Beacon Hill Roll Call reports local representatives’ and senators’ votes on roll calls from the week of July 6 to July 10.
$561 million economic development package (H 5562)
The House, 148-2, approved and sent to the Senate a $561 million economic development bond bill that supporters say will strengthen key innovation sectors, support small businesses, expand housing opportunities, and position the state for long-term economic growth and competitiveness. They note that the measure makes targeted updates across dozens of state programs to improve efficiency, encourage investment, reduce barriers to economic development, and better prepare Massachusetts for emerging industries and workforce needs.
A controversial section of the bill would create a local option allowing municipalities to adopt a local tenant right of first refusal for the sale of multifamily residential properties, giving tenants the opportunity to purchase their building after receiving notice of the owner’s intent to sell. This provision is based on a separate proposed law, known as the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), which has been debated for years.
Provisions of the package include authorizing cities and towns to adopt commercial conversion zoning to transform underused commercial properties into housing and mixed-use developments through streamlined local approvals; allowing multifamily housing on qualifying land of less than 4 acres owned by religious institutions and mandating that 20% of the units be affordable; lowering the filing fee for a new limited liability company (LLC) from $500 to $100; establishing safety standards and operational rules for personal transportation devices such as motorized bicycles; extending the period during which taxpayers may claim the Massachusetts film tax credit from 12 months to 24 months; and creating a tax credit program to encourage digital game development.
The $561 million includes $100 million to strengthen the state’s defense leadership and accelerate the development of cutting-edge national security solutions; $75 million to support artificial intelligence tools, infrastructure and emerging technologies; $25 million to support downtown revitalization through capital funding for infrastructure and public spaces; $20 million to invest in sites designed to attract international companies to Massachusetts; and $20 million for a veterans housing program.
“This well-rounded economic development package makes significant, targeted investments into major sectors of the commonwealth’s economy,” said Rep. Aaron Michlewitz, D-Boston, chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means. “By advancing this legislation, we will be helping our small businesses cope with an ever-changing economic picture, while also making key advances for housing developments and protections across the commonwealth.”
“This legislation reflects Massachusetts’ commitment to building an economy that is innovative, competitive and inclusive,” said Rep. Carole Fiola, D-Fall River, House chair of the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies. “By investing in housing, supporting entrepreneurs and small businesses, strengthening our innovation ecosystem, and preparing for emerging industries like artificial intelligence, AgTech and the defense sector, we are making strategic investments that will create jobs and expand opportunity across every region of the commonwealth. Just as importantly, this bill gives our cities and towns new tools to address local challenges, helps safeguard our economy against federal uncertainty and ensures Massachusetts remains the best place to start a business, grow a company and bring new ideas to market.”
“I am concerned, among other things, that the TOPA component of this legislation will have a severely detrimental impact on small property owners,” said Rep. Dave DeCoste, R-Norwell, one of only two members who voted against the bill alongside Rep. Ken Sweezey, R-Duxbury. “I believe TOPA will diminish the value of existing properties and discourage potential investors from buying existing properties or building new multifamily homes.”
“The spending package does nothing to cut taxes, lower costs or make Massachusetts more competitive with states like New Hampshire, Florida, Texas and North Carolina,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, which opposed the bill. “Massachusetts cannot spend its way to economic competitiveness. Rather than reducing the tax burden on residents, employers and small businesses, the bill relies on more borrowing, diverting funds to create new programs and government-directed spending while avoiding the broad-based tax relief Massachusetts needs.”
“Businesses do not choose where to locate based on another grant program coming out of Beacon Hill,” Craney continued. “They look at the overall cost of doing business, the tax climate, the regulatory environment and whether a state is committed to long-term economic growth. … If Massachusetts wants to compete for jobs and investment, the answer is not another spending package.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
- Rep. Aaron Saunders — Yes
- Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Consolidated amendment (H 5562)
The House, 145-6, approved a lengthy amendment that consolidated 29 amendments into one. The consolidated amendment includes the controversial section that allows cities and towns to adopt a local tenant right of first refusal for the sale of multifamily residential properties, giving tenants the opportunity to purchase their building after receiving notice of the owner’s intent to sell.
“I was proud to support the consolidated amendment because it directly advances critical initiatives to address our housing challenges and increase much-needed housing stock across the commonwealth,” said Rep. Richard Haggerty, D-Woburn, chair of the Committee on Housing. “Converting underutilized commercial properties into new housing and streamlining local zoning and permitting are some of the key reforms that provide our communities the tools they need to expand our housing supply, make housing more affordable and allow our hard-working residents to stay in the communities they love. With targeted investments and reforms, this economic development bill helps to support our cities and towns, create more jobs, help our current businesses while attracting new ones and unlock economic growth throughout Massachusetts.”
“The consolidated amendment included language around providing tenants the right of first refusal to purchase a residential building should it be for sale, what was previously called TOPA – Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act,” said amendment opponent Rep. Joe McKenna, R-Sutton. “Though it was included [in this bill] as an opt-in local option, which is certainly better than a statewide policy, TOPA is bad policy. It does nothing to create new housing while actually creating a more costly and overregulated climate for property ownership in Massachusetts, which will have the effect of driving out investment and reducing the amount of housing that is available. This policy is direct government infringement on private property rights, and will hurt, not help, housing in Massachusetts.”
A “Yes” vote is for the consolidated amendment.
- Rep. Aaron Saunders — Yes
- Rep. Susannah Whipps — Yes
Social media regulation (S 3164)
The Senate, 38-2, approved legislation that supporters said would require that all social media platforms adopt default settings for minors that limit the most addictive aspects of social media, which is purposely designed to keep people scrolling for hours, often without realizing how long they have been on the app.
All platforms would be required to disable the “’algorithmic feed’ — where social media companies capitalize on users’ personal online data to pick what content they see; disable ‘autoplay’ and ‘infinite scroll’; issue users a reminder after using the app for one cumulative hour in a 24-hour period, then additional reminders every 30 minutes after that; and turn off notifications between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Those default settings would also apply to users who decline to go through an age verification process.
Other provisions would require social media companies to offer at least one age verification method that does not require users to submit biometric data or a government ID; and allow only users who are not minors and have verified their age to share their locations.
“This legislation sends a clear message that children’s well-being must come before social media companies’ bottom line,” said Senate Majority Leader Cindy Creem, D-Newton, lead sponsor of the legislation. “Features like autoplay, infinite scroll and algorithm-driven feeds are intentionally designed to keep young people online for as long as possible, often at the expense of their mental health. This bill takes thoughtful steps to create a safer online experience for children while protecting privacy and free speech.”
“The bill passed today by the Senate aims to restore for younger users the original purpose of social media — when platforms were truly a place to connect with friends, not an endless rabbit hole of doomscrolling, self-doubt and misinformation,” said Sen. Julian Cyr, D-Truro. “We know that social media apps today are engineered to be incredibly addictive, relying on sophisticated behavioral science and data collection to trap users in an infinite cycle of content curated by corporations. We also know that young people are especially vulnerable to having their mental health negatively impacted by these unending algorithmic feeds. Our bill walks a careful line of shielding minors from harmful features, while preserving their ability to find connections and support online.”
Only Sens. Peter Durant, R-Spencer, and Kelly Dooner, R-Taunton, voted against the bill.
Dooner did not speak during debate on the Senate floor and also did not respond to requests from Beacon Hill Roll Call asking her why she opposed the bill.
Durant said he wanted to see more parental rights included in the proposal.
“Show me a bill that puts the device-level age signal in parents’ hands, set it once as set up by a mom or dad, instead of handing it to the attorney general,” Durant said. “Show me a bill whose defaults a parent can adjust in either direction because they know their 15-year-old better than anyone.
“It’s not to say it’s a horrible bill, it’s not to say that there aren’t many good portions of this bill, but for me, the bill in front of us has to answer a question: Who raises the children of Massachusetts?” Durant added. “And I’m afraid, and I’m worried that overall, the answer is, and is increasingly becoming more, that we do. The state. Parents, they can watch.”
A “Yes” vote is for the bill.
- Sen. Jo Comerford — Yes
- Sen. Paul Mark — Yes
Also up on Beacon Hill
Governor signs $63.4 billion state budget
Gov. Maura Healey signed into law the $63.4 billion fiscal year 2027 state budget. She did not veto any funding or policies in the bill.
“We’re helping families afford child care, health care and higher education; increasing support for our cities, towns and schools that we know are facing financial challenges; speeding up housing production to lower costs; and making health insurance more affordable,” Healey said. “We’re also taking important steps to protect survivors of sexual assault and make sure anyone who commits these heinous crimes is held accountable.”
“Gov. Healey had an opportunity to provide taxpayers with some relief by vetoing unnecessary spending but instead signed a $63.4 billion budget without striking a single line item,” said Paul Craney, executive director of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance. “Does the governor really believe there isn’t a single dollar of waste, excess or lower-priority spending in a budget of this size? At a time when families are struggling with high housing, energy and tax costs, refusing to exercise the veto pen sends the message that Beacon Hill’s spending habits matter more than taxpayers’ ability to afford them.”
Use of psychedelics in mental health care (H 5562)
Tucked into the economic development bill approved by the House is a proposed new law that would establish a pilot program under the Department of Public Health to explore the use of psychedelics in mental health care. The proposal authorizes a maximum of three specialized mental health clinics — excluding any tied to the cannabis industry, psychedelic development or pharmaceutical companies — to use psychedelics under strict supervision. Participating clinics are tasked with reporting patient outcomes to contribute to the development of refined treatment protocols and regulatory frameworks for psychedelic use in mental health care.
In 2024, voters rejected Question 4 (rejected 42.9% to 57.1%) asking if they approved of a proposed law that would allow persons ages 21 and older to grow, possess and use certain natural psychedelic substances for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. The substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator.
“This is a triumph for a new kind of politics in the psychedelics movement, built on integrity, compromise and mutual, earned trust among grassroots advocates, lawmakers, scientific researchers, national organizations and philanthropists,” said Graham Moore, educational outreach director of Mass Healing, an organization leading psychedelic reform in Massachusetts.
“Mass Healing was born from the ashes of the failed 2024 psychedelic ballot question and fueled by my passion as a mother on a mission to keep fighting for legal access to psychedelic healing for my own family and others across Massachusetts,” said Jamie Morey, co-founder and executive director of Mass Healing. “The House’s passage of this bill is a victory for everyone affected by PTSD, treatment-resistant depression, addiction, and other serious mental and physical health conditions who urgently need new treatment options.”
The Senate will eventually draft and approve its own version of the economic development bill that may or may not include the proposed psychedelic law approved by the House.
Repeal recreational use of marijuana
The proposed November ballot question that would repeal adult use of recreational marijuana faced another challenge to the legitimacy of its nomination signatures when Kevin Gilnack filed an objection with Secretary of State William Galvin’s office.
Gilnack’s charges include that numerous signatures are not signed substantially as the same name under which the signer is registered to vote; some signatures are those of persons who are not registered voters within the city or town stated; some signatures are not genuine; numerous signatures were obtained through fraudulent means; and some signatures are those of voters who have subsequently requested that their names be removed from the petition.
He also notes that some of the signatures on the nomination papers should not be allowed because the papers contained extraneous marks; are not exact copies of the petition form as provided by the secretary of state because they differ from the original petitions in size, color, text or format; or otherwise fail to conform to the requirements under state law.
Wendy Wakeman, chair of the committee backing the ballot proposal, called the objections “one last desperate attempt” to keep the question off the ballot.