Housing Crisis Or Developer Cash Grab? Unpacking The Truth About Affordability, Zoning, And Public Transit In Massachusetts
Most have yet to see concrete proof of a true housing shortage. While there is undeniably a housing affordability crisis, We question whether Massachusetts truly needs 222,000 additional housing units—most of them market-rate—by 2035. Simply increasing the supply does not guarantee affordability, especially if these units are priced beyond what the average resident can afford.
Not everyone wants to live in a city or in densely packed housing with little open space, such as massive apartment complexes or condominiums. This preference is reflected in Massachusetts having more towns than cities, where residents often prioritize space, privacy, and community character. Additionally, personal vehicles remain essential, as Massachusetts' public transit system is widely regarded as unreliable and insufficient for many areas, particularly outside Greater Boston.
Is the push for massive housing expansion a genuine solution to affordability, or is it a means to justify continued investment in the struggling MBTA and MBCR (the commuter rail) while ensuring developers and investors see returns on their political contributions?
Furthermore, the notion that single-family homes are inherently racist or discriminatory is misleading. Homeownership is an achievement earned through financial discipline, hard work, and smart saving. Housing policies should aim to expand access to ownership opportunities rather than demonizing single-family homes and zoning.
Who benefits from the narrative that single-family homeownership is discriminatory? It seems likely that landlords, developers, and investors—those who profit from rental income—stand to gain the most from policies that prioritize dense, multi-family development over homeownership opportunities. After all, which model provides greater residual income for developers: a one-time sale of a single-family home or the steady stream of rental income from an apartment or multi-family property?
Is there a confirmed housing shortage?
Politicians claim Massachusetts needs 222,000 more units, but this number assumes that demand will outpace supply at current trends. However, much of the demand is driven by affordability concerns rather than a pure lack of housing. If high-priced units remain vacant, that does not necessarily indicate a shortage but rather a mismatch between supply and need.
Despite claims of a housing shortage, Massachusetts has approximately 60,000 vacant housing units, including both private market and public housing units. The reasons for these vacancies vary but are largely tied to financial constraints, both for property owners and the government.
If Massachusetts already has tens of thousands of vacant housing units, is the issue really a lack of overall supply, or is it a failure to make existing housing accessible and affordable?
Instead of focusing solely on building new market-rate housing, policymakers should prioritize rehabilitating existing vacant units, increasing public housing funding, and addressing barriers that keep available homes off the market.
Do most people prefer single-family homes over high-density housing?
Surveys consistently show that many Americans prefer single-family homes with space over urban high-density housing. However, affordability and job location influence choices, sometimes forcing people into cities or apartments despite their preferences.
If you examine the resident feedback from Millbury’s 2019 Master Plan and the 2025 Housing Production Plan, the strongest preference was for smaller homes (1,000 square feet or less) on smaller lots—resembling the post-war housing found in subdivisions throughout town. Other communities may have achieved similar outcomes and share comparable goals for their development.
Is public transit in Massachusetts unreliable?
The MBTA and MBCR has been plagued by delays, safety issues, and underfunding, making it unreliable for many. However, in urban centers like Boston, it remains a vital transit option. For suburban and rural residents, personal vehicles are often necessary.
The majority of communities classified as "adjacent" or "small adjacent" under the MBTA Communities Act lack direct MBTA service, and some have little to no regional transit options that would be practical or beneficial for residents.
Are developers and investors influencing housing policy?
Real estate developers and landlords do contribute significantly to political campaigns. Policy decisions often favor increased housing density, which benefits developers financially, sometimes without ensuring true affordability.
Large-scale real estate investors often develop massive apartment complexes, not necessarily to meet immediate housing demand but as long-term investment assets. In many cases, these high-density developments remain largely vacant, as investors hold out for future market conditions that will yield higher rents or resale values. Rather than prioritizing affordability or actual occupancy, these projects serve as speculative ventures, allowing developers and institutional investors to park capital in real estate while benefiting from property appreciation and tax incentives. This practice can create the illusion of a housing supply increase while failing to address affordability or availability for local residents, ultimately benefiting investors more than the communities in which these developments are built.
When there was an effort to repeal Chapter 40B in Massachusetts, developers fought back aggressively to protect the law. Chapter 40B, also known as the Comprehensive Permit Law, allows developers to bypass certain local zoning regulations if at least 20-25% of the housing units in a proposed project are classified as affordable.
In 2010, a statewide ballot initiative (Question 2) sought to repeal Chapter 40B, arguing that it was being exploited by developers and led to unchecked high-density development that often disregarded local concerns. However, developers, housing advocates, and other stakeholders launched a well-funded campaign to defend the law, emphasizing that it was a crucial tool for increasing affordable housing in the state.
The repeal effort ultimately failed, with about 58% of Massachusetts voters rejecting Question 2 in the November 2010 election. Developers and pro-housing groups framed Chapter 40B as essential for addressing the state’s housing crisis, while opponents—mostly from suburban communities—argued that it gave too much power to developers and eroded local control.
After more than 56 years, only 20% of Massachusetts' 351 communities have met the 10% Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) requirement set by Chapter 40B—hardly a resounding success.
Is single-family zoning being labeled as discriminatory?
Some housing advocates argue that single-family zoning has historically been used to exclude lower-income and minority residents. However, this does not mean single-family homes themselves are discriminatory—rather, exclusionary policies tied to zoning have been the issue.
The claim that single-family zoning is inherently racist oversimplifies a complex issue. While it is true that past zoning laws and housing policies were sometimes used to exclude certain groups, single-family zoning itself is not inherently discriminatory. The desire for a standalone home with a yard is a common preference across all demographics and is not limited to any one racial or socioeconomic group. Moreover, single-family zoning exists primarily to regulate land use and maintain community character, not to exclude people based on race. The real issue lies in historic redlining, discriminatory lending practices, and exclusionary covenants—none of which are intrinsic to single-family zoning today. Instead of eliminating single-family neighborhoods, housing policies should focus on expanding opportunities for homeownership and addressing economic barriers that prevent access to all types of housing.
Who benefits from discouraging single-family homeownership?
Rental markets benefit when fewer people can afford to buy homes, allowing landlords and investors to profit from long-term tenants. Developers also benefit when high-density housing projects are prioritized over single-family developments.
The primary beneficiaries of discouraging single-family homeownership are large-scale developers, institutional investors, and landlords who profit from a growing rental market. As homeownership becomes less accessible, more people are forced to rent, creating a steady stream of income for those who own and control multi-family properties. Developers also stand to gain from policies that favor high-density housing, as large apartment complexes and mixed-use developments generate higher profits than individual home sales. Additionally, financial institutions benefit from the increased demand for rental properties, as they finance large-scale developments and collect interest on investment-backed real estate projects. By shifting the narrative away from homeownership and promoting high-density rental housing as the solution to affordability, these groups ensure a long-term, captive market of renters while limiting wealth-building opportunities for everyday individuals.
If communities want to promote affordable housing without relying on the MBTA Communities Act, they can explore several alternative approaches that align with local needs while maintaining control over development. Here are some key alternatives:
1. Local Inclusionary Zoning
Require that a percentage of new housing units in any development be set aside as affordable.
This can be tailored without overriding local zoning the way Chapter 40B or MBTA Communities mandates do.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Allowing detached or in-law apartments can increase housing supply without large-scale multifamily projects..
To prevent exploitation, towns can regulate ADUs (e.g., owner-occupancy requirements and preventing condo conversions).
The Affordable Homes Act did not classify ADUs as affordable units that count toward a community’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI), which each community is expected to maintain at 10% or higher. Without legislative changes, the construction of additional Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) could decrease a community's Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) percentage, as ADUs are not currently counted toward the SHI.
3. Community Land Trusts (CLTs)
Nonprofits or municipalities purchase and hold land in trust to maintain permanent affordability for housing.
Homeowners lease the land but own the structure, ensuring homes remain affordable over time.
4. Adaptive Reuse of Existing Buildings
Convert underutilized commercial spaces, schools, or industrial buildings into affordable housing instead of dense, new multifamily developments.
This approach preserves town character while meeting housing needs.
5. Tax Incentives for Small-Scale, Local Developers
Instead of favoring large, out-of-town developers, towns could offer tax breaks to small-scale developers who build affordable homes rather than just market-rate rentals.
This could encourage smaller infill development instead of massive apartment complexes.
6. Affordable Homeownership Programs
Instead of focusing on rental housing, towns could prioritize affordable homeownership through local programs, such as:
Deed-restricted affordable homes
First-time homebuyer assistance
Public-private partnerships to create lower-cost entry-level homes
7. Regional Affordable Housing Collaborations
Partner with neighboring towns to create affordable housing solutions without overburdening a single community with dense development.
This would help share infrastructure costs while maintaining balance across towns.
Not every alternative will be suitable for all 177 communities impacted by the MBTA Communities Act, but any solution should be tailored to each community’s distinct needs and characteristics. Rather than accepting the default supply-and-demand narrative promoted by developers and real estate professionals who profit from sales and rentals, most people recognize housing affordability as the true root cause of the housing crisis.
Neither the MBTA Communities Act nor Chapter 40B offers a truly comprehensive solution to addressing affordable housing needs across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. While both policies focus on increasing housing supply, they fail to tackle the underlying causes of high housing costs, both in Massachusetts and across the United States.
Housing affordability is a multifaceted issue driven by factors such as rising construction costs, restrictive zoning laws, wage stagnation, speculative real estate investment, and infrastructure limitations. However, current policies primarily favor large-scale, high-density development, often benefiting developers and investors rather than ensuring long-term affordability for working families.
A truly effective approach requires a holistic evaluation of affordability from multiple angles—including land use policies, tax incentives, infrastructure investment, homeownership opportunities, and community-driven solutions—rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all mandate. Unfortunately, such a comprehensive, balanced assessment is not currently taking place, leaving many communities struggling to implement solutions that align with their unique needs.