Home rule petitions and progressive bills keep pitch to tax high-end property transfers in the conversation
Read More in the Commonwealth Beacon
AN ARRAY OF cities and towns are asking lawmakers, again, to let them impose a fee on expensive property transactions to fund affordable housing. But even as the state’s housing crisis grinds on, the polarizing pitch seems to be facing an increasingly uphill climb.
Real estate transfer fees, a long-bubbling idea on Beacon Hill, would impose a surcharge on property sales to generate local revenue that can be directed toward building affordable housing. A proposal filed by Gov. Maura Healey during the last legislative cycle would have allowed cities and towns to impose a 0.5 to 2 percent fee on property sale proceeds over $1 million, or the county’s median home sales price, whichever is greater.
Healey’s provision failed to advance in the final housing bond bill, and the governor has not signaled eagerness to revisit the policy this cycle. Supporters nonetheless are vowing to make another push for transfer fees in the coming final year of the two-year legislative session.
Roughly a dozen different versions of transfer fee legislation have been filed. Sen. Julian Cyr, the Senate co-chair of the Legislature’s housing committee, supports the idea.
Transfer fees are not “a silver bullet” solution to the housing crisis, he said, but could be a valuable part of the answer if coupled with zoning and permitting changes. Without new streams of revenue to support affordable housing, Cyr said, “there’s no way Massachusetts can subsidize its way out of this crisis.”
Cyr, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket, has been tasked by Senate President Karen Spilka with “going bold” on housing solutions that can make a dent in the 222,000 new housing units the state projects will be needed in the next decade. On transfer fees, he noted, “my feelings on this are no secret,” and placing him in the top housing spot signals Senate leadership may be warmer to the idea than it was last cycle.
It seemed political momentum was building last session, but support from the governor, the mayor of the state’s largest city, and initial enthusiasm from the state Senate weren’t enough to get a transfer fee on the books. Facing antipathy from the House and pushback from business leaders, the Senate passed its version of a housing bond bill in 2023 without including a transfer fee provision.
That decision meant a transfer fee couldn’t be used as a chit during negotiations between chambers, and it effectively killed any prospects for the proposal during the 2023-24 term.
The transfer fee proposals take two forms: home rule petitions from individual communities seeking permission to impose a surcharge and local option bills providing a blanket authorization for cities and towns to approve transfer fees at the local level.
Cyr said his district is facing “the worst housing crisis in the state,” and more than half of the 13 home rule petitions to impose a transfer fee have been sent to Beacon Hill by communities on Cape Cod and Nantucket.
Lawmakers are considering home rule petitions for local real estate transfer fees from Arlington, Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Concord, Chatham, Eastham, Falmouth, Nantucket, Provincetown, Somerville, Truro, and Wellfleet.
One of the local option bills, filed by Cyr, takes special note of seasonal communities — where a large proportion of the housing is stock tied up in part-time use, like the Cape and Islands – and their affordability challenges. The bill would allow seasonal communities in the state to assess a 1 to 2 percent fee on real estate transactions over $1 million, directing the money toward housing.
Lawmakers representing seasonal communities have floated the idea of a targeted transfer fee policy for those areas, which Cyr says are “speaking with one voice” about their desire for more housing options including the transfer fee. Cape officials, Nantucket real estate agents, and Cape Cod business organizations alike are backing the fees, he said, while other areas of Massachusetts like Boston see the mayor and real estate groups at odds.
A local option bill filed in the Senate by Sen. Joanne Comerford of Northampton and in the House by Reps. Mike Connolly of Cambridge and Carmine Gentile of Sudbury, has support from statewide housing organizations like the Citizens’ Housing & Planning Association (CHAPA) and left-wing organizations like Progressive Mass. Over the past few sessions, a coalition of organizations from cities and towns across the state has also backed some version of a transfer fee.
There is no sign, however, of a change of heart from House Speaker Ron Mariano, who was chilly toward the idea last term.
One key Senate leader has also staked out opposition to transfer fees in the past. Sen. Will Brownsberger of Belmont, the third ranking member of the chamber, wrote after the Senate opted against including the fee in the 2023 bond bill that he’s concerned that a transfer fee could stifle efforts to have more housing built.
“In the long run, the only positive solution to excessive housing costs is the production of more housing,” Brownsberger wrote. “I am uncomfortable with any measure that could tend to drag down housing production in our state. The option for municipalities to impose a transfer tax falls in that category.”
Healey, who is heading into a reelection campaign where affordability is likely to be front and center, also has pulled back from her earlier enthusiastic push for a transfer fee.
The fee was nowhere to be found in a sprawling 2025 report on “unlocking housing” in Massachusetts from a Healey task force that included housing policy experts, civic leaders, local officials, and labor representatives.
The administration on Thursday referred to a brief comment in its statewide housing plan – A Home for Everyone – which notes Healey’s failed effort last session to have a transfer fee approved. “While this proposal was not adopted by the legislature,” the administration “intends to continue working with localities, housing trusts, and the real estate community to create new revenue options for municipalities and regions.”