Letter: Grafton Needs the Affordable Homes Act

Dan Cusher, “Grafton Needs the Affordable Homes Act (Letter),” Grafton News, March 14, 2024.

Grafton, along with every community in the Commonwealth, has a housing crisis. Typical rent for a 2-bedroom apartment in Grafton is $1,500, requiring an income around $70,000, more than twice the minimum wage at 40 hours per week. Home ownership has become increasingly out of reach, with Grafton’s 2024 median single-family home value rising to $596,235, and new construction in town prioritizing luxury McMansions. Seniors who raised their families here can’t afford to stay. Young people who grew up here can’t afford to come back. The Legislature needs to take action before the crisis gets worse.

I’m glad that Governor Healey has responded to this crisis by introducing the Affordable Homes Act, which combines funding authorizations for various housing programs with important new policy measures for affordable housing. One of the most exciting proposals for Grafton is the real estate transfer fee local option.

This would enable cities and towns to levy a small fee on large real estate transactions in order to create a dedicated revenue stream for affordable housing production and preservation. Cities and towns across the state have already expressed a desire to do so, and the state should let them and ensure that the local option is flexible enough for cities and towns across the state to benefit.

I am grateful that the housing crisis will be at the center of the Legislature’s attention this year, and I hope that Senator Moore and Representative Muradian will advocate for the strongest legislation possible.

PM in the News: The Governor and Transparency

Matt Stout, “‘My personal life is my personal life.’ Healey defends decision not to disclose details of four-day trip.,” Boston Globe, March 18, 2024.

Jonathan Cohn, policy director of the group Progressive Massachusetts, said while Healey shouldn’t be expected to disclose what hotel she’s staying in or other intimate details, “you should be at least willing to tell people where you went.”

“It’s a sense of accountability to the public,” Cohn said. The public “should be able to know when you’re gone for a period of time without it being somehow shrouded in mystery.”

Kelly Garrity and Lisa Kashinsky, “A Controversy of Healey’s Own Making,” Politico, March 19, 2024.

Progressive Massachusetts’ Jonathan Cohn said that while residents “don’t need to know the full itinerary of a private vacation,” it’s better to hear about it from the governor herself “than to only learn of her absence because another official is ‘acting’ governor for a few days.”

Universal School Meals: Good Politics and Good Policy

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, schools were able to offer meals to all students at no charge through the pandemic-related child nutrition waivers offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

Massachusetts chose to extend it and then last year voted to make it permanent, using funding from the Fair Share Amendment.

A new report by the Food Research and Action Center highlights the positive impacts of universal school meals. As the report notes, the research is clear: participation in school meals improves academic achievement, attendance, and student behavior at school; decreases childhood food insecurity; leads to children eating more fruits, vegetables, and milk; and reduces visits to the school nurse.

As the chart below shows, breakfast participation in Massachusetts went up by 25% from 2018-2019 numbers, and lunch participation went up by 16% from 2018-2019 numbers.

We will continue to see these benefits from universal school meals — a reminder that they are both good politics and good policy.

Say No to Uber and Lyft’s Power Grab

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Chair Friedman, Chair Peisch, and Members of the Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions:

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 would like to submit testimony to go on record in opposition to

  • Initiative Petition No. 23-25, H4256, An Act defining and regulating the relationship between network companies and app-based drivers for purposes of the General and Special Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-29, H4257, An Act establishing that app-based drivers are not employees, and network companies are not employers, for certain purposes of the General Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-30, H4258, An Act defining and regulating the relationship between network companies and app-based drivers for certain purposes of the General Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-31, H4259, An Act establishing that app-based drivers are not employees, and network companies are not employers, for certain purposes of the General Laws,
  • Initiative Petition No. 23-32, H4260 An Act Establishing that App-Based Drivers Are Not Employees, and Network Companies Are Not Employers, for Certain Purposes of the General Laws.

Massachusetts has very clear standards for determining independent contractor standards (the “ABC test”), and Big Tech companies like Uber and Lyft have been in flagrant violation of them.

As a reminder, those three parts are (1) that the work is done without the direction and control of the employer, (2) that the work is performed outside the usual course of the employer’s business, and (3) that the work is done by someone who has their own, independent business or trade doing that kind of work. None of these apply to gig economy work. For example, there would be no Uber and Lyft without their drivers; the claim that their companies are merely an app is a clear fallacy intended to evade the law.

Knowing that they are in violation of the law, these companies want to change it, rather than adhere to it. They are planning to spend possibly hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure that the law does not apply to them and that they, themselves, can rewrite it in order to bolster their own profits and power over workers. Indeed, they have already spent $6.6 million, most of that on signature collection for the five different versions they are putting forth. They apparently have the money to go all-out for this question but not, as they would have you believe, enough to do right by their workers.

These measures would deny app-based gig workers a living wage, benefits, legal rights, and anti-discrimination protections. The impact of these laws extends beyond just the gig economy sector itself. The ability to define away terms like “employee” and “independent contractor” sets a dangerous precedent, enabling companies across sectors to gut labor rights. Will we see restaurants claiming that the “restaurant” is only the physical building and physical infrastructure, relegating all employees to independent contractor status? Or hospitals claiming that the “hospital” is just the brick-and-mortar building, rather than the doctors, nurses, aides, and other health care workers that make it run? The list goes on.

That is not the future we want to live in, and we hope it is not one you want to live in either.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts