Plymouth County town sues state over MBTA Communities Act, calling it ‘unreasonable'
A Plymouth County town filed a lawsuit against the state on Friday, saying they shouldn't have to alter its zoning to accommodate housing under the MBTA Communities Act.
The town of Middleborough, who is currently one of six Massachusetts towns not in compliance with the 2021 law, says the 'one-size-fits-all interpretation' is 'unreasonable.'
'For generations, Middleborough's leaders have been thoughtful, responsible stewards of its future,' said Town Manager Jay McGrail. What we've done in Middleborough should be modeled and celebrated, not punished.'
The MBTA Communities Act requires communities served by the MBTA to create a zone for multifamily housing. The town becomes the first in the state to officially sue the governor's office, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities over this law.
SJC upholds MBTA Zoning Law but strikes regulations
In a statement, Governor Maura Healey says the MBTA Communities Act was passed with nearly unanimous support in the Legislature, signed by a Republican Governor, and is simply being implemented by her administration.
'The law is not an unfunded mandate, and it is unfortunate that some communities are choosing to use the Division of Local Mandates' advisory opinion to try to stall its implementation,' the statement read. 'The law is essential to our efforts to lower the high cost of housing, which we know is one of the greatest challenges facing the people of Massachusetts. We are proud that 119 communities have already adopted new zoning under this law, with more than 3,300 new housing units in the pipeline because of it.'
Middleborough contends that they're in compliance with the law because they've already enacted a 'Smart Growth Zoning District' whichis comprised of 40.4 acres, all within a half-mile of an MBTA Commuter rail station and where multi-family housing is allowed at a density of 20 units per acre.
'If the state wants to see how responsible growth and expanding housing opportunities works when municipal government acts responsibly, then we would be happy to show our leaders how what we have done should be a model for success statewide,' said Middleborough Select Board Chair Mark Germain.
The lawsuit comes about as Middleborough missed their compliance deadline earlier this week. Because of this, the town claims they are missing out on millions in state funding.
In filing the lawsuit, town officials are hoping to halt what they call a 'broadsword approach' to statewide housing.
Healey's office says the law will be vigorously defended by Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office.
'We're committed to working with all towns to turn these plans into new housing and lower costs for all of our residents,' Healey said.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
37 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes his first bills. They are on concealed carry and immigration
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed his first bills on Friday, blocking for now Republican legislation that would let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and make state agencies and local sheriffs more active in Trump administration's immigration crackdown. Stein, who took office in January, issued his formal objections to three measures backed by the GOP-controlled General Assembly presented to him last week. The former attorney general also had the option to sign any of them into law, or let them become law if he hadn't acted on the legislation soon. The vetoed measures now return to the legislature, where Republicans are one House seat shy of holding a veto-proof majority. Its leaders will decide whether to attempt overrides as early as next week. Voting so far followed party lines for one of the immigration measures, which in part would direct heads of several state law enforcement agencies, like the State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation, to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one House Democrat ended up voting for the other immigration bill that Stein vetoed. It toughens a 2024 law that required sheriffs to help federal agents seeking criminal defendants. GOP prospects for enacting the permitless concealed gun measure, a longtime aspiration for gun-rights advocates, appear dimmer, because two House Republicans voted against the bill and 10 others were absent. Gun bill would let 18-year-olds carry concealed handgun In one veto message, Stein said the gun legislation, which would allow eligible people at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun, "makes North Carolinians less safe and undermines responsible gun ownership." Democratic lawmakers argued the same during legislative debate. Current law requires a concealed weapons holder to be at least 21 to obtain a permit. The person must submit an application to the local sheriff, pass a firearms safety training course and cannot 'suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun" to obtain the permit. No safety training would be required if getting a permit is no longer necessary. 'Authorizing teenagers to carry a concealed weapon with no training whatsoever is dangerous,' Stein wrote. Gun-control groups praised the veto. Conservative advocates for the bill say removing the permit requirement would strengthen the safety of law-abiding citizens. 'Law-abiding North Carolinians shouldn't have to jump through hoops to effectively exercise their Second Amendment rights," Senate leader Phil Berger said in a press release criticizing the veto and planning for an override vote in his chamber. Permitless carry is already lawful in 29 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. North Carolina would also be one of the last states in the Southeast to implement that legislation. Immigration bills focus on state agencies, sheriffs One vetoed immigration bill would require four state law enforcement agencies to officially participate in the 287(g) program, which trains officers to interrogate defendants and determine their immigration status. An executive order by President Donald Trump urged his administration to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements. Stein wrote Friday the bill takes officers away from existing state duties at a time when law enforcement is already stretched thin. The measure also would direct state agencies to ensure noncitizens don't access certain state-funded benefits. But Stein said that people without lawful immigration status already can't receive them. The other vetoed bill attempts to expand a 2024 law — enacted over then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — that directed jails to hold temporarily certain defendants whom ICE believe are in the country illegally, allowing time for immigration agents to pick them up. The vetoed bill would expand the list of crimes that a defendant is charged with that would require the jail administrator to attempt to determine the defendant's legal status. A jail also would have to tell ICE promptly that it is holding someone and essentially extends the time agents have to pick up the person. Stein said Friday while he supports sheriffs contacting federal immigration agents about defendants charged with dangerous crimes that they are holding, the law is unconstitutional because it directs sheriffs to keep defendants behind bars 48 hours beyond when they otherwise could be released for a suspected immigration violation. With the veto of this bill, House Speaker Destin Hall said, Stein sided with the 'most radical elements of his party's base over the safety and security of North Carolinians.' Latino advocates and other bill opponents had urged Stein to veto both immigration measures. They say the legislation would cause Hispanic residents to feel intimidated and fear law enforcement.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Tuition increases, layoffs are coming to a broad set of universities
Students and employees from coast to coast are poised to feel the squeeze. Although the exact consequences will vary by school, administrators are warning that many students may have to pay more, professors may lose their jobs, programs could vanish, and support services could shrink. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The turmoil is not limited to any one type of university or college, or any one state. A day before Michigan State University trustees opted for tuition increases, a California State University campus minutes from the Pacific Ocean announced that it was trimming its workforce. Advertisement 'If you're a student or family looking to go to college this year, all of the numbers are going in the wrong direction,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, who described the mood among higher education leaders as 'dark but resolved.' The Trump administration's efforts to reduce research funding are siphoning cash from many campuses, sometimes by hundreds of millions of dollars. But that is just one factor contributing to higher education's financial crunch. Colleges, like businesses and households, are facing greater costs for wages, supplies, utilities, and other expenses. Advertisement Their income sources are not always keeping pace. In Nebraska, the state government's contribution to the university system will rise roughly 0.6 percent, far below the 3.5 percent increase that the Board of Regents had sought to account for inflation. But regents saw the increase as a modest victory. Governor Jim Pillen, a Republican who wanted the state to have 'the courage to say no, and to focus on needs, not wants,' had originally urged a 2 percent reduction. 'We will need to continue to reduce spending and make increasingly difficult choices to ensure fiscal discipline,' Jeffrey P. Gold, the University of Nebraska's president, told regents before a vote Thursday to impose cuts and increase tuition. Students who enroll at the flagship campus in Lincoln are poised to pay about 5 percent more. In neighboring Kansas, only one of the state's six public universities did not propose a tuition increase for the coming school year. And University of Oklahoma leaders just raised tuition again, too. The White House rejected accusations from some college administrators that the federal government is partly to blame for tuition increases and other budget moves. 'Any school that scapegoats the administration's policies of cutting waste, fraud and abuse to justify raising already astronomical tuition costs is failing American students in an effort to score political points and fatten its coffers,' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. He added: 'If these higher education institutions were serious about lowering costs, they would cut the bloated salaries of their faculty and stop wasting money on useless programs that do little to advance education.' Advertisement Some schools are more reliant than others on federal money, especially research institutions, and leaders on many of those campuses have cited the administration's tactics as they have reworked their budgets. But public institutions are also sometimes facing significant resistance in statehouses, and recent rises in inflation have put new demands on campus finances. College leaders across the country have sometimes sought to defend new tuition increases by noting correctly that their prices had stayed relatively steady in recent years. Others point to the number of scholarships and grants they offer, which routinely drive costs well south of the sticker price, and say that many students are ultimately paying less than in the past. In Minnesota, students are set to pay more for less. State leaders maintained stable support for the University of Minnesota — a decision that university officials considered an effective budget cut, given inflation. And questions are swirling over how much additional declines in federal money could worsen the university's financial outlook. Tuition at the Twin Cities campus will rise by at least 6.5 percent. But the university is also pursuing cuts of 7 percent. Academic units have been asked to come up with millions of dollars in 'reallocations' that could lead to program changes and fewer materials in the Law Library, among other things. More than 350 jobs could be eliminated. 'Making these kinds of cuts here is new to us in Minnesota,' Rebecca Cunningham, the university's president, said during a board meeting Wednesday. 'It is unfortunate, but indeed we are not alone.' They are not. The University System of Maryland's chancellor, Jay A. Perman, bluntly told employees in a video this month that the schools would absorb a 7 percent cut for the coming fiscal year. Advertisement 'A 7 percent cut simply can't be achieved on every campus in a way that doesn't touch any of our people,' Perman said. Private universities often say far less about their finances than public institutions, but similar signs of immense strain are emerging. Duke University is seeking about $350 million in cuts, amounting to roughly 10 percent of its budget. Harvard University, which has clashed bitterly with the Trump administration, is urgently seeking contributions from donors and has been making cuts, partly because billions of dollars in its endowment have restricted uses. And in a statement Wednesday ominously titled 'a message on financial austerity,' leaders at Cornell, which also has a substantial endowment, described a dire landscape.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Did you miss a national holiday, Mr. President?
Juneteenth came and went Thursday, but curiously something seemed to be missing from the annual celebration: a cordial salute from the president of the United States. Well, sure, you might say at this point in our political history: After all, he's Donald Trump. What do we expect? The only times when the master of Mar-a-Lago brings up a delicate topic like America's troubled racial history is when he can use it to bludgeon Democrats and other liberals. But it wasn't long ago that Trump regularly made a point to mark Juneteenth, the holiday that honors the freeing of enslaved Americans by his Republican predecessor Abraham Lincoln. As The New York Times reported, Trump invoked Juneteenth in each of his first four years as president, before it was a federal holiday. It commemorates June 19, 1865, the day Union soldiers brought the news of freedom to enslaved Black people in Texas, letting them know they had been legally freed by Lincoln's signing of the Emancipation Proclamation two years earlier. Better late than never. Much better. When asked on Thursday about Trump's intentions to mark the holiday in the traditional presidential manner, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt answered evasively, 'I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today.' That was strange, because by Leavitt's own admission, Trump had in the past week issued proclamations commemorating Father's Day, Flag Day and National Flag Week, and the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill — none of which are among the 11 annual federal holidays. Why does Trump feel differently about the holiday now? Without mentioning Juneteenth by name, Trump bellyached on Truth Social: 'Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed. The workers don't want it either!' Ah, yes, workers and their well-known aversion to paid holidays. He continued: 'Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year. It must change if we are going to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!' That sounds ominous. Is Trump planning to claw back paid holidays from hardworking government employees? It occurred to me, as a descendant of freed enslaved people, that perhaps Trump simply wants to downgrade our day of jubilee. True, back in his first term, Trump lavishly boasted: 'I made Juneteenth very famous. It's actually an important event, it's an important time. But nobody had heard of it. Very few people have heard of it.' (That would be news to the millions of 'nobodies' who spent years eating soul food and pounds of traditional 'red cake' to celebrate the day.) Trump even spoke favorably about Juneteenth as a federal holiday, but he didn't get around to making it official before he left office. It was then-President Joe Biden who completed that task in 2021. Which may explain Trump's newfound hostility to the holiday. Whereas Biden sought to mend the nation's racial divisions after the George Floyd protests, Trump built his revanchist second presidency on the demonization of diversity. Consider that until recently, the following message could be read on the Army's official website: 'Juneteenth is an integral part of Army life. It is a time to reflect on the crucial role the Army played in the Emancipation Proclamation and ending segregation in the U.S.' It called on readers to 'honor those who fought and sacrificed to ensure the Constitution fulfilled its promise to all Americans.' As an Army veteran, that sentiment makes me feel proud. However, if you Google those words today, and click on the link in the search results, you reach an error page. The Army scrubbed the message. Why? Perhaps for the same reason Trump's secretary of defense ordered Arlington National Cemetery to delete webpage memorials of Black and Latino people and women who defended our country. And the same reason he restored Confederate names to military bases and dismissed several Black generals. It's hard to think of a holiday better suited to uplift our mulligan stew of a nation than Juneteenth, when our armed forces finally broke the shackles of a profoundly unjust institution, beginning a process of liberation and reconciliation that we carry on. Sadly, such historical good news is being suppressed too often in today's classrooms and by political opportunists who would rather build unity in their own ranks by turning us against each other like so many political interest groups. Some, including our president it seems, would rather hide our troubled past than try to use it to learn how to work together and truly make America great. Say, tell me again: What was the U.S. Civil War about?
