To the editor:
Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that G.L. c. 40A, Sec. 3A was both constitutional and enforceable. But, as we all know now, the original statute itself — in contrast to the regulations promulgated by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities — is limited in scope and in penalties for non-compliance.
The problem has always been with the so-called guidelines illegally promulgated by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities — the same agency recently taking heat for suppressing information about the level of violence in shelters for undocumented migrants. That is the agency tasked with ramming high-density housing without occupancy limits and without regard to traffic, congestion, infrastructure, and all the things that come with high-density housing without occupancy limits down the throats of 177 Massachusetts communities — whether they like it or not.
The SJC struck EOHLC’s guidelines down and told the Healey-Driscoll administration to follow statutory requirements on promulgating regulations. So, Healey-Driscoll did what Healey-Driscoll likes to do: they declared an emergency after the fact and intend to take the same draconian regulations and expedite ramming them down the aforementioned throats. For that reason alone, I oppose 3A. This administration is authoritarian in character and should be challenged. Litigation over the so-called emergency has been filed in the Superior Court in Suffolk County. It may be that litigation is also filed in Essex County in due course. But there is more reason to oppose 3A.
The State Auditor Division of Local Mandates has determined, in response to the Middleboro Select Board — pursuant to their inquiry — that the MBTA Communities Act is an unenforceable unfunded state mandate. The letter making this determination to the Middleboro Select Board is dated Feb. 21, and I have a copy of it for anyone who would like one. I mentioned this to our Select Board in the past, but they appear not to have asked the State Auditor to look into it, instead publicly stating that they wholeheartedly intend to call for and recommend a positive vote for 3A next May.
Thankfully, the select boards of other towns are cognizant of the will of the majority of their voters and take action to challenge the state on this issue. Unfortunately, ours does not, so it will be up to the voters to reject 3A — again.
John G. DiPiano
Trager Road
