Advocating for Fairness: PILOT Funding Disparities in Massachusetts

Communities in western and central Massachusetts are grappling with significant disparities in Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) that impact essential services. These inequities arise from the state’s funding model, which ties PILOT payments to local real estate values. As a result, towns with large areas of state-owned land are receiving vastly different reimbursements, leaving some communities struggling to maintain vital services such as roads and firefighting.

The town of Edgarton on Martha’s Vineyard, for instance, received a PILOT reimbursement of $992 per acre in the 2026 fiscal year for its 2,848 acres of largely forested state land. In stark contrast, Monroe in Franklin County received only $4.43 per acre for its 2,620-acre state forest, creating an alarming reimbursement disparity of 223 to one. Overall, communities in Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire, Hampden, and Worcester counties received an average of $50.53 in PILOT funds per acre, compared to $325.43 in eastern Massachusetts.

Governor Maura Healey has acknowledged the long-standing inequities faced by rural communities, stating that they have “not received their fair share of this funding.” While she quickly allocated over $200 million for hospitals and clinics throughout the state in response to healthcare cuts from the Trump administration, her approach to addressing PILOT funding disparities has been notably slower. Currently, she is proposing the establishment of a 19-member commission to evaluate potential adjustments aimed at ensuring geographic fairness.

Critics argue that this approach is unnecessarily complex. In a letter to the editor, political economist Stephen E. Harris suggests a more straightforward solution: implement uniform PILOT funding across the state, decoupling it from local real estate values. This method would promote equity among communities without imposing additional costs on taxpayers.

In light of the ongoing climate crisis, Harris emphasizes the importance of directing PILOT funds according to the carbon-sequestering values of the land. By doing so, Massachusetts could take a proactive stance in addressing environmental challenges while supporting the communities that bear the burden of state-owned land.

As the discussion surrounding PILOT funding continues, the call for equitable distribution remains critical. Ensuring that all communities receive fair compensation for state-owned land is not only a matter of financial justice but also a necessary step toward addressing broader societal and environmental issues. The need for action is evident, and the time for reform is now.