Massachusetts
Here's the Average Cost of a Funeral in Massachusetts for 2024
Death is a part of life and at some point, we have to attend funerals, arrange a funeral service, and in many cases both. Though it’s not something we look forward to or are thinking about every day it’s good to know how much a funeral will set you back in case a loved one passes away and you’re the one in charge of planning and funding the funeral service for the deceased. So let’s take a look at the average cost of a funeral in Massachusetts.
What is the Average Cost of a Massachusetts Funeral in 2024?
There are a couple of different sources that have differing costs for a funeral in Massachusetts. World Population Review states that the average cost for a funeral in Massachusetts for 2024 is $10,270.
Massachusetts Residents Should Have Knowledge of the 1984 ‘Funeral Rule’
World Population Review also notes that if you’re planning and paying for a funeral you should know your rights and are allowed to buy the goods and services you want. This means if you only want to have a direct burial and forgo the viewing and memorial services, for example, you have the right to purchase that particular package. You also have the right to be given an itemized statement of all goods and services, be told price information over the phone, and other rights related to your funeral. This all falls under the ‘Funeral Rule” which was introduced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1984.
The NFDA’s Statement of Funeral Costs in Massachusetts
If we look at the National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) we’ll see that the cost for a funeral in Massachusetts is $8,985. This price tag includes a viewing, ceremony, and burial. The site states that if you choose the cremation option along with a viewing that cost will be $7,023.
Research is Key, Do Your Homework
No matter which option you choose for a funeral be it all of the bells and whistles or a bare-bones burial the best thing to do is pick up the phone and speak with a representative from the funeral home of your choice to get a clear vision of what you can expect to pay. You can check out average costs on websites all day but ultimately the best thing to do is to speak with a live person at the funeral home.
LOOK: Baby boomer baby names that have gone out of style
Gallery Credit: Elizabeth Jackson
LOOK: Baby names losing popularity in the 21st century
Gallery Credit: Stacker
LOOK: Baby names that are illegal around the world
Gallery Credit: Annalise Mantz
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.
-
World1 minute ago
FIFA says match tempo, and limiting time-wasting, will be point of emphasis at World Cup
-
News8 minutes agoVideo: Another Night of Violent Protests Outside a Newark ICE Detention Center
-
Lifestyle41 minutes agoTrump floats MAGA rally instead of concert after musicians drop out of Freedom 250
-
Technology53 minutes agoAMD’s new pitch: our old tech is so good you should just keep using it
-
World56 minutes agoHezbollah’s ‘game changing’ night-hunting weapon punches through Israel’s defenses: expert
-
Politics1 hour agoHasan Piker says UK has barred him, trashes ‘unbelievable…power’ of pro-Israel groups
-
Health1 hour agoQuitting smoking could offer a major benefit beyond heart and lung health, study finds
-
Sports1 hour agoRoman Reigns domesticates Jacob Fatu to retain World Heavyweight Championship at WWE Clash in Italy
