In an attempt to sway voter opinion, Gov. Maura Healey and Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll have formed a nonprofit advocacy group called One Commonwealth Inc. The organization was created to push multifamily housing efforts. Incorporation papers were filed for the organization in April 2024.

One Commonwealth aims to provide grassroots support for pro-housing (multifamily). All initiatives at the local level, particularly in light of significant housing legislation changes in Greater Boston. Political strategist Katie Prisco-Buxbaum has been appointed to serve as executive director. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, the organization doesn’t have to publicize its donors.

Governor Healey’s One Commonwealth nonprofit

This brings up some ethical and legal questions:

Nonprofit advocacy: One Commonwealth Inc. is a 501(c)(4) entity and may participate in some political activities, as long as that’s not its primary purpose. Hmm, it seems that multifamily housing IS its primary purpose.

Political link: The fact that Governor Healey and Lt. Governor Driscoll set up this nonprofit while in office raises concerns about ethical conflicts of interest.

Transparency issues: The failure to disclose donor information by organizations is a common complaint and a potential example of a transparency failure in political advocacy.

Not interference per se: Though technically not interference, the organization is trying to influence local political discourse on housing matters.

Distribution of info: If Healey is using state resources to promote an area forum, this could be seen as a political use of state resources and could land her in hot water. Even if they do not strictly constitute illegal election interference, such actions nevertheless cross the boundaries between government function, political campaigning, and commercial interests.

This topic is highly contentious in Hopkinton, with many residents expressing concerns about its effects on schools, taxes, and the character of the town. However, local officials emphasize that compliance with state law is essentially mandatory. Ignoring or circumventing the zoning bylaw could lead to negative consequences for the town.

Which Towns Have Voted Against the MBTA Communities Multifamily Overlay District?

Here are the communities that rejected the proposals: Hanson, Hopkinton, Foxborough, Marblehead, Marshfield, Middleton, Milton, Norwell, Rowley, Seekonk, Tewksbury, Wakefield, and North Reading.

However, there are some caveats to this claim: Milton is the sole community that is currently deemed out of compliance, as its deadline (due to it being a rapid transit community) was December 2023.

All the other communities listed have until December 31, 2024, to approve new zoning. Other cities, including Wilmington, Lynnfield, and Hanover, are putting off their votes until after a SJC ruling on Milton (see below).

At their October Town Meeting, North Reading voters rejected the MBTA Communities Act by nearly a 40 to 1 margin. Wakefield rejected all three options at their town meeting, and will need to revisit the question at its fall meeting if it do not want to find themselves in breach (like Milton).

The situation is in flux, however, and various towns may have changed their minds or taken an additional vote in the time remaining before compliance must be achieved.

YES Vote Tonight

Tonight, a YES vote will enact amendments to the Zoning Bylaw and Zoning Map that creates the MBTA Communities Multifamily Overlay District.

• This is under consideration in order to meet the guidelines of the state’s MBTA Communities Act ahead of the December 31, 2024 deadline.
• It will create new zoning overlays in Hopkinton for the development of multifamily housing across specific neighborhoods.
• It will add three Zoning Overlay Districts in town, per Zoning Advisory Committee, Principal Planner, Planning Board, and Select Board recommendations.
• Bring Hopkinton into compliance with state law requiring MBTA communities to zone for multifamily housing near transit.
• Stave off legal action from the state Attorney General’s office, which has already taken other towns (MILTON) that are also not in compliance to court.
• Change the zoning to dictate the design and build restrictions of new buildings in their overlay districts, intended to promote housing density and variety.

The initial proposal is called “Upper Cedar Street and Downtown.” The second proposal is referred to as the “Reserve/Downtown/Walcott Valley.”

NO Vote Tonight

Some residents will see a NO vote on Article 8 at the Hopkinton Special Town Meeting as a way to ensure that our schools, taxes, or town character remain intact.

• State Law Violation: A NO vote would defeat these proposed amendments creating the MBTA Communities Multifamily Overlay District and leave Hopkinton in violation of the state’s MBTA Communities Act.
• Possible lawsuits: Town action could trigger a lawsuit by the state Attorney General’s office, as occurred in Milton. Attorney General Andrea Campbell has indicated that her office is willing to litigate this law.
• State funding impact: Non-compliant towns may lose their eligibility for certain state grants and funding opportunities, which can affect multiple town projects and services.
• Reduced local authority: A NO vote may appear to maintain some local control, but the absence of zoning reform could actually diminish impact over how locally mandated changes are implemented if the state is forced to take legal action in order to ensure compliance.
• Delaying enforcement: If town officials lose, they could need to do even more heavy lifting ahead of the Dec. 31, 2024, deadline and might have to rush it along at that point.
• Economic ramifications: The absence of a variety of housing types may impact the town’s economic evolution, its capacity to impose itself and capture new residents or businesses.

Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) regarding the enforcement of the MBTA Communities Law in Milton

Oral arguments were heard on Oct. 7, 2024, in the Massachusetts SJC for a case between the Commonwealth and the Town of Milton forcing compliance with the MBTA Communities Law. At that time, 36 municipalities were fully compliant with the law, while 101 out of 177 affected communities had yet to adopt the required changes.

It’s important to note that the SJC’s ruling, when it comes, will be crucial in determining the enforceability of the MBTA Communities Law and could impact housing policy across Massachusetts. The law requires communities at rapid transit stops to create zoning districts that permit multifamily housing.

Important highlights from the proceedings are as follows:

Milton residents turned down a zoning district that would have brought the town into compliance with the law.

Andrea Campbell, the Attorney General, then sued Milton, claiming that the town is required to follow the law and that her office has a duty to enforce it.

The justices considered two core legal questions:

1. If the Attorney General can make them comply.
   
2. If the rules set up for complying were correctly established.

Milton’s Argument: Milton argued that the law was not enforceable enough and does not allow for lawsuits, only a wage loss (revenue loss when some state grants are unavailable). They asserted that the guidelines had been inappropriately promulgated and questioned whether they had been correctly established and could be enforced at all.

Implications: This case could have very serious ramifications for housing policy around the state of Massachusetts and for other communities resisting similar zoning requirements. If Milton wins, it may influence other towns to refuse compliance too.

Timeline for the ruling: No timeline was set for a decision, but cases are generally decided within 130 days of oral arguments, meaning a ruling could come by mid-February 2025.

The SJC’s decision will be very important because it may determine not only how strictly the MBTA Communities Law can apply, but also could potentially establish a precedent relevant to other communities with similar compliance hurdles (all of which are non-trivial).