Racially exclusive housing patterns have become the accepted norm in Bostons suburban rings. The white segment of society exerts monopolistic control over virtually all buildable land, with little or no consideration of minority rights or needs. Suburban industry has, for the most part, failed to confront the consequences of locating in racially segregated towns. This failure has allowed patterns of exclusion to become well entrenched in suburban employment.
the first and primary responsibility for the healthy growth of any city or town ought to be vested in that city or town. The accompanying bill [40B], while not permitting cities and towns to unreasonably obstruct the construction of a limited amount of adequate low cost housing, encourages such communities to establish conditions on such housing which will be consistent with local needs. This measure provides the least interference with the power of a community to plan for its own future in accommodating the housing crisis which we face.
Verrilli, supra note 54, at 7 (quoting Report of the Committee on Urban Affairs (June 1969)).
consistent with local needs if they are reasonable in view of the regional need for low and moderate income housing considered with the number of low income persons in the city or town affected and the need to protect the health or safety of the occupants . . . , to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, or to preserve open spaces, and if such requirements and regulations are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing.
an agreement . . . in which a developer agrees to develop Low and Moderate Income Units in accordance with Use restrictions and agrees (a) for rental housing, to limit distribution of return to all partners or legal or beneficial owners to no more than ten percent of equity per year during the term of such agreement or (b) for ownership of housing, to limit profit to all such partners or owners to no more than 20% of total development costs.
Id. § 45.02.