Massachusetts is in the midst of a housing crisis. Statewide, the median home listing price is over $714,000, and the Commonwealth has an estimated housing shortage of over 220,000 homes. More than 50 communities in the state have a median sales price above $1 million. Over one quarter of young professional residents in the Greater Boston area are considering moving out of the region, with over 70% citing high rent and homebuying costs as important factors in their decision.
Question 7, on the ballot in the Bay State on November 3, aims to address Massachusetts’ housing crisis. If passed, the ballot measure would reduce the minimum lot size in single-family zoned lots to 5,000 square feet and limit road frontage requirements to 50 feet, while maintaining localities’ ability to regulate other aspects, such as building height, aesthetics, and short-term rental usage. The change would be limited to areas served by public sewer and water and exclude the city of Boston. As a result, Question 7 would mostly impact inner-ring cities and suburbs, much of the North Shore and Metrowest, Worcester, and Springfield, with Cape Cod and the Islands, the South Shore, and central and western Massachusetts less affected.
Such large minimum lot sizes encourage the development of larger single-family homes and reduce the amount of available land to build more housing. Both of these factors mean that large minimum lot sizes lead to higher home prices and limit the supply of single-family homes. The proposal would not limit property owners to certain lot sizes but simply reduce government mandates and restrictions on smaller lots, allowing for the construction of smaller starter homes. Proponents of Question 7 estimate that between 2,000-5,000 new homes could be built annually if the ballot measure passes, with a Tufts University study estimating the reform could ultimately lead to 320,000 new homes across the Commonwealth.
Many of the Commonwealth’s most expensive suburbs, such as Brookline, Needham, Newton, Wellesley, and Winchester, would have residential lots subject to Question 7. But so would more affordable suburbs that have skyrocketed in popularity as home prices have surged across the state. According to Realtor.com, Peabody, Massachusetts is America’s hottest housing market. The suburb 45 minutes north of Boston has a median list price of $600,000, lower than the median price in Massachusetts, but significantly higher than the median home price nationwide.
According to the National Zoning Atlas, 56% of land zoned for single-family use in Massachusetts has a minimum lot size of at least one acre (over 40,000 sq feet), with nearly one quarter of all single-family zoned land requiring a minimum lot size of at least two acres. Even Peabody’s smallest minimum lot size for areas zoned exclusively for single-family homes is 10,000 sq feet, with frontage requirements of at least 100 feet, both double the requirements outlined in Question 7.
Other states have shown that reducing minimum lot sizes can lead to more housing supply and affordability. In 2025, Texas reduced minimum lot sizes for new developments in major cities to just 3,000 square feet. In the year since the change went into effect, over 3,000 new homes on smaller lots have been approved, often priced $50,000-75,000 less than comparable homes on larger lots. Other states have passed similar reforms recently, including Kansas, Idaho, and Maine.
Recognizing how expensive housing costs are in the Bay State, some have called for more mandates for affordable housing and restrictions such as rent control. Yet, government mandates actually reduce the supply of housing and push prices higher, as builders and developers no longer see new construction as profitable. Rent control disincentivizes landlords from renting out their units, as maintenance cost increases outpace allowable rent increases. Rather than increasing government control, the main barrier to more housing and less expensive housing is government regulation. Question 7 recognizes that and minimizes one aspect of government control.
Massachusetts’ expensive housing market is pushing away young professionals and young families. Question 7 is a step in the right direction in trying to get the next generation to stay.
Ilana Blumsack is a Senior Housing Policy Analyst at Americans for Prosperity.
