End of single-family zoning will take long study to avoid worse wealth gap, Planning Board says
If the goal of eliminating single-family zoning in Cambridge is to right decades of racial injustice and inequity, the Planning Board was unconvinced Tuesday that the city was anywhere close to a way to achieve that.
A presentation by the Community Development Department seemed to leave some members of the board almost shaken by what would result by ending single- and dual-family zoning without a plan for affordability in a city where – as assistant city manager for community development Iram Farooq put it – real estate prices have “just been progressive if not exponential, and certainly on a steep trajectory in recent decades.”
The discussion comes to the board from the City Council, where a December 2020 policy order sparked committee hearings and a request for Planning Board input. But members’ reaction may not be what councillors hoped to hear.
There was universal interest among members in finding ways to balance out the city’s east-west divide, in which multifamily buildings and density are clustered in the east. (West Cambridge, meanwhile, includes the historically protected single-family homes of Brattle Street.) They also agreed on general principles such as changing requirements within districts, rather than changing the borders of zoning districts themselves. But more agreement was found that, in the words of member Lou Bacci, “this is a very complicated issue, and to just skim over it and throw a few proposals out there would be a mistake. This thing needs to go the long route.” Member Hugh Russell thought a concrete advisory for the council might be achievable by the end of the year – and this was the first meeting of 2022.
“Fairness and equity is something the city should be striving for. I’ve been doing a lot of reading about it and can find no justification anywhere for single- and two-family districts,” member H Theodore Cohen said. “Doing nothing, it seems to me, is not really an option if we’re trying to address this issue. But I agree there are lots of difficult questions.”
Trickle-down affordability
A brute undoing of current zoning might result in what Farooq described as “just overall increasing the supply of housing in the city, [with] a microeconomic impact on cost – not necessarily to reduce the cost, but certainly to flatten the increase.” Cohen too looked at real estate pricing and saw the possibility that “Maybe it will rise slightly slower if we increase the number of housing units.”
Ashley Tan, an associate member of the board, wondered if supporters had a “trickle-down theory.”
“If the goal is affordable housing or even middle-income housing, it’s placing a lot of hope and relying on that, at some point, we’ll get there,” Tan said.
The council wanted more, saying in notes from an August committee hearing that changing the law was a means to an end: “dismantling the systemic racism of zoning” in place in modified form since 1943.
Dismantling without gentrification
What the board puzzled over was how to do that when “every new unit created in the City of Cambridge is currently selling in the neighborhood of $1,000 per foot,” member Steven Cohen said. (No relation to the other Cohen.) “What are these things going to sell for, who is going to buy them or lease them, and how does that relate to the aspirations and goals that originally motivated you to make the change?”
This is “more units for wealthy people,” Steven Cohen said.
Changing single-family homes to multifamily homes – increasing the amount of buildings or units on a lot – just raises value. “You take one place that used to have a single and make it a three, they sell all three. And here the selling prices are enormous,” Bacci said.
Parking and yards offered further complication, and board members worried about compromising the “architectural and historical integrity” of Cambridge homes.
“The sharks are out there circling”
Developers are waiting for zoning changes in Cambridge that they can take advantage of for profit, Bacci said, noting that as the sole longtime homeowner on his block in the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood, “Right now my mailbox is stuffed with proposals every day, and my phone never stops ringing for people trying to invest. If we don’t think that’s going to increase, we’re making a mistake … the sharks are out there circling.”
The “missing middle” zoning rejected 5-3 in May was also described by some as a way to end racist zoning but had the same perceived flaw: no guarantee of affordability that would prevent more gentrification. And city solicitor Nancy Glowa went into detail with city councillors in August on the problems of requiring “inclusionary” affordable units at smaller scales of construction: Courts look at whether a requirement is so burdensome that it becomes an uncompensated taking of private property, which would be considered unconstitutional. Compensation for including affordable units in the form of construction bonuses would change the scale of what was built, and any move in this direction would require a “nexus” study like the one in place for the city’s larger-scale residential developers.
Public comment
To public commenters in favor of ending single-family zoning, board members’ fears seemed overblown because allowing more units on a lot – and smaller units in general – would see per-unit prices go down. That made the goals of equity and of simply building more housing, even without an affordability guarantee, more aligned that board members thought. Another suggestion was that units could have fewer “amenities.”
“I don’t think we should make people who can’t afford a house not be able to buy in Cambridge because they can’t afford the extra $100,000 for a garden,” resident Christopher Schmidt said.
“Everyone who wants to live in Cambridge should be able to,” Schmidt said. “Anyone should be able to live here. And what kind of people will they be? Well, they’ll be the people who work in the city, and 67 percent of the people who work in the city work in professional roles. So when you say that people buying houses will be professionals, yes, that’s what our workforce is.”
Schmidt also said he understood that “we need to help people who can’t afford to live in Cambridge as well,” but argued that there would be “better tools to do that in a city of professionals, and we shouldn’t force those people to kick out poor people to buy their houses.”
“If the goal of eliminating single-family zoning in Cambridge is to right decades of racial injustice and inequity” … good luck!
I think people are setting their expectations – and their fears – too high. Ending exclusionary zoning in neighborhoods is one of many zoning reforms Cambridge should undertake to make housing more plentiful and affordable. Ending exclusionary zoning in neighborhoods helps with racial and economic integration, too – creating more opportunities for people of lesser means to live in what would otherwise be or become ritzy enclaves. But asking it to right all racial wrongs … you might as well ask it to cure cancer, no wonder the Planning Board thinks it’ll take more than a year!
During last night’s hearing, Lou Bacci and Steve Cohen were very agitated and warned of housing “but at what cost???” I find myself with the same question – what is the cost here? Is the sky really going to fall if we allow triple-deckers to be built in West Cambridge?
When not ranting continuously on Twitter, Mr. Schmidt apparently lives in a libertarian/neoliberal/free market fantasyland in which the solution to all society’s problems is to simply get rid of all oversight and let the developers do as they wish. Funny, that sounds exactly like what got us into this mess in the first place. Well, at least we will have plenty of “professionals” to buy up all those new houses. God forbid they be forced to live in the suburban hellscapes of Weston, Newton, or Wellesley.
Describing me as ranting “continuously” on Twitter seems unfair. I sleep at *least* four hours a night!
I am not a free market fetishist; I’m a socialist labor organizer who recognizes that what we have now is incentivized to create bad outcomes. We should change the incentives *away* from making the most profitable thing exactly what we don’t want.
Developers do not have free reign now. The last time they did was likely around a century ago, and that era produced the homes that 40% of Cantabrigians continue to live in today. Going back to that world isn’t the right path forward–it’s 2021, not 1921–but a description of “developers doing as they wish” in the current world is simply misleading.
“Everyone who wants to live in Cambridge should be able to,” Schmidt said.
Really!? Yes, Mr. Schmidt, everyone who wants to live in Cambridge should be able to… but only if they can afford it on their own, or if the city in some way supplements the cost of the housing.
Just because someone wants something, does not mean that they are entitled to it. We need affordable housing in the city. Let the city decide how much it is willing to pay for it.
But, who really cares. Not the people in this city. Only 33% of registered voters voted this past year. So much for a robust democracy.
“Everyone who wants to live in Cambridge should be able to” makes about as much sense as “Everyone who wants to live in Oz should be able to”.
Apparently, in their imaginary, self-centered, delusional and glorious fantasies of turning Cambridge into Little Manhattan on The Charles, those favoring the Real Estate Developers are now willing to say almost anything in the hope that they appear only committed to making it possible for everyone in Oz to live in Cambridge.
Also, there are now calls for members of the CDD and the Planning Board appointed by the City Manager from 11/4/21 to 12/31/21 to resign because the voters voted to give the City Council appointee approval.
And then, once they resign, the City Manager can resubmit the same people for City Council approval because, until then, they have no moral standing and are not legitimate.
Speaking of moral standing, I forgot! We’re all only one day past the 1st anniversary of the 1/6/21 Insurrection. So, by all means, even though these Board Members and CDD folks were legally appointed, let’s waste more time and do it all over again, because we don’t like it!
Let’s not underestimate the depths to which the Real Estate Developer community and their backers will go because it’s true…”the sharks are out there, circling.”
I’m not sure when folks were brainwashed to hate developers but it’ll be a while to deprogram that. It’s not like anyone in this thread built their own homes. Cambridge can build more housing. That is a fact. Going into the neighborhoods might feel nice because Cambridge liberals can be really fun to piss off but it won’t yield much housing. Socialists are also not well equipped to lead the conversation because their lens is usually way too narrow and their motivations dogmatic. Everyone who wants to live in Cambridge should at least have a fighting chance to be able to and we should and can be doing more to make that easier. Subsidy isn’t the answer and listening to a bunch of barking home owners who feel smart because they got dumb lucky and bought during rent control and experienced a 1000% increase in value aren’t compelling either. Actually the only folks who make any sense in this discussion are in fact developers. A tough pill to swallow I’m sure it’ll piss off both young and old alike. You’re welcome.
Its not brain washing, Mr. Barrett, and your own involvement working for developers at times makes your comments here suspect as being biased.
As a resident for 24 years I’ve watched the mess some developers have made of the city, and the games they have played to stoke upwards the price per square foot for housing and commercial space year by year.
It’s not brainwashing when you watch the manipulation of the election process and of the appointments to the city boards, or the environmental damage done in some parts of the city. Its simply calling facts facts.
And no, I am not a “dumb lucky” person who bought during rent control as you call it, my wife and I came here after that period of time and spent years paying (along with the other owners of our building) to bring a tired worn structure into a better condition over that period of time.
The Developers are a bane to the rest of us.
If they don’t live here then no they should not have a say in things and certainly should not be the only people engaged in the conversations. The Voters should be the ones calling the shots here.
One side vilifies developers, while the other side apparently hates homeowners. Meanwhile, the side that wants more development keeps accusing me of being both. So to recap:
Homeownership = Good
Homeowners = Bad
Developers = Good + Bad
Anyone else confused???
Unqueitsoul thank you for illustrating my point. Doug, yes; am totally confused.
Cambridge real estate remains an outstanding investment. Great jobs, entrenched democratic inability to create new housing. Prices and rents could easily double from current levels over the next decade. Only longtime residents and the 1% income earners will be left.