My View | Jack Clarke
 Published Jan 22, 2025 in The Gloucester Times
 

Last April 4, I penned a column for this newspaper titled, “Don’t Milton my Cape Ann.”

It was about the constitutionality of the MBTA Communities Zoning Act (3A) and the requirement of the 177 municipalities within the act’s jurisdiction to zone for family-friendly housing near MBTA transit stations.

It was also about the authority of the Bay State’s attorney general to enforce the law in those 177 communities.

On Jan. 8, the Commonwealth’s Supreme Judicial Court, in a case brought by the town of Milton, said yes to both matters — yes, 3A is constitutional, and, yes, the AG can enforce it.

Before the court even gave its opinion, Gloucester City Council’s last fall approved a reasonable multifamily zoning plan and submitted it to the state for approval.

However, signatures were gathered to repeal the ordinance and now it will appear on a city special election ballot.

That election will not be about 3A, it will be about Gloucester’s zoning ordinance — that’s it.

Recently, Neeham scheduled a vote to rescind its own approved zoning plan. But the Needham case is entirely different than Gloucester’s.

Needham Town Meeting passed a zoning bylaw that was similarly challenged, and it went to a special election Jan. 14. The zoning bylaw was defeated.

The difference between Needham and Gloucester, however, is stark. While Needham Town Meeting approved an aggressive plan, Gloucester’s City Council adopted an ordinance that is more modest.

Needham critics believed the bylaw passed by Town Meeting went too far. Most voters wanted a less ambitious, less aggressive plan, but one that complied with 3A. Obeying 3A and the court was never an issue in Needham.

Needham voters soundly rejected their zoning bylaw and asked Town Meeting to vote on a more moderate plan. They were not saying no to 3A, they were saying no to a particular zoning option.

As a matter of fact, the leader of the Needham no group said, “the town should adopt … a more modest version that would comply with state law without spurring change too quickly.”

And that is just what Gloucester is voting on — a modest plan that will not spur change too quickly.

Unlike Needham, we get to vote first on a modest plan. A plan that reflects the voice of the people when they told the City Council that Gloucester should take a conservative approach to complying with 3A.

And so, that’s what it did.

After many public meetings and hearings, the council passed a modest, conservative and reasonable ordinance that reflects the needs of the city.

At Gloucester’s special election, one can vote no and rescind the existing ordinance, or vote yes to comply with the law and provide a reasonable amount of family-friendly housing in a place where it is badly needed.

An argument has been raised that the state, through 3A, is imposing a “one-size-fits-all” standard. It is not.

Gloucester’s ordinance fits Gloucester. It was drafted here, passed here, and is for here.

For the most part, the ordinance allows anyone in the assigned districts that has a two-family home to add a third unit without hiring lawyers and going through the long and expensive variance process. The ordinance reduces red tape and is a good example of a property rights approach to home building. The usual building permit and other necessary approvals remain valid as issued by the city.

In most cases, a third home unit could accommodate an aging parent or offspring that wants to stay in town but can’t afford it.

An additional unit means another family member in the neighborhood of a city that says family first.

Gloucester’s zoning ordinance promotes family housing across certain districts of the city and across the generations. For a community of immigrant families, this ordinance and what it allows is important.

Saying yes and not voting to rescind the ordinance can help a new generation build their lives in the seaport, just as many of us have already done.

Adding another unit to one’s home is another contribution to Gloucester’s economy — an economy that depends on small businesses, and the workforce housing necessary to support them.

A careful review of the ordinance demonstrates how it respects affected neighborhoods’ historic, architectural, environmental, health, and safety standards. Building setbacks do not change. The existing infrastructure must accommodate any new homes or units built.

Neighborhood and community character do not change, they are enhanced. As will be our city.

In the end, the campaign to say yes to the Gloucester ordinance is about building community and taking care of each other, for today and tomorrow as well.

Jack Clarke is a Gloucester resident, frequent contributor to the Gloucester Daily Times, and chairman of the Yes for Gloucester committee.