Connect with us

Massachusetts

Getting to yes on housing in Massachusetts – The Boston Globe

Published

on

Getting to yes on housing in Massachusetts – The Boston Globe


Over the next decade, state housing officials estimate that Massachusetts will need another 222,000 homes. These homes are necessary to attract young professionals, to prevent families with young children from leaving, to empty the homeless shelters, and to let seniors age in their communities.

More housing is also needed to mitigate climbing prices that are hurting not only lower-income residents, but even those who are solidly middle class. The median price of a single-family home in Massachusetts this year, as of November, was an astonishing $640,000, according to The Warren Group.

Zillow ranked Greater Boston as the fifth most expensive rental market in the country, with average rent hovering just under $3,000 a month, according to the Boston Foundation’s 2025 Housing Report Card.

But if Massachusetts is to build the housing our residents need, it will take a conscious effort to simplify the building process.

Advertisement

In editorials this year, the Globe has focused on specific deregulatory steps that would help cut red tape and make it easier for the state to build its way out of the housing shortage.

One aspect of this is being open to changing rules that may have made perfect sense at one point, but haven’t kept up with changing circumstances. For example, advances in fire safety technology made some of the rules regarding stairwell requirements and building height obsolete. Changing these rules to account for modern technology could make it financially feasible to build bigger buildings.

There are also well-intended rules that have had unintended consequences — like disability accessibility codes that apply more stringently in communities with lower property values than in wealthier towns.

Advertisement

But the biggest thing that needs to change is harder to write into law. Communities need to move from a default “no” on housing to a default “yes.”

That problem is especially hard to tackle because, officially, it doesn’t exist. There is no specific regulation saying that certain Massachusetts towns don’t want housing. But actions speak louder, and more honestly, than words.

The presumption that new housing is bad — and the burden is on developers to prove it isn’t — is implicit in many of regulations adopted across the region and in the way developers are frequently treated like unwelcome interlopers. Communities too often use approval processes to impose unreasonable requirements or arduous review processes on builders who want to create the multifamily housing the state needs.

One solution is for the state to set clear ground rules for what authority cities and towns have — and don’t have — when it comes to housing approval.

For example, the state has its own environmental standards for septic systems, but they are a minimum, not a maximum. If policy makers were to forbid towns from imposing stricter standards without proving they are environmentally necessary, it would prevent municipal officials from using overly strict rules to block denser housing. Similarly, the Legislature could impose guardrails on what municipal planning officials can consider as part of the site plan review process and how long reviews can take.

Advertisement

When a planning or zoning board rejects or reduces the size of an apartment project, or imposes unreasonable and costly conditions, that directly undermines the public good. They should be expected to explain why their actions were truly necessary.

After all, no housing decision occurs in a vacuum. Even allowing high-end development serves the public: If people who can afford million-dollar condos have plenty to choose from, they won’t outbid less-wealthy families for more modest housing.

Many individual regulations came from a noble instinct. Shoddy construction is dangerous; communities should make sure it’s safe. Fire safety is important. New buildings can disturb animal habitats and degrade the environment. Ensuring that people with disabilities can access housing units and public spaces is vital. There is value in soliciting public input.

But these regulations have proven too easy to co-opt as tools to stop development, rather than improve it. Often, communities have a fear of change.

Regulations that pose obstacles to housing must be expected to pass a stringent test to prove that they are actually necessary and not just convenient pretexts for NIMBYism. Policy makers must fully consider the trade-offs, because while each new housing regulation may seem minor, they add up.

Advertisement

Massachusetts is a great place to live. We should be seeking ways to let more people live here, not closing the gate behind us.


Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Massachusetts

Reed: Fight for tax relief is far from over

Published

on

Reed: Fight for tax relief is far from over


When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) denied voters the ability to support a popular tax cut this November, it was more than a temporary loss for residents of one of America’s most overtaxed states. Barely a generation removed from its “Taxachusetts” moniker, the Commonwealth’s competitiveness suffered a setback with long-lasting implications.

That is why even if this battle is over, the broader fight must go on.

Recent polling from the Mass Opportunity Alliance (MOA), a nonprofit advocating for state competitiveness, found that 82% of voters supported lowering the state income tax rate from 5% to 4%. Even a poll from the Boston Globe/Suffolk University released days before the SJC decision showed 66% supporting the tax cut.

Terrified by the threat to the status quo, entrenched special interests spearheaded a legal challenge not based on the merits of the tax cut or fiscal policy whatsoever. The issue was a technicality in summary of the question written by the Attorney General. As a retired SJC justice explained, “neither logic nor law” supported removing the tax cut from the ballot.

Advertisement

The Court’s ruling does not change the underlying issue. The same Suffolk survey showed a majority (54%) of respondents had considered leaving the state in the last year. Nearly six in ten cited taxes and high cost of living.

This trend is well underway. Following the Commonwealth’s last tax hike in 2022, roughly 30,000 more people exited Massachusetts than arrived the following year — one of the country’s highest population exoduses. The outflow took $4.2 billion dollars’ worth of taxable income with them.

It’s no mystery as to why we’re losing residents. Survey research from MOA showed high taxes were a key driver. Not coincidentally, the top two states welcoming Massachusetts expatriates, Florida and New Hampshire, both have no income tax.

By contrast, Massachusetts has the second highest effective tax rate in the country. The Commonwealth is ranked in the bottom 10 for competitiveness.

The impact of this tax burden extends far and wide.  Businesses are choosing to leave or relocate elsewhere. Iconic brands like Cape Cod Potato Chips have had enough, announcing the closing of their Hyannis facility earlier this year. Even international soccer players are not safe, learning that 90 minutes of participation in this year’s World Cup can subject them to crushing Beacon Hill tax policies.

Advertisement

Massachusetts is not alone in the blue state exodus. Frustrated by high taxes, endless regulation and overall unaffordability, families and businesses are fleeing California, Illinois and New York for friendlier terrain.

What are the consequences of fewer residents? For starters, less people to tax. Smaller tax bases means less resources for schools, roads and public safety – investments that tax hike advocates typically claim to care about.

Smaller populations also mean less national influence. In 2010, the congressional delegation shrank from 10 to 9 members, and only narrowly avoided losing another member in 2020. It’s anyone’s guess what the end of this decade will bring, but current trends are not encouraging.

So what’s next?

Fortunately, a second common sense tax proposal remains on track for the ballot this fall. By reforming the state tax revenue limit, the initiative would put the brakes on spendthrift politicians and return money to the taxpayers who earned it.

Advertisement

To be clear, the court’s ruling does not excuse the role of the legislators. Their constituents were denied the right to make their voices heard. As their elected representatives, members of the Massachusetts legislature should be fighting for families struggling with high taxes and some of the highest costs in the nation.

“Affordability” cannot just be a political buzz word; it must be a governing principle.

Two hundred fifty years ago, Massachusetts started a revolution against an oppressive government that led to the founding of our nation. That spirit lives on today, and so does the need for change. That starts by continuing the fight for common sense tax relief by every available avenue to keep the Commonwealth competitive for the next 250 years and beyond.

Colin Reed is a senior advisor to the Mass Opportunity Alliance

 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Mass. lawmakers prioritizing 100 high-risk locations to implement wrong-way driving prevention measures – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

Published

on

Mass. lawmakers prioritizing 100 high-risk locations to implement wrong-way driving prevention measures – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News


BOSTON (WHDH) – Just over one week after Massachusetts lawmakers announced a new, statewide initiative to combat wrong-way driving and improve roadway safety, law enforcement responded to another deadly wrong-way crash in Northboro Wednesday night.

With all of the recent tragedies, including the death of Massachusetts State Police trooper Kevin Trainor in Lynnfield last month, officials said they have pinpointed 100 locations to put on the priority list to make important safety changes as quickly as possible.

The $75-million detection and prevention program includes advanced detection technology, enhanced roadway signage, infrastructure improvements, and targeted safety upgrades across Massachusetts.

“They’ve been demonstrated to work in other places where they’ve been implemented, and even in Massachusetts the ones that are already in place, there is plenty of documented evidence showing people realizing they’re going the wrong way when those systems are activated,” said Mark Schieldrop of Triple A.

Advertisement

In Barnstable, those changes have already been implemented along Route 6. State Representative Steven Xiarhos said the area can be tricky to navigate.

“Lots of moving parts, a college right down the road, and someone could make the wrong move when they’re confused, and that’s one of those interactions that could be confusing,” Xiarhos said.

Schieldrop said there are many reasons for wrong-way driving, but one stands out above the rest.

“When we look at the typical wrong-way driver who’s causing these crashes, by and large alcohol impairment is a factor in the vast majority of them,” Schieldrop said.

Xiarhos said the prorgam is worth every penny if it will save lives.

Advertisement

“It’s frustrating when a horrible thing happens, you can’t turn back the clock,” he said. “So as an elected offical now, as a former police officer, let’s do everything we can to prevent this.”

The safety installations around the state will continue into 2027.

(Copyright (c) 2026 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Join our Newsletter for the latest news right to your inbox



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Gas prices in Massachusetts dip below $4 a gallon for first time in 2 months

Published

on

Gas prices in Massachusetts dip below  a gallon for first time in 2 months


Gas prices dipped below $4 a gallon in Massachusetts Thursday for the first time in exactly two months.

According to AAA, the average price for a gallon of regular gas in Massachusetts is now $3.99, down from $4.02 on Wednesday.

That’s the first time the average fell below the $4 mark since April 25.

Advertisement

The national average on Thursday was $3.92 a gallon, AAA said. That average was above $4 for nearly three months before it fell to $3.99 a week ago on June 18.

Gas prices rose sharply after the war between the U.S. and Iran started on February 28.

A spokesperson for GasBuddy, which also tracks fuel price data, said the national average has been dropping for six weeks as the “recent U.S.-Iran framework agreement has helped ease supply fears.”

The company said the national average should keep falling to $3.75 by July 4.

“Six weeks of declines sounds like good news, and in some ways it is, but the context matters,” Patrick De Haan, a petroleum expert at GasBuddy, said in a statement Thursday.

Advertisement

“At roughly $3.75, this would be the second most expensive July 4 ever recorded, roughly 65 cents higher than last year and nearly $1 above where prices started in 2026. The U.S.-Iran agreement gives markets hope, but it’s being tested, and any breakdown in those talks could reverse the recent relief quickly. Drivers should use every tool available to find the lowest prices near them before filling up.”

A year ago at this time, the average price for a gallon of gas in Massachusetts was $3.10, according to AAA.

The all-time high in the state is $5.05 a gallon, set back in June 2022



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending