On Nov. 3, I’m voting “no” on Question 7 — another assault by state mandate on our Home Rule zoning, weakening our right of local self-government.
In Massachusetts, Home Rule authority was granted to municipalities 60 years ago, with the adoption of Amendment Article 89 in our Massachusetts Constitution, and the passage of Chapter 43B in our General Laws. Article 89, entitled Right of Local Self-Government, says: “It is the intention of this Article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters.” Home Rule allows a city or town to exercise this power by adopting local ordinances, bylaws or charters.
“In the strongest exercise of Home Rule rights,” explains the Massachusetts Division of Local Services, “communities can enact charters… to organize local government in a way that best meets the needs of their citizens. However, there are significant limitations.”
Despite Home Rule, many local actions require attorney general or state Legislature approval. The doctrine of “pre-emption” allows a local law to stand only if it’s consistent with the state Constitution or general laws. Pre-emption gives the General Court the right to perpetuate ongoing state rule over our municipal affairs.
In 1951, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a case known as Attorney General v. Inhabitants of Town of Dover (327 Mass. 601, 604) that the Legislature had the power to restrict a town’s zoning activity.
The Dover amendment (Chapter 40A, s. 3) over 75 years has metastasized deep into local self-rule by exempting a long list of land uses “by right” from local control, such as: commercial agriculture; use of land for religious or educational purposes; land used by a public service corporation; land or structures for a childcare facility, telecommunications and cable television facilities; congregate living for the disabled; family childcare homes; a single accessory dwelling unit per lot; solar energy systems, and battery energy storage systems.
The Dover amendment has become a zoning sinkhole for any land use the state decides is “so important to the public good,” that the commonwealth can “take away some measure of municipalities’ power to limit the use of land within their borders.” Chapter 40A, s.3 ensures that “neighborhood hostility or contrary local preferences” will not stand in the way of land uses considered critical to “meet the public need.” The Dover amendment, which exempts religious uses from local zoning rules, forced the rent control question off the Nov. 3 ballot.
Massachusetts Question 7 is just another “Dover zoning mandate.” It forces all cities and towns to shrink their minimum zoning lot size required for a single-family lot. This state mandate will be inserted into the Dover statute, requiring all municipalities to allow single-family homes on residential zoning lots as small as 5,000 square feet, shrinking frontage to only 50 feet, and requiring access to public sewer and water services. Five thousand square feet is about the size of an NBA basketball court.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association recommends a “no” vote on Question 7: “Zoning decisions are inherently local. Any attempt to preempt this local process with a one-size-fits-all policy strips local residents and officials of their role and their voice… The petition requires access to public water and sewer — at a time when many municipal water and sewer systems are already at or near maximum capacity. The petition also does not require the homes to be affordable or sold at below-market rates.”
In 2021, the state Legislature passed the controversial MBTA Communities Act, which mandates that any community hosting MBTA services must have “at least one zoning district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted” without special permits or permission. The General Court is now considering legislation allowing duplexes to replace single-family homes by right. If that passes, and we get smaller building lots, single-family homes will be bought by developers — who will convert single-family owner-occupied neighborhoods into duplex rentals owned by absentee landlords.
As of May 2026, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and the Massachusetts Association of Realtors and its political action committee have funded a total of $850,000 to pass this new state zoning mandate. If municipalities want to downsize building lots and frontage, under Home Rule they can ask their voters to amend local zoning by-laws — without being strong-armed by state mandates.
Vote “no” on Question 7. Tell state government we have the Home Rule right to control our own neighborhoods.
Al Norman’s Pushback column is published in the Recorder every first and third Wednesday of the month.