Relative to business relocation after receiving state grant funding
Summary
House Bill 502 would amend Section 3D of Chapter 23A of the Massachusetts General Laws, which governs the Economic Development Incentive Program (EDIP). The bill requires that all EDIP contracts for certified projects include a clawback provision: if a recipient business relocates outside Massachusetts within 20 years, it must forfeit or repay any credits or grants received under the contract. The only stated exception is if the business declares bankruptcy under federal bankruptcy law.
The bill applies to corporations, sole proprietorships, limited liability companies, and partnerships that receive EDIP assistance from the Economic Assistance Coordinating Council (EACC). It also directs the Office of the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to enforce the new requirement. In practical terms, the measure is intended to tie state economic development incentives to long-term in-state retention of jobs and operations.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a mandatory relocation penalty to EDIP contracts and strengthen the Commonwealth’s ability to recover public funds when subsidized businesses leave Massachusetts too soon. It would affect Chapter 23A, Section 3D, and would likely require the EACC to revise contract terms for future certified projects. Businesses receiving state grants or tax credits under EDIP would face a new long-term obligation, while the Attorney General’s office would gain regulatory responsibility for enforcement.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the available context suggests the bill is framed in a policy-enforcement posture rather than as a controversial partisan measure. Its purpose is straightforward: protect the state’s investment in economic development by discouraging relocation after incentives are awarded. There is no recorded vote history or transcript evidence showing support or opposition, so no clear consensus or organized sentiment can be inferred beyond the bill’s apparent pro-accountability intent.
Contention
The main policy tension is between protecting taxpayer-funded incentives and preserving business flexibility. Supporters would likely view the bill as a safeguard against companies taking public money and then moving jobs out of state, while critics could argue that a 20-year repayment requirement is too rigid and may deter firms from accepting EDIP assistance or expanding in Massachusetts. The bankruptcy exception narrows the clawback rule, but the bill does not otherwise provide exceptions for hardship, mergers, closures, or partial relocations, which could become points of contention in implementation and enforcement.