Question 7: How the South Shore Voted

David Cutler

6 hours ago

4 min read

Question 7 results graphic: 49.4% yes, 50.6% no statewide, with close votes in Hull, Avon and Stoughton

Decided by a handful of votes

Question 7, the statewide “starter homes” ballot measure, lost by about 32,000 votes out of roughly 2.5 million cast, 50.6% to 49.4%. It was the tightest of all nine ballot questions, and the AP didn’t call it until Friday, three days after Election Day.

Here on the South Shore, some towns came down to a few hundred votes, or fewer. Hull voted no by just 111 votes, and Avon by 114. Stoughton went the other way, voting yes by 390.

So how did your town vote? And what does the result actually mean if you’re hoping to buy, or you already own? I pulled the numbers town by town.

What Question 7 would have done

Question 7 would have let owners build a single-family home on any residential lot of at least 5,000 square feet, with 50 feet of frontage, as long as it had town water and sewer. Towns could no longer require more land than that.

That’s a big change from today. More than half of Massachusetts towns require roughly 40,000 square feet, close to an acre, for one home.

One detail got lost in the noise: the sewer requirement. In towns where most homes are on septic, a lot of land would never have qualified. So in parts of the South Shore, Question 7 would have changed less than many people assumed.

How the South Shore voted

Only four towns in this area said yes: Randolph, Brockton, Sharon and Stoughton. Find yours below, sorted from most yes to most no.

Town	Yes	No	Yes %	Margin (votes)
Randolph	6,693	3,935	63.0%	Yes +2,758
Brockton	15,151	9,153	62.3%	Yes +5,998
Sharon	4,309	3,757	53.4%	Yes +552
Stoughton	5,554	5,164	51.8%	Yes +390
Hull	2,579	2,690	48.9%	No +111
Weymouth	11,303	12,607	47.3%	No +1,304
Avon	883	997	47.0%	No +114
Braintree	6,912	7,918	46.6%	No +1,006
Canton	4,666	5,750	44.8%	No +1,084
North Attleborough	5,245	6,536	44.5%	No +1,291
Rockland	3,183	4,034	44.1%	No +851
Hingham	4,881	6,313	43.6%	No +1,432
Plymouth	13,173	17,957	42.3%	No +4,784
Easton	4,488	6,153	42.2%	No +1,665
Cohasset	1,767	2,454	41.9%	No +687
Scituate	4,109	6,515	38.7%	No +2,406
East Bridgewater	2,431	3,917	38.3%	No +1,486
Hanover	2,709	4,573	37.2%	No +1,864
Kingston	2,137	3,672	36.8%	No +1,535
Norwell	1,997	3,465	36.6%	No +1,468
Bridgewater	3,853	7,063	35.3%	No +3,210
Duxbury	2,716	5,379	33.6%	No +2,663

Hull, at 111 votes, was the only town closer than Avon. These are unofficial AP results as of Nov. 6, with about 99% counted. The state expects to certify the final numbers in early December. Don’t expect a recount, though: Massachusetts only allows one on a ballot question when the margin is 0.5% or less, and Question 7 lost by about 1.2%.

The pattern: city, suburb, country

The more city-like the town, the more likely it voted yes. Brockton and Randolph, our two most built-up communities, both backed it by more than 60%. The most spread-out towns, like Duxbury, Bridgewater, Norwell and Kingston, said no by roughly two to one.

The same split showed up statewide. Somerville, Cambridge and Boston voted yes by wide margins. Smaller towns said no, and “no” carried the large majority of the state’s 351 cities and towns.

But it isn’t a perfect line, and the exceptions are the interesting part:

Sharon voted yes. It’s one of the more expensive towns on this list, yet it went yes by 552 votes.
Weymouth and Braintree voted no. Both are fairly built-up and close to Boston, but neither got to 47%.
Hull nearly went yes. It’s dense and coastal, and it missed by just 111 votes.

My read: density matters, but so does how much a town expected the change to touch it. Where few lots have sewer, the measure may have felt like an outside rule with little upside. Where housing costs press hardest on young families, it may have felt like relief. I’d love to hear your theory.

Both sides had a point

I work with buyers and sellers on both sides of this question, so here’s each case as its supporters made it.

The case for yes: Land is a huge part of what a home costs. Smaller lots mean cheaper homes, and more of the modest starter homes that first-time buyers can actually afford. The campaign estimated 2,200 to 5,700 new homes a year. A Tufts analysis came in lower, at 350 to 1,200.

The case for no: Zoning is a local decision, and towns know their roads, schools and water better than a statewide rule does. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Municipal Association, saw it as overriding local planning. They also noted nothing required the new homes to be affordable.

What it means for you

If you’re hoping to buy: Nothing changes in the near term. Starter homes stay scarce, so the advantage goes to buyers who know their numbers early and can move quickly. Condos, smaller capes and towns just outside the hot spots are still the realistic entry points.

If you already own: Your town’s lot-size rules stay exactly where they are. If you have a larger lot, especially with town sewer, it’s worth knowing what your town’s zoning allows today. An ADU or a future subdivision could be worth more than you think.

What happens next: Expect this debate to move to town meetings. A town that voted yes, or came close like Avon and Hull, could take up lot sizes on its own.