Modest Homes on Modest Lots.

I'll say this up front, because I'd rather be honest than convenient: Question 7 will not solve the Massachusetts housing shortage. No single ballot question could. The hole we've dug is too deep for that.

But I'm voting yes. And if you care whether people can still afford to buy a home in this state, in your town and on your street, I'd ask you to consider doing the same.

WHAT QUESTION 7 ACTUALLY DOES

Strip away the campaign noise and it's simple. A yes vote allows a single-family home to be built on any lot of at least 5,000 square feet in a residential area. That's a little bigger than an NBA basketball court. Towns keep reasonable local regulation over aspects of those homes.

Here's what it doesn't do. It doesn't apply to Boston, which runs under a different zoning law. It doesn't touch land served by septic systems and private wells. It doesn't force anyone to build anything.

It removes one rule: the one that, in many communities, makes it illegal to build a modest home on a modest lot. A no vote leaves everything exactly as it is.

THE PROBLEM IT'S AIMED AT

In 1980, single-family home prices in Massachusetts sat right at the national average. Since then, they've risen more than in any other state. In September, the statewide median single-family price hit $670,000.

That didn't happen by accident. It happened because for decades we haven't built nearly enough homes. The state is projected to be more than 220,000 units short by 2030. And we're moving the wrong way: building permits for new homes fell 15.6% in 2025, from 14,338 to 12,096.

I spent five years as COO of a brokerage handling 1,300 transactions a year, and I see the same thing today across the table from my own buyers. The problem isn't a lack of people who want to buy. It's that there's nowhere for them to go. Every year we underbuild, the competition for what exists gets sharper, and prices move in one direction.

THE RULES CHANGE AT EVERY TOWN LINE

Right now, every city and town in Massachusetts sets its own minimum lot size for a single-family home. The result is a patchwork that makes little sense once you look at it side by side.

In Worcester, 5,000 square feet is the typical lot for a triple-decker. In Dover, the minimum runs from half an acre to two acres. In Carlisle, most residential zones require one or two acres, and some require four. Statewide, more than half of all land zoned for single-family homes requires about an acre, and nearly a quarter requires two. An acre is close to nine times the 5,000 square feet Question 7 would allow.

Most of these numbers weren't handed down from engineers. Many towns adopted large-lot rules in the middle of the last century, and before that, Massachusetts built plenty of modest homes on modest lots. In many towns, the older neighborhoods people love most couldn't legally be built today.

So why did towns go so big? Some of it was practical. Without public sewer, a home needs room for a septic system and a well. That's a real reason, and it still applies.

The rest is harder to defend. Fewer homes meant fewer new students and smaller school budgets, so towns zoned out the homes that young families could afford. And researchers who've studied this history have found that many towns used large lots for a simpler reason: to keep out lower-income households and protect their standing relative to the town next door.

In other words, much of this wasn't about land, or safety, or planning. It was about who gets to live here.

That's how you end up with the same house, on the same size lot, legal on one side of a town line and illegal on the other.

WHY THERE'S SO LITTLE LAND TO BUILD ON

Massachusetts isn't out of land. It's out of buildable land, and that difference matters.

Start with what's protected. Around 2009, the amount of permanently protected land in Massachusetts passed the amount of developed land for the first time in modern memory. As of 2014, it stood at 1.26 million acres protected to 1.1 million developed. That's something to be proud of. It also means a large share of the state is off the table for housing, permanently.

Then there are wetlands. The state Wetlands Protection Act regulates building in and near wetlands, riverfront areas and floodplains, and many towns add stricter local bylaws on top. In a state this wet, that rules out a lot of otherwise open ground.

Then there's sewer. Without public sewer, every new home needs its own septic system, and that takes land. Large parts of Western Massachusetts, the Cape, the South Shore and some of the North Shore have no public sewer at all.

And the communities closest to jobs were largely built out decades ago. What's left near water and sewer lines is often zoned so that only a fraction of the homes it could hold are allowed.

That's exactly where Question 7 aims. It applies only to land with public water and sewer. It changes zoning, not the state's wetlands or conservation protections. It doesn't ask us to pave anything new. It asks us to make better use of land that's already buildable.

WHY IT WON'T FIX THE SHORTAGE

This is where I part ways with some of the campaign rhetoric. Nobody knows exactly how many homes Question 7 would add. The campaign projects 2,200 to 5,700 net new homes a year. The nonpartisan Center for State Policy Analysis at Tufts puts it closer to 750. Even the high estimate covers only part of what the state needs.

The critics also have a fair point. Nothing in Question 7 guarantees that the homes built will be starter-sized or priced for first-time buyers. The Massachusetts Municipal Association has argued that many could be market-rate or even luxury homes. And cities and towns would give up some say over how a lot of their land is used.

WHY I'M VOTING YES ANYWAY

Because new homes help at any price. When someone buys a new home, they usually leave one behind, often a more affordable one. A market-rate home still houses a buyer who would otherwise be bidding against everyone else for the homes that already exist. Supply loosens the whole ladder, not just the bottom rung.

Because a small number is still a real number. Take the most cautious estimate, 750 homes a year. That's 750 households who get a front door instead of another bidding war. Over a decade, that adds up.

Because local control doesn't disappear. Towns can still regulate those homes in reasonable ways. What Question 7 takes away is the ability to make a modest home illegal through lot size alone.

Because doing nothing has a track record. We've tried waiting for the shortage to fix itself. You can see the results in every listing price in this state.

THE HONEST TAKEAWAY

Question 7 is a step, not a solution. Massachusetts needs more housing of every kind, and we'll need more steps after this one. But a shortage this size gets fixed one step at a time. Turning down the small steps because they aren't big enough is how we got here.

When the rent control question came off the ballot in June, I said Massachusetts needs more supply, and that's the conversation worth having. On November 3, it's the vote worth casting.

Homeownership is still how most families in this state build wealth. Your equity is your wealth, and every buyer deserves a real shot at building it.

Marcelino S. Viereck | Coldwell Banker Realty | 617.701.7183 | marcelinoviereck.com