Andrew Mikula is chair of the Legalize Starter Homes ballot committee.

I came across Baxter Village after a Google Maps perusal of one of the country’s fastest-growing regions. Completed in 2014 and billed as a “traditional neighborhood development” with a walkable town center and intimate, tree-lined residential streets, the village is downright idyllic. The architecture is clearly inspired by early 20th-century New England — a Norman Rockwell-style vista of homes with raised front porches, wood clapboard siding, steep roofs, and dormer windows.

But Baxter Village isn’t located in New England. It’s in South Carolina, about 15 miles south of Charlotte.

The reality is that 15 miles outside of Boston, Worcester, or Lowell, Baxter Village would almost certainly be illegal, for a variety of reasons. First, the development’s home lots are small, often only slightly larger than a basketball court. Local zoning codes in suburban Massachusetts frequently preclude such small lots, and New England in particular has high minimum lot-size requirements for new homes, compared to most of the country.

Given that Massachusetts has the nation’s toughest home buying market for young adults, many voters are open to reducing these lot-size minimums. A May 2025 Abundant Housing Massachusetts/MassINC poll found that 78 percent of Massachusetts voters support “allowing homes to be built on smaller lots,” and 72 percent support allowing the subdivision of large lots into smaller lots. Doing so would open up more housing options in the suburbs, creating opportunities to build smaller, lower-cost homes suitable for first-time buyers and downsizing seniors, colloquially called “starter homes.”

That’s why 12 housing experts — urban planners, academics, land use attorneys, and advocates — and I recently filed a petition with the Massachusetts attorney general’s office that would make it legal to build on lots about the size of a basketball court (5,000 square feet) statewide. As long as the lot has access to public sewer and water service, as well as a 50-foot border with the street, the site could host a single-family home, although it may be subject to other regulations like wetlands protections and limits on short-term rentals.

Our committee — Legalize Starter Homes — cleared the first signature-gathering hurdle needed to place this measure on the ballot this year, and Secretary of State William Galvin’s recent certification has advanced this potential ballot question to the next step in the process.

Research has shown that Massachusetts’ large minimum lot-size requirements increase home prices and reduce new production. One Harvard study found that in Greater Boston, a quarter-acre increase in the minimum lot-size requirement was associated with 10 percent fewer homes permitted between 1980 and 2002. Separately, a 2011 study found that Eastern Massachusetts minimum lot-size requirements can increase home prices by as much as 20 percent or more and that these price effects tend to increase over time.

Other states have acted on such facts amid a nationwide housing crunch. In June, Maine capped minimum lot sizes in “designated growth areas” statewide at 5,000 square feet when served by public sewer and water systems. This is remarkable given that Maine has both a less severe housing shortage than Massachusetts and a much larger volume of undeveloped, inexpensive land.

The Massachusetts Legislature has tried to enhance the production of starter homes before, offering incentive payments under Chapter 40Y to municipalities to adopt new zoning districts that allow for them. But more than three years after Chapter 40Y was enacted, the state has yet to finalize regulations that would allow for these zoning districts to be created. Meanwhile, builders struggle to justify much new construction given high interest rates, tariffs on building materials, and labor shortages in the trades.

Our ballot petition creates a framework for allowing starter homes that is more easily implemented and doesn’t require municipalities to adopt new zoning. And unlike the MBTA Communities Act, it would solely allow for the creation of single-family homes, most of which would probably be owner-occupied.

Recent public polling data, research findings, precedents in other states, and the urgent and extreme nature of Massachusetts’ housing shortage all suggest that now is the right time to limit minimum lot sizes in places with sufficient infrastructure for new housing. The result could be a far-reaching expansion of opportunity for a new generation of homeowners in Massachusetts.

Authorities will speak Friday after a death occurred while police were serving a search warrant for child sexual abuse material in Princeton, Massachusetts.

The subject of the search warrant “was a person of trust in communities in Worcester and Middlesex Counties,” Massachusetts State Police said.

Authorities said little about the case ahead of the press conference, which will begin at 6 p.m. and be streamed in the player above.

State police will be hosting the conference, which will include Princeton Police Chief Paul Patricia, Worcester County District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. and Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan.

Check back for more as this story develops.

Audrey Morse Gasteier, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Connector, said the financial bulwark that benefited 270,000 residents is “part of the reason that we’re hanging in there in terms of enrollment and keeping people covered.”

But Thursday’s announcement won’t translate into any additional help.

Healey’s news conference coincided with the beginning of an election year in which three Republicans are vying for her job and voters are expected to be particularly focused on the state’s high cost of living. One survey last year found Massachusetts had the second highest cost of living in the country. People who saw their insurance premiums increase this year said it was one pricey bill amid an onslaught of growing expenses.

“I can’t believe how much it is when we go to the grocery store. Our electricity has gone up,“ said Judith O’Gara, whose family was hit with a $400 increase a month in insurance premiums for their ACA plan in January. ”We were just bracing ourselves to try to stretch the paycheck further.”

O’Gara, of Millis, is a part-time editor at community newspapers, and her husband is a self-employed computer animator and mural artist. She has added hours at work, she said, but it still wasn’t enough to qualify for health coverage through her employer, leaving the couple to buy insurance through the connector.

Healey also used the news conference to weigh in on a high-profile effort in Congress to revive the federal subsidies. Also on Thursday, the US House, with help from 17 Republican defectors facing competitive reelection races, passed a bill that would extend the subsidies for another three years. A small group of senators is considering proposing their own extension of the subsidies.

“We need to see people in Congress step up and take action and fight the president on this and get him to focus on the domestic agenda and how to make life more affordable for people,” Healey said.

The governor said she didn’t announce the influx of funds earlier because she had hoped Congress would act before the end of 2025.

“We gave up until the deadline to see if they take action,” she said.

ACA open enrollment extends through Jan. 23.

The infusion of funds from the Commonwealth Care Trust Fund brings the state’s total commitment to the insurance marketplace to $600 million, which Healey said is the largest support from any state in the country.

Federally subsidized insurance policies were first made available to people making less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $128,600 for a family of four, in 2009 under President Barack Obama’s ACA, also known as Obamacare. In 2021, Congress made those subsidies more generous for many recipients and extended them to people earning up to 500 percent of the federal poverty level. The expanded tax credits doubled participation in the ACA exchanges over the past four years, and by last year 337,000 people in Massachusetts received subsidized insurance through ConnectorCare.

The increases were slated to expire after four years, and without congressional action to preserve them, premiums reverted to pre-2021 levels for this year. People earning more than 400 percent of the poverty level became ineligible to receive subsidized insurance. State officials have estimated roughly 300,000 people could become uninsured statewide over the next decade, in part due to the expiration of the tax credits.

Democrats staged a 43-day shutdown last fall, the longest in US history, in an unsuccessful effort to preserve the expanded subsidies.

The Commonwealth Care Trust Fund predates the 2021 coverage expansion, said Doug Howgate, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonprofit budget watchdog, and was established to support ConnectorCare programs. Massachusetts has long had a robust public insurance program, and the 2021 expansion essentially allowed the state to shift the cost of subsidies it had been paying to the federal government. Tapping the trust fund now essentially returns Massachusetts to the support levels it provided prior to 2021, Howgate said.

Regardless of the timing of Healey’s announcement, it is a reality that Massachusetts has a uniquely robust commitment to health insurance access, Howgate said.

“I do think that the idea that the state is able to offset some of those impacts is an important message to get out there,” he said. “This is real money.”

According to Healey’s office, a 45-year-old couple with two kids making $75,000 in Fall River previously paid $166 per month for the lowest-cost coverage. Without state action, their premium would have more than doubled. But with the infusion from the trust fund, they will pay $206 per month.

There’s only so much the state can do to mitigate the impacts of the expired subsidies, though. Because Congress didn’t extend them, people between 400 and 500 percent of the federal poverty level simply are ineligible to sign up for subsidized policies through the ACA marketplace. There are roughly 27,000 people statewide who cannot benefit from the state’s effort to compensate for the lost federal money, and those people are among those facing the biggest new insurance expenses.

Christa, 56, a hair dresser, and her husband, Gary, 69, a truck driver, earn less than $105,750 annually combined, just shy of 500 percent of the poverty level. The couple, who asked not to be named to protect their privacy, went from paying $282-a-month for Christa’s insurance with no deductible, to a private plan costing $725 a month with a $2000 deductible.

Gary, who is enrolled in Medicare, is still counting on Congress for a reprieve.

“I believe the Senate will be forced to do something, and we’re hoping,” he said.

Jason Laughlin can be reached at jason.laughlin@globe.com. Follow him @jasmlaughlin.