Massachusetts
CT GOP lawmakers come out swinging against idea of border tolls. Do we need to worry?
A group of Connecticut Republican senators Wednesday thrashed the idea that there should ever be border tolls at the state line with Massachusetts.
It’s not quite clear whether there would be a serious proposal for tolls on the Massachusetts border, however, though the issue did create a firestorm of controversy in the Bay State over the past few weeks.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey told the Boston Herald that she pumped the brakes on a proposal offered by Secretary of Transportation Monica Tibbits-Nutty to help alleviate the commonwealth’s revenue shortfalls by installing tolls along the state’s borders. Tibbits-Nutt’s comments drew days of backlash.
For example, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu did not take kindly to the idea of tolling drivers entering Massachusetts at the state border, the Boston Herald reported.
“Looks like Massachusetts has found yet another way to unnecessarily take your money,” Sununu, a Republican, said in a statement to the Herald.
“All the more reason for more Massachusetts residents to make the permanent move to New Hampshire,” Sununu said. “The Live Free or Die state continues to be the place to be.”
In Connecticut, Sen. Republican Leader Stephen Harding, Sen. Henri Martin, ranking senator on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, Sen. John A. Kissel, R-Enfield, Sen. Lisa Seminara, R-Avon, and Sen. Jeff Gordon, R-Woodstock, joined for a statement also condemning the idea of Massachusetts officials considering putting up border tolls
“Earlier this month, Gov. Lamont was asked if he would be re-introducing tolls in Connecticut. His response was ‘forget it.’ We urge him to also tell Massachusetts to forget this bad border tolls idea,” the senators said.
“It will serve as a tax on Connecticut residents, especially on those who live near the Massachusetts border and who work in Massachusetts. Things are expensive enough for hard-working people and their families. They do not want tolls.”
The GOP team was reacting to a story by Patch that said, “State Sen. Robyn Kennedy, D-Worcester, included an amendment to the Senate Ways and Means Committee budget that might lead to tolls for border-crossers.”
The Herald reported that Tibbits-Nutt’s “unfiltered” comments at a WalkMassachusetts event on a theoretical plan to take tolls from drivers crossing state borders and charge higher excise taxes to pick-up truck owners do not represent the views of Healey or her administration.
“To be clear, I am not proposing tolls at any border. I have spoken to the Secretary and made that clear, and that I have confidence in her leadership moving forward in this important time as we work to ensure a strong and robust state transportation system,” Healey said, the Herald reported.
Battenfeld: Healey delivers rebuke to transportation czar, saying no to new tolls on the border
The Herald also reported that the MassGOP followed Healey’s statement with one, openly wondering who Tibbits-Nutt is referring to when discussing jacked up excise taxes on pick-ups and SUVs before the Governor’s Transportation Funding Task Force .
“Who exactly is this ‘type of person’ Secretary Tibbits-Nutt is addressing? Is it a parent with four children or someone who relies on a truck for work?” MassGOP Chair Amy Carnevale asked.
“The Secretary’s policy initiatives are the antithesis of what’s needed in Massachusetts. A poll came out last week that showed our workforce is leaving the state in droves due to Massachusetts’ unaffordability. Adding more taxes, more tolls, and more penalties for ordinary Massachusetts residents is only going to make Massachusetts less affordable, and add to the mass migration the Commonwealth has been experiencing,” Carnevale said.
The Herald also reported that Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney said Tibbits-Nutt’s comments during the event were “simply reprehensible.”
“Decisions to raise taxes, fees, or adding tolling should be made by our elected legislature, not announced by an overzealous, unelected bureaucrat before a special interest advocacy organization,” Craney said in a statement. “The people she’s villainizing are just ordinary people trying to go about their everyday lives. Our state government should make life easier for people, not harder.”
The conservative Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance went further, calling on Healey to fire the cabinet official she elevated from an acting position just last October. Tibbits-Nutt had previously served as an Undersecretary for Transportation, but took over the Department of Transportation after the departure of former Transportation Secretary Gina Fiandaca.
“Government should never be used as a weapon against the people. People that view taxation and our government as a weapon to be used against individuals they don’t like are a critical danger to our democracy and people rightly lose confidence in any public official who thinks that way. Governor Maura Healey needs to step up and remove Secretary Tibbits-Nutt from her position before she does real damage to the state,” spokesman Paul Craney said.
Asked if Tibbits-Nutt would like to add to Governor Healey’s statement, a Department of Transportation spokesperson said that her assertions were just part of an on-going conversation about the challenges facing the state and not necessarily representative of policy proposals, the Herald reported.
“At a recent event the Secretary was conveying that we need to have difficult conversations about how to make our transportation system work best for everyone. This task force is in its early stages and no decisions have been made about its potential recommendations. Any proposals would be made in collaboration with the Legislature and other stakeholders and would carefully consider any affordability and competitiveness implications,” the spokesperson said.
The Herald also noted that Tibbits-Nutt said a group tasked with developing recommendations for a long-term, sustainable transportation finance plan was discussing charging drivers at the state border in an effort to support road, rail, and transit systems throughout Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Republican Party Chair Amy Carnevale said Tibbits-Nutt showed the “true nature” of the Healey administration.
“Already grappling with the burden of unaffordability, the prospect of more tolls, increased taxes on Uber and Lyft rides, Amazon deliveries, and payroll taxes only adds to the struggle of Massachusetts residents. No Massachusetts resident wants that. It’s abundantly clear that the Healey-Driscoll administration’s approach to governance is government versus taxpayer,” Carnevale said in a statement.
Reporting by Boston Herald journalists Matthew Medsger and Chris Van Buskirk is included in this story. The Herald is a sister paper to the Hartford Courant.
Massachusetts
Randolph woman wins $1M lottery prize, plans to use winnings for home improvements
RANDOLPH, Mass. (WWLP) – A Randolph resident has won a $1 million prize through the final drawing of the Massachusetts State Lottery “$4,000,000 Monopoly Doubler” instant ticket game.
Brenda Mellor of Randolph claimed the game’s tenth and final $1 million prize.
She selected the cash option and received a one-time payment of $650,000 before taxes. Mellor said she plans to use the winnings to pay for home improvements, including renovations to her roof and pool.
The winning ticket was purchased at The Variety Store at 2 Mazzeo Drive in Randolph. The retailer will receive a $10,000 bonus for selling the ticket.
Local News Headlines
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Download the 22News Plus app on your TV to watch live-streaming newscasts and video on demand.
Massachusetts
Mass. is getting more granny flats. But it’s still hard to build them. – The Boston Globe
Massachusetts took a big step in 2024 when the Legislature legalized so-called “accessory dwelling units” statewide as part of an effort to rein in the state’s housing crisis. More than a year later, it’s clear that the law is working — but that it also needs tweaks before accessory units can meet their full potential.
These small units, nicknamed “granny flats,” can be constructed in someone’s backyard, or they can simply be renovated third floors, garages, or basements. They’re a popular option for seniors seeking to downsize and families looking for some rental income.
Prior to the state law, some communities allowed accessory units, but many did not. Even among those cities and towns that did tolerate accessory dwelling units, zoning often varied from one municipality to the next, making it difficult for builders who needed to decode each municipality’s rules. Some towns also included unreasonable restrictions, like requiring that only a homeowner’s family members could live in the accessory units.
Housing advocates viewed allowing accessory dwelling units statewide as a “low-hanging fruit” policy — a way to add housing that was relatively cheap and avoided some of the cost and political obstacles that housing measures often encounter. The state legislation also overrode some zoning restrictions, including those that limited accessory units to family, while leaving some other local rules intact.
One year after the law went into effect, this approach has proved fruitful: Towns across the state have approved 1,200 ADU permits and seen even more applications, in some cases up to a threefold increase from previous years.
A study published last week by Boston Indicators (the research branch of the Boston Foundation) and Abundant Housing Massachusetts found that forcing the hand of municipalities on accessory dwelling units accomplished more in one year than 50 years of zoning reform efforts at the local level.
The problem, though, is that municipalities retained too much power. As the study recommends, there should be clear, uniform state regulatory standards for ADUs, with minimal opportunities for municipal-level variation.
“A comprehensive agenda is needed to address regulatory barriers to housing production, spanning building, fire, energy, septic system, wetlands, and stormwater rules,” the study’s authors wrote. “The barriers include the fragmented complexity of the regulatory system itself.”
Making standards more uniform doesn’t have to mean lowering them — it just means moving away from patchwork rules that make it harder for companies to build accessory units at scale.
Chris Lee at Backyard ADUs, a company that designs and builds modular dwelling units in New England, says the report’s findings make sense. The inconsistent interpretations across 350 towns and cities cause builders and engineers to “struggle to design work for the town that will be accepted,” he said. (The state’s 351st municipality, Boston, isn’t covered by the law.)
The potential is significant. The report calculates that if just 2 percent of single-family homes in Massachusetts added an accessory unit, the state would see more than 30,000 new homes that advocates say are generally more affordable. Building an accessory dwelling unit inside a pre-existing house can cost between $75,000 and $100,000; and a detached unit usually runs between $250,000 to $350,000, making them much more affordable than purchasing a single-family home in most regions of the country.
“For developers of missing middle housing to benefit from an economy of scale, they have to undertake many projects, across jurisdictional lines,” according to the study. “The ADU case study has shown just how challenging this is.”
Lee estimated that he could reduce up to $30,000 of preconstruction costs such as surveying and architecture if his company could work with consistent regulations across towns, which he said could enable them to double their production.
Streamlining permitting for accessory dwelling units isn’t a panacea. Landlords still must be willing to actually build them and rent them to long-term residents. Retirees must believe it’s worth downsizing to one. But the fact that so many have been permitted over the last year point to the clear demand and makes the case for policy makers to keep refining the law.
There is precedent. California, for example, had an equally ambitious goal but has blown past it, going from only 1,300 permits approved its first year to more than 30,000 nine years later. “It is important to understand that California did not accomplish its ADU outcomes with one legislative reform,” the study’s authors wrote. “California’s success required sustained legislative attention.”
Massachusetts should be able to realize those kinds of results too. Conversely, if even the “low-hanging fruit” of zoning reform falters in the Commonwealth because of local red tape, then the state has bigger problems ahead to solve its housing crisis.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.
Massachusetts
Meteor over Massachusetts causes explosion reports, sightings from Delaware to Montreal
Reports of an explosion from people across New England Saturday afternoon sent police agencies and others scrambling to understand what caused a double boom that shook buildings in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
The American Meteor Society said that the booms heard about 2:30 p.m. were actually caused by a meteor about 3 feet (nearly 1 meter) wide entering the atmosphere around the New Hampshire border with Massachusetts, north of Boston.
Fire program monitor Robert Lunsford said the society received dozens of reports from Delaware to Montreal with people either hearing the double boom, feeling the ground shake or seeing the fireball — which he said looked like a shooting star in the daytime sky.
“It was definitely bigger than a normal fireball, about a yard wide,” he said.
But Lunsford said it’s unlikely the meteor struck the ground.
“We would need more information about the trajectory the speed and other aspects to know for sure if it hit the ground, but if it didn’t burn up, then it would have landed in the ocean,” he said. “Most of them do burn up before they hit the ground.”
People in a handful of states posted on social media about feeling the buildings they were in shaking. Several videos on the X platform captured what sounded like two quick booms, with no fire, smoke or other visual causes.
Several people filed reports with the U.S. Geological Survey, registering the shaking they felt with the National Earthquake Information Center, agency spokesman Steve Sobie confirmed.
The agency opened an event page, based on the number of “Did you feel it?” reports it received on its website. But Sobie said there was no event registered on the agency’s seismographs. meaning the shaking was not due to an earthquake.
-
Illinois6 minutes agoPlainfield, Illinois, ice cream shop launches
-
Indiana9 minutes agoIndiana EMT charged with sexually assaulting 14-year-old in the back of an ambulance during transport
-
Iowa15 minutes agoIowa Football Looking to Cash in on Highly Touted Four-Star Offensive Lineman
-
Kansas21 minutes agoLeawood’s Parkinson’s Exercise and Wellness Center expands services as diagnoses climb
-
Kentucky24 minutes agoShould Kentucky fans be concerned that Milan Momcilovic has not yet committed?
-
Louisiana29 minutes agoLouisiana homeowners can apply for grants to upgrade, protect roofs against storms
-
Maine36 minutes agoCar catches fire on Maine Turnpike in Kennebunk
-
Maryland39 minutes agoWinning weekend weather continues in Maryland Sunday