Judge turns back challenge to MBTA housing law
BOSTON (SHNS) – A Superior Court judge on Friday tossed a lawsuit brought by nine municipalities challenging the MBTA Communities Act, ruling that the controversial zoning-reform law is not an unfunded mandate.
Plymouth Superior Court Justice Mark Gildea granted the Healey administration's motion to dismiss the latest challenges to the 2021 law, which supporters see as a key tool to spur development of much-needed housing in more than 170 eastern Massachusetts cities and towns.
Marshfield, Middleton, Hanson, Holden, Hamilton, Duxbury, Wenham, Weston and Wrentham had each filed legal complaints against the law in recent months, contending that it should not be enforceable after the Division of Local Mandates in Auditor Diana DiZoglio's office deemed the measure an unfunded mandate.
Plaintiffs said allowing multifamily housing by right in at least one reasonably sized zone as the law requires could force them to absorb significant new infrastructure costs with no state assistance.
But Gildea concluded the possible costs are 'indirect,' which means the law is not an unfunded mandate, and that grant programs are available to help shoulder some of the burden.
'Even if [the law] was an unfunded mandate, the Municipalities have failed to allege sufficient facts concerning any anticipated amounts associated with future infrastructure costs beyond a speculative level,' Gildea wrote in a 40-page decision.
Some of the plaintiffs laid out their own issues with the law as well, such as Middleton arguing that it should not be classified as an MBTA community and therefore should not be subject to the mandatory zoning reforms.
Jason Talerman, an attorney for some of the towns, said in an email that plaintiffs are 'disappointed with the result and find the decision to be contrary to applicable law.'
Most of the 177 communities subject to the law have approved new zoning reforms, putting them in compliance, according to the Healey administration.
In January, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the MBTA Communities Act as a constitutional law the attorney general can enforce with legal action. The high court required the Healey administration to redo the regulation-setting process.
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
US consulates to resume processing visas for Harvard students, report says
'I don't think anyone who's overseas studying in America is feeling secure at this point,' said Boston-based immigration attorney Annelise Araujo. 'If I'm a student, I'm thinking twice about whether I want to go through this.' Advertisement On Wednesday, Trump dramatically escalated his attempts to punish the university when he announced a directive to deny visas to all Also on Thursday, Harvard filed an opposition in court to Trump's move and, late that night, won a temporary stay from a federal judge in Boston, preventing the president from moving ahead with his plan. Advertisement Then came Friday night's cable, rescinding the one sent out Thursday, according to the Post. The news organization reported that the latest cable, sent at 7:55 p.m., said the consulates 'must resume processing of Harvard University student and exchange visitor visas.' On Saturday, Harvard and the State Department both declined to comment or confirm the Post's reporting. 'It's a step in the right direction,' Araujo, the immigration attorney, told the Globe of the news about the latest cable. 'I don't think students should be a pawn between the administration and Harvard.' Still, Araujo and others who work with international students say uncertainty and negative headlines are sowing uncertainty and worry among foreigners considering studying in the US, leading many to consider continuing their studies elsewhere. Both Harvard and the Trump administration are next due in court on June 16 as the legal battle moves ahead. Dan Berger, an immigration attorney from Northampton who works with colleges and people seeking student visas, said the constant changes in policy cause as much concern as anything. 'I'm sure this will impact the number of foreign students,' he said. 'If the goal is to discourage people from coming to the US to study, that's probably what's going to happen.' Globe staff reporter Brooke Hauser contributed. Sean Cotter can be reached at
CBS News
7 hours ago
- CBS News
Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fall out
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking Secretary of State Marco Rubio for information on the Trump administration's contingency plans if billionaire Elon Musk breaches his companies' current contracts with the U.S. amid the ongoing public fall out between him and President Trump. In a letter to Rubio as acting national security adviser and obtained by CBS News, Warren said Mr. Trump and Musk's public disagreements about the upcoming reconciliation bill that escalated into a public online spat could "have serious implications for U.S. national security." The Massachusetts Democrat mentioned Mr. Trump's proposal to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies, which the world's richest man followed with a threat that SpaceX would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Musk has since walked back his threat. "No petty social media fight between the president and a billionaire should jeopardize U.S. national security," Warren said. In addition to contingency plans for SpaceX, the senator asked for information regarding the impact on U.S. agencies' satellite communications if Musk's Starlink is turned off. Additionally, she asked Rubio to provide any analysis that the Trump administration has conducted "of its authorities and options under the Defense Production Act to address vendor lock, monopolies, or contractor refusal to meet national security needs." She asked to receive answers to her questions by June 14, whether through a classified briefing or preferably a public response that can be released to Congress and the public, the letter said. Warren has been a vocal opponent of Musk and his involvement in the Trump administration. Last week, she released a report that outlines instances her office has found of Musk benefiting from it. Musk's rocket company has received tens of billions of dollars from the federal government over the last decade, including $3.8 billion in the 2024 fiscal year alone, according to federal records. The bulk of those federal grants are from NASA, which has paid SpaceX billions over the last decade to ferry astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. The agency has also awarded SpaceX upwards of $2 billion in recent years to design and build a lunar lander, as part of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in a half-century. While the public spat appears to have cooled somewhat, Mr. Trump told NBC News' Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Saturday that he has no plans to make up with the mega-billionaire. "I'm too busy doing other things," Trump continued. "You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him." When asked by a reporter Friday if he's still considering rolling back subsidies to Musk as a money-saving move, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to it. "He's got a lot of money, he gets a lot of subsidy. So we'll take a look at that," the president said on Air Force One. "Only if it's fair for him and for the country. I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair." This isn't the first time the president has needled Musk over his companies' federal subsidies. In a 2022 feud, Mr. Trump claimed Musk would be "worthless" without hefty subsidies for "electric cars that don't drive long enough" and "rocketships to nowhere." The two mended their relationship then and Musk spent hundreds of millions to help elect Mr. Trump in 2024. The billionaire went on to lead the Trump White House's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency until last week. contributed to this report.
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
