Connect with us

Massachusetts

‘People have a right to know’: Flood disclosures poised to step into legislative limelight next year  – CommonWealth Beacon

Published

on

‘People have a right to know’: Flood disclosures poised to step into legislative limelight next year  – CommonWealth Beacon


DENISE KRESS HAS been living for 35 years with the Belle Isle Marsh as her backyard. 

But as more severe storms hit over the past decade, her life has been consumed by the marsh in ways other than its natural beauty: thinking about water, preparing for its encroachment, laying down bags of sand, living through flooding, and recovering from its wreckage. It’s meant two totaled cars and five repaired or replaced electrical and heating systems, and weeks spent in a hotel in the winter of 2018 after flood waters breached her basement twice in two months and then froze so that you’d need a “pick axe” to navigate it. 

Through all this, she’s stayed. 

Advertisement

But Kress occasionally ponders what it will look like, when the day comes, to sell her house just over the Boston border in Winthrop, given all the flooding the property has endured.  

“I can’t worry about it because there’s little that I can do about it,” Kress said when asked if she’s concerned that disclosing her home’s flooding history could impact its value. “But I would want the next owner to know. People have a right to know.” 

She’s quick to add, though, that even if she had known all the flood damages and insurance price hikes that would come in her 35 years in Winthrop, she may not have changed a thing anyway: “If I had to do it all over again, I probably would,” said Kress, who finds comfort in the vast marsh that drew her to the property originally. 

Such are the complications facing Massachusetts, a high-cost coastal state seeing some of the fastest-warming ocean temperatures in the world and increasing rates of precipitation that are exposing its aging stormwater drainage systems, dams, and culverts.  

Advertisement

Gov. Maura Healey aims to direct a new influx of cash to address those very issues through her nearly $3 billion environmental bond bill, which includes $308 million to upgrade high-risk dams and flood control systems and nearly $100 million for coastal initiatives like seawalls, jetties, and beach nourishments. But as flooding touches more Massachusetts households, she’s also proposing a new requirement to steer people out of harm’s way in the first place: mandating flood risk disclosure when property owners sell. 

Massachusetts is one of just 14 states in the nation and one of just three located along the coast (Virginia and Georgia are the others) not to require flood disclosures, which are meant to arm prospective homebuyers with knowledge of a property’s past flooding history. Healey’s proposal comes as state leaders push to build more homes to ease high prices, including a goal to construct 220,000 more units by 2035 and a major zoning overhaul designed to increase housing around MBTA rail stops.  

“The flood disclosure provision is about consumer protection,” Katherine Antos, the state’s undersecretary for decarbonization and resilience, said in an interview. “Oftentimes, what families pay for their housing, whether they’re making one of the largest financial decisions of buying a home, or if they’re renting, this is a significant portion of their expenses. Making sure that they have available information about flood risk is key to helping them make informed decisions, including ways that they can keep themselves and their property safe.” 

Healey’s bill will now need action in the Legislature, and it arrived there earlier this year with broad support from the business community to the insurance industry to municipalities.  

But there’s one stakeholder key to the state’s efforts to address both a dire shortage in homes and a growing need to shore up current and future housing stock against flood risk that is keeping mum on the disclosure push: the real estate industry.  

Advertisement

Theresa Hatton, CEO of the Massachusetts Association of Realtors, said that she’s neutral on the proposed flood disclosure requirement. But she cautioned that moving ahead with the policy would upend Massachusetts’s structure as a “buyer beware” state — meaning the burden falls mostly on the buyer to proactively investigate issues with the home. 

“Flooding will affect the price of a home in terms of the insurance that you’ll have to pay,” she said. “In some cases, a buyer may decide, ‘This is not the home for me. I’d rather put this money into my mortgage as opposed to flood insurance.’ And others might say, ‘This is the most beautiful piece of property I’ve ever seen. I’m willing to take the risk and invest in flood insurance.’ To each their own — the more information, the better-informed decision you can make. But this is a systematic change that I don’t believe is the biggest priority to tackle at the moment. Let’s get some more housing built first.”  

Daryl Fairweather, chief economist of real estate firm Redfin, told CommonWealth Beacon that she supports mandatory flood disclosures — but acknowledged that “there are people who disagree with me in the real estate industry.” 

“If the seller is aware of flood risk and the buyer is not, then that gives an advantage to the seller during the negotiation process,” Fairweather said. “It’s better for there to be more even footing between seller and buyer. And on a more macro level, anything that helps homebuyers make better economic decisions, the more it will help the economy overall. Otherwise, we could have a situation where homebuyers are not at all aware of the risks, they go buying homes with high risk unwittingly, and then they end up needing bailouts from the government or insurance companies.” 

Supporters of Healey’s proposal in Massachusetts recognize the real estate industry could play a pivotal role in whether the state is able to enact a flood disclosure requirement. Norman Abbott, senior government affairs specialist at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, said the sector is “an influential group” and that “this may be an issue where we ultimately don’t see eye to eye.” 

Advertisement

Sen. Rebecca Rausch, a Democrat who co-chairs the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, declined to say in an interview whether she’s concerned that the real estate industry could serve as a roadblock to the flood disclosure provision. 

But she added that “flood risk is only going to increase” — and with that risk comes a potential financial reckoning for property owners.  

“So whether [owners are] required to talk about it or not, the value is going to be impacted,” Rausch said.  

Joel Scata, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who leads the group’s flood disclosure scorecard project, said real estate agents in other “buyer beware” states have opposed flood disclosure requirements because of a “misconstrued fear that this is going to hamper the real estate industry even though many other states have strong disclosure laws and still have strong real estate markets.” 

Luck might play a role, too.  

Advertisement

David Melly, a senior policy director at the Environmental League of Massachusetts, said that Massachusetts has avoided the flood disclosure conversation in recent years in part because it has largely been spared from devastating and headline grabbing major hurricanes with statewide impacts. New Jersey and New York, for instance, enacted flood disclosure laws in 2023 in the wake of hurricanes Sandy and Ida that battered those coastlines, flooded subway systems, and knocked out power for a large swath of people for an extended period of time.  

Still, between dramatic coastal erosion along bluffs and beaches in the state and crushing inland flooding in communities like Leominster in recent years, Healey’s bond bill would strengthen stormwater management systems and establish a revolving fund to implement upgrades to roads, bridges, dams, and salt marsh restoration projects. 

The flood disclosure requirement in particular is one that Carole McCauley wishes had already been in place when she sold her flood-prone Salem home a decade ago. 

McCauley, a single mother who used to work in the state’s Office of Coastal Zone Management and is now at Mass Audubon, would often park her car up the street on safer ground because the drains in front of her house would regularly overflow, with water spreading out over the road and bubbling up the sidewalk and onto her front steps. She became accustomed to watching the tide charts daily. 

Advertisement

But everything changed when a microburst of intense rain woke her up one morning in October 2011. She ran downstairs to find that three feet of water had poured into her basement, despite three sump pumps, and later learned she had lost a water heater and had her car totaled from the storm. 

When McCauley found out a few years later that her mortgage lender was going to require her to purchase flood insurance, McCauley decided it was time to move. 

But she didn’t disclose the flooding history to the next owner. 

“I felt like a real jerk,” McCauley said. “I remember having a conversation with the realtor, and he’s like, ‘Are you going to disclose?’ He just looked at me, like, ‘I’m your agent, and this is your money. What do you want me to do?’ They’re not making us do it. Hold your nose, and off you go.” 

The experience changed her thinking on flooding, climate change, and even capitalism. 

Advertisement

“This is not even just about convincing people that science is real and here’s something science is telling us,” McCauley said. “Now we’re telling people that their retirement, their future, their savings is at risk if their property values are impacted. But it is a very painful step in the right direction to require the mandatory disclosures. It’s not going to convince some people – some people can afford the loss, and some people just don’t believe it. But if they don’t believe it, it’s only because they have never lived through what it’s like to have all your family photos gone because they’re soaked in mud.” 

The proposed flood disclosure requirement isn’t necessarily just to benefit buyers, either.

Fairweather, Redfin’s chief economist, said if sellers knew their flood history would be disclosed, they could be nudged into taking additional steps to help mitigate against any damage such disclosures could do to their property value by investing in new gutters, for instance, or redoing their landscaping to navigate water away from the home. 

Now, Healey’s flood disclosure proposal will barrel forward into next year and stands to offer an early glimpse into the policy jockeying to come over how Massachusetts handles its growing flood problem.  

“Choosing not to disclose isn’t necessarily the answer, because it’s almost like a perverse game of musical chairs,” said Scata, the senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Eventually, someone’s going to be left holding that property that’s untenable because it floods so often.” 

Advertisement

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://commonwealthbeacon.org/environment/people-have-a-right-to-know-flood-disclosures-poised-to-step-into-legislative-limelight-next-year/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://commonwealthbeacon.org”>CommonWealth Beacon</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/commonwealthbeacon.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/cropped-Icon_Red-1.png?resize=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://commonwealthbeacon.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=307514&amp;ga4=G-1X7ZBDTLR0″ style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://commonwealthbeacon.org/environment/people-have-a-right-to-know-flood-disclosures-poised-to-step-into-legislative-limelight-next-year/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/commonwealthbeacon.org/p.js”></script>











Source link

Advertisement

Massachusetts

Rent control question tossed from ballot, SJC cites religious exemptions

Published

on

Rent control question tossed from ballot, SJC cites religious exemptions


Massachusetts voters will not have the opportunity to decide whether to end a decades-long ban on rent control after the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled Tuesday that it must not appear on the November ballot, citing the exemptions for religious organizations included in the question.

The SJC ruled that the initiative petition “impermissibly” relates to religion and religious institutions – something the Massachusetts Constitution states cannot be involved in the initiative petition process.

It’s the second ballot initiative struck down by the SJC in less than a week where the high court cited errors made by Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office, with justices issuing an opinion in May on a third ballot initiative regarding legislative stipends they said should not have been certified the AG’s office.

Last week, the SJC struck from the ballot a measure that would have gradually lowered the state income tax, citing a “misleading summary” authored by Campbell’s office. The SJC sided with Campbell on three other challenges to ballot initiatives certified by her office.

Advertisement

But even with the Attorney General’s office committing errors on three of six ballot initiative certifications, Campbell is defending her staff, and even calls it a “great record.”

“We have 47 (ballot initiatives) that we approved, we have 44 we certified. We had six challenges, and we got three wrong. I think that’s a great record,” Campbell said when asked by the Herald if the her qualifications, as well as those of her staff, should be called into question.

“That just tells me we have more to do to be better. Any institution, whether it’s media outlets or any industry, if they can get it 100% right every time…that doesn’t happen. We own these mistakes, I own these mistake, and now we’ll move forward to improve our process to get it right the next time,” she said.

When it comes to the rent control decision, Campbell had certified the question for the ballot. She reacted to the court’s ruling to block it shortly after it was posted by the SJC .

“We got the rent control initiative, we certified it. But we, of course, have to respect the court’s decision which was against us, and we got that wrong,” Campbell admitted during her monthly appearance on GBH radio Tuesday morning.

Advertisement

Campbell went on to say that her office attempted to explain in its summary, which appeared on the petition used to gather required signatures to qualify for the ballot, that religious institutions would be exempt from the law, if it were to pass.

The exemption for religious organizations controlling rental units was part of the language of the original petition.

“The court disagreed and said that even a minor reference to religion was not appropriate for a valid initiative, and we were just reviewing this. Obviously the decision just came out, and I think it was only the second time that the court has broken this standard, so it’s not like it happens frequently,” she said.

The plaintiffs, whom the SJC sided with in its ruling, claimed the petition should be disqualified because “religion is a factor in the application of the law,” citing a legal precedent that is key to the court’s ruling.

“The petition … concerns a generally secular subject matter — rent control. But, by including an express exemption for facilities operated solely for religious purposes, the petition impermissibly makes religion “a factor in [the petition’s] application.” And in order to enforce the proposed law, the exemption would require the government to determine if a facility is “operated solely for . . . religious . . . purposes,” and then make an enforcement decision based on the facility’s religious purpose (or lack thereof),” Justice Frank Gaziano in the SJC decision. “Further, the petition would confer preferential treatment on religious institutions by allowing them to increase rent prices, while limiting rent increases for secular facilities.”

Advertisement

The AG’s summary of the proposal stated that the rent control measure “would not apply to … units operated for educational, religious, or non-profit purposes.” Campbell had certified the question for the ballot, using a process that she has called “stupid” and said needs to be “revamped.”

Several other organizations involved in the fight for and against rent control are weighed in on the ruling, with rent control proponents calling it  “disappointing,” and opponents celebrate.

“This decision is a massive disappointment after all the work that thousands of volunteers and advocates in every corner of the state put into qualifying our rent control initiative for the ballot, but it’s far from the end of our campaign to protect Massachusetts renters from excessive rent hikes,” said New England Community Project Executive Director, who also chairs the Keep Massachusetts Home campaign, adding that the plaintiffs were financed by  “equity-backed real estate investment corporations.”

Housing for Massachusetts – a nonprofit organization against the rent control initiative, called it “the nation’s most extreme” rent control proposal in a statement celebrating the ruling.

“Today the Supreme Judicial Court confirmed that the nation’s most extreme rent control proposal was unconstitutional. While we firmly believe that Massachusetts voters were prepared to vote ‘no’ in November, today’s decision puts the issue to rest and protects our housing pipeline and our communities from the proven damage that rent control inflicts,” the organization said. “We are incredibly grateful to the countless small property owners, real estate professionals, elected officials, and community leaders who supported our coalition, and we look forward to working together to create more homes and tackle affordability through real policy solutions.”

Advertisement

The rent control question was the last of this year’s ballot questions still pending with the SJC.

Meanwhile, the SJC also ruled this week to allow a question to move forward that would switch the state’s primary election system to an all-party primary, proving to be a significant influence on what voters will decide on in the November election.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Westboro police officer crowned Miss Massachusetts – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News

Published

on

Westboro police officer crowned Miss Massachusetts – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News


WESTBORO, MASS. (WHDH) – A Westboro police officer became the first officer to ever be crowned Miss Massachusetts over the weekend.

Ashlyn Mercier, who is from Worcester, highlighted her community service initative “Nick’s Courage: One Smile Goes A Mile.” It’s named after her younger brother Nick, who is a two-time pediatric cancer survivor.

“I created this initiative really just to give back to the community, and to provide hope for children who are battling critcal illnesses,” Mercier said.

Mercier said her fellow officers at the Westboro Police Department have been nothing but supportive of her win. She said she’s proud to represent police officers on a national stage.

Advertisement

“The department has been so supportive, and it’s just really filled my heart with so much pride, and and so much joy on the Miss America stage, and also to represent law enforcement officers across the country,” she said. “I’m super thrilled and just honored to represent Miss Massachusetts 2026.”

She said pageantry and policing skills have crossover.

“The ability to perform on the spot as you are in pageantry, and in my job, responding to calls that require me to act quickly and respond with a calm, cool level-minded head,
these are all things I do in my role as Miss Massaschusetts, and my role as Officer Mercier,” she said.

Mercier is also set to compete in the Miss America pageant in September.

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

Advertisement
Join our Newsletter for the latest news right to your inbox



Source link

Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Man convicted in 1983 MA state trooper’s death is denied parole

Published

on

Man convicted in 1983 MA state trooper’s death is denied parole


play

  • The Massachusetts Parole Board has denied parole for Jose Colon, who was convicted of killing State Trooper George Hanna in 1983.
  • Colon became eligible for parole after a 2024 court ruling regarding offenders who were under 21 at the time of their crimes.
  • Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey expressed support for the board’s decision to deny parole.

The Massachusetts Parole Board has denied parole for a man who was convicted in the slaying of Massachusetts State Trooper George Hanna in 1983, saying he has failed to take full responsibility for his actions.

Jose Colon, now 64, killed Hanna, of Holliston and originally of Natick, on Feb. 26, 1983, outside an Auburn liquor store.

Advertisement

In its ruling, the Parole Board cited several reasons in its decision to deny parole. Those included that Colon testified during his parole hearing that he had been sober for 30 years, contradicting evidence of drug use during that time while in prison. It also cited the fact that he denied committing an armed robbery two days prior to killing Hanna, despite pleading guilty to the crime.

The Board also wrote that Colon hasn’t taken full responsibility for killing Hanna.

“Although he accepts responsibility, Mr. Colon maintains that he closed his eyes and fired his gun six times, hitting Trooper Hanna all six times,” the Board wrote. “He insists he had no intention of harming or killing Trooper Hanna. (However) Mr. Colon did appear to be remorseful that his actions led to the death of Trooper Hanna.”

Advertisement

Although Colon was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, a Supreme Judicial Court decision in 2024 ruled that those younger than 21 at the time a crime is committed can’t be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Colon was 20 when he killed Hanna.

Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early applauded the Parole Board’s decision.

“We are pleased with the Parole Board’s decision and grateful that it carefully considered the seriousness of this crime and its lasting impact on the Hanna family and our community,” Early said in a statement. “Our thoughts remain with the Hanna family, whose strength and perseverance throughout this process have been remarkable.”

Advertisement

State trooper intervened on armed robbery attempt

Hanna was killed on Feb. 26, 1983. According to published reports, that night Hanna pulled over a red Chevy Vega in the parking lot of J&S Liquors on Southbridge Street in Auburn. He did not know that the three men in the car were there to rob the store. All three were armed with handguns.

Hanna frisked one of the men and a struggle ensued. During the struggle, Colon shot Hanna six times. Hanna was shot a total of seven times.

Colon, Emilio Otero and Miguel Rosado, were all convicted of first-degree murder. Colon was the only one younger than 20 at the time, so the SJC ruling only affected him.

In a statement, Gov. Maura Healey celebrated the Parole Board’s decision.

Advertisement

“I strongly opposed Jose Colon’s parole and am grateful that the Parole Board denied his request,” she said in a statement released by her office on Monday, June 22. “More than four decades after Trooper George Hanna was brutally murdered while serving and protecting the people of Massachusetts, his loss continues to be felt by his family, fellow law enforcement officers and communities across our state. Today’s decision recognizes the magnitude of that loss and provides some measure of relief to those who have fought to ensure his memory is never forgotten.”

Hanna grew up in Natick, the son of longtime Natick Police Officer George Hanna Sr., and became a state trooper in 1974. He was married and had three children, and was living in Holliston at the time of his death.

A series of awards in his name, The Hanna Memorial Awards for Bravery, are the highest the state presents to police officers who exhibit exceptional bravery while in the line of duty.

Colon admitted to wrongdoing at parole hearing

During his parole hearing on Jan. 15, Colon admitted what he did was wrong.

“What I did was wrong and inexcusable,” he said during the five-hour hearing in Natick. “I will have to live with that for the rest of my life. I have asked God for forgiveness. I hope that one day the Hanna family will forgive me for the suffering I’ve brought into their life.”

Advertisement

The Board wrote in its decision that it realized Colon was not eligible to participate in several programs that most people seeking parole could because he was serving a life sentence with no chance at parole, until the court’s ruling.

However, the board also wrote that it felt Colon needs to seek treatment regarding his history of trauma and other issues that were contributing factors to the shooting.

“The Board recommends that Mr. Colon address the concerns of the Board, specifically related to accountability and treatment needs,” according to the decision. “The Board concludes Jose Colon has not demonstrated a level of rehabilitation that would make his release compatible with the welfare of society.”

Colon is eligible to seek parole again in 2029.

Norman Miller can be reached at 508-626-3823 or nmiller@wickedlocal.com. For up-to-date public safety news, follow him on X @Norman_MillerMW or on Facebook at Facebook.com/NormanMillerJournalist.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending