Affordable housing and ‘overdevelopment’ draw Carlone’s attention in reelection bid
Note: The below essay is by a candidate for City Council. All candidates are invited to submit such articles (and some others have) to explain why they are running for office, and their supporters are invited to submit as well (and some have) to explain why they back the candidate. Each item will be posted in the order received to be best of the editor’s ability. All will be lightly edited for publication. Submitted images may be used if they are of sufficient resolution, size and quality.
By Dennis Carlone, city councillor campaigning for reelection, Sept. 15, 2015: It has truly been an honor to serve as city councillor for the past two years. I believe today, as I did when I was elected, that I bring the most relevant skill set necessary to do the job. My work as an architect and urban designer provides me with a unique understanding of our city’s affordable housing crisis, as well as the skills to help solve it. I have also come to believe that there are two visions for the future of Cambridge. One believes that the status quo in our city government is good enough – that our housing crisis can be solved simply by increasing the height and density of our buildings. Respectfully, I disagree. Affordability in our city is fast becoming a crisis for the average resident. Cambridge is already one of the densest cities in the country; dramatically increasing the height of buildings will not solve our problems. Moreover, the massive and uncoordinated real estate development of the city is threatening to destroy the communities we call home. I have made several proposals on how we can solve this crisis – and I have done so without the support of the group of incumbents known as the Unity Slate.
The status quo and where it leads
It’s true that the economic forces driving up the cost of living are inevitable, but the City Council does have the power to help mitigate those forces. In the past six months, the council voted to approve a project in Central Square called Normandy-Twining, named after the development companies involved. These companies petitioned the city’s zoning code so they could build a significantly taller and more massive structure – literally rewriting the zoning code. I steadfastly opposed this project alongside fellow non-Unity Slate councillor Nadeem Mazen. This project will be a 195-foot-tall structure completely out of place within Central Square. But perhaps what is not seen are the significant problems that will affect the neighborhood because of the building.
This oversized and out-of-place building will increase the market value of the land that surrounds it, because now other landowners and developers will expect to get the same kind of zoning exception. This subsequent increase in land value means higher rent prices, which means property tax burdens increase and, piece by piece, Cambridge becomes an unaffordable, high-rise, high-income city. In the council’s review of the increased zoning petition, there was zero economic analysis and zero urban design review – two necessary components to understand the proposal properly.
We can do better. The city is only now beginning a comprehensive plan for development, which I had to fight for in my first year on the council. We must study the potential impact of our development by incorporating quality urban design measures. Only at that point can we zone each section of the city appropriately so neighborhoods and business districts are enhanced rather than damaged.
Zoning is the council’s most important responsibility. The next term will be filled with deliberations on what that master plan should look like. As that debate is happening, you can be certain development companies will be lobbying hard to protect the current system. For that reason, my campaign has not and will not accept campaign contributions from any real estate development companies.
The effects of zoning and how we should reform it
Under our present zoning code, developers are not required to build housing in mixed-use zoning districts. They prefer building laboratories and office buildings because of their greater economic value. But this compounds the city’s need for housing, because those commercial buildings will have more workers looking for housing in the city.
Once we have a quality master plan in place, the city will be better able to integrate new, appropriately scaled development with existing residential areas. This will stabilize land values and stabilize housing costs – all through well studied and understood rezoning. New development needs to be viewed as a public-private partnership, which means including additional affordable housing, new open space and other necessary community-building amenities. The city has to be an active partner to achieve real progress. If not the city, then who?
Affordable housing
Public surveying and polling has confirmed that the No. 1 issue in Cambridge is the need for significantly more affordable housing. This year, the council debated the “linkage fee” on new commercial and institutional development due to development’s proven impact on housing availability and price. This impact fee goes directly to the Affordable Housing Fund. I proposed that this fee be raised to $24.30 per square foot, which the city administration’s study concluded was new development’s impact on existing housing. I lost. It was raised to $12 per square foot, half the actual impact rate. This alone would have been the difference of an additional $5 million per year toward affordable housing.
We could raise even more money if the city would stop refunding property taxes. The city returns about $10 million per year to taxpayers, which is the equivalent of only $140 per year on a $1 million home. This $10 million could and should be used for civic needs such as affordable housing, improvement to community public space, and expanding pre-kindergarten education to cover all Cambridge children. We can invest in municipal infrastructure such as municipal broadband, clean energy, more schools and facilitating transportation improvements.
Conclusion
Cambridge is at a crossroads. We need to decide if we want to be a city of wealthy high-tech, high-density businesses and residential towers or if we want to work toward protecting the communities that make Cambridge great in the first place. Good development enhances a community rather than overwhelming it, and allows families to thrive.
If you believe Cambridge should be a place where government protects neighborhoods, prevents overdevelopment from destroying our sense of community and invests in our civic future, I ask that you vote Dennis Carlone No. 1 on Nov. 3. Thank you for your consideration.
Dear Councilor Carlone,
I’m sure what happened to you, and I write this in part as a means to reach out and understand. You used to work for developers, you were pro-development, you tout first street as one of your crown achievements. You were against the Harvard downzoning along Western Ave, but moreover you understand zoning and development in a way that should have only made you an asset on the council. Yet, over the past two years you have blocked a five years process to re-zone Central Square (C2). You even likened it to “Pearl Harbor.” You tried to usurp Article 19 authority from the planning board giving the council both the ability to rezone and approve projects based on that rezoning. You also tried to downzone Central Square without even discussing the issue with property owners, businesses, or many of the residents that live in Central Square. After all of this I have to ask why? You don’t like Mass + Main. I’m not sure I do either, but given that you helped scuttle the planning process that would have put Central Square two years ahead of developers what choice did many of us had who had worked so hard to help bring Central Square into the 21st century? You claim that now that re-zone has been granted other developers/property owners will want the same. Exactly what do you base that on? The way I see, as a direct abutter, I’m in a far worse position than I ever was. My only hope is that my commercial tenants benefit, and that maybe, just maybe, after its built (if its ever built) M&M will be a smashing success for the area and people will just be that much less fearful. For now, I have no special zoning. I couldn’t go up past 8 stories if I tried, but you know that. You know how obstinate our ordinance is, you know what development costs are, and you know that right now is the best hope Central Square has to lift itself up, and you’ve deliberately set us on a course to miss it. Costs will never be this low again whether it be financing, construction, or land acquisition. However by the time the farcical “Master Plan” is complete the ship will have sailed for the little guy with no zoning plan, and the 15 years de-facto moratorium in Central Square will continue. I can’t help but think that this was the goal all along. That whether it be a witting plan or not, the goal is simply to remove private ownership from Central Square. You could have been so great for small development but instead you mired yourself with people and groups that just a decade ago you were philosophically opposed to, and through this process to get elected I’ll sell my property to Normandy/Twining, they’ll expand the zoning district they made, and one by one every private owner that makes Central Square what it is will turn into a corporate owned mall, worse than the galleria. All I have left is to file things like the “Barrett Petition” so I can use my goddamned basement … because that’s all the little guy can hope for. Its really pathetic this is the best we can do and I hate that I can’t back someone like you, someone whom after reading the minutes of numerous hearings, I agreed with on so many things. What the hell happened? I can’t vote for you, but I wish you luck, and hope someday the Dennis Carlone that existed a decade ago returns.
Dear Patrick,
You have a right to your opinions but do not base them on your own facts. If you took the time to research my clients, you will find the vast majority were cities, towns, neighborhoods and public housing authorities. In fact, I have worked for only two developers over the last 37 years since I started my architectural and urban design practice and was not at all pleased with either project and terminated my relationships.
Contrary to your statement, my work with Harvard related solely to two university-initiated, neighborhood-supported down-zonings. As far as your on-going comments about Central Square (C2) zoning, please note that any councillor, the planning board or 10 citizens can begin the re-zoning process. If you think any one councillor can stop a petition, you are very misinformed.
The pressure that you now face from the market as a result of the Mass and Main project is the very reason that I fought that dramatic increase in height and density. That pressure is a result of the market recognizing the increased land value of property that can be built to Mass and Main’s proposed scale. My job is to do what is best for the citizens of Cambridge to whom I am accountable. It is bad for the people, yourself included, to allow development to occur without analyzing the effects. That is why I insisted on the Cambridge Master Plan.
As for your assertion that I am somehow secretly in favor of extreme-scale development, that is both insulting and illogical. I have been consistent in my opposition to out-of-place extreme projects. I have refused to accept any development money to insure that people can trust that my judgment is my own. You should know this, as I returned your $500 contribution this year.
I merely speculate that whether by design or ignorance the anti-development posture you’ve adopted will eventually deliver parcels into corporate developer hands due to the growing economic difficulty of rising interest rates and construction costs. You are right, one councilor alone couldn’t block C2 it was definitely a group effort and your likening it to Pearl Harbor on a robo-call didn’t help. As for your record I have read through several hearings, with a focus on the Harvard downzoning, which you called “draconian” and I agree. I’m not attacking just stating fact. That you can’t tell the difference between me, Twining, or Boston Properties is exactly why big developers will always win and private ownership will continue to fade. Besides you gave me back my check because you felt I publicly insulted you or as your letter stated “I have business before the council” … Which of course I didn’t … I did like that your check was dated a day before Lesig spoke (the alleged day I insulted you publicly) not the day after. Again, good luck in the upcoming. Maybe I’ll take you up on bringing up C2 by way of petition, thanks for the idea.