I’m surprised I haven’t seen more about Ballot Question 7, since it’s hugely consequential for our area. What’s at stake is: Do rural towns still have a right to exist, and to continue to choose to remain rural?
There’s absolutely an affordable housing crisis, and we absolutely have to do something about it. But Question 7 would force towns to allow houses on every lot that’s at least 5,000 square feet, as long as it also has 50′ of frontage and access to public water and sewer. Each of those lots also would be allowed to have a second home (i.e., an accessory dwelling unit).
That’s dense development! Not all Massachusetts towns are Boston exurbs, or aspire to be like them. Towns have always been able to say where they do and don’t want development that dense, based on local factors. It would be reasonable to tell towns they need to find ways to permit needed housing growth. It’s not reasonable to force every town to allow dense development everywhere.
I live in Pelham, so I’ll take our town as an example.
First, how many more homes do we need?
The state’s comprehensive housing plan (https://www.mass.gov/future-housing-demand-in-massachusetts) says that from 2025-2035, western Massachusetts needs 2% more homes, and factoring in urban centers, the Pioneer Valley needs 6% more homes, to “achieve a state of housing abundance, when the limited supply of housing is not a primary driver of unaffordability.” After that point, more isn’t better; it’s going too far.
So, let’s generously say Pelham needed 40 new homes between 2025 and 2035. Our Amethyst Brook Apartments opened in 2025 with 34 affordable units, and there wasn’t enough demand to fill them promptly. But let’s generously say Pelham still needs 20 more units by 2035.
Then, how could we get those units?
Accessory dwelling units became legal statewide in 2025, meaning that many of our lots are newly able to have two homes each.
Our town committees and boards could continue to work together, as we have for decades, to carefully craft what works for our town given the needed amount of growth.
For example, in 2018, we adopted our Village Center zoning, designating areas where reduced lot sizes and other eased dimensional requirements are appropriate. We could expand those zones the necessary amounts. As a town, we might decide where best to site one or two cluster developments of 5-10 homes each.
In contrast, Question 7 would drastically overshoot the need, with drastically more impact than necessary on our environment, watershed, community, and town rights. I hope readers will vote “no” on Question 7, and spread the word!
Stacey Y. McCullough lives in Pelham.