u/Illustrious-Ask1779

It mostly does good things, but it picked up some amendments in the Senate that would:

- let certain housing projects bypass local wetlands and septic rules (the ones that keep building out of floodplains and protect drinking water),

- reduce state grant funding for towns that keep those stronger local protections, and

- weaken the rules on rat poisons that are killing hawks and owls.

https://massready-act.vercel.app

It's in the House Ways & Means Committee right now. I'm genuinely torn — I want more housing, but letting projects skip flood and water protections seems like the wrong way to get there, especially in a town like ours that deals with flooding.

Curious whether folks here have been following it or have thoughts. (I found a page that breaks down the exact sections and makes it easy to email the committee — I'll put the link in a comment so this isn't a link post.)

https://massready-act.vercel.app

It mostly does good things, but it picked up some amendments in the Senate that would:

- let certain housing projects bypass local wetlands and septic rules (the ones that keep building out of floodplains and protect drinking water),

- reduce state grant funding for towns that keep those stronger local protections, and

- weaken the rules on rat poisons that are killing hawks and owls.

It's in the House Ways & Means Committee right now. I'm genuinely torn — I want more housing, but letting projects skip flood and water protections seems like the wrong way to get there, especially in a town like ours that deals with flooding.

Curious whether folks here have been following it or have thoughts. (I found a page that breaks down the exact sections and makes it easy to email the committee — I'll put the link in a comment so this isn't a link post.)

It mostly does good things, but it picked up some amendments in the Senate that would:

- let certain housing projects bypass local wetlands and septic rules (the ones that keep building out of floodplains and protect drinking water),

- reduce state grant funding for towns that keep those stronger local protections, and

- weaken the rules on rat poisons that are killing hawks and owls.

It's in the House Ways & Means Committee right now. I'm genuinely torn — I want more housing, but letting projects skip flood and water protections seems like the wrong way to get there, especially in a town like ours that deals with flooding.

Curious whether folks here have been following it or have thoughts. (I found a page that breaks down the exact sections and makes it easy to email the committee — I'll put the link in a comment so this isn't a link post.)

Is anyone here following the state environmental bond bill (S.3064, the "Mass Ready Act")?

It mostly does good things, but it picked up some amendments in the Senate that would:

- let certain housing projects bypass local wetlands and septic rules (the ones that keep building out of floodplains and protect drinking water),

- reduce state grant funding for towns that keep those stronger local protections, and

- weaken the rules on rat poisons that are killing hawks and owls.

It's in the House Ways & Means Committee right now. I'm genuinely torn — I want more housing, but letting projects skip flood and water protections seems like the wrong way to get there, especially in a town like ours that deals with flooding.

Curious whether folks here have been following it or have thoughts. (I found a page that breaks down the exact sections and makes it easy to email the committee — I'll put the link in a comment so this isn't a link post.)

Is anyone here following the state environmental bond bill (S.3064, the "Mass Ready Act")?

It mostly does good things, but it picked up some amendments in the Senate that would:

- let certain housing projects bypass local wetlands and septic rules (the ones that keep building out of floodplains and protect drinking water),

- reduce state grant funding for towns that keep those stronger local protections, and

- weaken the rules on rat poisons that are killing hawks and owls.

It's in the House Ways & Means Committee right now. I'm genuinely torn — I want more housing, but letting projects skip flood and water protections seems like the wrong way to get there, especially in a town like ours that deals with flooding.

Curious whether folks here have been following it or have thoughts. (I found a page that breaks down the exact sections and makes it easy to email the committee — I'll put the link in a comment so this isn't a link post.)