistently rubberstamp these projects, granting endless waivers and variances that prioritize developers over the community. Millbury deserves leaders who respect zoning bylaws and work for the people, not special interests. This is likely happening in other communities too. People have the power to shift this dynamic, but it requires action. Together, we can demand accountability and create real change.
2025 is our year to act. The time for change is now—together, we can reshape our future, challenge the status quo, and demand policies that prioritize people over profit. The power to create lasting impact is in our hands—let’s rise, take action, and build a future where everyone has a place to thrive.