Update on the Zoning
I decided to run for city council this past cycle largely due to the new zoning changes. Many residents were concerned about the zoning, with issues ranging from green spaces and solar protections to a lack of parking and historical preservation. I shared these concerns—especially related to accessibility and the environment—but my biggest concern was how by-right development would affect affordability.
Several residents would tell me that more housing would bring down the cost, and they are half right. More of the same housing supply would result in lower costs. Unfortunately, housing in high-demand cities, such as Cambridge, tends to be replaced by luxury developments run by corporate property management companies and apathetic firms.
Though arguments for the need for this type of housing in Cambridge are partially true, we cannot have it replace existing housing that is far cheaper both per apartment and per square foot. To compensate for this loss, the city council passed a requirement that 20% of new residential buildings must be allocated for affordable housing for larger projects. This resulted in an increase in affordable units that working-class residents could afford for projects that did not knock down existing housing, and a break-even effect for those that did.
Many residents believed that it should have been 25% to make up for the fact that many “naturally affordable” buildings would be torn down to build a luxury duplex. I believed that given the way the zoning was written, that would be the best course of action—but the real problem is the decision to have by-right housing to begin with.
I have stated that I support by-right for triple-deckers. Additionally, I supported residents being able to make smaller development decisions regarding their own properties and a streamlined permit process for larger buildings.
A brick building on Ellery St. from the 1800s that provides naturally affordable housing—and would cause significant emissions to destroy—should require a higher affordable allocation because it costs the community parking, green space, and historical value.
The parking lot on Bishop Richard Allen Drive that is normally unused when I walk by would require less. A ground-floor parking garage with a few stories of housing above it would be a much better use of space and, if done well, would not cost the community very much at all.
Although some people may not want more neighbors or a crowded city, that was not my concern. My concern was whether by-right development was the best way to look out for all the residents of Cambridge, both current and those yet to move here or be raised here. This concern grew when I heard rumors that there was a movement to reduce or even eliminate all inclusionary housing. There was an effort to hide the consideration for a lawsuit until after the election in hopes that a council would get elected that would consider dropping it from 20% to 10%. But when ABC failed to add new members and one of their incumbents lost, a lawsuit was the only way to increase their profit margins.
Now we must take a step back and evaluate how this zoning is impacting the city. It was passed under the promise that it would create affordable housing, and as a 25-year-old renter, I would love for the housing market to change, but unfortunately, it is becoming clear that some advocates for the zoning change were doing it for the wrong reasons.
With lawsuits claiming inclusionary zoning is illegal (as Cambridge Day reported), the city changing its zoning to have smaller by-right allowances and allowing developers to build larger projects with special permits—with conditions related to affordability that are legally binding—might be our only chance to save affordability in the city.
Now we see their colors. Regardless of whether you supported the zoning changes or not, if affordability is what you cared about, now is the time to take a stand. Say no to replacing all inclusionary zoning or bending to greedy developers who try to bully the city into reducing the percentage through lawsuits, and ask the city to fix the system.
Also, if anyone believes that more housing will magically reduce housing prices, it will not. I have examples, but don’t take my word for it—check out what professionals in the field have to say about it:
