Gov. Maura Healey’s “A Home For Everyone” housing production plan for Massachusetts set a goal of developing at least 210 homes in Franklin County by 2035, yet local officials are questioning the reliability of the data put forth by the state.
According to state data, 190 new housing units were added to Franklin County in 2025, leaving just 20 homes left to be built to meet a minimum goal for the region; however, local planning officials and developers say the goal set may not truly reflect the region’s needs, and question the housing numbers being tracked by the state.
“We were surprised,” Franklin Regional Council of Governments Housing and Livability Program Manager Megan Rhodes said about the data. “The state put out a plan last year and they set regional targets, and for Franklin County it was low… it seemed really, really low.”
Healey’s plan outlined a need for at least 222,000 year-round homes statewide to be constructed over the next decade, with regional goals ranging from more than 120,000 needed in the greater Boston area, to just 210 additional units in Franklin County.
The data showcased in the state housing tracker utilized Census Bureau address count data in municipalities and tracks net changes between November 2024 and November 2025. Rhodes said that this data may not be the best way to track housing production, especially in rural communities where inaccurate ZIP codes may result in housing units being counted in the wrong town.
Rhodes said that the UMass Donahue Institute’s Western Mass Housing Study set a goal of 2,229 new units for the region, and that FRCOG’s 2024 housing plan had found a shortage of 3,020 affordable units in Franklin County. She said more homes are needed, both affordable and market rate, as well as a range of single-family, duplexes, condos and other types of housing.
“More housing is needed in all regions and in all shapes and sizes,” Rhodes said. “We have pushed back on the state and are questioning the data they used.”
She said she believes the census data may have considered some campsites and short-term or temporary units as long-term housing and noted that the state dataset flagged 34 new units in Charlemont and 31 new units in Heath, while only one building permit was pulled to build a new home in each of those towns.
According to U.S. Census Building Permit survey data, 71 building permits were approved in Franklin County in 2024. The number of permits for 2025 are not yet available.
Gina Govoni, executive director of Rural Development Inc., agreed with Rhodes’ assessment that both the state data and the goal may not be an accurate reflection of the conditions and needs of Franklin County, adding that the state housing tracker does not reflect that the “A Home for Everyone Plan” actually set a goal of 210-1,100 units for the county.
“The goal that is stated for Franklin County is actually at a low end of a range; it actually is 210-1,100,” Govoni said. “You have a lot of different data sets, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle… I think it’s a little early to say we’ve met the goal.”
Govoni said given the variety of ranges for housing production goals, she would estimate that approximately 800 more units are needed in Franklin County to ensure the housing market is viable and healthy.
She said that while there are several housing projects in the works across the county, only a few have been completed in the past year, and she is not confident that the number is as high as 190.
“There has been a lot of new housing projects in the pipeline, but the largest development I know of is the old Center School. That came online in 2025 and has 11 units,” Govoni said. “I have to question the validity of the data.”
She said that the state data indicates that the county’s declining population is a factor in why its housing production goal is lower than other regions, and that the state should also consider the age of the county’s housing stock. She believes many of the homes in the region “do not fit modern needs” and need to be updated.
Govoni added that the state should not be proud of the county’s declining population and, consequently, the county’s declining viability, and should encourage increased housing and population growth.
In Greenfield, Planning Director Ella Wise and Community and Economic Development Director Amy Cahillane said Greenfield has “absolutely” made progress towards housing production goals this year, particularly with development projects underway in the downtown area.
Wise agreed that the state goal of 210 units for the entire county may be a bit low. Greenfield’s own housing plan developed in 2024 set a citywide goal of developing 675-1,000 new units over the next 10 years.
Wise and Cahillane highlighted projects underway in Greenfield, such as the Wilson’s development, renovations and expansion to 156-176 Main St., and other downtown projects that could add between 81 and 131 units. Other parcels, such as the Hope Street lot, for which the city is developing a request for proposals, could potentially add more units to the city.
“I think we could always be doing more, and we’ve got some pretty exciting projects in the works,” Wise said. “Outside of that, things have been slow. I’d love to see more development in the neighborhoods.”
Wise said the city has been working to update its zoning regulations to make development easier, including allowing single-, two- and and three-family homes in all zoning districts, as well as lifting parking requirements downtown, but added she has heard from local developers that the real challenges to development come from high costs of labor and materials, as well as community opposition.
“I think we’re doing a lot with our zoning code, but I’d love to see more partnership with the private sector,” Wise said. “It is hard. It’s hard to navigate permitting and financing. It’s incredibly complicated.”
Rhodes said that zoning regulations can be a barrier to development, and FRCOG is available to help communities update zoning as needed. She added that lack of public support can slow development progress, but one of the biggest challenges is costs.
“The main obstacle is that we have a weak market,” Rhodes said.
She explained that construction costs are relatively the same across the state; however, area median rents and home prices in Franklin County are lower than other parts of the state, making it more economical for developers to build elsewhere to turn a greater profit.
According to data from Zillow, the average cost of a home in Franklin County in June 2026 was $379,656, up 1.3% from June of last year. The average rental price in June was $1,650 per month, which is $500 less than June of last year. Statewide, the average home cost is $672,867, up 1.8% from last year, and the average rent was $3,200 per month, $6 less than the average rent in June 2025.
Govoni said that to build an affordable unit in a multi-unit complex, it can cost as much as $650,000 per unit, due to construction costs soaring since the COVID-19 pandemic. To make construction more feasible, she hopes more communities will leverage Community Preservation Funds to support housing.
“There’s a lot of opportunity here, but there’s also a lot of barriers,” Govoni said. “When I look at the need for public investment, we need to focus our community’s funding where the need is right now, and right now, that’s housing.”
Montague Planning Director Maureen Pollock said that finding funding to offset development costs can be a challenge, and developers are apt to build elsewhere.
“The preferability for Montague might not be as high as in Hampshire County or even outside the valley,” Pollock said.
She said the town is working towards earning the Housing Choice Initiative Designation through the state Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, which would open up more funding streams to support development, but the town needs 23 more housing units before it can be eligible.
The designation would open up the town to be eligible for up to $500,000 in funding for projects within the “Site Preparation,” “Buildings,” and “Infrastructure” Community One Stop for Growth (COSG) Development Continuum categories and $150,000 in funding for projects within the “Planning and Zoning” COSG Development Continuum category.
Wise said the city administration is clear that housing production is a goal, and wants to support developers the best she can toward continued progress on the city and state’s housing goals.
Pollock said between private residents building homes and accessory dwelling units, and municipal efforts to support development through zoning changes and working with partners to redevelop its own properties, Montague is making progress on housing goals.
“The town is continuing to work toward state housing goals,” Pollock said. “There’s a real need for housing, and we’re continuing to see progress.”
Pollock said the eight units the state data listed as being added in Montague seemed consistent with what she has seen in the town. She said more will be developed as the town works to transfer a town-owned parcel on 1st Street in Turners Falls to Habitat for Humanity for the development of six new single-family homes. The town also continues to explore the feasibility of redeveloping the Farren Care Center, which could potentially be used for housing.
The town also is about to kick off its own housing study, which would outline specific production goals.
Wise said that developers have indicated that aging infrastructure throughout the city can be a deterrent to construction, and Pollock added that Montague is planning to update infrastructure over time to support development.
While state and local goals are inconsistent, Rhodes said the message is the same: more housing is needed, and local municipalities want to work with developers to make it happen.
“The message is very clear from local, regional and state levels: We need more housing,” Rhodes said. “We’re not there yet; the data might seem like it, but we’re not there yet.”
