Concerning the MBTA Communities Act

To the editor:

This is an open letter to state Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante and state Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, both of Gloucester: I endorse the city of Gloucester’s zoning amendments that provide for accessory dwelling units and other zoning amendments that streamline single to multi-family conversions. However, I stand in opposition to the state MBTA Communit ies Act that has coerced Gloucester to develop multi-family overlay districts (MFOD) in three locations. My concerns are as follows.

First, there have been problems with this mandate from the beginning.

Noncompliance initially carried a penalty of state withheld funds and grants. Now, I believe the attorney general can bring criminal charges against cities and towns for noncompliance. In any case, arbitrary sanctions of withheld grant funding is shortsighted, negatively affecting Gloucester and the Commonwealth.

In January 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that guidelines issued by Executive Office of Housing & Livable Communities (EOHLC) were improperly adopted and lacked compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

In February, state Auditor, Diana DiZoglio, declared the law an “unfunded mandate that does not provide a funding mechanism for compliance with its provisions.”

In response to the unfunded mandate, five communities — Hanson, Marshfield, Middleborough, Middleton and Wrentham— filed a class action suit refusing to comply with the MBTA Act, requesting an exemption. Just recently, Middleborough dropped its suit as the state settled, allowing the town to retain some control over its zoning decisions while addressing the need for multi-family housing.

Our Planning Board spent countless hours in an effort to conform to the MBTA Communities Act guidelines. Many residents objected to the inequity and distribution of the zoning districts. The fault is not with the Planning Board but with the constraints imposed to shoulder the increased state demand for housing. In theory, this might seem like a workable plan but with the act’s guidelines in a state of flux, the resulting endgame is unclear. State overreach is a legitimate concern. Once the overlay districts are in compliance, the state can require new guidelines. There will be no going back from this state control.

The state’s heavy-handed approach might be justifiable if a community fails to assess and plan for housing. Gloucester has been working directly with state advisors since 2014 when the “Railroad Avenue Reimagined” plan was crafted.

Again in 2016, Gloucester worked in conjunction with the Metropolitan Area Planning Council to develop a Housing Production Plan “to maintain and increase affordable and market-rate housing, analyze local housing needs, opportunities, and challenges, as well as identify housing goals for the future.” The state Department of Housing and Community Development lauded the resulting document. I wonder what more the state requires of Gloucester to demonstrate its ability and willingness to confront housing issues. Gloucester deserves an exemption from compliance as in the case of Middleborough.

The city is updating its Gloucester Comprehensive Plan in which housing and urban development is at the forefront. The city is working strategically with resident to develop a workable and lasting document.

Compliance with the MBTA Communities Act has cost this city time and money and has resulted in driving a wedge between its residents. Two of our city councilors recused themselves from the zoning debate. Residents of the wards most impacted by the vote were deprived of equal representation. Proponents of 3A often repeat that the City Council voted unanimously for the MFOB. This fact remains misleading.

The approval of the zoning districts caused an uproar in the community. Residents in opposition to the transit overlay districts organized and collected approximately 4,000 signatures to call for a referendum slated for April 24. Unfortunately, the April 24 vote is not a vote against the MBTA Communities Act.

So why does state government distrust Gloucester’s ability or intention to address the housing shortage? For many years, the Commonwealth has participated in and endorsed our working plans. The Commonwealth knows that our city is committed to housing for all. I contend that governance should happen with our city officials at the helm, in a bottom up rather than top down approach. Our city government maintains strong relations with the Gloucester Housing Authority, Gloucester Affordable Housing Trust, the Planning and Development Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to assure issues of housing are of primary importance.

Market priced units in the multi-family overlay districts will not serve to ease the burden of the approximate 40 homeless residents who seek a place to spend the afternoon at the Grace Center. Our city’s multi-family zoning overlay will not provide for the elderly, veterans or people having trouble paying exorbitant rent. Residents in the service industry, health care and local industries will not benefit from market-priced multi-family units.

Within a 10-year period, Gloucester has increased the stock of owned and rental units including multi-family housing by 401 units. The city manages 10 complexes for low-income and senior residents. The newest housing addition is the John J. Meany Senior Housing on Middle Street, with 44 units. This should be proof enough that Gloucester is committed to housing development.

Mary-Louise Giuliano, Gloucester