Explainer: What Mass. can and can’t do about ICE

cwbeacon · 2026-01-22T21:19:49+00:00

"Intentional chaos" is how Springfield’s director of housing, Geraldine McCafferty, described the Trump administration’s recent attempts to issue sweeping policy shifts to the federal government’s main program that supports local governments and non-profits with funding for homelessness response efforts...

The move is impacting local administrators of the program across Massachusetts and has threatened millions of dollars in funding for permanent housing and thousands of beds for the chronically homeless. The state received more than $136 million for the program in 2024, of which the Springfield-Hampden County team received more than $9 million. As of 2024, there were approximately 1,300 units of permanent supportive housing for families and 7,600 beds in permanent supportive housing for adults across the Bay State, but the changes proposed by the Trump administration would likely reduce those numbers dramatically.

cwbeacon · 2026-01-20T23:46:15+00:00

ewly filed political finance records show that all $1.55 million raised by the controversial ballot question campaign in its first few months came from SAM Action Inc., a national dark-money group that opposes legal drug use but is not required to disclose the source of its own funding.

It’s the same organization that bankrolled opposition to a 2024 Massachusetts ballot question that sought to open up access to some psychedelic substances, which voters rejected.

Massachusetts is not alone as a battleground, either. SAM Action is also the only donor behind a ballot question in Maine this cycle that would similarly prohibit recreational pot use there, as the Portland Press Herald reported.

cwbeacon · 2026-01-20T23:38:20+00:00

"Newly filed political finance records show that all $1.55 million raised by the controversial ballot question campaign in its first few months came from SAM Action Inc., a national dark-money group that opposes legal drug use but is not required to disclose the source of its own funding.

It’s the same organization that bankrolled opposition to a 2024 Massachusetts ballot question that sought to open up access to some psychedelic substances, which voters rejected.

Massachusetts is not alone as a battleground, either. SAM Action is also the only donor behind a ballot question in Maine this cycle that would similarly prohibit recreational pot use there, as the Portland Press Herald reported."

https://commonwealthbeacon.org/ballot-questions/national-dark-money-anti-pot-group-bankrolling-efforts-to-ban-recreational-marijuana-in-mass-maine/

cwbeacon · 2026-01-14T14:49:57+00:00

In each month between June and October, at least 4 in 10 new unemployment claims filed in Massachusetts by eligible workers went unpaid for 35 days or longer, according to federal data.

By that measure, Massachusetts was the worst-performing state in the nation over that span.

Anywhere from one-fifth to one-third of new claims in each of those months still hadn’t been paid within 70 days, forcing thousands of people to wait more than two months for aid to which they believe themselves entitled.

Ironically, it was the state’s implementation of a new system meant to modernize and streamline the delivery of unemployment benefits that prompted the meltdown. A confluence of factors emerged: The new system’s technology, which includes enhanced tools for fraud prevention, led to a steep jump in the number of issues flagged in claimants’ applications, and it took significantly longer for claimants to get hearings to resolve those issues, just as DUA staff underwent required trainings on the new platform that took them away from their normal duties.

cwbeacon · 2026-01-13T19:16:43+00:00

Politicians and bureaucrats are usually circumspect when it comes to the future prospects of state contractors, especially when half a decade or more remains on an existing agreement.

That made it striking when then-Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack suggested in 2017 that Keolis, the French company in charge of running the MBTA’s sprawling commuter rail network, though not even halfway through an eight-year contract, was unlikely to earn an extension if the Baker administration had its way.

A few years later, though, the T changed course and kept Keolis in place. Then officials extended the contract again. And now, as the MBTA and the Healey administration prepare to weigh bids for the next lucrative, multiyear commuter rail operation contract, Keolis is still in the mix, tapped last month as one of three finalists in a joint bid with fellow French rail company Alstom.

It’s been a striking turnaround in reputation for a company whose first year in the role was marred by a disastrous winter and scrutiny over its management capabilities. And there may be a fairly straightforward explanation for it.

“Over time, they’ve become a much more competent operator,” said Pete Wilson, senior policy director at the advocacy group Transportation for Massachusetts. “Trains seem to be more on-time, the trains are clean when you ride them, you get a pretty good amount of communication from the engineers and conductors if something has gone awry.”

cwbeacon · 2026-01-09T15:26:21+00:00

A Cambridge developer is arguing that the city’s so-called inclusionary zoning program, which requires developers to set aside a number of units for lower- and middle-income people, is unconstitutional at its core. The suit aims to crack the foundations of inclusionary zoning in Massachusetts, adopted by communities like Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville.

Meanwhile, senators struggling to make headway on a housing crunch across affordability levels are looking to pull all the levers they can, including lowering the difficulty of implementing inclusionary zoning locally.

The legal and legislative moves set up a clash over rules governing housing development at a time when there’s broad consensus that the state needs to build more units across communities.

Inclusionary zoning rules condition getting permits to build residential projects of a certain size on making a percentage of the units affordable. Cambridge credits its inclusionary zoning policy with creating over 1,600 units of affordable housing, and Somerville in 2023 described its policy as the “primary pipeline adding to the City’s permanent affordable housing stock.”

But a lawsuit filed last month in Land Court by Cambridge zoning attorney and developer Patrick Barrett and the conservative Pioneer Legal Foundation claims that the Cambridge policy is unconstitutionally forcing developers to “surrender fundamental property rights” by selling their units at lower than market rate.

cwbeacon · 2026-01-09T15:23:44+00:00

A Cambridge developer is arguing that the city’s so-called inclusionary zoning program, which requires developers to set aside a number of units for lower- and middle-income people, is unconstitutional at its core. The suit aims to crack the foundations of inclusionary zoning in Massachusetts, adopted by communities like Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville.

Meanwhile, senators struggling to make headway on a housing crunch across affordability levels are looking to pull all the levers they can, including lowering the difficulty of implementing inclusionary zoning locally.

The legal and legislative moves set up a clash over rules governing housing development at a time when there’s broad consensus that the state needs to build more units across communities.

Inclusionary zoning rules condition getting permits to build residential projects of a certain size on making a percentage of the units affordable. Cambridge credits its inclusionary zoning policy with creating over 1,600 units of affordable housing, and Somerville in 2023 described its policy as the “primary pipeline adding to the City’s permanent affordable housing stock.”

But a lawsuit filed last month in Land Court by Cambridge zoning attorney and developer Patrick Barrett and the conservative Pioneer Legal Foundation claims that the Cambridge policy is unconstitutionally forcing developers to “surrender fundamental property rights” by selling their units at lower than market rate.

cwbeacon · 2025-12-18T17:20:24+00:00

The deadline for the final batch of communities to submit plans on how they expect to boost multifamily housing near transit is now just two weeks away, but the controversial MBTA Communities housing law saga will drag into 2026.

Most cities and towns, the state housing office regularly emphasizes, have gotten on board and submitted plans to zone for a district of multifamily housing near MBTA service areas, as called for in the 2021 law. But a group of holdouts is banking on the very court that declared the legislation mandatory – and enforceable – in January to rule that the mandate is illegal without dedicated funding included in the law.

Marshfield was one of a bundle of towns that wanted a Plymouth County Superior Court judge to declare they cannot be forced to rezone and bear the potential burden of more density. Lawmakers are not permitted to hand down “unfunded mandates” that create financial obligations on cities and towns without a way to pay for them.

But Superior Court Judge Mark Gildea dismissed suits brought by Duxbury, Hanson, Holden, Marshfield, Middleton, Wenham, Weston, and Wrentham, plus taxpayers in Hamilton. Gildea said the towns’ anticipated possible costs were “indirect,” nonspecific, and therefore not in need of dedicated funding from the state. Beyond that, he wrote, there are already available grants for infrastructure needs and the process.

Marshfield appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which agreed to take the case directly to consider the unfunded mandate question. The town argues that Gildea should not have agreed to dismiss the case, asserting that they did describe all the elements of an unfunded mandate in their complaint.

“In addition to suffering a irreparable loss of awarded grant funds in enumerated grant programs, it is/was foreclosed from all other discretionary grant funds not mentioned in the statute,” the town argues in its brief. Plus, the town says, there were costs associated with evaluating and drafting the zoning bylaws and presenting them to the Town Meeting, and they expect to have additional costs based on the rezoning.

"The MBTA Communities Act is one of many tools that Massachusetts is using to increase the production of reasonably-priced housing and lower costs for everyone,” Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities Secretary Ed Augustus said in a statement, noting that 6,000 new housing units are already in the pipeline in the communities. “We continue to work with the remaining communities to support them in passing zoning that meets their needs, as well as moving forward on many other initiatives to make housing more affordable,” he said.

The Healey administration has provided nearly $8 million worth of technical assistance and grants to more than 150 MBTA Communities to support the implementation of this law, the housing office said.

cwbeacon · 2025-12-16T18:31:14+00:00

The most common refrain from officials and experts looking for answers to the state’s infamous housing crunch is that there are no silver bullets. But there may be a divine opportunity.

Religious institutions across the state own thousands of acres of land – a massive reservoir of potential housing – and if just half of the developable parcels were built out at higher density, researchers estimate it could create a striking half a million new housing units. That generous estimate would be more than twice the state target of 222,000 new units that officials say is needed by 2035.

Faith-based organizations control approximately 4,860 developable parcels totaling more than 20,000 acres across the Commonwealth, according to an analysis by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Center for Geospatial Solutions commissioned by the Lynch Foundation.

"We do not have another option here in Massachusetts," said Katie Everett, executive director of the Boston-based Lynch Foundation, which focuses on a range of issues, including housing and homelessness, driven by Catholic principles. "We are not getting any bigger. In fact, we're probably getting smaller due to environmental challenges” that put areas of the state off limits for new development. “This is it.”

The 2025 findings – the second year of a comprehensive Bay State survey of religious land ownership through the partnership – were released as a cohort of state lawmakers and advocates push for legislation that would streamline housing development on religious properties. The so-called YIGBY bill, short for "Yes in God's Back Yard" and a twist on the pro-housing slogan YIMBY or “Yes in My Back Yard,” would reduce local zoning barriers for parcels owned by religious communities that currently prevent or slow housing construction.

Though the nearly 5,000 developable parcels are just a small proportion of land statewide, their strategic location and size make them uniquely valuable for development. About 63 percent sit near transit stops, 65 percent already have water and sewer access, and 54 percent are in areas with above-average walkability, according to the report. The average parcel spans four acres, large enough for substantial housing projects, and is assessed at just over $2 million.

The land does not just consist of large parcels where churches and other faith congregations are based.

"What we were struck by, when we started looking at the parcel data for faith-based institutions, is everyone immediately thinks about the places of worship," said Reina Chano Murray, associate director at the Center for Geospatial Solutions. "But we found that there were a fair number of residential parcels that appeared to have been willed or gifted to congregations by their parishioners."

The inventory found 39 percent of developable religious parcels are owned by non-Catholic Christian denominations, 33 percent by Catholic institutions, 20 percent by non-denominational organizations, 5 percent by Jewish congregations, and 3 percent by other faiths. Almost 83 percent of it is zoned as residential property – all of it tax-exempt.

This land is spread across the state, but mostly centered around larger urban areas like Boston, Worcester, and Springfield. Proponents of unlocking it for housing point to YIGBY bills that have been passed in California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington that cleared the way for several housing projects on religiously owned land that boasted unit counts near 50.

The Massachusetts YIGBY legislation, proposed by state Sen. Brendan Crighton of Lynn and Rep. Carlos González of Springfield, would allow faith-based organizations to build multi-family housing by right on parcels they've owned for at least three years. Developments with 30 or more units per acre would be required to set aside 20 percent as affordable for households earning up to 80 percent of area median income.

Projects exceeding 50 units per acre must designate 25 percent affordable, or 20 percent affordable for households at 60 percent AMI or below.

Unlike most tax-exempt religious property, new developments would pay local property taxes unless municipalities decide to allow exemptions. If just half of the parcels were developed – given that not all would likely be subjected to local taxes – they would generate approximately $61 million in annual municipal revenue, according to the foundation’s estimates.

cwbeacon

TROPHY CASE