| 
When it comes to effecting the changes needed to increase housing production, we just can’t seem to get it together, even though almost everyone agrees that a sufficient supply of housing is a vital element in a future in which Massachusetts is economically competitive.
“Massachusetts is known as one of the most forward-thinking and
innovative states in the U.S.,” said “Unlocking the Commonwealth,” a 2014 report issued by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership. “Today, that tradition of strong political leadership and visionary legislation is needed again to enable the
private sector to build enough new housing to meet the needs of our existing population and to attract and retain the next generation of young families.”
An essential element is leadership at the local level. That is where policymakers are invested in the notion of our shared destiny and have the resources and regulatory tools to get new housing built. Building permits happen at the local level, as does the power to approve the rezoning necessary to reduce minimum lot sizes, increase housing density and, in particular, build more of what the Boston area lacks: multifamily housing.
The good news is that there are new tools being considered to empower local leaders in legislation that has recently been filed.
These proposals are for the benefit of all communities, but they would be particularly helpful to communities that have shown a genuine interest in increasing housing production but find themselves hamstrung by old rules.
In the Senate, a bill sponsored by Sen. Dan Wolf and Rep. Stephen Kulik focuses on reforming zoning laws that often, because of their complexity, empower opponents of new housing. And in the House, a bill sponsored by Rep. Kevin Honan, a longtime advocate of increasing housing production, focuses on municipalities, encouraging or requiring them to increase supply.
Two-Thirds Approval
One of the most significant changes would be to create a new path to bypass the need for a “supermajority” vote requirement, arguably the highest hurdle in changing local zoning. The Senate bill would give communities the option of changing their zoning with a simple majority vote, instead of the two-thirds, “supermajority” vote needed now. Likewise, special permits required for apartment complexes could be approved by a majority rather than two-thirds of the local planning board or other authority.
Critics of these changes say not only have they been proposed over and over and never passed, but also that they could have unintended effects. That is, if you make it easier to change zoning in a community, who’s to say it would change in a direction that allows more housing rather than less?
The very high hurdles for changing zoning, and for allowing special permits and zoning variances, go back to the early days of zoning in the 1920s and ’30s.
In the 1950s and 1960s the levels of support required for zoning changes zoning variances, and special permits, were relaxed. But the feeling grew that the rules didn’t mean much anymore, so in 1975 the state’s zoning act was completely rewritten. Since then, special permits and variances have required a two-thirds or in some cases a unanimous vote.
While the Senate legislation aims at knocking down obstacles to new housing in that and other ways, the House bill is more directly aimed at volume. But the bills are complementary.
The House bill would require that all local zoning ordinances allow multifamily developments, and it would require cluster development by right wherever there are single-family homes. Hearings on those bills are expected in the fall.
“Unlocking the Commonwealth” recommended many of the changes included in the two bills, including requiring bonds from opponents to discourage frivolous lawsuits and appeals. Existing Chapter 40R already features similar provisions.
The Baker administration is expected to have its own ideas about solving the housing shortage issue as part of its plan for economic development. The plan could focus less on new laws and more on effective use of existing laws, like Chapter 40R. That law provides incentives to communities that create smart growth overlay districts and proactively plan for future growth that includes housing.
These kinds of changes, legislative or otherwise, would benefit the communities and the region as a whole.
To take liberties with the famous Tip O’Neill quote that “all politics is local” – all housing is local, and as a region we either pay the price or realize the rewards.
Perhaps by a simple majority, let’s choose the latter.
