Frogs ‘R’ Us: It’s unrestrained development threatening to boil us if we don’t hop to polls
The cover to Jean-François Batellier’s 1978 cartoon collection, “No Deposit, No Return.”
That poor proverbial frog boiling slowly to death in gently heating water could be the new city mascot. For Cambridge, it’s not a stovetop that’s doing the damage, it’s unrestrained development, project by project, choking the life out of neighborhoods and displacing longtime residents.
A recently published essay argued for massive development by citing “change.” (“Conservation district ordinance hinders Cambridge from meeting its needs,” Oct. 7.) Seventeenth century Native Americans were forced out by relentless colonizers, the author notes, so today’s Cantabrigians shouldn’t be surprised that they too may well be displaced.
As part of the campaign to bulldoze its opposition, the “build, baby, build” advocates claim that anyone standing in their way – no matter their background – is racist, nativist and elitist. They could argue the merits of their case, but personal attacks obscure the facts better. For example, according to the U.S. Census, Cambridge’s population grew by 13 percent in the past decade. Housing accommodated at 14 percent. Who lost? For the three decades leading to 2010, the African American share of population declined. As the total population grew in 2020, the low African American share stayed put. Clearly the cheerleaders of mindless growth aren’t paying attention to the real impact of their policies.
Let’s consider what the keenest observers of the Cambridge real estate market have to say. One prominent real estate broker specifically cited Google and Facebook as driving demand in an interview with the Financial Times: “These industries are bringing highly skilled workers to Cambridge, and that’s driving home sales higher.” Another observed, “Condos are selling at higher price points in this market, and buyers who rent them out as investments are seeing strong returns.” She added, “We field almost as many phone calls from Asian and European buyers as we do from Americans. Many of the calls come from parents who want to buy apartments for their kids rather than renting, because rents are high and housing prices are steadily increasing.” Demand is global.
Cambridge is not going to stop growing. Those of us advocating for balanced growth (falsely labeled as anti-growth) expect the city to add more than 10,000 people in this decade. We strongly support building housing units to match that growth – especially affordable and middle-income housing. We do object to the idea, clearly implied by the build-it-all lobby, that Cambridge must double its population.
A Cambridge with a population of more than 200,000 – up from our current 118,000 – sounds nightmarish to most people. Not to the folks behind A Better Cambridge, whose mantra is that everyone who wants to live in Cambridge should be able to do so.
People want to live here for many reasons. One is to avoid the commute. Let’s look just at that reason. As a job center, Cambridge now has about 112,000 commuters who live elsewhere. If just 25 percent of them want to live here with their families, we need about 28,000 new housing units and our population jumps to over 200,000. Just commuters.
As Maya Angelou wisely said, “When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.” We should show some respect for ABC and its allies by believing them. And we shouldn’t be surprised that developers are one of their main sources of financial support, nor that ABC-backed council candidates have received a stunning 95 percent of total donations by the real estate industry.
Eastern Massachusetts needs more housing. Cambridge should be held up as a model for what is possible. We’re one of the most densely populated cities in America and still a wonderful place to live. But we can’t shoulder the burden of growth alone. If we tear down double- and triple-deckers, fill in all setbacks and scrub the city of its architectural past, too much will be lost, including the people who will be priced out of the shiny new glass and steel buildings beloved by the development addicts in our midst.
Take a stand for sanity Nov. 2. Research the candidates. Go beyond the platitudes and think about what doubling the housing units on your block would mean. Remember who those units would really be built for. And learn from that doomed frog to hop the other way if someone tells you, “Come on in – the water’s fine!”
Phil Wellons is a member of the Cambridge Citizens Coalition.
“Those of us advocating for balanced growth (falsely labeled as anti-growth) expect the city to add more than 10,000 people in this decade.”
I applaud the CCC for saying in principle that they want Cambridge to grow! Envision Cambridge called for us to add 12,500 housing units by 2030, so the CCC’s number is not wholly unreasonable.
Unfortunately, we are not even on pace to achieve HALF of that goal, thanks to the anti-housing efforts of CCC and their allies on the Council. (See here: https://twitter.com/CDDat344/status/1446503665192382465) The result of our housing shortage has been more overcrowding, higher rents, higher prices, and more displacement.
The difference between those of us are trying to promote more homebuilding, and those like Mr. Wellons who are trying to make it harder to build more homes, is not just a question of numbers. It’s a question of methods. Supporting a number doesn’t get you anywhere if you don’t support the zoning changes needed to achieve it.
(Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the CCC is an organization everyone should be extremely skeptical of, with a long history of misinformation, not to mention tolerating racial and other kinds of insensitivity. You can read more on Loren Crowe’s blog: https://lorencrowe.com/part-4-a-fair-but-partial-account-of-the-cambridge-citizens-coalitions-activities-since-2019-bf6657889aac)
While there’s a lot in this post to disagree with, I want to correct one significant point of fact:
“Developers” are not one of the main sources of funding of A Better Cambridge IEPAC, contrary to the article’s claim. The contributors are largely Cambridge residents who are concerned about the high cost of housing keeping Cambridge from being a welcoming city, and others who are similarly engaged in the success of Cambridge. It is supported by teachers and students; scientists and researchers. It is supported by long-time Cambridge residents who have lived here all their lives, and newcomers who have only been here a few years (or months), and even folks who aren’t here yet but would like to be someday.
Many people in the city consider Robert Winters a reliable source for campaign financing in the city; his analysis of campaign contributions for this cycle shows that ABC has received just 1% of its contributions from “developers”… $200 from an affordable housing developer who does not do any work in Cambridge. (http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=7576 for more details.)
We can have different opinions on what the future of Cambridge should look like: it is clear that Mr. Wellons does not agree with the vision that I would have, and that’s understandable: we’re a diverse city, and it’s unsurprising that there are different perspectives. But the idea of calling A Better Cambridge “funded by developers” is simply not based in fact. It was not true in previous elections either, but it is *certainly* not true in this election.
And that’s because A Better Cambridge isn’t about representing the views of developers. It’s about representing the views of people: people who live here, and want to stay here; as well as people who don’t live here yet, and should be able to.
Christopher Schmidt
A Better Cambridge IEPAC Treasurer
Mr Schmidt claims that ABC has received only a fraction of its funds from developers, yet the link he provides to substantiate this provides no detail, and virtually all of ABC’s positions channel money to developers, construction companies, and others who profit from the real estate boom that is pricing many renters out of the city. I hope he will publish a full list of his donors–there is too much dark money in politics, and PACs such as ABC are not helping.
Meanwhile the candidates ABC supports took tens of thousands of dollars during the last election cycle from developers, construction companies, and others who would profit from their proposals for ever more building height, fewer trees, and more density.
It’s amazing the way their salt of the earth calls for “A Better Cambridge” always result in more money for their true patrons
Angstrom’s citation of the outrageous comments by provocateur Loren Crowe being spread by ABC on twitter is appalling. I have tape and written proof that Mr. Crowe attacks represent falsifications, lies, and mischaracterizations. This is hate speech he is invoking – and slander, not only on me and CCC but also on our candidates, and it comes close to libel. Enough! We have not responded on Twitter because we will not feed trolls. Nor will we put up with bullies. The support and promotion of these lies by Crowe, ABC leaders, ABC allies and some ABC-allied candidates represents the worst of Cambridge and its politics. That these individuals would stoop to this level of vitriol and dishonesty is deeply disturbing and telling.
Suzanne Blier
Peter, you can find more detail at the website of the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance: https://www.ocpf.us/Filers/Index
Search for “A Better Cambridge Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee”.
Click on the “Data” tab. You’ll see a list of all the donors.
Hope this is helpful!
PeterG, The MA Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) records contributions to PAC’s and campaigns publicly. Here is the list of contributions to the ABC IEPAC: https://www.ocpf.us/Filers?q=81051# (Click the “Data” tab)
The OCPF site is linked from Winter’s site as the source of his data.
Dan Eisner, that’s very clever of you to focus everyone’s attention on your current ABC Independent Expenditure PAC. Were you also going to mention its predecessor PAC, the ABC PAC? That entity received more than $45,000 in donations that it then spent to influence elections. Among its early contributors were such well-known icons of local real estate development as Rich McKinnon, Robert Flack, and Bill Kane. In addition, that same entity (ABC PAC) also was the subject of multiple enforcement actions by the State Office of Campaign & Public Finance before it was closed last year. Perhaps you’ve now turned over a new leaf. Or maybe you just haven’t gotten caught yet. Time will tell, but let’s not pretend that everything your organization is doing to influence elections is entirely transparent to voters.
I’m sorry it’s inconvenient for you that we’ve listened to criticisms, have responded accordingly, and now take almost no money from developers or people connected to developers.
When people tell you who they are, you should believe them. ABC has been telling the people of Cambridge who they are for quite a while now, and we should believe them. They are pro-development to the core. Their positions on property in Cambridge have been driving money to real-estate developers, construction companies, and pushing the real estate boom from the get-go.
It started with the Affordable Housing Overlay, stealing the zoning rights of Cambridge property owners all in the name of “affordable housing”. But that wasn’t enough. Next came the “Missing Middle Housing Zoning amendment which drew an immediate negative response from Black Response Cambridge as not appropriate, being “up-zoning without strategic government intervention rooted in a community process” which reinforces the underlying failures of zoning, resulting in housing affordability furthering segregation.
And now, apparently, there is now a proposal circulating to change the Affordable Housing Overlay, increasing the height and density of structures to 13 stories and reducing set back requirements “as of right”. If these changes are approved by the City Council, the latest hot spot, 2072 Massachusetts Ave. could be developed to 13 stories, with minimal setbacks and parking, and very little public input.
Be careful of who you vote for.
The ABC’s once again out in full force. Bravo for the disinformation campaign from the “fictitious attack” on Crowe to the lack of support from DEVELOPERS!!! How very Trumpian of ABC. I encourage the reader to log onto the OPCF and search each of ABC endorsed candidates. Search the amount of support from developers but also their attorneys and architects and even the trade associations to see the complete story. Look at attorneys who usually appear before Planning Board and BZA. Which candidates do they support? Same with architects. Same with trade associations.
Any candidate promoting design review and limitation or Preservation perspective (all CCC candidates) is excoriated. CCC almost daily is attacked as homophobic, racist, homeowners and just plain old!! Why? A CCC member had the audacity to challenge the legitimacy of a complaint lodged by someone who plastered the internet with his own photos in bondage garb that he creates and hawks? No one is allowed to even mention that???? Suzanne Blier, an internationally acclaimed expert in African art and history, is being crucified publicly almost on a daily basis as a racist homophobe. Other CCC members are often referred to as old as if they no longer matter. Some even have been subject of ethnic slurs for having “Italian accents.” Those born and bred in Cambridge have been castigated as “nativist,” not “rooted.”
Please search the database at OPCF candidate by candidate. All of the ABC candidates are overwhelmingly financed by development, whether it be the actual developer, the architects, the attorneys, or the trade associations. Robert Winters data compilation only reflects a small segment of ABC candidate support. https://www.ocpf.us/Filers/Index
Regular, non-developer supporter of ABC here! I support ABC because they are upfront about what they want – they want to make Cambridge a welcome place for everyone.
I’ve been disappointed to find Cambridge to be a deeply conservative place in many ways. People who don’t support the AHO or increasing housing (or growth!) can claim they “support affordable housing” and immigrants and progressive causes in general, but if your support is always followed by a “but…” and no alternative, you in no meaningful way actually support those things. So when CCC and other anti-housing groups are explicit about what they want, believe them: to them, Cambridge is not and should not be a welcoming place for new people, regardless of who they are or where they come from.
I love Cambridge because of the diversity of people, the fact that I can bike to work, meet friends randomly walking through the park, and walk to a great restaurants and bars and the river from my home. For me, it has very little to do with architecture and everything to do with the people who live here. I for one look forward to a future with twice as many interesting people on my block.
Reading Lilotter’s hateful comment and just scratching my head at how anyone could call CCC hateful or homophobic. It’s a mystery. Totally indecipherable.
After posting my comment yesterday, I looked up Loren Crowe’s blog as suggested by Angstrom. Reading Crowe’s blog was extremely revealing to what kind of a person Loren Crowe is. It also reveals why Crowe has to use Twitter to make his views known. Twitter is a cesspool and it’s no wonder why it was Trump’s favorite on-line site. As other readers have stated, there is no moderation or control or truth, only lies repeated over and over and obsessive name calling and slander.
By using Twitter to broadcast his views, Crowe makes it abundantly clear that he is a coward. Not only a coward, but an anger-filled and spineless individual who spews his venom on those he hates from as safe an on-line location he can find.
Also, the fact that Angstrom suggested to Cambridge Day readers to read this pathetic, hate-filled excuse of a blog also reveals to all what kind of a person Angstrom is. They are both shills for real-estate developer driven ABC and apparently there are no depths low enough for them or for ABC to avoid in trying to deceive the voters of Cambridge.
Be very, very careful of who you vote for.
Loren fought in Afghanistan and was awarded two purple hearts, in addition to the silver star he earned for his valor. He is the furthest thing from a coward.
https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/27560
Lots to discuss here, but I’ll keep it short and thank folks for speaking up in favor of having a truly inclusive and open city that is welcoming to all.
I’m glad that folks are reading what I’ve written. Everything is backed up with sources and no one has challenged the facts I’ve reported out, though I would encourage anyone to do so if something were truly amiss. My email is widely available or you can reach me on Twitter. CCC knows how to reach me.
It’s worth noting that what I’ve written is being taken seriously by many, including Dana Bullister, one of the City Council Candidates that CCC endorsed, who denounced CCC’s actions in response to my writing. You may read her statement at the link below:
https://dana-bullister.medium.com/in-light-of-my-ccc-endorsement-i-would-like-to-publicly-clarify-some-things-8511b1fbebab
I want to (seriously) thank Christopher Schmidt for this comment: “We can have different opinions on what the future of Cambridge should look like: it is clear that Mr. Wellons does not agree with the vision that I would have, and that’s understandable: we’re a diverse city, and it’s unsurprising that there are different perspectives.” This is the first and only time I’ve seen an ABC leader appear to acknowledge that there are multiple valid perspectives on affordable housing in Cambridge, not just “ABC’s view” and “all the other wrong views”. ABC’s rhetoric has routinely demonized those who disagree with them, calling them “anti-housing” and sometimes worse. ABC is far off the mark in their analysis, and I won’t vote for their candidates, but if they are shifting away from their historically nasty and divisive tone that will be at least a small improvement.
Thank you for posting Ms Bullister’s moral guide posts. It was a breath of fresh air. Her four bullet points (should be) universal truths. Sadly, we are being “bamboozled” to quote Carl Sagan, who says “if we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding the truth. The bamboozle has captured us….” That may explain ABC erroneously branding anyone who doesn’t agree with them or the use of repeated bullying for a final result.
That is why Ms. Bullister’s statement strikes a cord. The points are as follows:
– Spreading political or other misinformation is inexcusable.
– Ad hominem attacks in public discussion are not acceptable.
– Homophobic behavior is never appropriate under any circumstances.
– Racism and racist rhetoric are never appropriate under any circumstances.
By calling people racists, exclusionary elitists and homophobes (even though there are LGBQ members in those multi-racial families being targeted), it diminishes those who are truly victims for political points.
I hope that group quits perpetuating bad behavior through twitter. Surprisingly, to quote the above, “we’re a diverse city, and it’s unsurprising that there are different perspectives.” Please be more respectful. We may agree on more than you think. And that spills to some of your candidates as well. Thank you.
Bad behavior in the debate on affordable housing hasn’t been confined to one particular organization, though I personally happen to think that one organization has been more noteworthy for it. Since I care a lot about concerns on both sides of the debate, I can see why people on each side would feel threatened by what the other side is doing, regardless of whether bad behavior is involved. But if I can see merit on both sides – increasing affordable housing while still paying attention to our physical surroundings – I hope that other people can too, or that they can at least attempt to understand where the other side is coming from. I realize that seeing merit on both sides doesn’t necessarily mean that people have to meet in the middle. But I do think that there are enough legitimate concerns on each side that the city could only benefit by having discussions on housing issues that are more open and respectful.
@Barry Abel agree 100%, thank you.