Needham joins push back on 2021 MBTA Communities Law

Lesley • January 15, 2025

Needham joins Milton in 2021 MBTS Communities Law push back

There may be other communities that push back on this state law, initiated by then governor Charlie Baker in 2021. The argument is not over, and the plan may need to be re-written. But there is no doubt that changes are coming to Massachusetts to support more population density in towns that provide MBTA transportation.


Read the article below.


In latest pushback to key state housing law, Needham voters say no to town’s plan

Suburb becomes latest to rebuff controversial state housing law; will now have until July to craft a new plan


By Andrew Brinker  Globe Staff,Updated January 14, 2025


Voters at Needham Town Hall on Tuesday cast their ballots in a referendum on the town's MBTA Communities zoning plan. Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff


NEEDHAM — Voters in Needham Tuesday soundly rejected a plan that would have paved the way for the production of more multifamily housing in this suburban town of 32,000 and aligned it with a much-debated state housing law.


After months of urgent campaigning that engulfed the town in political tension, a strong majority of voters voted down a plan town leaders spent well over a year crafting. According to preliminary results of a town-wide referendum Tuesday, “no” votes appeared set to prevail by about 2,000 votes out of nearly 12,000 cast.


The vote is a blow to the local officials who helped craft the plan, as well as some local housing advocates, who saw it as a vision for Needham’s future. The plan was spurred by a Dec. 31 deadline to comply with the MBTA Communities Act, a state law that mandates cities and towns served by the T write zoning that makes it easier to build multifamily housing.


Now, Needham will need to adopt a new plan by a new state deadline of July 14, or risk finding itself out of compliance with state law, much like Milton — where voters last year rejected their town’s plan in a similar referendum — and about three dozen other communities in Eastern Massachusetts that have not adopted MBTA Communities plans.


The plan voters shot down Tuesday was the more ambitious version of two proposals Town Meeting considered last year, and would have allowed multifamily housing development up to 4½ stories in key commercial and industrial areas near commuter rail stations. In theory, it would’ve made room for 3,296 units, well over the 1,784 required by state law, though town leaders say that strongly overestimates the number of new units the zoning would produce.


But the majority of voters saw the plan as too ambitious, and agreed with the leaders of the “No” campaign, who were concerned the plan would contribute to infrastructure issues like traffic and urged the town to opt for a smaller option.


Elizabeth Kaponya, a Needham Heights resident who was on the committee that helped create the plans sent to Town Meeting last year and voted “no” on Tuesday, said she was worried the plan would change the suburban character of Needham.

“I feel that the potential increase of the population of this town would change its character completely,” said Kaponya, 67. “And the infrastructure may not be able to handle it. Do we have enough fire hydrants for all these new buildings? Could our roads handle the traffic?”


Kaponya and “No” campaign leaders said Tuesday the town should instead adopt the other plan presented to Town Meeting, a more modest version that would comply with state law without spurring change too quickly.


Still, the vote was another sign that there are pockets of fierce opposition to the law — Massachusetts’s most significant housing law in decades — in communities outside of Boston that state housing officials hope will begin to shoulder some of the burden of digging out of Massachusetts’ housing crisis.


The “Yes” campaign had sought to sell the plan as a well-thought-out solution that would push Needham toward solutions to some of its most intractable issues, including a stagnating population, decreased commercial foot traffic, and soaring housing costs.


Campaigners urge voters in Needham to reject a controversial housing plan mandated under state law. Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff


Leaders of the campaign said before the vote that selling the plan to residents was an uphill battle. With complicated issues like housing and zoning, it is easier for some residents to say “no” instead of “yes,” they said, especially with a backup zoning plan to fall back on.


After October’s Town Meeting vote, and the subsequent campaign by opponents to force a referendum, the plan quickly became one of the most controversial political issues in recent memory in Needham.


Long-friendly neighbors planted dueling signs in their yards. Facebook pages became filled with fights over the zoning. And the campaigns both accused each other of misrepresenting the facts of the plan, creating confusion that heightened tensions.

On Tuesday, voters streamed in and out of polling locations across town all day, often greeted by sign-toting campaigners who braved frigid temperatures. Occasionally, passing drivers beeped at the sign-holders to show support.


Two members of the “No” campaign who stood bundled in scarves holding “Vote No” signs on Highland Avenue around 6 p.m. Tuesday said the debate became vitriolic. They declined to give their names, saying they were worried about inciting retribution from neighbors.


They said they worked for the “No” campaign because they saw the plan as too much housing, too quickly.

“There’s been a lot of development since I was a kid growing up here,” said one, who said she was a local teacher. ”I know things change and that’s a part of life, but this seems extreme.”


At least for now, the vote leaves the town without an MBTA Communities plan, though Governor Maura Healey’s administration on Tuesday gave Needham and several other communities that had been considered noncompliant a temporary reprieve in the form of an extended deadline to meet the law’s requirements.


That reprieve came on the heels of a ruling last week by the Supreme Judicial Court that state officials had the power to enforce the law but must put its detailed guidelines through a formal regulatory process. The Healey administration on Tuesday filed emergency regulations while they do that, but also extended the deadline for noncompliant communities to July, leaving places like Needham more time to figure out a zoning plan.

New rules for MA home inspections: agents can't discuss

By lesley.palmiter • June 6, 2025
Is it time to wave goodbye to home inspections as a negotiation tool? New state law says real estate agents can’t discuss such contingencies with buyers, sellers. By Jim Morrison Globe Correspondent, Updated June 6, 2025 For years now, home buyers in this super-competitive real estate market have felt pressured to waive their right to a home inspection when making an offer, knowing at least some competing buyers will likely do the same. A new state law aimed at eliminating that contention has agents and brokers talking. Implementation of the new regulations has been extended to Oct. 15, and includes language barring any contract provisions from frustrating the purpose of the home inspection, including “unreasonably limiting a prospective purchaser’s ability to schedule, receive, and review a home inspection.” If the inspection reveals the need for expensive repairs, the buyer can proceed, renegotiate the contract, or simply walk away from the deal. Without an inspection, the buyer doesn’t know exactly what they’re getting until after they own it and have no other option but to foot the repair bill themselves. Advertisement In recent years, some home buyers who waived their home inspection contingencies have discovered surprising and sometimes expensive repairs after the sale. Morgan Cohen, owner of the home inspection firm MKC Associates based in Watertown, said he’s done post-purchase inspections for homeowners who waived their right to have their house inspected before they bought and later regretted it. “We’ve done post-purchase inspections where we’ve found [dangerous] knob and tube wiring and others with underground oil tanks,” he said. “One of my colleagues inspected a house that was clearly built on a concrete foundation that contained pyrrhotite [which can cause concrete to fail]. A year after the owner purchased the home, he had it inspected and found out the foundation was crumbling and needed to be rebuilt.” Presumably, if those homes had been inspected prior to purchase, an inspector would have flagged them. The buyer could then have withdrawn the offer or negotiated a price that reflected the need for vital, expensive repairs. A contingent from the New England Chapter of the American Society of Home Inspection reached out to state Senator, Michael Moore, of Millbury for help. Moore has seen firsthand what can happen to families who unknowingly buy homes with dangerous and expensive flaws. His Central Mass. district around Worcester is home to a small but still growing number of homes with crumbling concrete foundations that contain pyrrhotite. The concrete looks fine at first, but over decades, cracks and spalls develop and eventually, the foundation becomes unsafe and must be replaced, costing homeowners $100,000 to $250,000 or more. Moore proposed a bill that was folded into the Massachusetts’ Affordable Homes Act that was signed into law in 2024. “The inspectors approached me with concerns that home buyers felt pressure to sacrifice their home inspection, and we talked about the liability that someone could incur by not having the home inspection,” Moore said. “I’m happy that the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities established some regulations that the home inspectors are happy with. This is going to benefit potential homeowners. It will protect their quality of life and their future financial security.” While home buyer advocates applaud the intention of the law — to level the playing field in what has been a years-long seller’s market because of lack of inventory — one concern that came up in every interview for this story was the difficulty to enforce it. A buyer’s agent could find a way to communicate that their client will forgo an inspection if their offer is accepted. As long as nothing is in writing, who would know? “We’ve seen our veteran and first-time home buyer clients get shut out of the market for almost a decade because of inspection contingencies. It’s a huge problem, so I’m all for this change,” said attorney Scott Kriss of Kriss Law / Atlantic Closing and Escrow, which is based in Needham but has offices nationwide. “It always comes down to the policing of the law. It’s going to be very hard to say, ‘You only took this offer because you knew they’d waive the inspection.’ Well, how do you know that? How’s it going to be enforced?” There are consequences for agents found violating the new law. The regulations read, “A violation or failure to comply with the provisions of 760 CMR 74.03 shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce under M.G.L. c. 93A, [Section] 2, if undertaken by a Person acting in a business context, such as a Real Estate Salesperson or Real Estate Broker.”  Agents and brokers found violating Chapter 93A can be liable for triple the cost of the actual damages. “At least it’ll put agents in the mindset,” Kriss said. “They can’t lead with, ‘We’re only taking offers with no inspections.’ And whether that will happen or not, they’re going to be in the frame of mind that this is something that they can’t do.”

Do you need to protect yourself as a seller while looking for your new home?

By Lesley.Palmiter • March 26, 2025
Here are several options to do just that.
More Posts