Thank you, Cambridge city councillor Patty Nolan, for exercising your “charter right” on draft zoning for multifamily housing.
The draft amendment that will destroy the very fabric of neighborhoods of this historical Cambridge wields a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, threatening to swallow up our historical neighborhoods with six-story buildings. If the original policy order asked the city manager to work with the Housing Committee to work on the feasibility of eliminating exclusionary zoning and allowing up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts rather than “on zoning language that effectively promotes multifamily housing” I, and many others, would have followed it more closely and opposed it vigorously at Housing Committee hearings.
The recommended draft zoning ordinance amendments raise so many questions, and the city manager’s response, beginning on Page 812 of the Sept. 23 City Council agenda packet, should be returned for a more thorough zoning amendment process resulting in more deliberate and balanced amendments. I cannot list all my concerns here, but here are my key questions. (If you agree with me, please write to your councillors to reject the city manager’s report on the proposed draft zoning amendment language.)
In the minutes of a committee hearing on this subject Aug. 21, councillors recommended “that the full City Council requests” that the city manager direct Community Development “and the Law Department to draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed at the Housing Committee to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts, and bring back any analysis (if available) on displacement concerns.” Where is displacement analysis recommended? Where is a letter from the Law Department supporting these amendments? Why did the City Council accept the Housing Committee report without asking CDD to provide more backup data?
Is the draft zoning amendment in line with Envision Cambridge, the city’s master plan, and where are the urban planning and impact assessment reports?
Robust community outreach should have been held before draft zoning language was reported back on Sept. 23, and CDD should have factored in public comments in its draft proposal.
It took only six months from the time policy order 37 was adopted on March 25 until the city manager reported back on the draft language, whereas it took CDD two years to find the right contractor to conduct the economic impact study and publish its results. How did CDD advertise and hire a consultant and publish findings in such a short time? How was Karl F. Seidman Consulting Services vetted and selected to provide multifamily zoning analysis? And why wasn’t a consultant hired to provide urban planning and impact assessments related to elimination of “exclusionary zoning”?
Young Kim, Norris Street, Cambridge
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.
All very good questions that need to be answered.
Note that this whole thing has increased the number of speculators looking to buy up properties from current property owners… we’ve been getting 2-3 cold calls a week in regards to our residence (a condo in a triple decker we’ve owned and lived in for 27+ years) and they have being doing the same to the various property owners all over my neighborhood… someone wants to level the existing properties around here and build these new taller structures if they can as soon as legislation goes thru and to try to force the rest of us out of our homes.
There is no desire here to make affordable housing, this is the ‘blood in the water’ approach of shark like developers who see a fortune to be made while destroying the neighborhoods.
No one is wasting their time calling multifamily condo owners based on this proposal. That is not a real thing.
It’s cost-prohibitive to redevelop a triple-decker even if the zoning does change, and it would be impossible to align multiple unit owners to all sell. No one can “force you from your home.” 🙄
Stop making stuff up. As a homeowner, you are in a position of great wealth and privilege. Listen to the many young people in Cambridge who do not own a home and can’t stay here to start families or the longtime renters who have seen their rents double and triple because we’ve added 45,000 high-paying jobs in Cambridge and our housing supply hasn’t come anywhere close to keeping up.
The author and other NIMBYs would have complained that the
outcome was “preordained” if the original policy order had a specific prescription for six-story multifamily prior to any study or discussion or public comment. The process is never good enough for those whose real disagreement is with the substance. There have been four straight City Council meetings since the policy came to Council from the Housing Committee. Even Councillor Nolan noted that we have been discussing ending exclusionary zoning for many years.
If anything, Envision Cambridge would call for us to do even more on housing, as even if we reach CDD’s estimates for new housing and affordable IZ units under the six-story multifamily proposal, we will still fall thousands of units short of our 2018 Envision goals for housing and affordable housing by 2030.
Housing is a basic human right, and we’re in a housing crisis.
Six-story buildings are not inherently problematic.
The desire to preserve neighborhood character is often self-serving and ignores the fact that cities evolve constantly. Cambridge has changed before, and it will continue to change.
Developers building housing for profit is not wrong; it’s how the market works.
We need more affordable housing, and obstacles to development only exacerbate the problem.
Patty Nolan’s actions hinder families from finding homes, which is counterproductive during a housing shortage.
Once again, Patty Nolan seems beholden to the money of a minority rather than serving the greater good.
@User +100 NIMBYs defend their interests, not neighborhoods. They profited from rising property values and now deny housing to others to protect their gains.
“Neighborhood character” is just an excuse. But denying homes over aesthetics is even worse.
Cambridge has changed drastically over decades. Cities must evolve to meet people’s needs. NIMBYs want to freeze progress once they benefit.
The letter writer seems to prioritize her personal vision of Cambridge’s aesthetics over the housing needs of hundreds of families.
She also expresses surprise that developers profit from building homes.
It’s difficult to cut through all the hyperbole and ad hominem attacks on this. But if we just stick to the facts of the proposal…
My understanding is that this new plan would allow developers to build 6-story apartment buildings or 13-story affordable apartment buildings on every house lot in the city, with no power for neighbors to object.
This might be great for you if you’re trying to sell your house, or if you live in the suburbs now and want to move to a Cambridge apartment.
But if you rent a floor in a triple decker, your landlord will now have a powerful incentive to sell. Or if you live next door to a single family home or a triple decker today, you might be in for a very different kind of neighbor when they sell to a developer.
Maybe an important piece of context here: the author’s home was last sold for $80,000 in 1981, and its value has outpaced inflation nearly seven times over.
So what is your point cwec? If you had bought the S&P index in 1981, you would have outpaced inflation 20+ times. So, the author actually is worse off buying the Cambridge house versus putting money in the stock index. And, isn’t that how investment is supposed to work? Remember risk vs reward?
Are you just jealous that someone made a decent return on their investment? And now, with your approach of putting 6-story buildings everywhere, you want to ruin it for everyone who has bought in Cambridge and might be making more return than putting money in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities? And not to say the quality of life that comes with a certain population density and type?
You literally want to change the rules of the game on the quality of life in Cambridge as the game is going on because you feel you are losing out financially.
@EastCamb Current homeowners have benefited from property ownership but now seek to restrict access for workers and families, which is callous.
The housing crisis stems from a lack of available homes, exacerbated by homeowners advocating for restrictive zoning laws that inflate property values. This situation essentially denies housing to others for personal gain.
The solution is clear: reform zoning regulations that currently limit housing supply and contribute to socioeconomic divides.
Approximately 75% of residential land in major cities is restricted to single-family homes, which stifles the construction of affordable options like townhouses and duplexes.
Eliminating these restrictions could diversify the housing stock and improve affordability, addressing the ongoing crisis effectively.
“the quality of life that comes with a certain population density and type.”
Huh. What quality of life comes with a certain population type? Which population type?
No one has sour grapes over your superior investing acumen. We just don’t think you have a right to deny homes to others based on the fact that those homes may be built – on land you don’t own, at no cost to you – near your home.
@EastCamb my point is that housing cannot both be an excellent investment and perpetually affordable, and that the only people pushing opposition to plans to add housing to Cambridge are those that have already won the housing lottery, and are attempting to pull the ladder up behind them. Of course they won’t be as persuaded by the argument that housing is expensive directly as a result of decades of underbuilding it: they benefit from that status quo, and don’t want it to change.
We shouldn’t be prioritizing the wealth of some citizens over the ability to live here.