There are ways to create more affordable housing aside from Affordable Housing Overlay 2.0
I really hope that the Cambridge City Council doesn’t vote tonight in favor of the Affordable Housing Overlay amendments known as AHO 2.0. I understand councillors’ sense of urgency to respond to our housing emergency, but AHO2 is not the answer. Do we really want 15-story buildings in Harvard, Porter and Central squares casting shadows, without setbacks and without any review by the Planning Board and neighborhoods?
The good news is that Cambridge is already almost halfway to our 2030 Envision Cambridge new affordable-housing unit goal: 1,500 units are in play. Why change what’s already working?
Proponents of AHO2 have hijacked the conversation. There are other ways to create more affordable housing, and there are broader questions we should be asking. For example, how can we lower development costs? Currently affordable housing costs almost $1 million per unit.
We should consider creative financing and look at the Housing Production Fund in Montgomery County, Maryland, as a model. And we should look at the Itasca Project in Minneapolis: a collaboration of businesses, philanthropies and public sectors. We should also look at how they create social housing in the Netherlands, where nonprofits, not private equity firms, own two-thirds of the rental units.
And what about creating more shared housing?
We need to consider the unintended consequences of giving developers carte blanche to build high and, most importantly, to come to consensus about our goal. Currently, 15 percent of our housing – 8,500 units – is income restricted. Most of our neighboring communities have 6 percent to 7 percent affordable housing. They will soon be producing more units as required by the MBTA Communities Act. Housing is a regional issue; its solutions will be regional, too.
If our goal is to increase our affordable housing stock to 20 percent, adding another 3,000 units, how will we pay for this? At $1 million a unit, that would cost $3 billion. Our annual budget is about $1 billion, and our 2023 fiscal year tax levy was $5.3 million. Will we raise taxes or allow high-rises to be built everywhere to get the “free” (but not actually “free,” since they increase the cost of market rate units) inclusionary units?
We must change and broaden our conversation and move from a quick-fix mentality to a nuanced discussion about our goals and how we can best achieve them, considering all the long-term implications.
Cathie Zusy, candidate for Cambridge City Council
Given you end up arguing against affordable units altogether the title of this article is highly misleading.
Hi Cathie,
In the first paragraph, you say that projects proposed under the AHO happen “without any review by the Planning Board and neighborhoods”. That is not true. All AHO projects have multiple neighborhood meetings, and at least two meetings in front of the Planning Board. Cambridge Day covered one such meeting on July 20: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/07/20/structure-with-affordable-housing-could-blend-more-with-its-neighborhood-developer-hears/
As a proponent of the proposal, I do agree with you that we should also be looking at ways to lower development costs for affordable housing. Allowing more height or greater density for a given piece of land is one way to do that. Additionally, if developers need to hire expensive lawyers or consultants for years of community meetings, that definitely adds to costs. The AHO amendments help address both of these causes.
Finally, you say affordable housing should use creative financing strategies, and by different types of entities. Recent affordable housing projects in Cambridge have been proposed by public, non-profit, and for-profit groups. These projects make use of state, federal, and private investment. Lastly, the Cambridge Housing Authority was recently profiled for being a leader in innovating to finance new affordable housing and renovation of existing properties, for example here: https://placesjournal.org/article/the-case-for-truly-public-housing/?cn-reloaded=1
While affordable housing is a complex issue, misleading readers (and potential voters for your campaign) doesn’t help our city come together and solve these problems.
Your neighbor in Cambridgeport,
Neil Miller
The nicest neighborhoods in this city are historic ones where old homes don’t have setbacks.
So much for caring about neighborhood character.
This article manages to argue against affordable housing and market rate housing at the same time, while listing the usual suspects: shade, setbacks, and giving veto power to individuals whose interest is to block housing as much as possible.
Truly a tour de force of NIMBYism
Thank you! We desperately need housing for low and middle income folks but I agree that 15 story buildings at 1million a unit is not the best way. Thanks for looking for more creative solutions.
Some of us happen to believe that sunlight setbacks and neighborly input is important.
That does not equate to nimbyism and the knee jerk suggestion that concerns are just that is ridiculous.
Where does this $1M per unit figure come from? I’ve heard that before
And if that is current state, does that figure include the cost of acquiring the land?
“ Do we really want 15-story buildings in Harvard, Porter and Central squares casting shadows, without setbacks and without any review by the Planning Board and neighborhoods?”
Yes, that is exactly what I want. Larger buildings will not have any significant impact on your life. If you think a few minutes of extra shadows will harm you, get over yourself.
I suppose we are these tribal creatures. This becomes a pushing battle between those who largely have a nice spot in Cambridge that want newcomers to pound sand. VS newcomers who want a place to live in Cambridge, potentially at the detriment to existing homeowners.
This article reinforces the former view. A whole lot of reasons to tell newcomers “tough luck, can’t live here”
I still believe that one of the problems is lack of vision and the tail wagging the dog. Developer influence on the city council thru campaign contributions or possible conflicts of interest are involved here.
If we truly need more housing stock then lets go about setting specific goals rather than rushing in to raise building heights. There are places where mixed use buildings can be developed without drastically increasing building heights…. and too long some out of state and foreign “investors” have been sitting on properties to manipulate property values (similar to a practice seen in NYC).
We need a 2 year rule, if a property is unoccupied and not in use for that long or longer eminent domain seizure by the city and its development into affordable housing should come into play. No more nonsense like what happened on Church Street with the Theater space etc. for a decade.
“At $1 million a unit, that would cost $3 billion.”
…if *every* unit cost $1m, and if *all* the funding came from the city. That’s not how affordable housing is financed, not even close. Developers use a combination of different funding sources, tax credits, etc. to build affordable housing.
I also don’t know where the “15,000 units are in play” comes from either. Is there a citation for that the author can share?
Not only are we not on target to meet Envision affordable housing goals, the goals themselves are outdated and insufficient. While the city has made laudable progress recently with the AHO, increasing AHT funding, and eliminating costly parking minimums, the overall picture for renters in this city has gotten worse since Envision, not better. Our continued failure to allow enough housing growth has only added to the demand for affordable housing.
I understand why someone who thought these things were true – that we’re on track to meet goals, that the goals are current and reasonable, and that we have tons of affordable housing coming just around the corner – might not see the need for adjusting the AHO, or feel the urgency of the situation to thousands of people. But we need city councillors who are up to date on the facts of the housing crisis, and this just isn’t it.
NeilSMiller95: The current AHO does have neighborhood meetings and Planning Board review. However, Cathie’s first paragraph refers to AHO2, the proposal under consideration and the object of her letter. AHO2 does not have any review requirements, nor any set-back requirements, all “as of right” for developers.