BRPC Committee Mulls Input on State Housing Plan

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Berkshire Regional Planning Commission's Regional Issues Committee brainstormed representation for the county in upcoming housing listening sessions.

"The administration is coming up with what they like to tout is their first housing plan that's been done for Massachusetts, and this is one of a number of various initiatives that they've done over the last several months," Executive Director Thomas Matuszko said.

"But it seems like they are intent upon doing something and taking comments from the different regions across the state and then turning that into policy so here is our chance to really speak up on that."

The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and members of the Housing Advisory Council will host multiple listening sessions around the Commonwealth to hear input on the Healey-Driscoll administration's five-year strategic statewide housing plan.

One will be held at Berkshire Community College on May 15 at 2 p.m.

One of Matuszko's biggest concerns is the overall age of the housing stock in Berkshire County.

"And that the various rehab programs that are out there are inadequate and they are too cumbersome to manipulate through," he explained.

"And so I think that there needs to be a greater emphasis not on new housing development only but housing retention and how we can do that in a meaningful way. It's going to be pretty important."

Non-commission member Andrew Groff, Williamstown's community developer director, added that the bureaucracies need to coordinate themselves and "stop creating well-intended policies like the new energy code that actually work against all of this other stuff."

Kent Lew, also a non-commission member and outgoing chair of the Washington Select Board, said the opportunities for rural communities like Washington are not so much for new growth and housing but for preserving the current stock.

"There's a lot of aging families and no money to go into fixing them so all we have is deteriorating housing stock and nobody wants to see it all just torn down and try to start over," he said.


"We need to invest in what we have. I think that will help rejuvenate our communities as well, which leads to new growth as well because when you have a community that doesn't look like it's in decline, you do find that new growth comes in. People are inclined to move in and do some new construction."

Chair and Stockbridge alternate Christine Rasmussen added that if homes could be made more weather-tight, there would be less of a problem with heating and cooling costs and would reduce emissions.

"I think that if we can tie those things into their plans for addressing climate change it could be helpful," she said.

Matuszko recommended that the committee advocate for Berkshire County to be included in the season community designation. He supports two levels of designation: a broader countywide one and a designation and the option for communities to opt in if they meet criteria.

Seasonal communities depend on seasonally-based tourism and experience wide fluctuations in population and employment at different times of the year. The designation would create a framework for designating communities with substantial seasonal variations in employment and housing needs.

"It seems to me that we don't typically think of a place like Pittsfield as a seasonal designation yet but it's so important to and has some of the impacts that are being faced in South County," he said.

"A lot of the labor for the hospitality industry lives in Pittsfield and so it seems that that that connection has to be recognized somehow, in some way and that's what my thinking is with these two levels of designation."

Community Planning Program Manager CJ Hoss said that it makes sense to get the designation for the entire county realizing that certain areas are impacted. He pointed out that some communities may not have the infrastructure to create a lot of new homes so places like Pittsfield and Great Barrington should be involved.

"The couple of things that I see that are missing here that I've had some discussions with some of our colleagues in the county is it needs to have some type of a broader consideration, not specifically related necessarily to housing only but things like transit," Matuszko said.

"In fact, our employees that are serving the cultural institutions or the hospitality institutions are living in Pittsfield but they can't get down to Great Barrington or Stockbridge to work. That's not good either and that's the problem that we have in Berkshire County."


Tags: housing,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

SJC: Public Records Petition 'Proper'

Staff Reports
BOSTON — The Supreme Judicial Court in an advisory opinion released Monday found the petition to bring the Legislature and governor's office under the Public Records Law is "proper" as a form of law.
 
"Its principal purpose is not to regulate the internal proceedings or operations of the two Houses," the court wrote. "Instead, its principal purpose is to provide the public with a new right of access to the records of the General Court and the office of the Governor, applying the existing public records law to those bodies alongside the other governmental bodies already subject to the law. "
 
The state Senate asked the Supreme Judicial Court to weigh in on whether public records petition was a violation of the state constitution. The Legislature is required to act on the matter by May 5; if not, supporters plan to put it on the ballot in November. 
 
Auditor Diana DiZoglio has championed the petition as a measure to bring greater transparency to the workings of state government and as part of her own battle to audit the Legislature. More than 70 percent of voters approved the audit question in November 2024. 
 
The Senate asked the court whether, first, the petition was a law or a rule that would interfere with its internal processes and, second, would it create "new and unprecedented authority" to the courts to determine challenges to records determinations.
 
The court offered "that the petition proposes a law and is therefore properly pending before the Legislature" and, for Question 2, concluded "that the proposed measure does not relate to the powers of courts."
 
The court declined to answer three following questions related to intrusions on Senate authority and General Court authority, and violation of rights of  "deliberation, speech and debate" granted to members and staff.
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories