By Brian Perrin, Sr.
I think it is important that our citizens know the peril that accompanies the state legislature’s “one size fits all” local zoning overreach contained in Section 3A of M.G.L. c. 40A, the multi-family zoning as-of-right contained in the MBTA Communities Act, of which Winthrop is subject.
Make no mistake, this law is nothing more than a financial boon for absentee real estate developers and nothing else. Section 3A does NOT include any requirement for affordable housing in its state forced zoning bid, it only creates an area in Winthrop that allows for the building of 882 large-scale multi-family housing projects to be built and “allowed as of right”. Even if Winthrop’s Town Council votes to require a percentage of any new 3A multi-family buildings be designated affordable, they are statutorily capped to only 10%. Under 3A, the State prohibits communities from requiring more than 10% for affordable housing and therefore Winthrop’s hands are tied as the state deems any more than this to disincentivize developers who expect to make large profits from these projects. Nor does 3A have any requirement to be green, environmentally responsible, and/or resource-efficient throughout a 3A building’s life-cycle (3A in-fact prohibits more-green-than-usual building requirements, since this is also seen as cost-prohibitive to developers).
The concept of providing more and affordable housing and access to public transportation seems very worthwhile on its surface. However, that is not what 3A does, please consider the following:
1. Historically, cities and towns, including Winthrop, have had the right to govern their own zoning laws and decisions. Among the many reasons why, these are purely local matters decided by local elected officials that live in and know their community and its limits. 3A takes local control of zoning away from the Town of Winthrop and eliminates our zoning requirements/decisions in a certain soon to be designated District in an effort to entice Developers to construct over 800 plus additional multi-family housing units here in Winthrop. In other words, Winthrop will have no control over its zoning and quality of life or future destiny in this regard under 3A!
2. Make no mistake, 3A will forever change the landscape of our town. Many say that we don’t have to build these 800 plus multi-family units and only need to create a district that allows multi-families to be built “as a matter of right”. If you allow 3A to stand, developers will invest, buy up local properties and build to the maximum amount allowable as to multi-families (Look at the many East Boston and Revere neighborhoods or the destruction thereof through ongoing over development).
3. Our Governor has made this 3A multi-family development a priority by enticing (subsidizing) developers to build, and her Housing Bond Bill includes the creation of “Accessory Dwelling Units” (ADUs) As-Of-Right: Permits ADUs equal to or less than 900 square feet to be built by-right in single family zoning districts in all communities. Let’s imagine how this would work as absentee landlords begin converting basements and garages into apartments under 900 square feet and the many negative effects on neighborhoods!
4. Anyone who has ridden the MBTA knows in its current form it is woefully unreliable and overburdened, and adding more riders to an already overburdened system is ridiculous and a recipe for disaster. Further, ridership declined during and since the Covid pandemic. Recent reports indicate that commercial real estate in downtown Boston (i.e. the buildings our sometimes-riders would be traveling to for work via the MBTA), dropped off at world-record rates, and aren’t likely coming back. COVID changed the way we live and work, and any future housing initiatives must account for this shift.
5. Are the 10,000 – 18,000 units being built at the old Suffolk Downs location not sufficient for Revere, Winthrop and East Boston to accomplish the goal of affordability and access to public transportation in our area?
6. Current traffic makes it difficult to get in and out of town even before we add Suffolk Down’s 10,000 plus units and its added vehicular traffic or Winthrop’s potential of 800 plus multi-families under 3A’s forced zoning.
7. For decades we have suffered through Logan Airport’s air and noise pollution as well as the MWRA’s Deer Island Treatment Plant’s increased traffic burden on our quality of life and now again we are TOLD AND NOT ASKED to shoulder yet another major burden for Boston and beyond by increasing our density.
8. Winthrop cannot sustain this level of unregulated growth due to insufficient infrastructure that comes with this additional forced development density. This overreaching law will have a negative effect on our town’s already limited and stretched budget by requiring resulting infrastructure and services upgrades (Water & Sewer infrastructure, School Classroom limits, DPW, Police & Fire) needed to accommodate this unrealistic development goal under 3A.
9. A full fiscal analysis of tax growth versus the cost of this proposed building growth on the town’s budget needs to take place as soon as possible and before any decision by the town is made as to 3A.
10. Is it not ironic to anyone that Winthrop does not have an MBTA train station and yet our neighbor Boston has multiple MBTA train stations and buses but is completely exempt from 3A’s forced development of multi-families? In fact, the train station that ties Winthrop to 3A is located in exempt East Boston!
Although 3A requires nothing for producing affordable housing whatsoever, under the long-standing current Chapter 40B, Real Estate Developers, have historically had the ability to bypass many of the same local zoning laws under Section 3A. So, proponents of 3A cannot blanketly blame area local zoning laws for restricting or hastening additional affordable housing units being constructed locally or statewide.
We need to recognize this law as a historic overreach by the state over our local control and self-governance. Our local zoning laws are in place to protect our citizens and their property values and interests from what 3A will surely bring to our community and its regulation should remain governed by our local elected officials who know their own community and its limits.
I read a horrifying statement attributed to our elected senator as we navigate and question the legality of 3A just as the Town of Milton is currently doing; “The state has to crush Milton,” Senator Lydia Edwards declared in a telephone interview. Really, is this not America, are we not supposed to or are we not able to stand up against what we perceive as unjust and lawfully challenge what we believe are unconstitutional laws? This “Let them eat cake” attitude from our elected officials is offensive, at best. The Attorney General’s Office (AG) has also made this threat to “CRUSH” 3A opposition a reality through its successful bid to have the Massachusetts Supreme Court hear the Milton case insisting the case is exceptional and worthy of the SJC’s immediate attention. The argument that the Milton case is casting a cloud over the process and could embolden resistance to the law. The AG fears that not putting a quick stop to opposition to this unjust law will embolden and result in other cities and towns challenging the state to protect their property and rights to self-governance in areas that are strictly local in nature. Fortunately, and much to the dismay of the Attorney General, the Supreme Court has refused to expedite the open, and newly proposed questions of law around the Attorney General’s authority in this area. Instead, the court has reached out to experts on these legal topics (experts which include Attorney Michael Walsh, who is leading a Constitutional challenge to 3A on behalf of Rockport citizens), and a months-down-the-road hearing before the full panel of Massachusetts Supreme Court judges).
This fight is purely about state overreach (taking away control from our local elected officials on local issues such as zoning), resistance to an unconstitutional law and flawed processes followed to develop the regulations disguised as un-enforceable guidelines and preventing a potential density level that will end our small-town life through unchecked real estate development of 800 plus multi-family buildings allowable as a matter of right! We should not have to fear being “CRUSHED” and intimidated by our own elected officials into surrendering our rights as citizens to lawfully challenge and oppose what we perceive as unjust laws. Section 3A of M.G.L. c. 40A is ripe for legal challenges (there will be more, beyond the three most publicized legal battles today) and is flawed in so many ways, there are lawful challenges being filed throughout the state and I implore my friends and neighbors to get informed and get involved. By not lawfully challenging this law and joining forces with the numerous other communities that are negatively affected we are surrendering our long-standing rights to govern our town to the ever-increasing overreaching powers of the state.