Faith‑land bill draws broad support; advocates say parcels could yield thousands of homes

The Joint Committee on Housing heard broad support for House Bill 2347, an act to promote "Yes in God's Backyard," which would permit multifamily housing by right on qualifying parcels owned by religious institutions.

Proponents said religious institutions own thousands of potentially developable parcels across Massachusetts and that allowing as‑of‑right housing there could yield substantial new supply and tax revenue. "Faith‑based organizations own nearly 4,000 parcels and over 20,000 acres of land across every community in the Commonwealth," said Katie Everett, executive director of the Lynch Foundation, describing a foundation study done with the Lincoln Institute and a geospatial analysis. Everett said about 63% of those parcels have access to public transit and 67% have water and sewer connections.

Advocates emphasized community benefits and existing examples. "Many faith institutions are already working to create housing and are sometimes slowed by the need to get a special permit," said David Albright, director of policy and advocacy at a Jewish advocacy organization. Religious leaders described local efforts: Rabbi Ray Schweiss recounted a neighborhood church that opened space during a shelter crisis, and Father Oscar Pratt described his parish's Drexel Village project under development in Roxbury.

Economic and tax impacts: Witnesses said development of a portion of these parcels could convert tax‑exempt land into taxable property and produce municipal revenue. Everett testified that converting 50% of suitable parcels could generate about $60 million annually in tax revenue; proponents noted municipalities could still grant tax exemptions at their discretion.

Scope and limits: Supporters said the bill contains density, height and affordability parameters — including requirements for a portion of units to be affordable in certain density tiers — and that it would apply only to parcels owned by a religious denomination for at least three years, as one panelist noted. Several nonprofit and for‑profit developers said the bill would create predictable land opportunities for partnerships and both market‑rate and affordable projects.

The hearing produced no committee action; witnesses urged the committee to advance the bill and offered to provide district‑level parcel data to members.