I’m in favor of opportunities intended to maintain and deepen the wide demographic that exists in Cambridge.
Through buying into a longtime family property, I’m also one of the fortunate few who was able to return to Cambridge, where I grew up. So I’m speaking as a son of the city who experienced firsthand the value of a community that cuts across the economic spectrum.
All the proposed changes to zoning, etc., are well-intentioned and may achieve their stated goals. The challenge is to stress test the proposed language to identify and correct loopholes that would enable unintended consequences.
Those who develop sweeping proposals – the current six-story, citywide zoning change being a good example – usually have a clear goal in mind and craft ordinance language that makes perfect sense to them. How will the proposed changes play out once implemented?
A classic way to test this beforehand is a red team-blue team exercise. Taking the zoning proposal as one example, a team experienced in market-rate development reviews the proposed language and identifies ways to take advantage of it that are outside the intended scope. (Preferably that team would include some who are not in the Boston market and so don’t have a vested interest.) The proposers’ team could use that information to better focus the language on the desired outcome.
Why would this be valuable? Because those who draft the language are very focused on their goal and often can’t see the cracks in the proposed ordinance that enable unintended results, which typically run counter to the goal. Better to close those beforehand than to try to plug holes later through the legislative process, especially for something with long-term, irreversible unintended consequence such as real estate.
Cambridge is full of smart people who can, and do, raise valid concerns for every major proposal. In addition to producing better results, establishing an option to stress test significant proposals could help resolve concerns on the pro and con sides of the issues.
James Mahoney, Walden 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.
We don’t need to have red and blue teams speculating about the future, as James Mahoney suggests, to determine the effects of allowing more housing construction in a community suffering from decades of inadequate production.
We can see the results in other cities that have done this recently. We can also find them in Cambridge’s past, when it allowed workers’ cottages near jobs and built many more homes in the post-WW2 economic boom. We must heed the lessons of the tightened restrictions since the 1970’s backlash against more and fairer housing.
All this and more has been thoroughly analyzed and discussed across the last several municipal election cycles. We know what needs to be done, and the current Council should proceed to do it.
What Cambridge needs is more housing. We are in a housing crisis and that is the only way out.
What Cambridge doesn’t need is the typical NIMBY tactic of constantly raising questions in order to slow down or halt housing construction.
We already know what needs to be done. We need to do it and we need self-interested people to stop standing in the way.
Let’s stress test NIMBY complaints for signs that they are protecting their wealth and don’t like the idea of living near poorer people.
“All this and more has been thoroughly analyzed and discussed across the last several municipal election cycles…”
True. One result is that 2 years after AHO 1 was passed (and 3 years before the scheduled review of results), AHO 2 was seen as the corrective that would accelerate delivery of the results that were expected from AHO 1.
All I’m saying with the stress-test suggestion is that major proposals, regardless of subject, would benefit from hearing how those who *could* take unintended advantage *would.* That’s a blanket suggestion, since those who aren’t the intended beneficiaries know a lot more about how they operate than the rest of us do.
Red team/blue team stress tests don’t take long, and in this case, can happen simultaneously with the proposal moving through the rest of the process; not slowing it down.
The only experiment that has failed in our existing zoning code. It has failed everyone except existing land owners, who continue to reap their ill gotten gains at everyone else’s expense.
@James Mahoney We don’t need a stress test when the problem and the solution is obvious: We have a housing crisis because there is not enough housing.
This call for pointless debates is just the classic NIMBY tactic of delay, delay, delay.
“Cambridge is full of smart people who can, and do, raise valid concerns for every major proposal.”
@James Mahoney Cambridge faces a housing shortage that requires building more homes.
The solution is straightforward, but progress is often hindered by those who resist change to maintain their privileged status quo. We need action, not debate, to address this pressing issue.
The real problem is that Cambridge has entitled and self-important people who think their interests are the only thing that matters.
The self-importance and sense of entitlement was nicely illustrated by the phrase, “Cambridge is full of smart people”. Hello, Ayn Rand.
Interesting, FrankD, that you seem think “Cambridge is full of smart people” doesn’t include you and those who share your views (I think it does).
And if you re-read my original letter, I think you’ll see that it doesn’t oppose the building of more housing (which I support) or even delaying it; e.g., through sequential testing. Rather, it’s focused on stress-testing the text of major proposed ordinances, including this one, to reveal and preclude potential unintended consequences that run counter to the objective. As mentioned earlier, that can easily happen simultaneously with the normal process moving forward.
Using the current zoning proposal as an example: Is there a way for a developer to take advantage of the new zoning as currently written to build an all-market-rate building, which clearly isn’t the intent of the ordinance? The answer may be “no,” but I think it’s worth exploring that as part of the review process.
There is no need for a stress test. The issues are clear:
The Housing Debate: Necessity vs. Aesthetics
The housing issue in Cambridge boils down to two main perspectives:
The need for affordable housing for families and low-wage workers
The desire to maintain Cambridge’s current appearance
The Moral Argument
The moral high ground in this debate is clear: providing housing is more important than preserving views or property values. Stress testing or red team/blue team exercises are unnecessary and may lend undue legitimacy to NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) arguments.
Historical Context
Restrictive zoning laws are a relatively recent development, primarily used by wealthy individuals to protect their interests. These laws have significantly contributed to the current housing crisis.
Conclusion
Housing is a basic right. It’s time to prioritize this fundamental need over aesthetic concerns and end the practices that have led to the current housing shortage.
Apparently I’m unable to clearly express the idea of evaluating the text of any major proposed ordinance *in parallel with the usual process* to identify and foreclose potential loopholes in the draft that would enable unintended advantages that run counter to the goal.
It has nothing to do with NIMBY or any other ism, and everything to do with crafting text that’s tightly focused on the objective.
In the case of the new zoning proposal, as one example, that means making sure that the housing the ordinance is intended to facilitate does not inadvertently open a door for more housing that families like I grew up in cannot afford.
@James Mahoney: Calling for more questions, answers, and debate is a classic NIMBY tactic to delay action.
The housing crisis stems from restrictive zoning that protects wealthy homeowners’ interests.
The solution is simple: eliminate these zoning restrictions to enable more housing construction.
–30–