"There’s a real risk of voter fatigue," said Jesse Kanson-Benanav, executive director of Abundant Housing Massachusetts, in an interview with HousingWire TBD. "We are competing with very high-profile, emotionally charged fights, including the potential repeal of recreational marijuana laws, changes to gun regulations, and shifts in how primary elections are conducted."
To combat this, the "Legalize Starter Homes" campaign has raised more than $1.7 million, largely funded by real estate groups and housing advocates. They have launched a robust field operation to educate voters on why a "Yes" on Question 7 is a vote for affordability. Interestingly, the measure has found support from both ends of the political spectrum; Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Minogue has signaled his support as he challenges Governor Maura Healey, who also backs the reform. While organizations like the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the state Republican Party have voiced opposition—citing concerns over local control—they have yet to mount a formal, well-funded campaign against it.
The measure’s chances were bolstered recently when the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ordered the removal of a separate, more controversial rent stabilization measure from the ballot. Proponents of Question 7 believe this allows the housing advocacy community to unite behind a single, supply-side solution rather than splitting their resources and messaging.
California: Streamlining the Regulatory Clock
Three thousand miles away, California voters are grappling with a different kind of bottleneck: the regulatory and judicial process. Proposition 45 aims to accelerate the pace of construction by placing strict deadlines on environmental reviews and the legal challenges that often follow them.
California is notorious for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a landmark 1970 law that requires state and local agencies to identify and mitigate the environmental impacts of development projects. While CEQA was designed to protect the state’s natural beauty and public health, it has frequently been used by project opponents to stall or kill housing developments through lengthy litigation and administrative delays.
Proposition 45 would impose a "regulatory clock" on a wide range of projects, including housing, water, energy, and transportation infrastructure. Under the measure, agencies would generally have a maximum of 365 business days to complete a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Perhaps more significantly, the measure would require the court system to resolve any legal challenges to these reports within 270 days.
Supporters argue that these deadlines are necessary to provide "predictability" for builders. In the current environment, a project can be tied up in court for years, driving up carrying costs and often making affordable housing projects financially unviable. The measure also seeks to limit the scope of public-comment periods and narrow the requirements for tribal consultations and judicial reviews.
However, the proposal has created a rift among traditional allies. Environmental groups and some community advocates argue that the measure guts essential safeguards, potentially allowing harmful projects to proceed without adequate scrutiny. Even California YIMBY, one of the state’s most powerful pro-housing organizations, has chosen to remain neutral. The group noted that while the measure affects housing, its broad reach into non-housing sectors like energy and transportation makes it a more complex proposition than a standard housing bill.
