[MassHistPres] Possible developer threat to LHDs

[cvwtc at aol.com]

 A nice letter but for those who see historic preservation as an impediment to new construction during the much talked about housing crisis, I don't see how it will change their minds.  There seems to be a growing movement of "build, build, build" people who are trying to link historic preservation with NIMBYism and they also blame a lack of any new construction (no matter how inappropriate) for increases in homelessness.  It's very difficult to be persuasive against that accusation.  Chris, as you once said to me, "Do you think you have angels on your shoulders?"  The housing crisis has created a sizable cohort who would approve of the opening up of historic districts for redevelopment.  I hope this legislation isn't the first in a wave of new attacks on LHDs but conversations on housing and what's appropriate have gotten very ugly in recent times.
Matt PujoBeverly, MA     



    On Saturday, June 14, 2025 at 12:08:21 PM EDT, Chris Skelly via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:   

 I have submitted my written testimony to the committee.  I also sent an email directly to Senator Jo Comerford's office as well as Senator Paul Mark - from my district.  Chris SkellySkelly Preservation ServicesCommunity Planning and Preservationwww.skellypreservationservices.comccskelly12 at gmail.com********************************************************************************************************************I have just been made aware of Bill S.1428-An Act relative to historic districts and commissions. 
“By Ms. Comerford, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1428) of Joanne M. Comerford for legislation to establish and preserve historic districts and commissions. Municipalities and Regional Government.”




With over 25 years of historic preservation professional experience and a deep familiarity with MGL Chapter 40C-The Historic Districts Act as well as the typical local bylaws and ordinances related to historic preservation, I am deeply troubled by aspects of this bill.  




It appears this bill was filed without the knowledge of the Massachusetts Historical Commission or Preservation Massachusetts, the statewide non-profit preservation advocacy organization. 




My experience over many years has demonstrated that revisions to state law in this area are warranted.  However, the proposed bill takes a very unfortunate approach.  What I see in this proposed bill will be ruinous to protecting what makes the cities and towns of Massachusetts unique and admired around the country.   




I strongly believe historic preservation, increasing access to housing that is affordable, new opportunities for growth, economic development, and environmental sustainability are best achieved together.  I would very much like to see revisions to state law that encourage this collaboration.  The current bill simply causes more confusion, division and fewer opportunities to reach shared goals.




As a historic preservation professional, I am dedicated to making sure that our historic areas are vibrant, welcoming, adaptable and meeting the needs of the 21st Century.  These are readily achievable goals with proper revisions to state law.   




I urge you to oppose this current bill. 

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 7:32 PM Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

Scroll down to section 10 for 40c.
Dennis 


On Jun 13, 2025, at 11:14 AM, <robert at townisp.com> <robert at townisp.com> wrote:
All – the comments below seem to conflate HD 4331, which was introduced by Sen. Joanne Comerford (D) of Worcester, with S1428, which was introduced in the house by Rep Amy Mah Sangiolo (D) of Newton.  S1428 definitely has impact on 40C districts, HD 4331 doesn’t seem to mention them. Is this correct?  Robert MahowaldChair, Dartmouth Historical Commissionrobert at townisp.com978-971-1801 From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:20 AM
To: Eric Dray <ericedray at gmail.com>
Cc: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Possible developer threat to LHDs I believe It does not automatically extend Demo Delay to every municipality.  Rather, it may negate all existing demo delay by-laws and require that any place that wanted demo delay would have to adopt the form in the bill, essentially without modification, just as is the case with LHDs under 40c.  This would definitely be a major regression for places that have more refined laws — perhaps not so much for others. It would be a disaster for 40c in all cases. Dennis De WittBrookline 


On Jun 12, 2025, at 6:20 PM, Eric Dray <ericedray at gmail.com> wrote: Hi Frank and Sarah. This bill is really bad, and kind of odd. On the one hand, it would extend demo delay to every town or city with an historical commission, which is essentially every town and city (hard to imagine the builder class would want that) But then, it also extends the demo delay policy into the chapter 40C process. This would mean that the ability for 40C districts to prevent demolition outright would be substituted with demo delay. That would be a terrible, frankly unthinkable, consequence for 40C districts.Sarah, if I’m reading this wrong, let me know. And if I’m not, we need to sound the alarm. Eric  Sent from my iPhone



On Jun 12, 2025, at 4:24 PM, Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:


It was introduced in the house by Rep Amy Mah Sangiolo (D) of Newton.


On Jun 12, 2025, at 10:51 AM, Sullivan, Charles M. <csullivan at cambridgema.gov> wrote: The House designation for this bill is HD 4331. ___________________________Charles Sullivan, Executive DirectorCambridge Historical Commission831 Massachusetts AvenueCambridge, Mass.  02139617 349-4684  From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:39 PM
To: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: [MassHistPres] Possible developer threat to LHDs You should urgently be aware of S1428 a Senate bill that has been introduced in the Legislature, with an identical House counterpart (I don’t have its number).  See https://malegislature.gov/Bills/194/S1428 I have just quickly scanned it, but it seems to have at least two purposes:  1) Create a standard MGL format for Demolition Delay bylaws that would have to be adopted under MGL40 Section 8D (Historical Commissions), rather than by home rule.  It does allow 12-24 month delays, so the devil very much may be in the details.  (And would it trump home rule by-laws?) 2) Amend MGL4Oc to Introduce a similar standardized Demolition Delay process for properties in LHDs — i.e. eliminating the ability to prevent demolition in an LHD.   If I read (scan) this correctly, the second section may be a major 40c pro-developer loophole for which the first section may be a fig-leaf (he said, mixing his metaphors).  It was introduced by Sen. Joanne Comerford (D), representing Hampshire, Worcester & Franklin.  I do not see any cosponsors.   Dennis De Witt

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres



_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres



-- 



_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20250615/0b8764ab/attachment-0001.html>