Lowell Council votes to send letter opposing House Bill 2347 after extended public comment

The Lowell City Council voted Tuesday to ask the city manager to send a letter opposing House Bill 2347, known in testimony as “Yes in God’s Backyard,” after public speakers and councilors debated the bill’s potential effects on local zoning, parking, tax status and neighborhood density.

The motion, made by Councilor Getje and seconded by Councilor Robinson, passed on a roll call with the majority voting yes; one councilor abstained and several voted no on a later procedural attempt to send the measure to the council’s housing subcommittee.

Supporters of the bill addressed the council during public comment, arguing the proposal would expand affordable housing by allowing religious institutions to build multifamily units on land they own. Ryan Oates, speaking through a clerk’s designee and identified in the record as a resident of Lowell, told the council, “This bill allows religious institutions all across the state to build affordable housing on their own property.” He urged the city to collaborate with the bill’s authors rather than flatly oppose the measure.

Opponents, including several neighborhood residents and councilors, told the council the bill as written was too broad. Lynn Daley, a Lowell resident, asked bluntly, “Where is the data?” and said she could not find a city-level inventory of land owned by religious organizations to show what the bill would affect. William Nichols, a Highlands Neighborhood Group member, warned the bill could incentivize property acquisition and said the measure looked like “ADU on steroids,” citing a concern that the state would override local zoning decisions.

Speakers raised specific provisions they said were absent or unclear in the bill’s text: a three-year existence clause for religious organizations that could encourage speculative purchases; a cited allowance for “30 to 50 units on a 1-acre lot”; and parking waivers within a half-mile of MBTA service that opponents said would increase local parking pressure. Several speakers also raised the potential for lost property tax revenue if religious organizations built tax-exempt housing, and asked what would happen if such properties later were sold.

Council debate reflected those concerns and a split among members. Councilors who supported the motion to send a letter opposing the bill emphasized local control and the risk to single-family neighborhoods and existing tax revenue. Councilors who opposed the letter or urged engagement with the delegation emphasized the statewide scale of the housing shortage and said the bill might be one tool to increase affordable units beyond Lowell.

A procedural motion later on to refer the item to the council’s housing subcommittee for a joint discussion with the state delegation was made and seconded but failed on roll call. The original motion directing the city manager to send a letter in opposition then passed by majority vote.

The record shows a mix of neighborhood-level concerns — Highlands, Lower Highlands, Centerville, Pawtucketville and the Acre were each mentioned — and repeated calls from residents and some councilors for more data about which properties could be affected and what the fiscal and parking impacts would be.

The council did not adopt amendments to the letter at the meeting and did not vote on model language; the action was limited to instructing the city manager to send a letter expressing opposition.

The city has not yet provided an inventory of religiously owned parcels requested by speakers; several residents said they searched local deed records without success. The motion’s passage means the city will notify its legislative delegation of the council’s opposition and the reasons for it. The council record shows the delegation had offered to meet with council members in a subcommittee format to discuss concerns, but that referral vote failed.

The council’s action does not change state law or halt House Bill 2347; it is a local position sent to state lawmakers and does not legally bind the delegation.

Votes and key procedural notes appear below.