Another year and yet another epic fail for comprehensive zoning reform in Massachusetts. 

And for buyers and renters stuck with some of the nation’s highest housing costs, it’s another big loss, with the median price of home in Massachusetts hitting a record $420,000 in June, according to The Warren Group, publisher of Banker & Tradesman. 

Yes, it does look like Gov. Charlie Baker’s sensible but modest proposal to make it easier for towns, cities and suburbs to make zoning changes will make the final cut on Beacon Hill. 

But Baker’s proposal is a far cry from what is so desperately needed: A sweeping, statewide overhaul that would bar suburbs and towns from zoning out unwanted apartments, condominiums and starter homes that might attract families with young children. 

I don’t have a crystal ball, but with the two-year legislative session ending on July 31 at midnight, only Baker’s proposal to allow a simple majority vote for zoning changes, instead of the two-thirds that’s mandatory now, stands any chance of passing. 

“There is no possibility,” said Clark Ziegler, head of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, of whether there is even a slim chance of broader zoning reform before the session ends. “Nothing that is being talked about now for this session can be described as comprehensive zoning reform.” 

Baker’s bill is a good step, but only towns that want to play ball and embrace the need for all housing of all types will adopt the governor’s proposal.  

That’s because the governor’s proposal isn’t mandatory – it just gives communities the option of reducing the voting requirements for zoning changes to a simple majority from the current two-thirds. 

I guarantee that suburbs that are busy blocking every new housing proposal to come down the pike have zero interest in dropping the two-thirds requirement, one of the best bureaucratic weapons out there to ensure the death of any new development proposal. Even if a majority of a town’s residents want more housing – or are at least OK with it – the two-thirds requirement enables a minority, or even just a small group of NIMBY neighbors who bother to turn up at a sparsely attended Town Meeting, to call the shots. 

Scott Van Voorhis

Not unsurprisingly, our fearless state legislative leaders are pointing the finger at everyone but themselves for this mess. 

In comments to State House News Service, Speaker Robert DeLeo warned not to expect much more this year than Baker’s needed, but limited, voting/zoning approval bill. 

DeLeo, speaker for nearly a decade and  arguably one of the most powerful players in state politics, blamed the lack of a wider zoning overhaul and disagreements between what developers on one side and local officials who run cities and towns across the state on the other. 

It is true the state’s development community has been at odds with the Massachusetts Municipal Association over how to deal with the key issue driving up home prices and rents: the long-standing shortage of homes for sale and apartments for rent. 

Groups that represent developers and builders, like NAIOP Massachusetts and the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, want a comprehensive revamp of local zoning rules that currently make it all but impossible to build the volume and broad range of housing needed to keep prices in check, taking aim at the suburbs with no zoning allowances for new apartment projects or with requirements that new homes sit on an acre or two – or more – guaranteeing the only thing that will get built are expensive McMansions. Or which put up ridiculous restrictions on modest in-law apartments. 

The MMA, which represents cities and towns across the state, is far more interested in protecting its members’ prerogatives. The group has been fiercely opposed to statewide zoning legislation that would dictate what its members can and can’t do when it comes to setting the rules for new development and housing construction. 

Yet all this is to be expected. No one expects the MMA to see eye to eye with developers on zoning rules. The failure here is one of lack of leadership DeLeo’s part – and, for that matter, on a Senate that has spent the last year engulfed in a disgraceful sex abuse scandal involving shocking and predatory behavior in the halls of power by the ex-husband of now former Senate President Stan Rosenberg. 

We are approaching the end of a two-year session. Up to this point, there has been little evidence that zoning reform was a top priority, or even a priority, at the State House. DeLeo and the Senate’s revolving cast of leaders had two years to force both sides to work out a compromise and pass a broad zoning reform bill. 

The proposals we are talking about were hardly new even at the start of the latest legislative session in 2016 – they extend back years. And there has been a broad consensus among business and civic leaders and housing advocates for two decades – two decades! – that more housing of all types is needed in Massachusetts to combat escalating prices and rampant unaffordability. 

Legislative leaders like DeLeo and Rosenberg have shown themselves extremely adept at holding onto power and keeping members in check with cushy committee chairmanships and threats. 

But when it comes to passing zoning reform legislation vital to the future of the state’s struggling middle class, either they have been singularly inept or the just simply don’t give a darn. 

Either way, something has to give. 

Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.