To the editor:
The MBTA Zoning mandate is a clear case of overreach by Govs Baker and Healey and the legislature on Beacon Hill.
The problem with Question 67 has nothing to do with messaging or a better organized campaign. It is an effort to convince voters of the supposed benign intentions of the statute. Each community in Massachusetts has the right to determine zoning regulations that best fit the unique needs of each community.
If this is a mandate, then why is it necessary for Article 36 to be brought up for a vote at all? The argument has been made that because it is the law, voters should just accept it and move on. The bill is currently before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which will decide on the constitutionality of the law.
There are a number of communities that do not agree with the MBTA Zoning mandate. They believe it is too vague and has no guarantee that it will do anything significant to lower housing prices.
Now, there is a push to have a Special Town Meeting before the Dec. 31 deadline to push it through.
I suggest we reject Article 36 and allow the SJC to decide on the merits of the law. If the court agrees that it is lawful, the town could convene a Special Town Meeting in 2025 and put the measure up for another vote. Let’s let the judiciary have its say and move forward with that information so that voters will be able to make an informed decision.
Charles M. Dignam
Commercial Street