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

Fri Jun 20 12:49:16 EDT 2025

Here’s my take on things. I have little faith in fiscal impact models.

A few years ago, MHP asked me to take a look at a then-new 200-unit Chapter 40B rental development in a desirable suburb off I-495 near Lowell. (To be clear: 75% market-rate units, 25% affordable units, and no three-bedroom units.) Although both the developer’s fiscal impact analyst and the reviewing board’s peer review consultant had projected new K-12 enrollments in the 20-25 children range, about 70+ kids boarded school buses from that development the first day of school in the fall. Needless to say, the town was surprised. I decided to look at a couple of other developments in town to try to figure out what was going on. At another project with about the same number of units, I found only 11 school-age children. Hmmm.

I learned from that assignment that models can tell you only so much. One of the main reasons the new development housed 70+ new students had to do with the way the project was marketed, and that’s something no fiscal impact model can ever account for. The developer’s firm had a working relationship with a company that brings highly educated talent to the U.S. from other countries for two years to work in our high-tech/biotech/life science industries. The families who arrive with children want their children in the best public schools available while they’re in the U.S. Funny thing about that … isn’t that what most parents want, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or national origin? Another feature of the new 200-unit development: the first thing you see when you drive along the access road is a lovely playground. And isn’t that what people want for their children, too – a safe and attractive place to play? Sadly, most new apartment developments lack the most basic play spaces for children … sorry folks, but a clubhouse and tennis court isn’t what most 7- or 8-year-old children are looking for. (I have nine children, folks – I know something about kid.) It seems to be fashionable in the multifamily industry to design developments that will discourage families with children. Why? Because the public believes that every housing development costs more money than the revenue it brings in, and planners who should know better often reinforce that opinion.

A few colleagues have said the 200-unit development with 70+ school-age children is an outlier. I don’t think it is. I find these projects once in a while. It’s definitely not the norm, but it isn’t exactly an outlier either. I don’t care if you’re using the flawed American Farmlands Trust model or some other model you think is a crystal ball, there are things about how a new development will operate and the kinds of households it appeals to, and how those households make choices about where to live, that are difficult if not impossible to capture in a fiscal impact study conducted during the approval process. Comparing two 200-unit multifamily developments may lead you to similar conclusions, but if you don’t look at where they’re going to be built, how tall the buildings are, what amenities they offer, how dense the development will be, and how the properties will be managed, your conclusions will probably be flawed.  Moreover, to understand how new development will affect your community, you need to understand how your city/town departments and public schools operate. Some town departments are stressed; some are not. You also need to understand your community’s financial management practices. If you’re not willing to take the time to understand these things – if you just want a spreadsheet to dump some numbers into – you’re going to miss some critically important information that will likely determine the real impact of growth.

Last comment on this topic (fortunately for all of you!). If we’re really dedicated to creating communities for all, let’s stop asking some types of housing to “pay for themselves” while other types of housing slide through the approval process with barely a ho-hum. Better yet, let’s stop with the nonsense that commercial developments always generate more revenue than what it costs to serve them. That, too, is a marvelous urban legend.

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>
Date: Friday, June 20, 2025 at 12:07
To: Jeff Lacy <ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com>
Cc: "judi at barrettplanningllc.com" <judi at barrettplanningllc.com>, Harry LaCortiglia <hlacortiglia at comcast.net>, MassPLanners MassPLanners CPTC <massplanners at masscptc.org>
Subject: Re: [Massplanners] Starter Homes M.G.L c40Y Draft Regulations Public Comment Period

The 2007 study I was citing is The Fiscal Impact of Mixed-Income Housing Developments on Massachusetts Municipalities<https://donahue.umass.edu/documents/UMDI_FiscalImpact.pdf>.

More recently MGL 40S has put some of this to the test. 40R projects have the right for reimbursement of school costs, the primary driver that Jeff's studies focus on, under some circumstances. Certainly there have been significant 40S payments, but they have been far less than planners and municipal officials originally thought since those impacts have been less. I have not seen a detailed study on this, but no doubt it's out there.

Wayne Feiden FAICP

On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 12:00 PM Jeff Lacy <ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com<mailto:ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com>> wrote:
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)
ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com<mailto:ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com>

From: Judi Barrett <judi at barrettplanningllc.com<mailto:judi at barrettplanningllc.com>>
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2025 11:16 AM
To: Wayne Feiden <wayne at feiden.org<mailto:wayne at feiden.org>>; Jeff Lacy <ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com<mailto:ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com>>
Cc: Harry LaCortiglia <hlacortiglia at comcast.net<mailto:hlacortiglia at comcast.net>>; massplanners at masscptc.org<mailto: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)
ruralplanningassociates at crocker.com<mailto: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!
Error! Filename not specified.
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
filipe.zamborlini at mass.gov<mailto:filipe.zamborlini at mass.gov>

Error! Filename not specified.<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/b4eb39dbb6b34b3fb6d841ec0fdb7916@mass.gov?anonymous&ep=signature>
Book time to meet with me<https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/user/b4eb39dbb6b34b3fb6d841ec0fdb7916@mass.gov?anonymous&ep=signature>

--
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/20250620/6aa9ad32/attachment.htm>