Timing is often everything. It can mean the difference between selling all the units in a luxury condominium development or filling all the empty space in a commercial office building. It can mean landing a coveted job or being stuck in an unfulfilling one.

Timing is also critical when it comes to deciding which bills will become law and which laws should be reconsidered.

When Bay State voters head to the polls this fall, they will have to decide whether the time has come to repeal the state’s affordable housing law known as Chapter 40B.

The so-called anti-snob zoning law has been under attack for years, as opponents continue to argue that the law has been abused by greedy developers who’ve reaped excessive profits and built large housing developments that strain local budgets and services.

Supporters credit the law with creating about 29,000 homes that are affordable to lower-income households, including teachers, police officers and firefighters. The law allows developers to apply for a comprehensive permit and to bypass certain local approvals in communities where less than 10 percent of the housing stock is deemed affordable. Developers who receive comprehensive permits must set aside at least 20 percent of the project’s housing for lower-income households.

But to hear opponents talk about the law, it’s as if town officials have no say whatsoever in the projects proposed and built under Chapter 40B. The critics are so fed up that—for the second time in three years—they’re attempting to repeal the law. They’ve collected signatures to put the repeal question on the November ballot.

Is the law perfect? No, but few, if any, laws are flawless. Lawmakers and regulators have made changes to Chapter 40B over the years to address many of the concerns about the statute. Yet it’s clear that critics don’t want changes. They want to completely wipe away a law that they say has a terrible track record and hasn’t produced an adequate number of affordable housing units.

Before any action is taken however, voters should ask themselves a few questions: How many low-cost housing units would have even been created in the last four decades if the law didn’t exist? And how many towns would have willingly accepted an affordable housing community without being told they had to? Keep in mind that only 51 communities have reached the 10 percent affordable housing threshold—and that’s with the law in place.

It will be up to voters to decide in the fall whether this imperfect law should be tossed, or whether a law that aims to create housing that’s affordable to working families is worth saving.

All this comes at a time when housing development of all kinds is at a virtual standstill because construction financing isn’t readily available. More families have lost their homes to foreclosure this year, meaning that they’re either seeking an affordable place to move into or they’ve already settled into lower-cost housing. The state is struggling with a 9 percent unemployment rate, and some of those who are unemployed are construction workers who would rejoice to see some housing development. And home prices, along with rents, which eased during the financial meltdown, are again starting to inch up.

Meanwhile, there doesn’t seem to be much of an appetite on Beacon Hill to repeal Chapter 40B even though lawmakers have criticized the law and tried to change it in recent years. In fact, even though the opponents collected more than 80,000 signatures earlier this year to get the measure on the ballot, the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Housing let the measure die without a vote, forcing the group to collect another round of signatures. Gov. Deval Patrick and all the gubernatorial candidates have said they oppose repealing the law.

The timing for this repeal effort couldn’t be worse.