The high cost and low supply of housing in Massachusetts and the impact that has on the state’s economic competitiveness has been a major issue for the four Democratic candidates in the Sept. 3 primary election to succeed Denise Garlick as Needham’s state representative.
The four candidates — Patrick Gatto, Ken Ruetenik, Josh Tarsky, and write-in candidate Bhuren Patel — are campaigning for the right to face unenrolled candidate Bill Dermody in November’s general election. There are no Republican candidates for the 13th Norfolk District seat, which covers all of Needham and Dover and two precincts in Medfield.
The candidates seek to join a state Legislature that in 2021 passed the MBTA Communities Act to help boost housing supply. Just a few days ago, it passed the Affordable Homes Act, a $5.2 billion bond bill intended to kickstart housing production across the state.
Massachusetts is estimated to have a shortage of nearly a quarter-million homes, and many barriers to new construction exacerbate the problem. Despite little dispute that the state has a housing crisis, legislative initiatives still have drawn criticism of the state usurping local control over zoning and other municipal prerogatives to advance its plans.
The Observer spoke with all four Democrats about their views on the multifaceted housing issue.
Each of the candidates indicated he felt the state initiatives, especially the MBTA Communities Act, were not an excessive overreach, but they can understand local pushback.
“That’s what the state Legislature is supposed to do,” said Gatto. “When there’s big issues that are affecting the state in its entirety, then the state needs to step up.”
“I don’t think that it’s overstepping because it gives individual municipalities the decision at the end of the day,” said Ruetenik, referring to the latitude municipalities have in crafting their own zoning plans.
“I see both perspectives,” said Patel, who said he ultimately understands the need for it to be mandated. “If you don’t make certain towns do certain things, then there’s no advantage to them, or no reason for them to do it.”
“I think some people do think it’s an overstep,” said Tarsky. “But on the other side, as I go door-to-door and talk to people, I sense more people feel not enough is being done by the state to effectively address housing concerns, at least in the three towns that I hope to represent.”
Carrots vs. Sticks
The MBTA Communities Act is a state mandate requiring 177 cities and towns served by the MBTA to establish a zoning district that allows multifamily housing by right. This means that the housing can be built without needing a special permit.
Failure to comply makes a city or town ineligible for certain state grant programs and also exposes it to possible legal action, as is occurring in Milton. The candidates were asked whether the state might add incentives rather than sanctions to promote compliance.
“What happened in Milton is a really good example of what shouldn’t be happening,” said Patel. “I don’t fully agree that it should be a punishable situation, but I think it would have been more helpful to incentivize towns or cajole them.”
Ruetenik takes a similar stance. “In a perfect world, it would be more driven by incentives,” he said.
Tarsky also concurred. “For us to implement this effectively requires resources and I think the more help that they give us, the better chance we have of actually reaching the intent of these bills,” he said. “I think this is the great weakness of the MBTA Communities Act right now. It doesn’t really tell us how we turn the zoning into something tangible, into actual housing units.”
Gatto had a different take. “I don’t have a problem with the way that it is written. There’s a challenge with incentives, because those always have a cost,” he said, adding that he thinks the 2021 law was well crafted.
“It’s building around transit centers, which is smart, and they made it tailorable enough so that each community has their own proportion. It’s asking everyone to sort of lift together.”
Patel, an entrepreneur who operated the restaurant Home Kitchen on Chestnut Street, said the need for workforce housing to support local businesses is compelling.
“We had a problem personally, because we couldn’t get Indian staff to work in the restaurant. So literally, we had to spend hundreds of dollars a week for Uber drivers to pick them up and bring them here because a lot of our staff didn’t have cars.”
Ruetenik also said his personal experience informs his support for the law as it addresses his primary motivation for running, namely that the high cost of living in general and housing in particular is making it nearly impossible for 20-somethings to remain in Massachusetts.
“That’s why I’m pushing for any level and any amount of housing stock to be added pretty much anywhere in the commonwealth of Massachusetts,” he said.
Real estate transfer tax
The Affordable Homes Act initially contained a provision giving cities and towns the option of implementing a transfer fee of 0.5% to 2.0% on real estate transactions of more than $1 million or the county median single-family home price, whichever is greater. The local option tax did not survive the legislative process and was not in the final bill signed by Gov. Maura Healey on Aug. 6.
There have been reports it may be resurrected. If so, the candidates are split on how they’d respond should it come before them as legislators.
Both Gatto and Ruetenik are strong supporters.
“It wasn’t a mandated tax,” Gatto noted. “If municipalities or towns decide that they want to do it, then they can.”
“They left it up to the towns to tailor it even more, percentage wise, whatever else they wanted to do,” he said. “And it was earmarked for education and affordable housing, which are two huge things that we should be prioritizing.”
Tarsky said he remains neutral. “I would still need to talk to more people about it,” he said. “I need more time to actually look into it and get a more developed position.”
Patel said he’s not a fan. “I would have to oppose it,” he said. “We want to encourage people to come here (Needham). And unless we absolutely are against the wall to make something happen, I’m not in favor of doing a surcharge.”
Save as PDF