Multifamily housing is built on South Main Street in Attleboro, a short walk from the commuter rail station that connects the city's downtown to both Boston and Providence. Photo by Colin A. Young | State House News Service

Some GOP representatives are angling to reopen the controversial MBTA Communities Act conversation when the House takes up its budget next week.

Of more than 1,600 amendments filed to the House Ways and Means Committee’s fiscal year 2026 budget, a few align with the small but vocal group of municipalities that continue to call on the state to reconsider its requirements for towns to comply with the zoning law.

The law, which requires cities and towns with or near MBTA service to zone for multi-family housing by right in at least one reasonably sized district, was designed to help address the state’s housing supply shortage.

Much of the public concern surrounding the law has revolved around Milton, a town deemed a “rapid transit community” because it hosts the light-rail Mattapan trolley, which some have argued is not equivalent to the rest of the T’s core transit system.

Even following a Supreme Judicial Court ruling in January against Milton that deemed the law constitutional and gave the attorney general’s office the ability to enforce it with legal action, unrest remains in other communities – many of which are using Auditor Diana DiZoglio’s contention that the law is an “unfunded mandate” to pursue further legal action.

House Minority Leader Brad Jones is one of two GOP lawmakers who filed amendments proposing adjustments to the mandate, which come after House Speaker Ron Mariano said in early April that he is not considering exempting individual towns from compliance, while admitting that he thinks Milton had a “legitimate complaint” about the mandatory zoning law.

One of the North Reading Republican’s amendments would extend the mandate requirements to every city and town in Massachusetts; another would not deem municipalities as “MBTA communities” if they do not have direct bus, subway or transit service.

Jones is also pushing to make compliance retroactive via a different amendment that would enable municipalities with “qualifying construction projects completed within the past 5 years” to be considered when determining compliance.

“If this is about housing, why don’t we look at what communities have done? In my hometown of North Reading, we’ve built 500 units of housing in the past five years. Why don’t we get any credit for that?” Jones said.

The administration’s enforcement mechanisms include withholding state grant funding from noncompliant communities. Jones filed an amendment that would exempt public safety grants from being withheld.

“Even if you’re going to stick with this approach, there ought to be some things that are off the table,” Jones said. He recalled the wildfires that erupted across his district last fall, which he said towns like Middleton would not have been able to respond to without state grants for public safety services.

In early March, Gov. Maura Healey said all grants were still at risk in towns that remained noncompliant.

Duxbury Rep. Ken Sweezey — who has been vocal about protecting safety grants from being withheld – told the News Service that all five of his communities, two of which are noncompliant, received fire safety equipment grants in the latest round.

“[The administration] awarded grants they previously said they wouldn’t,” Sweezey said. “[Housing and Livable Communities] said that for the time being, they saw that public safety grants, after the pushback last time, were important to honor.”

The freshman Republican also filed a deadline-extension amendment that would halt “any regulation, directive, or requirement” relative to the MBTA Communities Act from taking place before December 31, 2026. Communities that did not meet prior deadlines must submit a district compliance application to the state by July 14, EOHLC said in January.

“We’re in sort of an emergency situation where we’re going to be bumping up on this July 15 deadline. I have multiple communities that have filed exemptions,” Sweezey said. “This is really to let the legal process play out here so that the unfunded mandate cases, the class action cases can go through the legal process.”