MMA letter to House opposing land-use permit extension bill

The Honorable Charles A. Murphy, Chair
House Committee on Ways and Means
State House, Boston

Dear Chairman Murphy,

On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association strongly urges you to oppose legislation before your Committee that would extend all commercial and residential local land use and environmental permits for as much as three years. This legislation is a clear violation of local home rule, and would certainly interfere with zoning and permitting decisions that should be the domain of individual cities and towns.

One such measure is contained in Section 122 of S. 2380, the Senate-approved economic development bill, which would extend for three years all such permits granted in Massachusetts between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2011. H. 3647 is a similar measure that would extend all such permits for two years if granted between January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2010. This one-size-fits-all legislation would unilaterally extend every permit granted in the Commonwealth during the stated timeframes, regardless of the local facts or circumstances.

The proponents suggest that the bill would merely preserve action taken by state and local permitting authorities and would allow shovel-ready projects to move forward notwithstanding the economic downturn and the financial difficulty that may be slowing conformity with the permit timeframe. But this legislation does far more: It would establish a dangerous precedent whereby the development community could circumvent local processes that are in place to protect the public interest. In addition, no one can definitively state how many permits would be impacted, but the number would certainly be staggering, presenting a very high possibility of unexpected negative outcomes in many cases.

This legislative circumvention of existing boards and local authorities is unwarranted and unnecessary. Local permitting authorities have the ability to grant extensions under state law, and this authority should not be preempted altogether as is proposed by these bills. In addition, local health and public safety codes and other conditions that existed at the time a permit was granted may have changed, and the permit-granting authority must have the ability to review and re-approve these permits based on the best interests of the host community.

Again, we respectfully and strongly request you to oppose these proposals to intrude on and preempt the local permitting process. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director, MMA