[Massplanners] Starter Homes M.G.L c40Y Draft Regulations Public Comment Period

Fri Jun 20 12:00:22 EDT 2025

This was the 90s when these studies came out. After the AFT study was publicized, concluding that residential didn’t pay for itself, follow-up studies established the assessed value cutoff between which covered their costs and which didn’t.  I then recall developers making representations to planning boards about how “high end” their homes were, thus riding above the threshold, so not to worry. 

Land uses that require a subsidy from other land uses to break even can only persevere until the cumulative subsidy is exhausted. I would say to Wayne and Judy that if there is an assessment tool out there that individual communities can use to debunk this notion, let’s put it out there so we misinformed planners may see the light.

Jeff Lacy

Rural Planning Associates

896 Graves Road

Conway, MA 01341

(413) 230-9693 (cell)

 <mailto:ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com> ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com

From: Judi Barrett <judi at barrettplanningllc.com> 
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:16 AM
To: Wayne Feiden <wayne at feiden.org>; Jeff Lacy <ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com>
Cc: Harry LaCortiglia <hlacortiglia at comcast.net>; massplanners at masscptc.org
Subject: Re: [Massplanners] Starter Homes M.G.L c40Y Draft Regulations Public Comment Period

I agree completely, Wayne. People don’t understand how to evaluate the fiscal impact of new housing or any other land use. If planners have trouble figuring this out, I don’t know how we can expect local officials to understand, let alone the general public. 

Judi Barrett 

BARRETT PLANNING GROUP LLC

350 Lincoln Street, Ste. 2503

Hingham, MA 02043

Office: (781) 934-0073, x7

Cell: (781) 206-6045

From: Wayne Feiden <wayne at feiden.org <mailto:wayne at feiden.org> >
Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 at 10:43
To: Jeff Lacy <ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com <mailto:ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com> >
Cc: Harry LaCortiglia <hlacortiglia at comcast.net <mailto:hlacortiglia at comcast.net> >, "judi at barrettplanningllc.com <mailto:judi at barrettplanningllc.com> " <judi at barrettplanningllc.com <mailto:judi at barrettplanningllc.com> >, MassPLanners MassPLanners CPTC <massplanners at masscptc.org <mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org> >
Subject: Re: [Massplanners] Starter Homes M.G.L c40Y Draft Regulations Public Comment Period

Jeff identifies where a lot of opposition to affordable and attainable housing comes from, even in spite of the overwhelming social and economic need for such housing. 

I will point out, however, that while the American Farmland Trust (AFT) identified the high cost of residential development, they used a average cost approach. When the Citizens Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) did a similar analysis, specifically of multi-family housing, they used a marginal cost approach, which resulted in very different outcomes. New housing rarely creates the need for a new city hall, fire station, police station, etc, so the marginal cost from new housing is much lower.

Wayne Feiden FAICP

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 10:27 AM Jeff Lacy via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org <mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org> > wrote:

Fundamental rub with lower-priced housing, technically “affordable” or not, is fiscal. Cities and towns are principally concerned with making their budgets work without overrides and revolts. Their principal obligations are to provide essential services and infrastructure that residents expect and retaining an experienced high-quality workforce. 

The American Farmland Trust some decades back did a “Costs of Community Services” study in New England that looked at various land uses, what local government services they demanded, and how much they contributed in property taxes toward those services. Commercial, industrial, and open space all demanded less than they contributed. Residential, as a category, demanded more than contributed. But the residential results were a mixed bag, with an assessed value cutoff between the homes that covered their costs (higher assessed values) and those that did not (lower assessed values). 

For the AFT the takeaway was that, as a category, open farmland not only exerted fewer demands upon municipal services, but actually subsidized residential. So keeping those lands from being residentially subdivided made dollars and sense. For municipalities, the takeaway was that, fiscally, if there’s a given family of four in a house, it’s better for the town that the house have a higher assessed value (to better pay for the same service demands, education in particular).

This tension between a societal need and a fiscal reality is the point I think Harry is making.

Jeff Lacy

Rural Planning Associates

896 Graves Road

Conway, MA 01341

(413) 230-9693 (cell)

 <mailto:ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com> ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com

From: MassPlanners <massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org <mailto:massplanners-bounces at masscptc.org> > On Behalf Of Harry LaCortiglia via MassPlanners
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 6:34 AM
To: Judi Barrett <judi at barrettplanningllc.com <mailto:judi at barrettplanningllc.com> >
Cc: massplanners at masscptc.org <mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org> 
Subject: Re: [Massplanners] Starter Homes M.G.L c40Y Draft Regulations Public Comment Period

Since we're currently at 11.4 % Affordable on the SHI it's a safe bet that the Town recognizes the inherent value in affordability, Judi.

The challenge to adopting new districts at town meeting in this community can often come down to framing the argument in beneficial monetary terms.  

Years ago our attempt at a 40R adoption failed by only 2 votes at Town Meeting. By the time we were ready to try adoption again at a subsequent Town Meeting, the State's incentive funding had dried up.

We lost the carrot. 

Not surprisingly, we do not have a 40R District.

In the aftermath of a contentious MBTA 3A adoption, until the bruises fade, the passing of new Zoning Amendments will now entail getting the citizens to forget the stick EOHLC used to achieve MBTA 3A adoption, and focusing more on the potential carrots that the town may receive. 

We just went through a Prop 2&1/2 override, so carrot$ could be very helpful.

Best,
H. LaCortiglia
Georgetown P.B.

It seems to me the best incentive is getting some affordably priced housing! 

Judi Barrett

(she, her, hers)

Barrett Planning Group LLC

350 Lincoln Street, Ste 2503

Hingham, MA 02043

(p) 781-934-0073

(c) 781-206-6045

On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:37 AM Harry LaCortiglia via MassPlanners <massplanners at masscptc.org <mailto:massplanners at masscptc.org> > wrote:

Thank you Filipe,

The link you provided states that "Massachusetts offers incentives and technical assistance for towns and cities to create these districts."

Could you elaborate with respect to the incentives for towns?

Best,
H. LaCortiglia
Georgetown P.B. 

On 6/18/2025 3:19 PM, Zamborlini, Filipe (EOHLC) via MassPlanners wrote:

Dear MassPlanners,

The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) is pleased to announce the opening of the public comment period for the Starter Home/Chapter 40Y regulations. We welcome your continued feedback on these draft regulations during the public comment period that starts on June 20, 2025 and closes on July 25, 2025. Submit a comment at www.mass.gov/starterhomes <http://www.mass.gov/starterhomes> . We anticipate that final regulations will be effective in the early fall.

Thank you,

Filipe

Filipe Zamborlini (he/him/his)

Manager, Community Assistance Unit

Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC)

Livable Communities Division

100 Cambridge Street, Suite 300

Boston, MA  02114

 <mailto:filipe.zamborlini at mass.gov> filipe.zamborlini at mass.gov

 <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/b4eb39dbb6b34b3fb6d841ec0fdb7916@mass.gov?anonymous&ep=signature> 

	 <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/b4eb39dbb6b34b3fb6d841ec0fdb7916@mass.gov?anonymous&ep=signature> Book time to meet with me

-- 
MassPlanners mailing list
MassPlanners at masscptc.org <mailto:MassPlanners at masscptc.org> 
http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org

-- 
MassPlanners mailing list
MassPlanners at masscptc.org <mailto:MassPlanners at masscptc.org> 
http://masscptc.org/mailman/listinfo/massplanners_masscptc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://masscptc.org/pipermail/massplanners_masscptc.org/attachments/20250620/e0f2abef/attachment.htm>