Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Yes In Gods Backyard topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Faith‑based land eyed as housing reservoir in 'Yes in God’s Backyard' bill; advocates cite thousands of parcels
Summary
Proponents of House Bill 23‑47 told the committee religious institutions hold thousands of parcels suitable for multifamily housing and that by‑right development on those sites could expand supply, convert tax‑exempt land to taxable uses and generate revenue for municipalities.
A range of faith leaders, philanthropic groups, developers and community organizations told the Joint Committee on Housing that House Bill 23‑47 — nicknamed “Yes in God’s Backyard” — could unlock thousands of acres owned by religious institutions for multifamily housing built by right.
Advocates said the legislation would let a religious institution that has owned property for at least three years build multifamily housing by right under defined density and affordability conditions, while preserving municipal engagement through the permitting process.
“This bill proposes an innovative strategy to build more multifamily housing our state so desperately needs,” said Alyssa Banalfu Ramos of the Black Economic Council of Massachusetts, citing business and workforce impacts. Witnesses from CHAPA, the Lynch Foundation and developers emphasized transit access and infrastructure: Katie Everett of the Lynch Foundation told the committee that faith‑owned property comprises roughly 4,000 parcels and more than 20,000 acres statewide, with 63% of parcels near public transit and 67% having water and sewer access.
Religious leaders testified with personal examples of stalled projects and community need. Rabbi Ray Schweiss described a local church’s repeated attempts to develop housing and cited a case where a congregation provided emergency shelter space during a crisis. Father Oscar Pratt described his parish’s Drexel Village project in Roxbury as an example of faith‑based housing development in progress.
Why it matters: Proponents told the committee that converting suitable faith‑owned parcels to housing could generate new tax revenue unless a municipality chooses to continue an exemption. Katie Everett and other witnesses estimated that if a significant portion of parcels were developed, municipalities could gain tens of millions in annual property tax revenue.
Implementation and limits: Witnesses stressed the bill does not remove permitting or community engagement; rather it reduces the need for special permits that can lengthen project timelines. Several developers and mission‑driven housing organizations said the measure would not automatically produce projects on every parcel but would give institutions another feasible path to partner on housing.
Ending: Supporters asked the committee to advance the bill and offered to provide district‑level inventories and parcel lists for members. No formal committee action was taken during the hearing.
