Last week, a storm cloud formed within the Select Board’s meeting room. Most of those in attendance were vigorously demanding that the board take no action to schedule a special town meeting by the end of this year.
At issue was whether to revisit the defeat of Article 36 at the May Town Meeting when a narrow majority of voters rejected the adoption of the MBTA Communities Act as it relates to Marblehead. The act calls upon all 177 communities serviced by the MBTA to adopt zoning changes to increase the number of housing units permitted in designated zones by certain deadlines — Dec. 31 for Marblehead.
In Marblehead, the zoning changes would result in the potential addition of approximately 600 units within districts outlined in the Planning Board’s proposal.
Failure to adopt the act by the end of this year could lead to the loss of currently approved and future state grants for infrastructure repairs, including the Village Street Bridge and Coastal Zone Management projects.
For those who believe it might be possible to obtain an extension of the year-end deadline by the state, Select Board member Dan Fox stated, “We did ask for a reprieve, an extension, because we need to ask it and the answer was ‘No.’”
Fox went on to state that he has been told “that any of the grants that we go for next year… that we won’t even get through the first gate (of approval). They won’t allow us through those gates is what we heard.”
Faced with such vocal opposition, the Select Board chose to take no action, thereby allowing the town to continue on its likely collision course with the state.
Will we lose grants already awarded? Will we be denied future grants that we desperately need? No one can answer these questions with certainty, but the risks are clearly there.
Attorney General Andrea Campbell has stated, “A coalition of Democrats and Republicans passed the MBTA Communities Law, and it’s my job to enforce it. Compliance with the law is mandatory.”
Additionally, should the state bring suit against the town, town counsel has estimated that the cost of defending the town could range from $25,000 to $75,000.
Only a handful of communities affected by the act have voted against compliance, and litigation is now pending before our Supreme Judicial Court as to whether the act is enforceable.
While Marblehead has yet to be sued by the state, there is no reason to think we will be ignored unless the courts decide the act is unenforceable. We are rolling the dice on this question, and only time will tell if we will suffer significant financial consequences because of the defeat of Article 36.
We already face a housing shortage such that many of our senior citizens and town employees cannot find a place to live in Marblehead. This is a crisis that should not be ignored. Regardless of the state mandate to come into compliance with the act or face potentially significant financial consequences, doesn’t the town have a moral obligation to work together to alleviate this problem? We believe that to do otherwise flies in the face of Marblehead’s history of shared compassion for the welfare of our neighbors.
If we get lucky, the town will suffer no repercussions in the near future. Perhaps the state will await the court’s decision before taking enforcement action against Marblehead. But if the court decides in favor of the state, we must be prepared to act quickly to put ourselves in compliance with the act, or severe financial losses may result — all at a time when we already find ourselves with dwindling dollars for the maintenance of our financial status quo.
