How I learned to stop worrying and love the AHO
“The buildings won’t fit in. We’ll never clear the waiting list. The developers can’t be trusted.” These were all things I used to tell myself to justify opposing the original Affordable Housing Overlay in 2019. I still wanted more affordable housing, but not by that plan. After the AHO’s initial expiration and before its resubmission, I decided that if I really wanted to look at myself in the mirror and say that I wanted more affordable housing, I would have to shed those thoughts.
Fortunately, in 2020 the Cambridge City Council shed those thoughts as well and passed the AHO. And just this week, the council ordained enhancements to the original overlay.
To those who doubt the urgent need for these amendments, I say this: Too many of our neighbors have been and are still being forced out of the city by ever-skyrocketing rents. If there is to be any housing justice in the world, we will have to be the ones to bring it to fruition. The market will not do it for us.
Of the three dissenters on the council, there is one whose sentiments I want to repeat: Patty Nolan asserted that even though a vote may be a binary, the philosophy of housing justice isn’t. I agree with her assertion and would caution others against alienating those with valid concerns who would otherwise be allies. The “No-Coalition” and the disinformation distributors are gaining momentum in the council race. If we let them, they will roll back all the progress our city has made in the past several years. With there being three vacant seats on the council, voting in this election is as important as ever. We need to ensure that those seats are filled with three progressive candidates who will protect Cambridge’s position as a leading progressive city in the nation.
Charles Jessup Franklin, Hampshire Street
Hear, hear! People need homes. Times change and cities evolve and adapt. They always have. Cities need diversity to stay vibrant and economically strong.
Saying “no” to every change holds back progress and hurts everyone in the long run.
Don’t vote for the No Coalition.
Thank you for this letter, Charles!
If you got everyone in a room to discuss these issues, a large proportion would agree with the sentiment of diversity, inclusion, housing etc. It comes down to nuance and details– to me that is not a hard NO as being constantly portrayed. It comes down to tangible details not raw emotion.
There are other ways of achieving more housing, other ways of finding a pathway to ownership, other ways of identifying waste in bureaucracy that holds up process. Other measures as to commercial development and bio/tech who bring in 1000s of new employees forcing people out. Rising rents have many causes and we can’t build our way out of it. What other causes can we look at that may help finance/ subsidize housing burdens?
If there is a problem, tweak it! Amend it by hearing ALL the voices not just the lobby. BUT we should be a city of Procedure and laws, which lately tend to be down-right ignored. That is how ALL people are included, generational home-owners among them who tend to be cash poor (and who actually provide naturally occurring affordable housing). Yet they are branded as NIMBY or rich because of ownership. Keeping people here should be a priority. But this pervasive branding- all-or-nothing, for us or against us- deprives citizens of full dialogue and compromise.
Thank you for including your caution against alienating those “with valid concerns who would otherwise be allies”.
That is my point.
There isn’t a NO coalition but rather a HOW coalition. But divisiveness prevails driven by particular tones on council. This is not helpful at bringing people together. I wish there were more town halls to vent fears and solutions. But I don’t see any councilors willing to take that on. (that is where I would think social workers would shine). That is why we need fresh blood on the council to tackle and acknowledge nuance in planning or what there is of it while moving ahead.
Pete’s third paragraph indicates that he believes that AHO supporters are a “lobby” while AHO opponents are simply residents whose voices are not being heard. This is similar to AHO opponents’ complaint that AHO supporters are dividing the city, while AHO opponents are not.
AHO opponents are in fact using their voices, as is their right. They *are* being heard, as they should. AHO supporters are not silencing opponents; we are disagreeing with opponents, as is *our* right.
If AHO opponents dislike being labeled as the “No coalition,” they might try using some of the energies they now expend on trying to prevent zoning reform and trying to delay or derail individual development proposals and use it to write up their own plans and explain to residents how they will be effective. Simply calling vaguely for “smart development,” more planning, more meetings, more studies, more conversations, more delays — as some opponents have been requesting for years now, and have often been given — is not very convincing as a means of ameliorating the effects of the worsening housing shortage.
Years of insisting, “I support affordable housing, as long as my conditions are met” has not been helpful for anyone in Cambridge.
“I support affordable housing, as long as my conditions are met” has not been helpful for anyone in Cambridge.
That is exactly right and that is what seems to be put forth, if you would like, by both sides. But the point is that we have more in common than we think. But I don’t think it helpful to couch everything in panic mode when we need level deliberate planning with details and accountability. And that also means looking at consequences.