Where do we go next on affordable housing? Cambridge should begin a process now
Affordable Housing Overlay zoning changes will most likely pass during the City Council meeting Monday. Despite the intense and passionate debates, by itself, AHO2 will not create significant nor immediate additional affordable housing. The ordinance proponents said so themselves. I’m certain next year at budget time or the year after, the council will say we are not doing enough to meet the demand for affordable housing, and it might well be true because some on the current council did not want to look more deeply at the issues.
The pressure-cooker, chaotic process created by a zoning ordinance with a looming expiration date pushed aside the ability to have a larger discussion of affordable-housing issues. Affordable housing fulfills a basic human need for shelter and contributes to the well-being of families, including reducing stress over displacement. The housing is important in maintaining the diversity of our community, its economic vitality by supporting our local workforce and helping seniors and persons with disabilities remain in our community. For these reasons and more, I support the city’s commitment to affordable housing. I do not support the amendments that increase height and remove setbacks as of right, though.
While many will be pleased that something has been done to potentially increase affordable-housing production when AHO2 passes, many will be disappointed with the potential negative impact on neighborhoods and quality of life that will result from taller, denser buildings. This is an important community conversation that needs to continue outside of a zoning ordinance process, and we need an opportunity to bring together different points of view, not further divide the community.
So, with the passage of AHO2, I am challenging the City Council to not let this issue fade into the background. While the topic is still fresh, I ask the council to adopt a policy order recommending an appropriate forum and process be established for developing a comprehensive affordable-housing and implementation plan that includes a middle-income housing strategy and a path to homeownership. This does not need to be a lengthy process, as there is much good, existing work to pull from. The Envision planning process from 2016 to 2018 was a good start, but the city needs more, including a clear articulation of our goals.
Please don’t let the passage of AHO2 end this conversation. If the city truly has affordable housing as one of its top priorities, it deserves much more thoughtful attention. Now is the time to begin that process.
Joan Pickett, candidate for Cambridge City Council
Many of us are happy to have more neighbors who will contribute to our community, start new businesses, patronize existing ones. That sounds like a quality of life increase, not decrease.
Do you not realize that everyone has caught on to this incredibly tired rhetoric of “we need affordable housing but I oppose every possible means of achieving it” nonsense? Guess what, lack of height by right is the problem. So if you are against that, you are against affordable housing.
You can be against the AHO 2.0 and still be for affordable housing. Trying to polarize the discussion and muting anyone who disagrees makes you look foolish; like an adult posting anonymously on a local civic blog. What Joan is calling for us an actual plan to develop AH without relying on the blunt instrument that is the AHO. It can be done but for some reason the “housing champions” are having a hard time holding their avatars on the council accountable for any real zoning reform. The AHO 2.0 was written in a slap dash non-collaborative way. They even filed the wrong language and had to quickly amend. If people truly want housing built they should be fighting for something real … not this nonsense that the authors (or author depending on who is to be believed) intended to be a good fight right before an election.
Whoops that should have been “food fight” not “good fight”
In this letter Joan’s approach to the AHO exhibits the type of balance and reasonableness that has been missing from City Council in much of their work in recent years. Affordable housing is an “apple pie” issue. Of course, we want affordable housing. But there are other conditions that need to be accommodated. By building up in residential neighborhoods, Cambridge would be made even more dense, traffic even worse (don’t count in the thousands of new residents all riding bikes in January). And, ultimately, the more “affordable” the housing, the greater will be the demand. There is almost no scenario where there would be enough dwelling units at an attractive price.
So we will always need to balance costs of housing with quality of life. We need more representatives who think like Joan in City Council.
I appreciate Patrick’s point re: not polarizing the issue, and how the AHO is not the be-all and end-all. Cambridgeresident however makes a crucial point. You can’t be both for affordable housing and against height. That’s the tradeoff. Let’s also note apartment buildings tend to be more energy-efficient, etc. And Ben, your point about traffic sounds intuitive but is generally wrong. Allowing people to walk or ride transit reduces car trips. It’s not as if by not building housing people will cease to exist or to come to Cambridge. I will also note that Joan was part of the group that sued the city over bike lanes so I think we have reason to suspect that the call for “conversation” in practice might mean “my way or the highway” — or in this case, “my way, the highway.”
Count me among those who are pleased. Cambridge should be for everyone, not zoned for the rich and longtime residents
The conversation about affordable housing (and other housing, too) that Ms. Pickett is requesting has been going on for 5+ years. We should not have to start over because she just joined and would like a do-over.
She should not be concerned that the conversation about housing will fade away after the election. There are so many people affected by — and committed to alleviating –the housing shortage that the conversation will certainly continue.
Ms. Pickett is correct that a few zoning amendments will not immediately result in significantly more affordable housing, the result she says she’s seeking. She’s not right about having a discussion about reducing our skyrocketing housing costs outside of a zoning amendment process, because zoning is where all the “No multi-family housing here!” signs are buried.
The one liners are fun but when only a small percentage of the city is limited in development potential it just seems like grandstanding. There are plenty of “soft” areas to build in cambridge and for the past decade we’ve ignored them distracted by this nonsense and envision. Joan seems to want to take the issue further and add some substance which should be applauded by both sides of this argument. So far all we have gotten is a 3.5M bar tab for a failed Carlone driven planning process and the AHO and it’s hacky amendments.
Thank you Joan for pointing out that the vote to approve AHO2 is NOT the end of the process and for noting that the City Council needs to stay in the game. Affordable Housing is needed, but many of the folks who are on the list requesting housing may not qualify for 100% affordable housing — these are our public servants who make Cambridge the livable place we love, who teach our children and who heal us physically and spiritually. This must not be a political football — we need a level playing field for our friends and family who want to live here and for newcomers from all over who will help build the Cambridge of this century.
The existing AHO has already put hundreds of new affordable homes into the pipeline and the amendments will add hundreds more.
The non-profit affordable homebuilders, Just-A-Start and HRI, as well as the Cambridge Housing Authority, are the experts in this area. They have said consistently that they needed the amendments. I trust them completely.
The process was not rushed or chaotic here. The orderly, year-long road to passage included multiple City Council meetings, multiple Housing Committee meetings with presentations from the non-profits and CHA, as well as a meeting of the Ordinance Committee and two Planning Board meetings.
Cambridge residents routinely rank housing costs as by far the most important issue facing Cambridge, not traffic or new buildings.
If you are against increasing height, then you do not support doing what is necessary to meet either our Envision affordable housing goal of 3,175 net new affordable homes by 2030 or to help the 4,500 Cambridge households with a local preference on the CHA affordable housing waitlist.
It’s fine if you don’t support helping local families on the affordable housing waitlist. You should just be honest about it and not hide behind process concerns.
I really don’t get this.
We have elections. It allows citizens to provide input by electing councilors that align with their views and priorities.
We elected a council with a majority that was quite clear on their priorities and they acted in it through amongst other levers this amendment to the zoning code. Great. As expected.
If you disagree, run and state that. But what are you for? You say you want affordable housing and allude to some potential levers. I went to your website and best I can tell you are against AHO2 and for a “process”.
Show some respect for the voters. Tell us what policies you’d support and let us decide if we’d prefer your leadership.
Running for a “process” is a cop out. I don’t need city councilors for that.