When will the state legislature take real action on the housing crisis?

The stipend reform campaign was informed last week that we will be unable to proceed with signature gathering, as a result of the supreme judicial court (SJC) advisory opinion solicited by the Senate. The legislature has succeeded in blocking stipend reform without a lawsuit, using a backdoor legal maneuver available only to them. 

Essentially, the ballot question’s right to proceed was based on the attorney general’s certification in August of 2025, followed by completing the first round of signature gathering. The attorney general's office worked with the campaign in drafting the language to ensure that it would pass their certification. However, following the SJC’s **non-binding** opinion, the attorney general’s office announced that their certification of the ballot question was incorrect. As a result, the question will not proceed to the November ballot. 

This ballot measure was the product of thousands of volunteers and supporters, who poured out time and money to give Massachusetts voters the chance to decide: who should set how our state representatives are paid—the House Speaker? Or the public? Instead, our political elites have ensured that the voters will be denied that decision. 

I’ll quote our campaign chair, John Lippitt on this: "This is precisely the type of abuse of power that our initiative was designed to address… The same legislative leadership that buried our reform bill without ever giving it a bill number or a hearing, has now spent state resources to obtain an opinion they could weaponize against the 95,000 voters who signed in support of this. They didn't beat us on the merits. They didn't beat us in the field. They went looking for a process to silence almost a hundred thousand of their own constituents, and they found one."

This disappointing outcome reminds me just how important our good government work is. Legislative leaders have proved time and time again that they will do anything to avoid accountability to the voters. We need a sustained movement across Massachusetts to keep up pressure, to empower constituents to hold their own legislators accountable, and to keep pushing for sunlight on Beacon Hill, even after setbacks like this one. 

It’s also reminded me how important it is to make time for moments of joy and togetherness. I’m so looking forward to our upcoming spring fundraiser, “Raising Our Voices for Democracy in Massachusetts,” which will be held June 7th from 2-4 pm in Concord. If you need a little levity amid a constantly dismaying news cycle, consider buying a ticket to join us! You can help sustain our movement for homegrown democracy in Mass and enjoy some homegrown music at the same time (including a performance by Auditor Diana DiZoglio!) 

If you’re not able to attend, you can still support our spring fundraiser by making a donation today! Thank you for your support! 

State House Scoop 

When will the state legislature take real action on the housing crisis? 

This Wednesday, a viral comment at Marblehead’s town meeting could have encapsulated the last several decades of Massachusetts housing policy: “are we trying to do nothing? ‘Cause it seems like we’re doing nothing.” 

Marblehead was voting Wednesday on a zoning plan to bring them in compliance with the MBTA Communities Act, a state law requiring 177 cities and towns to update their zoning codes to allow for more dense housing near transit stops. After residents rejected multiple proposed zoning changes that would have allowed new housing, Marblehead opted for “paper compliance,” adding multifamily zoning in areas where no housing was likely to be built. In a comment that went viral, town resident David Modica pointed this out and asked (in best M*sshole fashion): “are we kinda being pricks? …We’re trying to build no houses? Like, I don’t get it. People live in houses.” 

Modica’s comments were directed at local officials and residents Marblehead who opposed new housing. Yet, the critique also applies to the state. In an interview with the Marblehead Independent, Modica said “I guess we’re performing for the state, but I think they probably know it’s a lie too.” Indeed, the MBTA Communities Act allows for this sort of loophole: it makes no requirements for the actual construction of housing, and does not allocate funds to do so. Marblehead is far from the only town to “comply” while avoiding the construction of new housing. 

Bay Staters face the third highest housing costs in the nation, behind just Hawaii and California. In a new poll this week, half of Massachusetts residents said that housing is unaffordable, edging out healthcare and childcare as the “single biggest financial pressure point” for Bay Staters. As evidence of the impacts of this crisis at the margins, Massachusetts also has the fifth largest homeless population in the country, although we rank 16th in population. Overall, Massachusetts voters rank “the cost and availability of housing” as the top issue facing the state and overwhelmingly support legislative action to address the housing crisis. 

This issue hit home for me this week, in the midst of my own search for a new apartment in the Boston area. I am very privileged to be paid for work that serves my community, and the Act on Mass board makes sure that I am paid a very livable wage (thanks to supporters like you!) Still, the budget of a nonprofit executive director falls on the lower end of a rental market that includes the “finance bros” of the Boston Seaport. As I scour listing sites and message boards for a reasonable rental, I’m acutely aware that the number of apartments available to me is smaller than my last search, even though I’m older with more experience. 

This search has also prompted reflection about my long-term housing goals. I grew up in Massachusetts and one day hope to raise a family here. Yet, the path to stable benchmarks like homeownership seems increasingly closed to my generation of Bay Staters. 

All politics is personal, so here's some personal history. My parents were three years older than I am now when they purchased my childhood home in Natick for $175,000, on a single salary. At the time, Massachusetts median household income was $52,000 per year. Now, the same house is valued over $1 million, while median household income has risen to $113,000 annually. In short, our house used to be worth 3x Massachusetts’ median income; now it is worth 10x MA median income. According to a Boston Globe housing calculator released this week, I would need a consistent income of $272,731 per year to afford a mortgage on the house I grew up in. The closest “affordable” town to my hometown is over an hour away. 

I had a wonderful childhood and a relatively privileged one. Nothing fancy, but I wanted for nothing and got a great education in Natick’s public schools. I’m not looking for a life of luxury: I’d be pleased if I could just offer my children a similar starting point to what I had. Yet, to even get my foot in the door, I’d need to start from a much higher income profile than my parents did. That is hard to reconcile. 

Although I’m just one case, this is a common subject of conversation with peers my age and older. A third of Massachusetts residents say they are worse offfinancially than their parents were at their age. Many young people are adopting the approach that my roommate spelled out for me this week: “I’ve just given up on the idea of ever owning a home in Massachusetts.” According to the most recent tax data, young workers aged 26 - 35 made up the largest portion of residents moving out of Massachusetts. 

The mismatch between housing prices and median income also supercharges the impact of generational wealth, as family “help” with securing a lease or home purchase is increasingly a financial necessity for young people. This disproportionately impacts young people from communities who have been historically excluded from home ownership, exacerbating racial and income inequality. 

If you ask legislators what the state is doing about the housing crisis, they’ll tell you about the MBTA Communities Act. Yet, as the Marblehead example illustrates, the impacts of the MBTA Communities law are “real but modest,” responsible for roughly 7,000 new homes in the production pipeline since the bill passed in 2021. (For reference, the Healey administration has estimated that the state needs to build 22,000 new homes per year for the next decade to meet demand.) 

Legislators might also mention the Affordable Homes Act, a $5.16 billion five-year housing bond bill passed in 2024 that aimed to put more state resources into fixing the housing shortage. However, bond bills authorize borrowing for particular state priorities, but do not require spending. An analysis by Mass Budget reveals that the state’s current plans project just $2 billion in housing investment over the next five years, much lower than the degree of need. Furthermore, lobbying from the real estate industry led legislators to remove more stringent housing relief policies in the Affordable Homes Act, including a real estate transfer fee. 

That is unfortunately the fate of a lot of housing relief policies in our legislature. The MBTA Communities Act, the Affordable Homes Act, and the legislature’s recent action to limit renter-paid broker’s fees all had one thing in common: the backing of the real estate industry. The real estate industry spends big on lobbying and contributions to the campaigns of Beacon Hill leadership. Policies that would provide housing cost relief but cut into real estate profits, like rent stabilization or the real estate transfer fee, are dead on arrival in our legislature.

I’m a good government advocate who wants to see a strong multiracial democracy at the state level, backed by an empowered citizenry who demands housing as a human right. I’m also a young person who just wants a future in Massachusetts. 

Our question for state leaders: when are we going to stop “doing nothing” about the housing crisis? Legislative leaders have complained about the rent control ballot question proposed by housing advocates this year. Yet, they’re failing to act with urgency or strength on the crisis that is top-of-mind for most Bay Staters. While cost-relief policies languish for years without a vote on Beacon Hill, housing prices have continued to rise. Many of us are feeling the squeeze. Despite bold promises from legislative leaders, we are 1.5 years into a legislative session with no major action on housing costs. Selfishly (and unselfishly?), I think it's time legislators choose young people over cash donations from the real estate industry.

Are you feeling the squeeze of the housing crisis? Do you know what your legislator is doing to reduce costs? What legislation are they supporting? Will it be finalized by the end of formal session in July? Also: how will they be voting on the rent control question? Make sure they hear from you! 

Lily's Lowdown: Senate Passes PROTECT Act

In a rare showing of quasi-urgency, the Massachusetts Senate passed a versionof the PROTECT Act this week that’s stronger than the version the House voted up in March. The Black and Latino Caucus mobilized earlier this year to file the PROTECT Act, which, among other things, would prohibit local law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status, restrict civil immigration arrests in courthouse by requiring a judicial warrant, and bans the creation of new 287(g) agreements. Both the Senate and House versions, however, keep the Department of Correction (DOC)’s 287(g) agreement with ICE intact, which allows state Department of Corrections facilities to be used to house detained noncitizens. 

Where the House’s version allowed for some exceptions to the renewal and creation of new 287(g) agreements, the Senate’s version leaves no room for exceptions. Perhaps the most important distinction between the two versions is the Senate’s expansion of designated “sensitive locations,” where judicial warrants are needed to enter and make an immigration-related arrest. The House version would apply this protection only to courthouses; the Senate version also includes schools, childcare facilities, and places of worship. The Senate version also expanded on the House’s protections, adding a number of new policies like banning non-Massachusetts military personnel from entering without the governor’s express permission (in an attempt to prevent Trump from sending in troops to support ICE). 

Now, the House and the Senate need to reconcile the differences in their versions before the bill heads to Governor Healey’s desk for her signature. Even though the passage of a version of PROTECT as strong as the Senate’s would be a major victory for protecting members of our communities from Trump’s immigration crackdown, it’s important to remember this legislation’s roots: the now-dead Safe Communities Act, which would have also ended the DOC’s 287(g) agreement with ICE. 

By diluting this crucial aspect of Safe Communities, PROTECT still fails to go far enough to completely sever the Commonwealth’s relationship with ICE and thus, helps enable Trump’s mass deportation rampage. This is particularly troubling given that Governor Healey has continued to double down on her insistence that Massachusetts is “not a sanctuary state,” and expressed willingness to work with federal immigration enforcement. Even more troubling is extensive reporting by WGBH that found dozens of police departments across the state regularly communicate with ICE, share non-mandated biometric data with the agency, and even have policies “allowing or requiring” communication with ICE. 

So while the Senate’s version of PROTECT is still something of a success for those of us who don’t wish to see our neighbors and friends rounded up and hauled off by ICE, it’s important that we remember that Massachusetts is the only blue state that remains in a 287(g) agreement with ICE. It’s the legislative secrecy and unproductivity cocktail that waters down meaningful legislation with thrust—like Safe Communities—into something more lukewarm.