Licensed to non-actual locations

[A. Joseph Ross]

On 30 Jan 2008 at 3:03, Paul Hopfgarten wrote:

> That's odd that a "Home Rule" State like MA can abolish a town at
> will..
 
Cities and towns are completely creatures of the state in 
Massachusetts.  Home rule is considerably less than in many other 
states, even after the 1966 Home Rule Amendment to the state 
constitution.  The amendment was an attempt to create broad home-rule 
powers for cities and towns.  Unfortunately, the process of getting a 
constitutional amendment passed requires a certain amount of 
bargaining and compromise, and the amendment that passed contained a 
number of exceptions to home-rule powers which have largely swallowed 
up the rule.

The big test came when Brookline, in 1968, decided to use its newly-
granted home rule powers to institute a rent grievance board.  The 
landlords took the town to court, and the Supreme Judicial Court 
struck it down.  Towns have generally not attempted to use broad home-
rule powers since.

Brookline went on to get legislative authorization for rent control, 
so the landlords who took the town to court ended up with regulation 
stronger than what they got struck down.  I pointed that out once to 
the landlord who was the principal plaintiff in the suit.  He said 
that the bigger victory was being able to stop cities and towns 
generally from adopting rent regulations without legislative 
authorization.  

-- 
A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                           617.367.0468
 92 State Street, Suite 700                   Fax 617.507.7856
Boston, MA 02109-2004           	         http://www.attorneyross.com