As city staff hold community forums promoting a multifamily housing citywide proposal promoted by the Cambridge City Council, residents continue to raise questions and concerns that have not been addressed.
Cambridge voters have overwhelmingly supported efforts to promote development of housing to meet the needs of middle- and lower-income residents as rents and housing prices have escalated dramatically. In the past five years, the council and voters have adopted and funded many bold initiatives aiming to incentivize developers to build more middle-income and affordable housing. Have these laws, funding initiatives and zoning changes generated needed lower-cost housing?
The city experienced a dramatic 75 percent drop in issuance of housing unit building permits in 2023, netting just 111 new units compared with the average of 455 in the 2019-2022 period. At the same time, census data reveal that between 2020 and 2023, the percentage of residents living in households with annual earning less than $150,000 dropped 10 percent; households making more than $150,000 a year increased by the same amount.
The public should be informed about these changes, the major drivers for them and the specific ways new policies will achieve the stated purposes of increasing moderately priced housing.
Change is happening much faster than our policies, laws and deliberations can drive it. Proposals need to identify how they will address those needs and include a requirement to follow up and measure results. Passing additional ordinances and asking the public to support them without this in-depth evaluation is sure to slow the city’s ability to influence change, and will contribute to driving out middle- and lower-income residents and developer interest.
Louise Venden, Rogers 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.
Do the existing residents wanr to have their neighborhoods developed like East Boston with shoulder to shoulder four deckers. Will that improve the quality of life for the existing population? Will the traffic and population density be bearable with tne inadequate public transportation and quickly decreasing traffic carrying capacity of it streets? Just wondering if the neighboring communities without nearly the population density follow Cambridge’s pursuit of extreme density and diminish its road capacity to the extent Cambridge is willing to tolerate with even less public transit capacity? Just wondering if there is a limit to the direction Cambridge will suffer for feel good political purposes.
great, lets build tons of terrible, cheap and ugly unsustainable housing, benefiting wealthy residents and developers, and make maybe a dozen or so units for some middle class families. It will surely “save cambridge.”
Great. Let’s focus on building housing for essential workers and families.
We should disregard unfounded concerns from NIMBYs who exaggerate potential issues.
Increased density zoning doesn’t equate to low-quality or unattractive housing. Existing regulations still ensure standards are met.
Such hyperbolic arguments against development are counterproductive NIMBY nonsense..
@Fourmacks “Shoulder-to-shoulder four-deckers”?
Efforts to increase affordable housing are not a blank check for unchecked development. Regulations and an approval process are still in place.
This kind of histrionics is classic NIMBYism—arguing that any change will lead to disaster.
I hope Cambridge goes even further. Housing is a human right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy who bought homes at the “right” time.
If you’re worried about traffic, support bus and bike lanes to reduce congestion. Denying housing to essential workers is not the solution.
I just love the way some express their opinion by trying to diminish the character of a commenter with language that is not directly supportive of their argument. Why would one resort to thinly veiled ad hominems?
“NIMBY” (Not In My Back Yard) is not a pejorative. It is a descriptive term for those opposing changes to the status quo.
NIMBY attitudes often feature exaggerated claims about potential disasters from proposed changes.
The assertions about cheap, ugly housing and shoulder to shoulder tall buildings are unfounded, as new developments still undergo regulatory processes.
Making unsubstantiated, alarmist claims to discourage change is a typical NIMBY strategy.
Avgjoe, Thank you for your pedagogic treatise of the meaning of NIMBY. It appears in your descriptive, it is used as a pejorative. We are clearly agreement that it is used as a pejorative. Thank you and I hope you have a better day.
I’ll proudly continue to like my neighborhood as it is and will say so. Increased density will not improve the quality of life in an already densely populated neighborhood.
Did I conflict with your rules on my last response to being called an alarmist?