22

Page 22 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 2024 By Bob Katzen If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562 THE HOUSE AND SENATE: Beacon Hill Roll Call records local representatives’ votes on roll calls from the week of June 3-7. There were no roll calls in the Senate last week. $6.5 BILLION HOUSING PACKAGE (H 4070) House 145-13, approved and sent to the Senate a bill which supporters said includes $6.5 billion in bond authorizations, tax credits and several policy initiatives that promote housing production, facilitate the development of affordable housing and preserve public housing in Massachusetts. Provisions include $2 billion to support the repair, rehabilitation and modernization of over 43,000 public housing units across Massachusetts; $200 million to support innovative and alternative forms of rental housing including single person occupancy units, transitional and permanent housing for people experiencing homelessness, housing for seniors and veterans and transitional units for persons recovering from substance use disorder; $60 million to modify homes of individuals or families with disabilities or seniors so that they may maintain residency or return home from institutional settings; $20 million to establish a veterans supportive housing program to develop and preserve supportive housing for veterans and their families experiencing homelessness; $50 million to create a new Healthy Home program to provide grants and loans for programs to make homes habitable; and $50 million for the acquisition, rehabilitation and sale of distressed properties. “I’m incredibly proud of the investments included in this bill, which together make the largest investment in affordable and middle-income housing, as well as critical infrastructure related to housing production, in the history of the commonwealth,” said House Speaker Ron Mariano (D-Quincy). “Given that Massachusetts is one of the most expensive states in the entire country to buy a home or rent an apartment, the funding and tax credits provided by this bill will be crucial as we work to ensure that every Massachusetts resident can aff ord to live here, work here and raise a family here.” “This comprehensive bond bill will help address the commonwealth’s undeniable housing crisis,” said Rep. Aaron Michlewitz (D-Boston), the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. “By putting billions of capital resources towards constructing new homes and towards rehabilitating our aging public housing infrastructure, we will be making a diff erence to the thousands of residents who live in these facilities. The policies also contained in this legislation will help incentive housing production, increase aff ordability options for residents and help alleviate the pressure on the housing inventory as a whole.” “[This] is the largest housing investment in state history and meets the moment for our state’s housing landscape and people struggling with housing availability,” said Rep. Jim Arciero (D-Westford), House Chair of the Housing Committee. “Massachusetts is amidst a housing crisis that has aff ected every corner of our state, from renters to homeowners to fi rst-time homebuyers purchasing their fi rst home looking to set down roots for their family. This comprehensive bill provides tools in the toolbox for our communities including investments in state infrastructure to accommodate the need to replenish our housing stock and build deeply aff ordable to market rate housing. Despite repeated requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call, only two of the 13 representatives who voted against the bill responded to our requests asking them to share the reason they voted against it. The two who responded were Reps Bill Driscoll (D-Milton) and David DeCoste (R-Norwell). “This legislation does not protect our residents from increased rents and further infl ated housing costs when it comes to accessory dwelling units (ADUs),” said Driscoll. “As it stands now, if passed by the Senate and signed by the governor, the section on ADUs opens the door to corporate entities and investor-owned properties building ADUs by right and not specifying support for owner occupied and expanded family housing.” DeCoste said he voted against the bill because of a provision that creates the Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA). The website advocating for TOPA explains that the program would allow cities and towns the local option of providing tenants in multi-family buildings the right to match a third-party off er when their homes are being sold. Tenants can designate their rights to a non-profi t or local housing authority, or partner with an affordable housing purchaser. “TOPA hurts small property owners,” said DeCoste. “It will lead to more rental properties being sold to large out of state property holding companies because small property owners cannot overcome the timing obstacles.” The 11 representatives who did not respond to our requests are: Reps. Fred Barrows (R-Mansfi eld), Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick), Angelo D’Emilia (R-Bridgewater), Paul Frost (R-Auburn), Susan Gifford (R-Wareham), Steven Howitt (R-Seekonk), Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), Norman Orrall (R-Lakeville), David Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Michael Soter (R-Bellingham), Alyson Sullivan (R-Abington) (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino Yes Rep. Jeff Turco Yes WAIVER FROM MBTA COMMUNITIES ACT (H 4077) House 27-130, rejected an amendment that would waive the requirements of the MBTA Communities Act for cities and towns that have met their Chapter 40B aff ordable housing threshold. The Chapter 40B law enables local Zoning Boards of Appeals to approve affordable housing developments under fl exible rules if at least 20 percent to 25 percent of the units have long-term affordability restrictions. The MBTA Communities Act, according to the state’s website, requires that an MBTA community “must have at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right and meets other criteria” including minimum gross density of 15 units per acre; and a location not more than 1/2 mile from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station. No age restrictions can be applied and the district must be suitable for families with children. “My amendment would waive the MBTA Communities Act for towns and cities that have met their 40B aff ordable housing threshold,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica). “Unfortunately, the majority party defeated the amendment as they don’t care about the negative impact that thousands of new housing units will have on suburban communities’ infrastructure, education systems and public safety personnel.” Rep. Jim Arciero (D-Westford) said the amendment goes against the spirit of taking up this law for housing production. He noted that the Executive Offi ce of Housing and Livable Communities has been diligently working throughout the state and thus far over 70 communities are in compliance, another 50 have submitted plans for review, while 11 have been rejected. He argued that with this implementation still moving forward, we need to see it through with this law. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment. A “No” vote is against it.) Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Jeff Turco No APPEAL MBTA COMMUNITIES ACT (H 4707) House 32-126, rejected an amendment that would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop and promulgate regulations allowing a city or town aff ected by the zoning provisions of the MBTA Communities Act to appeal for relief from those provisions. Any appeal would have to be based on at least one of the following criteria: the community’s inability to meet the drinking water supply or wastewater requirements necessary to support the housing units authorized by the law’s zoning provisions; the inability of municipal transportation infrastructure to safely accommodate the increased population attributable to this housing development; any adverse environmental impacts attributable to the development of housing units under this act; and any adverse impacts on historic properties. “This amendment would have provided communities with some fl exibility in dealing with the MBTA Communities Act by off ering an appeals process based on a narrowly defi ned set of criteria that refl ect legitimate concerns about the law,” said amendment sponsor Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “This was a very modest request to assist communities impacted by this law. While it would not have guaranteed a successful appeal, it would at the very least have allowed municipal leaders an opportunity to make their case for relief from the law’s zoning provisions.” Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) urged rejection of this or any amendment that at this early stage in the implementation of this law, undermines it. She noted we should give it a chance to work. She said that 70 communities have already figured out how to make it work for them and other communities should be given a chance to do so. (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment allowing an appeal. A “No” vote is against the amendment.) Rep. Jessica Giannino No Rep. Jeff Turco No COUNT MOBILE HOMES (H 4070) House 29-127, rejected an amendment that would allow cities and towns to count mobile homes as homes that count toward the Chapter 40B law that enables local Zoning

23 Publizr Home