Senator Bob’s Blog

Sen. Hedlund recently interviewed Inspector General Gregory Sullivan on problems he has uncovered with 4oB.

IG Sullivan again called 40B the state’s worst financial scandal of the past 20 years and a costly example of mismanaged government.

Highlights of the interview can be found here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McLxbI1d5CA

The salt marsh that surrounds First Herring Brook in Scituate is beautiful this time of year. When I’m out for a bicycle ride, I often try to include it along my route. The marsh grasses are thick and long, and filled with birds and other wildlife. The brook itself wends through the marsh towards the North River, rising and receding with the tide.

Gloria Holstein is very familiar with First Herring Brook. She is able to watch out her back window on a monthly basis as the brook, swollen by a high lunar tide or rainstorms, to creep up over its muddy banks. She’s witnessed on several occasions over the years when the brook, whipped up by a costal storm or heavy rainfall, doesn’t just spill over its banks, but actually flows across her backyard, flooding her property and the neighboring Watson property in waist-deep water.

The land floods so often that Ms. Holstein’s children have been able to ice skate from their backyard well onto the frozen-over field. In the spring, ducks swim from the brook across to the submerged field.

However, it’s on this land, 15 acres situated on the edge of a regularly flooded salt marsh, that developers now want to build 60 units of “affordable” luxury housing called Herring Brook Meadow under Chapter 40B.

This project is the poster child for a bill that I filed this session, Senate 770, which would require 40B projects to meet local wetlands bylaws. Currently, these projects must only comply with state rules. However, the state’s rules are one-size-fits-all regulations that do not recognize the environmental differences between Scituate and Saugus or Marshfield and Medford.

The state’s regulations, for example, don’t offer any protections for barrier beaches, coastal floodplains, well-field watersheds, wildlife habitats, or the small streams and pools that pop-up every spring and early summer and are considered critical environmental links.

Scituate is one of many towns throughout the Commonwealth that has recognized the importance of enhanced protection for these areas from the damaging effects of man made erosion, stormwater run-off from driveways and roadways, and habitat destruction.

Scituate’s voters considered and approved local wetland bylaws because they wanted to protect their community’s natural resources. While I believe that people have a right to build on their property, and understand the need for more affordable housing options in my district, I do not think development should come at the expense of harming critical wetlands and salt marshes.

The lobbyists for the real estate developers who recently testified against my bill, which has been endorsed by the Sierra Club of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Municipal Association, disagree. They think communities who haven’t met their affordable housing goals shouldn’t be allowed to have any say over “affordable “ housing developments that threaten water supplies, damage important habitat areas, or exacerbate local flooding.

The Scituate zoning board’s official rejection of Herring Brook Meadow states that the developers and their engineers were either slow or resistant to provide critical information to the town and its consultants.

One of this project’s biggest secrets is the amount of fill that will need to be trucked into the site just to make it buildable. The amount is so secret, in fact, that the project’s engineers have not yet even performed the calculations, despite already applying for environmental permits from the town and state.

The project’s lead engineer said under oath at a recent Housing Appeals Committee hearing that a 180-foot-by-400-foot area of the property must be raised a minimum of 5 feet just to stay dry during a major flooding event. Simple arithmetic shows that this means the developers will have to haul in at least seven acres of fill just so the “affordable” units don’t wash out in the next coastal storm.

That’s a minimum of seven acres of fill at the edge of a salt marsh that is prone to flooding, and is part of the watershed for the North River, the state’s first designated scenic river, and a federally designated National Natural Landmark. The property also sits along a priority habitat for rare species, and is within a buffer zone designed to protect the town’s drinking water supply.

Adding seven acres of fill also raises great questions about what the impact will be on Ms. Holstein’s property, and whether any sort of drainage system will be able to prevent additional flooding on surrounding properties.

But these are issues that the developers don’t want to consider, and they are exactly the questions that my bill, Senate 770, would force them to answer.

Listen to Sen. Hedlund’s comments here!

Spending plan uses $1 billion in new taxes, contains few reforms

BOSTON, MA – Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth) last night voted against the Massachusetts State Senate’s $27.35 billion Fiscal Year 2010 budget calling it yet another irresponsible spending plan that treats taxpayers as little more than an ATM machine.

Despite sounding a “reform before revenue” mantra in recent months, the Senate’s actions this week reflected a “revenue, revenue, and more revenue before reform” attitude. Rather than adopting the $1 billion reform package offered by the Senate GOP Caucus, the Senate voted quickly and voted often for a slew of new taxes that will drain nearly $ 1 billion from the wallets of taxpayers. And rather than using the new revenue to restore local aid or eliminate the need to further drain our “Rainy Day Fund,” the Senate voted to add hundreds of millions in new spending.  

 “We have yet again squandered an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership and uphold our fiscal duties as responsible stewards of the people’s money,” Sen. Hedlund said. “This budget ignores the economic realities outside of the State House and embraces higher taxes and higher spending instead of reform and restraint. It is clearer now than ever that many of colleagues simply don’t get it.”

The Senate joined the House in approving a 25% increase in the sales tax, despite pleas from struggling Massachusetts retailers that doing so would further depress the state’s economy.  Although Senate leadership expects the new 6.25% tax rate to generate approximately $623 million in new revenue, Sen. Hedlund says that figure likely will far short as more Bay State shoppers will either make purchases in New Hampshire, online, or won’t buy altogether.

“The only people who will benefit through this sales tax hike will be New Hampshire retailers,” said Sen. Hedlund who referred to the budget as the “New Hampshire Economic Stimulus Plan” during debate.

The Senate also voted to raise taxes on alcohol and telecommunications equipment, and gave cities and towns the ability to implement new meals and lodging taxes without requiring local voter approval.

“We have not been this anti-taxpayer since the late 1980’s. In two months, Massachusetts taxpayers will likely be paying more taxes on any retail purchase they make, more taxes on a meal at their local restaurant, more taxes on the vacation rental on Cape Cod, even more taxes on a six-pack of beer from the neighborhood package store,” Sen. Hedlund said. “Meanwhile, the status quo remains intact on Beacon Hill.”

The original version of the Senate budget released earlier this month did not include new taxes and – unlike the House budget — cut spending to reflect the state’s plummeting revenue estimates for the fiscal year starting July 1.  

In an effort to free-up additional money to fund core services and local aid, Sen. Hedlund and the Senate Republican Caucus offered a package of reforms that would have provided the state with $1 billion in savings. These reforms included giving the state more contract flexibility in providing services, a statewide wage and hiring freeze, ending corporate welfare programs for the biotech and film industries, and eliminating the Lottery advertising account.

Rather than give serious consideration to these proposals, the Senate on the first day of debate cast several votes in favor of higher taxes.

Sen. Hedlund criticized his colleagues in the majority party for choosing to add millions in non-essential spending such as a loan forgiveness program for doctors, a state office on sports and entertainment, and local tourism councils, while not earmarking any of the revenue for local aid. An amendment adopted near the end of the three-day budget debate did restore $35 million in local aid – or about 10% of what is being cut – using money from the federal economic stimulus package.

Approximately $235 million of the anticipated additional sales tax revenue is being reserved to help pay for improvements to the state’s nearly-bankrupt transportation system.

# # #

I just wanted to take a moment and update you on the 40B-related bills that I have filed for the 2009-2010 session.

I apologize in advance for the length of the post but hopefully you will find it informative.

An Act Relative to 40B Cost Certification — This bill was filed at the request of Inspector General Gregory Sullivan and would formally adopt many of the steps he has recommended to prevent future abuse of 40B. As you are aware, Inspector General Sullivan has determined that 40B developers may have defrauded our local cities and towns out of as much as $100 million by hiding profits and artificially inflating revenues. This bill would spell out a rigorous cost certification process, as well as strict penalties for those who abuse the law, or fail to comply.

An Act Relative to Affordable Housing Project Definitions — This bill would correct one of the biggest potential loopholes in the 40B law. Contrary to conventional wisdom, 40B does not require a minimum affordable component of between 20-25%. This requirement isn’t even found in DHCD regulations or guidelines. In fact, it’s set through financing agreements signed between bankers and developers and could hypothetically be changed AT ANY TIME.

This bill would change that by setting in law what percentage of an affordable development must be reserved for low and moderate-income residents.

DHCD’s latest regulations also now allow 40B developments to include commercial components. While rental units built above small storefronts may meet smart-growth development principles, there is nothing within the regulations that prevent developers from including a big-box retail store, or a megaplex movie theatre, as part of a 40B. This bill would limit the commercial component of 40Bs to 15% the total square footage of the residential segment.

Finally, we have seen a number of “affordable housing developments” feature market-rate units in excess of $500,000. As affordable housing advocates know, low and moderate-income families do not need a 2,500 square-foot home, and often struggle to keep up with expensive maintenance and utility bills. This bill places a cap on the size of affordable units at 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom unit, and 1,200 square feet for a three-bedroom unit. It also says that projected monthly utility costs cannot exceed standards used by the local Habitat for Humanity chapter.

An Act relative to 40B project definitions — This bill is similar to the above bill, except that it increases the minimum affordable component to 35% for low-income developments, and 50% for moderate-income developments.

An Act relative to density of affordable housing projects – This bill would limit the allowable density of proposed 40Bs at 8 units an acre, or 4 times the underlying density, whichever is greater. Zoning boards have the option of waiving this limit ONLY if the developer agrees to a profit cap of 10%, or agrees to pay the town the corresponding amount of money for use in creating additional affordable units. This bill was filed in response to guideline changes made by DHCD last summer — without public notice — that increased the allowable density to between 8 and 160 units per acre.

An Act relative to subsidizing affordable housing — This would allow cities and towns to be allowed as a “subsidizing agency” under 40B. Under existing rules, if a town was to buy a piece of land with CPA money, and hire a non-profit organization to build a 100% affordable low-income development, those affordable units would not count towards the town’s Subsidized Housing Inventory count because the town did not use a federal or state subsidizing source.

An Act relative to affordable housing built near wetlands – Many of our communities have adopted wetlands bylaws that our tougher than state regulations. This is because all of our communities are unique and have different environmental areas that need to be protected. 40Bs, however, can ignore any local rule that is stricter than the state rule. This bill would change that. Projects unable to make a “reasonable rate of return” due to the local bylaws would be entitled to the minimum amount of relief needed to meet that requirement.

An Act realtive to the oversight of affordable housing developments — This bill would require DHCD to enforce all use restrictions, covenants, and conditions contained within a comprehensive permit once occupancy permits have been issued. State law is currently vague when it comes to, say, making sure that affordable units are actually occupied by low and moderate income residents.

An Act relative to affordable housing use restrictions — 40B guidelines, which can be amended without public notice, requires that renovated affordable units remain affordable for 15 years and that newly-built units remain affordable for 30 years. This bill would require that all affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Zoning boards will have the option of waiving this restriction, provided that the use restriction isn’t for less than 30 years.

An Act relative to affordable housing built in historic districts — Many towns have gone through the process of designating official historic districts as a way of preserving their community’s heritage. This bill would require that any 40B proposed within an officially recognized historic district must undergo the requisite historic review process. A project cannot be rejected because of its location within an historic district, but the development must adhere to any design and construction conditions approved during this review. These conditions will not be appealable as “uneconomic.”

An Act relative to tracking affordable housing projects — This bill would require DHCD to compile and then regularly update a list of all proposed and built 40B projects. This currently is not being done.

I welcome your thoughts, comments, or questions on these bills. My office can be reached at 617-722-1646, or by Email at Robert.Hedlund@state.ma.us

The nation’s unofficial economic policy over the past decade can be summed up in one word — debt.

The average American is more in debt than ever before, with a consumer lifestyle supported by, at least until recently, near unlimited access to credit. The federal government is in debt by more than $10 trillion, with foreign nations such as China and Japan holding more than 25 percent of the notes.

Here in Massachusetts, the situation is no different. The Commonwealth over the years has rung up more than $29 billion in outstanding debt on its credit card. To put that in perspective, every man, woman and child in this state would have to send a $4,529 check to Beacon Hill in order to pay off all that debt. Not only is that figure the highest in the nation, but it checks in at more than three times the national average, according to the state’s latest credit report from Moody’s Investors Services.

The fact that the state borrows money to pay for school building construction grants or to fix seawalls shouldn’t be much of a concern to the average taxpayer. Every state carries some debt, just like most businesses and homeowners. In fact, a demonstrated ability to accrue a responsible amount of debt and then pay it back on time is traditionally viewed as a positive characteristic.

The problems start when the government begins using its taxpayer-financed credit card like an irresponsible college student, making impulse purchases of the latest cultural fad (tax breaks for the biotech industry), using it to supplement their household budget (paying for the salaries of thousands of MassHighway employees) or other bad decisions (the MBTA spending billions to expand a transit system it already couldn’t afford to maintain and operate).

Again, some of this debt is needed. For instance, this past summer the Legislature approved $3 billion in borrowing that will allow the state to fix more than 100 dilapidated bridges over the next five years. But this past session, the Legislature also allowed the state to ring up another $1 billion in debt to pay for tax credits and construction grants for biotech companies. I was one of a handful of legislators to vote against this bill.

The state has tried this strategy in the past, allocating buckets full of money for the industry du jour in hopes of luring them to relocate and/or expand in Massachusetts. We did this with the high-tech, defense and financial service industries in the 1980s and 1990s. Fast-forward to 2008, and the Route 128 corridor is struggling, Raytheon is all but gone, and Fidelity keeps on shipping jobs to Rhode Island or Texas. Now we’ve borrowed more money and essentially given the governor the power to pick biotech winners and losers (although, as some joke, the final decisions may be as easy as whichever biotech firms throw the governor the biggest fundraiser).

Considering the state is facing at least a $1.5 billion budget deficit, this is not the time for $1 billion giveaways to corporate interests. And if we are going to adopt “corporate welfare” as an official state policy, we should do so in a way that benefits all sections of our economy, not just the flavor of the day.

Debt is also behind these outrageous toll hikes that the Mass. Turnpike Authority is considering. Back in 1997, the Legislature made the ill-informed decision to pay for the Big Dig project (which then stood around $8 billion) through tolls inside Route 128, rather than a statewide gas tax hike, which they knew could have killed the project from a public relations standpoint. I was the only Southeastern Massachusetts lawmaker to vote against this funding scheme.

Sen. Hedlund is interviewed on his thoughts about the current state of rock ‘n roll.