Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

hasi s.
Not. content with limjting its arqi.imerit to uric of
prcernpt.i.on, duririy oral aryument hefore Lhe Trial
Court, Cht. Ilousing Appcalt; Committee wcriL further and
stated thaL a rouqe hard could impose condi t.i.ons thaL
includcd "no bIacks, no doqs, no married same-sex
couples, whatcvcr j.t. will be, may livc in t.his
dcvelopment ...". RA Vol.2, 41. 'In the Committee's
rJppnsi.tior.1 Memorandum submitted to the Trj.al Courk,
t.he HAC suggest.ed thdt '' [W] ohurri cannot reasonably be
understood to require thc committee to uphold
curiditjoins imposed by a local board forbidding blacks
or Jews or married same-sex couples Lroin living wjthin
a proposed developmcnt.. HA. Vo1.2, 98.
The CommitLee's airgumcrits are absurd and
irisult.ing nut just to Arriesbury, hut to any city or
Lown that, in good iaith, wrestles wit.h the
cnmplexiLies of the comprehensivc permit stat-ute and
Issucs of qrowt-h arid chanqe within their juri sdiction.
It goes without sayir.iy that a condition that
forbade "blacks or Jews or married same-sex cml~ples
r
1 rain liviiiq within a proposed development" would be
void as against public policy. Such a condition would
24