Debate moderator and WBZ political commentator Jon Keller, left, speaks to Gov. Maura Healey and her opponent Mike Minogue during a gubernatorial debate in WBZ-TV's studios on Oct. 8, 2026. Photo courtesy of WBZ | via State House News Service
For Gov. Maura Healey, Thursday night’s WBZ-TV gubernatorial debate was all about President Donald Trump’s impact on Massachusetts.
For her Republican challenger Mike Minogue, it was all about showing his intention to cut state taxes and generate municipal property tax relief.
But both found ways to work in their ideas for one of Massachusetts’ voters highest and longest-standing concerns: fixing the cost of housing.
The Democratic governor touted the $5 billion 2024 Affordable Homes Act policy-and-finance bill, statewide ADU legalization, the end of tenant-paid apartment broker fees and what she said were 100,000 homes that have been permitted or are otherwise “in development” during her first term, alongside some of her administration’s more arcane but impactful proposals, like slashing state environmental permitting time for multifamily projects that meet certain criteria.
“I want our teachers, firefighters and our young people, especially, to be able to stay here. That’s why we built an exponential [increase in the] number of homes in the last two years,” she said in a rebuttal to Minogue’s opening statement. “Trust me, we’re not done. In my second term, I want 200,000 more.”
During the debate in WBZ’s Brighton studios, Minogue briefly took issue with the governor’s claim to have spurred the building of 100,000 new homes, claiming many were permitted or began construction under former Gov. Charlie Baker, who left office in January 2023.
Minogue Pushes Opt-In Solutions
In his own remarks, Minogue outlined his theory of what ails housing construction in Massachusetts: municipal permitting that takes too long and the state “stretch” energy code adopted by some towns and cities to lower fossil fuel consumption. But the fixes he proposed Thursday night rely on towns to opt in, something housing advocates criticized in other contexts after several decades as the state’s primary strategy, with laws like Chapter 40R that gave towns financial rewards for building housing near transit.
To address both problems, Minogue proposed offering to give municipalities more money if they shrink the time it takes them to permit a housing unit down to 45 days and abandon the stretch code. Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Minogue has also promised to stop what limited enforcement of the MBTA Communities Act is in the hands of the executive branch.
“If you do those two things, you’ll allow people to build. But what you shouldn’t do is sue towns with an unfunded mandate to build 1,500 condos when they can’t handle it with their schools, infrastructure, water, septic,” he said Thursday night. “Let them have the choice, but give them more money [if they choose more housing].”
The executive branch’s only MBTA Communities Act enforcement tool is restricting access to a long list of state grants. Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office holds the power to enforce compliance with the transit-oriented zoning law through the courts. The state Supreme Judicial Court recently rejected the town of Marshfield’s claims that the MBTA Communities Act was an unfunded mandate, and thus illegal.
As part of her broader attempts to tie Minogue to Trump throughout the night, Healey blamed the difficulty developers have in making projects financially feasible on the president’s tariffs on Canadian lumber and Mexican gypsum – a main ingredient in drywall – and interests rates driven higher by inflation fears tied to the war in the Middle East.
Minogue largely sidestepped that claim, but elsewhere in the debate pushed back on the governor’s attempts to tie him to the unpopular president.
“I’m not running for president or senator. I’m running for the governor, and the governor cares about Massachusetts,” he said.
Candidates Both Back Starter Homes Question
When it came to the one area where a housing policy is actually on the ballot, the “starter homes” Question 7, both candidates endorsed it, but Minogue claimed “it doesn’t fix the problem, returning to his push to remove the stretch energy code and reward towns and cities for reducing permitting times. Healey and Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll came out in support of the measure last month.
The question seeks to cut the minimum lot size needed to build a single-family home in areas with municipal water and sewer service down to 5,000 square feet, lower than the minimum in a number of Boston suburbs.
The ballot question would not affect Boston, whose zoning is governed by a different portion of state law, and could create between 350 and 1,200 new homes per year, a Tufts University analysis found.
A statewide poll last month sponsored by CommonWealth Magazine and conducted by the MassINC Polling Group found 51 percent of voters supported Question 7, with 24 percent opposed and another 24 percent unsure of their stance.
The same poll found only 19 percent of voters identified “housing costs” as an area where Healey has been “most successful,” and 48 percent identified it as an area where she’s been “least successful” during her first term.
