Massachusetts is facing a housing crisis, and the clock is ticking. The state needs to build by 2035 to meet demand, according to Gov. Maura Healey鈥檚 office.
鈥淎nd those homes have to be affordable to households at all income levels. It鈥檚 not enough to build 222,000 McMansions,鈥� said Matt Noyes, the director of state and federal advocacy at Citizens鈥� Housing and Planning Association, or CHAPA. 鈥淲e need homes that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households, and homes that are affordable to extremely low-income households.鈥�
The housing shortage and the economy are linked. , and employers are struggling to fill open roles, multiple advocates and South Coast lawmakers told The Light.
Recognizing this, the House and Senate included several housing-related measures in their respective economic development bills, passed in July. A House-Senate conference committee is now negotiating over which measures will be included in the final bill.
But even if the two chambers agree to adopt each others鈥� ideas, advocates and lawmakers agree there鈥檚 more work to do to promote housing growth next year.
Yes in God鈥檚 Backyard
The so-called Yes in God鈥檚 Backyard, or YIGBY, section of the would allow faith-based organizations to build multifamily housing on up to four acres of land they already own without local approval.
Developments could be up to 30 units per acre 鈥� 20% of which must be income-restricted 鈥� or even denser if more units are set aside at affordable rates. The buildings could be up to 45 feet in height, or even taller if local zoning laws allow.
The YIGBY provision stems from multiple bills that were before the Legislature this session but did not pass as standalone legislation. have passed YIGBY laws.
An by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and The Lynch Foundation identified nearly 5,000 developable parcels in Massachusetts owned by religious institutions, totaling over 20,000 acres. That land could support over 60,000 new homes, the study found.
If half of these parcels are developed, they will generate an additional $60 million in annual tax revenue, Lynch Foundation鈥檚 executive director Katie Everett said in a on the standalone bill in September 2025. Religiously owned land is exempt from property taxes, but housing developed on that land would be taxable.
In a written statement, New Bedford鈥檚 public information officer Jonathan Darling told The Light that city officials in the planning and housing departments 鈥渄on鈥檛 see anything coming鈥� of the YIGBY provision in New Bedford. He did not address a question about how much land in New Bedford is owned by religious institutions.
A developer is seeking to at 91 Summer St. into 44 condos. According to New Bedford鈥檚 , the land is owned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River. But since the provision excludes land zoned for or used by schools, it would not be considered a YIGBY project.
Rep. Steven Ouellette, D-Westport, said it would not be 鈥渦nheard of鈥� to develop housing on religious property in the South Coast, including land owned by that merged in June 2025.
鈥淭he churches had some circumstances that they had to pay out money, and people don鈥檛 go to church like they used to,鈥� Ouellette said. 鈥淪o, yes, there are facilities.鈥�
Despite this possibility, Ouellette has concerns. Three of the communities he represents 鈥� Westport, Freetown and Acushnet 鈥� are wary of overpopulation or buildout, no matter who owns the land, he said. Even New Bedford is , Ouellette said.
Housing advocates who have lobbied for YIGBY bills this session are more optimistic.
鈥淭here are a number of religious institutions that really could benefit from building housing on their property from a financial standpoint, and it鈥檚 also an opportunity for them to live out their faith mission by developing housing that鈥檚 affordable to members of the community,鈥� Noyes from CHAPA said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a win-win for everyone concerned.鈥�
Duplexes by right
The would allow duplexes on any residentially zoned land where single-family homes are allowed, regardless of local zoning laws.
The bill would allow cities and towns to establish 鈥渞easonable鈥� regulations. But the regulations can鈥檛 prohibit duplexes that are less than three stories and can鈥檛 make the development 鈥減hysically or financially infeasible.鈥�
Legalizing duplexes was among housing advocates鈥� top priorities for this Legislative session. It was included in a sweeping that never made it to a full chamber vote.
According to Abundant Housing Massachusetts鈥� Executive Director Jesse Kanson-Benanav, duplexes are already permitted by right or with a special permit in about 70% of the state.
鈥淒uplexes and three-deckers have really been the backbone of working-class housing opportunities,鈥� Kanson-Benanav said. 鈥淭his is just saying that a type of home that has been the core of the fabric of meeting housing needs in Massachusetts for so long can be built a little bit quicker in a few more places without driving up the ultimate rental or ownership price.鈥�
Though the House version of the bill did not address duplexes, Rep. Christopher Hendricks, D-New Bedford, said the provision is a 鈥渂ig step鈥� that could have a significant impact in New Bedford.
Site plan review
Housing advocates say it鈥檚 a major victory that both chambers鈥� bills would establish a statewide site plan review system 鈥� through which cities and towns decide whether a proposed development complies with local regulations.
Currently, each city and town has its own review system. According to Abundant Housing鈥檚 Kanson-Benanav, some of these 鈥渁rbitrary (and) discretionary鈥� processes create barriers to building housing, rather than ensuring the developments fit into the community. Long review timeframes make development more expensive, a cost which is often passed on through higher rent or ownership prices, he said.
Some local review processes 鈥渕ight discourage people from building new homes altogether that we desperately need in this time of an extreme housing shortage,鈥� Kanson-Benanav said.
Both versions of the economic development bill would establish a 90-day decision deadline for site plan reviews, with limited exceptions. Generally, if there is no decision within that timeframe, the development would automatically be approved.
Both bills prohibit local zoning laws from dictating the 鈥渁esthetic鈥� of a development. Each version also allows developers at least three years to complete 鈥渟ubstantial鈥� construction, at which point the municipality can require reapproval.
Other provisions
The House and Senate are attempting to address the housing crisis in several other ways in their respective economic development bills.
According to Rep. Christopher Markey, D-Dartmouth, the bills aim to 鈥済ive everyone a chance,鈥� including renters, first-time homebuyers and those looking for their family home.
鈥淚 think the idea is trying to do as many different things as we can, not a big one-size-fits-all thing, although there is some element of that,鈥� Markey said. 鈥淏ut the idea that we鈥檙e not taking all our money and putting it in one place is really important.鈥�
Both versions of the bill would allow cities and towns to approve the conversion of underused commercial properties into multifamily housing and mixed-use developments. Each bill permits communities to provide for these projects, including tax relief.
The House version includes $50 million in 鈥済rants and technical assistance鈥� for communities that choose to participate.
Rep. Mark Sylvia, D-Fairhaven, identified commercial conversion as one of the most important housing measures in the House bill, noting that there are many old commercial properties with potential in New Bedford.
鈥淲e鈥檙e looking at it here on the South Coast, but across the Commonwealth there are a lot of old commercial buildings that could potentially be converted,鈥� Sylvia said. 鈥淭hat has happened organically in the past, but to provide incentive to do it, I think, is really a good step in the right direction.鈥�
Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, filed a successful to the House bill that would increase the annual cap from $30 to $40 million and raise the per-project limit to $5 million.
The program is 鈥渄esigned to create more market-rate and mixed-use housing developments in ,鈥� Cabral told The Light in a written statement. It provides tax relief to developers in two ways: cities can exempt the real estate tax on all or part of the increased property value resulting from improvements on the site, and the state may give the developer a tax credit for qualifying project expenses.
Hendricks, Sylvia and Ouellette co-sponsored the amendment, which was adopted during debate.
According to Hendricks, developing market-rate housing tends to lower rents in surrounding areas. He noted that New Bedford is already doing a 鈥済reat鈥� job of putting shovels in the ground. In December 2025, a was awarded $2.5 million through the Incentive Program.
Other housing-related measures in the House version include and allowing cities and towns to establish a framework in which if it is on the market.
The Senate version aims to increase the number of home inspectors and aligns grant programs to incentivize housing production.
鈥淗ousing grant and tax credit program requirements for developers should be geared to the developers who actually create affordable housing for hard-working citizens who can鈥檛 afford the out-of-control cost of living in the state,鈥� Sen. Mark Montigny said in a written statement to The Light. 鈥淒evelopers must be incentivized to create the housing needed and not the status quo. When state money is involved, those receiving it need to be held accountable.鈥�
What comes next?
Housing advocates and lawmakers say the Legislature has made significant progress in addressing Massachusetts鈥� housing crisis. They point to the of 2021 and the of 2024. Even the currently in conference committee .
鈥淲e didn鈥檛 get into the current housing challenges overnight. We鈥檙e not going to get out of them overnight,鈥� Noyes said. 鈥淏ut the Legislature is really continuing to push forward, which is really to their credit. They recognize the scope of the challenge and recognize that they can鈥檛 rest on their laurels, and they have to continue to pass more and more policies that will allow for the homes we need to be created.鈥�
Still, many of them said there is still a long road ahead.
Kanson-Benanav told The Light that Abundant Housing lobbied for two other housing measures that were not addressed this session: reforming minimum lot size and parking requirements.
Massachusetts has some of the country鈥檚 for single-family homes, averaging 20,000 square feet, according to Abundant Housing. That makes housing more expensive. And local zoning laws often dictate how many parking spaces are required for a new housing development 鈥� mandates that are 鈥渙ld, outdated and expensive,鈥� Kanson-Benanav said. The spaces are often underused, and the cost is passed on in higher rent or ownership prices.
There were filed to the Senate bill to address these issues, but neither was adopted.
The House and Senate have the rest of the year to negotiate on a final version of the bill.
鈥淲e know that even when we see a final compromise version of this session鈥檚 economic development bill that we can鈥檛 rest,鈥� Kanson-Benanav said. 鈥淭here will be more to be done next legislative session.鈥�
Markey said he鈥檇 like the Legislature to spend more money on down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers. Sylvia and Ouellette raised concerns about federal , though that is largely driven by federal policy.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not just that it鈥檚 expensive to live in Massachusetts. It鈥檚 expensive, period, right now,鈥� Ouellette said. 鈥淲e can have all the policies in the world, but we鈥檝e got an underlying problem with the cost of materials.鈥�
Sylvia predicted that the Legislature will continue to help communities address the high cost of infrastructure upgrades next session, which 鈥済oes hand-in-hand with supporting housing.鈥� Ouellette added that he鈥檇 also like to see more .
___
This story was originally published by and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.
