Bill Linking Day Care to Development Given Chance of Passage in Legislature

A bill that would require Bay State developers to provide day care for workers in new buildings died in committee last year, but now stands a strong chance of passing the state legislature.

The Child Care Linkage Bill (H 4452), introduced in the House by Cambridge Democrat Saundra M. Graham, would apply to developments of more than 50,000 square feet by businesses, universities, and other institutions such as hospitals. Each such developer would have to plan for a day care center or a contribution to a day care fund before starting construction.

The bill would also apply to major renovations, such as the conversion of warehouses into offices.

If passed, the measure would probably affect Harvard's planned addition to the Kennedy School of Government. While the University already provides child care, it would be required to provide additional care in proportion to the needs of employees in the new building under the bill.

The University could possibly qualify for an exemption because the building would house many existing offices and research projects. The state could determine that the building did not create a fresh demand for child care because it did not create new jobs.

Associate Vice President for State and Community Affairs Jacqueline O'Neill praised the bill's goals, but criticized its mechanisms.

"I think it's a noble objective," O'Neill said. But she added, "You cannot accomplish every social good on the backs of real estate developers."

"I suppose that for people who haven't done anything in day care, the big stick of that legislation might be necessary," O'Neill said. "With or without the legislation, I think the University continues to look into how it can meet the demand."

Graham predicted last night that the legislative battle would be "a little rough." But she said the bill carries sufficient incentives to win over developers. The proposal carries tax credits to attract business support, and she said developers should have no reason to oppose day care.

"A day care center is an amenity," Graham said, arguing that developers could offer child care to their tenants as a way of boosting morale and lowering absenteeism among women workers. She said the need for day care would increase during the remainder of this century because women are expected to form larger proportions of the work force.

Last week the bill won approval from the House Human Service Committee, which sent it to the House Ways and Means Committee on March 24.

Ways and Means killed a similar bill last year by a single vote. But aides to Graham and Senate cosponsor John W. Olver (D-Amherst) gave the current version a much better chance. They blamed their previous failure on hasty lobbying and incomplete attendance during the crucial vote, rather than concerted opposition.

The bill's chief opponents are representatives of business and industry. The sponsors' spokesmen said higher education lobbyists had not criticized it.

Members of the Massachusetts Homebuilders' Association testified against the bill before the Human Service Committee, and the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which represents 2800 Bay State manufacturers, is also lobbying against the measure.

"In general, we would oppose it," said Vice President and General Counsel Richard Mastrangelo of the Associated Industries. He said the state has already lost manufacturing jobs because existing legislation asks too much of employers.

"Massachusetts has lost 96,400 high-paying manuracturing jobs in the past three-and-one-half years and we feel that a good many of these might very well have been able to be saved if there were not a feeling that Massachusetts is looking for ways to make the state as non-competitive as possible," Mastrangelo said.

Mastrangelo said the state would not benefit from day care enabling more people to enter the work force. "We have to develop the jobs for people to go to," he said.

The lobbyist praised day care in corporations, but added, "We're just suggesting that it ought not to be mandated by state law."