Research suggests the MBTA Communities law might yield just 20,000 to 40,000 new housing units over the next decade. Should paying towns to OK new housing be the next step? iStock illustration

First the Baker and now the Healey administration has made the MBTA Communities mandate the centerpiece of its efforts to tackle the Bay State’s increasingly dire housing crisis.

But it’s become increasingly clear that the law, which requires towns and cities to open their doors to new apartments and condominiums, is no silver bullet.

Voters in Milton have outright rejected plans to comply with the new law, with opponents angry over zoning changes that, on paper anyway, could eventually lead to a couple thousand new apartments or condos being built in town.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell is on the case, filing a lawsuit against the town for failing to comply with the MBTA Communities Law and now pushing for a quick hearing before the state’s highest court.

Campbell’s quick and forceful action against Milton may very well nip in the bud any plans on part of local officials and activists in other towns and suburbs to openly defy the law.

That said, this is zoning we are talking about. And there is a great deal of complexity involved in the drafting of the multifamily housing zones that communities required to lay out near T stations and other transit hubs.

And that complexity presents a myriad of opportunities for local officials to comply with the law on paper, while at the same time manipulating the rules in ways that limits the ability of developers to actually build the large amount of new housing envisioned under the law.

‘Paper Compliance’ Is Easy

Requiring ground-floor commercial uses, for example, can be deal-killer for new housing if heights are capped at 3 stories. Another problematic approach some towns are taking is to draw their multifamily zones around already developed and built-out downtown areas.

In that case, a developer looking to build new housing would first have to buy up and then tear down various properties with long-term retail tenants before the project could even start.

And if the approach Chelmsford officials are taking to comply with the MBTA Communities law becomes popular, the AG and other state officials will be hard-pressed to come up with an effective counter.

The Chelmsford Planning Board has designed its required multifamily zone around a stretch of Route 110 that is already built out with condo complexes, Banker & Tradesman reported.

“If the state is telling me to do something, I’m going to comply, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to make it easy to develop,” Planning Board member Annita Tanini said at the Feb. 28 public hearing, according to B&T. “It’s making as many barriers to entry as possible.”

And that’s even before we get to a column by Luc Schuster, executive director of Boston Indicators, the research center of the Boston Foundation, that ran last week in CommonWealth Beacon.

Based on studies of upzoning around transit hubs that have taken place in other cities, Schuster wrote, just 5 to 10 percent of the properties upzoned are typically redeveloped within five years of the change.

That means the MBTA Communities law might yield just 20,000 to 40,000 new housing units over the next decade, a fraction of the 200,000 to 300,000 new homes, condos and apartments the Baker – and now Healey – administration projected.

Don’t Give Up – Get Incentives

My point is not that we all should throw our hands up in frustration and give up.

Rather, threats of punishment, while important, aren’t going to be enough to do the job here.

The Healey administration and the legislature leaders must find a way to make the prospect of new housing development, and the traffic and additional school children it may bring, palatable to the local officials.

After all, at the end of the day, it’s the local planning and select board members who will be in charge of implementing the new zoning rules.

That, in turn, requires putting aside the old debate over whether the construction of new multifamily housing plays a significant role in driving up school enrollments.

Fears that new apartment buildings will lead to an influx of schoolchildren have been unfounded, studies have shown.

Unfortunately, it’s a debate that proponents of new housing, despite having the facts on their side, just can’t win, with school costs argument as potent as it has ever been in local debates over plans for new housing projects – even in the many communities like Newton that are actually seeing school enrollment shrink thanks to a lack of development.

Scott Van Voorhis

Instead, it’s time to shift gears and find a way of resetting the debate on more favorable terms. And one way of doing that would be to make new housing a profit center for towns and suburbs, rather than a perceived drag.

How about providing state bonus money for every new housing permit issued over a certain level? Affordable units, especially ones that are designed for families, could come with the biggest payments.

The formula for state aid to local school districts could also be revamped along the same lines.

The Bay State’s housing crisis, which has given us some of the nation’s highest rents and home prices, can’t be solved without help from local officials, who are on the front lines of the problem.

And with the opposition to new housing seemingly intractable, it’s time to consider a little legal bribery.

Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist and publisher of the Contrarian Boston newsletter; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.