It’s time to end Boston’s unique status of being exempt from the state zoning code

IN AUGUST 1960, amid catastrophic population loss and the prospect of vast amounts of federal aid, State House leaders and then-Mayor John Collins struck a deal exempting Boston from most Massachusetts zoning laws. Sixty-six years later, the post-war urban crisis and the era of federally funded urban renewal are long over, but that deal is still the foundation of Boston’s development process. So why does Boston still operate under real estate development processes built for that bygone era?

The case for maintaining the archaic status quo grows weaker with every statewide housing reform. Because of that 1960 deal, Boston is exempt from the MBTA Communities Act, statewide legalization of accessory dwelling units (ADU), and the proposed Legalize Starter Homes ballot question. These laws are some of the highest profile legislation Beacon Hill has passed in the last decade, but do not apply to the state’s own capital and largest city.

The idea that housing reform is needed in Boston has been endorsed by Boston’s most powerful leaders. Both Michelle Wu and Marty Walsh won their first races for mayor on platforms to reform the city’s development process, but both failed to make more than cosmetic changes.

If Boston’s mayor, the most powerful local elected official in Massachusetts, can’t change the system, what can? The answer is simple: End Boston’s 66-year experiment in DIY development policy and make Boston subject to Chapter 40A. That would legalize ADUs citywide, more than two years after Mayor Wu promised to do so in the 2024 “State of the City” address and help solve Massachusetts’s statewide housing crisis.

Bringing Boston under Chapter 40A would also ensure the city’s elected and appointed officials and larger real estate ecosystem face the same housing rules, incentives, and consequences as the rest of Massachusetts.

There is no better time than now: Speaker-in-waiting Aaron Michlewitz and House Majority Leader Mike Moran are both Boston residents. Both face the prospect of forcing their House colleagues to take difficult votes on important housing legislation that their districts are not subject to. Bringing Boston under Chapter 40A would end that contradiction.

The greatest impact of this change would be in Boston, where the switch to Chapter 40A would require reconciling decades of DIY planning with state standards. The chief site of those changes would be the city’s notoriously long and complex zoning code. This switch would be an opportunity for politicians and activists who routinely criticize the city’s zoning to burnish their pro-housing bona fides to turn that rhetoric into action.

Benefits would extend well beyond Boston. Massachusetts ranks near the bottom nationally in housing construction per capita. An often overlooked reason is that the state’s largest city not only has a different zoning code, but operates under an entirely different development process. Today, Brookline and Great Barrington, towns on opposite ends of the state, have more similar development processes than neighboring Brookline and Boston.

Housing is the top issue in Boston and across Massachusetts. Bringing Boston under Chapter 40A would empower elected officials at City Hall and on Beacon Hill with the same tools and incentives as the rest of the state.

If solving the crisis requires “all hands on deck,” everyone needs to be in the same boat.

Gregory Maynard is senior fellow at Pioneer City Initiative, a newly launched program at Pioneer Institute.