Massachusetts Governor Faces Criticism Over PILOT Funding Disparities

Communities in western and central Massachusetts are expressing growing concerns over the state’s Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program, which is designed to support local services but has resulted in significant funding disparities. Governor Maura Healey has been criticized for her slow response in addressing these inequities amidst the ongoing climate emergency.

Funding Disparities Highlighted

For regions hosting large amounts of state-owned land, the PILOT funds are essential for maintaining infrastructure, including roads and firefighting services. However, the payments are tied to local real estate values, leading to a dramatic inconsistency in funding. For instance, the town of Edgartown on Martha’s Vineyard received a PILOT reimbursement of $992 per acre for its 2,848 acres of largely forested state land in fiscal year 2026. In stark contrast, Monroe in Franklin County received only $4.43 per acre for its 2,620-acre state forest, creating a reimbursement disparity of an astonishing 223 to one.

Overall, communities in Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire, Hampden, and Worcester counties received an average of $50.53 per acre in PILOT funds, while their eastern counterparts received an average of $325.43 per acre. This disparity has raised questions about the fairness of the funding allocation process.

Call for Action from Governor Healey

Governor Healey has acknowledged the inequities in PILOT funding, stating that “for too long, some communities, especially rural communities in Western and Central Massachusetts, have not received their fair share of this funding.” Yet, despite this recognition, her administration has been criticized for its lack of urgency in implementing solutions.

While she swiftly allocated over $200 million to hospitals and clinics across the state to counteract funding cuts during the Trump administration, the proposal for a 19-member commission to evaluate potential adjustments to PILOT funding has been seen as a delayed response. The commission is tasked with ensuring “geographic fairness,” but critics argue this approach is insufficient.

In a letter to the editor, political economist and technology author Stephen E. Harris proposed a more straightforward solution. He advocates for uniform PILOT funding across the state that would not rely on local real estate values, thereby promoting equity among communities without imposing additional costs on taxpayers.

Harris also emphasized the importance of directing PILOT funds according to their carbon-sequestering values to address the urgent climate crisis. This would not only support rural communities but also contribute to effective climate action.

As Massachusetts navigates these challenges, the call for a reassessment of the PILOT system reflects broader concerns about equity and sustainability in funding local services. The implications of these funding disparities have significant consequences for rural communities that depend on these resources for their well-being.