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