In the showdown over local property taxes, the Massachusetts Senate on Thursday advanced a relief bill and delivered a formal rebuke to Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s tax shift plan.
Senators voted 37-1 to pass the so-called tax shock bill and rejected an amendment that mirrored Wu’s home rule petition on a 33-5 vote. The majority of the Boston delegation supported the amendment.
The bill, sponsored by Sens. Nick Collins of South Boston and William Brownsberger of Belmont, allows cities and towns to offer targeted rebates and credits to taxpayers during years when the residential property tax levy increases by more than 10%. Supporters framed it as a way to protect “vulnerable” homeowners from sudden spikes in tax bills without altering the state’s existing property tax classification system.
The Senate rejected a version of Wu’s proposal, offered as a Sen. Michael Rush amendment, which would have temporarily shifted a greater share of Boston’s tax burden to commercial property owners in fiscal years 2027 through 2029. Voting in favor were Sens. Rush, Lydia Edwards, Liz Miranda and Sal DiDomenico, all of whom represent parts of Boston, along with Sen. Pat Jehlen, who is not seeking reelection and whose district includes Somerville and parts of Cambridge, Medford and Winchester.
Wu’s amendment would have allowed Boston to adjust its property tax classification if residential properties were set to bear a higher share of the total levy than in fiscal year 2025, with maximum shift levels capped at 181.5% in fiscal 2027, 180% in fiscal 2028, and 178% in fiscal 2029.
The vote marked the Senate’s first formal rejection of the mayor’s tax shift plan after over a year of opposing the measure without taking a recorded vote.
Brownsberger and Collins have been the leading voices behind the Senate’s opposition to Wu’s proposal, with Brownsberger — whose district includes parts of Boston — speaking for more than 15 minutes during debate on the amendment.
Brownsberger said it was “about time” the Senate held a full debate on the issue so lawmakers could “move on past this issue to work with our municipal partners on all the goals we truly share.” He emphasized that his opposition was not personal, saying he respects Wu and the Boston City Council and understands the motivation behind the proposal.
The vote comes amid escalating political tensions between Wu and Senate leadership. The mayor is backing a challenger to Brownsberger in the 2026 Democratic primary — her senior aide, Daniel Lander — and is also supporting a primary opponent to Collins.
Brownsberger argued that the tax shift proposal risked producing unintended and inequitable outcomes.
“One narrative, one example, would be, well, I’ve got a struggling homeowner that’s benefiting from it. That’s good, and I’ve got an office tower whose private equity owners are paying more taxes. Maybe that narrative makes sense in some cases,” Brownsberger said. “But on the other hand, the truth is, we’re lowering… taxes for your very wealthy single family homeowner, perhaps living in something of a mansion in the most tony neighborhood of the city. And you’re raising taxes on your little garage owner trying to make things work.”
Rush, a West Roxbury Democrat, framed the amendment as a direct response to what he described as a mounting affordability crisis for Boston homeowners, particularly seniors and working families.
Rush said the amendment was filed at the request of Wu and the Boston City Council and closely mirrored a home rule petition approved by the council and first filed with the Legislature in 2024. He pointed to rising residential values, lagging commercial property values and statutory limits on municipal tax increases as drivers of recent spikes in Boston tax bills.
Rush said the average tax bill for a family home rose by more than $500 in 2025 and is expected to increase by more than $700 in 2026, while commercial tax rates have continued to decline. He said those increases have disproportionately affected seniors on fixed incomes, particularly in his district, which he said has the highest density of senior citizens of any Boston Senate district.
The amendment, Rush said, would give Boston temporary flexibility to blunt those increases while state and city officials work on longer-term solutions.
Brownsberger responded by placing the debate within a broader discussion of the Legislature’s role in regulating municipal finances for what he described as the “common good” of a single, interconnected state.
He argued that the state’s property tax classification limits function as guardrails, rooted in decades-old reforms aimed at ending politically driven and inequitable assessments that once favored certain neighborhoods and disproportionately burdened businesses.
Allowing Boston to exceed those limits, he said, would invite similar requests from more than 100 other communities that use classification, undermining what he described as a carefully balanced statewide system.
Edwards, an East Boston Democrat and former city councilor, pushed back on that framing, saying the amendment reflected the immediate reality facing Boston residents and the calls city councilors continue to receive from constituents struggling with rising tax bills.
“I think it’s very important that we, or someone in this body, address the fact that Boston does have unique needs in this time,” she said. “And I’m not just talking about fiscal needs… I don’t know too many other cities and towns whose housing authorities were denied hundreds of millions of dollars from the Trump administration. I don’t know, but you can correct me, too many cities and towns that are facing lawsuit after lawsuit from this Trump administration.”
Addressing concerns raised about impacts on small businesses, Edwards said the amendment was narrowly focused on shifting tax burden in the short term and not on economic development policy, while noting that the city has deployed a range of other tools — including grants, planning initiatives and licensing reforms — to support neighborhood businesses.
Edwards also argued that Boston’s challenges extend beyond fiscal pressures, pointing to what she described as heightened scrutiny and legal challenges facing the city at the federal level. She said it was important for the Legislature to acknowledge those pressures even while disagreeing on the tax policy question.
She urged colleagues to view the amendment as consistent with instances in which lawmakers have granted Boston flexibility and autonomy in decision making through home rule petitions, including on liquor licenses, development policy and linkage fees, and questioned why the city should be treated differently in this case.
Despite the amendment’s defeat, Edwards thanked colleagues for what she characterized as a respectful debate, while reiterating her support for the city’s request. Later, Edwards delivered gifts to some senators in the chamber who opposed the amendment, including Senate President Karen Spilka.
The bill heads to a House that has previously been more receptive to the mayor’s proposal. Wu’s home rule petition won support in the chamber last session, and lawmakers have sparred over the competing versions of tax shock relief, setting the stage for another potentially contentious debate over the measure’s fate.