Fair Housing and Housing as a Human Right in 2026

In an essay inspired by a town administrator’s recent post on LinkedIn, Judi Barrett dives into fair housing, exploring housing as a human right – or as the Fair Housing Council of Metropolitan Memphis says, “We Belong. We Ain’t Beggin.” Her expert perspective challenges us to rethink our approach to community development and social equity. We invite you to read her full reflection and join the conversation on creating a more just housing landscape.

Article by Judi Barrett

“Whenever you diminish the poor, you diminish everybody else.” (Martin Luther King, Jr., paraphrased)

“For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asked for bread, would give a stone?…” (Matthew 7:7-9, NRSV)

I read a commentary recently by a municipal official I respect and admire. His essay was about the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Law known as Chapter 40B (or simply “40B”), and since a lot of my work for cities and towns involves Chapter 40B, I try to pay attention to what is said about it.

As I read on, I realized he was using an experience with a large, unwanted Chapter 40B development as a springboard to talk about something bigger and in some ways, more important. He wrote about collaboration, understanding the tools at your disposal when you have a problem to solve, and thinking and planning strategically to avoid being boxed in by circumstances you think you can’t control. In Massachusetts, most communities think they can’t control Chapter 40B, that it’s forced upon them, and that once “a 40B” knocks on the door, their municipal officials are essentially boxed into a corner. This is true, sort of, but it’s only part of a more complicated picture.

The essay left me uneasy. The short version is that his town chose to buy the proposed Chapter 40B site and a neighboring property, placing both under conservation restrictions to protect the land in perpetuity. These steps put an end to the proposed housing development. The case he described is not the first time a Massachusetts community purchased land to block a Chapter 40B development. It will happen again, too. Far less prominent are accounts of communities acquiring land specifically for affordable housing, even if it makes existing neighbors unhappy. I don’t mean land for a couple of single-family homes tucked away from public view. I mean land for a development of many units – not large apartment buildings, but enough neighborhood-scale homes that can actually put a dent in housing insecurity. Something that means lots of new friends and neighbors. Homes that change the trajectory of a child’s life. What kind of society are we if we don’t take care of our children?

My positions on housing justice won’t help me win a popularity contest. What most people don’t know about me is that 42 years ago, I left a journalism career I loved and jumped feet first into organizing a community-wide effort to save 60 acres of watershed land from being developed into a large, very high-end continuing care retirement community. The site abuts forests owned by the Massachusetts Audubon Society and other large tracts the town had acquired over several years. The “Audubon A” award I received afterward hangs in my office today, and it still matters more to me than any other recognition I’ve earned over the years.

What I learned from that experience 42 years ago is that protecting open space and creating affordable housing are really hard. In the early 1980s I attended a workshop on “limited development,” i.e., when a municipality or land trust acquires land and sells some of it for house lots to pay for preserving the rest as open space. The case study featured four enormous homes (“McMansion” hadn’t been coined yet) set against a magnificent open field. The enthusiastic presenters said the sale of those four lots paid the entire cost of saving the land. While other workshop attendees applauded, I flinched. Wait a minute. Developers already build houses just like that on their own. They don’t need town-owned land – right? In my naïve way, I thought if a town wanted to pair open space acquisitions with housing, the housing ought to be reasonably priced, something that opens the door to people who couldn’t begin to afford the homes in that case study. What about basic social fairness? Isn’t housing a public benefit, too?

It was an epiphany. It changed my life.

Fast-forward to today, I don’t think most towns consider housing a public benefit. Yes, some communities take affordable housing very seriously. They have used Chapter 40B, zoning, land acquisitions, and other tools to their advantage. However, those towns are not the norm. When I consider my own firm’s experiences with the MBTA Communities Law, very few towns took seriously the chance to identify and upzone places to encourage new housing. Most picked places where nothing will happen. They achieved what we call “paper compliance,” i.e., they adopted zoning for already-developed sites with no infill possibilities. Here was an opportunity to identify areas where communities would zone for housing growth, unlike the Chapter 40B process, where most projects show up on the town’s doorstep at the developer’s initiative. Instead of taking the ball and running with it, communities willingly dropped it. And they will holler loudly when the next Chapter 40B development arrives on the scene. 

As planners, we don’t want multifamily housing to end up in half-vacant office and industrial parks and we don’t want to see cookie-cutter “snouthouses” dropped in the middle of established neighborhoods. We want communities to plan where and how to meet their fair housing obligations and be thoughtful about how to get there. We want to see them acquire sensitive land to protect their water resources rather than wait until a Chapter 40B development lands on their doorsteps. In this month when we recognize the Fair Housing Act and the persistent roadblocks that prevent people from being your neighbor, I hope to read a different essay by a municipal official who asked a lot of good questions, pushed forward with a plan for housing fairness and, through hard work, got the neighborhood and community on board. That, in my view, is victory.

Moving Beyond the Pandemic in the Pioneer Valley

Economic Development Assessment of Small Towns & Rural Communities

In 2022, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) hired Barrett Planning Group to assess local economic conditions and the state of economic recovery in the 35 small towns and rural communities in Hampshire County and Hampden County. We consulted with local officials, town planners, and regional economic development and community development organizations, and gathered, analyzed, and mapped available market, economic, land use, housing, and labor force data.

From these many sources and others, we created 35 town profiles with maps and economic metrics, and developed recommendations for PVPC and the communities to move forward with economic development activities scaled to the size and character of these small communities:

  • Improving regional communications and coordination
  • Activating strategies for promoting local businesses
  • Addressing the region’s housing affordability and housing supply constraints
  • Holding regional and inter-local economic development roundtables
  • Building recreational, agricultural, and heritage tourism development
  • Zoning reform: aligning local control with twenty-first century zoning
  • Working on local economic development assessments

On December 9, 2022, American Planning Association Massachusetts awarded the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission the 2022 Planning Project Award to this project.

Learn more about other award recipients here:
https://www.apa-ma.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/2022-APA-MA-Awards-1.pptx.pdf

Salisbury Master Plan Update

Master Plan Update for the Town of Salisbury, MA

Salisbury Town Hall, Salisbury, Massachusetts. Click to enlarge photo.
Town of Salisbury Transportation Snapshot, Salisbury Master Plan Update with Barrett Planning Group. Click to enlarge the graphic.

The Town of Salisbury hired Barrett Planning Group to partially update its 2008 Master Plan. Our team, in cooperation with Town Staff and a local Master Plan Committee, crafted new existing conditions reports and new sets of long-term goals and strategies for five elements: Land Use, Transportation, Community Health, Climate Change, and Economic Development.

We also developed an implementation plan to guide the Town over the plan’s fifteen-year lifespan. We conducted a community-wide survey and held two public community meetings to support this effort, offering in-person and remote options for both. We used mapping exercises, small and large group discussions, and open house-style stations to engage with the community about their vision for Salisbury’s future.

We produced a succinct but content-rich final document including maps and infographics for every chapter, which was adopted by the Salisbury Planning Board in October 2022.

Map of Town of Salisbury, Massachusetts, showing Sea Level Rise. Click to view larger.

Town of Bridgewater Comprehensive Master Plan

Town of Bridgewater MA Comprehensive Master Plan

Bridgewater, Massachusetts

Barrett Planning Group began working with the Town of Bridgewater in 2018 to develop Phase I of a master plan. Our initial scope of work included developing a plan vision, overarching goals, and existing conditions reports for the master plan elements described in G.L. c. 41, § 81D, with our partners at McMahon Associates crafting the transportation element. Home to several state institutions including Bridgewater State University, an MBTA Commuter Rail station, and the Old Colony Correctional Center, the Town has unique opportunities and challenges that shape conversations about land use and comprehensive planning that we considered from the outset of our work.

We began the process working with an appointed Comprehensive Master Plan Committee (CMPC) and conducting focus groups with staff, Town officials, business owners, and other stakeholders. We launched the public face of the project with a community visioning session for citizens to share their aspirations for Bridgewater’s future. This event was closely followed by a workshop for residents to discuss the continued relevance of the Town’s 2002 master plan goals. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, we shifted to virtual engagement opportunities, including an online survey of draft goals and strategies developed with the CMPC to ensure our understanding of the community’s priorities was on target.

At this time, the Town approached us about continuing the project beyond Phase I to develop an implementation program. After addressing CMPC and staff comments on draft existing conditions reports, we finalized our work with the CMPC and began developing implementation program with Town staff. We held a public implementation workshop to allow the community to provide additional input on draft recommendations.

Final recommendations and an accompanying implementation program were paired with our Phase I work to create a complete master plan. In the early months of 2022, we worked with the Planning Board to refine the final plan, which the Board unanimously approved in May 2022.