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

“DC Attacks, MA Fights Back: The White House vs. Housing for All” Links & Follow-ups

Thank you so much for joining this evening for our forum “DC Attacks, MA Fights Back: The White House vs. Housing for All”! And thank you again to our amazing speakers! 

If you missed it or wanted to rewatch any of it, the video is available here: https://youtu.be/zGz5C9IUUyY.

Our speakers referenced a few bills at the MA State House: 

Real Estate Transfer Fee (H.3056 / S.1937): An Act granting a local option for a real estate transfer fee to fund affordable housing
Rent Stabilization (H.2328 / S.1447): An Act enabling cities and towns to stabilize rents and protect tenants 
Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (H.1544 / S.998):  An Act to guarantee a tenant’s first right of refusal

Find out if your legislators are already co-sponsoring these bills by looking at our Scorecard website. If they already are, thank them, and if not, urge them to do so. You can find sample email text (as well as more info) for each bill in the links above. 

We also spoke about housing issues in the FY 2026 budget being negotiated right now. Write to your state legislators in support of key budget priorities here.

MA Senate Votes to Restrict Access to Emergency Shelter…Again

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, the first bill passed by the MA Senate this new session was to kick unhoused families out on the streets. 

As explained by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, for over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need.

However, for over a year, Governor Healey and the MA Legislature have been chipping away at the right to shelter in our Commonwealth. The shameful restrictions passed yesterday chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

The Legislature could have listened to experts and providers about how to meet needs while addressing the growing costs of the shelter system. Instead, they chose to restrict access, a strategy that will displace costs rather than reduce them. Shelter restrictions are both harmful and ineffective. It is also clear that the system has a management problem, and that solving that is the only way to responsibly and humanely control costs. Remember: no one wants to end up in emergency shelter, contrary to what some right-wingers say; you only end up in emergency shelter when you have nowhere else.

Following the House’s vote last week, the Senate voted 33 to 6 to pass the bill. As in the House, the only Democrat to vote NO was a conservative Democrat (here, John Velis of Westfield) joining Republicans in opposition to spending, no in opposition to access.

68 amendments were filed:

  • 1 was laid aside
  • 7 received recorded votes (2 adopted, 5 rejected)
  • 11 were withdrawn without vote or debate
  • 11 were adopted without a vote (mostly on data collection and reporting)
  • 38 were rejected without a vote or debate (including numerous amendments to restore access)

The two adopted with recorded votes, both by Sen. Michael Moore (D-Auburn), were both unanimously approved:

  • 38 to 0 to require the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) to study the feasibility of conducting a National Crime Information Center background check for each adult applicant or beneficiary placed in the emergency housing assistance program, including logistics and cost.
  • 38 to 0 to require EOHLC to develop a statewide safety plan for the emergency shelter system

Four out of the five rejected amendments were from Republicans:

  • 8 to 30 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals whose cause of homelessness occurred in Massachusetts, thereby excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Dylan Fernandes (D-Falmouth), and Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 12 to 26 to increase the cost of the system and administrative burden for those seeking emergency shelter, further restricting access, through requiring universal background checks when the bill already contains language to look into what that would entail. The purpose of the amendment was not safety, but demonizing immigrants and the unhoused to advance a right-wing agenda. 7 Democrats joined the 5 Republicans: Mike Brady (D-Brockton), Nick Collins (D-South Boston), Paul Feeney (D-Foxborough), Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford), Michael Moore (D-Auburn), and John Velis (D-Westfield).

  • 6 to 32 to limit emergency shelter access to individuals who have lived in Massachusetts for at least a year, excluding new arrivals and creating additional administrative burden for residents. Nick Collins (D-South Boston) joined the 5 Republicans.

  • 6 to 32 to require an investigation into security lapses in the emergency shelter system, something that would just become an opportunity for fear-mongering and not actual solutions. Michael Moore (D-Auburn) joined the 5 Republicans.

The Senate also voted down (10 to 28) an amendment from Sen. Becca Rausch (D-Needham) to require the inspector to conduct a review and analysis of all contracts, expenditures, and other materials or accountings pertaining to goods or services that have been or should have been provided pursuant to or in connection with the emergency.

The vote was a cross-partisan coalition of the five Republicans, 2 progressive Democrats–Rausch as well as Jamie Eldridge (D-Marlborough), and 3 moderate Democrats–John Keenan (D-Quincy), Edward Kennedy (D-Lowell), and Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford).

MA House Votes Overwhelmingly to Restrict Access to Emergency Shelter…Again

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, the first bill passed by the MA House this new session was to kick unhoused families out on the streets. 

As explained by the Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless, for over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need.

However, for over a year, Governor Healey and the MA Legislature have been chipping away at the right to shelter in our Commonwealth. The shameful restrictions passed yesterday chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

The Legislature could have listened to experts and providers about how to meet needs while addressing the growing costs of the shelter system. Instead, they chose to restrict access, a strategy that will displace costs rather than reduce them. Shelter restrictions are both harmful and ineffective. It is also clear that the system has a management problem, and that solving that is the only way to responsibly and humanely control costs. Remember: no one wants to end up in emergency shelter, contrary to what some right-wingers say; you only end up in emergency shelter when you have nowhere else.

The budget supplemental — which contained a $425 million increase in funding to the system combined with cruel restrictions to access — passed 126 to 26, with all but one Democrat voting yes. All of the chamber’s Republicans and Rep. Colleen Garry (D-Dracut), the most conservative Democrat, voted no — in opposition to the added funds (not in opposition to the restrictions). It’s a sad statement on the values of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

38 amendments were filed. 20 of them were withdrawn without discussion or debate. 9 of the remaining 18 were rejected or laid aside without recorded votes, and another 9 received recorded votes.

The House adopted four amendments:

  • A unanimous vote for an amendment to require a competitive bidding process (Amendment #9, 152 to 0)
  • A unanimous vote for an amendment to improve data collection (Amendment #15, 152 to 0)
  • A unanimous vote to extend hardship waivers to families where a family member has a documented disability (#24, 152 to 0)
  • A mostly party-line vote to extend hardship waivers to families with children under age six (#27, 127 to 25, Garry voting with Rs)

The House rejected several Republican amendments to make the bill even more cruel:

  • Requiring expensive criminal background checks for any applicant, a way of further taxing the shelter system and demonizing the unhoused (Amendment #6, 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Reducing the funding to $200 million (Amendment #8, 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Requiring a 12-month residency requirement (and thereby excluding new arrivals), 26 to 126, Rep. Garry and Rep. Robertson with Rs)
  • Limiting shelter access to families who became homeless because of an event in MA (again, excluding new arrivals or even people who have moved around between MA and neighboring states like RI and NH with high degrees of regional integration) (#18, 25 to 127, Rep. Garry with Rs)

The House also laid aside two Republican amendments to require ICE to be allowed in state shelters, a decision that was upheld by a party line vote to sustain the ruling of the chair each time.

Take Action to Protect Families and Children Experiencing Homelessness

While Republicans in DC are creating havoc and letting white supremacist Big Tech billionaires like Elon Musk dismantle the federal government, what are Democrats in Massachusetts doing? Are they taking steps to protect MA from the barrage of cruelty coming from DC? Are they charting a vision for what progressive governance looks like?

No, they are voting today to kick unhoused families out on the streets.

For over 40 years, the Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter program has provided shelter and services to eligible Massachusetts children and families experiencing homelessness. This program represents a commitment to protect children and families in the greatest need. Since November 2023, new policies from the Governor and Legislature have chipped away at access to shelter.

The House is planning to chip away even more by reducing the length of stay even further, excluding many immigrant families, and increasing the administrative burden to gain access to emergency shelter.

Let’s be clear: if Beacon Hill wants to control the costs of emergency shelter, they should listen to providers and advocates, not the comment section of the Boston Herald.

Here’s what you can do:

1. If you have time to make a phone call to your state rep, phone calls always make the biggest difference. Find your state rep’s phone number here.

2. If you don’t have time for a call, emails are still very important! Use our template here.

Email Your State Rep

Here’s what your legislator should hear from you:

  • The emergency shelter system needs more money. MA is a rich state; “we don’t have the money” is never a valid excuse.
  • But new money should not come with harmful restrictions to access that kick families out on the street.
  • Support critical amendments to the supplemental budget to protect families facing homelessness.

The following amendments are supported by Massachusetts Coalition for the Homeless:

  •   Amendment 38, Rep. Uyterhoeven: removes the proposed 6-month length of stay limit, and removes the proposed cap of 4,000 families in EA shelter
  •   Amendment 32, Rep. Uyterhoeven: protects presumptive eligibility for EA shelter
  •   Amendment 29, Rep. Decker & Amendment 37, Rep. Connolly: removes the proposed cap of 4,000 families in EA shelter
  •   Amendment 23, Rep. Barber: increases the HomeBASE award to $50,000 over 24 months, from $30,000 over 24 months
  •   Amendment 27, Rep. Decker: requires waiver to the length of stay limit for households who have a child under age 13
  •   Amendment 5, Rep. LeBeouf: requires waivers to the length of stay limit for families who have a household member with a documented disability
  •   Amendment 28, Rep. Decker: allow EA families to increase income without losing eligibility for EA shelter

PM in the News: “Spill of the Hill: Healey hears it from both sides”

Mike Deehan, “Spill of the Hill: Healey hears it from both sides,” Axios Boston, January 22, 2025.

“What they’re saying: “Governor Maura Healey is using this moment to sound Trumpian in her approach to emergency shelter,” Progressive Massachusetts policy director Jonathan Cohn wrote in response to Healey’s proposed shelter changes.

He called Healey’s move “straight out of the playbook of the soon-to-be-president and the right-wing Republicans in Congress.””

Take Action: Just Say NO to Attacks on the Right to Shelter

Inauguration Day was rough. We know that we have our work cut out for us over the next four years to protect Massachusetts from Trump’s hateful agenda and to ensure that Massachusetts is a more just and equitable Commonwealth where “all” really does mean “all.”

You’ll hear from us soon about bills that we can advocate for this session to do both (we’ll be announcing our legislative agenda at our annual meeting), but beyond the work of protecting MA and charging forward, there’s one more critical piece: we can’t go backwards.

And going backwards is exactly what Governor Maura Healey is trying to do with new proposed restrictions on emergency shelter access.

Over forty years ago, Massachusetts passed a right to shelter for unhoused families, based on a moral belief that babies and children should not be forced to sleep on the streets.

But over the past year, Governor Healey has been chipping away at this law bit by bit. After making tighter and tighter time limits for emergency shelter, her latest proposals combine new requirements designed to restrict access, limits as short as 30 days, and a Trumpian ban on undocumented immigrants and new arrivals.

As Trump demonizes immigrants and launches an agenda of cutting vital services to give tax cuts to the rich, the last thing that Massachusetts needs to do is tell him “We’re on board.”

Tell your legislator to say NO to Healey’s attacks on emergency shelter access.

Statement from Progressive Massachusetts on Governor Healey’s Proposed Restrictions on Emergency Shelter

Fearful of what will happen on the federal level over the next four years, the residents of the Commonwealth are looking for state leadership. Unfortunately, Governor Maura Healey is using this moment to sound Trumpian in her approach to emergency shelter. Her proposed restrictions on shelter, especially a ban on undocumented residents from access, are straight out of the playbook of the soon-to-be-president and the right-wing Republicans in Congress. 

Beacon Hill rejected some of the most extreme limits on emergency shelter last year when Republicans in the House and Senate pushed for them last year. We urge them to do so again. 

The emergency shelter crisis is a result of our housing crisis. New affordable apartments will not magically appear after six months, as long as we face rapidly growing rents, limited housing production, insufficient state investment, and high up-front costs for new rentals. The state needs to tackle these issues and listen to experts and providers to achieve the goal of safe, affordable housing for everyone, not search for quick fixes that will only lead to higher costs elsewhere and push mothers with babies onto the streets. The people of Massachusetts expect better.

Maura Healey to Struggling Families: There’s No Room at the Inn

Forty-one years ago, Massachusetts enacted the first-in-the-nation “right-to-shelter” law, guaranteeing all homeless families with children and pregnant women access to temporary housing and other emergency services.

However, over the past year, Governor Maura Healey and our State Legislature have been chipping away at this critical guarantee. Just last month, the MA Governor’s Office announced policy changes that further dismantle the state’s emergency shelter system for all families by creating a two-track system, with some families being sent to barracks-style respite centers capped at 30 days and other families being capped at six months.

Let’s be clear: with our rapidly growing rents, weak tenant protections, and exclusionary zoning policies across the state, affordable housing opportunities do not magically appear after six monthsjust because the state wants to wash its hands of any responsibility to care for our residents. Kicking families out of shelter during the coldest months of the year is especially obscene.

Write to Governor Healey and your state legislators about why we need to end these cruel new shelter policies and uphold our status as a right to shelter state.

Recently, a group of local elected officials from across the Commonwealth sent a sign-on letter to Governor Healey urging her to end these harmful restrictions. Can you also ask any local elected officials you know (your City Councilor, your Select Board Member, your School Committee Members, etc.) to join them? In solidarity,

PM in the News: “Playing the Trump Card on Shelter Limits”

Kelly Garrity, “Playing the Trump Card on Shelter Limits,” Politico, November 25, 2024.

“Next year, as Trump is president, some of the imagery around the state kicking out families — that happening under a Trump presidency will definitely increase a certain emotional reaction,” Jonathan Cohn, the policy director at Progressive Massachusetts, told Playbook.

In an interview on MSNBC shortly after the election, Healey said that Massachusetts State Police would “absolutely not” assist if asked by Trump’s administration to help execute mass deportations. That, Cohn said, is “a clear disconnect” from the message her office is sending at home.