The MBTA Communities Act, setting aside 50 acres in Millbury for up to 750 potential multi-family dwelling units “as of right”, the pending Affordable Home Act allowing ADUs in yards “as of right”, and Chapter 40B's 25% affordable units don't truly add “affordable” housing. Each of these represents a developer's ideal scenario and a communities nightmare. If these dwelling units are built, it will add density, but will not actually create lower rents or housing prices, according to Patrick Condon’s research similar laws will increase rental and ownership costs, and will transform communities in a way that homeowners never envisions when they achieved the American Dream. Although everyone recognizes the need for affordable housing, many believe it should be carefully planned and integrated within communities to benefit all residents, and be truly affordable. None of these laws are aligned, highlighting a lack of harmony among the state's efforts to create affordable housing or more housing. It's essential for the state legislature to reassess these laws holistically, ensuring they align with communities' distinct characteristics and facilitate intelligent, sustainable growth over the long term.

This summary offers a glimpse into Patrick Condon's comprehensive piece titled "Patrick Condon: Density, Affordability, & The 'Hungry Dogs' of Land Price Speculation," which explores deeper nuances.

In urban planning debates, the notion of increasing housing supply as a solution to affordability issues often takes center stage. However, a closer examination, as articulated by Patrick Condon in his book “Sick City: Disease, Race, Inequality, and Urban Land,” challenges this assumption. 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.

Patrick Condon’s research, spanning North America, particularly highlights Vancouver’s experience. Despite significant density increases, housing affordability in the city has not improved. Instead, rising land values have made housing increasingly unattainable for average earners. Patrick Condon identifies the root of the problem as not housing prices themselves but the escalating value of urban land, a phenomenon observed not just in Vancouver but across the globe.

Drawing parallels to Henry George’s observations, Patrick Condon underscores how the wealth generated by economic productivity often becomes absorbed into land wealth, leaving little for wage earners. This disparity between rising land values and stagnant wages has fueled a housing affordability crisis, especially evident in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Patrick Condon advocates for strategies to discipline land markets, citing successful examples such as Vienna’s approach. Vienna’s innovative taxation policies targeted high-value properties, reducing land speculation and enabling the creation of non-market housing. By directly intervening in the land market, Vienna achieved a remarkable outcome where over half of the city’s population resides in affordable housing.

Applying these lessons to contemporary challenges, Patrick Condon proposes local-level interventions focused on curbing land speculation and ensuring permanent affordability. Cambridge, Massachusetts, recently implemented an affordable housing overlay, requiring any increase in density to be accompanied by a commitment to permanent affordability pegged to median income levels. Such measures, Patrick Condon argues, are essential for disciplining land markets and redirecting speculative gains towards social benefit.

In conclusion, Patrick Condon’s insights challenge conventional wisdom in urban planning, urging policymakers to prioritize strategies that address the root cause of housing unaffordability: escalating land values. By implementing measures to discipline land markets and ensure permanent affordability, cities can foster inclusive and sustainable urban development, offering hope for a more equitable future.

Engaged and knowledgeable residents are mobilizing across the 177 affected communities under the MBTA Communities Act to oppose what they perceive as an imposition by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, especially those who operate under a Home Rule charter, as Millbury does and many other communities.

Home Rule

Here are several factors for each community to contemplate as they decide whether to adopt or reject the MBTA Communities Act during their Town Meeting, derived from ROAR - Rescue Our American Republic:

• Article 89 (the Home Rule Amendment) is a constitutional right in the state constitution and was adopted in November 1966 by a ballot vote of 1,186,608 to 270,087.

• It reaffirmed the customary and traditional liberties of the people and grants them the authority and right of self-government in local matters – the state cannot dictate as they do not have authority.

• Since the state cannot mandate, the proposed MBTA Communities Act the towns/cities need to approve it via their town meeting process.

• Once a town/city approves this change and hands over authority to the state, it will be nearly impossible to get the authority back from the state.

• The MBTA Communities Act was originally passed in 2021 by Governor Charlie Baker. At the time it consisted of three paragraphs buried into a 180 page bill. Since passing, the parameters have expanded to over 40 pages of rules and regulations that we have already seen change and will continue to change in the future.

• The initial legislation had an affordability component, which has since been removed.

• The current legislation does not have any language or plan to increase affordability.

• The city of Boston is EXEMPT from the new state zoning laws.

• Massachusetts taxpaying population has been declining in recent years. Refer to 5 Reasons Why There Isn’t A Housing Shortage.

• Previous requirements to pass such a law require a 2/3 majority vote, but this law was written to allow for a simple majority, which makes it easier for towns/cities to forgo their zoning rights to the state.

Abiding by the MBTA Communities Act gives up your towns/cities zoning rights and could cost you and your family a tremendous amount of money in regards to lowering your property value and increasing your taxes.

It could be enlightening to investigate the origins and influence behind the MBTA Communities Act, the pending Affordable Homes Act, and the defense of Chapter 40B during repeal attempts. It's conceivable that developers played a significant role in drafting, promoting, and financially supporting these laws through lobbying efforts and political contributions.