This story was originally published by The Shoestring. BINJ is collaborating with the Western Mass publication to cover this year’s extraordinary nine ballot initiatives, so be sure to follow both of us for more articles on the other questions.
Housing affordability has been top of mind ahead of this year’s general elections, and some housing advocates are suggesting zoning reform as the latest course of action in the fight against the housing crisis. But some municipal officials and local organizers say it just won’t work.
One of nine ballot measures up for vote this November, Question 7 would universally allow single-family homes to be built on residential lots as small as 5,000 square feet, provided they have at least 50 feet of frontage and access to public sewer and water.
Andrew Mikula is chair of the Legalize Starter Homes campaign behind the ballot measure. He said academic research has shown the policy would spur the construction of affordable homes for first-time buyers at a time when costs for prospective homeowners are skyrocketing.
“We need to make sure a lot of those homes are lower cost, lower maintenance, and suitable for young people and first-time buyers of all walks of life,” he said.
Right now, most municipalities in Massachusetts have a much larger baseline lot size for single-family home construction, determined by local zoning. If passed, Question 7 would overhaul any local ordinances and mandate a statewide minimum.
“Allowing homes on smaller lots reduces the cost of homes for buyers and makes it so that developers don’t have to build giant McMansions just to justify the cost of assembling so much land,” Mikula said.
But opponents of the measure are skeptical.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association, which has been the main dissenting voice against the proposal, said the measure will be ineffective at actually creating affordable starter homes and is advocating against its statewide one-size-fits-all solution.
Executive Director Adam Chapdelaine said that because the measure, as written, has no affordability requirements, developers can still continue to build pricey houses, just under the 5,000-square-foot minimum.
“If you’ve got that 50 feet of frontage and 5,000 square feet, you can still build a pretty big, expensive home,” Chapdelaine said. “Our concern would be that units would still be developed and sold at market rate, far beyond the reach of the average family or average individual.”
Local housing organizers shared the same sentiment.
At a meeting last month, the Springfield-based grassroots organization Springfield No One Leaves voted not to take an official position on Question 7, according to organizing director Katie Talbot.
Talbot said the biggest concern among members was the lack of any specific language that would assure the construction of starter homes at affordable size. In some more urban areas of Springfield, where there already is a 5,000-square-foot minimum for single-family home construction, Talbot said developers are still mostly building homes starting at 2,000 or 3,000 square feet.
“Working-class people still can’t afford that,” she said. “If it’s not guaranteeing the construction of 1,000- to 1,500-square-foot homes, it doesn’t actually do anything for people in need of starter homes.”
In state-run starter home programs like Chapter 40Y, a starter home is defined as a single-family property not exceeding 1,850 square feet of heated living area. Zillow defines a starter home in the United States as roughly 750 to 1,250 square feet.
Mikula, who has been spearheading the campaign and was involved in writing the policy, said he’s aware that the ballot language doesn’t explicitly mention affordability, but cited legal concerns — Article 48 of the state constitution forbids a single ballot initiative from asking two separate questions — as the primary reason why.
He also said it’s possible the state’s Office of Housing and Livable Communities could add affordability guidelines to the policy once it’s been passed by voters.
“We’re trying to make this both feasible for builders to build and to have the best impact on affordability that we possibly can,” Mikula said.
The list of endorsements and financial backers Mikula’s campaign has garnered consists of an unusual mix of major real estate developers and progressive political groups, like the Boston-based Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and Progressive Mass.
Campaign finance data show major contributions from the Massachusetts Association of Realtors and its political action committee, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, Zillow, and several other real estate developers and CEOs.
In total, the Legalize Starter Homes campaign has raised over $1.7 million since last year — including $250,000 from its coalition partner, Abundant Housing Massachusetts — and has spent over $1.4 million, primarily on signature gathering.
Contributions have largely come from eastern parts of the state, and aside from one $100 donation from a retired writer in Leverett, none have originated from western Massachusetts, according to the most recent data available. However, the campaign has earned endorsements from Holyoke Mayor Joshua Garcia and state Sen. Adam Gomez, D-Springfield.
Neither Garcia nor Gomez responded to requests for comment.
Opponents to the ballot measure have not launched a funded campaign or garnered the same deep-pocket support, but Chapdelaine said they’ve still done what they can to advocate against the petition on Beacon Hill. He added that the influx of significant funding from the real estate industry to the “yes” campaign also paints a pretty clear picture:
“They are giving to this campaign because they think they can make a lot of money if it passes,” Chapdelaine said. “You don’t cut a $50,000 check if you don’t think there’s going to be a return for you.”
It was also similar deep-pocketed support from major real estate that pushed for the axing, earlier this year, of a ballot initiative that would have instituted rent control in Massachusetts. In June, the state’s top court ended up throwing out that ballot question on a technicality which has left fresh wounds for local organizers as they debated Question 7.
Talbot described soaring rent prices as the true culprit behind the affordable housing crisis, not just the need to build more housing.
“[Question 7] also furthers the narrative that the housing crisis is just a supply crisis, which isn’t the case,” she said.
Referring to the failed rent control measure, Mikula said he anticipates Question 7 would benefit low-income renters “at least indirectly.”
“If higher-income renters have a much easier time becoming homeowners, all of a sudden there’s much less competition between higher-income and lower-income renters for those scarce low-cost apartments.”
The debate over Question 7 has also centered on local authority in zoning.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association, which is made up of mayors, city councilors, and select board members from all 351 municipalities in the state, has criticized Question 7 as contrary to the inherent locality of zoning decisions. The organization has argued that it “strips local residents and officials of their role and their voice” by instituting a statewide blanket policy.
Chapdelaine said the measure also doesn’t account for capacity constraints when requiring new construction to hook up to public water and sewer. It’s something he argues local leaders should be able to determine for themselves in order to best serve their communities.
“We’re always looking out to protect local decision making,” he said. “We think local communities can figure this out pretty well on their own.”
The association has cited Chapter 40Y as an effective alternative for building starter homes while still preserving local autonomy. The voluntary program was first enacted in 2023 to provide a framework for municipalities to develop zoning that supports starter-home production.
But so far, no municipalities in the state have adopted Chapter 40Y.
“That tells you all you need to know about its effectiveness relative to our petition,” Mikula said.
Chapdelaine argued the program needs more time, given its final regulations were published only in March of this year.
“I think it would be beneficial to see whether or not that program actually could produce some legitimate starter homes before taking this more extreme measure,” he said.
Chapdelaine also said zoning reform shouldn’t be the only solution, arguing that increasing municipal budgets can be just as effective at boosting affordable housing production.
“It’s my belief that the austere fiscal climate in cities and towns is actually what leads a lot of local leaders to be concerned about taking on more housing,” he said. “I really think collectively, federal and state policymakers who want to see housing move forward need to more deeply understand that.”
On Nov. 3, residents will vote on the ballot to decide whether Question 7 should become law. If passed, the state’s Office of Housing and Livable Communities will issue more specific guidelines to assist cities and towns with the transition.
Mikula said he was optimistic about the measure’s chances to pass, citing over 100,000 signatures to get the measure on the ballot and majority support across all geographic regions and age groups. An August poll from UMass Amherst estimated that 59% of voters would either “probably” or “definitely” vote “yes” on the measure.
“This is a community-building exercise to make sure that we have a lower rung on the housing ladder for folks to get started in building equity, building up generational wealth, and contributing back to those communities.”
