CANDIDATE STATEMENT: Fasulo Reiterates His Unwavering Opposition To The MBTA Communities Act

Greetings, Wilmington.

In this week’s letter, I want to address my unwavering opposition to the MBTA Communities Act (3A). As I stated in my opening announcement, I will oppose any attempt to bring “compliance” back up for a vote as a member of the Select Board—for a myriad of reasons.

First and foremost, I respect the will of the voters and believe 100 percent in the Town Meeting process. I have said many times that, as a Select Board member—or more accurately, as an elected official—it is our duty to uphold the will of Town Meeting, whether I personally agree with the decision or not. This principle is core to my belief in how our government should function.

As many of you know, the MBTA Communities Act was taken up at three different Town Meetings, and the bylaw failed all three times. The public’s wishes were clear after the second vote; the third came across as, frankly, a bit insulting.

I am opposed to this mandate—yes, I’m calling it a mandate, because that’s exactly what it has become. This is legislation driven by individuals from Bourne to Pittsfield who have decided they know what’s best for Wilmington. In doing so, they have created arbitrary numbers and requirements that Wilmington simply cannot handle.

Imagine 600–700 new housing units along the stretch of Main Street from McGovern to the train station. Traffic on this “at times” single-lane corridor is already difficult today—not only for vehicles, but for pedestrians as well, with residents walking to and from places like Market Basket and other businesses. It’s difficult to fathom how anyone could reasonably conclude that this is a good idea for Wilmington.

Furthermore, the addition of these units would require the town to purchase more water from the MWRA, cover water offset credits, and potentially fund line and pump upgrades. These developments would also create a need for additional public safety personnel and equipment, along with increased school staffing. All the while, nothing in this law requires that any of these units be affordable. The state is mandating compliance without committing to fund the real costs associated with it.

If you would like proof of its effect, look no further than the town of Lexington. They passed this mandate with 60 percent approval, but due to the scale of development it allowed, they went back last year to reduce the number of acres within the district.

3A is a flawed law that does little to address the so-called “housing crisis.” Instead, it functions more as a benefit to developers and investors—at the expense of taxpayers and homeowners. Lexington’s cheapest unit resulting from this mandate is priced at $1.2 million.

As a father, I won’t deny that housing prices are out of control, and I do feel for our children. But I am also the son of senior parents—parents who invested their entire lives into their homes. This legislation asks homeowners to support a mandate that could ultimately impact the value of their greatest investment at a time when they should be enjoying the fruits of their lifetime of labor.

In the end, Wilmington stands to lose very little. Based on the figures we’ve seen, the financial impact of noncompliance is technically less than 1% of our town budget. We already invest significant funds in a highly respected law firm—one that is more than capable of challenging this in court for years if necessary. That may be enough time for the legislature to recognize that suing individual cities and towns is not sound policy.

As a member of the Select Board, I will stand firm in defending the will of Wilmington voters and protecting the character and financial stability of our town.

Rob Fasulo
Wilmington