A "starter" home built in Wrentham under the state's 40B affordable housing law. (Photo by Michael Jonas)

LONG BEFORE I became a residential land developer, my father was fighting development.

I grew up in Westwood, where he was involved in efforts to protect forested land from clear-cutting and development. After a decade-long battle, much of that land remains preserved through Hale Reservation and Westwood Land Trust.

There is some irony in the fact that I ultimately made a career out of residential land development.

But I like to think I inherited part of his perspective. My work is pro-housing and pro-development, but I also believe responsible development means balancing growth with open space, mature trees, environmental constraints, and the existing character of a place—not simply maximizing lot count.

That is one reason Question 7 concerns me. Another is practical: I know what I would do with it.

In fact, if Question 7 passes, I may be almost obligated to start shopping for deals in Massachusetts. That probably tells you something about how developers will view it.

Question 7 would establish a statewide right to build a single-family home on a lot of at least 5,000 square feet with 50 feet of frontage where public water and sewer are available. Local governments could retain “reasonable” regulations, including setbacks, height, bulk, open space, and parking, but could not prohibit, unreasonably restrict, or require discretionary zoning approval for that use.

The argument is intuitive: Smaller lots reduce land cost, so they should produce less expensive homes.

Sometimes they do. But smaller lots do not require cheaper homes. That distinction matters because zoning does more than regulate what can be built. It affects what land is worth.

If an older $600,000 house sits on land that can suddenly support two more valuable homes, that property is no longer competing only as a $600,000 residence. It is competing as redevelopment land. A builder can pay more for it because the development rights are worth more. The existing house may become more valuable to demolish than to preserve.

I have watched this happen in Nashville.

Across much of East Nashville, modest older homes have been demolished and replaced with pairs of narrow detached houses commonly called “tall-skinnies.” A house that might have sold for $600,000 can disappear and be replaced by two homes selling for approximately $1.2 million each.

That is housing production. But it is not affordable housing.

It is gentrification. It is capitalism. It is the market doing what markets do: making the most profitable use of a development opportunity.

Question 7 would certainly increase housing production. It does not ensure that the homes produced will be affordable.

The scale of the zoning change also matters. Massachusetts communities were not all planned around the same development pattern. Across suburban towns, conventional single-family zoning can range from relatively compact lots to one-, two-, and even three-acre minimums. A 5,000 SF threshold may be familiar in an urban neighborhood designed around tight setbacks, compact blocks, alleys, and infrastructure that supports smaller lots. In a community built around acre-plus lots, it represents something very different.

That does not mean 5,000 SF lots are inherently bad. They are not. Smaller lots and greater density can be useful tools for addressing housing supply. The question is whether those additional development rights should be granted statewide without requiring the housing outcome being used to justify them.

Question 7 does not require the resulting home to be affordable, modest, or small. There is no statewide sales-price restriction, affordability requirement, owner-occupancy requirement, or cap on house size.

Yet Massachusetts already has a policy aimed more precisely at the starter-home problem.

Chapter 40Y allows municipalities to create Starter Home Zoning Districts where qualifying homes are permitted as of right at a minimum density of four homes per acre. Homes are capped at 1,850 square feet, at least half must have three or more bedrooms, and developments of more than 12 homes must make at least 10 percent affordable to households earning up to 110 percent of area median income.

Just as importantly, 40Y allows communities to pair that density with reasonable design standards and open-space planning. In other words, it recognizes that housing production, affordability, neighborhood form, and conservation do not have to be treated as mutually exclusive goals.

That is the model worth strengthening.

Allow smaller lots. Allow meaningful density. Make approvals predictable and by right. But do it alongside thoughtful open-space, environmental, and neighborhood-character standards. Make it easier and more profitable for developers to build the modest, family-oriented homes Massachusetts needs.

The economics matter. Additional development rights are valuable. When government increases what can be built on a piece of land, we as developers run the numbers, determine the highest and best use, and compete for that opportunity. That is not a criticism of developers; it is how the market works.

If the public is granting valuable new development rights in the name of affordability, it should expect affordability in return.

Smaller lots can produce more housing.

They do not, by themselves, produce affordability.

Alex Becker is a partner and land development specialist at EcoTerra, a Tennessee firm focused on development that designs projects around the natural character and contours of sites.