{"id":{"repo_id":"mit","oai_identifier":"oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/58685"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/mit/oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/58685","repository":{"repo_id":"mit","name":"MIT","base_url":"https://dspace.mit.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Residential development in Massachusetts : chapter 40B and the Trojan Horse","abstract":"Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, also known as the \"anti-snob zoning law\", has become one of the state's most prolific affordable housing development tools: in the years since its passage in 1969 its provisions have facilitated the development of over 48,000 housing units, including approximately 26,000 units reserved for residents at or below 80% of area median income. However, controversy has followed 40B hand in hand for almost the entirety of its four-decade existence. I argue that in recent years 40B opponents have created a new rhetorical strategy, turning the traditional pro-affordability stance on its head to argue against 40B. In this newest iteration of the 40B debate, opponents of the law are cast as supporters of affordable housing. Tracing a history of traditional 40B opposition tactics and the ways in which pro-affordable housing advocates have responded, I arrive at the present time and describe the manner in which this new argument is applied in public discourse. Because of its novelty, relatively little research has been undertaken to address the claims of the pro-affordability, anti-40B position. I examine current arguments, concluding that the claim 40B developments provide only a minimal level statutorily required affordable housing, while catering to the rich, offers the most promising research opportunity to bring quantitative analysis to a current point of contention in the 40B debate.","abstract_html":"Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, also known as the "anti-snob zoning law", has become one of the state's most prolific affordable housing development tools: in the years since its passage in 1969 its provisions have facilitated the development of over 48,000 housing units, including approximately 26,000 units reserved for residents at or below 80% of area median income. However, controversy has followed 40B hand in hand for almost the entirety of its four-decade existence. I argue that in recent years 40B opponents have created a new rhetorical strategy, turning the traditional pro-affordability stance on its head to argue against 40B. In this newest iteration of the 40B debate, opponents of the law are cast as supporters of affordable housing. Tracing a history of traditional 40B opposition tactics and the ways in which pro-affordable housing advocates have responded, I arrive at the present time and describe the manner in which this new argument is applied in public discourse. Because of its novelty, relatively little research has been undertaken to address the claims of the pro-affordability, anti-40B position. I examine current arguments, concluding that the claim 40B developments provide only a minimal level statutorily required affordable housing, while catering to the rich, offers the most promising research opportunity to bring quantitative analysis to a current point of contention in the 40B debate.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Schwartzberg, Theodore E"],"institution":"Massachusetts Institute of Technology","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Real Estate","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Langley Keyes."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2008,"date_issued":"2008","date_published":"2008","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:22:07Z","subjects":["Urban Studies and Planning.","Center for Real Estate."],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission."],"rights_urls":["http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/58685","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Langley Keyes."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Real Estate","Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.other","label":"Dc Contributor Other","values":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Real Estate."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Schwartzberg, Theodore E"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2010-09-23T15:13:10Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2010-09-23T15:13:10Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2008"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Urban Studies and Planning.","Center for Real Estate."]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission."]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/58685"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Thesis (M.C.P.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning; and, (S.M. in Real Estate Development)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, Center for Real Estate, 2008.","Includes bibliographical references (p. 58-64)."]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, also known as the \"anti-snob zoning law\", has become one of the state's most prolific affordable housing development tools: in the years since its passage in 1969 its provisions have facilitated the development of over 48,000 housing units, including approximately 26,000 units reserved for residents at or below 80% of area median income. However, controversy has followed 40B hand in hand for almost the entirety of its four-decade existence. I argue that in recent years 40B opponents have created a new rhetorical strategy, turning the traditional pro-affordability stance on its head to argue against 40B. In this newest iteration of the 40B debate, opponents of the law are cast as supporters of affordable housing. Tracing a history of traditional 40B opposition tactics and the ways in which pro-affordable housing advocates have responded, I arrive at the present time and describe the manner in which this new argument is applied in public discourse. Because of its novelty, relatively little research has been undertaken to address the claims of the pro-affordability, anti-40B position. I examine current arguments, concluding that the claim 40B developments provide only a minimal level statutorily required affordable housing, while catering to the rich, offers the most promising research opportunity to bring quantitative analysis to a current point of contention in the 40B debate."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["S.M.in Real Estate Development","M.C.P."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Residential development in Massachusetts : chapter 40B and the Trojan Horse"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Langley Keyes."],"dc:contributor.department":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Real Estate","Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Urban Studies and Planning"],"dc:contributor.other":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Center for Real Estate."],"dc:creator":["Schwartzberg, Theodore E"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2010-09-23T15:13:10Z"],"dc:date.available":["2010-09-23T15:13:10Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2008"],"dc:description":["Thesis (M.C.P.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning; and, (S.M. in Real Estate Development)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning, Center for Real Estate, 2008.","Includes bibliographical references (p. 58-64)."],"dc:description.abstract":["Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, also known as the \"anti-snob zoning law\", has become one of the state's most prolific affordable housing development tools: in the years since its passage in 1969 its provisions have facilitated the development of over 48,000 housing units, including approximately 26,000 units reserved for residents at or below 80% of area median income. However, controversy has followed 40B hand in hand for almost the entirety of its four-decade existence. I argue that in recent years 40B opponents have created a new rhetorical strategy, turning the traditional pro-affordability stance on its head to argue against 40B. In this newest iteration of the 40B debate, opponents of the law are cast as supporters of affordable housing. Tracing a history of traditional 40B opposition tactics and the ways in which pro-affordable housing advocates have responded, I arrive at the present time and describe the manner in which this new argument is applied in public discourse. Because of its novelty, relatively little research has been undertaken to address the claims of the pro-affordability, anti-40B position. I examine current arguments, concluding that the claim 40B developments provide only a minimal level statutorily required affordable housing, while catering to the rich, offers the most promising research opportunity to bring quantitative analysis to a current point of contention in the 40B debate."],"dc:description.degree":["S.M.in Real Estate Development","M.C.P."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/58685"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:publisher":["Massachusetts Institute of Technology"],"dc:rights":["M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission."],"dc:rights.uri":["http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582"],"dc:subject":["Urban Studies and Planning.","Center for Real Estate."],"dc:title":["Residential development in Massachusetts : chapter 40B and the Trojan Horse"],"dc:type":["Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:22:07Z"}