John DiPiano is a Marblehead resident and attorney.
Marblehead voters have a difficult decision as to whether to vote “yes” or “no” on the MBTA Communities Act Article 23 next month. Die-hard opponents of this measure may vote against Article 23 because they will not voluntarily accept a state mandate to further densify our already densely populated town. But, the Supreme Judicial Court has already determined that 3A is both constitutional and enforceable. Yet there is significant risk in both voting “yes” and voting “no” on Article 23.
Our state auditor’s determination that 3A is an unfunded state mandate gave our town the ability to petition for a compliance exemption in Superior Court. I argued that Marblehead should seek a compliance exemption at the March 17 Select Board meeting. Attorney Jason Talerman spoke during that meeting. He was unenthusiastic about Marblehead filing such a petition.
At the March 26 Select Board meeting, the board relayed a conversation that our finance director had with the state auditor. In that conversation, the auditor explained her opinion was that the “direct costs” of enacting 3A were limited to a discretionary grant (for the engineering report) that Marblehead received but other towns didn’t. The claim by town officials is that direct costs upon which to base a compliance exemption petition are therefore not present for Marblehead.
While I have no doubt that was the substance of the conversation, those towns that did sue for a compliance exemption, who are represented by Meade, Talerman & Costa, argue otherwise in Superior Court.
The proposition that direct compliance costs are limited to a single grant of insignificant value and the proposition that direct compliance costs amount to tens of millions of dollars cannot both be accurate.
I simply can’t reconcile Marblehead’s refusal to seek a compliance exemption — based on a lack of direct costs other than a single discretionary grant received by Marblehead — with pleadings filed by the towns of Hanson, Middleton and Wrentham that claim direct 3A compliance costs of millions of dollars.
In a memorandum in support of Hanson’s, Middleton’s and Wrentham’s motions for a preliminary injunction in the underlying compliance exemption case, filed by Meade, Talerman & Costa, the following direct costs were listed as those that may be experienced for compliance with the MBTA Communities Act:
— For Middleton: 750 new housing units — as much as $1.4 million for 12 new police officers and $75,000 for three new cruisers; $1.2 million for eight new firefighters; $200,000 annual additional costs for public works; additional student enrollment of 150-375 new students into the school system.
— For Wrentham: 750 new housing units — direct costs for public education $4,100,922; direct costs for law enforcement $703,194; and direct costs for fire & rescue $10,254,872 for a total of $15,058,988 “net of necessary public works and infrastructure improvement and maintenance, resulting in an operating budget increase of $5,383,987, more than double the anticipated new growth in property taxes associated with the mandated . . . developments.”
The court documents from which I sourced the information are dated March 28, 2025, and were entered on the docket by the Norfolk Superior Court on April 1, 2025.
The Select Board in 2024 did not support a motion to defer the vote while the SJC considered the Milton case. Now the Select Board refuses to seek compliance exemption. It appears our Select Board wants 3A for Marblehead. But lobbying isn’t the job. Providing the voters with the necessary information so that they can decide for themselves was what I thought was their job – no more, no less.
We are getting less.
Besides the lack of information provided to voters regarding the costs to the town for 3A compliance, it is disingenuous when our boards and finance director claim we will lose millions of dollars of grant money for noncompliance. The estimates they provide appear to be total grantq program figures. That is the pool of funds for which many towns will compete and which may, or may not, result in grant funds for Marblehead. Late last year, about $475,000 in grant funds were withheld, as explained at the most recent FinCom meeting by our town administrator. But those funds were apparently restored following the Milton decision that vacated the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities regulations.
In short, it is a mistake for our Select Board not to seek a compliance exemption and delay our vote because the risks of not doing so are significant.
If Article 23 passes and the towns suing for an exemption are correct, Marblehead taxpayers get to pick up the tab.
The voters will have to decide which risk they choose to take.
