It’s Time to Make Polluters Pay

Tuesday, September 2, 2025

Chair Rausch, Chair Barber, and Members of the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources:

My name is Jonathan Cohn, and I’m the policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy organization fighting for a more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic Commonwealth.

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1014 / S.588: An Act establishing a climate change superfund (“Make Polluters Pay”), filed by Sen. Jamie Eldridge and Reps. Steve Owens and Jack Lewis.

Massachusetts is already facing the impacts of climate change, and it will only get worse. The increased incidence of storms will damage coastlines and increase inland flooding: the state has projected that inland property damage due to climate change will increase by almost 50% by mid-century, with a disproportionate impact on low-income communities. Additional rail repair costs from extreme temperatures could reach $6 million per year by 2050 and a striking $35 million by the end of the century, and repair costs for electric transmission and utility distribution infrastructure alone are projected to increase by almost $100 million by 2050, with power outages disproportionately impacting low-income communities again. Not to mention the impact on human health and lives.  [1]

Meanwhile, major fossil fuel companies are seeing record profits. The very companies who lied to the public for decades about climate change are benefiting while all of us, especially the most vulnerable, bear the cost.

We already have a successful model for addressing these situations of public damages, private profits: the “polluter pays” principle. This principle is employed in all of the major US pollution control laws: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (solid waste and hazardous waste management), and Superfund (cleanup of abandoned waste sites).

This bill would extend that proven principle to the climate crisis by establishing a climate change adaptation cost recovery program. It would require companies that have contributed significantly to the buildup of climate-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to bear a share of the costs of needed infrastructure investment, based on their historic emissions.

This bill would raise significant revenue from the 20 largest polluting companies to provide funding for climate resiliency efforts such as restoring coastal wetlands; upgrading roads, bridges, subways, and transit systems; preparing for and recovering from hurricanes and other extreme weather events; installing energy efficient cooling systems; upgrading the electrical grid; and expanding green spaces and urban forestry. This revenue is especially critical as we see the federal government pull back from any action on climate change and indeed try to sabotage the action that is happening.

This year has been chaotic for our commonwealth and for our municipalities. Federal grants for climate action and environmental justice are being cut unilaterally by the Trump administration, with the Republicans in Congress serving backup where needed. We have a lot of work to do, and that work outstrips existing resource. Many cities and towns want to advance bold action but are constrained by limitations on raising revenue.

Your constituents want to see what MA is going to do to respond to this chaos and regression from the Trump administration. This bill is one such example of what we can do.

This bill doesn’t just raise needed revenue. It also understands that our sustainability transition must be a just one, with key provisions to ensure that sufficient funds go to environmental justice populations and that the funding goes to the creation of good-paying jobs.

Massachusetts has taken important steps toward climate mitigation in recent sessions and we must continue to do so to meet our state’s climate goals, but we also need to address the climate crisis that is already hitting communities. This bill shows a way forward.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

[1]  Gloninger, Chris and Asher Klein. “When a Major Hurricane Hits New England, the Costs Will Be Huge.” NBC News. July 25, 2019. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/catastrophic-hurricane-new-england-modeling/92234/; Zhao, Bo. The Effects of Weather on Massachusetts Municipal Expenditures: Implications of Climate Change for Local Governments in New England. Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2023; 2022 Massachusetts Climate Change Assessment. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2022. https://www.mass.gov/doc/2022-massachusetts-climate-change-assessment-december-2022-volume-i-executive-summary/download.

“Why should renters not have the same predictability? “

Chair Lewis, Chair Rausch, and Members of the Joint Committee: 

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 a favorable report for S.1447: An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants.

Massachusetts has a lot to offer, but that does little if people can’t afford to live here. The US News & World Report’s annual state rankings put Massachusetts at #47 in affordability. A worker earning minimum wage in Massachusetts would have to work 101 hours a week to afford a modest one-bedroom rental home at market rate. [2] 

Clearly, Massachusetts has an affordable housing crisis. This is unsustainable. It has led to expanding economic inequality, increased homelessness, and damage to our economy, as talented workers often leave the state for less expensive regions. Too many of us know stories of friends, family members, or neighbors being priced out of neighborhood then city then state. 

The crisis in outmigration we face is not billionaires moving to Florida. It is of working people not able to afford the cost of living here. 

Solving this affordable housing crisis will require us to use every tool in the toolbox. That requires zoning reform that encourages the creation of walkable, sustainable, and inclusive communities. It requires public investment. And it requires strengthening tenant protections that ensure that communities can remain affordable, inclusive, and stable.

However, municipalities across Massachusetts are blocked from taking the necessary steps to address the housing crisis. The misguided statewide ban on rent stabilization policies and a stringent home rule system that prevents municipalities from passing their own laws to govern the basic aspects of civil affairs hamstring municipalities.

By enabling our cities and towns to pass rent control ordinances tailored to their local needs, we can stem the displacement that is hitting so many communities.

We cannot build our way out of the crisis alone because the people at the highest risk for displacement will already be pushed out before they can benefit from any medium to long-term reduction in rents.

Rent control is about offering price stability to renters. We know what price stability looks like. It’s what homeowners with mortgages are given. Why should renters not have the same predictability? 

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Collective Testimony: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Environmental Bond Bill

Link to testimony here

July 29, 2025
Senator Becca Rausch, Co-Chair
Representative Christine Barber, Co-Chair
Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
State House Room 215
Boston, MA 02133
Re: Zero Carbon Renovation Funding in the Environmental Bond Bill


Dear Chair Rausch, Chair Barber, and Members of the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony concerning the Mass Ready Act. Our Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition is supportive of this bill and believes it can be strengthened by including additional decarbonization funding for frontline communities. Luckily, H.3577/S.2286, An Act establishing a Zero Carbon Renovation Fund, sponsored by Senator Gomez and Representatives Vargas and Cruz, would do just that.

The Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition has over 200 member organizations representing 80,000 units of affordable housing, and working at the intersection of housing, health, community, and climate. We are united in the idea that equitable building decarbonization is critical for the health, wealth, and safety of our communities long-term.

Decarbonization involves improving a building’s envelope, transitioning it to clean energy sources, adding on-site power generation, and using less energy-intensive building materials. These practices make buildings more resilient in the face of floods, heat waves, and other extreme weather events, while mitigating climate change.

The state has started to invest in decarbonization for affordable housing and other priority sectors through programs at DOER, HLC, and Mass Save. Current and expected decarbonization sources for MA’s affordable housing sector total approximately $500M. But this is not enough.

The cost to decarbonize affordable housing units is currently tracking between $50K-$150K more per unit than a business-as-usual retrofit. Scaled up to over 200,000 units of multifamily affordable housing in MA translates to at least $10B-$30B of investment that will be needed for the affordable housing sector alone to meet our state’s climate goals by 2050.

The inclusion of H.3577/S.2286 will provide funding to catalyze an equitable transition to a clean energy future that simultaneously advances climate resiliency and improves physical and financial security for frontline communities. It will prioritize Environmental Justice communities, Gateway Cities, low-and moderate-income housing, municipal buildings, and minority-and women-owned businesses. As existing buildings in Massachusetts contribute nearly one third of all carbon emissions, a focus on making this clean energy transition is essential if we are to create a sustainable and resilient future for
our children. While H.3577/S.2286 allocates $300 million in funding for these retrofits, we believe that $50 million would be an adequate investment to start this crucial work.

We encourage you to include this language in the version of the Environmental Bond Bill that this Committee reports, so we can move a step closer to the clean and resilient energy future our communities and neighbors deserve. If you have questions, feel free to reach out to ZCRF Committee Chair Emily Jones at ejones@lisc.org. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.


Sincerely,
The Zero Carbon Renovation Fund Coalition Members:
● 2Life Communities
● 350 Mass Berkshires
● 350 Central Mass
● 350 Mass
● Abacus Architects
● Abode Energy Management
● Acadia Center
● ACEDONE
● Action for Equity
● Acton Climate Coalition
● AIA Massachusetts
● Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT)
● Allston Brighton Community
Development Corporation
● Allume Energy
● Alternatives for Community and
Environment (ACE)
● Andover Working to Educate Climate
Action Now (WECAN)
● Anti-Racism & Earth Ministry Teams of
First Church Amherst, UCC
● Asian American Civic Association
● Asian Community Development
Corporation (ACDC)
● AURORA Architects + Builders Co.
● B’nai B’rith Housing
● Beacon Climate Innovations
● Beacon Communities
● Berkshire Environmental Action Team
● Birchwood Sustainable Development
● BlocPower
● BlueHub Capital
Page 3 of 5
● Boston Catholic Climate Movement
● Boston Center for Independent Living
● Boston Climate Action Network (BCAN)
● Boston Housing Authority
● Boston Impact Initiative
● Boston Metal
● Breathe Clean North Shore
● Bright Power
● Brookhaven Residents Climate Change
Committee
● Brookline Community Development
Corporation
● Browning the Green Space (BGS)
● Building A Better Wellesley
● Building Electrification Accelerator
(BEA)
● Building Evolution Corporation
● Built Environment Plus (BE+)
● Byggmeister Design Build
● Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA)
● Capstone Communities LLC
● Cascap Inc.
● Castle Square Tenants Organization
● Center for EcoTechnology
● Chatham Climate Action Network
● Citizens’ Climate Lobby – Boston Metro
West
● Citizens’ Housing and Planning
Association (CHAPA)
● Clean Energy Group (CEG)
● Clean Water Action
● Climate Action Now, Western Mass
(CAN)
● Climate Code Blue
● Coalition for a Better Acre
● Codman Square NDC
● Commonwealth Community
Developers, LLC
● Community Action Agency of
Somerville, Inc. (CAAS)
● Community Action Works Campaigns
● Community Economic Development
Center of Southeastern Massachusetts
(CEDC)
● Community Square Associates
● Conservation Law Foundation (CLF)
● Construct
● Dorchester Bay Economic Development
Corporation
● East Boston CDC (EBCDC)
● Eisenberg Consulting LLC
● Elders Climate Action Mass.
● Embue
● Emerald Cities Collaborative
● Energy Allies
● enviENERGY Studio
● Environmental League of
Massachusetts (ELM)
● Fairmount Indigo CDC Collaborative
● Fenway CDC
● Franklin County CDC
● Grand Banks Building Products
● Greater Boston Physicians for Social
Responsibility
● Greater Springfield Habitat for
Humanity
● GreenerU
● Greening Greenfield
● Green Energy Consumers Alliance
● Green Newton
● GreenRoots
● Greenvest
● HallKeen Management
● Harborlight Homes
● Hargidon Architecture + Design
● Hebrew SeniorLife
● Health Resources in Action (HRiA)
● Hilltown CDC
● Home City Development, Inc.
● Housing Corporation of Arlington
● Housing Assistance Corporation (HAC)
● Housing Greenfield
● Housing Nantucket
Page 4 of 5
● Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc. (HRI)
● ICON Architecture
● Indivisible Acton Area
● Inquilinos Boricuas en Acción (IBA
Boston)
● Island Housing Trust
● Jamaica Plain Neighborhood
Development Corporation
● Jewish Alliance for Law and Social
Action
● Jewish Climate Action Network
● Jonathan Rose Companies
● Jones Whitsett Architects (JWA)
● Just A Start
● Kim Lundgren Associates, Inc.
● Latino Support Network (LSN)
● Lawrence CommunityWorks
● League of Conservation Voters
● LEAN Green Building, Inc.
● Lexington Climate Action Network
● LivableStreets Alliance (LSA)
● Local Initiatives Support Corporation
(LISC) Massachusetts
● Longmeadow Pipeline Awareness
Group
● Madison Park Development
Corporation (MPDC)
● Main South CDC
● Maloney Properties, Inc.
● Massachusetts Affordable
Homeownership Alliance (MAHA)
● Massachusetts Association of
Community Development Corporations
(MACDC)
● Massachusetts Association of Housing
Cooperatives
● Massachusetts Climate Action Network
(MCAN)
● Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light
● Mass Power Forward Coalition (MPF)
● Mass Renews Alliance
● Massachusetts Sierra Club
● Metropolitan Area Planning Council
(MAPC)
● Metro West Collaborative Development
● Montague Housing Authority
● Mothers Out Front Massachusetts
● Munkenbeck Consulting
● Mystic River Watershed Association
● Nectar Community Investments
● Neighborhood of Affordable Housing
(NOAH)
● Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts
(N2N)
● NeighborWorks Housing Solutions
● New Ecology, Inc.
● NewVue Communities
● No Fracked Gas in Mass
● No Pipeline Westborough
● North Shore CDC (NSCDC)
● Northeast Clean Energy Council (NECEC)
● Northeast Sustainable Energy
Association
● Nuestra Comunidad Development
Corporation
● Onion Flats Architecture
● Our Climate
● Passive House Massachusetts
● The Property & Casualty Initiative (PCI)
● Peabody Properties
● Petersen Engineering, Inc.
● Pine Street Inn
● Placetailor Co-op LLC
● Planning Office for Urban Affairs
(POUA)
● PowerOptions
● Preservation of Affordable Housing
(POAH)
● Progressive Democrats of
Massachusetts
● Progressive Mass
● Public Health Institute of Western
Massachusetts
● Quincy Geneva New Vision CDC (QGNV)
Page 5 of 5
● R.W. Kern Center at Hampshire College
● RCC Center for Smart Building
Technology
● Rethinking Power Management (RPM)
● Resonant Energy
● Revitalize Community Development
Corporation
● RMI
● Slipstream
● Somerville Community Corporation
● South Boston Neighborhood
Development Corporation (SBNDC)
● Southwest Boston CDC
● Sparhawk Group
● St. Francis House
● Stanton Home
● Steven Winter Associates, Inc. (SWA)
● Steveworks LLC
● Sustainable Comfort, Inc
● Sustainable Wellesley
● The Caleb Group
● The Community Builders (TCB)
● The Green Engineer, Inc.
● The Neighborhood Developers (TND)
● The Passive House Network
● The Schochet Companies
● Town of Hudson Conservation
Commission
● TSK Energy Solutions LLC
● UHM Properties
● UU Mass Action
● U.S. Green Building Council
● UndauntedK12
● Urban Edge
● Valley CDC
● Vermont Energy Investment
Corporation (VEIC)
● Veterans Benefits Clearinghouse
Development Corporation (VBCDC)
● Vietnamese American Initiative for
Development, Inc. (VietAID)
● Vote Solar
● Waterfront Historic Area League
(WHALE)
● Way Finders
● Western Massachusetts Dayenu Circle
● WinnCompanies
● Worcester Common Ground (WCG)
● Worcester Congregations for Climate
and Environmental Justice
● Worcester HEART Partnership
● Worcester Housing Authority
● ZeroCarbonMA

Protecting the Freedom to Read

Chair Garballey, Chair Mark, and Members of the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, and the Arts: 

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.2328 and H.3594: An Act Regarding Free Expression, filed by Senator Julian Cyr and Representative John Moran.

Over the past few years, we have seen attacks on schools and libraries across the country aimed at removing books by and about LGBTQ people, communities of color, and other marginalized groups. Much of this has been driven by well-funded, well-organized national conservative groups, now unfortunately urged on by the White House. 

Many people would like to think that Massachusetts is different, but we are not. According to the American Library Association, in 2022 there were at least 45 attempts to restrict access to books in Massachusetts school and public libraries, with 57 titles challenged. This puts us among the top 5 states with the highest book ban attempts.

Students learn best when they see themselves and the issues that impact them reflected in their education. Education should be about opening up students to the world and to themselves, and that requires a focus on inclusivity and equity. And it means not seeking to exclude parts of history or identity.

Beyond being simply a moral issue, this is a constitutional issue. The First Amendment protects the right to share ideas, including educators’ and students’ right to receive and exchange information and knowledge. These bills would ensure that selection of age-appropriate library materials is based on the professional expertise of librarians and educators, and would establish a process and standards for handling book challenges so that books are not taken off the shelves based on political or personal views.

At a time when education is under attack from a hostile federal administration, and the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion are under attack, Massachusetts should be clear about our values and join other states like Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island in pushing back against book banning. 

Thank you for all your work on the hearing, and, again, we urge you to swiftly advance these important bills.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony in Support of Language Access and Utility Accountability

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Chair Cabral, Chair Collins, and Members of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight:

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

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3384 / S.2125 (An Act Relative to Language Access and Inclusion) and H.3400 (An Act prohibiting the use of ratepayer funds for utility lobbying, promotions, or perks).

H.3384/S.2125: Language Access and Inclusion Act

Massachusetts is home to a vibrant immigrant community. One in six Massachusetts residents is an immigrant, while one in seven residents is a native-born US citizen with at least one immigrant parent.

Massachusetts, correspondingly, is home to great linguistic diversity: more than 1 out of 4 residents report speaking a language other than English at home, with the most common languages being Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Russian. However, as the pandemic demonstrated, our state agencies and departments have a patchwork of different policies around language accessibility, and there is no current statute to ensure that non-English speaking residents have a fair and equitable opportunity to obtain an education, apply for benefits, receive housing assistance, or represent themselves in court.

The Language Access and Inclusion Act would help our Commonwealth better meet the needs of all residents by standardizing and enforcing language access protocols and practices at public-facing state agencies. Everyone should be able to interact with and seek help from their own government, no matter what language they speak.

H.3400: Utility Accountability

Our public utilities are supposed to serve and be regulated in service of the public interest; however, gas and electric utilities are regularly using money they collect from customers’ bills to fund their lobbying, advertising, and trade association dues. Customers have no say in such decisions, and such spending can often be directly in contradiction of the public interest. Voters across the Commonwealth want strong environmental laws and robust and equitable climate legislation, and we should not be coerced into funding opposition campaigns simply because of the need to have light, heat, and electricity in our homes.

Similarly, utilities are using customer ratepayer money to subsidize the lavish expenses of their Boards of Directors—at the same time as they are raising prices.

It’s quite simple: If utilities have so much money to spend on lobbying, ads, and perks, they are charging customers too much money and investing too little in the transition to clean, green energy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony: MA Needs Debt-Free Higher Ed

Friday, July 18, 2025

Char Comerford, Chair Rogers, and Members of the Joint Committee on Higher Education:

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

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1436/S.929: An Act relative to debt-free public higher education.

Because of the transformative new revenue from the Fair Share Amendment, Massachusetts recently took a major step forward by making community college free. But we need to ensure that students can graduate from any of our public colleges and universities without debt.

Our public colleges and universities are engines of economic opportunity. Studies reliably show that a postsecondary degree provides a proven premium in lifetime wages for graduates, and has become a commonplace requirement for a wide range of job types. But for too many of our high school graduates, the cost of attending college is prohibitive.

That’s because the cost students face is not just that borne by students during their years in school, but the costs years after through accrued debt. By preventing young people from living independently, buying a home, or pursuing their career of choice, student debt is a drag on our economy. Even when students drop out due to cost, they can be saddled with debt for years after, and have a much more difficult time finding jobs.

The United States stands out compared to other countries in how expensive it is to attend college, and the costs have grown exponentially in recent decades, outpacing other economic indicators. It is often shocking to hear people talk about how cheap college used to be several decades ago, while many students today are forced to work multiple jobs to make ends meet.

Let’s do right by our students and right by the future of the Commonwealth by embracing debt-free public higher education.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

MA Can and Must Do More to Protect and Expand Workers’ Rights

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Chair Oliveira, Chair McMurtry, and Members of the Joint committee on Labor and Workforce Development:

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

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.1311/H.2078: An Act uplifting families and securing the right to strike for certain public employees and S.1327/H.2086: An Act protecting labor and abolishing barriers to organizing rights. These bills would protect and expand rights for workers in the Commonwealth.

Unions and working-class people are under attack from the federal government, as President Donald Trump and his oligarchic pals in Big Tech and Big Finance seek to unravel decades of labor, civil rights, consumer, and environmental protections to enrich themselves further.  

Massachusetts should voice a loud and clear NO to that agenda and do that by strengthening and protecting the rights we have in this state.

First, a word on strengthening. The right to strike is a critical labor right that ensures that workplace negotiations happen in good faith. But this right is not sufficiently protected or respected in Massachusetts because public sector workers lack that right.

To be clear, banning strikes does not mean that strikes do not happen. We have seen many such examples across the Commonwealth in recent years. The ban means unreasonable penalties and fines, not the lack of strikes. A right to strike, by contrast, treats a strike as what it should be: an available tool for workers to use if negotiations occur in bad faith and a mechanism for structuring the timeline of negotiations to encourage both parties to come to an agreement. The current situation tips the scales against workers; restoring this right would create a level playing field.

Moreover, current law is worse than just penalizing strikes. Current law penalizes even talking about strikes, a gross violation of the First Amendment. This legislation would end that.

But, as noted earlier, as we expand labor rights, we also need to ensure that the rights that exist are protected. The Protect LABOR Act would ensure that labor protections continue to exist in Massachusetts even if Trump and his corporate buddies eliminate them at the federal level.

Trump and his Cabinet of Project 2025 authors has made clear that they want to eviscerate the National Labor Relations Act, under which private sector labor rights are established. Decades of labor protections could disappear if they succeed.

This bill offers a necessary bulwark against that by ensuring measures like Department of Labor Relations certification of pre-existing federally recognized unions; a presumption of employee status to ensure all workers, regardless of industry, have guaranteed access to wage, hour, and benefits protections; a ban on captive audience meetings; protection right anti-union “right to work” laws; and more.

Massachusetts has had a great track record of strengthening labor rights, especially when they are under attack federally. Let’s continue that legacy.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

MA Needs Strong Protections against Facial Surveillance

Tuesday, July 15, 2025

Chair Edwards, Chair Day, and Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:

I am submitting testimony today on behalf of Progressive Massachusetts. We are a statewide, member-based grassroots advocacy group fighting for a Massachusetts that is more equitable, just, sustainable, and democratic.

We are appreciative of the work that the Legislature did back in 2020 in passing police accountability legislation. But there is more work to be done, including stronger regulations around the use of facial recognition technology. In that light, we urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053: An Act to implement the recommendations of the special commission on facial recognition technology.

After passing limited regulations for facial recognition technology in 2020 (due to opposition to stronger regulations from Governor Baker), the Legislature created a special commission to study and recommend a regulatory framework. That commission, made up of diverse stakeholders, met, held hearings, and researched and discussed the issue. And that commission—including the AGO, the State Police, the NAACP, the ACLU, and CPCS (among others)—agreed on a set of recommendations, reflected in this bill.

From past debates, I expect that you are familiar with the myriad problems posed by facial surveillance, with regard to both use (e.g., its track record of inaccuracy, especially in distinguishing between Black and Brown individuals—and the dangers that poses) and its susceptibility to abuse (e.g., the ease with which officers could take advantage of data for personal reasons having no relation to public safety). 

The provision of this bill help to address those problems by doing the following:

  • Requiring a warrant in order for police to conduct a facial recognition search—a necessary guardrail to protect privacy rights
  • Centralizing the use of facial recognition at the State Police in order to curb the potential for misuse, abuse, and wrongful arrests
  • Ensuring due process protections around the use of facial recognition technology in court cases
  • Prohibiting mass surveillance and emotion analysis in order to forestall the dystopian futures already happening in places like Russia and China

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.1946 and S.1053. When the Legislature creates a commission to do the hard work of studying an issue, and that commission puts forth reasoned recommendations, it should be incumbent upon the Legislature to advance them.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

Testimony in Support of Road to Opportunity Act

July 8, 2025

Chair Crighton, Chair Arciero, and Honorable Members of the Joint Committee on Transportation:

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

We urge you to give a favorable report to H.3662 and S.2368, An Act to increase opportunity by ending debt-based driving restrictions, also referred to as the Road to Opportunity Act. This bill would end debt-based driving restrictions that irrationally punish people who can’t pay outstanding fines and fees.

Being poor in the United States is expensive, and debt-based driving restrictions are but one of many examples. When someone’s license is suspended because they are unable to afford to pay off their fines and fees, they are placed in an impossible situation. If they stop driving, they might lose access to job opportunities that they need to pay the fine. If they continue driving, then they risk further punishment. Driving on a suspended license is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts; it can result in a jail sentence or immigration consequences, an extended period of license suspension, and even more fines. A second offense carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 60 days’ incarceration. On top of all of this is the lasting harm done by having a criminal record, which can become a roadblock to housing and job opportunities for years to come.

The status quo exacerbates racial inequalities. Because communities of color are over-policed and disproportionately targeted for enforcement of minor infractions and crimes, research shows that they also disproportionately experience debt-based license suspensions.

Not being able to pay a fine does not make someone a reckless driver. The bill leaves in place license suspensions for unsafe driving, where a public safety interest exists. But no one is made safer by criminalizing poverty.

License suspensions for unpaid debts do not work as a pressure tactic and don’t succeed at bringing in revenue, and it’s no surprise why: if someone doesn’t have to pay the money for the fine, increased punishments won’t make that money magically appear. The only thing that such punishment manifests is more harm and lost opportunity.

Over half of states across the country—red, blue, and purple—have passed legislation to eliminate or significantly curb debt-based license suspensions. We urge you to add Massachusetts to this growing list of states by voting H.3662 and S.2368 out of committee favorably and supporting its prompt passage.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts

New Tools in the Toolbox Required for the Housing Crisis

Wednesday, June 24, 2025

Chair Cyr, Chair Haggerty, and Members of the Joint Committee on Housing:

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

We urge you to give a favorable report to S.971: An Act reforming the housing development incentive program and H.1478: An Act advancing the Massachusetts social housing program. Both of these bills would help spur the development of the mixed-income housing that our Commonwealth desperately needs.

Last session, your chambers voted to increase funding for the Housing Development Incentive Program (HDIP), which provides subsidies for new development in gateway cities. Although our gateway cities can benefit from housing production, this program too often ends ups subsidizing units with shockingly high rents in hot markets in little need of the “carrot” of tax incentives.

Zoning reforms are necessary to encourage transit-oriented development in all communities and to encourage the construction of more multifamily housing and fewer McMansion single-family homes. However, housing advocates are routinely told that there is not enough money for subsidies for low-income housing, affordable housing, and public housing while the state provides greater subsidies to high-end units.

This weekend, the Boston Globe reported on the freeze on housing vouchers in the Commonwealth due to increasing rents and funding uncertainties. Why are subsidies for high-end housing flowing when vouchers are being frozen?

The HDIP program would benefit from reforms to ensure that it does produce affordable units. S.971 would do just that, turning HDIP into a program to support mixed-income development and recognizing that we need more housing at all income levels.

Social housing has been a proven model for building mixed-income housing, combining the benefits of traditional public housing with the cash flow of market-rate development. This recognizes the public interest in building housing for a wide range of incomes, and buildings can often be designed to be 1/3 low-income, 1/3 middle-income, and 1/3 higher-income.

When thinking of the type of housing H.1478 would create, I think of my neighbors in Tent City, a mixed-income building in the South End that was the result of years of activism by Mel King and housing justice activists. It remains a thriving community, and our Commonwealth would benefit from more like it.

Dedicated funding for social housing would help our Commonwealth reach our overall housing production goals as well meet the increase in affordable housing needed to meet demand. The issue has been gaining momentum in recent years, and your chambers included some money for a pilot program in the Affordable Homes Act. But we must do more. Our housing crisis demands an “every tool in the toolbox” approach, and this is an essential tool.

We also urge you to reject legislation that would weaken new tools embraced by the Commonwealth. To give one example, the Accessory Dwelling Unit language in the Affordable Homes Act was an important win, and S.1002 (An Act relative to accessory dwelling units on smaller lots) would undermine that. We urge you to give it an adverse report.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Cohn

Policy Director

Progressive Massachusetts