Aside from presenting Home Rule and enforcement questions, the AG’s suit has highlighted a problem with the Act that many municipalities had identified in the lead-up to the deadline for compliance. According to in-depth WGBH reporting, many municipalities simply do not have the water and sewer infrastructure to serve the number of new housing units allowed by the required zoning change. To make matters even more challenging, the reporting reveals that many of those municipalities do not have the budget or any idea how they would raise the funds to build the new infrastructure.

According to a MassLive media report, at least one Wrentham Select Board Member has objected to the requirements of the Act as an “unfunded mandate.”  A term that is not often thrown around, an unfunded mandate is a new requirement imposed on municipalities that require the expenditure of municipal funds without supporting funding from the state. Under the local mandates provision of Proposition 2 ½, municipalities are exempt from complying with unfunded mandates. However, there are multiple exceptions to the exemption, such as state mandates that only impose indirect costs and mandates that the legislature imposes as a condition of receiving state aid. It remains to be seen whether the Town will defend the AG’s suit on this basis or if it will succeed.

The suit highlights the many potential barriers to any single solution to the housing crisis. As AG Campbell’s Complaint and Brief eloquently spell out, past legislative attempts to stimulate housing have fizzled, resulting in the passage of the MBTA Communities Act, a blunt instrument. Hopefully, the renewed attention to the housing crisis will result in an accommodation that suits all parties and provides much-needed housing.