Why Verga is voting ‘yes’ on 3A

To the editor:

I’m writing to share my perspective on the upcoming special election scheduled for Thursday, April 24. I will be voting “Yes,” and I encourage you to do the same.

You may have noticed the increasing number of “Yes” and “No” lawn signs related to “3A,” “MBTA zoning,” or similar terms around town. Gloucester is one of 177 MBTA communities required to comply with Section 3A, as mandated by the state and affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) as constitutional.

To quote Mass.gov, Section 3A requires that “an MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least one district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children...”. The law also specifies a minimum gross density and proximity to transit stations.

This law was passed in 2021 and, shortly after taking office in 2022, I shared my concerns in a letter to Michael Kennealy, then Secretary of the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, emphasizing the importance of aligning multi-family districts with a community’s long-term planning goals. I also noted that a community’s unique features should be considered when determining what is “reasonable” for each community, because I felt the draft guidelines did not provide the proper tools for communities to do so.

With the substantial input and involvement of Gloucester’s citizens, our Planning Board worked to develop zoning changes that addressed these concerns. Last October, the City Council approved these changes with a 7-0 vote. However, a signature drive has now put a narrow aspect of this matter on the ballot for April 24.

Despite claims on “No” signs that a “no” vote will “stop state-mandated zoning,” this is NOT the case. To reiterate, the Commonwealth’s SJC has confirmed the constitutionality of the 3A law as well as the attorney general’s authority to enforce it.

Therefore, a “No” vote on April 24 simply means the city must begin the zoning process again April 25. In the meantime, non-compliance will result in the state stepping in and deeming Gloucester ineligible for numerous, invaluable state grants.

For example, as a member of the Seaport Economic Council (SEC), I recently saw over $3 million awarded to other communities, while Gloucester won’t even be able to apply due to non-compliance. These funds could greatly assist us with critical maintenance to the docks at I-4,C-2 and Saint Peter’s Marina. This is just one example of how a “no” vote is not only bad for Gloucester but also has a direct impact on our waterfront heritage.

The SJC ruling has made it clear that opting out is not an option. We either comply now or we lose funding until we comply later. There is no such thing as sustained non-compliance with 3A. Therefore, we must focus on how we will achieve compliance. Ed Augustus, Massachusetts’ secretary of Housing and Livable Communities, has confirmed that what Gloucester submitted to the State in October is indeed compliant with Section 3A. A “Yes” vote on April 24 means we are in full compliance and we can refocus our collective energy on so many other matters.

While some may prefer to vote “No” on April 24, this will not free us from the state mandate and it will hurt Gloucester. For these reasons, my preference is to vote “Yes.”

Greg Verga, Mayor of Gloucester