Faster response by the city manager on property would have given the City Council more options
The city manager responded April 11 about buying property from Lesley University, responding to a City Council goal of finding space for “priorities from pre-K to green space to housing.” That was intended to look at the “feasibility” and “in a timely manner as Lesley University moves forward with their campus plans.” Yet it took 175 days to report back – not on the feasibility, but that Lesley University had agreed to sell 1627 Massachusetts Ave. to Homeowners Rehab Inc. “so that HRI can create new affordable housing there.”
The report said that “Community Development Department staff worked with local affordable housing builders.” But how and why was HRI chosen to buy and develop that property? More importantly, why didn’t CDD staff work with the community and other stakeholders to determine if several buildings offered for sale by Lesley could be used for that “range of priorities”?
If the city manager reported back sooner – say, within 10 business days – on all the properties Lesley was willing to sell, it would have given the City Council the opportunity to authorize purchase of all those properties, just like it spent $18.5 million for a friendly land taking of the 4-acre Buckingham Field in West Cambridge. Then the city could have formulated a master plan to develop all these properties together, holistically, with all the stakeholders. We could have created much-needed affordable housing, open space, cultural event sites, pre-K sites and more with a vision to create a vibrant city we would be proud to leave to future generations.
In a nutshell, where is the transparency and accountability in the city’s negotiation with Lesley and in the Affordable Housing Trust’s financing of this acquisition? As Yogi Berra said, it is déjà vu all over again with the memories of 2072 Massachusetts Ave. – bought for Chapter 40B affordable-housing development by Capstone Communities and Hope Real Estate Enterprises – fresh on our minds.
Young Kim, Norris Street
“it is déjà vu all over again with the memories of 2072 Massachusetts Ave”
You mean the wonderful 100% affordable housing project located a block from a major transit hub that got killed by the BZA, Planning board, NIMBY residents and NIMBY aligned councilors? For BS aesthetic reasons of course. A place where we could have had 48 affordable homes and now we have 0 because some people were worried about tall buildings and shadows. When it comes to community impact on a project 2072 is one that the community killed for no good reason.
Mr. Mazzeo, your litany of complaints would be greatly improved by having it resemble reality, i.e., get your facts straight. Just applying the same list of meaningless words to anything you don’t like gets us nowhere. We can discuss whether the policy decision is appropriate only if we start with who actually said what and leave the slurs out.
thank you Ms. Hoffman. although in principle I agree that 2072 might have been a good location for housing (and still is if the design is safer. One elevator for 9 stories is not), I suggest looking at all the other factors and rules for 40B which also allows for better planning in some cases. This all-or-nothing fighting is not helpful. Other people have rights too.
But the letter is about the foot-dragging by the city manager which also leads to penny wise and pound foolish by council and the city. We have lost many opportunities over the years and I agree that the process is not as transparent as it could be.
Mr. Mazzeo,
Your statement “2072 is one that the community killed for no good reason” is oversimplified generalization.
We are governed by law, and no one is above the law. 2072 Mass Ave was a 40B project, a state statute. The state put in strict guidelines to protect the rights of community around a potential site at the same time providing much needed affordable housing. As I have written in many Letters to the Editors, to the City Council/Staff/BZA and to the community, both the applicant and the City ignored the guidelines. Please study 40B statute before making such a generalized statement. You are more than welcome to reach out to me directly if you want to continue this dialogue. But please let’s not do that over this space. I owe that much to Mr. Levy.
9 story buildings with one elevator are unsafe and “no one is above the law.” Thank goodness Cambridge is blessed with so many experts. Not really sure what the actual opinion piece is shooting for. Among the things they suggest be built is affordable housing which is what is proposed. Its also curious the notion that cambridge needs to buy up every parcel that’s for sale. Having affordable housing built off the city ledger is, to quote the great homemaker/inmate Martha Stewart; a good thing.
I agree that 2072 was killed by the usual NIMBY nonsense that stops and scales back development throughout our country. We have a housing shortage, we have an affordable housing crisis, and NIMBYs are just interested in keeping their home prices skyrocketing.
Cities should change,
Suggesting that homeowners are just interested in increasing their property values is olde and boring and likely without merit. Most people who block housing likely just do not want change or fear all the accoutrements that come with construction. Most of them also bought during rent control for nickels and whatever skyrocketing value they wish to achieve has happened. Most acknowledge that Cambridge is the most popular place in the known universe and that building housing would not reduce values one penny. It says so on many of their fliers. They skew boomer and their understanding of the world is painted thusly; developers are evil, capitalism is bad, and more housing means more of “those people” which could be mean anything from racist to yuppy. What they’re absolutely certain of though is gentrification is coming … without acknowledging or having the self awareness that they were in fact it’s first devastating wave. So I think to say these nimbers are in it for the bucks is overly simplified and likely off the mark. Their money is locked up in a house they’ll likely die in which maybe gives their genZ grandchildren a fighting chance? In the meantime if the Council really wanted housing they’d use the only real power they have and zone for it. They haven’t. I cannot fathom why … maybe it’s for the $75k?