Dozens of bills filed on Beacon Hill this session seek to modify or repeal the MBTA Communities Act, though Marblehead state legislators say the measures face long odds as the vast majority of communities have achieved compliance with the housing law.
The proposed legislation comes as Marblehead grapples with the loss of more than $4.6 million in state grants after voters rejected multifamily zoning requirements July 8, placing the town in noncompliance with the 2021 law requiring transit-adjacent communities to allow more multifamily housing.
State Rep. Jenny Armini and State Sen. Brendan Crighton, who represent Marblehead, expressed skepticism about the bills’ prospects during a recent interview.
“The reality is that the numbers aren’t there to modify this law in any way,” Armini said. “The vast majority, more than three quarters of all communities, have approved their plans. And so it’s safe to say that the legislature views this as settled law.”
Crighton, who sponsored the original amendment creating the MBTA Communities Act, said attempts to weaken the law have been “overwhelmingly rejected.”
“I cannot see that outcome changing,” he added.
Four bills are representative of dozens filed and propose different approaches to modifying the law:
House Bill 2343, filed by Rep. Jeffrey Rosario Turco of Winthrop, would completely repeal the MBTA Communities Act. The one-sentence bill simply states: “Section 3A of chapter 40A of the General Laws is hereby repealed.”
House Bill 2296, sponsored by House Minority Leader Bradley Jones Jr. of North Reading with 10 co-sponsors, would allow communities designated as “adjacent” to petition for recategorization. The bill would permit towns to request review of their designation if they can demonstrate “undue burdens due to a lack of infrastructure or resources.”
House Bill 2327, filed by Rep. David Allen Robertson of Tewksbury, would prevent the state from withholding funding for public safety and education from noncompliant communities. The measure would prohibit any state agency from denying grants that “may lawfully be used by the MBTA community for public safety or public education purposes.”
House Bill 2344, proposed by Turco, would exempt any community qualifying for “safe harbor” provisions under Chapter 40B from MBTA Communities Act requirements. Communities achieve safe harbor when 10% of their housing stock is affordable or when they meet specific annual production targets.
At least one of the bills was scheduled for a hearing July 29 before the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, though Armini said she wasn’t certain all four would be heard that day.
“What you’ll see is approximately 60 days after the hearing date, the Committee will either report the bill out or send it to study,” Armini said.
Both legislators predicted the bills would struggle to advance.
“I’d be surprised if any of them got out of committee,” Armini said. “Legislation is not just an ideas game, it’s a numbers game.”
The legislative discussion occurs as Marblehead faces immediate financial consequences from its noncompliance. Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer has outlined the loss of $1.28 million in already-awarded grants for projects including shipyard resilience and MBTA safety improvements, plus another $354,792 in contracted grants for infrastructure and planning projects.
Additional pending applications worth more than $3 million for historic preservation and downtown planning are now ineligible. The town also risks losing access to $2.98 million for Village Street Bridge reconstruction and would need to forgo an $11.6 million federal port infrastructure grant because it cannot provide the required local match previously covered by state funding.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell issued an advisory in July warning that communities failing to comply by January 2026 could face enforcement suits. The advisory noted that 139 of 177 MBTA communities have achieved compliance.
Both Armini and Crighton emphasized their continued support for Marblehead while acknowledging the constraints of state law.
“We are all team Marblehead, but the rules of the game cannot be changed for just us, so we have to be more creative in the way we play,” Armini said.
The legislators indicated they remain in communication with state officials about Marblehead’s situation.
“We’ve been in regular contact with all the stakeholders throughout the process,” Crighton said. “Communication is crucial at this moment.”
Armini expressed hope the town would find a path to compliance, noting recent discussions about potentially removing the controversial Pleasant Street overlay district from future zoning proposals
“We have to maintain, we have to continue to be hopeful that the town will get to yes,” Armini said. “We’re not throwing in the towel.“
