One of the recurring issues in Massachusetts is chapter 40B. A petition to eliminate it having been recently put forward (it failed, lacking the required signatures), it remains a hot-button issue.
The purpose of Chapter 40B is to encourage the creation of additional affordable housing. In a nutshell, 40B makes it easier to build a development if it contains 25% affordable housing (the definition of “affordable” is complex, but basically, it must be affordable to somebody making 80% of the area median income as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.)
To that end, it eases the permitting process for a 40B development. As opposed to undergoing the typical zoning process, a Chapter 40B development can go directly to a town’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which must solicit opinions of the relevant local committees and hold a public hearing within thirty days’ time. Within 40 days of this hearing, the Zoning Board must issue its recommendation for the project. If it is approved, the project can go forward and, after maintaining the usual state permits (wetlands, etc), be finally approved.. However, if it is denied, or granted with conditions that render it “uneconomic” (in other words, it is impossible to build the development without a financial loss), the developer can go to the Housing Appeals Committee, which can override the local ZBA decision if it is ruled to be “unreasonable and not consistent with local needs.”
Now, this is a truncated version of the 40B permitting process and is what usually appears in media outlets—specifically the Globe, which has been consistently anti-40B in its articles, focusing only on the angle of people seeking more “local control.” However, such a description is absolutely false. For there is one tidbit of information it does not take into account: the town must go through this abbreviated zoning process and can be overridden by the state—only if the town has less than 10% affordable housing. So yes, Chapter 40B can override local control of housing development in any town that has shown itself to be unable, on its own, to create adequate affordable housing!
This is just one example of the way the debate over Chapter 40B has been marked by misinformation and spin. Of course, very few oppose 40B with opposition to affordable housing as the stated reason. Opposition is generally couched in language attractive to two kinds of people: advocates of local control (as shown above) and environmentalists.
The Repeal 40B, the organization behind the ballot initiative, claims that the bill causes “unnecessary elimination of open space” and “overrides of local conservation guidelines.” Other organizations likewise denounce explosive, environmentally deleterious growth. The environmental argument, however, is completely inaccurate. Local zoning codes often prohibit dense housing, sometimes totally prohibiting multifamily housing construction. The ZBA can approve developments inconsistent with such town bylaws. This results in many more high-density projects going through due to 40B.
As economist Edward Glaeser says, “Every new skyscraper in Manhattan is a strike against global warming.” Dense cities are the greenest, most environmentally friendly way of living—New York City being the most environmentally friendly city in America by multiple measures, particularly energy use. They reduce both sprawl and energy use by being conducive to environmentally friendly measures such as centralized heating, shorter commutes, and mass transit. Density is green. And this is where the environmental argument breaks down. Repeal 40B claims, after its “open space” protestations, that 40B will result in increasing “high-density” units. On this point, Repeal 40B and supporters of 40B are in full agreement.
There are flaws in Chapter 40B, to be sure. After a certain amount of time, there are processes for developments to revert to market rates. In addition, the 25% requirement is relatively low. There are also problems that high-density growth can cause for towns: namely, increased education costs. Of course, it is not more expensive to educate children clustered in high-density units than sprawled out along 495 (the highest growth area in the state, and environmentally disastrous: it is the epitome of sprawl and anti-mass-transit, pro-automobile development.)
But the answer to these problems is not the repeal of Chapter 40B—it is the strengthening of it. Its affordable requirements should be increased, and the state and developer should both be required to provide increased mitigation funds for both mass transit and schools that towns with these developments will need. Efforts to reform Chapter 40B, both in negative (i.e. total elimination) and positive (i.e. tightening affordability standards, forcing units to remain affordable forever) ways will continue to be put forth in the legislature, and it is important that all MA residents stay involved at the national and local levels.
(much of this is taken from my article for our high school newspaper.)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
