Massachusetts needs more housing, but how much more?
On July 28, 2026, the Recorder published a front-page story in which five local housing developers and municipal planners questioned the accuracy of state data on projected housing need that were originally presented 17 months ago in a report from the Healey Administration called “A Home for Everyone.”
The state’s housing need projections were dramatically lower than those being promoted by local housing groups. The state called for 222,000 new homes to be built statewide, with 210 units attributed to Franklin County. “We were surprised,” one regional planner admitted. “The state… set regional targets, and for Franklin County it was low… it seemed really, really low.”
The state housing plan, issued in February of 2025, said officials “pored over demographic trends and tested out different scenarios for the future… The team produced multiple scenarios for future demand… There are a lot of different ways to measure all of the housing activity that has resulted.”
Based on a “mid-range population growth scenario” for the next decade, the state projected that Massachusetts needed to add at least 222,000 year-round homes. “This is the minimum number needed to achieve a state of housing abundance.”
One local non-profit housing developer noted: “The goal that is stated for Franklin County is actually at a low end of a range, it actually is 210 — 1,100. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle… I think it’s a little early to say we’ve met the goal.” But the state report was very clear: “222,000 new homes is the floor, not the ceiling.” State planners explained: “This production target… is a measure of overall supply needed to reduce intense competition for homes… and stem unsustainable rent and sale price increases.”
On Oct. 30, 2025, the Yes on 1 committee in Greenfield issued a press release suggesting that Greenfield’s housing Plan study in 2024 projected our city needed 1,000 additional dwelling units by 2035. On the city’s website, the mayor’s office estimated that “There is a housing shortage of over 3,000 units in Franklin County.” The state projected 210 housing units needed in the Franklin County region — 14 times lower than Greenfield’s projections for the county.
The state is keeping track of the number of new residential addresses created, using Census Bureau data. From November 2024 to November 2025, the figures show a net gain of more than 34,500 homes. “Massachusetts is already 15.6% of the way toward the goal,” the state reported — 187,500 homes are still needed by 2035.
The latest state tracking report includes a “housing snapshot” of Franklin County: “While housing prices are relatively low compared to the rest of the state, incomes in the region are also lower… New homes are needed to accommodate decreasing household size; compensate for the loss of older, derelict homes… and achieve a healthy vacancy rate.” The state projects that the county “may need as many as 1,100 new homes over the next decade.”
Between November 2024 and November 2025, Franklin County towns added 190 residential addresses: Charlemont 34; Heath 31; Deerfield 20; Greenfield 19; Buckland 10; Orange 10; Whately 8; Bernardston 8; Montague 8; Gill 7; Shelburne 6; Shutesbury 5; Northfield 5; Ashfield 3; Wendell 3; Rowe 2; Colrain 2; New Salem 2; Sunderland 2; Erving 1; Conway 1; Leverett 1; Hawley 1; Monroe 1; Warwick 1; Leyden -1.
“While the progress so far is encouraging,” the state notes, “we still have a long road ahead.” The state still needs to add at least 187,500 homes over the next nine years. Year one created 34,500 new units, so the commonwealth could reach its 222,000 goal 3.6 years early.
“While a shortage of units is the principal cause of our housing crisis,” the state concludes, “other factors also play a role. Increasing wage polarization and income inequality have swelled the number of households that cannot afford modestly priced housing, even with multiple wage earners.”
I have several cautions: We should not focus solely on a “housing race” based on local or state reports that carry an armful of assumptions. We should stop promoting a “housing anywhere” policy of zoning “by right” at the expense of neighborhood rights. Not every undeveloped site is appropriate for housing. We need to address “wage polarization” by developing a strategy to build higher-wage industrial jobs for our wage-earners. Shoveling more public subsidies, like Community Preservation Act funds, to developers will not make housing cheaper. Developers need to put up more equity and pay property taxes — and not urgently plead for massive government handouts.
Al Norman’s Pushback column appears in the Recorder the first and third Wednesday of each month.