Instead, the House’s version of the bill would allow the state to borrow $2 billion more than what Healey sought in her own $4 billion version of the bill, making it the “largest investment in affordable housing and housing production” in state history, House Speaker Ron Mariano said. The House is expected to pass the legislation on Wednesday.
Advertisem*nt
Mariano said while the bill attempts to “go big,” he cautioned that it is no silver bullet to the state’s housing crunch. Housing officials have said the state needs hundreds of thousands of new units through 2030, and the crisis is raging hotter than ever, with home prices soaring in Boston and beyond.
”It’s ridiculous to think that you’re going to solve this with one bond issue. I think it’s a beginning of a process,” Mariano told reporters Monday, adding that it’s “really tough” to estimate exactly how many units the House proposal could help spur.
Advertisem*nt
The proposal would dedicate $150 million to help municipalities convert commercial properties into multi-unit residential or mixed-use properties, and create a tax credit of up to 10 percent of the project’s development costs after it’s complete.
The House bill would allow for accessory dwelling units — also known as ADUs or granny flats — of up to 900 square feet to be built by-right in all neighborhoods zoned for single-family development across Massachusetts, embracing a measure Healey has pushed. Healey administration officials have said that they estimate the ADU policy alone could create more than 8,000 ADUs in five years.
The House would also boost capital funding for public housing from Healey’s proposal by $500 million.
Mariano is seeking to use another $1 billion in borrowing to help expand the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority’s water service area beyond the existing 60 cities and towns it currently serves. A lack of clean water supply is an obstacle for many communities to develop more housing.
Earlier this year Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, said expanding the service area could bring water to the nearby former South Weymouth Naval Air Station, for example, where redevelopment has been challenged by infrastructure issues. A clean water supply could pave the way for as many as 6,000 new homes there, he said. House leaders said their proposal would also extend the system to north of Boston, too, to communities including Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, and Salem.
Advertisem*nt
Healey’s version of the bond bill, which she filed in October, would allow municipalities to voluntarily impose a fee of 0.5 percent to 2 percent on property sales over $1 million, or those above the county’s median home sales price in places where that exceeds $1 million. It’s a concept Wu has backed for years. She testified in 2023 that if the city’s home rule petition for a transfer fee had passed in 2021, the tax would have collected $100 million for the city’s affordable housing fund.
“It’s disappointing not to see forward momentum on the transfer fee, which is a broadly popular measure,” Wu said in a statement Monday. “We need every possible solution at hand to make a difference.”
Healey told reporters Monday she had yet to read the bill, and declined to comment on the House’s decision to not include the option for a local transfer tax.
”We offered up a menu of options and ideas and policy initiatives to help spark production. That’s what this is about,” she said.
The exclusion of the transfer fee language signals a shift in Mariano’s message. In a speech to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce in March, Mariano stopped short of endorsing the transfer tax, but said it was among the options the House is “considering.”
“If you believe that the issue of housing affordability is genuine,” he said at the time, “then we must explore all options that have the potential to make a real difference.”
Advertisem*nt
Mariano and other House leaders on Monday criticized the transfer tax proposal as an inequitable “patchwork” of attempts to spur more housing that would help some communities, such as Nantucket, but not others.
“Piecemealing it one by one, by city and town, it’s just not effective, real housing policy, and it doesn’t solve the housing crisis that we’re in,” said state Representative Aaron Michlewitz, a North End Democrat and the chair of the House’s budget committee.
Some communities have pushed for years for a transfer fee. Provincetown submitted a request for a transfer fee as far back as 2011, and Nantucket first sent a home-rule petition to Beacon Hill in 2016. In 2020, then-Boston mayor Martin J. Walsh called on the legislative leaders in the audience at his State of the City address to “let us take this step.”
The House bill represents another setback for tenant advocates. The Healey administration’s proposal already excluded some of their most sought-after policies, like rent control and right of first refusal, which allows renters a certain amount of time to get the money together to buy their unit if their landlord wants to sell. And the bill the House filed Monday stripped out the few tenant protection policies Healey had included, including a policy that would have sealed some renters’ eviction records, and a provision that would have lowered the local voting threshold for inclusionary zoning from two-thirds to a simple majority.
Advertisem*nt
“[The funding] is great,” said Mark Martinez, an advocate who serves as the co-chair of the Local Option for Housing Affordability Coalition. “But we’re not going to be able to just bond our way out of this problem. We have to give cities and towns the tools to help.”
The bill does not represent an immediate $6.2 billion infusion into the housing finance ecosystem. It would simply authorize that much in bond spending. Where the money actually comes from is another question the Healey administration will have to answer.
The last several bond bills only saw about two-thirds of the funding that was authorized actually be spent.
“It could be a big boost,” Jesse Kanson-Benanav, executive director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts. “If the suburbs say they can’t build more housing because they don’t have the infrastructure to support it, then strengthening that infrastructure is the state holding up its end of the bargain to support local development.”
The real estate industry has mobilized hard against the transfer fee proposal. In April, for instance, the powerful Greater Boston Real Estate Board, which represents developers and landlords, announced a “multifaceted digital and grassroots activation campaign” to urge state lawmakers to reject a proposal.
Greg Vasil, the board’s chief executive, cheered the House decision to exclude the transfer tax.
“Increasing taxes on a smaller, targeted segment of individuals, as well as struggling businesses, is a misguided approach,” Vasil said in a statement.
But the idea to impose a transfer fee isn’t completely dead, said state Senator Lydia Edwards, the chamber’s chair of the housing committee.
The Senate will vote on its own version of a housing bond bill, before Senate leaders hash out their differences with the House. Edwards hinted at the possibility of the transfer fee re-emerging in the Senate bill.
“It’s too early to say that the conversation is over,” said the East Boston Democrat, who signed onto Boston’s home rule petition for a transfer fee. “I am not worried.”
Samantha J. Gross can be reached at samantha.gross@globe.com. Follow her @samanthajgross. Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him @mattpstout. Andrew Brinker can be reached at andrew.brinker@globe.com. Follow him @andrewnbrinker.
