State Rep candidate (Revere, Saugus, Chelsea) Joe Gravellese talks to BMG

Something that left a  lasting impression on me was working at the State House as a staffer during the snowmageddon and transportation meltdown of 2015. It seemed like the crisis revealed how unprepared we were to deal with challenges that had been bubbling up for a long time (sound familiar??). The meltdown of the commuter rail and the temporary shutdown of the light rail and some of the subway lines helped really shine a light on just how important properly investing in public transportation is, and the crisis showed that we had fundamentally failed to do that.

While I have a lot of respect for many of the people I worked with when I worked in the Legislature, it was very frustrating to feel the lack of political will or urgency in really addressing the transportation crisis, even among legislators whose districts are either transit-reliant or would greatly benefit from better investment in transit. So I think that left a lasting impression on me – that things needed to change, that we needed the House to focus more on its ‘generational responsibility’ (to borrow one of my favorite -isms from Gov. Patrick), and that the only way it would change is if we had more representatives who regularly relied on public transportation and other public services.

I didn’t necessarily know from that experience that I wanted to run for office, but I knew that trying to push Massachusetts forward on the transportation issue was a cause that would be important to me; in recent years, I’ve enjoyed getting involved in some capacity with groups like TransitMatters.

The House has really done some good work around gun control, which has already yielded results. The statistics demonstrate that Massachusetts’ commitment to sensible gun legislation has given us one of the lowest rates of gun death in the country. There is obviously more that we need to do, but this has been genuinely good work. I know the gun lobby is loud, but the Legislature saw through the noise and understood that the vast majority of residents – even gun owners – want to see sensible regulations in place that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. I am proud to have received the Moms Demand Action Gunsense Candidate distinction for my commitment to furthering these efforts, and not letting the gun lobby define the terms of the debate here in Massachusetts.

I’ll give an ‘incomplete but leaning toward positive’ grade as well to the criminal justice reform bill, which I think is really promising, though there hasn’t been enough time since it passed to really evaluate the results just yet. (And obviously there are many more steps we need to take, like ending cash bail for starters.) The opioid bill was really good too, and helped support the work we’re doing on the ground in places like Revere, where we’ve seen the overdose death rate decline by over 40% since Mayor Arrigo launched the city’s first dedicated Substance Use Disorder Initiatives office.

The biggest failing really comes at the intersection of the three challenges I’ve made central to my campaign – transportation, housing, and the environment. All three of these issues are so interconnected. Our lack of investment in transit and in land use patterns that encourage transit use has led to a huge spike in tailpipe emissions and per capita vehicle miles traveled. Emissions from transportation are one of the biggest challenges holding us back from hitting aggressive emissions reductions targets. Our lack of investment in big ideas to give more communities access to housing and transit – ideas like regional rail, the blue/red connector, better bus service, and the north/south rail link – has also led to the increasing scramble for scant housing in communities that do have transit access. This in turn has put huge cost pressures on people in communities like Revere and Chelsea.

So I would really just say the lack of an ambitious response to those three challenges (and where they overlap) is the biggest area where the Legislature has fallen short. Though of course I could list other areas too – higher ed, early childhood, and progressiveness (or lack thereof) of the tax code come to mind.

Good timing to ask about this intersection of transparency and clean energy, as I just signed on and did a video for 350 Mass’ efforts to put questions on the ballot requiring a swift transition to clean energy, and increasing transparency in the State Legislature.

Back in March, one of the first things I did after announcing my campaign was sign the Act on Massachusetts Transparency Pledge, committing myself to make my committee votes public, stand for a roll call vote on any bill I’ve co-sponsored, and push for rules reform that democratizes how the House operates. I don’t think this is one of the elements of the pledge, but I also support reforming rules to implement term limits for high level leadership positions. Having worked there for three years, I know how much of what happens at the State House happens out of the public eye, and it needs to change — and in doing so, we can improve the prospects of popular ideas like clean energy legislation, and progressive priorities like transportation reform. It always frustrated me to feel like I was sort of pushing some boulders up a hill despite knowing there was no chance of making it up to the top. To some extent, that feeling is part of politics, but we can definitely do better.

I strongly suspect that when September (and November) come and go, the composition of the House is going to look considerably different than it does now – not only because there have been a lot of retirements, but also because there’s a strong movement afoot to elect really ambitious and thoughtful, often young, progressive-minded legislators, who are going to shift the balance of power and probably have enough votes to impact the internal politics of the State House, and what the ‘median’ legislator looks like. This will really determine the shape of what bills come out of the House.  The Speaker represents part of Revere; as I’ve mentioned there are a number of issues where I think the House has made good progress, and Revere in particular has seen some benefits from legislation like the opioid bill, and infrastructure investments around Wonderland station, to name a few. But there are also lots of areas where we need to do so much more, as I mentioned, like on transportation and climate. And I do firmly believe in the aforementioned process changes, which have been much needed for a long time.

I’m not naive enough to think one person pushing for more transparency and small-d democracy in the House will change things, but I do think there’s a movement taking place, and I intend on being a part of it. And I suspect the results of this fall’s election will move some incumbents, too, and get them to realize we need to do more. I’m already seeing a number of incumbents start to change the way they market and present themselves to sort of tack in a more progressive direction.

I believe in the process and transparency changes, but I’ve always felt that changing the type of legislation that comes out of the House really depends on moving that median of where the membership is. That doesn’t mean every Democratic candidate needs to be, you know, Tami Gouveia (who is fantastic), but it does mean we need to get the best rep. possible within the context of each district. They don’t all have to be perfect, but they need to be people we can work with on key issues. Say what you want about the legislative process – and it’s very much in need of reform – but the biggest reason why we haven’t seen really ambitious action on things like transportation and environmental justice isn’t the process – it’s that these issues just aren’t something enough legislators really deeply care about or are invested in. That’s what we need to change.

As I mentioned, proper funding to ensure there are no educator layoffs, and that schools can be geared up with proper PPE, is essential.

Frankly, on how to make up for lost time — that is such a serious and imposing question and I really don’t know the answer to it. I’ve been in touch with partners at the Massachusetts Teachers Association and the Boston Teachers Union, both of which have endorsed me, and I know they are working on their legislative agenda for 2021-22. Right now, the big focus is on avoiding layoffs and implementing the SOA. Long run… I’m not sure if we’re going to need to give students flexibility to repeat this year, or what, but it’s going to be really challenging and exacerbate existing inequities. It’s daunting, for sure.

The housing issue, along with transportation, is really front and center as an issue I care a lot about and frankly could probably talk about for two hours if you let me. I plan on putting out a fairly comprehensive post on this on my own website at some point between now and September 1. For now, I’ll try to be brief:

I think Rep. Connolly and others are doing great work around housing and I’m really thankful that the issue is something that a) is actually on the agenda and not something we’re shying away from, and b) more and more voters are paying attention to at a grassroots level – see: the successful effort to protect a mixed income housing development in Newton at the ballot box.

In addition to pushing for an ADU ordinance in Revere, and supporting ADU legislation statewide, I’ve also advocated for an inclusionary zoning ordinance here in my community, along with members of the nascent Revere Housing Coalition – a group of community activists and nonprofit leaders who are concerned about the state of affordable housing in our community. Something else I’ve advocated for locally is adopting the Community Preservation Act, which will help Revere invest in its affordable housing stock – something Chelsea has already done, with some success.

We need strong tenant protections, for sure – we definitely need things like right of first refusal, and the right to legal counsel. Condo conversions are a huge problem in certain neighborhoods in places like Revere and Chelsea, and having stronger tenant protections in those instances is crucial. Support for low-income renters on the costs of moving and leasing an apartment is also a really important priority, as is extending the eviction moratorium, as it’s clear the COVID-19 crisis is going to be with us for a long time.

I do also support the intent of the gov’s Housing Choice bill, though I’d like to work to strengthen it. I’ve seen firsthand the outsized impact it has on housing availability when a small number of city councilors can stand against the will of the majority. This has already negatively impacted Salem, where a few dozen units of affordable housing were squashed by a minority of councilors. Frankly, the whole system of permitting needs so many reforms, as evidenced by the BPDA bribery scandal in Boston — Housing Choice wouldn’t solve these problems, but it would at least help.

I support some of the proposed modifications to the bill, like making sure the 50% standard for zoning changes also applies to adopting inclusionary zoning ordinances. But we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good – we can always start with some of these changes and then go back and do more while we build further momentum. The housing cost crisis is an urgent one for people of my generation, and we can’t wait too long to take action and chip away at it.

Ultimately, the only way we can fully deal with the imbalance between supply and demand here in places like Greater Boston is to figure out how we can increase supply in a sensible and sustainable way – which requires all communities, even the wealthy suburbs, to do their part, and builds in a way that encourages environmentally friendly land use and transportation patterns. Sprawl and traffic are not the answer.

We can do this by making the commuter rail operate more frequently and all-day, expanding access to jobs to more communities. We can do this by putting some teeth into chapter 40B, and using state-level carrots and sticks to deal with communities that aren’t doing their part. We can do this by reforming things like vacancy taxes and long-term Air BnB rentals. We need

 to do all of it.

We can do this by ensuring that moderately-sized, missing-middle housing can be built along the MBTA corridor. H.3883, mentioned on Rep Connolly’s site, is a really good bill on that front and one I fully support. Neighborhoods like the one I grew up in, Beachmont, where there are lots of 2- and 3-family homes often with multiple generations living together, are functionally illegal today under current zoning. This is why I think a lot of our housing debates miss the forest for the trees… whether you’re in favor of it or not, some 90 unit development happening somewhere isn’t what’s going to determine the affordability of housing in our communities one way or the other – it’s that missing middle, the kinds of housing that very much fit within the existing look and feel of cities like Revere and others in Greater Boston, that is so crucial, and has been ignored for too long.

One of the biggest drivers of displacement in communities like Revere and Chelsea is that there aren’t really a lot of places left in Greater Boston for pent-up demand to go that have somewhat reliable transit access, and are still relatively affordable. So the same pattern is going to happen here that happened in places like JP or Cambridge or any number of other neighborhoods… it’s not rocket science. Until we get serious about the mismatch between what kinds of housing are being built and where, and what kinds of housing and types of neighborhoods people are actually looking to live in, this problem isn’t going away. Everything else is just a band-aid.

Spend some time down by Beachmont station some morning and talk to the people who are walking to the train from nearby, you’ll see that the influx of newcomers isn’t, you know, the 1%, or people who work for State Street. It’s people who want to live in or near Boston, who have good jobs but can’t necessarily afford the rents in Boston or Cambridge, and can’t afford to buy in communities that have transit access. How are we going to deal with this problem? We can’t sort of wish it away. This is where the housing discourse sometimes breaks down among fellow progressives… we’re not solving issues like gentrification by looking only at what we can do around subsidized/deed-restricted affordable housing (though deed-restricted and public housing are extremely important, and we need more of both, especially in the places that aren’t building any of it). Even if we build thousands of units of deed-restricted affordable housing, smaller properties in cities like Chelsea and Revere are still going to be scooped up, converted, and flipped as long as there are middle-income people being priced out of ‘hotter’ neighborhoods, but still possessing more financial resources than those living in low-income communities.

This is why I struggle with the rent control discourse too. Just repealing the restriction on rent control and expecting that to solve our problems will lead to a pretty rude awakening when the same thing happens here that happened in New York – a small number of “winners,” some of whom aren’t even necessarily the most needy, win by securing rent-controlled apartments, while everyone else loses if steps aren’t taken to address the supply of different housing types. I’m in favor of discussing things like Seattle and like is being discussed in California, where you pair restrictions around increases tied to inflation, and restrictions on upfront costs, with other reforms that help allow for more affordable housing (broadly defined) to be built.

One of the interesting challenges of my district is that the housing discourse in the three communities has been very different. In Chelsea, the discourse is mostly centered around support for more affordable housing, be it through deed-restricted housing or inclusionary zoning. The discourse in Revere politics has generally been dominated by the “not in my backyard” position, which I obviously don’t agree with – but I do think there’s a reasonable point being made by some people I don’t necessarily see eye to eye with, which is that communities like Revere or Chelsea shouldn’t have to shoulder the load for the entire region. Others need to do their part, too. But we need to make sure we’re connecting more communities to reliable transit if we’re going to see that happen.

Most of all, we need to acknowledge that there is no magic bullet here, and we need to get real about how we grapple with this challenge, because it’s one of the most significant problems Massachusetts is facing right now. I don’t have all the answers, but understanding the nature of the problem is a good place to start.

To start with, my district needs the Blue/Red connector, which would connect people in communities like Revere, Chelsea, East Boston, and along the North Shore with better access to jobs and opportunities in Cambridge, in downtown Boston, in the Seaport, and along the South Shore.

We need investment in needed repairs to the existing subway system, so that the many North Shore residents who ride the blue line every day have reliable access to work.

We need better bus service to reduce crowding and increase frequency and reliability. We need more bus lane pilots, dedicated right-of-ways, and exploring things like extending the silver line into downtown Revere – a portion of the city that is not well-served by transit, despite the presence of three MBTA stops along the beach. We also need to look into at least making the bus free, which would not be particularly expensive to the state but certainly would increase access to the bus, and encourage more people to use it, especially for those ‘last mile’ trips.

We need a real, reliable, affordably priced Regional Rail network, which would take some pressure off the Blue Line and off the crowded roads leading to Wonderland every morning, by allowing people in Lynn and up the North Shore to ride the Regional Rail network into Boston. We need the reimagined Regional Rail to stop in Revere, giving residents in both Revere and Chelsea access to jobs up the North Shore as well as in Boston, and connecting Wonderland station to the broader network.

And from the Legislature, the T needs… well, money, of course, as well as relief from Big Dig debt. But in addition to money, it also needs attention, and people who really care about it serving in the House. How many legislators ride the T every day? I do (or at least I did, before COVID-19 and the age of working from home). If elected, I’ll be riding the Blue Line to Bowdoin every day when I go into the State House. People who ride the system and care about it understand the kinds of changes that would truly improve the quality of our commutes and our quality of life.

There are a lot of good people working in state government now, and they may care about transportation and housing reform on an ideological level, but they don’t really and truly understand the needs of renters, or people who ride the T. So I guess more of us are going to need to run, and win, in order to see real change.