PM Joins Coalition of 100+ Groups Calling on Legislature to Fund Emergency Assistance Family Shelter

Progressive Mass signed onto the following letter organized by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. You can see the full list of signers here.

October 30, 2023

The Honorable Senate President Karen Spilka
Office of the Senate President  
State House, Room 332
Boston, MA 02133

The Honorable Speaker Ronald Mariano
Office of the Speaker of the House
State House, Room 356
Boston, MA 02133

Re: Please Fund Emergency Assistance Family Shelter; Don’t Leave Kids Out in the Cold

Dear Senate President Spilka, Speaker Mariano, and members of the Legislature:

Thank you for your longstanding strong support of children and families in the Commonwealth. We are grateful for your commitment to meeting residents’ basic needs, and especially the needs of the most vulnerable members of our communities.

We write to ask you to urgently provide enough supplemental funding for the Emergency Assistance (EA) family shelter program to enable it to continue to serve all eligible families who are experiencing homelessness at least through January. This would give state leaders time to carefully consider policy solutions to the surge in demand for family shelter. It would also be consistent with the 90-days advance notice that the line item, 7004-0101, requires before eligibility changes are made. Such notice has not yet been provided by the Administration to the Legislature.  

There is no greater basic need than shelter from the elements, which is why we are so proud to live in a state that guarantees a right to shelter to eligible children in need. We are keenly aware that the EA system is under great strain at the moment, and you and the Administration are working to develop solutions. In the meantime, however, we are deeply, deeply troubled by the notion that the state may shut shelter doors to new applicants and place eligible families on a waiting list starting this week, on November 1st.

We have seen what happens when families cannot access shelter. Toddlers huddle with their parents on the street. Children are forced to sleep in cars in the bitter cold. Parents and guardians attempt to protect themselves and their small loved ones from inclement weather and physical danger in places not meant for human habitation.  

Please appropriate the necessary funds to sustain our shelter system through January, at a minimum, as an interim measure while working to develop a more comprehensive, family-focused response that could be enacted when the Legislature returns from its winter recess.

Sincerely,

Why We Need a Zero-Carbon Renovation Fund

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Chair Roy: and Members of the House Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy:  

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the Policy Director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots advocacy group committed to fighting for an equitable, just, democratic, and sustainable Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to An Act establishing a zero carbon renovation fund (H.3232), filed by Rep. Andy Vargas.

I think it is fitting that today’s hearing is held on Halloween because the present and future of climate change contains a litany of frights. This past summer, when this hearing had been originally scheduled, provided an ongoing series of warning signs of the need to take bold and comprehensive action on climate change. We experienced several of the hottest days on record globally. We saw extreme flooding hit neighboring states, and the same for the dystopian impacts of raging wildfires in Canada.

Fortunately, we know what we need to do to mitigate climate change. According to the recent Massachusetts Clean Heat Commission Final Report, achieving our state’s climate goals will require retrofitting an additional 500,000 residential homes and roughly 300 million square feet of commercial buildings to utilize energy-efficient electric heating by 2030, with a pace of 20,000-25,000 home installations a year ahead of 2025, ramping up to 80,000 a year in the latter half of the decade, and over 100,000 residential homes per year thereafter. If we want to meet our goals, we need to start accelerating and scaling our actions.

This bill would allocate $300 million for a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund (ZCRF), administered by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, to jumpstart the market for zero carbon renovations. Such renovations would include (1) maximizing energy efficiency through building envelope upgrades, (2) electrification of building systems, (3) maximizing usage of on-site renewable energy, wherever possible, and (4) use of building retrofit materials that are low embodied carbon.

Importantly, this bill understands that our sustainability transition must be an equitable one, and that some of the oldest housing stock is that where low-income communities and communities of color live. Accordingly, the ZCRF would prioritize affordable housing, public housing, low- and moderate-income homes, schools, BIPOC- and women-owned businesses, and buildings located in Environmental Justice communities.

We’ve seen positive steps from Gov. Healey about investing in green retrofits, but we must scale up that work.

The Legislature has made an ongoing commitment to passing climate legislation. Last session, you took important steps to expand the wind energy industry and to decarbonize transportation, among other steps. Decarbonizing buildings must be at the center of new climate legislation, as buildings make up a large share of our carbon emissions.

To go back to Halloween, perhaps the only thing more frightening than the scenarios of a much warmer world is the knowledge that we have the ability to act today and might not.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Progressive Watertown Hosts Polluters Pay Forum

Prog-Watertown-Polluters-Pay1

By Eileen Ryan, Progressive Watertown

On Sunday, October 22, Progressive Watertown and Watertown Citizens for Peace Justice and the Environment co-hosted an educational forum at the Watertown Public Library about the current Massachusetts Make Polluters Pay bill. The panel discussion was moderated by Watertown resident Connie Henry and included Laurel Schwab, Watertown Senior Environmental Planner, Dan Zackin, 350MA Legislative Coordinator, and Steve Owens, State Representative for the 29th Middlesex District. 

“Make Polluters Pay” is the informal name for An Act Establishing a Climate Change Superfund Promoting Polluter Responsibility, Bill H. 872/S.481. Similar bills are currently in front of the legislatures of Vermont, Maryland, and New York. Make Polluters Pay will provide Massachusetts communities with funds from the largest emitters of greenhouse gases to address the effects of the climate crisis. The funds will be used for resiliency and adaptation projects such as geo-thermal grids, flood mitigation, and the reduction of heat islands. 

Laurel Schwab spoke about the possible use of the funds in Watertown and other Massachusetts cities and towns.

Dan Zackin spoke about broadening the coalition of groups supporting Make Polluters Pay, to include labor unions and environmental justice communities as well as environmental groups. SEIU is already a supporter. 350MA is one of several organizations actively working to educate the public and legislators about the importance of Make Polluters Pay. 

State Rep. Steve Owens who is a co-sponsor of the bill with Senator Jamie Eldridge, spoke about why this bill is important and how it differs from a lawsuit. 

There was a small but well-informed audience that asked thoughtful questions and included three current Watertown City Councilors, one previous counselor, and a candidate for school committee.

Want to find out if your legislators are already supporters? Check out our Scorecard page here.

The Legislature Needs to Finish the Job on No Cost Calls

Right now, families are charged exorbitant fees to maintain vital connections with incarcerated loved ones. This is a regressive tax on the most marginalized families that also harms public safety by limiting communication and weakening community bonds.

As communities already struggle with the high cost of housing and health care, no one should be forced to choose between basic needs and maintaining contact with loved ones.

Earlier this year, the Legislature passed important legislation via the budget to end this predatory practice and to make such phone calls free (“No Cost Calls”).

So why are we emailing you about it?

Governor Healey sent back technical changes, deemed acceptable by the No Cost Calls / Keep Families Coalition. Two weeks ago, both House and Senate passed amended language, but to get to the Governor’s Desk, they need to vote one last time, to formally “enact” the bill.

Can you email or call your state legislators to ask them to enact H.4052 and finish the win on No Cost Calls?

What’s in the Governor’s Bond Bill? And What’s Next?

On October 18, the Healey Administration released their proposed housing bond bill, named the Affordable Homes Act. 

The bill includes $4 billion in capital spending authorizations, 28 policy changes or initiatives, three executive orders and two targeted tax credits focused on addressing the state’s worsening affordable housing crisis.

The $4 billion in capital spending authorizations includes $1.6 billion for public housing ($150 million of which would go toward decarbonization efforts). You can read an overview of the spending authorizations here, but below we want to focus on a few of the policy proposals that align with legislation we have been supporting. 

But first: what is a bond bill? A bond bill is legislation that authorizes the state to issue and sell bonds to fund capital projects and programs. The bond bill contains capital authorizations, which identify programs that can be funded through revenue raised through said bonds. Importantly, a bond bill only authorizes the spending; continued advocacy is necessary for the spending to become a reality afterwards. 

But back to the policy overview…

GOOD 

Creation of a five-year housing plan

The bill would require the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to prepare a statewide housing plan every 5 years, conducting regional outreach following robust data analysis. Having more intentionality around our housing needs is certainly important. 

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) As-Of-Right

Many cities and towns across the state have been fighting to pass zoning reforms to allow Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) — small, independent residences built on the same lot as a single-family home — as a way to increase affordable housing stock. The bill would permit ADUs of <900 SF to be built by-right in single-family zoning districts in all communities–in other words, eliminating the need for special zoning ordinances by the city or town to permit them. 

The bill would prohibit owner occupancy requirements, which have worked against efforts to desegregate communities. Affordable rental stock is key to having a racially and economically diverse community. 

The bill also prohibits parking mandates to ADUs within ½ mile of transit, making them more affordable to build as parking spaces cost money and thus make housing less affordable. 

Inclusionary Zoning by Simple Majority

When Massachusetts recently updated the state’s zoning laws to allow cities and towns to approve certain new zoning ordinances by simple majority, this suite of reforms notably did not include inclusionary zoning ordinances, which would require developers to build a certain percentage of affordable units as a part of new construction. 

This bill would correct that omission and add inclusionary zoning ordinances and bylaws to the list of zoning changes municipalities can pass by a simple majority in the relevant legislative body (e.g., city council, town meeting).

Surplus Public Land Disposition Reforms

We need to build more housing and more affordable housing, and that requires land to build it on. The bill would help streamline the disposition of land under the control of a state agency or quasi for housing purposes. When the state owns the land, it can also lower the costs of building housing, making it easier to build affordable units. 

Establishing the Office of Fair Housing

The bill establishes an office within the  Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities with explicit focus on fair housing and establishes a trust fund for enforcement initiatives, fair housing testing, education, and outreach. Strong fair housing laws and enforcement ensure that people are not discriminated against in buying or renting a home for reasons of race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc. 

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

Local Option Transfer Fee

Cities and towns across the state facing a dire lack of affordable housing have turned toward transfer fees as an option: by imposing a modest fee on high-end real estate transactions, cities and towns can raise money for their affordable housing trusts. Seventeen cities and towns have home rule petitions to do this before the State House, a sign of both the breadth of support as well as the limitations municipalities face in addressing the crisis on their own. 

The bill would allow municipalities and regional affordable housing commissions to adopt a transfer fee of 0.5% – 2.0%, paid by the seller, on the portion of sale proceeds over $1M or the county median home sales price, whichever is greater, with the revenue used for affordable housing development.

This proposal is great for Boston, whose transfer fee HRP would apply to property sales over $2 million (on their value over $2 million), but it would limit some of the other HRPs. 

For instance, Amherst is interested in a transfer fee, but the median home sale price in Hampshire County is only $427,500. Pushing the threshold up to $1 million would severely limit how much they could raise. 

And on Martha’s Vineyard, where all of the towns have been actively lobbying for their Home Rule Petitions given a dire housing crisis, this would push up their threshold to over $1.3 million, again limiting how much they could raise. 

Eviction Sealing

Having an eviction record is creating a devastating barrier for tenants looking for housing. Records are created as soon as a case is filed and are publicly available forever–– regardless of the outcome. These records impact people’s ability to obtain housing, credit, and employment, harming many and disproportionately impacting women and people of color. Regardless of whether one does anything wrong or is actually evicted, being party to an eviction or housing case is being unfairly held against tenants when they try to rent a new place.

There’s a clear solution to this problem: sealing eviction records, either immediately in cases of no-fault or for a defined period of time for other cases. 

The bill would provide a process for tenants to petition the court to seal an eviction record for (i) no-fault evictions: after conclusion of the case; (ii) solely non-payment evictions: no other eviction action within past 3 years and judgment for underlying eviction has been satisfied; and (iii) all other fault evictions: 7 years from conclusion of the matter and 3 years without any other eviction case filed against the tenant. It would also prohibit consumer reporting agencies from disclosing information in a sealed eviction record.

Although this is a step forward, we should not burden tenants with unnecessary bureaucratic steps to seal eviction records. Rather than enabling them to petition a court, the court should automatically seal records at the given benchmarks, as was the case in a prior iteration of the HOMES Act. 

What’s Next?

The bill will have a hearing with the Joint Housing Committee and possibly other committees, and given the history of past bond bills, it may not be finalized until the end of the session. But what that means is that your state legislators need to be hearing from you.

Why MA Needs a Public Bank

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Chair Feeney, Chair Murphy, and Members of the Joint Committee on Financial Services:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I am the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, multi-issue, grassroots membership organization focused on fighting for policy that would make our Commonwealth more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic. 

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

A Massachusetts public bank would strengthen local economies, especially those in underserved communities. It will help provide cost-effective financing for small businesses and municipalities, land trusts and cooperatives, and projects for climate change adaption and mitigation.

A public bank would put public money to work for the public. Much of our Commonwealth’s funds are deposited in the Massachusetts Municipal Depository Trust, which invests nationally and internationally. With a public bank, we could be bringing some of that money back home to Massachusetts in service of a more equitable and sustainable state and local economy.

A public bank would be good for our cities and towns. Cities and towns, constrained in how they can raise money, often lack the resources for necessary long-term investments. A public bank would offer cities and towns an affordable and flexible alternative to the bond market for important local infrastructure projects.

A public bank would be good for our small businesses. Many small businesses are still struggling due to the disastrous economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A public bank would be able to extend loans to small businesses, helping them to weather such difficult time as well as to grow and expand to better serve the community. The bill would specifically target rural communities and underserved neighborhoods, where entrepreneurs often face significant obstacles to securing seed funding for new businesses, and it can help encourage the flourishing of cooperative businesses and worker-owned coops, business models that exemplify shared prosperity.

A public bank would address long-standing economic inequities. We know that women and communities of color have faced longstanding barriers in securing access to capital. A public bank can help to level the playing field.

A public bank would be good for the environment. A public bank could support initiatives to mitigate the dangers of climate change, and it could help local farms adopt and promote sustainable agricultural practices.

Importantly, the bill recognizes that while all of these are exciting possibilities unlocked by a public bank, we need the right governance in place to make them a reality. That’s why the bill ensures that the board of advisors for the bank would represent the concerns of municipalities, underserved neighborhoods, small business, community development and community development finance, community banks and credit unions, sustainable agriculture and food security, workers’ interests, climate change and green finance, and environmental justice.

Thank you for all your work on today’s hearing. Again, we urge swift action to advance S.632 / H.975: An Act to establish a Massachusetts public bank.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Daily Collegian: Debating the Effectiveness of New Tax Cuts

Sam Cavalheiro, “Massachusetts passes first tax cuts in almost two decades,” Daily Collegian, October 23, 2023.

Jonathan Cohn, Policy Director at Progressive Massachusetts (a progressive policy advocacy group,) was disappointed at the new tax law as he felt it only focused on  cutting taxes.

Cohn explains that Massachusetts voters, in the most recent election, voted out a Republican governor who was fiscally conservative and passed an increase on taxes on the wealthy, called the Fair Share Amendment.

“Shifting the entire discussion to cutting taxes feels like ‘Wait, what just happened in the last election?’ It’s just not the best use of that in the political moment,” he said.

Cohn argues that the tax cuts do little to make Massachusetts an affordable place, referencing the Child Tax Credit Expansion: “…raising that child tax credit of $440 is ultimately not going far for people given how expensive children are. In Massachusetts, the cost of childcare is over $20,000 a year and saying that their tax credit is [going to] go up from $140 to $440 over a few years, that’s not a significant amount.”

He also argues that the rental deduction will do little to make Massachusetts more affordable: “What the expansion of the rental deduction means maybe $50 more for many renters… and many people see their rent increase each year by more than $50.”

Cohn criticized the short-term capital gains cuts and estate tax cuts, which mostly affect wealthier residents. He questions who the tax cuts are benefiting.

“Is it disproportionately benefiting those who already have high incomes or is it benefiting the people who are really struggling with being able to afford to live in Massachusetts?”

MA House and Senate Vote to Strengthen State’s Equal Pay Law

Massachusetts was the first state in the US to pass an equal pay law, all the way back in 1945, and the Legislature updated it in 2016 to prohibit employers from asking job applicants for salary history, prohibit employers from banning discussion of wage information, and require equal pay for comparable work.

But gender- and race-based pay gaps continue to exist in the workplace, and the House and Senate have taken action to strengthen the equal pay in response.

The Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act, named after the first female Secretary of Labor in the US, would require employers with 25+ employees to disclose the salary or wage range for a position in all job postings, provide the salary range to employees offered promotions and transfers, and provide the pay range to employees for their current roles if requested.

It would also require covered employers with 100 or more employees to supply wage and demographic information to the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development. You can’t fix the inequities you do not see.

Earlier this month, on October 4, the House voted 148 to 8 to pass this bill.

The 8 NOs were all Republicans: Donnie Berthiaume (R-Spencer), Nicholas Boldyga (R-Southwick), David DeCoste (R-Norwell), Marc Lombardo (R-Billerica), Kelly Pease (R-Westfield), Michael Soter (R-Bellingham), Alyson Sullivan-Almeida (R-Abington), and Steven Xiarhos (R-Barnstable).

Yesterday (October 19), the Senate voted 39 to 1 to pass the bill, with the sole NO being Republican Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton).

MA House Votes 120 to 38 to Strengthen State’s Gun Laws

Last year, the right-wing US Supreme Court weakened states’ ability to pass strong gun safety laws by blocking New York’s handgun licensing law. At the end of last session, the MA Legislature passed legislation to ensure that MA’s gun laws would be compliant with the Supreme Court ruling, protecting them from legal challenge, but the situation also showed that the moment was ripe for revisiting how to strengthen MA’s gun laws overall.

Governor Deval Patrick signed a gun control omnibus package back in 2014, and an extreme risk protection order (ERPO), or “red flag,” bill was passed in 2018, allowing family members, housemates, and law enforcement officials to file temporary firearms restrictions in civil court. But there is more work to do.

As a result of impressive advocacy from the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, and other groups, and the commitment of House Judiciary Chair Mike Day, the House passed a comprehensive gun violence prevention bill this Wednesday that continues MA’s leadership on this issue.

Among other steps, the bill does the following:

  • Strengthens MA’s assault weapons ban by expanding it to cover more firearms
  • Raises the age for possession of a semi-automatic long gun (rifle or shotgun) to 21
  • Prohibits all machine gun conversion devices or devices that increase the rate of fire of firearms
  • Cracks down on ghost guns by requiring that all firearms manufactured, assembled, possessed, purchased, or transferred into MA be serialized
  • Prohibits firearms in government buildings, polling places, and educational institutions, including higher education, and prohibits firearms on private property without express permission or signage
  • Expands the list of individuals eligible to file an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) to include licensed healthcare providers, school administrators, and employers
  • Strengthens data collection on firearms and firearm crimes
  • Establishes commissions to study the funding structure for community-based violence prevention services and the feasibility of microstamping (which imprints a unique identifier on bullet casings to help identify the gun used in specific incident) and smart gun technology (which includes various measures to ensure that only the rightful owner is using a gun, e.g., a thumb screen)

The final vote was 120 to 38.

Joining Republicans in voting against it were Democrats Shirley Arriaga (D-Chicopee), Brian Ashe (D-Longmeadow), Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), Pat Haddad (D-Somerset), Kathy LaNatra (D-Kingston), Christopher Markey (D-Dartmouth), Rady Mom (D-Lowell), David Robertson (D-Tewksbury), Aaron Saunders (D-Belchertown), Jeff Turco (D-Winthrop), and Jonathan Zlotnik (D-Gardner).

Democrats Pat Kearney (D-Scituate) and John Rogers (D-Norwood) were not present.

Take Action: MA Needs Affordable, Accessible, High-Quality Child Care

Massachusetts has the most expensive childcare in the country. But that doesn’t have to be the case. We could have high-quality, accessible, affordable child care and early education.

The $20,913 average annual cost of infant care in Massachusetts is more than half of what a full-time minimum wage worker earns in a year, and more expensive than tuition at our public colleges and universities. With such high costs for just one child, families with multiple children are put in especially dire financial straits.

The system is also not working for early childhood educators, who often don’t receive a living wage, and child care providers, who face high operational costs and unstable funding. And when early childhood educators leave the field or providers close, that makes the system even less affordable and less accessible. We need a multi-faceted solution for a multi-faceted problem.

The Common Start bills would strengthen our commonwealth’s child care and early education infrastructure. They would provide stable funding for providers, ensuring greater access for families and supporting higher pay for educators. They would increase financial assistance to families offset the exorbitant costs of child care and early education.

The Committee held a hearing yesterday on these bills, but it’s not too late for you to submit testimony in support of the Common Start bills.

Can you write to the Education Committee today?

Use our testimony-writing tool here.

Build your own testimony here.