The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts is hearing a very nuanced case at the intersection (pun intended) of transit policy and housing policy. As the case came before the court, I heard discussions on several local programs; I think the best overview is provided by Darryl C. Murphy and Rob Lane in a recent Radio Boston segment on WBUR.
In short, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA or more commonly "the T") requires the communities it serves to enact zoning regulations that encourage high-density residential development. Since the T serves almost half of the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth (we use Pilgrim-era names for everything around here), this was a way for the General Court (i.e., the state legislature) to exert control over questions of land-use that are otherwise the purview of those localities.
The merits of such requirements are not central to the case before the SJC, in which the town of Milton has refused to enact the regulations dictated by the T. Rather, it seems that by promoting the land-use policy indirectly, the legislature chose the wrong vehicle (again, pun intended) for its goals.
An interesting facet of this case is that Milton was told it would be subject to certain penalties if it failed to act. As a community, Milton essentially said, "okay" and thought that accepting the penalty would be the end of the matter. It might very well be. If so, the Judicial Court might be sending the General Court back to the proverbial drawing table.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment and your interest in my blog. I will approve your comment as soon as possible. I had to activate comment moderation because of commercial spam; I welcome debate of any ideas I present, but this will not be a platform for dubious commercial messages.