Judge throws out ‘unfunded mandate' lawsuits over MBTA Communities Act
Multiple lawsuits against the state filed by towns trying to avoid following the MBTA Communities Act were dismissed by a judge Friday.
Nine towns — Duxbury, Hamilton, Hanson, Holden, Marshfield, Middleton, Wenham, Weston and Wrentham — filed lawsuits earlier this year after the state Division of Local Mandates determined the law was an 'unfunded mandate.'
The cases were the latest in a history of challenges to the 2021 law, which requires towns and cities served by the MBTA to update their zoning to allow more multifamily housing.
'We are pleased the courts have again affirmed the intent of the MBTA Communities Law, and we look forward to working with the remaining communities to complete their zoning changes,' Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Ed Augustus said in a statement. 'Massachusetts' housing shortage has led to unaffordable prices and rising rents, but the MBTA Communities Law is working to deliver new housing where it's needed most and to bring down the cost of housing for all residents.'
The MBTA Communities Act requires 177 cities and towns served by the MBTA to create at least one zoning district where multifamily housing is allowed by right.
The goal of the law was to reduce barriers to new housing development and relieve pressure on the expensive local housing market, though no housing is guaranteed or required to be built.
In a January ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the law as constitutional and mandatory, though the court said the compliance guidelines had not gone through the correct legal process and were, therefore, unenforceable.
Since then, the state has released new, emergency guidelines, giving noncompliant towns until July 14 to comply.
Under the Local Mandate Law, since 1980, any state law or regulation that would impose more than 'incidental administration expenses' on local governments must either be fully funded by the state or be conditional on local acceptance of the rule.
In October, the Wrentham Select Board requested the Division of Local Mandates determine whether the MBTA Communities Act violated this law. In February, DLM Director Jana DiNatale confirmed that she believed it did.
She wrote in a letter to the town's Select Board that grants the state has offered towns to help them develop new zoning and accommodate new housing development showed that the law did impose additional costs, but did not fully fund its local implementation.
However, the DLM determination, unlike the January Supreme Judicial Court ruling, did not immediately make the law unenforceable.
In his Friday decision, Super Court Judge Mark Gildea wrote that he disagreed that any of the towns had demonstrated any direct costs associated with following the law. The nine towns had listed anticipated impacts to infrastructure, public safety and other municipal services related to new housing development, but Gildea said these were speculative and indirectly, not directly, related.
'The Municipalities have neither pled specific costs for anticipated infrastructure costs, nor provided any specific timeline for anticipated construction projects,' he wrote. 'Instead, the only allegations and averments before the court are generalized comments about large-scale issues they foresee.'
Last week, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities announced that 133 cities and towns, or about 75% of those affected by the MBTA Communities Act, had passed new zoning meant to comply with the regulations.
Zoning changes under MBTA Communities Act spurs 3K new houses - so far
Middleborough sues state over MBTA Communities: 'One size does not fit all'
Mass. AG Campbell says 'unfunded mandate' determination won't stop MBTA Communities
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge turns back challenge to MBTA housing law; Holden among plaintiffs
Superior Court ruling dismissing MBTA Communities unfunded mandate challenge by Michael Elfland on Scribd 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. More: Holden seeks short-term halt to MBTA housing law 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. This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Judge turns back challenge to MBTA housing law
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
DOGE team can access Social Security systems, US Supreme Court rules
The Supreme Court cleared the way Friday for the Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The court majority sided with the Trump administration in its first Supreme Court appeal involving DOGE, the team once led by billionaire Elon Musk. The three liberal justices dissented. The high court halted an order from a judge in Maryland restricting the team's access to the Social Security Administration under federal privacy laws. The agency holds sensitive data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, salary details and medical information. The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to carry out its mission of targeting waste and fraud in the federal government. Musk had been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud. The billionaire entrepreneur, who has stepped back from his work with DOGE, has described it as a ' Ponzi scheme ' and insisted that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland found that DOGE's efforts at Social Security amounted to a 'fishing expedition' based on 'little more than suspicion' of fraud, and allowing unfettered access puts Americans' private information at risk. Her ruling did allow access to anonymous data for staffers who have undergone training and background checks, or wider access for those who have detailed a specific need. The Trump administration has said DOGE can't work effectively with those restrictions. Solicitor General John Sauer also argued that the ruling is an example of federal judges overstepping their authority and trying to micromanage executive branch agencies. The plaintiffs say it's a narrow order that's urgently needed to protect personal information. An appeals court previously refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there's no evidence that the team has done any 'targeted snooping' or exposed personal information. The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward. It's one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed over DOGE's work, which has included deep cuts at federal agencies and large-scale layoffs. The nation's court system has been ground zero for pushback to President Donald Trump's sweeping conservative agenda, with about 200 lawsuits filed challenging policies on everything from immigration to education to mass layoffs of federal workers. Mass. weather: Weekend could bring flash floods, thunderstorms in some areas Karen Read trial: Key takeaways from week 7 as the retrial begins to wind down Recall alert: These window air conditioners could cause mold exposure Suspect in wrong-way crash that killed Endicott College sergeant extradited to NH Judge throws out 'unfunded mandate' lawsuits over MBTA Communities Act Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge throws out ‘unfunded mandate' lawsuits over MBTA Communities Act
Multiple lawsuits against the state filed by towns trying to avoid following the MBTA Communities Act were dismissed by a judge Friday. Nine towns — Duxbury, Hamilton, Hanson, Holden, Marshfield, Middleton, Wenham, Weston and Wrentham — filed lawsuits earlier this year after the state Division of Local Mandates determined the law was an 'unfunded mandate.' The cases were the latest in a history of challenges to the 2021 law, which requires towns and cities served by the MBTA to update their zoning to allow more multifamily housing. 'We are pleased the courts have again affirmed the intent of the MBTA Communities Law, and we look forward to working with the remaining communities to complete their zoning changes,' Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Ed Augustus said in a statement. 'Massachusetts' housing shortage has led to unaffordable prices and rising rents, but the MBTA Communities Law is working to deliver new housing where it's needed most and to bring down the cost of housing for all residents.' The MBTA Communities Act requires 177 cities and towns served by the MBTA to create at least one zoning district where multifamily housing is allowed by right. The goal of the law was to reduce barriers to new housing development and relieve pressure on the expensive local housing market, though no housing is guaranteed or required to be built. In a January ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the law as constitutional and mandatory, though the court said the compliance guidelines had not gone through the correct legal process and were, therefore, unenforceable. Since then, the state has released new, emergency guidelines, giving noncompliant towns until July 14 to comply. Under the Local Mandate Law, since 1980, any state law or regulation that would impose more than 'incidental administration expenses' on local governments must either be fully funded by the state or be conditional on local acceptance of the rule. In October, the Wrentham Select Board requested the Division of Local Mandates determine whether the MBTA Communities Act violated this law. In February, DLM Director Jana DiNatale confirmed that she believed it did. She wrote in a letter to the town's Select Board that grants the state has offered towns to help them develop new zoning and accommodate new housing development showed that the law did impose additional costs, but did not fully fund its local implementation. However, the DLM determination, unlike the January Supreme Judicial Court ruling, did not immediately make the law unenforceable. In his Friday decision, Super Court Judge Mark Gildea wrote that he disagreed that any of the towns had demonstrated any direct costs associated with following the law. The nine towns had listed anticipated impacts to infrastructure, public safety and other municipal services related to new housing development, but Gildea said these were speculative and indirectly, not directly, related. 'The Municipalities have neither pled specific costs for anticipated infrastructure costs, nor provided any specific timeline for anticipated construction projects,' he wrote. 'Instead, the only allegations and averments before the court are generalized comments about large-scale issues they foresee.' Last week, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities announced that 133 cities and towns, or about 75% of those affected by the MBTA Communities Act, had passed new zoning meant to comply with the regulations. Zoning changes under MBTA Communities Act spurs 3K new houses - so far Middleborough sues state over MBTA Communities: 'One size does not fit all' Mass. AG Campbell says 'unfunded mandate' determination won't stop MBTA Communities Read the original article on MassLive.
