City Council should oppose Baker housing bill; loss of zoning control doesn’t add affordability
Gov. Charlie Baker has introduced a bill (H.4290) that would make it easier for builders to win changes in zoning for new construction. Yes, Cambridge needs affordable housing, but the Baker bill will not provide it. Some people think that relaxing local control of zoning increases the amount of affordable housing automatically. This is not so. Remember that at present almost 40 percent of newly built condos are unoccupied while their absentee owners watch the values of their properties spiral.
Cambridge’s City Council has before it a policy order that expresses support for the Baker bill. We urge that the council support the needs of most Cambridge residents and oppose the policy order as written. One fair improvement of the bill would adopt rules enabling a simple majority to make zoning changes to allow 100 percent affordable housing but keep the requirement for a super majority (67 percent) for changes that allow gentrification, condo conversion and other construction for the wealthy while displacing renters and those struggling to make mortgage payments for homes or small businesses. Including measures such as these to address the causes of displacement and the scarcity of affordable housing will be key to reversing the current crisis, and we strongly urge members of the council to strengthen any resolution for this purpose.
Henry Wortis
Our Revolution Cambridge coordinating committee
What is the source of this statistic? This seems…inflated.
“Remember that at present almost 40 percent of newly built condos are unoccupied while their absentee owners watch the values of their properties spiral.”
Tim Logan article Boston Globe September 11 2018
That article was about *luxury towers*, not all newly built condos. The findings from the study cited in the article are not at all applicable to the types of housing this legislation would allow.
Read the Chuck Collins piece in the same edition of the Globe. It extends the analysis. There is no similar study of Cambridge. However, my impression of the new buildings in North Point suggests a high level of vacancy. Someone should do that study.
More importantly, no study shows that new urban building of market rate housing effectively increases the proportion of affordable housing.
Think of it this way: If 30% of the population can only afford less than market rate housing how can mandating 10% or even 20% affordable housing ease the crisis?
I’m not interested in a debate here. I just wanted to point out that your statistic was basically made-up.