October 13, 2026 Submitted By Susan Murphy
Ballot Question 7 would mandate that local zoning permit the construction of single-family homes on 5,000-square-foot lots with 50 feet of frontage served by public water and sewer in any zoning district where residential uses are allowed. It would further empower a state agency to promulgate one-size-fits-all regulations that tell municipalities how they can or cannot regulate construction.
I am following the campaign for adoption led by the Pioneer Institute closely, and I am very disappointed by the inaccurate information being shared by the proponents. Growth and development are critical for housing, jobs, the tax base, and providing services in Massachusetts and should never be cast as objectively good or bad. But growth without thoughtful planning, investment in maintaining and expanding infrastructure, and protecting natural resources is a recipe for disaster.
Here are some facts that the proponents are not sharing with, or are misrepresenting to, voters:
1. This is not a grassroots campaign.
Over $1.7 million in donations have been received to support the campaign, with the largest donations coming from special interests. The BBJ reported on October 7, 2026, that Airbnb donated $105,000 to this campaign, which claims to promote the creation of year-round affordable starter homes for Massachusetts residents.
2. Starter homes have always been legal in Massachusetts; flippers are making them extinct.
The tagline for the campaign, “Legalize Starter Homes,” is about as misleading as you can get. This ballot initiative would supercharge the loss of pre-existing starter homes and small lots in all communities by making it even more profitable for house flippers and home builders to buy these older homes and smaller lots, with no requirement that they build starter homes.
Historically, people starting out purchase starter homes. As their families and incomes grow, they often size up, thereby freeing up starter homes for the next person starting out.
For years, flippers have outbid first-time homebuyers for affordable starter homes to tear them down or expand them to create “McMansions.” While many communities are devastated by this trend, local zoning struggles to protect these homes. Local zoning initiatives, such as lot area coverage, floor area ratio (FAR), and setbacks, are targeted as exclusionary when, in fact, they are the only tools that can control house size.
Therefore, many starter homes built in the 1940s through the 1960s have disappeared, not because of exclusionary zoning, but because developers buy them out from under the starter-home population and communities do not have the legal tools to limit it.
3. This ballot question does not require the construction of starter homes.
There is nothing in the ballot question that limits the size of homes that can be built. At a recent presentation, the Pioneer Institute spokesperson tried to evade the question of why the proposed language does not cap house size. After being pressed, he said they hoped smaller homes would be built but admitted that the proponents intentionally left out a square-footage cap because it may not be economical for starter homes to be built.
With that admission, he undermined the entire ballot question campaign.
In fact, in what are regularly referred to by housing advocates as the “in-demand” communities (primarily in the Route 128 and I-495 corridors), developers will continue to outbid prospective first-time homebuyers for existing homes or buy larger lots that can be divided and build non-starter homes that will not be selling at affordable prices.
With average setback and height requirements, a home of up to 3,000-plus square feet can be built on a 5,000-square-foot lot.
4. This ballot question does not ensure affordable prices.
There is no requirement that the homes built will be sold at affordable prices. Based on available data, the cost of new home construction ranges from $250 per square foot for the simplest finishes in central and western Massachusetts to $600-plus per square foot in eastern Massachusetts.
For an 1,800-square-foot home, the cost could range from $450,000 (a more affordable range) to well over $1 million. Records show that the average new build in eastern Massachusetts is 2,500 to 3,500-plus square feet.
Even assuming a middle ground of $450 per square foot, this results in new-build prices starting at $1,125,000, not counting the cost of the lot.
5. This ballot question would allow single-family homes in almost every zoning district and is a direct attack on commercial tax bases.
The proposed language would allow homes to be built “in a zoning district that allows residential uses,” not districts that allow single-family homes.
When asked whether this was an oversight, the Pioneer Institute spokesperson admitted it was intentional. It is likely that this was done because commercial and industrial areas in some communities may have both public water and sewer, whereas existing single-family districts may have only potable wells and/or septic systems.
This ballot question, if adopted, could seriously undermine the commercial tax base that communities rely upon.
Examples of affected districts include:
- Town centers or downtown business districts where residential use is allowed above the first floor.
- Commercial or industrial districts where congregate living facilities (assisted living, nursing homes, etc.) are allowed.
- Multifamily housing districts: Recent rezoning, including MBTA communities, to encourage multifamily housing districts could be replaced with subdivisions of up to 3,000-square-foot homes for greater net profit.
Bottom line
This ballot question will not make a meaningful contribution to the goal of “affordable starter homes.” It will result in the extinction of the remaining starter homes in Massachusetts and create a windfall for builders empowered to construct large, unaffordable homes on small lots, while burdening existing infrastructure and undermining the commercial tax base of many communities.
Ballot Question 7 should not pass.
Comprehensive planning with all stakeholders at the table
This ballot question, like many recent state zoning law changes, represents a wholesale, mandated override of local zoning in 350 communities (Boston is exempt).
There is no thoughtful planning involved with these recent and proposed housing initiatives. When municipalities express concerns about infrastructure impacts, they are given a sympathetic nod, while state environmental review of projects is reduced.
Local housing regulations need to evolve, but the evisceration of local control and state environmental review will not accomplish the stated goals. The various groups influencing current state policy are often echo chambers focused on gutting oversight.
To reach housing goals, it is critical for all stakeholders, including local leaders and planners in a meaningful role, to be invited to engage in comprehensive planning in an intellectually honest way.
Susan Murphy is a Massachusetts real estate and land use attorney with over 35 years’ experience representing both private clients and municipalities.