Seasonal Communities: Two Arguments, One Ignored
Comments filed on Massachusetts Seasonal Communities regulations on behalf of two organizations — approaching the same problem from two separate angles. The state adopted the general framework and ignored the most important ask. Glad to have tried. Fear of failure is no reason not to try.
The Context
Massachusetts's Seasonal Communities legislation was a significant attempt to address the housing crisis in resort and tourist-economy towns — places like the Berkshires, Cape Cod, and the Islands where year-round workforce housing has become nearly impossible to find. The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) issued draft regulations and invited public comment.
I filed two separate sets of comments — from two different organizational perspectives, making two related but distinct arguments. The first, from the Stockbridge Affordable Housing Trust, broadly supported the framework and made a targeted ask about nonprofit ambulance providers. The second, filed on behalf of Southern Berkshire Ambulance Service directly, made the EMS case in greater detail and with greater urgency.
The state adopted much of the general framework. It elected to ignore the nonprofit EMS eligibility argument entirely.
The argument was sound. The need was real. The state said no. Fear of failure is no reason not to try — and this was worth trying.
Filing One: Stockbridge Affordable Housing Trust
Stockbridge Affordable Housing Trust
To the EOHLC:
First, thank you for the tremendous work you have done on behalf of the Legislature, the Berkshires, the Cape, and the Islands to transform the vision of Seasonal Communities into workable regulations. We recognize the enormity of this task and thank you for this effort.
We applaud the general thrust of the draft regulations:
- The respect for local options, both in terms of adoption and the specific parameters where municipalities can chart a course that meets their needs.
- The increase in Area Median Income maximums up to 250% that unlocks housing for the middle class.
- The flexibility in determining whether tiny homes on wheels are allowable — another local option determination.
- The opportunity to use undersized lots to create local housing to support our communities and economies.
- The recognition that deed-restricted housing for home ownership can be a game changer, especially for first-time homebuyers including young families.
- The option to create preferences for essential and municipal workers.
Our only cautionary observation is that for small municipalities, this may create an administrative burden that is difficult to achieve. Our towns do not have much depth of administrative expertise. One suggestion: if a municipality reaches its 10% Chapter 40B threshold, consider waiving all or some of these administrative burdens.
Finally, we would like to point out that much of Berkshire County is covered by nonprofit ambulance service rather than municipally run operations. As CFO of Southern Berkshire Ambulance, we employ approximately 30 full- and part-time EMTs and paramedics. Approximately 25 of them commute an hour or more from our facility — chief among the reasons being the lack of affordable housing locally.
- We strongly recommend that you expand eligibility for these essential workers regardless of their employer's corporate organization.
Filing Two: Southern Berkshire Ambulance Service
Southern Berkshire Ambulance Service
To the EOHLC:
Thank you for considering these comments. I applaud your work to transform the Seasonal Communities legislation into practical regulations — a herculean effort.
I would like to address the players in Berkshire County's emergency medical services that are non-municipal. Action and County are for-profit providers serving the Pittsfield area. Northern Berkshire and Southern Berkshire Ambulance are nonprofit providers and are the largest providers in their areas of operation.
Your draft regulations only allow municipally provided emergency medical services to benefit from the potential housing provisions of Seasonal Communities. I believe this is a mistake.
Housing availability can be a potent tool to attract and retain workers in an incredibly competitive regional labor market that spans from Albany to Springfield. Over two-thirds of our EMTs and paramedics commute an hour or more. Many have told us they would live locally if there were housing available that they could afford.
As a nonprofit provider funded by six municipalities, we are akin to a shared service in a nonprofit model. With so few local qualified candidates for open positions, we are often at a disadvantage when competing on pay against out-of-county providers and the newer municipal hybrid of fire/EMS. To stay competitive, we are planning to increase compensation by 13% in our next fiscal year — an admittedly desperate measure designed to keep the staff we have and fill positions that often remain vacant for months at a time.
Add to that the anticipated financial pressures from federal policy — including a 10% reduction in already absurdly low Medicaid reimbursements and unknown eligibility impacts — and the picture is clear: we don't have much capacity to absorb more blows. Access to housing options for our essential workers could have a game-changing impact on a very challenging recruitment effort, at zero cost to our budget.
Please reconsider the limitation on nonprofit providers enjoying the benefits of a Seasonal Community designation.
The state adopted the general framework of the Seasonal Communities regulations. The request to extend eligibility to nonprofit EMS providers — made twice, from two separate organizational angles — was not adopted. The argument was sound. The need was real and remains so. But advocacy is not always successful on the first try, and the effort established a record and a precedent for future rounds of rulemaking.