Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

comprehensive periniL law are " reserved for :;tat.e
qovcrrirrierit", it would be because thc subsidizing
aycricy staCcd so pursuant. t.o its claim oi auChority
ur-idcr '160 CMH 31..07 [I) (f) . Accordingly, even ii . . the
provisions of 760 C:MK 31.0'/ (1) (f) had been compl.Ied
wit.h-which they were not-14 of the 74 conditions
st-ruck by Lhc HAC would nevertheless remsliri in Lact.
'i'he Tridi Court ac!knowledged this aryuinenL
In dj.sti ngui.slhiiiq . thcsc condit.ions, the 'Tri a].
Court stat.ed that, if "...I a111 wrong on t.he 1.aw ...",
particular on the question of whether the HAC
indeed has this inherent power to determine under Chc
statute arid all the r:eqs, t.o deterrniric whcthcr- a local
board has acted wit.hin its authority in a general way,
i.n the cvent I am wrong, t-hen I would rule as follows.
What should be done in my view is to affj.rm the
dccisinn of t.he HAC with rcspect to the ten condit-ions
idcntifj ed in the housing MHFA 1 Fitter ... However, with
respect to the othcr 14 conditjons found by the IIAC to
be invaljd because beyond t.he purview ur outside thc
rea1.m of powor of the local %HA, if I am wrony in par'L
one of my ruling, then what must happen is a remand to
the HAC or1 Chose 14 condlti.ons. AL Chat rernand, the
burden would be jnitially upon the developer to
dernonsLrate t.hat. ei.ther one-by-one or in some
combinations, or in combination of all 14, and t.hat
it.self I recognize is an import.ant leqal iss~~e, that
t.hese conditions arc uneconoml c. " KA Vol. 2 , 171.
A. The HAC erred in strikiriy Conditions 43F,
43G, 4%
Identi f i ed by MassHou3illg1', Conditions 43E', 431:,
ar.id 43H pertain to a Deed Rider, Monitoriny Aqreemeril,
l6 RA Vol.1, 67
30