The City Council is considering zoning amendments that will remove some of the legal barriers that limit the building of multifamily housing. These barriers have contributed to our housing shortage and the resulting rise in household costs.
The technical details and projected consequences of this proposal will be discussed at meetings and public hearings over the next few months, but some less concrete issues have been raised repeatedly – subjective concerns about the changing character of Cambridge and continued recognition of its historical legacy.
Cambridge has changed and adapted a great deal through its decades as a small agricultural village and its time as a leader in manufacturing in the early industrial period. Since 1630, our city has accumulated lots of history and character, so there’s no simple way to configure today’s Cambridge to match a varied multitude of past periods.
We can, though, recognize and maintain the history and character of Cambridge, while reducing our sizable deficit of housing, if we make some smart and appropriate choices. We should avoid choosing, as character models or as subjects for historical commemoration in any positive way, policies and actions that conflict with the values and demographics of today’s Cambridge.
These negative models should include such past practices as building and maintaining segregated public housing developments, using zoning laws to exclude many households of immigrants and people of color, and effectively allowing self-selected individuals and groups to delay or block housing in their neighborhoods based on standards not specified in city law.
Instead, we can derive present and future benefits by drawing on and adapting fair and useful practices from Cambridge’s past character and history. A comprehensive study from the Cambridge Historical Commission, for example, describes how workers’ housing was often built near jobs, and local builders shifted from single- to multifamily structures to meet the needs of growing populations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
In times of fewer zoning restrictions, developers were allowed to build a variety of home sizes and styles at a range of price points, much as cars, clothing and restaurant meals are available today at varying prices. The once bestselling “starter home” has disappeared under the weight of zoning restrictions; the median home sale price in Cambridge is now about $1 million.
Misled by home-building patterns of recent years, some of us assume that more housing always means more expensive housing, but our zoning code has played a major role in creating this pattern. It contains interacting provisions limiting the size of residential buildings and the number of units than can be built in each, pushing developers in the direction of fewer, larger, more expensive homes.
Cambridge’s own history does not support concerns that more housing or mixed styles will damage the character of the city or its property values. On one end of Linnaean Street, along the edge of Avon Hill, a historic house from the 1690s and some large stately Victorians have long been rubbing elbows with four- and five-story brick apartment buildings, with no apparent harmful effects. An old hotel was moved and plunked down on Lakeview Avenue in Huron Village and converted to apartments. While the neighbors probably weren’t pleased, today there are no signs of lasting damage from this action. There are many similar cases of nonuniform styles and sizes of buildings throughout the city, some on its most desirable and expensive streets.
More housing in Cambridge, where job creation exceeded home building by a 3-to-1 ratio in recent years, would allow people who work here to live here – reducing rush hour traffic, easing parking difficulties and producing less greenhouse gas emissions than traveling from homes in distant communities. More local residents means more customers and more employees for local businesses, many of whom say that staffing is one of their key problems.
Our housing restrictions have done their work so well for so long that some of our neighbors speak of their present power to exclude others as something like a basic right. People often get upset when they hear that basic rights might be reduced, especially if they haven’t considered why they have these rights, how they got them and what are the actual consequences of exercising those rights.
Surveys and studies done by or for the city and the results of the past several municipal elections indicate that others among our neighbors have considered the questions raised here and are troubled by Cambridge’s current zoning laws and procedures. We do not accept that they should continue to shape the character of our city.
We hope that the city administration will continue to advise and support the City Council with the best data and analysis available. We hope that the council will use that support to straighten and repave the path that we’re on, settle us onto that path safely and securely and help Cambridge preserve the best parts of our collective character and history.
James Zall, Pemberton Street
James Zall is a longtime Cambridge resident and a homeowner.
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 also hope wealthy homeowners will stop standing in the way of providing needed housing for workers.
Lots of motherhood and apple pie here, kind of short on details. One critical detail is that the plan in front of the City Council would allow developers to build up to six stories of market rate housing on every lot in the city.
Under this plan, every landlord of a triple decker rental would have the opportunity to tear it down and replace it with 6 luxury condos. Renters in those often “naturally affordable” apartments would be displaced as their leases expired, left to find new apartments from an ever smaller naturally affordable pool.
They call this plan pro-housing and favorable to disadvantaged groups. But for those renting in smaller buildings today, it’s an eviction notice.
Peter Glick’s lurid prediction of “six stories on every lot” seems based on the belief that every lot in Cambridge is owned by a developer or an owner of a three-decker. They’re not. Nothing in this zoning proposal gives anyone the opportunity to build on any lot that they don’t own or lease.
The notion that allowing more housing to be built during a severe shortage will result in even less housing seems a bit upside-down.
We’ve seen this script before:
– In an epidemic of gun violence, the best way to keep us safe is to provide more guns to “good guys.”
– In a pandemic like covid-19, the best safety measure is banning vaccine and masking requirements.
Let’s hope the Council doesn’t book this flick here in Cambridge.
@Peter Glick Not true. The AHO is effectively steering development toward affordable housing.
Since the AHO’s adoption in 2020, over 700 affordable rental units are in development, and the rate of affordable housing construction has increased from 40 units per year to about 200.
Your claim that the plan only leads to luxury apartment construction is demonstrably false. It is already creating affordable housing.
Cambridge’s plan, combining zoning changes and developer incentives for affordable housing, is proving effective.
The city has seen a significant increase in affordable housing development.
Claims that the plan won’t work are contradicted by facts.
James–I did not predict 6 stories on every lot, although the rules proposed would allow that. I predicted that many people who rent in triple deckers would be displaced as their landlords decided that 6 luxury condos would be a LOT more profitable than continuing to rent 3 naturally affordable units.
Joe–This is not the AHO. The 6 story limit is for market rate housing. So these 6 story buildings would be only for people who could afford the price of newly constructed homes in Cambridge. I think we’d agree that would put them out of reach of the median income Cambridge resident
@Peter Glick: You seem to misunderstand the plan. Upzoning and AHO work in tandem:
Upzoning increases housing capacity.
AHO directs development towards affordable housing.
Discussing upzoning’s potential issues without acknowledging AHO’s mitigating role is disingenuous.
@Peter Glick
Your claim about the 6-story upzoning being only for market-rate housing is false.
The city’s inclusionary zoning ordinance requires 20% of units in new market-rate developments to be affordable housing.
It’s important to understand a plan before criticizing it.
Ironically, while some gained wealth simply by owning houses, they now object to developers profiting from building affordable housing.
FrankD–I do not misunderstand the plan. If a landlord owns a 3 decker today, they will be able to remove tenants as their leases expire. I say 1-8 because the plan enables them to build a McMansion and increase the footprint of the building in addition to the height, and we don’t really know what they will decide.
I’m pretty sure the 20% affordable kicks in only at 10 units or more. But even if it applies at lower volumes, we lose 3 naturally affordable units right off the bat–those folks are going to have a tough time finding space in Cambridge. They’re going to Watertown, Somerville, Malden…Then let’s say the developer opts for 5 units and your 20% applies. We now have 4 rich families and only one affordable unit to replace the 3 we lost.
AHO could lead to different math than I have described in some locations–that would be 13 stories to replace today’s triple deckers or single family homes, also to be allowed on every lot in the city. But that’s a different set of rules, and in any case today’s renters are still being booted to the curb
@Peter Glick Your predictions are already being proven incorrect.
The AHO and upzoning have led to a substantial increase in affordable housing, even in smaller developments of fewer than 10 units. Although these smaller projects aren’t required to include affordable housing, they still receive incentives to do so.
Developments of any size with affordable housing benefit from:
Streamlined permitting
1. Increased density and height flexibility, making small plots more viable
2.Reduced parking requirements
3. Greater flexibility in unit design and size, which is especially beneficial for smaller projects
These are all strong financial incentives for developers to include affordable units, even in small developments.
Lastly, suggesting that building more housing results in fewer people being housed is backward logic.
The bottom line: the city plan has indeed increased affordable housing, contrary to your predictions. Over 700 affordable units are in development, with annual affordable housing growth rising from about 50 to 200 units.
Facts are facts.
Frank–I am confused why you keep coming back about the AHO. I have commented only on the new plan’s market rate housing rules.
As I wrote before–Separate from the AHO, the new plan will allow 6 stories of luxury housing on every lot in the city. This will create a powerful incentive for owners of rental 3 deckers to convert them to very pricey condos or large single family homes, far beyond the reach of today’s median income renters.
These market rate conversions will be great if you are a VP at Biogen or a rich empty nester moving in from Wellesley. But if you are renting in a triple decker today, you should be worried
@Peter Glick, I agree—you seem confused.
As I mentioned before, the reason we keep returning to the AHO is that the upzoning to allow six-story housing works in tandem with the AHO to create affordable housing. These elements are not separate; they are part of the same plan.
Here’s how it works: The six-story upzoning enables more housing development, and the AHO guides this development by:
1. Providing incentives for developments of any size to include affordable housing.
2. Requiring larger developments (over 10 units) to include affordable housing.
You claim the upzoning will only produce “luxury” housing but ignore that the AHO is designed to prevent this. In fact, the city plan has already resulted in more affordable housing developments, not just “luxury” units.
Your comments amount to gaslighting, stirring fears without evidence about triple-deckers, ignoring existing solutions and proof that the plan is effective. Additionally, you’re not offering any alternatives to address the housing crisis.
This is classic NIMBY behavior.
@Peter Glick. Frank emphasizes the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) because it’s integral to the city’s plan for ensuring affordable units in new developments.
Increased density allows for more housing, while the AHO guarantees affordable units, not just high-end ones.
The term “luxury” is your interpretation, not part of the official plan. The reality is that the AHO will lead to more affordable housing.
To critique the city’s plan effectively, you must consider it in its entirety, rather than selecting parts that support NIMBY arguments.
And I agree with Frank, arguing that building more housing will somehow lead to less housing seems twisted and non-sensical.
We can build more housing, but also not cheaply built plastic stuff that does little to ease the housing crisis. Unfortunately we’re letting greedy developers build more luxury housing with one or two units that are “affordable.” Which often go to wealthy and connected folks who know how to work the system to their benefit, not to artists, immigrants and laborers.
The displacement of low-income residents that Peter Glick claims will *result* from the proposed zoning reform has already been happening for many years.
The growth of restrictions on multi-family housing during a period of population growth has prevented the building homes that could be less expensive due to lower land and constructions costs, *per unit*.
With zoning as it is, wealthier residents can (and do!) buy up lower-cost buildings and turn them into high-cost housing, but turning a large expensive building into multiple lower-priced homes is strongly discouraged by zoning requirements (such as maximum floor/area, minimum lot size per dwelling unit), even where not banned outright (as in single-family-only districts).
That’s apparently why zoning-reform opponents and build-small enthusiasts often concede that the “single-family” label should be removed from our laws, but complain bitterly when anyone suggests that the less obvious, more damaging restrictions should go, too. We often hear them say, “we all agree that more housing is needed,” but follow that with a list of bad things that will allegedly happen if we actually go ahead and allow it.
While Peter Glick predicts displacement will result from zoning reform, the City’s economic development specialists estimate that the proposed amendments will result in a nearly 14-fold increase in net new homes (4,880) and a more than 30-fold increase in net new *affordable* homes (920) by 2040, compared to current zoning laws. Next to our current zoning path that’s been in place for decades, these numbers are a welcome forecast of a badly-needed new direction for our housing policy.
The dire predictions by @q99 and @Peter Glick are unfounded. They ignore regulations and incentives that prevent the very thing they are predicting.
Importantly and contrary to their claims, the city’s plans are actually leading to more affordable housing development.
It’s important to note that developers rightfully profit from building housing, as it’s their business. Ironically, wealthy homeowners who criticize this are themselves benefiting from real estate.
The key difference is that developers are creating affordable housing, while some homeowners have gained wealth by limiting housing supply and preventing others from having homes.
Let me get this straight:
Economic experts predict a 30-fold increase in affordable housing, but @q99 and @Peter Glick say it won’t happen?
I think I’ll trust the experts’ analysis over amateur guesses aimed at protecting property values.
MrNice–It’s very easy to be not so nice and put words in my mouth while you cower behind a screen name.
The increase in affordable housing is based on the AHO. For the third or fourth time, I did not comment on the AHO. I wrote about the proposed market rate housing rules. These rules would encourage owners of old triple decker rentals to convert them into new market rate housing with 3-4X the square space. Since all non-AHO new construction is super expensive in Cambridge, we would be replacing 3 mid income renters with 1-8 wealthy owners.
Put yourself in the shoes of that triple decker owner and think about how much money is available when you turn 3 inexpensive units into 6 high end homes.
And then maybe be decent enough to post under your own name if you’re going to throw stones
@MrNice Good point.
Who would you prefer as your pilot: a professional or amateurs like @Peter Glick and @q99?
It’s surprising how confidently these non-experts make predictions without fully understanding the plan.
One has to question their motives. Is their concern truly about the city, or more about protecting their property values?
@Peter Glick, for the 3rd or 4th time, you’re consistently ignoring how the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) and zoning changes *work together* as part of a unified plan.
Criticizing one aspect while ignoring the other is disingenuous.
The AHO was specifically designed to prevent the scenarios you’re using to stoke fears. You’re only avoiding discussion of the AHO because it undercuts your argument about zoning changes.
Contrary to your predictions, the city’s combined approach of upzoning and the AHO has *already led* to a *significant increase* in development of affordable housing.
Economic experts project a *30-fold increase* in affordable housing as a result of this plan.
It’s likely that these experts have a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the situation.
FrankD – to use your own words, Name those Professionals. And Real Economists please who are versed in this and have certifiable numbers, facts and examples in New England where said changes have produced the stated results to show us.
Quite frankly I keep hearing the same voices on all these articles on the subject and I keep hearing the same claims without facts that fit OUR region and similar Urban environments.
And show me how any of this will be done WITHOUT forcing out existing tenants in rental properties or impacting the local water, sewer, electrical rates or destroying our existing green space.
@Peter Glick, you’re also missing how the streamlined permitting and flexible requirements etc in the AHO provide strong financial incentives for developers to include affordable housing.
But you don’t need to understand it—affordable housing development is up. It’s working, and that’s all you need to know.
Maybe leave the economic forecasting to the experts.
Frank–you mention property values. As the income potential of every triple decker in Cambridge doubles or triples with the landlords’ new ability to replace those triple deckers with 6 or so market rate condos, property values will rise. This will push up rents in buildings that are not changed. Once again, a bad time to be a renter in Cambridge.
But you do not need to take the word of this “amateur”, it’s widely accepted economics/real estate finance. You can check with your favorite expert
@Peter Glick: Your statements are purely speculative.
In reality, the city’s plan has already led to the development of 700 affordable housing units, increasing the average from 40 to 200 units per year.
Facts are facts, not speculation.
No, Peter Glick, the projections I cited above were *not* about the AHO. They are City estimates of the effect of the multi-family zoning amendments that the Council is now considering.
The scenario you keep repeating:
zoning change -> tear-downs -> evictions
has multiple problems. One is your assumption that improving or adding housing starts with a tear-down when, in fact, most property owners keep the existing structure in place and renovate and/or add to it.
Another faulty assumption is that higher prices bring more profit. In fact, higher prices are rarely possible without higher costs. Someone making/selling high-price products is not more assured of ending up with more profit than those who choose to make/sell low-price products. Many restaurant owners have done well for themselves by selling burgers or pizzas. (See original post above for other examples.) This used to be true for housing as well, before restrictive zoning changed that.
A related faulty assumption is that housing sellers can set their prices (or rents) at whatever they wish. In fact, the difference between supply and demand does much more to determine price, which also determines the level of production. This faulty assumption is much-beloved by opponents of zoning reform, because they believe it distinguishes homeowners from homebuilders.
Funny how @Peter Glick keep speculating on what he *thinks* will happen but keeps ignoring what is actually happening: More affordable housing.
Only a NIMBY would make a twisted argument that building more housing will somehow lead to less housing.
@Peter Glick, you appeal to market economics while overlooking the city’s financial incentives for affordable housing.
These incentives are a crucial part of the economic equation. How convenient for you to ignore them.
We don’t need economic experts; we have reality.
The city’s plan is already creating more affordable housing.
Do you have a plan to address the housing crisis? Your stance seems to favor maintaining the status quo that benefited you as a wealthy homeowner.
Lots of hand waiving and name calling from people who will not even use their own names…
But still no one has disputed my central points–
*Owners of every 3 decker rental in the city will be allowed to tear them down and replace them with 6 stories of market rate housing. This would be the law not my prediction.
*The market rate housing will be too expensive for median income Cambridge residents. This is a prediction, but if you can show us any median income affordable non-AHO housing built in the last 5 years, post a link.
The new stuff is all for rich people and developers.
@Peter Glick Your statements are speculative opinions, not facts. The city’s upzoning with affordable housing incentives is producing results.
You claim: “Owners of every 3 decker rental in the city will be allowed to tear them down and replace them with 6 stories of market rate housing.”
Being allowed doesn’t mean it’s happening. In reality, financial incentives are driving affordable housing development.
The current system benefits the wealthy. What’s your alternative for creating affordable housing? Maintaining exclusionary zoning? That’s what caused the housing crisis.
It’s ironic that wealthy homeowners criticize plans to address the housing shortage without offering solutions themselves.
@Peter Glick As I keep pointing out, your “analysis” omits a lot of relevant points:
1. Zoning changes don’t automatically lead to widespread redevelopment. Many property owners may choose not to redevelop due to high costs and complexities.
The prediction that every three-decker will be torn down is exaggerated. This kind of scare-mongering is a classic NIMBY tactic.
2. Studies show that increasing housing supply, even at market rates, can help stabilize or reduce housing costs over time. New construction may initially be expensive, but it adds to the housing stock and relieves pressure on existing units.
3. Cambridge requires at least 20% affordable units in new market-rate projects, ensuring that market-rate development also supports affordable housing.
4. Cambridge has various programs and funding for affordable housing. For example, the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority recently approved a $10 million Housing Capital Fund focused on mixed-income housing projects, often exceeding the 20% inclusionary housing requirement.
5. Rezoning works. Minneapolis, for instance, saw rent increases of just 2% from 2017 to 2023 after rezoning—well below comparable cities without such reforms.
The idea that more housing will lead to less housing is classic NIMBY pretzel logic.
Finally! A decent response, there are plenty of things we could do to increase affordable housing without evicting renters and replacing them with wealthy people from the suburbs:
*Mass Ave and several other areas have plenty of space for taller buildings. We should allow this added height, but only for AHO buildings so that affordable housing does not get outbid by market rate. This has the potential for hundreds or thousands of additional homes–all of them affordable.
*Single family zoning should be eliminated so that homeowners could subdivide their homes inside current or similar building envelopes. This has the potential to double or triple the population of wealthier neighborhoods without homogenizing the city.
@Peter Glick, I honestly wish I could say the same.
While we agree on eliminating single-family zoning, I disagree with your other points:
Concentrating affordable housing on Mass Ave alone won’t solve the housing crisis. We need a city-wide approach.
Your claims about “evicting renters” and “replacing them with wealthy suburbanites” is speculation, not fact.
Such unsubstantiated scare tactics undermine credibility.
Please stick to facts rather than presenting assumptions as certainties.
Otherwise, one might question whether your concern is genuinely for the city or an attempt to divert development from your neighborhood.
FrankD
Still not pointing at anything within our region that has done as is being asked in our City.
And EVERYTHING in Minneapolis that you pointed at above NOT rosy to say the least. Rents are on the rise and the Gap on affordable housing is getting worse.
https://mhponline.org/the-gap-in-affordable-housing-in-minnesota/#:~:text=While%20Minneapolis%20ranks%20in%20the,ELI%20households%20that%20need%20them.
To Quote:
In the Minneapolis metro area, there is a deficit of nearly 65,000 affordable and available housing units for ELI households. While Minneapolis ranks in the top 10 in the nation for metro areas that have the least severe shortage of affordable housing, there are still only 40 affordable and available units for every 100 ELI households that need them. Meanwhile, there is an excess of 6,220 units available to those earning at or above the area median, or $85,800 annually.
So, there is more High Market properties (in regards to the median income) and a continuing shortage of affordable housing units to fit need.
It’s not working as well as you think. In the long term the upper price markey properties have been the majority of the new housing.
If you look at the graphic on that article you’ll also find that statewide Massachusetts has MORE affordable rental stock than all of MN.
@Cambridgejoe No. It is working here and it is working well.
Cambridge’s affordable housing policies are proving effective. They have significantly boosted affordable housing development.
You can’t argue with the numbers:
Over the past 30 years, Cambridge has only created ~1,500 affordable housing units.
By contrast, the new policies have resulted in over 700 units in pipeline in just three years!
In fact, other cities, like Berkeley, now view Cambridge as a model for affordable housing creation.
Facts are facts.
@CambridgeJoe, your arguments about Minneapolis are irrelevant.
While more affordable housing is needed, this doesn’t negate the effectiveness of zoning reforms. They’ve stablized rents.
Partial success doesn’t equate to failure. The reforms are working, but further action is required.
Moreover, as previously noted, housing reforms in Cambridge are proving successful, resulting in increased affordable housing creation.
That link about Minneapolis doesn’t really appear to analyze the impact of their zoning reforms. It’s true that the reforms have not completely solved housing affordability in Minneapolis, but the evidence suggests that they have made the situation better:
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability
“Minneapolis’ success in building new apartments has enabled the city to substantially add to its housing supply and keep rent growth low. From 2017 to 2022, Minneapolis increased its housing stock by 12% while rents grew by just 1%. Over the same period, the rest of Minnesota added only 4% to its housing stock while rents went up by 14%. (See Figure 2.) Both Minneapolis and the rest of the state experienced population growth (1% and 3%, respectively) and household growth (10% and 7%, respectively), but despite increased demand, Minneapolis was able to limit rent growth by building more housing.”
Here we go again with flat out lies and distortions from Zall and whoever Frank D and Ave Joe really are.
Subsidized, or “affordable”, housing under the AHO only gets produced with gov’t funding, all of which ends now with Republicans. Theres no incentive for a developer to build 10 or more units and trigger our IZ requirements.
Just another example how well meaning people get fooled by their own government and vote against their own best interests.
What we will see are large lots with 2 or three family units turned into high priced McMansions. The city, Zall and his anonymous supporters should be more honest about that.
One good outcome is hopefully we will also see an end from these spamming housing bots.
Peter Glick’s proposal to limit upzoning to North Mass Avenue while opposing it elsewhere exemplifies the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) mentality, despite his objection to the term.
This stance highlights the cognitive dissonance often associated with NIMBY attitudes.
This thread has finally explained FrankD’s bizarre fixation on the AHO every time the topic of market-rate housing is discussed–he/she/they/it doesn’t know what the AHO is. FrankD, the Affordable Housing Overlay has nothing whatsoever to do with inclusionary zoning.
I’ll try to cover just a couple of points. The AHO does not work without government subsidies, requires all apartments to be rented at below-market rates, and is generally (though not necessarily exclusively) aimed at lower income levels than inclusionary zoning is. Inclusionary zoning only applies to market-rate developments that contain at least ten apartments and requires the developer/owner to subsidize the rents of the inclusionary apartments (or the purchase prices of inclusionary condo units), although Section 8 vouchers can reduce or maybe even eliminate that subsidy for particular IZ apartments. I understand that developers/owners consider IZ a 10% tax on them, more or less, and they do raise the market-rate rents accordingly.
The thing I’m waiting for is market-rate developers under the new regime challenging IZ in court because they get no compensating increase in development rights under the proposal as stated as they do under current law. At least some Councillors and activists have suggested a fix to that, although they haven’t described it as such. It would pain me to lose inclusionary zoning, but it would serve the ideologues right for being unwilling to listen to people who prefer reality to their fantasy world.
@kdolan Your comment suggests a misunderstanding of the AHO’s structure and political processes.
To clarify, the AHO operates under city jurisdiction, not federal control.
Thanks for introducing nonsense to the conversation, whoever you really are.
@HeatherHoffman You are misinformed. Your statement contains several misconceptions about the AHO.
Misconception 1: AHO and Inclusionary Zoning
Your statement incorrectly assumes that the AHO and inclusionary zoning are unrelated. In fact, while they are distinct policies, both are tools used by Cambridge to increase affordable housing availability.
Misconception 2: Government Subsidies and Income Levels
Your statement oversimplifies the AHO’s funding mechanism and target demographics. While the AHO does often involve government subsidies, it’s not a requirement.
The AHO is designed to make affordable housing development more feasible by allowing greater density and streamlined approval processes. It serves a range of income levels, not just lower-income households.
Misconception 3: Market-Rate Development and the AHO
Your statement incorrectly suggests that the AHO doesn’t affect market-rate developments. In reality, the AHO creates opportunities for affordable housing in areas where market-rate developers might otherwise dominate.
Misconception 4: Legal Challenges to Inclusionary Zoning
Your statement speculates about potential legal challenges to inclusionary zoning without providing evidence. Cambridge’s inclusionary zoning policy has been in place for years and has successfully increased affordable housing stock.
While both policies aim to increase affordable housing, they operate differently. The AHO focuses on creating entirely affordable developments, while inclusionary zoning ensures a percentage of units in market-rate developments are affordable.
Both policies are crucial for addressing Cambridge’s diverse housing needs and should not be conflated or pitted against each other.
It is important to understand policies before you comment on them.
@HeatherHoffman Your understanding of the AHO, inclusionary zoning, and market-rate housing is incorrect.
2. The AHO and inclusionary zoning are not unrelated. The AHO complements inclusionary zoning by providing incentives for including affordable units.
2. It also applies to market-rate developments.
3. It doesn’t require all apartments to be lower-rate.
4. These incentives apply to all new developments, not just those with 10+ units.
Please refer to the city website for accurate information on these policies, as you seem to have misunderstood them.
BTW, the AHO has been in place for 4 years, there is no evidence of any serious legal challenge. Most importantly, it has worked.
There has been an increase development of affordable housing, including in market-rate developments.
@MrNice is correct. The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) applies to all new developments, regardless of size, including market-rate projects.
It’s an integral part of zoning reforms, designed to encourage the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments.
When critiquing city policies, it’s crucial to have a thorough understanding of them.
The reason for the “obsession” with the AHO is because it is the solution to potential problems with zoning reform.
Is that why some of you don’t want to discuss it? You’ll citicize upzoning but don’t want to talk about the solutions?
It is instructive to see the rampant ignorance about the Affordable Housing Overlay and the inclusionary zoning provisions in this thread. For those of you who insist on proving that you have no idea what you’re talking about, here’s the definition from the Cambridge zoning ordinance: “Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO). A set of modified development standards set forth in Section 11.207.3 of this Zoning Ordinance intended to allow incremental increases in density, limited increases in height, and relaxation of certain other zoning limitations for residential developments in which all units are made permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income.”
I am absolutely certain that James Zall knows this much, but he has not found it important to weigh in to correct his supporters’ misstatements. No market-rate apartments are allowed in AHO projects; all of them must have rents subsidized in some fashion.
Inclusionary zoning was challenged by the owner of 12 Arnold Circle. The case was settled less than five years ago without a trial, allowing the redevelopment of a 12-apartment building to go forward as fully market-rate. Cambridge Day covered it in detail; for example, see https://www.cambridgeday.com/2020/02/24/settlement-clears-way-for-a-market-rate-only-12-arnold-circle-setting-aside-broader-issues/. It was clear at the time that the City blinked because inclusionary zoning could have been invalidated had the case gone forward.
I’m willing to debate with people who have a clue. I think James Zall’s economic analysis is bunk, but he at least knows what the law says. Too bad the rest of you obviously don’t.