October 7, 2024 • 39 mins
The town of Milton squared off against the state of Massachusetts before the MA Supreme Judicial Court over Milton’s refusal to comply with the MBTA Communities Act. The Act mandates multifamily housing that is transit adjacent, in 177 affected MA communities. Milton was the first town to object to this mandate. We heard from Milton residents about this “battle”!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Ask Alexa to play WBZ NewsRadio on #iHeartRadio!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Costance New Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, there was an interesting argument at the Massachusetts State
Supreme Court today which we have talked about before, and
I hope that some of you remember that in the
waning hours of the Charlie Baker administration back and would
have been in December of twenty twenty two, the legislature,
(00:28):
in their infinite wisdom, decided that it would be important
to work into a piece of legislation an obligation that
there are about one hundred and seventy seventy one hundred
and seventy seven communities in eastern Massachusetts that are going
to have to again, according to an article here that
(00:50):
I'm reading, encourage this is from the State House News
Service by Colin Young, to encourage multifamily housing because either
those communities host or are adjacent to MBTA service. Now,
there is an argument that there is a housing shortage
(01:12):
in Massachusetts, and there is a housing shortage in certain
portions of Massachusetts. Tough to buy something in the Greater
Boston area, particularly for people who are just trying to
start out. But again the General Court, in their infinite wisdom,
(01:33):
have decided that they would weave into a mandate into
a twenty twenty one economic development package at the last minute,
with little discussion. That's the way they do it up
at the legislature, provisions that have become a major piece
of the state strategy to encourage badly needed housing production.
So what this essentially says is okay, instead of communities
(01:59):
being allowed to zone their cities and towns the way
in which they want their cities and towns to be zone.
So for example, some cities in towns want to be
zoned as a bedroom community with you know, properties built
on you know, smaller portions of land half acre or
one third or one quarter acre lots, and that's what
(02:23):
they expect, and they'll have a lot of commercial services available.
Think framing him Route nine for example, which is lovely
for people who live close to there, but there are
going to be no homes on Route nine. In framing him,
just as an example, I mean, it's a restaurant after restaurant,
(02:44):
after shopping center, after sporting goods store, after a restaurant,
after shopping center, after more sporting goods stores, after danning salons. Whatever.
You didn't get the drift. But there are other communities
that say no, you know, we want to maintain open spaces. Now,
none of these communities, it's important to note, none of
(03:05):
these communities that now find themselves under or potentially under
this mandate from the state, none of these communities have
been accused of passing any sort of zoning requirements that
are illegal meaning unconstitutional, saying that we don't want, you know,
certain type of people to live in our community or whatever.
(03:26):
Even you know, no suggestion here of any form of discrimination.
It is simply we need more housing. Okay. Now, what
towns are going to be most affected? Pretty simple, the
towns that currently have dense housing circumstances and towns that
(03:48):
maybe are trying to maintain their character. One of those
towns is Milton, and the story is that initially the
Board of Selectmen in New went along with it because
with every obligation comes a little bit of sugar from
the state. So if you comply with what we want
(04:09):
you to do, you're going to get some additional money.
Is you're going to get some grants. There'll be something
there for you which you as the political leader in
this community, if you're a mayor or a city councilor
or an Alderman or whatever, this might help ease the
pain of this obligation. So Milton, the selectman in Milton,
(04:33):
they complied. They went along with it and said, we agree.
The people of Milton had a different point of view.
So the people of Milton held a special election last winter,
was in February, I believe, and the people in Milton
overrode the decision of the selectment in Milton. As a consequence,
(04:58):
Milton said, you're not gonna comply, okay now, According to
the Attorney General's Office, Andrea Campbell, quoting here, told reporters
before the SJC heard the oral arguments today, and I'm
quoting here from an article that is in the Boston Globe,
housing affordability is the number one challenge currently facing Massachusetts
(05:22):
and Massachusetts residents. I'm not sure I'm going to agree
with the Attorney General on that, but that's her opinion,
and she's the Attorney General. She told reporters before the
SJC heard oral arguments. The median price of a single
family home here in Massachusetts is almost one million dollars.
I find that kind of hard to believe, but you
(05:43):
know it's possible now in certain cities in certain areas,
it's one million dollars. Certainly, if you go to a
town like Weston or Wayland or Wellesley, as I've offered
referred to as the w communities, the more affluent communities, yeah,
probably the single family home is almost maybe even over
million dollars. But that doesn't mean necessarily that those towns
(06:09):
should now be forced to change the character of the town.
Campbell said, the lack of affordable housing is driving people
out of our great state. Madam Attorney General, I think
that might be a factor. But as long as you
guys keep taxing people more and putting more obligations on them,
(06:30):
I think more people are going to go elsewhere, and
the places that they are going are places that are
more tax friendly states like South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and
New Hampshire. And as a matter of fact, there are
studies that support that. But the Attorney General is not
mentioning the overburdened taxes on people in Massachusetts. So she
(06:55):
is quoted in is un quoted, but says this is
an important case. Is quote. This is an important case
for two reasons. One to ensure the effectiveness of the
MBTA community's law as a tool to address our housing
crisis and to protect the rule of law and uphold
our legal structure here in Massachusetts. I don't. I'm almost laughing,
(07:15):
because you know, there's a lot of laws that have
been passed in states around this country, not a maturity
general that that should not have been upheld. Okay, and
you need to understand that not every law. And she
was never she was on the city council but ran
for mayor of Boston and didn't win, and then ran
(07:37):
for Trinity General. But state legislatures passed stupid laws all
the time. So that's not the question for the court today.
The question for the court today is whether or not
this They're going to focus, according to the to the Globe,
on narrow legal issues, but the implications of the ruling
(07:57):
may be wide ranging and shape these states effort to
dig out of its criminal out of its deep housing shortage.
The law represents Massachusetts' most pointed attempt to produce more
housing in decades, and the principle behind it, compelling communities
to change restrictive zoning laws that have helped fuel the shortage,
(08:17):
is key to the state's housing strategy. All of that
is irrelevant and should not even be considered by the judges.
In my opinion, the question is what did the legislature
vote for, what enforcement mechanism did they provide to the
attorney general? And is the state acting appropriately? The towns
(08:38):
do have a right to refuse this. It's as I
understand that in the statute. In the statute because there
are penalty provisions that if the towns refuse it, well
they won't get that grand or they won't get that
additional sugar cube from the state. Look, the politicians have
(09:02):
worked long and hard to destroy Massachusetts and to and
to change the structure of Massachusetts despite all of the
great advantages we have. We have here in Massachusetts, great schools,
great universities, none of which, except for the state college system,
were created. These are private colleges, great hospitals, none of
(09:23):
which were created by the legislature or the State of Massachusetts.
Great economic engines, none of which were created by the
Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Everything
that's great about Massachusetts besides the public education system at
(09:44):
the college level, the University of Massachusetts and it's various
U mass Boston, of which I'm a graduate. You loll
U mass Dartmouth, et cetera. Those are created, Those are
created by public forces. But Harvard wasn't created by the legislature.
M I. T. Boston College, Boston University, Northeastern those are
(10:07):
all private schools. Okay, the great hospitals, they were created,
oftentimes in cases by by churches. So I just love
to read the language that is being put forward here,
and I hope that some of you understand what I'm
talking about, because if the legislature and the Governor's office
(10:30):
whoever the governor is, and this is not a knock
on governor heally, this was created under Governor Baker as
he was heading out the door. And you know this
is fine. I mean, the legislature has has has done
more to screw up this state in the last fifty
years than it has ever done to fix this state.
And people need to start to understand that. And maybe
(10:52):
the State Supreme Court will understand that. I don't know.
We'll have to see how that all works. Their decision
wasn't made today. They'll take it under advisement and they'll
issue a decision at some point down the line. But
it seems to me the less point that zoning, zoning regulations,
as long as they are constitutional and as long as
(11:14):
they do not violate the civil rights of anyone, should
be left to the government that governs best, which is
the government that's closest to the people in Massachusetts, the
cities and towns six one, seven, two, five, four, ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. I
love this topic because I think it is a philosophical
(11:36):
topic as much as it is a legal one. And
if you believe in the power of government forcing communities,
smaller entities to do something that they don't want to do,
then you should hope that the Supreme Court will rule
in favor of the power brokers here in Massachusetts. If
you believe in things like individual freedom and the right
(11:56):
of self determination, under those circumstances, I think you should
hope that the state Supreme Court says to the legislature,
this is way beyond what you should do. You want
to increase housing in Massachusetts, pass some programs, have some incentives,
allow the private sector to get involved. They will build,
(12:16):
build probe, they will build housing, they will build it
and people will come. We're back on nightside. You got
the numbers. I'm kind of wound up I want to
hear from you back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios. I'm WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
All Right, one member of the town of Milton who
was in court today has been on the show before
and she's joining us at Kerry. Why Kerry, How are
you tonight?
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I'm great, tone, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
So what was the reaction of the judges today? Again,
I do not believe you're a lawyer, but I'm sure
you talk to you lawyers afterwards. You're actually, in effect
that defend did in this case? Are you're not? Or
is the No?
Speaker 3 (13:04):
That's correct. I'm a defendant in this case.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yeah, you're the defendant. You're the defendant because you're one
of the rabbel rousers fought.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Against this indeed, a rabble rouser from a long line
of rabble rousers. Yes, So yeah, Dan, What.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Did you take from from the questions and the comments
and the observations from the judges from the judges up.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
There today, Sure, I was very interested to hear you
just mentioned the announcement from the age this morning before
the oral arguments began. I didn't know that until I
heard you just report that, Thank you, reporter Dan. The
thing is that clearly some people in the courtroom got
(13:47):
her message. If not, if even if she had not
been pretty clear beforehand, you know what her stances about
her case here. However, one of the justices multiple times
stated during or or arguments, he stated multiple times there's
a housing crisis. Now to me, okay, yeah, And as
(14:14):
you mentioned, there are many variables variables that impact the
cost of housing, and you rightly bring up you know,
the w towns for example, they have many things that
you know, variables that impact what the cost of housing
is in those towns, not the least of which is,
you know, a lot size, and you know, among other things,
interest rates, right, you know what a house cost today
(14:36):
in rail dollars for you know, a family is different
than it was even a few years ago. But one
of the things is, you know, when I heard this
justice say this, I kept thinking, Okay, well that's interesting.
He's saying this, and he's saying it multiple times. That
is a politically popular phrase to use right now, right
housing crisis. It's interesting because I thought, for example, our
(15:00):
attorney he did a very good job, you know, in
presenting the arguments I thought they were well presented, thoughtful,
you know, easy to follow. I think obviously I've been
you know, following our case from the beginning. But I
thought he was you know, plain spoken. And I don't
mean that in a folksy sort of point, if you will,
(15:20):
but I think it was, you know, it was quite fair.
On the other hand, I would say if the representative
of you know, Ms. Campbell was the best in her troupe,
he stumbled a little bit. I will say that, you know,
there were a couple of questions that you know, the
(15:42):
justices have for him, for example, you know, about whether
our case was meaningless, because there were some words that
he said to the effect of, well, what about their vote?
What about the vote that they held, you know, back
in February. It was, in fact, on February fourteenth, the
best Valentine's Day gift for me in a few years.
I loved it. And she asked him specifically, so were
(16:06):
you saying that their vote is meaningless? And he sort
of stumbled a little bit, you know in his response.
So then one of the other judges asked, well, don't
they have the rule of law? Are you saying that
the rule of law is meaningless, and he kind of armed,
I would.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Say, and well, let's let me ask you this though.
The question is is it's difficult to handicap how judges
will vote. Sometimes they ask questions, absolutely but explatory. How
did you become a defendant in this.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
We filed for amicus briefs to support our defense. So
how did you want?
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Are you named as a defendant in this case?
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Carry not personally the defendant, I'm a signatory to one
of the amicus braves. That's it, okay, So you're the
defendant the town the town.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
The defendant is the town of Milton, Okay. And you
obviously signed Dawn as a resident of Milton to one
of the amicas briefs, which is fine, okay, no, no problem, okay.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
And what did.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Anyone under any other towns? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Right, did anyone on the court? Yes? Would you say
that one hundred and twenty towns have signed.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (17:19):
No?
Speaker 3 (17:20):
For the various briefs that we have three different amicus
briefs which we have filed to support this. One is
related to small business because stating that this was not
thought all the way through in terms of the impacts
to small businesses and the various towns that have will
be instared in this.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
It's not as if you're not telling me that one
hundred and twenty one towns have taken a lot of
towns that have said they're.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Going to go along with it, right right, I'm seeing
people from one hundred and twenty different towns. That's irrelevant
to me.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
That's totally irrelevant to me. I can't use the word
irrelevant any more than six times in order to tell seldom.
And I don't want to go there because the fact
that you're three people, If you have three people at
Waltham and four people in Lexington, it doesn't matter, Okay,
it matters how the various towns Milton is obviously going
to be made. They're going to make an example of
(18:16):
you potentially and say, okay, you have to comply to
force this. Did any of the justices and my last
question before we got to go to news and then
we'll get some phone calls, did any of the justices?
Did any of the justices say, hey, this whole question
of housing traditionally is a decision that is made at
the local level. I mean, the governor doesn't tell Milton
(18:41):
how to zone Milton and whether to allow a bowling
alley to come into or a golf driving range, or
a new apartment building. That is traditionally a local rule
and you know, local rules and regulations. Did any of
the justices even address that issue?
Speaker 3 (18:58):
They did, They did. They raised that you know, not case,
but they they've been made that point specifically, you know,
in different words than you just used, but basically saying,
you know that these are local, you know, choices local.
So cool. And then.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
It seems to me it's an overreaction for the legislature
and the governor to try to tell one hundred and
seventy seven cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts how they
should zone their communities absent absent some you know, constitutional
issues in which individual people or groups of people are
(19:39):
being denied their constitutional rights? Is what? Yes, what if
I was, That's how I would be inclined to.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Rule exactly, and did ask Yeah, two of the judges
Dan did exactly ask you know, questions on that line too,
you know, the AGCs attorney and as specifically about what
you're saying, what these people are asking for is against
their town charter. And he seems to mystified that we
had a town harder a town charter, and she said, well,
(20:09):
you do understand they have a town charter. They set
their local rules, they set their zoning, they make choices
for themselves. So they did. They seem balanced. I felt, Okay, Kerrie.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
I gotta I gotta take a break here because we're
at the bottom of the hour. We got a newscast
coming up. I've got a couple of callers lined up.
We'll talk to them and continue to talk to you.
Six ten thirty six seven thirty. This to me just
is an egregious overstep that the folks at the State
House have decided they are going to come down on
(20:43):
these local communities. And I don't know how your state
representatives or your state senator voted on this, but it's
something that should be taken in consideration, I think politically,
because this becomes to me more of a political effort
by the state to have its way. And I hope
that the State Supreme Court basically says to themselves, hey,
(21:05):
we're there to uh consider the interest not only of
the powerful and elite on Beacon Hill, but the communities.
Every one of these communities should have their own input.
We'll take a break. Coming back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
All right, let's let's go to the phones. Carrie White
is my guest. She is a Milton resident. She was
in the State Supreme Court today and uh, it gave
us a little bit of a heads up as to
what was said and what wasn't said. And let's go
to some of our listeners. The only lines open right now,
by the way, happened to be six one seven. If
(21:48):
you want to get in, let me go to Greg
Is and Shrewsbury. Hi, Greg, how are you tonight? Welcome? Good?
Speaker 4 (21:53):
How are you?
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Dan?
Speaker 5 (21:54):
Like to talk to you again?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Do just great? Say? How to carry White? I know
that that you from Shrewsbury, a town that is also
said we do not want to participate in this this
this program that will I think fundamentally change a lot
of what Shrewsbury is all about.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
Yeah. Absolutely, Yeah. We've been fighting here a group of us.
But I did listen, you know, I wanted to make
a couple of comments. I did listen to the SJC
case today, and what I found interesting was there was
kind of two camps. I don't know, I think it
was justice. Uh, Cofker, and what he had said was
really leaning on the side of giving the benefit of
the doubt to the commonwealth on everything. He had this
(22:35):
concept of paper tiger. Essentially he's saying that, well, I
don't believe that the penalty was strong enough, so just
by giving up those grants, you really believe that's what
the legislature intended. And I thought from a legal standpoint,
justices are supposed to look at it and say what
is the way actually say? But he was really way
(22:55):
and you listen to it's terrible, right. So the only
thing I'm concerned about is I really focused on thirty
a concept. It seems like that's legally where they're focused on.
And for those who don't know, it's really regulations versus guidelines,
where it used the language of guidelines inside of the statute,
but they are treating them as regulations, meaning thou shall
(23:15):
and didn't go through the right process, which is where
that small business piece comes into. The reason I say
that is I think you made a point earlier Dan on, well,
did they talk about local towns should have control over zoning? Unfortunately,
I think with forty B in the past those have
kind of gone by the wayside and they agree that, well, no,
they can create statutes in legislature and impose zoning on communities, right.
(23:38):
But to what extent I think is where they're focusing
this case on and essentially saying, well, is that allowable
to say if we define a penalty of well, you
don't get to participate in the grant if you choose
a town not to is that good enough or can
the Attorney General essentially come on top of that and say, no,
you still have to do what we are demanding. So
(23:59):
I think that's it seemed to me listening that's where
the case is going to come down to, this whole
concept of thirty eight. Because they talked about it a
lot today. I know that's a little bit of a
legal minutia there, but for those who didn't take the
time to listen, that's what I took away from it.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Yeah, I mean, is there anything in the statute that
said the Attorney General could enforce this law? Because as
I read this statue, it was kind of a carrot
and a stick. If you comply, you're going to get some,
as I said, sugar, some grants. If you don't comply,
we're going to withhold that sugar. We're going to withhold
those grants.
Speaker 5 (24:35):
No, they didn't, but they referred back to this forty
A section seven, and I think they were saying, like,
you know, it's one of these legal things that says, yeah,
I didn't say it in the statute we wrote, but
it's connected to this other piece of legislation, so you
should know that by that they could. I thought the
Town of Milton's attorney made a very good case when
he went through why the attorney general does not have
(24:56):
purview because if there's plenty of other statutes where they
specifically state that your relief is, the attorney general does
have the ability to, I guess rule on something and
it and it isn't specific. So I think that is
potentially there that say, hey, you really don't have the authority.
It's not written into the statute. So really the only
(25:17):
thing is that Milton is a green or any town
right agrees to give up grants by not having the
zoning in place, which is a choice that each town
should be able to make.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Yeah, I mean, it's to simplify it totally. You know,
if you if your kid doesn't want to eat as
vegetables at dinner and you say to your child, okay,
you don't eat your vegetables. There's no ice cream for dessert.
It's as simple as that. Uh. The parent doesn't say,
you know, I'm going to stuff those those that broccoli
(25:47):
and down your throat, which is what But it seems
to me the comwell wants to do here metaphorically in
they want to do that.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
With everything though, yes, agreed, but they want to do
it with everything. It's not just housing, right, it's this
whole power and control.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
Right.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
They want to be able to tell you, yes, this
is what you can do because it's my belief system. Right.
This whole blog goes back to a worldview of eliminating
suburbs and you know, squeezing people down at these spaces
because of other reasons. Right, that people have a worldview
that way.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
But when you live in a one party state, when
you live in a one party state, uh, that party
tends to say, well, we can impose our will on
the people irrespective, and you know, maybe you guys are
going to suffer some inconvenience, but the next piece of
(26:39):
legislation might impose on another another group of another group
of people. That's why That's why the principle here is
is so important. Was there anyone in the Court, Greg
who you felt we're listening and we're inclined to say, hey,
wait a secon that arguments a pretty good argument. Maybe
the authority was not granted to the Attorney in general
(27:00):
and this is what the step of her authority.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
I thought Justice Winlin she did a very good job
as far as questioning, but she has very good questions
that were very fair. I think on both sides she's
seemed very engaged in all the dialogue. So I actually,
really I never really listened to our s JC, and
know I've listened to Supreme Court, but I was actually
pleasantly surprised. I figured they were all going to be
coming down against Milton, and they weren't, So I thought
(27:26):
for the primarily, I think the only person I really
felt was super on the comonwealth side was Cosker. Everybody
else I felt very good questions, and if I was
looking at it, I thought more questions were asked as
the Commonwealth than there were of the town of Milton.
The thing that did bother me, I will say back
to a comment I believe you made earlier on the
(27:47):
Commonwealth attorney. One thing that bothered me the most is
when one of the justices asked about the additional grants
that were added. Hey, four grants, we went to thirteen.
He started laughing. He thought it was funny.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
He did, yeah, he laughed.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
I was like, what he's laughing about it, Like, of
course we can do that. We can do anything we want.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
You know.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
That's essentially how I took it. And I just thought
it was really kind of disrespectful if I looked at
it from the standpoint of the residents.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
So enlarged it? Did? They enlarge the number of brands
that can be given and also withheld? Is that beyond
what the statue indicated?
Speaker 5 (28:21):
Is that they added what they could take away. So
in the statute written there was three. They added up
of course in the actual law, and then in the
guidelines it went up to thirteen. And that was what
one of the justices asked about, Hey, if this is
you know, how do you add additional penalties? And he
thought it was funny. He laughed about it, like, oh,
let me just tell you why.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
That's the hubris and arrogance of people who feel that
they have authority and power to impose their will right whatever. Hey,
the decision is going to come down in a few
weeks or maybe a couple of months. It's going to
be a really interesting decision as to what happens. Great
appreciate you, Carl, Thank you so much. Keep up the fight.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
You're welcome. Take a quick break at Bob and Wakefield
coming up fill in Boston and holding Carry White with us,
one of the Milton residents who is really at the
center of the case that was argued today in Massachusetts
State Supreme Court. But it is the case that really
affects not just Milton. It affects about one hundred and
(29:26):
seventy seven cities in towns which are called so called
MBTA communities, and they're trying to have a nexus. They're
trying to create a nexus between housing and MBTA accessibility.
And it just seems to me that the implications for
some of these communities, like yours, carry is not so
much MBTA. But what sort of an impact would this
(29:46):
have on your school system? How many more kids will
it add to the school system? How much more will
it cost taxpayers in the town of Milton to absorb
the additional costs of these and what will it do
to the to the quality of life Milton as well.
And this is something that to me is a fundamental issue,
and that's why I'm so concerned about it, and I hope,
(30:07):
I wish more of our audience were concerned about it,
because if you turn a deaf ear to this, ladies
and gentlemen, it could be an area that you have
some interest in. Uh, at another point in time down
the road, we'll be back on night Side. I got
a couple of open lines at six one seven, nine,
three one ten thirty and one at six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty. As a matter of fact, if
you don't die right now, don't bother because we're only
(30:29):
going to get about two or three callers in. So
we're changing topics at nine o'clock we have another guest
schedule or not at nine o'clock at ten o'clock, excuse me.
So if you want to get in and express it
a point, express a point of view, now is the
time to dial. If you wait too long, it won't
get on. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Now back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
Light Side Studios on WBZ the news radio, Let me Go.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Next to Bob and Wakefield. Bob, appreciate your patience. Thank
you very much for for holding on. You are next
on night side with my guests. Carry White, Milton resident
who found herself sitting in the State Supreme Court today
and listening to an argument in which she she somehow
was named as a defendant.
Speaker 6 (31:14):
Go right ahead, Bob dan Kerry and Carry.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Strike that, Bob, I misspoke. She's not a defendant, but
she is. She's she is a representative of the town
of Milton, which is the defendant in this particular case.
Go right, go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 6 (31:32):
First of all, Carry, I want to thank you in
the town of Milton for taking the state on this.
This is this is a real problem here. The one
thing that really irks me is the this law is
a mandate without funding, and as many many laws that
come in without funding, uh these I think it's gonna
I personally think this is going to bankrupt many cities
and towns that this think goes for it. The risk
(31:54):
of and the risk of receiving the grants that always
have strings to them attached are and quite frankly, even
the state litigation, whatever that is, I have no idea
what they would what they would do. I have no
idea what the dollar amount with they what would happen
if they did sue the cities in towns that don't
go along with this. It is really peen. It's compared
to what it's going to cost these citizen in towns
(32:15):
to actually handle. In our case, you know, over two
thousand housing units that we have to that we have
to supply the infrastructure for.
Speaker 5 (32:25):
It is absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 6 (32:27):
At our town meeting in the spring, I asked the
superintendent during the school budget which was went through kicking
and screaming, was I think it was over fifty million
dollars whatever it was? I asked him, is you know
what is shape is our schools? And can we handle
this additional influx of individuals, you know, kids coming into
the town. And he says, no, we're a capacity, you know,
(32:48):
So that's that is the bottom line. And plus it's
it's over eighteen thousand bucks a piece per student per
year to put one student through through the system, and
it's just unsustained. We're already we're overbuilding like crazy. We've
got apartments and condos everywhere I turn around at building them.
And we've also got a, we've got a brand new
(33:09):
high school going up right now, we've got an override
for that, and uh, you know, and the point is,
we don't have any extra classrooms. We don't have an
extra school to put them in, we don't have the
land to build a school, and we certainly don't have
the money to pay for a new school and the staff.
And then you add that to the infrastructure. I'm just
talking in general, because this is happening to every city
town here because of the infrastructure until deycat capacity. I
(33:32):
asked the DPW director, even our pumping facility, pumping station,
are we at capacity for that? Because we have to
get into that. That's man's and millions of dollars. And
obviously the increased traffic and the lack of quality of life,
it just goes on and on and on and on
and on. So this is this is really, this is
a real problem, and this has just got to stop.
(33:53):
This is and this, by the way, this is a
national trend. This isn't just Massachusetts, you know. The national
trend is just they're depering with local control, zoning control.
Many of the larger cities really have been ruined by
by out of control policies for decades, and now, in
my opinion, the power brokers and some of the developer
buddies they're coming into the suburbs and they're going to
screw them up just like they did the cities. That's
(34:15):
my opinion.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Well, you bring up a lot of good points in Dan.
If you don't mind me just say one thing Dan
was saying in the intro was talking about how you
know public policy or public you know you Dan, you
made references to, you know, some of the you know, universities,
and with the exception of public education, so many of
the great things in Massachusetts or what were developed in
(34:39):
Massachusetts or innovations in Massachusetts were privately funded, including some
of the hospitals, and one thing in the town of
Milton in particular that in addition to the things that
you just mentioned like water sewer, police, you know, public safety,
we are now also absorbing in our town the closure
of the Carney Hospitals. That again was a p that
(35:01):
initially private hospital funded by the Catholic Church, started by
the Catholic Church, and now that closure is again in
undating a time. This is without the building of all
the additional housing units that the state would like us
to build. So we have all the same issues that
you just mentioned, sir, you know the with water sew
(35:21):
or you know all of these things. You know there's
zero thought gone into any of those things, and how
to fund that or how to help subsidize that, if
you want to use that word zero.
Speaker 6 (35:33):
Hey, Terry, come, I just told you one thing. Our
town meeting in the spring, we voted forty down to
thirty to two or seven. So we voted that thing down. Goodbye. Well,
the planning which sponsors that they did, allows you job.
So the town councilors, they got together and we're bringing it.
They're bringing it back in November, so we go to
battle it all over again.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Yeah, number I.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
Got to get any abob. I appreciate you.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
You dance, thanks a lot, Well, keep it going, okay,
by thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
It's a it's a very important issue in my opinion.
Next to Okay, let's go next to Phil in Boston.
Phil just s getching out of the wire here in
the right head you're on with Kerry White.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
Go ahead. That was all. I thank the genuinady. I'm
off from Milton. I like ride through it every day
in this nice little community. I just don't know where
they would even put these where would they do and
if it not places down to doom them up? I mean,
just as hothing makes to the other gentlemen, it's the
school apartment, the analysis, the traffic. I just don't know.
(36:35):
It might be cheaper just to get rid of the
trolley tracks and don't have any buses coming in.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
There are many people in our town that said that
same thing. Boston is exempt from. The think about that Boston,
who is absolutely an MBTA community, is not subtituting.
Speaker 4 (36:52):
Law an assassin matter pen. It's part of Boston, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:58):
My question is is that, Dan, do you remember the
years ago when they were knocked out all those houses
and High Park They were going to make it a
nice little true way from I guess once twenty eight
to Boston. They knocked out those houses down West Street
and High Park and those places. I don't remember that
at all.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
How long ago was that, Phil, I have a tough time.
Speaker 4 (37:20):
Late late sixties, maybe a late sixties, early seventies. They
knocked these houses down. Then they after I knocked them down,
then they decided, no, we don't need the road because.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Well they were they were they were going to do.
There was going to be a road which was going
to be extension I think of one twenty eight. It
was going to go through Rockney.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
Whatever.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
Yes, yes, Southwest express Way and yeah, but again they
were those houses probably were taken by eminent domain, which
in south very questionable. Hey, Phil, thanks reminding them that
of us of that.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
Thank good luck to that lady. Thank you right, Thank.
Speaker 2 (37:56):
You, Carrie, best of Locke. Keep us posting as to
how this works out, because not only it's going to
work out one way or the other for the town
of Milton, but for also one hundred and seventy seven
other communities and most people I'm paying attention to this
stuff that's done at the legislature. You're paying attention to it,
and whether you support it or oppose it, at least
(38:17):
you are paying attention. And the sad part is the legislature,
as dumb as they are, they're smart enough to know
that most people who are working in this state are
too busy working, making a living, paying their taxes to
pay attention to the stuff that goes on up there
which affects them. At the end, it's a very it's
a gamed system in many.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
Respects, and it is it is, yeah, and then you know,
you think about that they are the ones helping to
drive people away from this state. Right Just college kids
graduate and they say, I can't afford to stay here.
I got a nice education, thank you, BC, but now
I got to go somewhere. So Carolina, Texas, wherever you
got it.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Kerry, appreciate you call. Let's keep in touch on it
and keep me posted when the decision can down.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
Okay, thanks Dan, absolutely, Thanks Thanks Gerry, talk to you
so good night.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
We're going to come back and we're going to talk
about the big story of the day, which is that
this is the first year anniversary of what happened in
October seventh, and if you do not if you're not
outraged at what happened on that day, I don't know
what your sense of history is. We'll explain right after
the ten o'clock news with my guest Jason Greenberg coming
(39:25):
up at the other side of the tent.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm WBZ Costance New Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
Well, there was an interesting argument at the Massachusetts State
Supreme Court today which we have talked about before, and
I hope that some of you remember that in the
waning hours of the Charlie Baker administration back and would
have been in December of twenty twenty two, the legislature,
(00:28):
in their infinite wisdom, decided that it would be important
to work into a piece of legislation an obligation that
there are about one hundred and seventy seventy one hundred
and seventy seven communities in eastern Massachusetts that are going
to have to again, according to an article here that
(00:50):
I'm reading, encourage this is from the State House News
Service by Colin Young, to encourage multifamily housing because either
those communities host or are adjacent to MBTA service. Now,
there is an argument that there is a housing shortage
(01:12):
in Massachusetts, and there is a housing shortage in certain
portions of Massachusetts. Tough to buy something in the Greater
Boston area, particularly for people who are just trying to
start out. But again the General Court, in their infinite wisdom,
(01:33):
have decided that they would weave into a mandate into
a twenty twenty one economic development package at the last minute,
with little discussion. That's the way they do it up
at the legislature, provisions that have become a major piece
of the state strategy to encourage badly needed housing production.
So what this essentially says is okay, instead of communities
(01:59):
being allowed to zone their cities and towns the way
in which they want their cities and towns to be zone.
So for example, some cities in towns want to be
zoned as a bedroom community with you know, properties built
on you know, smaller portions of land half acre or
one third or one quarter acre lots, and that's what
(02:23):
they expect, and they'll have a lot of commercial services available.
Think framing him Route nine for example, which is lovely
for people who live close to there, but there are
going to be no homes on Route nine. In framing him,
just as an example, I mean, it's a restaurant after restaurant,
(02:44):
after shopping center, after sporting goods store, after a restaurant,
after shopping center, after more sporting goods stores, after danning salons. Whatever.
You didn't get the drift. But there are other communities
that say no, you know, we want to maintain open spaces. Now,
none of these communities, it's important to note, none of
(03:05):
these communities that now find themselves under or potentially under
this mandate from the state, none of these communities have
been accused of passing any sort of zoning requirements that
are illegal meaning unconstitutional, saying that we don't want, you know,
certain type of people to live in our community or whatever.
(03:26):
Even you know, no suggestion here of any form of discrimination.
It is simply we need more housing. Okay. Now, what
towns are going to be most affected? Pretty simple, the
towns that currently have dense housing circumstances and towns that
(03:48):
maybe are trying to maintain their character. One of those
towns is Milton, and the story is that initially the
Board of Selectmen in New went along with it because
with every obligation comes a little bit of sugar from
the state. So if you comply with what we want
(04:09):
you to do, you're going to get some additional money.
Is you're going to get some grants. There'll be something
there for you which you as the political leader in
this community, if you're a mayor or a city councilor
or an Alderman or whatever, this might help ease the
pain of this obligation. So Milton, the selectman in Milton,
(04:33):
they complied. They went along with it and said, we agree.
The people of Milton had a different point of view.
So the people of Milton held a special election last winter,
was in February, I believe, and the people in Milton
overrode the decision of the selectment in Milton. As a consequence,
(04:58):
Milton said, you're not gonna comply, okay now, According to
the Attorney General's Office, Andrea Campbell, quoting here, told reporters
before the SJC heard the oral arguments today, and I'm
quoting here from an article that is in the Boston Globe,
housing affordability is the number one challenge currently facing Massachusetts
(05:22):
and Massachusetts residents. I'm not sure I'm going to agree
with the Attorney General on that, but that's her opinion,
and she's the Attorney General. She told reporters before the
SJC heard oral arguments. The median price of a single
family home here in Massachusetts is almost one million dollars.
I find that kind of hard to believe, but you
(05:43):
know it's possible now in certain cities in certain areas,
it's one million dollars. Certainly, if you go to a
town like Weston or Wayland or Wellesley, as I've offered
referred to as the w communities, the more affluent communities, yeah,
probably the single family home is almost maybe even over
million dollars. But that doesn't mean necessarily that those towns
(06:09):
should now be forced to change the character of the town.
Campbell said, the lack of affordable housing is driving people
out of our great state. Madam Attorney General, I think
that might be a factor. But as long as you
guys keep taxing people more and putting more obligations on them,
(06:30):
I think more people are going to go elsewhere, and
the places that they are going are places that are
more tax friendly states like South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, and
New Hampshire. And as a matter of fact, there are
studies that support that. But the Attorney General is not
mentioning the overburdened taxes on people in Massachusetts. So she
(06:55):
is quoted in is un quoted, but says this is
an important case. Is quote. This is an important case
for two reasons. One to ensure the effectiveness of the
MBTA community's law as a tool to address our housing
crisis and to protect the rule of law and uphold
our legal structure here in Massachusetts. I don't. I'm almost laughing,
(07:15):
because you know, there's a lot of laws that have
been passed in states around this country, not a maturity
general that that should not have been upheld. Okay, and
you need to understand that not every law. And she
was never she was on the city council but ran
for mayor of Boston and didn't win, and then ran
(07:37):
for Trinity General. But state legislatures passed stupid laws all
the time. So that's not the question for the court today.
The question for the court today is whether or not
this They're going to focus, according to the to the Globe,
on narrow legal issues, but the implications of the ruling
(07:57):
may be wide ranging and shape these states effort to
dig out of its criminal out of its deep housing shortage.
The law represents Massachusetts' most pointed attempt to produce more
housing in decades, and the principle behind it, compelling communities
to change restrictive zoning laws that have helped fuel the shortage,
(08:17):
is key to the state's housing strategy. All of that
is irrelevant and should not even be considered by the judges.
In my opinion, the question is what did the legislature
vote for, what enforcement mechanism did they provide to the
attorney general? And is the state acting appropriately? The towns
(08:38):
do have a right to refuse this. It's as I
understand that in the statute. In the statute because there
are penalty provisions that if the towns refuse it, well
they won't get that grand or they won't get that
additional sugar cube from the state. Look, the politicians have
(09:02):
worked long and hard to destroy Massachusetts and to and
to change the structure of Massachusetts despite all of the
great advantages we have. We have here in Massachusetts, great schools,
great universities, none of which, except for the state college system,
were created. These are private colleges, great hospitals, none of
(09:23):
which were created by the legislature or the State of Massachusetts.
Great economic engines, none of which were created by the
Great and General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Everything
that's great about Massachusetts besides the public education system at
(09:44):
the college level, the University of Massachusetts and it's various
U mass Boston, of which I'm a graduate. You loll
U mass Dartmouth, et cetera. Those are created, Those are
created by public forces. But Harvard wasn't created by the legislature.
M I. T. Boston College, Boston University, Northeastern those are
(10:07):
all private schools. Okay, the great hospitals, they were created,
oftentimes in cases by by churches. So I just love
to read the language that is being put forward here,
and I hope that some of you understand what I'm
talking about, because if the legislature and the Governor's office
(10:30):
whoever the governor is, and this is not a knock
on governor heally, this was created under Governor Baker as
he was heading out the door. And you know this
is fine. I mean, the legislature has has has done
more to screw up this state in the last fifty
years than it has ever done to fix this state.
And people need to start to understand that. And maybe
(10:52):
the State Supreme Court will understand that. I don't know.
We'll have to see how that all works. Their decision
wasn't made today. They'll take it under advisement and they'll
issue a decision at some point down the line. But
it seems to me the less point that zoning, zoning regulations,
as long as they are constitutional and as long as
(11:14):
they do not violate the civil rights of anyone, should
be left to the government that governs best, which is
the government that's closest to the people in Massachusetts, the
cities and towns six one, seven, two, five, four, ten
thirty six one seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty. I
love this topic because I think it is a philosophical
(11:36):
topic as much as it is a legal one. And
if you believe in the power of government forcing communities,
smaller entities to do something that they don't want to do,
then you should hope that the Supreme Court will rule
in favor of the power brokers here in Massachusetts. If
you believe in things like individual freedom and the right
(11:56):
of self determination, under those circumstances, I think you should
hope that the state Supreme Court says to the legislature,
this is way beyond what you should do. You want
to increase housing in Massachusetts, pass some programs, have some incentives,
allow the private sector to get involved. They will build,
(12:16):
build probe, they will build housing, they will build it
and people will come. We're back on nightside. You got
the numbers. I'm kind of wound up I want to
hear from you back on Nightside after this.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Now back to Dan Ray live from the Window World
night Side Studios. I'm WBZ News Radio.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
All Right, one member of the town of Milton who
was in court today has been on the show before
and she's joining us at Kerry. Why Kerry, How are
you tonight?
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I'm great, tone, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
So what was the reaction of the judges today? Again,
I do not believe you're a lawyer, but I'm sure
you talk to you lawyers afterwards. You're actually, in effect
that defend did in this case? Are you're not? Or
is the No?
Speaker 3 (13:04):
That's correct. I'm a defendant in this case.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yeah, you're the defendant. You're the defendant because you're one
of the rabbel rousers fought.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
Against this indeed, a rabble rouser from a long line
of rabble rousers. Yes, So yeah, Dan, What.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Did you take from from the questions and the comments
and the observations from the judges from the judges up.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
There today, Sure, I was very interested to hear you
just mentioned the announcement from the age this morning before
the oral arguments began. I didn't know that until I
heard you just report that, Thank you, reporter Dan. The
thing is that clearly some people in the courtroom got
(13:47):
her message. If not, if even if she had not
been pretty clear beforehand, you know what her stances about
her case here. However, one of the justices multiple times
stated during or or arguments, he stated multiple times there's
a housing crisis. Now to me, okay, yeah, And as
(14:14):
you mentioned, there are many variables variables that impact the
cost of housing, and you rightly bring up you know,
the w towns for example, they have many things that
you know, variables that impact what the cost of housing
is in those towns, not the least of which is,
you know, a lot size, and you know, among other things,
interest rates, right, you know what a house cost today
(14:36):
in rail dollars for you know, a family is different
than it was even a few years ago. But one
of the things is, you know, when I heard this
justice say this, I kept thinking, Okay, well that's interesting.
He's saying this, and he's saying it multiple times. That
is a politically popular phrase to use right now, right
housing crisis. It's interesting because I thought, for example, our
(15:00):
attorney he did a very good job, you know, in
presenting the arguments I thought they were well presented, thoughtful,
you know, easy to follow. I think obviously I've been
you know, following our case from the beginning. But I
thought he was you know, plain spoken. And I don't
mean that in a folksy sort of point, if you will,
(15:20):
but I think it was, you know, it was quite fair.
On the other hand, I would say if the representative
of you know, Ms. Campbell was the best in her troupe,
he stumbled a little bit. I will say that, you know,
there were a couple of questions that you know, the
(15:42):
justices have for him, for example, you know, about whether
our case was meaningless, because there were some words that
he said to the effect of, well, what about their vote?
What about the vote that they held, you know, back
in February. It was, in fact, on February fourteenth, the
best Valentine's Day gift for me in a few years.
I loved it. And she asked him specifically, so were
(16:06):
you saying that their vote is meaningless? And he sort
of stumbled a little bit, you know in his response.
So then one of the other judges asked, well, don't
they have the rule of law? Are you saying that
the rule of law is meaningless, and he kind of armed,
I would.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
Say, and well, let's let me ask you this though.
The question is is it's difficult to handicap how judges
will vote. Sometimes they ask questions, absolutely but explatory. How
did you become a defendant in this.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
We filed for amicus briefs to support our defense. So
how did you want?
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Are you named as a defendant in this case?
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Carry not personally the defendant, I'm a signatory to one
of the amicus braves. That's it, okay, So you're the
defendant the town the town.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
The defendant is the town of Milton, Okay. And you
obviously signed Dawn as a resident of Milton to one
of the amicas briefs, which is fine, okay, no, no problem, okay.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
And what did.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Anyone under any other towns? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Right, did anyone on the court? Yes? Would you say
that one hundred and twenty towns have signed.
Speaker 3 (17:18):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (17:19):
No?
Speaker 3 (17:20):
For the various briefs that we have three different amicus
briefs which we have filed to support this. One is
related to small business because stating that this was not
thought all the way through in terms of the impacts
to small businesses and the various towns that have will
be instared in this.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
It's not as if you're not telling me that one
hundred and twenty one towns have taken a lot of
towns that have said they're.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Going to go along with it, right right, I'm seeing
people from one hundred and twenty different towns. That's irrelevant
to me.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
That's totally irrelevant to me. I can't use the word
irrelevant any more than six times in order to tell seldom.
And I don't want to go there because the fact
that you're three people, If you have three people at
Waltham and four people in Lexington, it doesn't matter, Okay,
it matters how the various towns Milton is obviously going
to be made. They're going to make an example of
(18:16):
you potentially and say, okay, you have to comply to
force this. Did any of the justices and my last
question before we got to go to news and then
we'll get some phone calls, did any of the justices?
Did any of the justices say, hey, this whole question
of housing traditionally is a decision that is made at
the local level. I mean, the governor doesn't tell Milton
(18:41):
how to zone Milton and whether to allow a bowling
alley to come into or a golf driving range, or
a new apartment building. That is traditionally a local rule
and you know, local rules and regulations. Did any of
the justices even address that issue?
Speaker 3 (18:58):
They did, They did. They raised that you know, not case,
but they they've been made that point specifically, you know,
in different words than you just used, but basically saying,
you know that these are local, you know, choices local.
So cool. And then.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
It seems to me it's an overreaction for the legislature
and the governor to try to tell one hundred and
seventy seven cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts how they
should zone their communities absent absent some you know, constitutional
issues in which individual people or groups of people are
(19:39):
being denied their constitutional rights? Is what? Yes, what if
I was, That's how I would be inclined to.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Rule exactly, and did ask Yeah, two of the judges
Dan did exactly ask you know, questions on that line too,
you know, the AGCs attorney and as specifically about what
you're saying, what these people are asking for is against
their town charter. And he seems to mystified that we
had a town harder a town charter, and she said, well,
(20:09):
you do understand they have a town charter. They set
their local rules, they set their zoning, they make choices
for themselves. So they did. They seem balanced. I felt, Okay, Kerrie.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
I gotta I gotta take a break here because we're
at the bottom of the hour. We got a newscast
coming up. I've got a couple of callers lined up.
We'll talk to them and continue to talk to you.
Six ten thirty six seven thirty. This to me just
is an egregious overstep that the folks at the State
House have decided they are going to come down on
(20:43):
these local communities. And I don't know how your state
representatives or your state senator voted on this, but it's
something that should be taken in consideration, I think politically,
because this becomes to me more of a political effort
by the state to have its way. And I hope
that the State Supreme Court basically says to themselves, hey,
(21:05):
we're there to uh consider the interest not only of
the powerful and elite on Beacon Hill, but the communities.
Every one of these communities should have their own input.
We'll take a break. Coming back on night Side.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
All right, let's let's go to the phones. Carrie White
is my guest. She is a Milton resident. She was
in the State Supreme Court today and uh, it gave
us a little bit of a heads up as to
what was said and what wasn't said. And let's go
to some of our listeners. The only lines open right now,
by the way, happened to be six one seven. If
(21:48):
you want to get in, let me go to Greg
Is and Shrewsbury. Hi, Greg, how are you tonight? Welcome? Good?
Speaker 4 (21:53):
How are you?
Speaker 1 (21:53):
Dan?
Speaker 5 (21:54):
Like to talk to you again?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
Do just great? Say? How to carry White? I know
that that you from Shrewsbury, a town that is also
said we do not want to participate in this this
this program that will I think fundamentally change a lot
of what Shrewsbury is all about.
Speaker 5 (22:13):
Yeah. Absolutely, Yeah. We've been fighting here a group of us.
But I did listen, you know, I wanted to make
a couple of comments. I did listen to the SJC
case today, and what I found interesting was there was
kind of two camps. I don't know, I think it
was justice. Uh, Cofker, and what he had said was
really leaning on the side of giving the benefit of
the doubt to the commonwealth on everything. He had this
(22:35):
concept of paper tiger. Essentially he's saying that, well, I
don't believe that the penalty was strong enough, so just
by giving up those grants, you really believe that's what
the legislature intended. And I thought from a legal standpoint,
justices are supposed to look at it and say what
is the way actually say? But he was really way
(22:55):
and you listen to it's terrible, right. So the only
thing I'm concerned about is I really focused on thirty
a concept. It seems like that's legally where they're focused on.
And for those who don't know, it's really regulations versus guidelines,
where it used the language of guidelines inside of the statute,
but they are treating them as regulations, meaning thou shall
(23:15):
and didn't go through the right process, which is where
that small business piece comes into. The reason I say
that is I think you made a point earlier Dan on, well,
did they talk about local towns should have control over zoning? Unfortunately,
I think with forty B in the past those have
kind of gone by the wayside and they agree that, well, no,
they can create statutes in legislature and impose zoning on communities, right.
(23:38):
But to what extent I think is where they're focusing
this case on and essentially saying, well, is that allowable
to say if we define a penalty of well, you
don't get to participate in the grant if you choose
a town not to is that good enough or can
the Attorney General essentially come on top of that and say, no,
you still have to do what we are demanding. So
(23:59):
I think that's it seemed to me listening that's where
the case is going to come down to, this whole
concept of thirty eight. Because they talked about it a
lot today. I know that's a little bit of a
legal minutia there, but for those who didn't take the
time to listen, that's what I took away from it.
Speaker 2 (24:13):
Yeah, I mean, is there anything in the statute that
said the Attorney General could enforce this law? Because as
I read this statue, it was kind of a carrot
and a stick. If you comply, you're going to get some,
as I said, sugar, some grants. If you don't comply,
we're going to withhold that sugar. We're going to withhold
those grants.
Speaker 5 (24:35):
No, they didn't, but they referred back to this forty
A section seven, and I think they were saying, like,
you know, it's one of these legal things that says, yeah,
I didn't say it in the statute we wrote, but
it's connected to this other piece of legislation, so you
should know that by that they could. I thought the
Town of Milton's attorney made a very good case when
he went through why the attorney general does not have
(24:56):
purview because if there's plenty of other statutes where they
specifically state that your relief is, the attorney general does
have the ability to, I guess rule on something and
it and it isn't specific. So I think that is
potentially there that say, hey, you really don't have the authority.
It's not written into the statute. So really the only
(25:17):
thing is that Milton is a green or any town
right agrees to give up grants by not having the
zoning in place, which is a choice that each town
should be able to make.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Yeah, I mean, it's to simplify it totally. You know,
if you if your kid doesn't want to eat as
vegetables at dinner and you say to your child, okay,
you don't eat your vegetables. There's no ice cream for dessert.
It's as simple as that. Uh. The parent doesn't say,
you know, I'm going to stuff those those that broccoli
(25:47):
and down your throat, which is what But it seems
to me the comwell wants to do here metaphorically in
they want to do that.
Speaker 5 (25:55):
With everything though, yes, agreed, but they want to do
it with everything. It's not just housing, right, it's this
whole power and control.
Speaker 4 (26:01):
Right.
Speaker 5 (26:01):
They want to be able to tell you, yes, this
is what you can do because it's my belief system. Right.
This whole blog goes back to a worldview of eliminating
suburbs and you know, squeezing people down at these spaces
because of other reasons. Right, that people have a worldview
that way.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
But when you live in a one party state, when
you live in a one party state, uh, that party
tends to say, well, we can impose our will on
the people irrespective, and you know, maybe you guys are
going to suffer some inconvenience, but the next piece of
(26:39):
legislation might impose on another another group of another group
of people. That's why That's why the principle here is
is so important. Was there anyone in the Court, Greg
who you felt we're listening and we're inclined to say, hey,
wait a secon that arguments a pretty good argument. Maybe
the authority was not granted to the Attorney in general
(27:00):
and this is what the step of her authority.
Speaker 5 (27:02):
I thought Justice Winlin she did a very good job
as far as questioning, but she has very good questions
that were very fair. I think on both sides she's
seemed very engaged in all the dialogue. So I actually,
really I never really listened to our s JC, and
know I've listened to Supreme Court, but I was actually
pleasantly surprised. I figured they were all going to be
coming down against Milton, and they weren't, So I thought
(27:26):
for the primarily, I think the only person I really
felt was super on the comonwealth side was Cosker. Everybody
else I felt very good questions, and if I was
looking at it, I thought more questions were asked as
the Commonwealth than there were of the town of Milton.
The thing that did bother me, I will say back
to a comment I believe you made earlier on the
(27:47):
Commonwealth attorney. One thing that bothered me the most is
when one of the justices asked about the additional grants
that were added. Hey, four grants, we went to thirteen.
He started laughing. He thought it was funny.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
He did, yeah, he laughed.
Speaker 5 (28:00):
I was like, what he's laughing about it, Like, of
course we can do that. We can do anything we want.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
You know.
Speaker 5 (28:06):
That's essentially how I took it. And I just thought
it was really kind of disrespectful if I looked at
it from the standpoint of the residents.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
So enlarged it? Did? They enlarge the number of brands
that can be given and also withheld? Is that beyond
what the statue indicated?
Speaker 5 (28:21):
Is that they added what they could take away. So
in the statute written there was three. They added up
of course in the actual law, and then in the
guidelines it went up to thirteen. And that was what
one of the justices asked about, Hey, if this is
you know, how do you add additional penalties? And he
thought it was funny. He laughed about it, like, oh,
let me just tell you why.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
That's the hubris and arrogance of people who feel that
they have authority and power to impose their will right whatever. Hey,
the decision is going to come down in a few
weeks or maybe a couple of months. It's going to
be a really interesting decision as to what happens. Great
appreciate you, Carl, Thank you so much. Keep up the fight.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
You're welcome. Take a quick break at Bob and Wakefield
coming up fill in Boston and holding Carry White with us,
one of the Milton residents who is really at the
center of the case that was argued today in Massachusetts
State Supreme Court. But it is the case that really
affects not just Milton. It affects about one hundred and
(29:26):
seventy seven cities in towns which are called so called
MBTA communities, and they're trying to have a nexus. They're
trying to create a nexus between housing and MBTA accessibility.
And it just seems to me that the implications for
some of these communities, like yours, carry is not so
much MBTA. But what sort of an impact would this
(29:46):
have on your school system? How many more kids will
it add to the school system? How much more will
it cost taxpayers in the town of Milton to absorb
the additional costs of these and what will it do
to the to the quality of life Milton as well.
And this is something that to me is a fundamental issue,
and that's why I'm so concerned about it, and I hope,
(30:07):
I wish more of our audience were concerned about it,
because if you turn a deaf ear to this, ladies
and gentlemen, it could be an area that you have
some interest in. Uh, at another point in time down
the road, we'll be back on night Side. I got
a couple of open lines at six one seven, nine,
three one ten thirty and one at six one, seven, two, five,
four to ten thirty. As a matter of fact, if
you don't die right now, don't bother because we're only
(30:29):
going to get about two or three callers in. So
we're changing topics at nine o'clock we have another guest
schedule or not at nine o'clock at ten o'clock, excuse me.
So if you want to get in and express it
a point, express a point of view, now is the
time to dial. If you wait too long, it won't
get on. Coming back on Nightside.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Now back to Dan ray Line from the Window World
Light Side Studios on WBZ the news radio, Let me Go.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Next to Bob and Wakefield. Bob, appreciate your patience. Thank
you very much for for holding on. You are next
on night side with my guests. Carry White, Milton resident
who found herself sitting in the State Supreme Court today
and listening to an argument in which she she somehow
was named as a defendant.
Speaker 6 (31:14):
Go right ahead, Bob dan Kerry and Carry.
Speaker 2 (31:20):
Strike that, Bob, I misspoke. She's not a defendant, but
she is. She's she is a representative of the town
of Milton, which is the defendant in this particular case.
Go right, go ahead, Bob.
Speaker 6 (31:32):
First of all, Carry, I want to thank you in
the town of Milton for taking the state on this.
This is this is a real problem here. The one
thing that really irks me is the this law is
a mandate without funding, and as many many laws that
come in without funding, uh these I think it's gonna
I personally think this is going to bankrupt many cities
and towns that this think goes for it. The risk
(31:54):
of and the risk of receiving the grants that always
have strings to them attached are and quite frankly, even
the state litigation, whatever that is, I have no idea
what they would what they would do. I have no
idea what the dollar amount with they what would happen
if they did sue the cities in towns that don't
go along with this. It is really peen. It's compared
to what it's going to cost these citizen in towns
(32:15):
to actually handle. In our case, you know, over two
thousand housing units that we have to that we have
to supply the infrastructure for.
Speaker 5 (32:25):
It is absolutely ridiculous.
Speaker 6 (32:27):
At our town meeting in the spring, I asked the
superintendent during the school budget which was went through kicking
and screaming, was I think it was over fifty million
dollars whatever it was? I asked him, is you know
what is shape is our schools? And can we handle
this additional influx of individuals, you know, kids coming into
the town. And he says, no, we're a capacity, you know,
(32:48):
So that's that is the bottom line. And plus it's
it's over eighteen thousand bucks a piece per student per
year to put one student through through the system, and
it's just unsustained. We're already we're overbuilding like crazy. We've
got apartments and condos everywhere I turn around at building them.
And we've also got a, we've got a brand new
(33:09):
high school going up right now, we've got an override
for that, and uh, you know, and the point is,
we don't have any extra classrooms. We don't have an
extra school to put them in, we don't have the
land to build a school, and we certainly don't have
the money to pay for a new school and the staff.
And then you add that to the infrastructure. I'm just
talking in general, because this is happening to every city
town here because of the infrastructure until deycat capacity. I
(33:32):
asked the DPW director, even our pumping facility, pumping station,
are we at capacity for that? Because we have to
get into that. That's man's and millions of dollars. And
obviously the increased traffic and the lack of quality of life,
it just goes on and on and on and on
and on. So this is this is really, this is
a real problem, and this has just got to stop.
(33:53):
This is and this, by the way, this is a
national trend. This isn't just Massachusetts, you know. The national
trend is just they're depering with local control, zoning control.
Many of the larger cities really have been ruined by
by out of control policies for decades, and now, in
my opinion, the power brokers and some of the developer
buddies they're coming into the suburbs and they're going to
screw them up just like they did the cities. That's
(34:15):
my opinion.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
Well, you bring up a lot of good points in Dan.
If you don't mind me just say one thing Dan
was saying in the intro was talking about how you
know public policy or public you know you Dan, you
made references to, you know, some of the you know, universities,
and with the exception of public education, so many of
the great things in Massachusetts or what were developed in
(34:39):
Massachusetts or innovations in Massachusetts were privately funded, including some
of the hospitals, and one thing in the town of
Milton in particular that in addition to the things that
you just mentioned like water sewer, police, you know, public safety,
we are now also absorbing in our town the closure
of the Carney Hospitals. That again was a p that
(35:01):
initially private hospital funded by the Catholic Church, started by
the Catholic Church, and now that closure is again in
undating a time. This is without the building of all
the additional housing units that the state would like us
to build. So we have all the same issues that
you just mentioned, sir, you know the with water sew
(35:21):
or you know all of these things. You know there's
zero thought gone into any of those things, and how
to fund that or how to help subsidize that, if
you want to use that word zero.
Speaker 6 (35:33):
Hey, Terry, come, I just told you one thing. Our
town meeting in the spring, we voted forty down to
thirty to two or seven. So we voted that thing down. Goodbye. Well,
the planning which sponsors that they did, allows you job.
So the town councilors, they got together and we're bringing it.
They're bringing it back in November, so we go to
battle it all over again.
Speaker 3 (35:54):
Yeah, number I.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
Got to get any abob. I appreciate you.
Speaker 6 (35:58):
You dance, thanks a lot, Well, keep it going, okay,
by thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (36:01):
It's a it's a very important issue in my opinion.
Next to Okay, let's go next to Phil in Boston.
Phil just s getching out of the wire here in
the right head you're on with Kerry White.
Speaker 4 (36:13):
Go ahead. That was all. I thank the genuinady. I'm
off from Milton. I like ride through it every day
in this nice little community. I just don't know where
they would even put these where would they do and
if it not places down to doom them up? I mean,
just as hothing makes to the other gentlemen, it's the
school apartment, the analysis, the traffic. I just don't know.
(36:35):
It might be cheaper just to get rid of the
trolley tracks and don't have any buses coming in.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
There are many people in our town that said that
same thing. Boston is exempt from. The think about that Boston,
who is absolutely an MBTA community, is not subtituting.
Speaker 4 (36:52):
Law an assassin matter pen. It's part of Boston, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (36:57):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (36:58):
My question is is that, Dan, do you remember the
years ago when they were knocked out all those houses
and High Park They were going to make it a
nice little true way from I guess once twenty eight
to Boston. They knocked out those houses down West Street
and High Park and those places. I don't remember that
at all.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
How long ago was that, Phil, I have a tough time.
Speaker 4 (37:20):
Late late sixties, maybe a late sixties, early seventies. They
knocked these houses down. Then they after I knocked them down,
then they decided, no, we don't need the road because.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
Well they were they were they were going to do.
There was going to be a road which was going
to be extension I think of one twenty eight. It
was going to go through Rockney.
Speaker 4 (37:39):
Whatever.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
Yes, yes, Southwest express Way and yeah, but again they
were those houses probably were taken by eminent domain, which
in south very questionable. Hey, Phil, thanks reminding them that
of us of that.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
Thank good luck to that lady. Thank you right, Thank.
Speaker 2 (37:56):
You, Carrie, best of Locke. Keep us posting as to
how this works out, because not only it's going to
work out one way or the other for the town
of Milton, but for also one hundred and seventy seven
other communities and most people I'm paying attention to this
stuff that's done at the legislature. You're paying attention to it,
and whether you support it or oppose it, at least
(38:17):
you are paying attention. And the sad part is the legislature,
as dumb as they are, they're smart enough to know
that most people who are working in this state are
too busy working, making a living, paying their taxes to
pay attention to the stuff that goes on up there
which affects them. At the end, it's a very it's
a gamed system in many.
Speaker 3 (38:37):
Respects, and it is it is, yeah, and then you know,
you think about that they are the ones helping to
drive people away from this state. Right Just college kids
graduate and they say, I can't afford to stay here.
I got a nice education, thank you, BC, but now
I got to go somewhere. So Carolina, Texas, wherever you
got it.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
Kerry, appreciate you call. Let's keep in touch on it
and keep me posted when the decision can down.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
Okay, thanks Dan, absolutely, Thanks Thanks Gerry, talk to you
so good night.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
We're going to come back and we're going to talk
about the big story of the day, which is that
this is the first year anniversary of what happened in
October seventh, and if you do not if you're not
outraged at what happened on that day, I don't know
what your sense of history is. We'll explain right after
the ten o'clock news with my guest Jason Greenberg coming
(39:25):
up at the other side of the tent.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!