In 1969, Massachusetts created Law 40B, known as the "Anti-Snob Zoning Act," which allows developers to bypass land use restrictions in cities where less than ten percent of housing meets the state's definition of affordable housing. There are multiple positions and solutions to the frictions in Massachusetts, largely inspired by the controversy surrounding the state's affordable housing law, Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws, between housing advocates and open space advocates. This thesis examines and critiques current law and diagnoses various legislative proposals for the progressive feud. One might generally assume that advocates for affordable housing and open space preservation are political and ideological allies since decent, affordable housing has been a mainstay of the progressive vision ever since. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and open space conservation came to the fore as part of the environmental movement of the same period in our nation's history. In Massachusetts, however, the two sides are bitterly at odds over a legislatively mandated stalemate that is entirely avoidable. In short, the statute allows municipalities to “solicit” developers, through ordinance or law, to create affordable housing or preserve open space. The ordinance or regulation, however, must specify the terms of the agreement. To qualify for a special permit, the developer must provide the specified minimum amount of required open space, or the specified percentage of affordable housing units. If the developer meets these terms, and the project is still viable, then it could be rewarded with a special permit authorizing more housing units and, perhaps, lower infrastructure costs. For the vast majority, many more common s...... middle of paper... space and affordable housing are not inconsistent goals. With small changes to these state laws, these progressive causes can simply marry for positive progression. In the 2002 reform cycle at 40B, the state senate passed a bill that would allow communities, by local option, to require developments of more than ten units to set aside ten percent of the units for affordable housing, but it was rejected. A second option provided rewards for municipalities that produce housing units according to an "affordable housing plan", but was once again rejected by the legislator. The careful development of a plan in every municipality below the 10% threshold would theoretically eliminate those most repugnant current abuses of the law that have caused the current furor, and could also seal the alliance between affordable housing and conservation of open spaces..