Judi Barrett

Massachusetts will ask voters a simple question in 2026: Should it once again be legal to build a single-family home on a reasonably sized lot in communities where infrastructure is already in place?

At a time when homeownership has slipped out of reach for many working- and middle-class families, the answer will speak volumes about who our housing system is designed to accommodate – and who it leaves behind.

The proposal, dubbed the “Legalize Starter Homes Initiative,” is aptly named. In the midst of a decades-long housing crisis, homes within reach for first-time buyers have all but vanished. If approved by voters at the ballot this year, the law would guarantee the right to build a house on a lot measuring at least 5,000 square feet, with a minimum of 50 feet of frontage, in residential districts served by public water and sewer. For community planning, the infrastructure requirement is a critical piece of this proposal.

No Dilution of Local Control

The Legalize Starter Homes Initiative does not take away local authority over growth or “neighborhood character,” however, that term might be defined or defended in a given community. Cities and towns would still be free to adopt reasonable regulations for building height, setbacks and parking, and set objective design standards. They could also limit or prohibit the homes from being used as short-term rentals.

What they could no longer do is use minimum lot size as a blunt instrument to make modest homes effectively illegal.

Some environmentalists may worry that allowing smaller lots will fragment open space, but the proposal applies only in locations served by water, sewer and roads. Furthermore, the Legalize Starter Homes Initiative does not override ordinances and bylaws that exist to protect wetlands and other natural resources.

By concentrating new homes in established areas, it actually offers greater protection to those resources, makes more efficient use of existing infrastructure, creates opportunities for incremental housing development and helps prevent sprawl. It is a good example of what we talk about when we explain Smart Growth.

As a planner who has spent decades working with Massachusetts communities on housing, zoning and fair housing policy, I support this proposal.

It is not a cure-all for the commonwealth’s housing challenges, but it addresses one of the reasons starter homes have vanished from much of Massachusetts: Zoning rules that require far more land than most homes or households actually need. Oversized minimum lots put many homes out of reach and block more attainable housing from being built.

I also support this proposal because so many of the towns we work with cherish their single-family neighborhoods and want to remain single-family home communities. The Legalize Starter Homes Initiative does just that: It promotes the development of single-family homes.

A Traditional Type of Home

It’s not a radical idea to allow modest homes on modest lots. Many of Massachusetts’ most loved neighborhoods – from older suburbs to mill towns and streetcar communities – grew incrementally on lots ranging from roughly 5,000 to 7,500 square feet (or even less). Those homes housed generations of working- and middle-class families.

Today, building similar homes from scratch would be illegal in many towns. The Legalize Starter Homes Initiative restores historical neighborhood development patterns in areas with adequate utilities to support growth.

Communities control the makeup of their population by the choices they make to control housing growth. Minimum lot size has become one of the most effective – and least discussed – tools for excluding people from communities. It doesn’t mention income, race, age or family status, yet its effects are clear.

First-time buyers, younger families, moderate-income households, and many seniors are priced out before they can even compete. By allowing homes on smaller lots, the proposal lowers per-unit land costs, making modest construction feasible, and creates opportunities to bring homes within reach.

Step in the Right Direction

It’s also important to be clear about what this initiative can and cannot do. Legalizing starter homes will not, by itself, solve Massachusetts’ housing crisis. An uptick in supply does not automatically make homes affordable, but it’s a critical step in the right direction.

However, Massachusetts still needs multifamily homes, inclusionary zoning to create affordable housing, service-enriched apartments for seniors and people with disabilities and other housing types that also remain difficult to build, especially in the suburbs.

One thing is for certain. We cannot address the state’s housing shortage if we continue to ban the very forms of housing that once anchored the middle class in Massachusetts.

Voters soon face a choice: Should the next generation have a realistic path to homeownership in the communities where they work, grew up, or hope to stay, or should exclusionary lot-size rules continue to determine who belongs and who does not?

Legalizing starter homes is about restoring choice, fairness and balance to a zoning system that has quietly drifted out of alignment. It’s not radical, it’s reasonable – and long overdue.

Judi Barrett is the owner of Hingham-based Barrett Planning Group.