Massachusetts Affirmative Action Hire AG Andrea Campbell got the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to retain her tyrannical ‘MBTA Zoning Districts’ case against the Town of Milton, but failed in her bid to have that Court hear the case before MANY eastern Massachusetts towns conduct their Springtime Annual Town Meetings. She wanted the SJC to expedite the case in an attempt to bludgeon eastern Massachusetts towns into creating so-called ‘high density MBTA Communities affordable housing zoning districts’ under Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 40A, Section 3A. She’s so intellectually dishonest that she refuses to acknowledge the CLEAR language of that statute providing that the only penalty for a so-called ‘MBTA Community’ falling under Ch. 40A, Section 3A, deciding not to adopt such bogus zoning districts, is the cut-off of funding enumerated in Section 3A(b). THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THAT STATUTE FOR INJUNCTIVE PEFORMANCE RELIEF.
SEE:
Mass. General Laws c.40A § 3A
Updates
- Added by St.2020, c.359, § 18, effective January 14, 2021
- Amended by St.2021, c.29, § 10, effective July 29, 2021
- Amended by St.2023, c. 7, §§ 152-153, effective 30 days following enactment pursuant to subsection (c) of section 2 Article LXXXVII of the Amendments to the Constitution.
(a)
(1) An MBTA community shall have a zoning ordinance or by-law that provides for at least 1 district of reasonable size in which multi-family housing is permitted as of right; provided, however, that such multi-family housing shall be without age restrictions and shall be suitable for families with children. For the purposes of this section, a district of reasonable size shall: (i) have a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, subject to any further limitations imposed by section 40 of chapter 131 and title 5 of the state environmental code established pursuant to section 13 of chapter 21A; and (ii) be located not more than 0.5 miles from a commuter rail station, subway station, ferry terminal or bus station, if applicable.
(b)
An MBTA community that fails to comply with this section shall not be eligible for funds from: (i) the Housing Choice Initiative as described by the governor in a message to the general court dated December 11, 2017; (ii) the Local Capital Projects Fund established in section 2EEEE of chapter 29; (iii) the MassWorks infrastructure program established in section 63 of chapter 23A, or (iv) the HousingWorks infrastructure program established in section 27 of chapter 23B.
(c)
The executive office of housing and livable communities, in consultation with the executive office of economic development, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, shall promulgate guidelines to determine if an MBTA community is in compliance with this section.
It now appears that the full SJC will hear the Town of Milton case in October 2024.
SEE: Full SJC to hear Milton rezoning case – CommonWealth Beacon
Town Counsel for the Town of Milton, in his legal Brief filed with the SJC, pointed out, correctly, that the ONLY penalty set forth in Ch. 40A, Section 3A for ignoring that statute is the cut-off of funding categories enumerated in Section 3A(b).
SEE: Towns-Opposition-to-AGs-Motion-to-Reserve-and-Report-3-12-24 (townofmilton.org)
NOTE: Commonwealth of Massachusetts officials would have us believe that the so-called ‘MBTA Communities Guidelines’ spewed out by outright dishonest hacks constituting the so-called ‘Guidelines Team’ collected by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, now the Department of Housing and Livable Communities (with all the China Joe Biden-Maura Healey illegal immigrants overrunning our cities and towns, what a F#*@ING JOKE), have some binding, legal effect. THEY DO NOT. THEY ARE SO-CALLED ‘GUIDELINES,’ NOT REGULATIONS, AND, THEREFORE, DO NOT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW. The late Alex Whiteside, Esq., former Chief Counsel to the Department of Housing and Community Development, made that clear here:
The Town of Sterling, like the Town of Holden that refused to go along with Ch. 40A, Section 3A, is exempt from that statute because it has NO LAND WITHIN 1/2 MILE OF ANY TYPE OF TRANSIT STATION OR TERMINAL DESCRIBED IN THAT STATUTE.
NOTE THAT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HIRE AG ANDREA CAMPBELL HAS NOT SUED THE TOWN OF HOLDEN. SHE KNOWS THAT SHE WILL LOSE IF SHE DOES.
DESPITE the clear language of that statute there are OUTRIGHT LIARS AND BUFFOONS in Sterling Town Government saying that the Town of Sterling is subject to Ch. 40A, Section 3A MBTA zoning districts requirements. IGNORE THEM ALL– THE MAKE-WORK SO-CALLED ‘TOWN PLANNER’ IN PARTICULAR.
Do I trust the SJC to apply the clear language of Mass.Gen.Laws Ch. 40A, Section 3A(b) in the Town of Milton case. ANSWER: ABSOLUTELY NOT. MOST SJC APPOINTEES ARE INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST RESULT-ORIENTED POLITICAL HACKS WHO ADOPT THE POSITIONS ADVOCATED BY THE COMMIE BOSTON GLOBE A/K/A BOSTON GLOB. In this matter the Boston Glob has gone all in for tyranny.
Want a notion as to how ‘highly qualified’ SJC appointees are??? Well then, check THIS out:
Howie Carr: MA Gov. Healey’s brazen hack full-court powerplay (bostonherald.com)
Yeah, revenge of the carpet munchers…
Stay tuned.
J.G.
STERLING, MASSACHUSETTS, OVERWATCH 