41 
economic growth would be carefully planned to coincide with State 
objectives. The proposed ‘corporation would be empowered to promote 
industrial development projects relating to residential expansion (for 
Federal tax benefits unavailable now to exclusively industrial develop- 
ments are still available to’ projects related to residential develop- 
ment). This new entity’ could act. only after the community has 
formulated a new community plan. Lacking such a plan, the corpora- 
tion could act when a local governmental body designated a given 
location ‘as a new community area. And lacking such a designation, 
the corporation itself with the Governor’s approval could make such 
a designation and begin development. 
The agency as proposed would be permitted to borrow at least 
$500 million at relatively low interest rates through the sale of tax- 
exempt bonds. In turn it could buy land and lend money to developers 
at relatively low interest rates to build housmg and mdustry and 
community facilities. Developers. would pay back the loans from 
income they made on property. 
Political feasibility 
The corporation would put together sites, insure development, and 
arrange for financing. No project could be undertaken without local 
approval—or, failing such approval, a two-thirds affirmative vote of 
the corporation board of directors and the approval of the Governor. 
The prime difference between the Governor’s proposed corporation 
and the New York State Development Corporation, which serves as 
the only model of a State development corporation, is that there are 
more checks and balances on the powers of eminent domain in the 
Massachusetts model. No project area can be less than 100 acres, and 
no project can be developed im any town with less than 500 acres of 
vacant land. The corporation would also be empowered to override 
local zoning codes and building codes. This would be a direct challenge 
to the recently passed home rule amendment in Massachusetts.** The 
Governor’s proposal is perhaps not the most impressive proposal for a 
State development corporation that could have been made,”® but since 
it has already been proposed and since it has received some support 
from municipal officials, it is the model that should be considered at 
this point in time. It is not yet clear whether or not the proposal will be 
accepted, but the careful system of checks and balances certainly 
enhances its political acceptability. 
Financial feasibility 
The Governor of Massachusetts has set as his goal the creation of 
230,000 units of housing in the next 10 years.*° Many of these units 
will be included in the development of new communities throughout 
the Commonwealth. At present construction prices (about $20,000 
per unit) that much housing would cost about $4.6 billion. That does 
28 One of the problems facing the Massachusetts Replacement Housing and Community Development 
Corporation bill is its direct challenge under section 8 of the home rule amendment to the Massachusetts 
Constitution (HRA 8). Under HRA 8 the general court may act ‘‘in relation to cities and towns either 
by general law or special law in enumerated circumatances.” The findings of the proposed bill emphasize 
certain points to meet the challenge of HRA 8. First to assure its reading as a general law, and not just as a 
special law, the bill stresses the statewide breadth of the Commonwealth’s urban problems, and need for at 
least several community development efforts to meet the problems. Second, the emphasis on statewide 
aspects of the Commonwealth’s urban problems anticipates and hopefully overcomes the challenge that 
development within a single municipality is activity only in relation to that city or town, and therefore is 
not proper activity for the corporation. F 
29 A superior proposal has been prepared by a group of students at the Harvard Law School, December 
1969: ‘Proposed Legislation to Establish a Massachusetts New Communities Development Corporation” 
(Browning, Herfel, Scott, Silberman, and Susskind). 
30 Remarks made by Governor Sargeant at the annual meeting of the Citizens Housing and Planning 
Association of Metropolitan Boston, Dec. 8, 1969. 
