Discussions around taxpayer-supported housing in South County towns often surface a familiar frustration: Newly constructed affordable-housing developments are not reserved exclusively for current town residents. In projects receiving state funding, the concept of “local preference” often falls short of what many would consider truly local—that is, exclusive access for those already living in town. Others take the opposite view that there should be no local preference in housing. They argue affordable housing should serve the greater good—not just the greater local area.
Both ends of the “local preference” spectrum were voiced just one day apart this past May. At the May 20 meeting of Great Barrington’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board, Trustee Joseph Method remarked, “The topic of people coming from other places to live here being a controversial issue—I find it really distasteful. I think that shouldn’t even be a consideration.”
The following evening, at the Lenox Select Board meeting, member David Roche offered a sharply contrasting perspective during a discussion of the Brushwood Farm project currently under construction: “A Lenox resident would have more of a chance to win Megabucks than get an apartment. Nobody in Lenox is guaranteed a unit.” He added, “One of my biggest concerns has been that the residents of Lenox aren’t getting any priority.”
Mr. Method and Mr. Roche need to have a chat about their—entirely reasonable—concerns. Here is what they, and the rest of us, should consider.
Under Massachusetts guidelines, “local preference” typically allows up to 70 percent of affordable units in a subsidized housing development to be reserved for applicants with a local connection—such as those who live, work, or attend school in the area. But this preference applies only during the initial lottery and only if the state approves the municipality’s request. Even then, it remains subject to fair housing laws, which prohibit policies that may disproportionately exclude applicants from protected classes. As a result, towns like Great Barrington and Lenox may find that, despite receiving state approval, many units still go to applicants from outside the community—fueling the perception that local residents are being shut out.
There are sound historical and policy-based reasons for limiting strict local preferences. Affordable-housing programs are intended to address regional shortages and promote equal access—not to wall off opportunity at the town line. In small communities like those in South County, municipal borders are often arbitrary when it comes to where people live, work, and contribute. Just as a rising tide lifts all boats, creating housing serves the broader public interest—though, admittedly, you may need to squint to see it that way when your boat is not rising quite yet.
Massachusetts does not provide for an automatic local preference—and for good reason. While the specifics are complex, the underlying principle is clear: State housing policy is designed to promote regional equity and guard against exclusionary practices. A strict preference for a town’s own residents would, in practice, reinforce patterns of racial and economic segregation. Beyond potentially running afoul of federal and state fair housing laws, such a policy would also undermine the broader goal of building inclusive, diverse communities. If we only offered housing to the people already here, no one would get to meet their interesting, diverse future neighbors from beyond the town’s borders—and we would be, our communities would be, poorer for it.
Let us accept that housing is a regional issue. If every town restricted subsidized housing solely to current residents, the broader housing crisis would remain unaddressed. Many of the people who keep our towns running—teachers, nurses, home health aides, service workers—already commute from neighboring communities because they cannot afford to live where they work. By opening affordable housing to a broader applicant pool, we increase the likelihood that those who sustain the local economy can actually live in the communities they serve—even if they are not already here, they have a greater opportunity to live here soon.
Still, the frustration many towns feel is real, especially when they see critical local workers priced out of the communities they serve.
Consider Fairview Hospital, Great Barrington’s largest employer. It has a diverse workforce, many of whom commute as much as an hour each way—a less-than-ideal situation in an emergency, especially during severe weather. Because of the limited availability of housing in Great Barrington and surrounding communities, Fairview routinely has around 35 open staffing positions. If Great Barrington—or the region as a whole—could help close that employment gap by enabling more of its workers to live nearby, the region would benefit.
Thus, it is entirely reasonable for towns to want housing for the police officers, firefighters, paramedics, hospital staff, teachers, and other essential workers who keep things running. No one would suggest that Lenox Select Board member Roche—or anyone else voicing concern for local workers—is acting out of ill intent. Town leaders simply want to ensure that those critical to a community’s day-to-day functioning have access to stable, affordable housing—and, ideally, that they do not have to drive an hour just to get to work.
To that end, Construct Inc.’s new affordable-housing project at Cassilis Farm in New Marlborough offers a thoughtful workaround that respects both goals of housing equity and support for the local workforce. The 11 state-subsidized units at Cassilis Farm will be subject to a county-wide “local preference,” while four additional units—built entirely with private funds unencumbered with any “local preference” mandate—will be reserved for individuals employed locally.
Due to current law, Construct and the town had to go to considerable lengths to make sure New Marlborough’s current employees have a place at Cassilis Farm too. Creating housing to meet an obvious local need should not require navigating a maze of legal and regulatory hurdles—and yet, here we are.
With the New Marlborough example in mind, I find myself somewhere between Mr. Method and Mr. Roche on the “local preference” spectrum. It may be time for Beacon Hill to consider whether rural communities should be allowed to give certain critical workers—like those mentioned above, and perhaps even include a special slot for a town manager—a few extra preference points in the affordable-housing lottery. In a place like Great Barrington, with its diverse workforce, doing so would not undermine efforts to promote equity. Tweaking the law would simply help ensure that the people our towns rely on can actually afford to live in or near them.
Survey Monkey Question
Here is a link to the following Survey Monkey poll: “Does Massachusetts need to rethink its housing policy to help rural towns house essential personnel?”
Survey Monkey Results
Here is the result of the following recent survey question: “Should the Great Barrington Planning Board consider amending the zoning bylaws to permit deviations from minimum parking requirements based on neighborhood impact?”
As of publication, 83.33 percent of respondents said “yes.”
