There is a housing disaster in Cambridge, with almost 50 percent of Cambridge renters struggling to pay their rent. No-income, low-income and moderate-income households face the greatest challenges. The Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition believes we should prioritize meeting the housing needs of these residents. We look for solutions that best provide affordable housing to these populations.
In our previous essay (“A non-market approach to solving the housing crisis in Cambridge,” May 6), we wrote about new solutions we believe would be most effective in addressing this crisis, in conjunction with building more 100-percent-affordable housing. We recognize that much of the national and local conversation about ending the affordability crisis has centered on ending exclusionary zoning to allow more and denser building everywhere. Supporters of this approach argue that the affordability crisis is first and foremost a supply crisis of all types of housing. Exclusionary zoning puts restrictions on what types of housing can be built in certain neighborhoods; in many cases, exclusionary zoning refers to zoning that restricts most new multifamily housing developments. Supporters of this approach argue that ending exclusionary zoning will lead to the increased development of private market-rate multifamily housing throughout Cambridge. This will increase housing supply and cause rents to go down, or slow increases, through a supply-and-demand effect. The argument is that, with enough housing produced, increased supply, in combination with vouchers and a small but meaningful affordable housing sector for the lowest-income households, will lower rents across the income spectrum to an affordable level.
There are good reasons to be skeptical that this approach is an effective solution to our housing crisis. First, we can expect that any new private market housing will be extremely expensive, so unaffordable to the no-income, low-income and moderate-income people who have the greatest need for housing. If developers choose to put up buildings of 10 or more units, inclusionary zoning will require that 20 percent of those units be reserved for moderate-income people – those earning between 50 percent and 80 percent of Area Median Income – which is still small relative to 80 percent of units being market rate. Furthermore, this will not directly help people whose income is less than 50 percent of AMI, who are the people most affected by the housing crisis, unless they have housing vouchers. And there are more than 22,000 people in this category waiting in Cambridge. If developers choose to put up buildings with nine or fewer units, there will be no benefit for moderate-income people either.
Supporters of ending exclusionary zoning and building more private market-rate housing acknowledge that new housing will be very expensive, but they argue that increased supply will lead to lower rents for low-income residents in the short- or midterm. We have looked carefully at the evidence and believe it does not offer strong support for the claims made.
First, it is true that the evidence broadly shows that increasing the supply of market-rate housing leads to lower median rents or slower rent growth over the medium term. We have two major concerns, though. First, the evidence is less clear on the size of the effect. In a tight market such as Cambridge, where there is substantial excess demand for housing and high construction costs limit new construction, the effect may be small at best. Second, there is conflicting evidence on whether increasing the supply of market-rate housing will have any rapid and meaningful effect on lower-end rents. The evidence does not show conclusively that increased market-rate housing supply is an effective way to increase affordable housing stock on the low-end of the market, which are the rents we are the most concerned about.
Further, there are important concerns about the possible negative effects of new, private market-rate housing. First, private market-rate construction is often linked to increased displacement, especially when an existing building is being redeveloped. Second, increased private market-rate construction will lead to increased ownership by corporate and investor landlords, as demonstrated by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s recent Homes for Profit report. Large investors are often linked with speculative flipping and the worst types of rent gouging, and are not accountable in any way to the tenants who live in their buildings or the communities they develop in. Third, new market-rate housing, which will be luxury housing, will change the demographics of the city. This is why policy changes that allow for new, market-rate construction are often associated with whiter, richer households moving in in the short term, causing a loss of racial and economic diversity.
What does all of this research show about how to solve the housing crisis for no-income, low-income and moderate-income people in Cambridge? We believe that it shows that prioritizing allowing expanded private market-rate housing construction is not the approach Cambridge should take.
Why do we say this? Additional inclusionary housing will be built, but this would be just 20 percent of new housing and accessible only to families above 50 percent AMI. We do acknowledge new market-rate construction would likely have a moderating effect on median rents. We are both concerned that the size of the effect would be small, though, and that it would not have a meaningful effect on producing more affordable housing for the people most in need of it. Further, there will likely be substantial negative effects, including increased redevelopment-driven displacement, increased ownership by unaccountable corporate landlords and a loss of racial and economic diversity.
We should not base our approach to the housing crisis on speculation that this will help when we have better ways to meet the housing needs of those who most need it.
For these reasons, we believe it is more direct, logical and effective to prioritize funding, effort and political capital on 100-percent-affordable housing and non-market housing, as described in our prior essay. These are solutions that, as a consequence of their design, directly produce housing that is affordable to those who need it most. As part of this, we agree that exclusionary zoning should be eliminated, but only with mechanisms in place to create affordable housing for the people most in need: those making less than 50 percent of AMI.
Social housing and community land trusts have the added benefit of removing land from the private market, providing permanent affordability and housing security for residents. We urge Cambridge to choose these most effective approaches to meeting the housing needs of no-income, low-income and moderate-income residents.
To work with the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition on housing policies and programs that meet the needs of no-income, low-income and moderate-income people in Cambridge, you can contact us at chjc@cambridgehousingjustice.com.
Kavish Gandhi, Stephanie Guirand, Carolyn Magid, Henry Wortis, Lee Farris, Cathy Hoffman and Puja Kranz-Howe, for the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Just to add a few personal thoughts here, to respond to some comments already made on the prior article. Specifically, for me, the ultimate question is whether an approach that prioritizes private-market rate construction will clearly have the effect on low-end rents and creating affordability that is so desperately needed. The NLIHC gap report shows that the need is by far, by far the greatest there. There are other focuses in this op-ed, but I think this empirical question is the one that responds to some of the critical comments in the other op-ed, as to why I believe focusing on policies that allow for substantially more private market rate construction is not the solution, even if they may be a small part of it. I want to summarize some of that evidence in a bit more detail.
There are two mechanisms that are proposed to affect the lower end of the market, since the new units would all be high-priced luxury apartments. First, in the longer-term, it is proposed that units filter as they get older to affordable prices, due to decreased quality of those units. However, this effect has been shown to vary greatly across markets; indeed, in some markets, upward filtering has been observed (some of the articles above link to this evidence), although it might be argued that this in fact is simply a consequence of a supply crisis. Second, in the short to medium-term, it is posited that new high-end supply triggers chains of moves that loosen lower-end segments of the housing market. In other words, very high-income households move into the new units built, high-income households move into the units they left, medium income households move into the units that the high-income households left, etc. This has been the subject of two recent papers (linked above), but hasn’t been extensively studied in different markets to understand the size and speed of the effect. This research warrants further investigation; there is evidence that demand is loosened – a quantity effect –, but less evidence of a direct, large effect on lower-end rents – a price effect; the second paper observes a small but statistically significant price effect in the German housing market on low-end rents, with a larger effect on median and higher-end rents. These questions are important because lower-end rents are what we are most concerned about
Ultimately, while you might read this above evidence more positively than I do, I think that there is a compelling case to be made that, as this op-ed argues, that it is more logical to focus on and try to expand methods that *directly* create affordable housing stock, rather than relying on market forces that may result in this end. It is dubious to me, based on my review of the evidence and also case studies around the world, that an approach without a substantial public intervention and planning (whether direct development or indirect control) will create a housing market with sufficient affordability for all. The latter approach has been tried (it’s not just Vienna, it’s throughout Europe in cities like Amsterdam, Paris, etc.), even though there certainly exists a private market in many of those cities, and has been effective
Hi Kavish, first, I agree with much of what you wrote.
My issue is that, while there are good arguments for prioritizing housing for low- or no-income households, we know that some on the Council have been pushing for middle-income housing specifically. There are others advocating specifically for more homeownership, and others still who think we should prioritize housing for seniors or families with young children. While there is broad agreement that we need more housing, I believe there is substantial disagreement about what sorts of housing to prioritize. I don’t see that disagreement resolving any time soon, and council terms are only two years.
The thing that *all* of these goals have in common, though, is that none of them can be achieved under our current zoning. Ending exclusionary zoning is a prerequisite for making significant progress on increasing supply of any particular type of housing.
We also know there are some who would like to see very little housing built, and would love nothing more than for the project of ending exclusionary zoning – which has already taken years to get to this point, even after the Council resolved to end it – to get further bogged down in competing arguments about what other reforms should pass before or simultaneous with ending exclusionary zoning. (To be clear, I am not accusing you of that. I’m just stating the fact that an approach which requires all the pieces be in place before anything is done can and will be exploited by those who favor the status quo.)
I agree that ending exclusionary zoning is not sufficient to solve the housing crisis, particularly for those most in need. But 1)it certainly doesn’t harm low income households, 2) it does help on the margins in a several ways, and 3) it is necessary to have in place for any of the other, more targeted policies to work.
For those reasons and others, I do feel very strongly that the Council should stay on track with their focus on ending exclusionary zoning.
Thanks, jess, for the comments! I also can agree with a lot of what you wrote. I have two disagreements:
First, I think I have more concerns on point 1) in your second-to-last paragraph; I see constant redevelopment-driven displacement in my work, and the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing is a real concern to me post rezonings.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I am less convinced, however, that your points/position lead to a position of wanting to *focus* on ending exclusionary zoning. Given the fact that many of the policies that I think would be most effective are still in nascent stages after decades of disinvestment, I think my point is that we need to prioritize getting them off the ground, fast, as otherwise we have no real chance of thoroughly addressing our crisis
Sorry, I think I may have slightly misstated my disagreement in the second paragraph / misstated your position (I’m responding to something you didn’t quite say). I do understand your position vis-a-vis order-of-operations / what all approaches necessitate. I think my large difference in priority comes from (a) I’m less convinced that there aren’t some possible negative effects of ending exclusionary zoning *without* infrastructure in place to develop substantial AH in those places, (b) I’m less convinced of positive effects being substantial, (c) probably most importantly, I think that it is absolutely essential that we start expanding our conception of affordable housing finance *now*, start setting up the funds, programs, expertise, etc., more than any other policy
Repeating my comment from the other letter:
Who is solely arguing “that it is possible to solve the housing crisis by ending restrictive and exclusionary zoning, thereby encouraging private market-rate construction”?
That seems like a straw argument. The councillors who support ending exclusionary zoning are the same councillors, with the same supporters, who have spent most of the past decade working hard to pass the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay.
These are the same councillors who have successfully pushed the City to greatly increase its spending on affordable housing (and continue to push the City to do more) and who support tenant protections.
No one claims ending exclusionary zoning is some magic solution—as opposed to a necessary piece of the puzzle. More market-rate housing means less competition for existing housing, with those least able to afford it ending up as the ones who lose out.
More pie-in-the-sky from this group.
They have no viable solutions to Cambridge’s housing crisis. Everything falls into two categories: (1) A bunch of home rule petitions that would never pass the state legislature and (2) expensive ideas that have no funding behind them and for which they don’t even bother coming up with ideas for how to fund them.
Market-rate housing construction increases City revenue. That revenue can then be used to fund affordable housing. But this group wants purity tests instead of homes for people who need them.
Responded over there, but happy to copy that over here too!
Hi Jess, I want to respond to something you wrote:
“Ending exclusionary zoning is a prerequisite for making significant progress on increasing supply of any particular type of housing.”
it seems clear to me that a serious citywide market rate upzoning will make it harder to increase the supply of housing through a decommodified solution like social housing…think about the way the affordable housing overlay works, it entices developers to participate through major zoning relief. If you give huge zoning relief as of right, not only are you weakening the power of the AHO but you are also making it more challenging to create a new mechanism for housing production that relies on a similar tactic of zoning relief in exchange for more affordability, such as a “social housing overlay”. At the end of the day, there are multiple ways to arrive at an affordability component in this zoning, but if we don’t get there we are resigning ourselves to neighborhoods without any new affordable units created, because the lot sizes are too small for it to make sense as AHO or inclusionary. I think these are the things we need to grapple with as we think about how to increase the supply of affordable housing in our city. But I’m not opposed to a substantial increase in density citywide as long as there is a serious affordability component for projects less than 10 units
So… it’s not the only solution. But is this group actually against allowing more denser market-rate housing? Why is this positioned as an either/or choice.
Seems like the only salient argument against doing this is that it would allow more white people to move to Cambridge… which is not a good or winning argument.
You have completely lost sight of the forest through the trees when you write an entire column arguing for retaining a policy that you admit is the cause of the entire problem. It is an incoherent argument, based purely on speculation, and your proposed solutions by your own admission are nothing but a band aid.
The only thing you are guaranteeing is an increased likelihood of maintaining the status quo and accomplishing nothing.
I’m glad the authors acknowledge that “the evidence broadly shows that increasing the supply of market-rate housing leads to lower median rents or slower rent growth over the medium term”. To me it’s a big deal that zoning reform would lead to lower median rents than would exist otherwise, while providing more people the opportunity to live in an environmentally friendly, economically thriving city like Cambridge, while also providing additional desperately needed new affordable housing. The 50-80% AMI affordable units do a lot of good and each one I think is worth fighting for. They are affordable in perpetuity and provide a level of stability and predictability in housing costs that otherwise is not available. In terms of the magnitude of the effect on rent, I think that will depend on how much housing is built. In Auckland, the impact of new housing supply on rents was substantial:
“A 2023 paper found that six years after the Auckland Unitary Plan was enacted, rents for three-bedroom dwellings were 26–33 percent lower than they would have been, compared to rents in other urban areas in the country. These findings probably understate the effects too: all else being equal, lower rents in Auckland encourage more people to move there from other cities, relieving pressure on rents in those cities too.”
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/upzoning-new-zealand/
The zoning reform in Auckland also appears to have encouraged the construction of additional non-market housing:
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/our-research/docs/economic-policy-centre/Zoning%20Reform%20and%20State-Developed%20Housing%20in%20Auckland.pdf
My view of the evidence is that a scenario where the median rent ends up lower also would likely mean that rents for the bottom range of the distribution would end up lower. Housing markets with higher median rents are associated with higher rates of homelessness, and I think it’s likely that there’s a causal relationship there:
https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/
I think there are some major blindspots with this reasoning here.
First, there’s the question of how we got into this mess in the first place, which is that the Boston region, and Cambridge specifically, has added more jobs than homes over the last few decades. If we look at 2010-2020 specifically, for every new home that Massachusetts built, 1.44 new jobs were added, according to https://www.stessa.com/blog/states-building-least-new-housing-relative-to-job-growth/
Beyond that, there’s the concern that relaxing zoning would increase displacement by redeveloping existing homes, but the problem with this line of thinking is that this is already happening. Take a walk around East Cambridge or Cambridgeport and you’ll see existing small apartment buildings that have been bought up, renovated, and rented out at higher prices without increasing the supply of units whatsoever. This is due, at least in part, to our restrictive zoning laws making it nearly impossible to increase the amount of housing on any given plot of land.
Even if relaxing zoning doesn’t lower costs, more availability is always a good thing, especially for renters. More available units means that there are more units available that fit your needs when you move, and less competition for those available apartments. Beyond that, from a climate perspective, having people live in Cambridge when they work nearby means fewer and shorter car trips, when otherwise they might have to live further out.
Obviously, market forces alone will not solve our housing woes, but it will add another tool for us to get there. After all, 20% of 100 new units being affordable is better than 100% of 10 new units.
I want to reiterate something that I think maybe wasn’t clear enough; we are not arguing for retaining exclusionary zoning here. We are arguing that ending it alone, and more specifically approaches that only focus on further private market construction, will not address our affordability crisis and may have negative externalities, as well as some positive effects. I do think perhaps our focus early on in the piece on exclusionary zoning, rather than focusing on private market construction, was perhaps the wrong frame. We did clarify this near the end. I certainly agree with other comments that the status quo is the enemy
@cwec: Re: redevelopment-driven displacement is already happening – this is true, but it would be incentivized further under upzonings, which should be taken into account
Re: DWH333 – I think your reading of the evidence is more optimistic than mine re: the effects on the low-end rents from expanded private market supply. I’d be happy to engage further offline about this precise topic, however
@cportus Re “So… it’s not the only solution. But is this group actually against allowing more denser market-rate housing? Why is this positioned as an either/or choice.” – this is a fair critique. At least in my opinion, the reason for articulating it in this way is that I have a strong fear that we are simply going to do zoning reform, not much more, and wait for the effects, and it will not solve the affordability crisis in the way we expect