I shared the Association’s position and facts regarding the success of 40B on Beacon Hill before the Joint Committee on Housing early in May:

• The statute was enacted in 1969 to counter the exclusionary local zoning restrictions on multi-family housing that existed outside of our cities. The goal was to encourage the towns to provide their fair share of affordable workforce housing.
• Still today, few communities have any land zoned for multifamily housing. Single-family zoning remains designed to make affordable housing difficult to develop with large lots, excessive subdivision regulations, and wetlands and septic requirements that far exceed those set by the state. The conditions that prompted the Legislature to enact 40B years ago still exist.
• Since 1969, approximately 56,000 homes have been produced under 40B and another 10,900 homes are approved locally, but not yet under construction. Of these, 29,000 homes are reserved for households at or below 80% of area median income. Over 39,000 are apartments and almost 17,000 are homeownership units. While these may seem impressive numbers, they are not. They are far short of what we need, yet without 40B virtually no affordable housing would exist.
• Too many of our communities have not been proactive in planning for affordable housing. These same communities have fought those developments that are proposed precisely because of their lack of appropriately zoned land.
• Chapter 40B has been used to effectively promote local planning, without the need of financial subsidy, prompthing more than 89 of our 351 communities to develop affordable housing plans, a powerful "Smart Growth" tool, if a community is really interested in smart growth.
• Despite statements to the contrary, housing developed under 40B does not affect the value of surrounding homes. "The fear of asset value loss among suburban homeowners is misplaced." (MIT Center for Real Estate, Housing Affordability Initiative Study)
• From The Economic Impact of Restricting Housing Supply (Harvard/Rappaport May 2006):
  • Limits on new construction are responsible for declines in Massachusetts' population;
  • Restricting housing supply leads to volatility in housing prices;
  • Restricted housing supply and its resultant increased housing prices have led to a decline in employment and income;
  • High housing prices change an area's demographic mix, making it less diverse.
• Experience has shown that, given the ability, local communities will continue to be exclusionary.  After 41 years, Chapter 40B remains an imperfect law as are all laws.  it has and continues to evolve with time and circumstances and should continue to change to face the realities of our state today.  Destroying 40B without an alternate plan would further limit much-needed housing for our seniors and working families.
  http://www.baystaterealtor.com