Did the controversial MBTA Communities housing law force towns to shell out money to devise carefully crafted multifamily zoning plans, or were any expenditures a voluntary choice that municipalities made to navigate thorny local politics?
Justices on the state’s highest court are wrestling with that question in a lawsuit brought by the town of Marshfield. After a lower court last year shot down arguments from a group of municipalities that they should not be forced to comply with the 2021 law requiring multifamily zoning near MBTA service, because it was an “unfunded mandate,” the South Shore town appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court agreed to hear its case.
What the SJC will decide may turn on a simple, pointed line of inquiry.
“What were the expenses?” Justice Dalila Wendlandt asked Marshfield’s attorney, Robert Galvin, during oral arguments on Wednesday. “You’re saying it’s an unfunded mandate, and I’m wondering what the funds are that the town of Marshfield claims it was required to expend in order to comply with a state law that just requires ‘one district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right.’”
Galvin offered up no line-item cost, and the town had not laid out specific expense in its initial compliant. But Marshfield was forced to employ a person to develop zoning modeling, Galvin told the court, and the town “incurred expense associated with” navigating the 22 pages of compliance regulations.
State law bars legislators from creating a direct financial burden on municipalities without providing a source of funding. Courts have found that there is an exception, however, for “incidental local administration expenses” that come along with abiding by a law.
More Context
- Reluctant MBTA Communities start to buckle (February 2026)
- Researchers find MBTA housing law benefits ‘modest’ so far (January 2026)
Published by MassINC