IN HOUSING DEBATES, it’s only a matter of time before critiques of damaging “neighborhood character” and some flavor of “not in my back yard” clash with assertions that the Massachusetts housing market is so squeezed that building almost anything at all should be a priority. Common wisdom usually boils down to residents wanting to preserve their community while home values rise, suggesting that other communities would be better suited for more units. 

But new polling conducted by the MassINC Polling Group for Abundant Housing Massachusetts – which is pushing two bills this legislative session to spur development – finds that majorities of voters feel that the state and their own communities alike are not doing enough to address the housing crunch. 

“Many polls have found housing at or near the top of the list of issues facing the state,” said Richard Parr, research director with The MassINC Polling Group, which is partly owned by MassINC, the nonprofit organization that publishes CommonWealth Beacon. “What’s more interesting is that voters think this is a problem their own communities should be doing more on.” 

Some 57 percent of voters think that the cost of housing is a “a big problem” in their own communities, and 68 percent think there aren’t enough affordable homes in their own cities or towns. By wide margins, Parr noted, voters favor building more housing over both protecting neighborhood character (71 percent to 21 percent) or preserving local control over what can be built (63 percent to 28 percent).  

“All this suggests that the voices who speak out at community meetings against new housing projects are likely not a majority in their own communities,” he said. 

The poll surveyed 803 Massachusetts voters between March 17 and 20, with a credibility interval of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. 

Jesse Kanson-Benanav, executive director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts, said responses are aligned with the goals of a “Yes in My Back Yard” bill and a bill to study allowing apartment buildings up to six stories to be built with one stairway for more efficient use of square footage.  

Majorities of voters polled offered support for policies like allowing construction on smaller lots, allowing owners to subdivide their lots and sell homes on those new parcels, allowing owners to determine how much paved parking area should be on their property, and single-stair construction.  

“There’s been a lot of conversation in the press and the Legislature around zoning reform in particular and making sure we have the tools in communities across the Commonwealth to build the homes that Massachusetts residents need,” said Kanson-Benanav. “Some of the conversation has helped advance the perception that, broadly speaking, Massachusetts voters are opposed to state action that will make sure they have access to more variety in the types of homes they can choose to live in and the communities where they can live.” 

A voter survey finding support for these policies is a double boon for housing groups. Voters are more likely to be homeowners – 65 percent of respondents said they owned a home, indicating that even those with property values on the line would like to see more available housing near them – and engaged at the polls even if their contributions aren’t captured in public meetings. 

“Local control is important,” Kanson-Benanav said. “Local control is never going away. The Town Meeting form of government is never going away, but we have to balance that with the fact that the way it has played out is just not serving the needs of Massachusetts residents,” he said, plus “it’s not meeting the desires of community members broadly.” 

A few months into the lieutenant governor job, former Salem mayor Kim Driscoll touted her home city and Massachusetts as “welcoming and inclusive” but also attracting populations that are having trouble staying because of the housing affordability crisis. Statewide research in 2022 from The Boston Foundation found that officials and public meeting participants are demographically homogenous and in-person gatherings often oppose new housing. 

“Sometimes voices get crowded out,” Driscoll said on an episode of The Codcast in May 2023. “Sometimes newer local residents to communities don’t also engage in that same meaningful way. We’ve all taken stock of who’s participating during meetings, and oftentimes populations that show up at the zoning board hearing or at the city council or town meeting are older, whiter, more conservative, and housing secure and, frankly, often fighting new housing.” 

Local control and local character have become flashpoints in hashing out compliance with the MBTA Communities housing law, which requires the 177 cities and towns served by the MBTA system to rezone to allow for more multi-family housing.  

Most polling, but not all, has found consistent majority support for the MBTA Communities law. Some towns have chafed against its requirements and the state’s toolkit for enforcing the law through the courts and by withholding grant funding, though all but four of the communities that must offer rezoning plans by mid-July are now complaint or in interim compliance, according to state counts. 

Only Halifax, Marshfield, Middleton, and rebellion ground zero Milton have not yet submitted plans to the state. 

The state’s high court concluded earlier this year that the zoning law is constitutional and enforceable, though some towns are pushing back by arguing that the law is an  “unfunded mandate” because it imposes costs on the municipalities without providing a source of funding to address those costs.  

An ongoing Plymouth Superior Court case was brought by the town of Marshfield against the state housing office, demanding an exemption from compliance. The court is considering a motion to dismiss the suit. 

Milton, meanwhile, is moving ahead with some grumbling. The town’s planning board will work into the summer to have a rezoning plan by the state’s July 14 deadline. 

At a Milton Planning Board meeting on May 8, several residents and planning board members continued to argue that the Mattapan High Speed Trolley line that passes through the eastern part of the town should not be considered comparable to other “rapid transit” options and therefore should come with a lower rezoning burden. Others expressed disappointment with the continuing back-and-forth over the rezoning process, describing the town as increasingly unaffordable to public employees and young people. 

Recent attempts to re-open the MBTA Communities debate through the state budget process have fizzled. 

An amendment offered by Rep. Kenneth Sweezey, a Duxbury Republican, but rejected by the chamber would have stripped the attorney general’s power to enforce the MBTA Communities law. The House dispensed with three MBTA Communities amendments – which would have extended the MBTA Community definition to all Massachusetts municipalities, expanded the definition of compliance, and excluded cities and towns without direct bus or subway service from being counted as an MBTA Community – offered by the House Republican leader Brad Jones, of North Reading, by opting not to include them in a consolidated amendment. 

The Senate, similarly, rejected amendments offering similar MBTA Communities changes proposed by Sen. Kelly Dooner, a Taunton Republican. Sen. William Driscoll, a Milton Democrat, withdrew an amendment declaring that the Mattapan High Speed Line “shall not be considered a rapid transit modality.” 

In the new Abundant Housing Massachusetts poll, surveyors did not measure specific support for the current version of MBTA Communities, but did ask if voters would support expanding the law to allow more housing options near public transit in all cities and towns with train and bus service statewide. Almost 80 percent said they somewhat or strongly supported the idea.