Home 
Economic & Community Development Public lands bill sent to Ways and Means
Legislation that would impose restrictions on municipally owned land acquired for natural resource purposes has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill (H. 3438) had been placed on the House calendar, but was removed due to opposition from the MMA and local officials.
Last year, the bill stalled in the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Under the terms of the bill, municipal land acquired for natural resource purposes could not be disposed of or converted to other uses without going through a costly process to prove that there is “no feasible alternative.” The bill would also require replacement with comparable natural resource land if the land is transferred.
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, adopted by voters in 1972, establishes a clear process for protecting public lands. The article states: “Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the General Court.”
The MMA argues that H. 3438 would go far beyond the constitutional standard and would undermine local decision-making authority over municipally owned land.
On May 12, the MMA testified before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture, that the bill “would place an undue, unnecessary and costly burden on our communities and local taxpayers, who already face some of the highest public construction and land-acquisition costs in the country.
“Requiring communities to engage in and fund a state-mandated feasibility study, and to purchase new land or pay mitigation for land they already own, would impose overwhelming financial costs. … This bill would create another large unfunded state mandate on localities.”
Economic & Community Development Public lands bill sent to Ways and Means
Public lands bill sent to Ways and Means
Legislation that would impose restrictions on municipally owned land acquired for natural resource purposes has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The bill (H. 3438) had been placed on the House calendar, but was removed due to opposition from the MMA and local officials.
Last year, the bill stalled in the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Under the terms of the bill, municipal land acquired for natural resource purposes could not be disposed of or converted to other uses without going through a costly process to prove that there is “no feasible alternative.” The bill would also require replacement with comparable natural resource land if the land is transferred.
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, adopted by voters in 1972, establishes a clear process for protecting public lands. The article states: “Lands and easements taken or acquired for such purposes shall not be used for other purposes or otherwise disposed of except by laws enacted by a two thirds vote, taken by yeas and nays, of each branch of the General Court.”
The MMA argues that H. 3438 would go far beyond the constitutional standard and would undermine local decision-making authority over municipally owned land.
On May 12, the MMA testified before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture, that the bill “would place an undue, unnecessary and costly burden on our communities and local taxpayers, who already face some of the highest public construction and land-acquisition costs in the country.
“Requiring communities to engage in and fund a state-mandated feasibility study, and to purchase new land or pay mitigation for land they already own, would impose overwhelming financial costs. … This bill would create another large unfunded state mandate on localities.”
Written by MMA Senior Legislative Analyst Tom Philbin
