By Matthew Terrell
Revere’s ongoing resistance to Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations outlined in the State’s 2024 Affordable Homes Act highlights a deeper issue within the City’s approach to the housing crisis: an unwillingness to adapt to policies that are proven to make housing more affordable. Recent motions introduced before the City Council seek to challenge or weaken these regulations, citing concerns about congestion, overdevelopment, and neighborhood character. Just like complaints garnered against the City’s Housing Production Plan, these arguments serve to maintain the status quo instead of addressing the root causes of the housing crisis.
The suggestion that Revere should be exempt from state ADU guidelines under the guise of home rule is deeply flawed. Home rule should not be a shield to avoid participating in a regional solution to a regional crisis. The state is stepping in precisely because cities like Revere have repeatedly failed to enact policies that allow for sufficient housing growth. According to Census data, 92.7% of employed Revere residents commute outside the city for work each day, relying on the Greater Boston job market. With that dependence comes a responsibility to contribute to the region’s housing supply. Revere cannot claim to be an independent entity while simultaneously benefiting from the economic opportunities that come with being part of a larger metropolitan area. Rejecting statewide solutions in favor of insular, exclusionary zoning policies only ensures that Revere continues exacerbating the housing crisis rather than addressing it.
The council’s objections to ADUs, particularly around congestion and parking, are riddled with contradictions. Residents and public officials alike frequently cite traffic as a major issue, yet few acknowledge that congestion stems largely from car dependency—an issue exacerbated by suburban-style development. More importantly, Revere’s worst congestion isn’t coming from its own residents or proposed ADUs—it’s from commuters in outer suburbs using the city as a cut-through to Boston. The state’s ADU policy eliminates parking requirements near transit stops to encourage public transportation use, a move that should be welcomed rather than resisted. If city leaders want to ease congestion, they would lobby for policies that address the real problem: getting cars from outer suburbs off Revere streets, whether through tolls, congestion pricing, or pushing the state to invest heavily in regional public transportation, so that we stop paying the price for the convenience our roads give to everyone on the North Shore.
If the council was truly serious about reducing the number of cars registered in Revere, they wouldn’t focus on blocking ADUs or housing growth, but instead implement policies that provide financial incentives for car-free living. Subsidized Charlie cards, bike grant programs similar to Boston’s E-Bike program that gave vouchers to assist residents in transitioning from car to bike transportation, or even tax breaks for households without a car would do far more to reduce congestion than retaining arbitrary parking minimums. Ultimately, this would clear up the roads for our residents who have no other choice but to own a vehicle, whether it be our seniors with reduced mobility or those whose jobs necessitate owning a car.
Another frequent criticism is that ADUs won’t create affordable housing because most will rent at market rate. This argument is technically correct but fundamentally misunderstands supply and demand. The region is critically underbuilt, and housing costs will continue to rise as long as demand outpaces supply. ADUs won’t immediately lower prices, but delaying incremental housing growth only prolongs the crisis. While ADUs may not be classified as “affordable housing,” they create more options for middle- and working-class residents—the very people who form the backbone of Revere.
Yet time and time again, Revere’s leadership resists even the smallest steps toward expanding housing affordability. Despite priding itself as a dense, working-class community, officials hide behind the claim that single-family neighborhoods are the “backbone” of Revere’s character whenever the opportunity arises to make meaningful change. They argue that the city is already overcrowded and has “done its part” to accommodate growth, ignoring clear data that tells a different story. According to the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, Revere has just 18.33 housing units per acre, lagging behind Everett (22.19), Somerville (29.72), and Chelsea (30.22)—cities that have embraced housing policies to meet growing demand. The idea that single-family zoning is the foundation of Revere is revisionist at best. Revere was not founded and built on suburban sprawl, it was built on a vibrant mix of affordable, multi-density, neighborhoods such as Shirley Ave or Beachmont. Single-family neighborhoods are a relatively recent development, imposed through restrictive policies that have made the city less accessible over time. The long-perpetuated fantasy of single-family neighborhoods with all the luxuries of urban living does not match Revere’s reality.
Revere Officials claim that Revere’s ordinances such as our ADU guidelines “Fit like a glove.” But for whom? Restrictive zoning ordinances are a direct driver of rising housing prices and displacement. These regulations do not “protect neighborhoods” – They protect landlords who hike rents without improving living conditions and real estate agents cashing in on soaring commissions. If this is a perfect fit, it is only for those profiting off the housing crisis, not the residents being priced out.
Furthermore, the character of a community is not defined by housing typology, it is defined by the people that inhabit it. And right now, the very people who have shaped Revere’s character for over two centuries – working-class families, immigrants, and lifelong residents – are being priced out. Preserving Revere’s character should mean keeping it liveable and accessible, not freezing it in time at the expense of those who can no longer afford to stay.
The failure to act on housing is not just a policy failure—it is a betrayal of Revere’s future. Young residents who grew up here, attended Revere schools, and whose families have invested in this city are being pushed out. Instead of planting roots, starting families, and contributing to the community that raised them, they are forced to look elsewhere. This is not just about housing—it is about keeping Revere’s future generations here rather than exporting them to other cities. When we push our youth out, we lose their talent, energy, and commitment to the city.
At the end of the day, this is not just a plea for ADUs or any single policy change—it is a call for honesty. If elected officials have no intention of supporting real solutions, they should not campaign on promises to increase housing affordability. Blocking reform under the pretense of protecting the city’s “character” does nothing but ensure Revere remains inaccessible and unaffordable for the very people its leaders claim to represent. Revere must decide whether it wants to be a city that learns from past mistakes and moves forward or one that clings to outdated policies, exacerbating the housing crisis. It is time for city leaders to stop providing lip service on the campaign trail, telling voters what they want to hear, and instead, start being honest about whether they are willing to take the necessary steps to make this city accessible for those who want to call it home.
