Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
Before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture on Dec. 15, the MMA testified against a bill that would create an additional administrative process for making changes to protected public land.
The Public Lands Preservation Act (H. 3438) would require municipalities to provide a feasible alternative, such as replacement land of equivalent acreage, equal market value and natural resources value, or to provide financial mitigation, in order to make changes to land protected under Article 97.
Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, adopted by voters in 1972, established a clear process to protect public lands. The amendment states that “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 by imposing severe restrictions on cities and towns.
Under the terms of the bill, municipal public land acquired for natural resource purposes (Article 97 land) could not be disposed of or converted to other uses without a costly demonstration process to prove that there is “no feasible alternative” and by requiring comparable natural resource land to be provided if the land is transferred.
The MMA testified 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.”
Under current law, the transfer of these lands requires a number local votes, including votes by local commissions, legislative bodies and executive officers, before going to the Legislature and the governor.
H. 3438 would force communities to pay for easements that have very little impact on the land, such as utilities, or access to it.
Cities and towns have worked hard in recent years to preserve open space. Local officials supported the passage of the Environmental Bond Bill and Land Conservation Incentives Act, and most recently testified in favor of a bill (S. 90) to sustain community preservation. (This bill was reported favorably by the Committee on Community Development and Small Business and is now before the House Committee on Ways and Means.)
The Community Preservation Act has been a successful state-local partnership, with 142 communities protecting more than 8,000 acres of open space.
Massachusetts has protected nearly 54,000 acres of land, including 22,353 acres in fiscal 2009 – three times the amount of land developed over the same period.
Much of this land would not have been preserved without the efforts of municipal governments and the many volunteers and staff responsible for their conservation efforts, as well as the Commonwealth’s land trusts and environmental organizations and the many landowners across the state who donated property.
• MMA letter to Environment Committee in opposition to “Public Lands Preservation Act”