A ballot question intended to ease the housing crisis and increase the availability of potentially smaller homes has divided voters, creating a nail-biting contest that extended into Wednesday afternoon.
Unofficial results show that 50.6% of voters rejected Question 7 to enable homes to be constructed on smaller lots, while 49.4% of voters supported it, according to the Associated Press based on about 94% of votes tallied. The AP had not called the race as of about 4:30 p.m. Wednesday.
Like the state at large, Question 7 had the closest margin of all ballot questions in Franklin County and the North Quabbin region. A slightly higher percentage of voters, 51.2%, voted against the initiative compared to the state percentage of “no” voters, with 22 of the 30 local municipalities defeating the measure. The city of Greenfield does heavy lifting on the “yes” side, with 1,189 more residents voting “yes.”
Only 954 votes separate the “yes” and “no” camps for Question 7 across Franklin County and the North Quabbin region — 19,927 votes in favor and 20,881 votes against.
Andrew Mikula, chair of the Legalize Starter Homes campaign, told State House News Service on Wednesday morning that the final count would take longer than supporters initially thought, as he pointed to a raft of municipalities where ballots were still being tabulated. At around midnight Wednesday, Mikula offered initial hypotheses about why the vote surrounding Question 7 was a “little tighter” than the campaign expected.
“In a crowded election and a crowded, busy season, and being Question 7 and not up-ballot or on the first side of the first page, you know, there’s maybe some fatigue,” Mikula said. “But also, you know, harder to educate yourself in advance. Zoning is confusing. People don’t know how big 5,000 square feet is. They don’t necessarily understand immediately how this is changing existing laws.”
Voters navigated a flurry of other ballot questions tied to public records, limiting state tax collections, overhauling state primaries, enabling Election Day voter registration, upholding the 2024 gun reform law and steering sales tax revenue toward conservation investments, among others.
Question 7 would enable single-family homes to be built on lots as small as 5,000 square feet that have at least 50 feet of land bordering the street and access to public water and sewer services. While supporters argued the question would create momentum to build starter homes and help seniors downsize, the measure did not explicitly mandate the size of the homes. Rather, dimensions would need to be ironed out through subsequent state regulatory decision-making and local zoning.
A report from the Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts University estimated the question would generate roughly 750 new homes annually and that suburbs, particularly around Boston, would see the biggest home-building boost. Cities and towns would also lose “some real authority” over the construction rules for roughly 850,000 parcels, though municipalities could still delineate criteria around setbacks, height and bulk of buildings, the report said.
Jim Rooney, CEO of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, which endorsed Question 7 but had qualms with its wording, said he was not surprised by the outcome.
“One of my takeaways is that the closeness of this, generally speaking, reflects that there’s an increasing awareness and urgency amongst the electorate in the fact that we have a housing crisis in Massachusetts,” Rooney said. “Even if you look at the breakdown of the votes and the towns that voted against it, there’s some strong sentiment that we need to do something about housing that’s reflected in this vote.”
Nearly 120,000 Boston voters supported Question 7, while 53,286 city voters opposed it, according to unofficial results. But the question would not impact the city, which has its own zoning rules. Other dense communities strongly backed the measure, including Amherst, Arlington, Brockton, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Lawrence, Randolph, Salem, Everett, Somerville, Watertown and Worcester.
Abundant Housing MA Executive Director Jesse Kanson-Benanav said support for Question 7 appears to be concentrated in areas with a high proportion of renters, young residents and people of color who are getting priced out of the state’s housing market.
“The folks that are experiencing the housing crisis are the ones that are most supportive of the variety of strategies that we need to build more homes for Massachusetts families,” he said.
Municipalities strongly opposed to the question included Barnstable, Berkley, Boxford, Bridgewater, Carver, Hanson, Dartmouth, Dighton, Duxbury, Falmouth, Freetown, Lakeville, Middleborough, Norwell, Rehoboth, Seekonk, Sutton and West Bridgewater. Voters were tightly divided in communities such as Deerfield, Gloucester and Winthrop. The Deerfield vote margin was just 30 apart, with 1,345 “yes” votes and 1,375 “no” votes.
“I hope what we’re seeing here is that … voters are saying we need to avoid a top-down blunt instrument and instead work more carefully and in a more detailed manner and, frankly, in partnership with cities and towns to figure out how we can best get this done,” said Adam Chapdelaine, executive director and CEO of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which opposed the question.
Greg Reibman, president and CEO of the Charles River Regional Chamber and one of the initial 10 sponsors of the initiative petition, said he viewed the measure as a “simple” and “not particularly controversial” approach for tackling the housing crisis in suburban communities. He pitched the question as an antidote to “McMansions” that crop up when older homes are torn down.
“It’s disappointing that more people didn’t see the simplicity or the benefit of that,” Reibman said.
The MMA argued the question’s broad wording would encourage the construction of luxury homes and not achieve supporters’ goals of unlocking affordable, accessible housing units. Reibman said he did not have a “firm feeling” of whether the ballot language, namely its lack of specificity about the size of single-family homes, caused concerns among voters.
“It does seem to me that the communities that would have benefited the most from this were the ones that voted against it, and that’s discouraging,” said Reibman, as he pointed to Wellesley, where 57.5% of voters rejected the question. “Wellesley is one of those communities that really is losing their young people who can’t go anywhere else. Adult children in Wellesley don’t have a place to go. Seniors who want to downsize don’t.”
Beacon Hill leaders are scrambling for solutions to boost housing production. The 2024 Affordable Homes Act allowed for accessory dwelling units of up to 900 square feet to be built by right in single-family zoning districts. The state has approved almost 2,100 ADUs since the start of 2025, the Healey administration said in August.
Other statewide zoning efforts have sparked intense local opposition, particularly the MBTA Communities Act that was intended to steer housing development near public transit. The law has resulted in “real but modest benefits,” with nearly 7,000 units in the permitting, construction or occupancy pipeline, according to a Boston Indicators report from January.
Additional housing policy is tied up in the economic development conference committee. House and Senate negotiators are now operating in a lame-duck session that could give them more cover to embrace bolder, potentially controversial policies. The Senate’s economic development package would enable duplexes to be built by right on all residential lots, while the House version would allow for multi-family zoning by right on properties owned by religious institutions.
“My hope was that the starter home question would prevail, of course, but that would also send a signal to Beacon Hill that the residents were open to some top-down zoning changes to address our housing crisis,” Reibman said. “It would have been great to be able to say voters like this stuff, and it would have helped that conference committee have courage to adopt those.”
Johnny Depin contributed reporting.