While the final 2% of ballots are counted, voters in Franklin County and statewide remain split on a proposal to reduce the minimum size required for residential building lots.
As of Thursday afternoon, unofficial results of the 98% of ballots counted show that 50.6% of voters rejected Question 7 while 49.4% of voters supported it, according to the Associated Press, which has not yet called the race.
The proposed law would overrule zoning regulations in most municipalities and allow single-family homes to be built in residentially zoned areas as long as the lot on which it is built is at least 5,000 square feet; has at least 50 feet of land bordering the street, road or public way that it faces; and has access to public sewer and water services.
Statewide, the question received support in Boston and communities in its immediate vicinity, such as Waltham, Braintree and Chelsea. It saw less support in central and southeastern Massachusetts.
In Franklin County, the question garnered the support of voters in Greenfield, Buckland, Shelburne, Montague, Leverett, Sunderland, Monroe and New Salem, but failed in the rest of the county. The margin of victory was particularly narrow in some communities, such as Ashfield, where the “no” votes took the lead by a 15-vote margin, or Gill, where the “noes” outnumbered the “yeses” by 16.
Only 957 votes separate the “yes” and “no” camps for Question 7 across Franklin County and the North Quabbin region — 19,928 votes in favor and 20,885 votes against.
The ballot initiative, put forth by the Legalize Starter Homes campaign, was suggested to voters as a way to address soaring housing costs in the state. Legalize Starter Homes argued that reducing the required size to build would make it easier for young people to construct starter homes, or older residents to downsize.
Greenfield housing activist Susan Worgaftik said she was originally against the proposal, out of fear that developers would use it to purchase farmland and put up as many houses as they could fit, but she changed her mind once she learned the proposed law included a requirement for sewer and water infrastructure. With that consideration in mind, she said she thought the question wouldn’t have much of an impact on rural communities and was written more to address the suburbs outside Boston, where more housing is needed but available land does not meet development requirements.
“I live in Greenfield on a lot that’s not much bigger than 5,000 feet, so it’s fine to me,” Worgaftik said. “This really wasn’t written for us out here.”
Worgaftik said she understood other people’s concerns about giving up local zoning control, as well as those who may struggle to visualize what dense neighborhoods with small lots would look like, but with housing needs outpacing available stock and production, we need to look at how and where housing is built.
“It’s a very difficult question and it requires a lot of deep thinking,” Worgaftik said. “We’re gradually gonna have to change how we think about density.”
Jeff Lacy is a member of the Conway Planning Board and works as a land use and planning consultant. He agreed that zoning changes could support more housing, but he voted “no” on Question 7 and said he hopes that it fails to pass.
“I’m hoping for the final icing on the cake on what was a good night,” Lacy said.
Lacy argued that the one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work for zoning. Towns have a range of character, needs and infrastructure, and the zoning requirements for each municipality should be left up to its officials to decide.
Lacy pointed out that the city of Boston would be exempt from the law, and said it’s unfair that Boston gets to vote on regulations that would apply to everyone else.
According to the AP, Boston voted 69.2% to 30.8% in favor of Question 7.
He agreed that efforts are needed to support more housing, but said Question 7 does not require developers to actually build smaller starter homes on the 5,000-square-foot lots. Lacy said that if the question does fail, zoning and planning agencies and boards should work to see what they can do in their communities, and that the intent behind Question 7 could be salvaged.
“If it doesn’t pass, we shouldn’t just wait around,” Lacy said.
He suggested reworking the language of the proposed law to require developers building with a 5,000-square-foot minimum to set aside a percentage of their units as affordable, rather than allowing them to be all market rate.
Al Norman, a Greenfield resident and activist involved with zoning-related issues, is hoping that as the last few votes are counted, the “noes” prevail, agreeing with Lacy’s concern that the law would not be used to actually build starter homes.
“On the surface, more starter homes sounds good … but there’s no mechanism in the ballot question to do that,” Norman said.
Norman said he thinks “people were misled to think this will help make homes affordable,” and argued that the issue facing Massachusetts is not a housing cost issue but an income issue. He said that rather than trying to build more housing, which is expensive due to high construction costs, there should be more focus on getting people into higher-paying jobs.
“We can’t solve the housing crisis without addressing the income crisis,” Norman said.
Norman said he believes there should have been more public information sessions about the ballot questions in advance of Election Day, and that a lack of guidance from local elected officials could have impacted the results.
“The vote did not surprise me. I think a lot of voters are just flying by the seat of their pants,” Norman said. “We didn’t do enough prep work for our voters.”
Andrew Mikula, chair of the Legalize Starter Homes campaign, told State House News Service that the vote was tighter than expected, and said that with nine ballot questions, voters had a lot of proposals to research and decide on, which could have impacted the results.
“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.”
Material from State House News Service was used in this report.
