Carl Nagy-Koechlin, executive director of the affordable-housing developer Just-A-Start, seen at a January event. (Photo: Just-A-Start via Facebook)

The reintroduced Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Petition moved to a second reading Monday, continuing its smoother passage to enactment compared with a first version tabled a year ago after months of controversy and divisiveness.

The zoning, intended to eliminate design limits and hurdles for developers putting up buildings of 100 percent affordable housing โ€“ including in parts of the city dominated by single-family homes and lacking in affordable units โ€“ was brought back in February after a municipal election changed the City Councilโ€™s voting dynamics. On Monday, it moved onward with a 7-2 vote.

How effective the zoning will be in producing affordable housing remains in doubt.

One of the cityโ€™s two nonprofit developers, Just-A-Start, endorsed the zoning Monday by saying it would provide โ€œa very important toolโ€ in competing with private, market-rate developers for space to build on.

โ€œWe just started looking at two very promising development opportunities. We donโ€™t know how theyโ€™re going to go. But we do know that without the overlay, we we will not be able to compete,โ€ said Carl Nagy-Koechlin, executive director of Just-A-Start.

Not much enthusiasm

Councillor E. Denise Simmons called it โ€œa very important dayโ€ because of the vote, and vice mayor Alanna Mallon said it was โ€œan incredible tool.โ€

โ€œIt has taken a lot of airtime, and I look forward to voting for this and moving on to other pressing needs in our community to address and make sure that housing is fundamental and equitable,โ€ Mallon said.

The zoning also arrived before the council with โ€œstrong support โ€ฆ in conceptโ€ from members of the Planning Board, which voted 7-1 for it on Aug. 4 while acknowledging in a memo that it โ€œmight not be perfect.โ€

In general, enthusiasm for the zoning was low. Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, whose election in November was widely seen as the guarantee the zoning would pass, said merely that โ€œin addition to the AHO there are a million things we need to do with regard to affordable housing in Cambridge, and that, frankly, we should have done already โ€ฆ but the fact that we havenโ€™t done those things is not a reason to not support this one small step.โ€

โ€œSunk costsโ€

The votes against included Dennis Carlone, who noted his own work advocating for affordable housing to underline why he couldnโ€™t support this zoning: a lack of specificity in its language and design guidelines as well as the lack of an overall city housing vision or plan, which made the overlay โ€œthe result of much frustration and desperation.โ€ The zoning came out of a three-year, $6 million master planning exercise called Envision Cambridge that was finished a year ago but has not received a serious look by the council, and various officials have despaired that the AHO was what the city chose to focus on out of various proposals; Carlone renewed complaints Monday that the city has taken no steps to build affordable housing on its own parking lots or even provided a list of city property where housing could go up, despite more than six years of asking.

Councillor Patty Nolan echoed Carloneโ€™s complaints and also voted no, saying she was disappointed that improvements introduced in previous debate over the zoning โ€“ including her proposal that some units be set aside for middle-income residents โ€“ werenโ€™t in this version.

โ€œI remain unconvinced that as written it will be a game changer,โ€ Nolan said. โ€œItโ€™s difficult to imagine whether this ordinance will change this equation in Cambridge enough to justify all the energy and concern. [But] I recognize our sunk costs. We will be moving on.โ€

Another weary condemnation came from councillor Quinton Zondervan, despite him voting in favor: โ€œIt remains a neoliberal policy [that is] the best that weโ€™re going to get.โ€

A stronger

Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.

We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.

Please consider a recurring contribution.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Leave a comment