By Ella Adams, State House News Service
Bay State voters rejected the ballot measure intended to ease the state’s housing affordability crisis by a margin of 1.2 percentage points, according to a call made by the Associated Press on Friday afternoon.
Question 7 was the last initiative petition to be called in Massachusetts and one of nine decided by voters. With more than 95% of votes reported by the AP, 50.6%, or more than 1.28 million voters, voted against the measure. Over 1.25 million voters, or 49.4%, voted in favor.
Supporters appeared to be concentrated in the Greater Boston area, with some pockets in Worcester, Springfield, Lowell and Amherst. Southeastern, central and parts of western Massachusetts voted largely against the measure.
The measure aimed to increase the availability of potentially smaller homes by allowing single-family homes to be built in residentially zoned areas if the land was at least 5,000 square feet, had at least 50 feet of land bordering the street it faced and had access to public sewer and water services.
Legalize Starter Homes support campaign chair Andrew Mikula told the News Service on Wednesday that he thought maybe there was some “fatigue” by the time voters got to Question 7 on the ballot and that “zoning is confusing.”
“People don’t know how big 5,000 square feet is. They don’t necessarily understand immediately how this is changing existing laws,” Mikula said before the measure was officially called.
The city of Somerville appeared most supportive of the measure with 76% of voters supporting it. In the towns of Rehoboth and Rochester, 75% of voters voted against the measure, per the AP.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association, a group that represents cities and towns and opposed the question, thanked voters “for recognizing the flaws” in the measure.
“We’re grateful to the voters of Massachusetts for recognizing that Question 7 was not an effective or workable approach to creating entry-level homes in the Commonwealth,” MMA Executive Director Adam Chapdelaine said in a statement Friday. “We believe they recognized that a top-down, one-size-fits-all mandate would have negative consequences in communities, and they shared our concerns about the proposal’s lack of affordability guardrails.”
Chapdelaine said that the MMA and municipalities “will continue to pursue more effective options that involve local leaders and residents in a spirit of partnership.”
Voters this week approved ballot laws expanding access to public records, permitting public counsel employees to unionize, allowing people to register and vote on Election Day and advising the Legislature to appropriate funds from a portion of the sales tax to natural resource conservation.
