Bill to let faith organizations build housing on their land draws support from developers and nonprofits
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The committee heard testimony supporting a 'Yes in My Backyard' proposal to allow religious institutions to build housing by right on land they own, paired with affordability requirements. Proponents said faith groups control thousands of parcels that could host housing; developers and nonprofit advocates backed the bill as a production tool
Advocates for increased housing supply told the joint committee that spiritual institutions hold a significant amount of developable land that could be used for housing if state law allowed by‑right development on faith‑owned parcels. Courtney Brunson of the Boston Foundation and Darcy Jamieson of Beacon Communities described S.1430 (the Senate “Yes in My Backyard” measure discussed at the hearing) as a tool that would unlock parcels already held by churches, synagogues and other religious organizations and create thousands of housing opportunities across the Commonwealth.
Courtney Brunson said data compiled by foundation partners show thousands of developable faith parcels statewide, including parcels with water and sewer access. She testified that converting a share of those parcels — with density tied to affordability requirements — could add meaningful housing capacity and produce state tax revenue that could support additional programs.
Developers who spoke said the bill would not replace other production tools but would add another source of supply in the state’s housing toolbox. Beacon Communities emphasized that affordable and market housing production are both important to reduce cost pressures. Supporters also recommended guardrails: minimum affordable set‑asides and exemptions for particularly small congregations or historic houses of worship.
Opposition in the hearing record was limited, but witnesses and committee members noted questions about local siting, traffic and the need for municipal engagement. No vote occurred; committee members asked witnesses for additional data and drafting suggestions.
Why it matters: The bill is intended to expand the set of potential development sites without forcing municipalities to sell public land or change broad zoning; if adopted with clear affordability and siting standards, supporters said, it could be a non‑subsidy way to add supply in constrained areas.