Take the 1980s sitcom, “The Golden Girls.” The four older women sharing a home in that series formed close friendships. But homesharing — the practice of renting out a bedroom in one’s home — can also be a practical way to save money and take full advantage of a property.

Advocates seeking to promote homesharing estimate that leasing just 10 percent of the state’s 500,000 unoccupied spare bedrooms would be the equivalent of building $25 billion in new housing. And proponents, including community development financing organization BlueHub Capital, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, are pushing for new laws that aim to turn homesharing from a niche practice into a genuine solution.

And amid burgeoning interest in homesharing, several companies have created platforms to facilitate it, like HomeShare Online, Nesterly, and SpareRoom. Some of these companies provide a website for potential roommates to find each other while others also offer background checks, personalized matching, help crafting legal agreements, and assistance navigating disputes.

Usually, homesharing involves sharing common areas in addition to having a private bedroom. Sometimes, a guest will exchange domestic tasks for reduced rent. A typical host might be an older adult who lives alone and wants help or extra income. A guest might be a student or single adult seeking inexpensive rent.

But sharing space with strangers can be tricky.

Honey Donegan, 77, who works part-time as a nanny, lives in a 2,500-square-foot home in Quechee, Vermont, and has turned to homesharing for companionship.

Her first guest didn’t work out — she was an older woman who ultimately decided to live with a family member. But then Donegan matched with Kayla Mazza, 31, through the nonprofit HomeShare Vermont. Mazza is a data and systems manager at a social services nonprofit who had trouble finding inexpensive housing near her job. They’ve lived together for two years. “It’s wonderful,” Donegan says. “It’s like having a daughter you’re not angry with.”

Most evenings, Donegan and Mazza watch “Jeopardy” together. They share a kitchen and occasionally a meal. Donegan loves hearing the younger woman’s perspective on work and politics. “We have separate lives, but we enjoy one another,” Donegan says.

Homeshare Vermont spokesperson Ric Cengeri said the organization conducts background checks, matches people by hand, negotiates contracts, and provides case management. At the moment, the program has matched around 300 people living in homesharing agreements, with the average match lasting 21 months.

One reason the Vermont program may have succeeded is that it is relatively small and has a human touch, with staff working closely with the host and guest to craft contracts and resolve disagreements. It’s also heavily subsidized with money from a state legislative appropriation through the Vermont Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living, federal government matching funds, and foundation grants, so the fees are affordable: A one-time fee of between $60 and $500 when a match is made is applied on a sliding scale, based on income.

The Vermont program, modest as it is, suggests that homesharing could have a future. But the struggles of other pilots point to some of the model‘s limitations.

Although homesharing appeals to some, others worry about living with strangers. An older adult’s health needs can get in the way, if a host expects or needs more help than a guest is prepared to give. Sometimes, there are personality clashes.

Martha’s Vineyard might seem like a perfect place for homesharing. Cindy Trish, executive director of Healthy Aging Martha’s Vineyard, said the island is filled with older adults with large homes, while younger professionals can’t find housing. And in June 2022, Healthy Aging launched a homesharing pilot program.

The surprising conclusion: It wasn’t viable. Program staff interviewed 13 hosts and 30 guests and identified just four potential matches, who were referred to a mediation agency to negotiate agreements. Only one pair signed a contract.

Trish said hosts often had more home health care needs than guests could meet, and the accommodations frequently didn’t meet guests’ expectations.

Elsewhere, the state of Maine partnered with Nesterly on a two-year pilot program, which ended in early 2026. Erik Jorgensen, senior director of government relations at Maine State Housing Authority, said because the program was statewide and lacked sufficient marketing, it had trouble attracting a critical mass of guests and hosts in any one location. Jorgensen said more than 500 potential hosts and guests created profiles, but only 11 homeshares were actually booked.

Nesterly CEO Noelle Marcus said the organization continued making matches after the pilot ended and has made about three dozen matches altogether. She’s seeking funding from local organizations to continue the program.

Nesterly also ran a pilot program in Boston in 2017 under Mayor Marty Walsh, which was paused during COVID-19 and not renewed by Mayor Michelle Wu.

There is talk of some legal changes that might make homesharing more attractive — making it easier for landlords to evict lodgers, for instance. Financial incentives — either to incentivize homeowners to rent rooms or to cover administrative costs for homesharing organizations — could help, too.

Portland, Ore. just launched a 12-month pilot program giving grants to homeowners who rent out spare rooms. HomeShare Vermont relies, in part, on $318,000 in state grants to cover its overhead expenses.

But ultimately, it may be a different kind of homesharing that takes hold — one that caters to the instinct for privacy.

Massachusetts has had early success with new laws encouraging construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), small living units located on the same property as a single-family home. In 2025, around 1,200 new units were permitted, according to state data. For renters seeking private living units or seniors concerned about sharing common space, renting an ADU could provide privacy for both parties while still letting a guest swap some household tasks for a discount.

Homesharing, or really any attempt to squeeze more out of our existing properties — allowing for ADUs, rezoning single-family lots to allow two-family homes — will not completely solve Massachusetts’ housing crisis. Ultimately, we need to build more housing.

But done right, homesharing can contribute in a small way. And we could use any contribution we can get.

Shira Schoenberg can be reached at shira.schoenberg@globe.com. Follow her @shiraschoenberg.

This year, eight initiative petitions are likely headed to voters on the November ballot. The Legislature, which had a chance to approve the measures last month, opted not to approve any of them, requiring ballot committees to gather additional signatures this month.

Massachusetts voters have passed several major laws by initiative in past elections. A 2016 initiative legalized marijuana, and a 2022 initiative created a tax on millionaires.

But as the number of initiatives on the ballot has increased, lawmakers have grown frustrated with the system. House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka criticized the ballot measure process in February, with Mariano describing it as “fraught with peril.” And the Legislative committee tasked with voting on potential initiatives — some of which targeted the Legislature — held a series of tense hearings in March.

Several elected officials and scholars have called for reform to the ballot measure process.

The Massachusetts Legislature is not the only state government critical of the initiative process. An increasing number of states have attempted to restrict the practice.

Still, direct democracy advocates say ballot measures serve as a check and balance on representative government.

“We believe that representative government is one of the most fundamental, best ways to govern,” said Dane Waters, founder of the Initiative and Referendum Institute. “But lawmakers, for whatever reason, whether through personal interest or conflict, sometimes just choose not to do things, and there needs to be a mechanism for the people to hold them accountable.”

What is an initiative?

Ballot initiatives allow citizens to adopt laws or constitutional amendments, depending on the state. Massachusetts permits both.

The ballot measure process emerged during the Populist and Progressive movements in the 1890s and early 1900s because the reformers believed state governments were controlled by moneyed special interests rather than the people.

In 1912, an Oregon initiative gave women the right to vote. A 1996 California initiative banned affirmative action. In 2012, Maine voters legalized same-sex marriage.

Initiative petitions can be direct or indirect, depending on the state. Direct initiatives are placed on the ballot without any legislative say. Indirect initiatives — Massachusetts’ approach — are first presented to the Legislature. The process of how a state legislature handles an indirect petition varies by state.

In every state with an initiative process, citizens must collect signatures to qualify for the ballot, though the requirements vary by state.

Initiatives are distinct from referendums, which ask voters to accept or reject legislation recently adopted by the Legislature.

Which states allow initiatives?

Twenty-three states have some form of initiative process, the majority of which are in the West. According to Waters, many of these states entered the union during the Progressive Era and were “more prone to want to have that mechanism versus states that had been around since the founding of our nation.”

Eastern states with initiative processes include Massachusetts, Florida and Maine, though those states tend to have more stringent processes.

From 1904 to 2024, California had the most initiatives (396), followed by Oregon (379), with approval rates of 35% and 36%, respectively. Colorado (259), North Dakota (202) and Washington (192) follow.

“If you were to factor out California and Oregon, I think it would probably represent like 30% to 40% of all the initiative usage ever,” Waters said.

He added that no state stands out as more likely to respond to ballot proposals with a legislative compromise.

“I respect representative government, but I seriously am hard pressed to find a single legislature that is supportive or sympathetic to the people using the process,” Waters said.

New Bedford lawmakers support ballot measure process

Despite legislative leaders’ opposition, several New Bedford lawmakers told The New Bedford Light they don’t view the ballot measure process as a threat.

Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, said ballot measures are a “useful democratic barometer” that informs the Legislature of residents’ priorities.

“At the core of our democracy is the belief that every resident deserves a meaningful voice in the decisions that shape their lives,” Cabral said in a written statement. “The ballot initiative process is an alternative avenue, alongside direct engagement between constituents and their elected officials, and stands as a valuable component of the democratic system in Massachusetts.”

Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-New Bedford, said the ballot measure process can “nudge the Legislature sometimes in the right direction, where it otherwise wouldn’t happen.” He pointed to the Fair Share Amendment, which voters passed in 2022, creating an additional tax on millionaires.

Rep. Christopher Markey, D-Dartmouth, echoed this sentiment, using the 2016 initiative that legalized marijuana as an example.

Hendricks and Markey both argued that some issues are too complex to be decided at the ballot box, including a proposal to cut the state income tax from 5% to 4%, which the Supreme Judicial Court recently struck from the ballot.

“I think when you start to get into technical bills, where there’s a lot of issues, it’s really difficult for someone to understand the entire bill and understand the nuances that (lawmakers) get,” Markey said. “We get lots of meetings with people in special interest groups and advocacy groups so that we can learn the pluses and minuses of a particular bill in more detail.”

Waters disputes this commonly used argument.

“For democracy to work, you have to have faith in the voters,” he said. “If you’re going to trust voters to choose among a candidate, then you have to have faith in them that they can choose among an issue.”

Rep. Steven Ouellette, D-Westport, said that as long as a question is legal and constitutional, the Legislature should institute it. “Unless there’s some kind of legal issue argument, we are planning on going forward with what the people want,” he said.

Rep. Mark Syvlia, D-Fairhaven, told The Light that the ballot measure process is “important,” but that he appreciates that the Legislature has a chance to weigh in on the questions.

“(The Legislative review educates) the public about what a ballot question does and doesn’t do, and also identifies for the Legislature where there may be an opportunity to enact a potential ballot initiative that would be really beneficial,” Sylvia said.

He said he believes that the Legislature didn’t approve any of the November questions because of their substance, not out of disdain for the initiative process.

Massachusetts’ approach

Massachusetts has one of the most difficult initiative processes in the country.

The process begins with 10 petitioners who submit a proposed law or amendment to the attorney general for approval.

If the initiative is certified, petitioners must collect signatures equal to 3% of the total votes cast for governor at the last election — 74,574 signatures for the November 2026 election.

Massachusetts only allows indirect initiatives. If lawmakers don’t pass the initiative, petitioners must collect additional signatures — 0.5% of the gubernatorial votes, or 12,429, for the November election.

Initiatives for constitutional amendments require only one round of signatures, but must be approved by two consecutively elected legislatures.

Waters pointed to North Dakota — which has an indirect initiative process — as one of the easiest states to place a question on the ballot.

Massachusetts limits how many signatures can come from one county, but North Dakota has no distribution requirements.

According to Waters, signatures in North Dakota are presumed valid, but in Massachusetts, they must be certified.

Petitioners in North Dakota have one year to collect signatures — significantly more time than in Massachusetts, where petitioners have nine weeks to collect the first round of signatures and eight weeks in the second round.

Threats to the ballot measure process

Waters and other direct democracy advocates warn of growing threats to the ballot measure process.

“There’s been this full frontal attack in trying to make the process more difficult,” Waters said, noting that many ballot measure requirements don’t apply to the legislative process.

A 2026 report from the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center says states are “deploying a shared and increasingly sophisticated playbook to limit voter power.”

Several states have tried to regulate the signature gathering process, restricting how and where petitioners can collect signatures.

Lawmakers in states including Arizona, Florida and North Dakota have adopted or proposed supermajority requirements for citizen-led initiatives — meaning at least 60% of voters must approve them.

Other states have adopted single-subject rules, which “grant courts and officials wide discretion,” according to the report.

According to Waters, the threat to ballot measures stems from “an inherent conflict between lawmakers and the people.”

“Lawmakers typically … don’t like the people messing with them when they’ve been elected to enact laws,” he said.

In 2023, just months before Ohio voters were to decide on a measure to keep abortion legal in the state, legislators held a special election to try to raise the total signatures requirement, require signatures from each of the state’s counties, and raise the approval threshold to 60%. (Voters rejected the rule change, then approved the abortion-rights measure.)

After Nebraska and Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed paid sick leave initiatives in 2024, both state legislatures adopted bills to undermine the measures.

Critics call for reform

Lawmakers, scholars and the attorney general have called for various reforms to the state’s initiative process.

In March, the Massachusetts Senate passed a bill seeking to limit paid signature gatherers, including a prohibition on paying workers based on the number of signatures collected.

Ten states prohibit ballot committees from using paid signature-gathering firms, and Sylvia said he would be open to Massachusetts doing the same after reviewing the practice’s impact.

“(Paying signature gatherers) doesn’t feel democratic to me,” he said.

Markey also said paid signature gatherers undermine the grassroots nature of the process, but Ouellette argued that it’s not a problem as long as it’s done legally.

“When you need 1,000 or 10,000 signatures, that’s a lot of work,” Ouellette said.

Waters of the Initiative and Referendum Institute shares Ouellette’s view.

“We pay Uber drivers, we pay people to pick up our laundry, we pay dog walkers … Why is it wrong to pay people to collect signatures?” Waters said. “It doesn’t matter who collects the signatures. The reality is, only Massachusetts voters get to vote on it.”

Instead, Waters suggested other reforms to make the ballot measure process more accessible, including extending circulation periods and allowing digital signatures.

Criticism of Massachusetts’ initiative process — Article 48 in the state constitution — has intensified since a 2024 initiative law granted State Auditor Diana DiZoglio authority to audit the Legislature’s performance. Many experts and most lawmakers say the question violated the state constitution’s separation of powers.

Ballot measures can’t infringe on certain constitutional rights — such as freedom of speech — or involve excluded subjects. But the attorney general can’t weigh in on whether the questions propose laws that would violate the state constitution.

Instead, she certifies the proposal if it is in proper form, isn’t similar to initiatives from the past two elections, and adheres to subject matter regulations. Her office also writes a summary of the proposal, which appears on the ballot. Attorney General Andrea Campbell said in May that the process should change to allow her office to analyze the proposal’s legality.

Sylvia shares this view, noting that petitioners would benefit from knowing earlier in the process whether their question is constitutional. He pointed to the unresolved question about the audit and to a proposal to reform legislative stipends, which the state’s Supreme Judicial Court deemed unconstitutional in May.

The House, the Senate, or the governor can request an advisory opinion from the Supreme Judicial Court about a ballot proposal before it goes to voters.

In mid-June, the court struck a proposed income tax cut from the November ballot, because the justices concluded that the attorney general’s summary of the initiative proposal was “significantly misleading.” Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, one of the supporters of the tax cut initiative, said afterward that it will consider “advocating for procedural reforms” for ballot preparations.

Jerold Duquette — a political scientist who lives in Massachusetts and teaches at Central Connecticut State University — has also pushed for Article 48 reforms. However, he doesn’t advocate for eliminating the initiative process.

Since the audit question passed, Duquette and other experts have argued that the state constitution should be amended to exclude ballot questions that concern constitutional provisions about legislative functioning and the separation of powers.

Duquette noted that ballot question committees are not solely at fault for the trouble with Article 48.

“The politicians, journalists, and newspaper editors who play along without giving sufficient critical attention to the constitutional questions raised by experts share blame with the sponsors of constitutionally questionable ballot measures,” he said.

This year’s initiatives

This November, voters will likely consider eight initiative petitions on the ballot.

They include: • repealing the law that legalized recreational marijuana • applying the public records law to the Legislature and governor’s office • creating an “all-party” primary ballot system • allowing voters to register on Election Day • overriding local zoning laws to reduce barriers to single-family starter homes • changing the method of calculating the state tax revenue limit • giving Committee for Public Counsel Services workers the right to collectively bargain • redirecting sales tax on sport and outdoor recreational equipment into a conservation fund

Their second-round signatures, which were due June 17, need to be certified by the Secretary of State in July. Legislative compromises could result in a ballot committee agreeing to withdraw a proposal before then.

Three other initiative questions were rejected from the ballot due to Supreme Judicial Court decisions: rent control, an income tax cut, and reform of legislators’ stipends.

___

This story was originally published by The New Bedford Light and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.