Article 30 Schlichtman Statement¶
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • April 27, 2026
1
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • paul@schlichtman.org
2026 Annual Town Meeting
Arlington, Massachusetts
Article 30: HOME RULE LEGISLATION / REPEAL MBTA PROHIBITION
To see if the town will vote to authorize and request the Select Board to file Home Rule
Legislation or other Special Legislation to repeal Chapter 504, Section 16 of the Acts of 1980, in
which “the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is hereby prohibited from further
planning or construction of the red line northwest rapid transit extension beyond a point on
the so-called Lexington Branch railroad right of way located six hundred feet more or less
northwesterly of Route 2 unless specifically authorized to do so by law,” or take any action
related thereto.
Substitute Motion:
Article No. 30 Dated: April 27, 2026
I, Paul Schlichtman, do hereby submit the following Substitute Motion under Article 30:
VOTED: That the Town does and hereby authorizes the Select Board to file Home Rule
Legislation to provide substantively as follows:
“AN ACT REPEALING SECTION 16 OF CHAPTER 504 OF THE ACTS OF 1980”
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in the General Court assembled, and
by the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, Section 16 of Chapter
504 of the Acts of 1980, “An Act Relative to the Granting of Certain Easements and Interests in
Land to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority for Construction of Red Line
Extension,” is repealed and nullified.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • April 27, 2026
2
It shouldn’t be illegal to plan good transit. Article 30 FAQs:
Is this repeal really necessary?
Yes. The Select Board opines that prohibition in Section 16 “ended upon completion of
the Northwest Extension in 1985,” but this opinion is not shared by any Massachusetts
court. Repeal of this provision removes any doubt about the validity of this law. It also
sends a message that Arlington no longer wants to prohibit transit planning through
town.
Will a YES vote bring the Red Line into Arlington?
No. The only thing a YES vote will do is ask the state legislature to repeal Section 16 of
Chapter 504 of the Acts of 1980. It will allow Arlington to fully engage with the MBTA,
so that today’s residents can influence transit planning in our town.
What plans currently exist for a Red Line extension?
49 years ago, the MBTA developed detailed plans for the Red Line extension from
Harvard Square through Arlington Heights. These plans are reflected in the 1977 Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Red Line Extension – Harvard Square to
Arlington Heights. The Alewife to Arlington Heights segment is described in Volume 2
of the EIS and is available on the Resources page of extendtheredline.org.
The 1977 EIS described a plan for cut-and-cover construction of a subway tunnel along
the Lexington Branch railroad (currently the Minuteman Bikeway). The plan took into
consideration federal requirements to maintain freight rail service west of Arlington
Center and called for a linear park to be placed on top of the tunnel. It also included an
underground pedestrian plaza under the Massachusetts Avenue-Mystic Street
intersection, providing for a safe and convenient way for pedestrians to move through
Arlington Center. If the MBTA chooses to move forward with a Red Line Extension, a
new feasibility study would be required and the existing plans would need to be
revised to align with a topography that has changed since 1977. Revised plans would
also need to account for the growing trend of bicycle commuters in and around
Arlington.
Does the MBTA view Chapter 504 as a limitation on its planning functions?
While the MBTA reported that “it received at least five requests to explore a red line
extension to Arlington,” there is no evidence the T has engaged in even the most
limited planning for a Red Line extension since the prohibition was enacted in 1980.
The act of reporting requests is not an indicator of actual planning.
Is this a heavy lift for our legislators?
No. Arlington’s three legislators (Senator Cindy Friedman and Representatives Sean
Garballey and Dave Rogers) are experienced, capable legislators. They have a track
record of guiding home rule legislation to passage, including the 2024 repeal of the
previous prohibition.
A more detailed discussion follows.
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • April 27, 2026
3
It shouldn’t be illegal to plan good transit.
On April 26, 2023, Arlington Town Meeting (Article 19) voted 169-41-1 to seek repeal
of Chapter 439 of the Acts of 1976 “An Act Prohibiting the Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority for locating a mass transportation facility within a certain
distance of the Arlington Catholic High School.”
As a result, Chapter 283 of the Acts of 2024 was signed into law by Governor Healey
on December 23, 2024.
AN#ACT#REPEALING#THE#PROHIBITION#ON#THE#MASSACHUSETTS#BAY#TRANSPORTATION#AUTHORITY#FROM#LOCATING#A#
FACILITY#WITHIN#A#CERTAIN#DISTANCE#OF#ARLINGTON#CATHOLIC#HIGH#SCHOOL#
Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to repeal forthwith the
prohibition on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority from locating a facility within a certain distance of
Arlington Catholic high school, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public convenience.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the
same, as follows:
Chapter 439 of the acts of 1976 is hereby repealed.
At about the same time, Paul Selker (TMM-9) discovered another prohibition written
into a 1980 state law, tacked onto the end of a series of temporary and permanent
easements enacted to permit the construction of the Red Line west of Alewife Station.
Chapter 16 of Section 504 of the Acts of 1980 prohibits the MBTA from “further
planning or construction of the red line northwest rapid transit extension beyond a
point on the so-called Lexington Branch railroad right of way located six hundred feet
more or less northwesterly of Route 2 unless specifically authorized to do so by law.”
With an overwhelmingly positive 2023 vote, I looked at a two-pronged strategy for
repealing this second prohibition. Rep. Sean Garballey said he would look to attach the
repeal to the next transportation bond issue. I also submitted a warrant article (Article
30) requesting Home Rule Legislation to effectuate the repeal. Again, with the
overwhelming vote in 2023, I expected this article to sail through Town Meeting… until
the warrant article hearing before the Select Board.
Mr. DeCourcey was the first to speak. He took aim at the article, concluding that, “I’d
be inclined to move no action on it. Mainly because I am concerned about, we have
other things we are asking our legislators to do and I just don’t see that this is
necessary.” It was a similar objection he raised three years ago, when the Select Board
report noted Mr. DeCourcey’s dissent “because in his view, the Act (prohibiting a
facility near Arlington Catholic) did not prevent the proposed expansion of the Red
Line through Arlington… Mr. DeCourcey further questioned whether a petition to
repeal the Act would impact more pressing local legislative priorities.”
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • April 27, 2026
4
MBTA Home Rule Legislation: Comparing the 2023 and 2026 Select Board Reports
Select Board Report
2023 Annual Town Meeting • Article 19
Select Board Report
2026 Annual Town Meeting • Article 30
(3 - 1)
Mr. DeCourcey voted in the negative and Mr. Helmuth
recused himself.
The majority of the Select Board respectfully requests
Town Meeting’s support to repeal a 1976 Special Act
(“An Act Prohibiting The Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority From Locating Mass
Transportation Facility Within Certain Distance Of The
Arlington Catholic High School” or “The Act”), which
prohibited the MBTA from constructing any mass
transportation facility, including but not limited to a
rapid transit station and parking garage, on any land
located within seventy-five yards of Arlington Catholic
High School.
Mr. DeCourcey dissented because in his view, the Act
did not prevent the proposed expansion of the Red
Line through Arlington. Indeed, he noted that
Governor Dukakis, a strong proponent of public
transportation, came to Arlington to sign the Act
into law. Mr. DeCourcey further questioned whether
a petition to repeal the Act would impact more
pressing local legislative priorities. Nonetheless the
balance of the Board agrees that it would be valuable
to clear outdated home rule legislation which serves
little practical purpose today and may inadvertently
signal the Town’s reticence to improve its mass transit
service options.
COMMENT: The Board voted unanimously, 4-0 (with Mr. Helmuth
recusing himself), to recommend that no action be taken on this
article seeking to authorize the filing of home rule legislation to
delete Section 16 of Chapter 504 of the Acts of 1980.
Chapter 504 was a special act of the legislature that allowed the
MBTA to take easements and other interests in real property for
the completion of the red line extension to Alewife Station. Section
16 contained a limited restriction prohibiting the MBTA from further
planning or construction of the “northwest rapid transit extension”
beyond a point 600 feet northwest of Route 2 unless specifically
authorized to so by a future enacted law. Section 16’s limited
restriction ended upon completion of the Northwest Extension in
1985.
Had the legislature desired that this restriction be permanent, it
would not have identified the Northwest Extension specifically and
it would have inserted language making clear that it would apply
notwithstanding any special act or general law to the contrary.
Alternatively, the legislature could have made the restriction
permanent by amending the MBTA’s Enabling Act contained in
G.L., c. 161A (the “Enabling Act”), specifically Section 3, paragraphs
(g) and (k), which gives the MBTA broad authority to plan and
construct transportation facilities within its territory.
The Board notes that the proponent cited as precedent here
actions taken by Town Meeting in calendar year 2023 to repeal
Chapter 439 of the Acts of 1976, which prohibited the construction
of a “mass transit facility” within 75 yards of Arlington Catholic High
School. Among other differences with Chapter 504, Chapter 439
applied to a specific location in Arlington and did not limit the
restriction to a facility constructed as part of the Northwest
Extension. Further, Chapter 439 contained the following preamble:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (g) and (k) of
section three of [the Enabling Act], or any other general or special
law to the contrary.” There is no similar language in Chapter 504.
The Board is also aware that in current practice, the MBTA does
not view Chapter 504 as a limitation on its planning functions. In
its most recent capital planning report for FY 2026-2030, the MBTA
reported that it received at least five requests to explore a red line
extension to Arlington. In response, the MBTA stated it had
identified other priorities for the approximately $440 million
dedicated to red line improvements and observed that the capital
plan did not include funding for any heavy rail expansion projects.
Finally, the Board recognizes the burden that home rule legislation
places upon the town’s legislative delegation. The recommended
vote reflects the Board’s position that there are several home
rule petitions (i.e. FGARS and SGARS restrictions, real estate
transfer fee, increasing the number of all alcohol licenses for
restaurants, elimination of Chapter 61B recreational land
classification) the Town h as pe nd ing o r w il l h ave pe nd ing wit h
the legislature that are of more immediate significance than the
repeal of Chapter 504.
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • April 27, 2026
5
Is this repeal really necessary?
In their report to Town Meeting, the Arlington Select Board opines that Chapter 16 of
Section 503 of the Acts of 1980 is a limited restriction that “ended upon completion of
the Northwest Extension in 1985.” The Select Board report argues that Section 503
lacks a necessary preamble, similar to the wording in Chapter 439 (the Arlington
Catholic prohibition), “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (g) and (k) of
section three of [the Enabling Act], or any other general or special law to the contrary.”
Let’s examine this argument.
Chapter 16 of Section 504 of the Acts of 1980 is a session law. Let’s begin by
answering the question, “What is a Massachusetts session law?”
Session laws, called Acts and Resolves in Massachusetts, are the laws passed by the
legislature arranged chronologically. According to mass.gov:
The vast majority of Session Laws are Acts. Acts include everything from our annual state budget (the General
Appropriation Act) and major legislative initiatives to reorganize government agencies. Session Laws that are
not codified into the General Laws are called Special Acts and include matters affecting an individual or a
particular city or town.
Session Laws are not, by definition, temporary. They are applied to limited
situations, including laws pertaining to individual cities and towns. One of these Acts
is Chapter 503 of the Acts of 1952, The Town Manager Act of the Town of Arlington.
This act has been amended over the years but is still in place and it still supersedes the
standard form of town government found in the general laws.
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • April 27, 2026
6
Session laws are permanent, and stay in place unless amended or repealed, unless
there is a sunset provision included in the law. An example of a Session Law with a
sunset provision is found in Chapter 195 of the Acts of 2024:
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF NORTHFIELD TO CONTINUE THE EMPLOYMENT OF FIRE
CHIEF FLOYD DUNNELL, III
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by
the authority of the same, as follows:
SECTION 1. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, Floyd Dunnell, III, the
fire chief of the town of Northfield, may continue to serve in such position until August 13, 2025 or
until the date of his retirement or non-reappointment, whichever occurs first; provided, however, that
he is mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of his office; provided further, that the
town shall, at its own expense, require that Floyd Dunnell, III be examined by an impartial physician
designated by the town to determine such capability; and provided further, that no deductions from
the regular compensation of Floyd Dunnell, III shall be made pursuant to chapter 32 of the General
Laws for retirement or pension purposes.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
Approved, September 6, 2024.
Further contradicting the argument that Section 504 was not a temporary act is the
language of the law.
Each of the 15 sections pertaining to easements and construction have specific,
independent language regarding applicability. Only eight of the sections are designated
as temporary. There is no language declaring that Section 16 is temporary.
Provision:
Found in Chapter 504 of the Acts of 1980:
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey to
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a certain temporary
construction easement…
Sections 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey to
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a certain permanent
subsurface easement…
Section 3
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey
to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority all its right, title and
interest in and to a certain parcel of land…
Section 4
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey
to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a certain portion of
metropolitan district commission land
Sections 5, 6
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey to
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a certain care and control
easement on metropolitan district commission property
Section 8
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey to
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a certain air rights
easement on metropolitan district commission land…
Section 11
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey to
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a certain permanent utility
easement on metropolitan district commission property
Section 12
The metropolitan district commission is authorized and directed to convey to
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority a certain portion of
metropolitan district commission land located in the town of Arlington,
comprising a temporary construction easement…
Section 13
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is hereby prohibited from
further planning or construction on the red line northwest rapid transit
extension beyond a point on the so-called Lexington Branch railroad right of
way located six hundred feet more or less northwesterly of Route 2 unless
specifically authorized to do so by law, enacted after the effective date
of this act.
Section 16
Section 16 states this provision of the law remains in effect “unless specifically
authorized to do so by law, enacted after the effective date of this act.” It doesn’t
expire with the temporary easements. It’s forever, unless it is amended or repealed.
Paul Schlichtman • TMM, Precinct 9 • April 27, 2026
7
So, who’s correct?
A 4-0 decision by the Arlington Select Board is not a binding legal opinion. A binding
legal opinion would require a decision by the seven members of the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court.
If the Select Board is correct, and the restriction found Section 16 of Chapter 504 of
the Acts of 1980 ended upon completion of the Northwest Extension in 1985, the
presence of this language in the session laws invites controversy through ambiguity.
There’s no evidence that the MBTA has engaged in planning for a Red Line extension at
any time after this law was enacted. The mere presence of this text, valid or not, can be
a chilling effect. According to the Select Board, the “MBTA reported that it received at
least five requests to explore a red line extension to Arlington. In response, the MBTA
stated it had identified other priorities...” This statement demonstrates that the MBTA
is, intentionally or not, in compliance with the 1980 prohibition.
If the MBTA were to demonstrate some element of planning for a Red Line extension,
the 1980 law could invite an extended legal dispute. All it would take is one motivated
opponent to haul the MBTA into court for violating this law.
If the Supreme Judicial Court were to agree with the Select Board, and rules that
Section 16 of Chapter 504 of the Acts of 1980 is invalid, the language of this law would
remain on the books but would be unenforceable. It would continue to represent
Arlington in 1980, and not Arlington and its residents in 2026.
One example of a law that remained on the books after being ruled unconstitutional is
Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This law was overturned by the United States
Supreme Court on June 12, 1967 in Loving v. Virginia, finding that anti-miscegenation
laws were unconstitutional.
This law remained on the books until 2020, when Virginia repealed these
unenforceable laws. At the time, Virginia House Majority Leader Charniele Herring said,
“Although the scars of racial segregation still remain, we don’t need reminders in
Virginia’s Acts of Assembly. It’s painful that these words remain on the books in 2020,
and our votes today show the rest of the country that the Commonwealth has
progressed.”
Similarly, a strong positive vote under Article 30, and the repeal of Section 16 of
Chapter 504 of the Acts of 1980, will show the Commonwealth that Arlington has
progressed.
If the Select Board is wrong, and the restriction found Section 16 of Chapter 504 of
the Acts of 1980 is still valid, then the MBTA can plan new or improved rail transit in
350 of the Commonwealth’s 351 municipalities. It just can’t consider anything along
the MBTA-owned right of way west of Thorndike Field in Arlington.
If you support the law that prohibits planning or construction of the Red Line in
Arlington, vote no action.
If you want to repeal the law that prohibits planning or construction of the Red Line in
Arlington, please vote YES for the substitute motion under Article 30.
