The poll asked four questions dealing with housing, the first of which concerned Governor Healey’s bill to create a new “real estate transfer fee” tax. The Governor’s tax proposal only received 28% support, with a majority not supporting it at 55% and 17% unsure.

When voters were asked if they would support “paying more for housing in order to enact net zero emission policies,” that question received a chilly response with only 24% support and 60% opposed. 

The poll also asked voters to gauge their support for the MBTA Communities Act, which has now come to prominence as local voters across the state are deciding on whether to approve zoning changes mandated by the legislation. Overall, 33% support it while 45%oppose, and 22% are unsure. 

While the migrant crisis is taking a toll on the state’s fiscal health, the poll tried to determine how concerned voters are of any effects the crisis might have on housing costs. The poll found 73% of voters are “highly” or “somewhat” concerned that this large influx of new residents will have a negative effect on the housing and rental markets in Massachusetts. That sentiment received strong majorities among Democratic voters at 58%, Republican voters at 98%, and unenrolled voters at 79%. 

A copy of the poll topline data may be found here.

A copy of the poll crosstabs may be found here.

We’ve been told legal action will be taken if the Town doesn’t comply although some cities/towns have refused to comply, for example the city of Milton.

Our Town will not even consider non compliance and the MBTA Commision, chaired by Rachel Heller and Roy Epstein are trying to be finished by April.  We are required to add 1632 units of housing to our Town by law, but some on the committee are seeking to increase the number of new households to 3000. Our Town currently has 10,000 households so that is an increase in population of more than 33%.  There has been no fiscal impact study on the effects on the schools, town services, roads, pollution, or traffic. Most Belmont residents have no idea this is happening or have heard vague talk of it.  This past week’s Belmont voice had an informative article describing it but the article doesn’t address the reality of the immense changes this will make to the small Town of Belmont

There have been several options discussed on locations for this housing and 3 “final” options are being discussed. Each of the options includes a range of zoning which allows for zone 1 small scale neighborhood, zone 2 moderate scale neighborhood residential,  zone 2A same as zone 2 but can add additional floor if one floor is commercial, Zone 3 moderate scale traditional residential, zone 4 small scale mixed use, Zone 5 moderate to large scale mixed use  (can grow to 6 stories in height).

The following images are from the MBTA Committees Advisory Committee

If zone 5 is approved for Leonard Street, it will turn it into a city block. The above image shows 4 stories but the actual zoning could allow for 6.  No residential neighborhood in Belmont should be subjected to this size and density.

It is my belief that very few residents know this is coming, and fast.

There is a Public Hearing for the MBTA Committee Thursday 2/15 at 7pm, Beech Street Center.

I hope you’ll attend, listen and help to reduce the numbers back to 1620 and remove Belmont Center from zone 5. We are not a city. 

Most importantly residents should demand a fiscal impact study BEFORE anything goes to the Planning Board, Select Board or Town Meeting. This plan will greatly impact the Town of Belmont. The Town needs to start paying attention to all the taxpayers, not just a select few.

Massachusetts legislators are feeling the heat and the huge omnibus gun control bill has been temporarily put on hold until the fall because of citizen efforts.

House bill HD 4420, titled “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws” introduced by Michael Day (Democrat, 31st Middlesex) does anything but “modernize” gun laws. This bill is 140 pages of the worst gun control proposals ever introduced – making the owning of a legal firearm nearly impossible in Massachusetts.  

Various citizen and professional groups has raised concerns about the bill, including the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. Some of their concerns include:

• SECTION 173: PROHIBITED AREAS – This proposed section was the foremost significant concern of all Chiefs who reviewed this Bill. Creating “Gun Free” zones beyond the scope of courthouses, prisons, and schools, has been proven to be a practice that does not prevent crime, and, in fact, encourages criminals to seek out these areas as soft targets of opportunity, where their chances of meeting resistance will be minimal. 
• Section 173 (5) – Puts law enforcement officers at risk by PROHIBITING legally licensed off-duty and retired Law Enforcement Officers and other Federal and State personnel who carry a firearm for personal protection due to the nature of their profession and the associated risk and threat to their safety.
• Sec,on 173 (2) (iv) – Calls for property owners to post a sign on their premises indicating that it IS “permissible” to carry a firearm on their premises. We feel this practice would lead to additional calls for Police Service at locations that do not have this “sign” as they would be targeted by criminals.
• We know through statistics that most violent crime is committed by a 10% segment of individuals. Of this segment, the majority are repeat offenders. This group is marginally mentioned in this Bill. Most do not have legally licensed firearms, or Firearms permits… Any new legislation should focus on career criminals and violent repeat offenders
• For a full list of their concerns, please read the full letter.

Another group Gun Owners of America, highlighted their concerns about the omnibus gun control bill:  

• Redefines “Assault-style firearm” to be more extensive and ban ALMOST ALL semi-automatic firearms from civilian ownership.   
• Redefines “firearm” into a broader term that includes even stun guns.  
• Mandates “safe storage” procedures, locking up guns against your will.  
• Mandates REGISTRATION of all guns and feeding devices.  
• Contains confusing language for new MA residents and on the serialization of guns.  
• Mandates reporting any parts modifications to firearms.  
• Mandates reporting an itemized list of parts when modifying or building a gun.  
• Mandates serializing of feeding devices (magazines).  
• Mandates that privately made guns need to be registered within 7 days.  
• Bans anyone under 21 from acquiring or carrying semi-automatic rifles or shotguns.  
• Forces new requirements for firearms retailers.  
• Forces new training mandates for law-abiding gun owners.  
• Adds even more prohibited areas where even licensed individuals cannot defend themselves with a firearm.  
• AND DOES SO MUCH MORE.  

The MA House of Representatives is already in the process of redrafting this bill, so it is important to contact your legislatures to raise these concerns! Find your legislature here.

For Belmont residents, our Senator is William Brownsberger and our Representative is Dave Rogers.

During last week’s tax reform package deliberations, Senate President Karen Spilka and the state senate passed an amendment to implement a “marriage penalty” in our state tax filing system, so that couples who have a combined income over $1M will be wacked by this tax hike. Marriage penalties are bad policy and offering ways to avoid one is not a loophole. It’s only been six months since the surtax amendment passed and lawmakers are already trying to get the new tax applied to taxpayers who don’t earn a million dollars, and in ways they did not make the case for during their campaign.

With the blessing of the Senate President, State Senator Jason Lewis (D-Winchester) successfully passed his amendment to the senate “tax reform package” which would implement the marriage penalty. To see how your senator voted, please click here. Only in Massachusetts does the state senate pass a marriage penalty during their tax reform package.

For more information, please visit the MA Fiscal Alliance.