Massachusetts Zoning Lawsuit: Addressing Listener Pushback
On a recent episode of Upzoned, I joined Abby Newsham to discuss a fascinating and controversial case out of Massachusetts: the state’s effort to sue a city over exclusionary zoning near transit stations. The case centers on Milton, a town outside of Boston, and whether local zoning decisions are undermining the state’s broader housing and transportation goals. Our discussion touched on the relationship between land use and transit investments, the role of state versus local control, and the broader dysfunction in how we fund and build infrastructure.
After the episode aired, we received some thoughtful critiques from listeners who felt the conversation missed key historical and legal context.
Nate wrote:
I listened to this episode excited to learn more about the zoning conflicts in Massachusetts and about the SJC decision, and to get a Strong Towns perspective on it. I was left pretty disappointed by the episode. The conversation was abstract and not specific to the actual realities in Massachusetts or Milton. All Massachusetts-specific discussion was basically conjecture without much upfront research. … In reality, the Mattapan Line of the MBTA system went into service in 1929; it is not some newfangled rail project that the state has recently invested in without first getting buy-in from the surrounding community. And policy decisions made in the last almost 100 years — yes, many of which were exclusionary zoning practices with racial and socioeconomic underpinnings — have certainly affected both the transportation and housing realities that exist today.
John M. added:
Like Nate, I am also super disappointed after having high hopes based on the title, and I want to add some additional context:
This transit line is almost a century old, and nearly all of our rail-transit is on rights-of-way half a century or older.
Despite the name, the ‘MBTA Communities Act’ is not really about transit, but about residential zoning and forcing local communities in Eastern MA to have at least some land zoned for multi-family by right. I suspect the thought behind the requirement for placing the district near MBTA stops (when available) is to put the development in places where it won’t necessarily make traffic worse.
Like Chuck said, zoning authority in Massachusetts is invested in the state and delegated to its 351 municipalities. This court case happened because Milton wanted to argue the state didn’t have that power, or that it hadn’t followed the right procedures. So the court case became a necessary step to get to the point where the state could enforce penalties.
These are fair critiques. It’s true that our conversation approached the issue at a high level, without delving deeply into the long history of the Mattapan Line. Understanding that this rail corridor has been in place since 1929 does change the framing: This isn’t a case of the state dropping in a transit line and later realizing it needed housing; it’s a case of long-standing zoning policies shaping (and, in some cases, limiting) development patterns over time. That’s an important distinction.
At the same time, I think the larger point still holds: Regardless of whether a transit line is brand new or nearly a century old, we have a systemic issue in how we align infrastructure investments with land use decisions. The state is still spending to operate a line there and has paid for upgrades to stations in recent times (from the looks of it). Why are we making these kinds of investments in places opposed to neighborhood evolution? Why not make them in places better aligned?
The question of whether Massachusetts should be suing a city to enforce zoning reform is part of a much larger conversation about governance, incentives and unintended consequences. If we're willing to take cities to court (difficult and not very nice), then we should be willing to stop giving them handouts and redirect those resources to places that better align with the spending objective (prudent and not difficult).
I suspect — and I'd love listeners to confirm or not — that going to court is the decision of one executive office while redirecting funds is a decision of the legislature. Without consensus in the legislature, legal action may seem like the best approach, especially for advocates frustrated by the present situation. I get it, but this doesn't feel like a viable long-term strategy, at least not to me.
I appreciate the pushback from listeners, and I’d love to revisit this topic in the future.
Charles Marohn (known as “Chuck” to friends and colleagues) is the founder and president of Strong Towns and the bestselling author of “Escaping the Housing Trap: The Strong Towns Response to the Housing Crisis.” With decades of experience as a land use planner and civil engineer, Marohn is on a mission to help cities and towns become stronger and more prosperous. He spreads the Strong Towns message through in-person presentations, the Strong Towns Podcast, and his books and articles. In recognition of his efforts and impact, Planetizen named him one of the 15 Most Influential Urbanists of all time in 2017 and 2023.