by Philippe Thibault

For something transit related, the MBTA Communities Law certainly has legs.

The debate is equally fast paced and slow walked in both directions. This is the classic David and Goliath and Titan battle among the State, local municipalities, and the individual landowner. The battle does not always go to the strongest nor the race to the fastest; but that is the way to bet.

The MBTA Communities Law was part of an economic development bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature in 2020. Now the law has come home to roost in eastern Massachusetts, particularly in communities serviced by the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA).

There have been attempts to stop the law via the court system. The town of Milton filed suit against the State with multiple allegations.

The constitutionality of the law, the right to home rule, is the assertion that garnered the lion’s share of media coverage. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in February that the law is constitutional, and the State has the right to enforce this law.

Currently there is a short list of state grants that can be denied for those communities that are not compliant to this law. The list can and will probably grow as time goes on.

Dracut has been fiercely independent since the formation of the United States. It can boast the highest ratio of military volunteers to the Revolution than any other town in the Colonies: four hundred twenty-three residents from a population of eleven hundred seventy-three, nearly forty percent. So, when the citizens of Dracut decide to fight, they are all in. Many have deemed this overreach by the State, let alone the unfunded mandate debate that is also boiling beneath the surface. Is Dracut picking the wrong hill to die on in this battle?

What if the discussion turned from an adversarial argument of being forced to comply to a conversation of how Dracut can effectively utilize the criteria of the MBTA Communities to its benefit?

The community has done a lot of work recently updating the Master Plan in 2020 and their Housing Production Plan just recently in 2025 with one of the goals is providing for much needed housing. Housing of all diversities: single family, multi-family, market rate, affordable and low income. With each study the need for housing is apparent with Greater Lowell, generally, lacking in all categories. Are the opponents of this law looking for a fight rather than the opportunity?

Dracut is not all rolling pastural grazing fields and farmlands; although to listen to some you may believe it is.

There are areas of the town that are thickly settled with dense development. Areas of Dracut have been annexed by Lowell for this very reason, with the Navy Yard neighborhood of Dracut last contemplated a little over a century ago.

Dracut is industrialized. Industry has coexisted with the family farm for the past two hundred years.

There are many surrounding towns that have benefited from this duality. Andover is a good example because they manage growth through planning. While Dracut may not be as affluent as its neighbor to the east, there is no reason to disparage the planning and managed growth they enjoy. A review of the zoning bylaws would lead an investor to believe that Dracut is the more difficult town to work within. The criteria to develop land for housing is laborious in Dracut, with nearly a NIMBY essence. Dracut requires a minimum forty thousand square foot lot for a single-family residence anywhere. Even the most densely populated areas like the Navy Yard, Collinsville and Dracut Center.

Fear seems to be an effective strategy for opposition when there is a lack of knowledge.

Town leaders point to the loss of funding and compliance to the law. Opponents have thrown out some wild allegations.

“With restrictions on the dwelling units for age or number of bedrooms that each apartment will house unlimited occupants.”

This is not only factually incorrect but is also metaphysically impossible. An unlimited number of individuals cannot occupy a finite space. There are regulations that will control the number of occupants: The State Building Code, State and Town health regulations, and the Fair Housing Act promulgated by the Federal Government.

There is also conjecture that first responders would have difficulty reaching the proposed districts in sufficient time for emergencies.

While the overlay districts at Loon Hill Road and Tennis Plaza Road are less than a mile and a mile and a half respectively from the nearest fire station; an opposition proposed area along Route 110, Merrimack Avenue, is more than two and a half miles from its nearest corresponding station. This is also through winding and narrow backroads. Fire safety will be more robust in a larger apartment complex required by building codes and State laws while the smaller buildings promoted in more distant areas could be absent fire sprinklers.

There is also an assumption that recently purchased, fully leased and occupied commercial properties will be razed for new housing units to be built. No investor, lender, or developer would pay market rate for a fully occupied commercial complex then demolish it, then construct new residential structures. It does not look like a strategy for success.

I by no means am suggesting that once designated, the MBTA Community districts will not be built.

There are opportunities for growth. Investors who regularly delve into these types of projects know their demographics and parameters for success. Success comes mainly from providing a desirable community for people to live and work. This echoes the Dracut Master Plan precisely.

There are reasons enough to examine the authority of the State with a cynical eye. Dracut has been skeptical of authority since 1701. But cynicism should give way after reasoned thought and discussion provide guidance and direction for the beneficial development to the community.

Contrarianism cannot be a means of governance.