Is Your Town Ready? What HomeBASE And Zoning Reform Mean For You
Massachusetts is said to be facing a growing housing crisis, according to state officials and housing advocates. However, the state's own housing commission projects no population growth between 2025 and 2035. Meanwhile, two well-intentioned initiatives—HomeBASE and the MBTA Communities Act—are intersecting in ways that raise important questions about equity, local governance, and the future direction of affordable housing policy in the Commonwealth.
What is HomeBASE?
HomeBASE (short for Housing Assistance for Families in Transition) is a Massachusetts program that provides short-term rental assistance to families experiencing homelessness. Administered by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), it offers up to $30,000 over a 12-month period to cover rent, moving costs, or other housing-related expenses. The program was designed to help families exit the emergency shelter system and transition to permanent housing.
Over time, however, HomeBASE has shifted from its original intent as a temporary measure into a tool used by the state to reduce the shelter population by placing families into market-rate housing—often in locations far from their original communities. This shift raises concerns about the long-term stability and effectiveness of such placements.
Co-Opting the Shelter System
Rather than investing in permanent affordable housing or expanding supportive services, the state increasingly relies on HomeBASE as a stopgap. This approach has led to outcomes where families are relocated to towns lacking access to public transportation, employment opportunities, or childcare—key factors for long-term housing stability.
In many cases, landlords who accept HomeBASE may do so because they struggle to rent their units otherwise, raising questions about housing quality. Once the 12-month benefit period ends, many families face renewed housing insecurity. As a result, instead of strengthening the shelter system or creating lasting housing solutions, the policy may be shifting the burden without resolving the root issues.
The MBTA Communities Act
Passed in 2021, the MBTA Communities Act requires 177 cities and towns served by the MBTA to zone for at least one district of multifamily housing by right, near transit stations. The goal is to promote walkable, transit-oriented development and alleviate the regional housing shortage.
While the concept aligns with sound planning principles, the rollout has revealed a complex intersection with programs like HomeBASE. Some policymakers and developers now view these newly zoned multifamily units as potential sites for HomeBASE placements—not necessarily to promote integrated, equitable housing, but to address short-term pressures in the shelter system.
The Hidden Connection
These new market-rate units may appeal to landlords seeking guaranteed rental payments via HomeBASE. In turn, the state can report reduced shelter numbers and progress on transit-oriented development, even if the solutions are temporary or don’t align with the long-term needs of vulnerable families.
This convergence raises critical concerns: are towns being asked to absorb a statewide policy challenge under the guise of zoning reform? Are families being placed in environments that support success, or merely in available units?
The MBTA Communities Act regulations offer some revealing clues about their true intent: no minimum bedroom size, no cap on the number of bedrooms per unit, and no occupancy limits. Doesn’t that sound more like warehousing people than thoughtful housing policy? Our housing policies should not be heading down the path of mimicking authoritarian models like China’s, where individuals are often crammed into living spaces no larger than a walk-in closet. In a country that values dignity and personal freedom, we should be striving for humane, livable housing—not packing people into tiny, substandard units in the name of density or affordability. Minimum bedroom sizes, limits on the number of bedrooms, and occupancy caps exist for a reason: to protect health and safety. These standards were put in place based on hard lessons from past tragedies where overcrowding led to serious harm.
What This Means for Cities and Towns
For municipalities concerned about local control and sustainable growth, the overlapping use of HomeBASE and MBTA Communities Act zoning warrants closer scrutiny. Key questions include:
Are new zoning laws being implemented in ways that promote genuine affordability and support, or are they being used to offload pressure from the state shelter system?
Will HomeBASE families placed in these communities have access to the services they need?
Are local governments being asked to shoulder long-term impacts without adequate input or support?
Transparency and accountability in both zoning reform and emergency housing programs are essential. Towns should be informed about how these programs are being used and encouraged to advocate for standards that reflect their capacity and values.
Program Costs and Fiscal Implications
The strain on the state budget is also significant. Massachusetts’ Emergency Assistance (EA) shelter system saw costs rise from approximately $325 million to $932 million during fiscal year 2024, largely due to an increase in migrant arrivals. HomeBASE program funding also increased—from $24.3 million in FY23 to a proposed $57.3 million in FY25. Altogether, over $1 billion in taxpayer funds went toward emergency housing efforts in FY24 alone.
Community Considerations
At the same time, our community must carefully weigh whether we want to be drawn into the broader national conflict surrounding immigration and emergency shelter placement. Across the country, communities have experienced disruption from federal enforcement actions, strained resources, and uncoordinated shelter placements—often without local input. These developments can foster fear and instability if not managed transparently.
Millbury is fortunate that, unlike some communities, we do not currently host large numbers of migrant families or emergency shelter recipients in hotels or temporary shelters. Other communities have faced serious challenges, from public safety concerns to pressure on schools and services. Preserving local stability means being proactive—protecting public safety, demanding clarity in state and federal policies, and ensuring any response aligns with community capacity and long-term planning goals.
This is not about rejecting responsibility, but about demanding policies that are effective, transparent, and fair—for both the families in need and the communities asked to help. Residents want housing policies that address the root causes of the affordability problem, not just create the appearance of progress without delivering real results. The MBTA Communities Act is unlikely to significantly improve housing affordability. Instead, it will primarily benefit developers while potentially reducing a community’s Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI)—the standard used under Chapter 40B to measure affordable housing levels. As a result, more Chapter 40B projects may be required to meet the state's affordability targets.
It appears that the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, state legislature, and local officials are sidestepping the challenging but essential work—and financial commitment—needed to truly address housing affordability. The MBTA Communities Act largely serves as a giveaway to developers while offering only the illusion of meaningful progress.
Final Thoughts
Massachusetts is grappling with dual challenges: an emergency housing system increasingly reliant on short-term fixes, and a zoning reform law at risk of being repurposed for temporary placements rather than long-term affordability. To create real progress, the state must separate emergency assistance from permanent housing policy and tie zoning reform to meaningful affordability standards.
Progress should not be measured by how many people are removed from a shelter list—but by how many families are placed in homes they can afford, in communities where they can thrive.
Millbury Annual Town Meeting
Every registered voter should attend and participate on May 6, 2025, at 7:00 PM, at the Millbury Memorial Junior/Senior High School, located at 12 Martin Street, Millbury, Massachusetts. The decisions made that evening will shape the future of our town. Don’t assume someone else will take care of this—each of us has a stake in this decision, and your voice matters.
The Special Town Meeting on November 9, 2024, delivered a resounding “No” from the overwhelming majority of registered voters who showed up and made their voices heard. The outcome belongs to those who engage—not to those who only complain after the fact. This decisive vote reflected a widespread sentiment shared across our town. As we look ahead, it’s more important than ever for residents to turn out and vote their conscience on the future of our community—its development, tax burdens, and beyond. Articles 28 and 29 should once again be decisively rejected by an informed and participating majority.
This blog post does not take a position for or against the national migrant debate. Its purpose is to critically examine whether significant public spending on programs like HomeBASE and the MBTA Communities Act is genuinely solving housing insecurity—or merely offering the appearance of action while placing fiscal and logistical burdens on local communities and their taxpayers.