Cambridge is at an inflection point. While its economy continues to boom, housing has become entirely unaffordable. Studio apartments often go for more than $2,500 a month, and the cost to buy even a one-bedroom home is approaching $1 million. The underlying cause of this unaffordability is a debilitating housing shortage, a result of decades of underbuilding. We have not built nearly enough homes, and now are short tens of thousands of units. In such a system, housing becomes a landlord’s market, with prices becoming what the wealthiest bidders are willing to spend rather than what the average Cantabrigian can afford.
The primary obstacle to sufficient home construction in Cambridge is its antiquated zoning code. Like most cities in America, Cambridge has maintained extreme restrictions on the types of homes that are legal to build for nearly a century. In fact, much of even its current, insufficient housing stock couldn’t be built today – including the triple-deckers that dot the city.
This system restricts our ability to increase density in response to community needs. Aspiring homebuilders have to pursue exceptions to city code, leading to yearslong delays and elevated costs that get passed to renters and buyers. As long as we keep these outdated zoning laws intact, rents will only continue to rise.
Over the past several months, the City Council has been considering changes to zoning laws that would unwind many of the most egregious restrictions. The citywide upzoning proposal would allow dwellings to be built up to four stories tall everywhere in Cambridge. To encourage these buildings to include affordable housing, those that include such units can go even higher. Other modifications include reducing setback requirements and retooling how we measure open space on residential lots.
Together, these reforms would enable a meaningful amount of multifamily, multistory housing to be built. While the ongoing amendment process has stripped out some of the most impactful reforms, it remains a strong policy that the city urgently needs to adopt.
While the codes being addressed drive up living costs, they have another, hidden impact: They constrain possibilities. What I love about Cambridge – and what makes it truly stand out – is the diversity of experiences available. Within walking distance of just about everywhere is a greater range of restaurants, shops and public spaces than most Americans have within a 30-minute drive. Add to that a growing bike infrastructure and strong transit network and you get an urban experience unlike almost any in the country. But without embracing reform, we increasingly limit this lifestyle to only the very rich.
To preserve and expand this vibrant urban experience, we should focus on strengthening Cambridge and welcoming new residents of all backgrounds. More people would make our city better and enable us to push forward projects such as transit expansion or park improvements that make life better for all of us. In the coming weeks, the council will take a series of final votes on the upzoning proposal. It has the chance to show constituents that members understand both the magnitude of the housing shortage and the opportunities that come with it. I hope they do.
Sean Hart, Windsor 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 are already top 5 most dense cities for our size. Are we going for #1?
Alas, in our situation, the only way we can add much more housing is to demolish existing functional homes (putting lower- and middle-income renters out on the street). Unlike other cities we are offering nothing to them. Studies elsewhere show that it is lower income and minorities who suffer most in this kind of situation; the new residents will be whiter and wealthier. This is not what most in the city are interested in doing.
This ordinance encourages the removal of 1-2- and 3 family homes to make larger single family homes (McMansions). Why did the crafters of the plan not EXCLUDE projects that do not actually add 3 or more units. In many projects we will see decreases instead. The hardest hit will be renters as new buildings will be far more costly.
We also now know that demolishing buildings is very bad for the environment. This is far more damaging than cars (we will need 30-80 years to recoup the losses in each case). This will push us backwards in efforts to meet our net-zero goals. And we can add to that the loss of many of our mature trees, which never can replaced once a larger building footprint is in place. And those who have solar panels in place are not guaranteed that they can continue to have them functional.
Note too that the ordinance includes no planning for infrastructure (or requirement that outside developers and investors include this as part of their costs. Today I am reading that basements around the city are flooding (floors destroyed) and sewage creeping into yards. This will be happening everywhere.
Why are we removing the rights of citizens to appeal bad decisions of outside investors and developers (many of whom do not even live in the state or the country? Nor is there any means to redress design features that may be inappropriate.
Both the Planning Board and many architects and urban planners across the city have opposed this proposal because it makes no sense. It is simply not ready for prime time, and I urge city council to simply let it lapse and come back and do a better job this spring that will do what we really want it to do.
” In many projects we will see decreases instead. The hardest hit will be renters as new buildings will be far more costly.”
This is a bad faith argument. This is already happening because existing density is often higher than what the lot is zoned for (from an era of deliberate reduction of urban density tied to suburbanization and white flight). This means that you can turn a multi-family into a single family by right but cannot turn a single family into a multifamily without extensive community processes where people like you come out to voice opposition. This proposal would make this much less of a problem by simply allowing multi family development, although I think the city should go further explicitly prohibit these types of projects.
The environmental argument about demolishing single family homes to replace them with higher density and the idea that lower income people are living in single family homes in Cambridge are also absurd.
@Suzanne Preston Blier You have made public comments opposing the AHO (enabling new affordable housing projects) so your concern over lower income people being able to afford to live here rings hollow to my ears. You are a beneficiary of an unjust system, and are seeking to maintain those benefits. Please stop speaking for people you are not, and against our interests at that.
Slaw (anony again). Your anger is noted. But you fail to address the harm that this specific zoning petition will bring to lower income residents and minorities in particular. Where is your advocacy to safeguard those who are forced out of apartments to make way for luxury housing – to pay them, and assure that they can move back into these properties. NB the Donovan Petition, was submitted by our group (I was one of the signers) to allow multi-family housing citywide (ending so-called exclusionary housing districts. That petition has been acknowledged as a far smarter and more equitable one than this developer and investor promoting one. They are the chief beneficiaries.
Slawanon: On the environment. I encourage you to do some reading: key problem with home demolitions is CO2 emissions. “It takes 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-performing existing building to overcome, through efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process.” HERE
Demolishing and rebuilding rather than renovating a structure of 3,000 SF structure results in a loss of 126 metric tons of embedded CO2 which is roughly equivalent 44,048 gallons of gasoline emissions being released into the atmosphere. Renovating an older home, rather than demolishing and replacing it, equates to removing 93 cars from the road for an entire year. Architect and former AIA president, Carl Elefante, famously said “The greenest building is the one that already exists.” HERE
Demolishing and rebuilding also necessitates the use of less high quality wood. Most contemporary buildings use “new growth” trees, which are less dense and have less structural integrity than “old growth” timber long used in older structures. This results in less longevity in newer homes, and the need to repair or replace them more frequently, causing still more environmental harm.
Slawanon: On the environment. I encourage you to do some reading: key problem with home demolitions is CO2 emissions. “It takes 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-performing existing building to overcome, through efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process.” HERE
Demolishing and rebuilding rather than renovating a structure of 3,000 SF structure results in a loss of 126 metric tons of embedded CO2 which is roughly equivalent 44,048 gallons of gasoline emissions being released into the atmosphere. Renovating an older home, rather than demolishing and replacing it, equates to removing 93 cars from the road for an entire year. Architect and former AIA president, Carl Elefante, famously said “The greenest building is the one that already exists.” HERE
Demolishing and rebuilding also necessitates the use of less high quality wood. Most contemporary buildings use “new growth” trees, which are less dense and have less structural integrity than “old growth” timber long used in older structures. This results in less longevity in newer homes, and the need to repair or replace them more frequently, causing still more environmental harm.
Again you oppose new affordable housing so all of your concern for low income people comes off as tokenizing, deeply unserious, and hiding ulterior motives.
“But you fail to address the harm that this specific zoning petition will bring to lower income residents and minorities in particular”
Apartments are not being torn down to build 4 story buildings. Single family homes might be. You are misrepresenting what this proposal means.
“Where is your advocacy to safeguard those who are forced out of apartments to make way for luxury housing – to pay them, and assure that they can move back into these properties.”
This is a good idea but not a good reason to oppose this.
“That petition has been acknowledged as a far smarter and more equitable one than this developer and investor promoting one.”
By whom? Yourself?
Your environmental argument leaves a lot out. Yes demolitions for redevelopment have an impact (one that can be mitigated by mandating material preservation) but you know what has an even more negative impact? Sprawl.
Urban life is vastly more environmentally efficient and limiting the number of people who can access it is not a good thing for the environment at all. Refusing to densify where jobs and services already exist has profound consequences. More housing is being built the question is do we build it where people can walk, bike, and take transit or do we build it in car centric exurbs. Densification also means more efficient use of resources from heating and cooling, electricity, water distribution, etc. compared to single family homes. You also misrepresent statistics by framing it as a 1-1 comparison between the single family home and the apartment replacing it despite the more accurate comparison being by population, because the apartment building will house MORE PEOPLE.
Renovating mansions isn’t going to create affordable homes either, which indicates how much your arguments represent kettle logic (making multiple contradictory arguments at the same time).
Generally, I find it really hard to take lectures on affordability from people who live in mansions all that seriously. You personally benefit from exclusionary zoning and you fail to acknowledge that conflict of interest at all.
Slaw: Vancouver is allowing those lower income residents forced out to return when the new buildings are ready. No one has offered that here. Boston is buying up properties to keep them affordable (this is what the Boston Foundation Housing Report has encouraged). Another city has chosen simply to promote the building of rental units.
And, a reminder: Cambridge’s proposed upzoning petition, is intended for market rate (“luxury”) housing zoning petition ($1.5-2.5 million dollar homes, with outside developers and investors benefit the most. It was written in such a way that the new units compete with the AHO 4 story allowable heights, so it will make it much harder to build them in many neighborhoods that now don’t have them. On specific harm? Well if you are living in one of the triple deckers slotted to be demolished and have to leave the city, that is certainly alot of harm (life changing). And if you are living on a fixed income and your neighbor’s property doubles in value and your own property taxes rise as a result that is also harm.
High property tax increases have a disproportional impact on lower and fixed income residents. Cambridge property taxes again increased this year to 9.21%, an amount even higher than the FY24 increase of 8.3%. And Eversource residential prices appear to have gone up by 17%. Who will pay this increase? Alot of renters, since 40% of our residential properties are not occupied by their owners. Many Cambridge residents simply cannot sustain these kinds of living cost increases. When we add to that increased land prices (property values) that the upzoning will bring – a give away to investors in essence – our lower- and middle-income residents will feel the harm most significantly, and many may be forced out of the city because they will no longer be able to afford to live here. Boston is facing similar problems, with their residential property rates up 10.4%. And here, too, some families may be forced to leave the city because the homes they bought for what were once reasonable prices, have sky-rocketed in value and rising property taxes. Read about one woman’s story in the December 12, 2024 Boston Globe. This is a strikingly sad story: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/12/business/homeowners-hit-by-tax-increase/
Renovating homes may not add affordability, but most of our naturally occurring less expensive housing is found there. And at least it is not promoting the creating of McMansions for people who are simply planning to be here a few months of the year.
On density: As I noted earlier we are already c.the 5th most dense city for our size in the country, you find this efficient living? We have no public transport to speak of, the streets are clogged with traffic, and very little access to nearby grocery stores in many neighborhoods. The only way to make it work is planning. And the current Cambridge City Council seems opposed to this idea.
As the article you are responding to states “To encourage these buildings to include affordable housing, those that include such units can go even higher.” However, you explicitly oppose the AHO too so don’t act like your issue with this is that it competes with the AHO. Your problem is not with luxury housing, You don’t want more poor people near your mansion.
“Well if you are living in one of the triple deckers slotted to be demolished and have to leave the city, that is certainly alot of harm (life changing).”
So why aren’t you proposing the city ban down conversions that replace multi-family homes with single family mansions? Why instead are you only opposing up zoning that will increase the number of residents?
“And if you are living on a fixed income and your neighbor’s property doubles in value and your own property taxes rise as a result that is also harm.”
This is already happening due to the artificial scarcity you benefit from and seek to protect.
“High property tax increases have a disproportional impact on lower and fixed income residents.” More residents spreads the tax burden and could even mean lowering property taxes.
“Many Cambridge residents simply cannot sustain these kinds of living cost increases.”
This is an argument against the status quo, not against increasing density.
You also acknowledge that most low income people rent, so your whole property tax shpiel is highly confused.
Renovating mansions is not in fact where “most of our naturally occurring less expensive housing is found there.” No single family homes in this city are affordable to anyone who isn’t wealthy. What exists is already in relatively dense housing stock. Also Most “naturally occurring affordable housing” is a result of neglect and as someone who has lived much of my life in that kind of housing stock, it isn’t actually something to defend long term.
Poor people deserve high quality housing. Actually livable affordable housing does largely come from new development. I do wish more of that was public housing development, but thinking that with a growing population the shrinking number of existing neglected housing stock is adequate for poor people is wildly off base.
“And at least it is not promoting the creating of McMansions for people who are simply planning to be here a few months of the year.”
I already addressed this. This is a problem that already exists and is created by the type of downzoning policies you support. Allowing increased density makes these types of conversions a lot less likely. Again, the city should explicitly ban them but wouldn’t be in conflict with this at all, in fact it would make it stronger.
“As I noted earlier we are already c.the 5th most dense city for our size in the country, you find this efficient living?”
Compare the per capita emissions of Cambridge to the fastest growing exurbs in MA: https://coolclimate.org/maps Objectively yes it is.
“We have no public transport to speak of, the streets are clogged with traffic, and very little access to nearby grocery stores in many neighborhoods.”
Cambridge does in fact have transit, the red line, the green line, and dozens of bus routes. Again compare that to the car centric places where the housing that can’t go here is going instead. Any desirable place will be clogged with traffic as long as it allows cars, and again this is also a factor of people who work here driving in from elsewhere because they cannot afford to live here. Grocery store access should be improved, but that is something increasing density is likely to improve.
“The only way to make it work is planning.”
This is true, but not the type of planning you advocate, which demonstrably will make all the problems you claim to care about worse.
That Vancouver policy seems like a good one to implement along with upzoning. It does not seem like a good argument against it.
People are being priced out primarily because of an artificial scarcity of housing, despite massive job growth, and somehow you don’t blame the status quo you seek to defend for that but a policy that doesn’t even exist yet. You are smart enough to know that’s complete nonsense.
Despite attempting to represent yourself as speaking for the dispossessed what you are really doing is demonstrating the conflict between the rentier petit bourgeoisie and the developmentalist haut bourgeoisie. In that conflict, between those who live in mansions and personally benefit from housing scarcity via increased property values and developers who personally benefit from new development, only one of those two is actually providing anyone else with anything.
My genuine position is let them build it, then once it’s built we can seize it for social housing or restrict their profiteering with rent control, but at least housing will be built. But if you lot win and shut down new development, barring a major collapse in the local economy, the only people that will ever stand to gain from it are others in your same position, while it becomes increasingly impossible for anyone else to live here (and thats not fear mongering it’s already happening under the status quo you so adamantly defend).
Another important point about the renovations comment: Even if they are not downsized, when triple deckers are renovated they are frequently converted from rental units (the type of housing low income people live in) into condominiums (the type of housing they have no chance of affording). You can see examples of this all over the city. The neighborhoods in Boston where this is particularly pronounced (for example JP) look nothing like what they used to in terms of who lives there. Renovations are absolutely not a source of affordable housing, in fact they almost always reduce it. The only way to add new affordable housing is to build new affordable housing, but you explicitly oppose that so instead you play these games of deception.
@Suzanne Preston Blier’s comments contain misconceptions and inaccuracies.
1. Density and Housing Supply
The claim that Cambridge is among the top five densest cities for its size is misleading.
While densely populated, Cambridge faces a significant housing shortage. Since 2010, the population has grown by 13%, while housing units increased by only 7.5%. This disparity has driven up housing costs and displacement.
Contrary to the claim, adding housing doesn’t require demolishing functional homes. Zoning reforms permit multi-family housing in single-family zones, increase height limits, and reduce parking requirements—allowing more efficient land use without widespread demolition.
2. Affordability and Diversity
The assertion that new residents will be “whiter and wealthier” lacks evidence. Studies, including one by the Urban Institute, show that increasing housing supply reduces displacement, improves affordability, and promotes diversity across income levels.
Here is a comprehensive study showing that zoning reform lowers rents:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044#abstract
3. Environmental Concerns
While demolition and construction have environmental costs, denser, transit-oriented development reduces long-term carbon emissions by decreasing car dependency and improving energy efficiency. Modern building techniques also use more sustainable materials than many older structures.
4. Infrastructure and Planning
Concerns about infrastructure are not inherent flaws in zoning reform. Comprehensive changes include infrastructure upgrades, funded through development fees or other mechanisms.
5. Citizen Rights and Design Control
Zoning reforms don’t remove citizens’ rights to appeal but streamline approvals for projects meeting specific criteria, reducing delays and costs. Design reviews can still ensure new developments align with the community’s context. Growth will regulated because there is still an approval process for all new developments.
6. Expert Opinion
The claim that the Planning Board and urban planners oppose the proposal is unsubstantiated. Many urban planning experts support zoning reforms to address housing shortages and enhance sustainability.
Conclusion
The anti-zoning reform arguments are rooted in misconceptions and unsubstantiated claims.
Thoughtful zoning updates can alleviate housing shortages, enhance affordability, and foster a more sustainable and equitable city.
Defending exclusionary zoning is morally indefensible, rooted in racial and economic discrimination.
Historical Context
Although race-based zoning was ruled unconstitutional in 1917, many jurisdictions adopted facially neutral laws to exclude poor minorities and low-income white families from affordable housing.
Racial Discrimination
Exclusionary zoning exacerbates segregation by deterring racial and economic integration. It reduces rental housing and ethnic diversity in communities, creating systemic barriers that block minorities and low-income families from accessing higher-income areas.
Economic Impacts
These policies decrease the regional housing supply, driving up prices and preventing lower-income families from moving to high-opportunity neighborhoods with better schools and job prospects. This stifles economic growth and mobility.
Exclusionary zoning perpetuates racial and economic segregation, undermining housing affordability, economic mobility, educational access, and environmental equity. Its disproportionate impact on minority and low-income populations entrenches systemic inequalities.
This is what wealthy homeowners in Cambridge are defending.
Slaw: On AHO: Stop gaslighting. I have long supported AHO, however, as someone who writes and teaches about architecture and cities, I am a strong proponent of strong design guidelines and oversight whatever the type of building type. Cambridge has not even created design guidelines yet for the taller AHO. The lack of design oversight is also a key problem with the new upzoning plan which seeks to replace current homes with new luxury ones. And, as you may know, not everyone fits the economic criteria for AHO occupancy, making either too little or too much money, or otherwise not meeting criteria. And, AHO prioritizes young families and minorities, which makes sense, but there are lots of other lower- to middle-income individuals who also seek housing here. And the promoters of this new luxury plan have misstated that advances our affordable housing needs. If this passes, a tiny fraction of new homes will meet that criteria.
On downsizing: I have long promoted an end to this, but the solicitor has stated that would not meet legal muster. What this upzoning should do is disallow any buildings that are not adding 3 plus units, because the vast majority of new buildings will not be large enough for inclusionary (10 units plus), and many of them likely will be larger SFH McMansions. Trying to sell this new plan as one that will be adding to our lower income residences is one that the drafters have done to misrepresent its core features.
Again, on triple-deckers: the drafter of this petition, Councillor Azeem specifically mentioned at Council that these are building forms that could/should be torn down for new larger structures -not even mentioning their current rental tenants. Once they are torn down and replaced by luxury SFH or condos, these will be far more expensive homes than current ones.
On your “genuine” position to just “let them build” – this sounds rather MAGA (drill baby drill) without considering consequences, but the reality is that 85% of new condos in Ottawa were purchased by investors. So, not only is your position encouraging ongoing environmental harm with demolitions, but also the removal of our lower income and more often minority populations in favor of investors, higher housing costs (rents and ownership), and a wealthier likely whiter population.
On taking buildings: The city can’t simply seize new luxury buildings from their owners to turn them into affordable housing – our legal department would need to increase 20-fold and we would become a pariah. Rather than advocating for social re-engineering after the fact, we should act responsibly now, drop this badly conceived proposal, and start anew in the spring by following the guidelines of our own city plan (here Envision), as other cities do with theirs.
@Suzanne Preston Blier,
Your claim that eliminating exclusionary zoning will make Cambridge “whiter and wealthier” contradicts established research.
Numerous studies demonstrate that zoning reform reduces rents and does not displace renters.
For example, a Pew Charitable Trusts study examined zoning reforms in Minneapolis, New Rochelle (NY), Portland (OR), and Tysons (VA). These cities, which relaxed restrictive zoning codes, experienced rent increases of only 1-7%, compared to the national average of 31%.
This study adds to the growing evidence that zoning reform effectively addresses housing affordability in U.S. cities.
Your assertion ignores these findings and the well-documented negative impacts of exclusionary zoning on racial segregation and housing costs.
There is universal agreement that exclusionary drives up housing costs and perpetuates segregation.
But you claim that getting rid of it will make Cambridge “wealthier and whiter”?? You must be joking.
Critics of zoning reform often claim that there will “unregulated growth.” This is nonsense.
Eliminating such zoning won’t result in unchecked development. Approval processes and growth regulations will remain in place.
There is
Zoning reform does NOT inherently lead to demolition of existing housing and displacement of renters, as @Suzanne Preston Blier claims.
This study, which has been posted before (and ignored by @Suzanne) shows that zoning reform lowers rents and does NOT displace renters and low-income residents.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2024.2418044
What @Suzanne Preston Blier conveniently ignores is that Cambridge will still have approval of all developments.
The zoning reform works hand in hand with other policies and an approval process that steers development toward affordable housing.
This claim of unregulated grab by developers is nonsense. It is just a NIMBY scare tactic.
Concerns about zoning reform’s negative consequences are baseless. Research shows it reduces housing costs.
The only potential “negative” impact is on wealthy homeowners concerned about slower property value appreciation.
Policymakers and researchers widely acknowledge that exclusionary zoning increases housing costs, exacerbates inequality, and restricts social mobility.
Defenders of this practice often benefit from it, making their arguments self-serving rather than altruistic.
It is hypocritical to claim to help the poor while supporting a discriminatory policy that renders housing unaffordable for many.
@Suzanne, on top of what was already said (like how the status quo encourages McMansion conversions more than the proposed zoning change), and the fact that the status quo already pushes out poorer Cantabrigians in favor of wealthier, whiter residents, you seem to have just gotten your math wrong on the impact of demolitions and rebuilds?
126 metric tons of CO2 is 126,000 kg, and burning a gallon of gas releases 8.89 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere. Therefore, 126,000 kg / 8.89 kg/gal = 14,173.228 gal, not the 44,048 gallons that you claimed. At the same gas consumption rate you used, that’s only 29 cars taken off the road for a year, but of course this is also ignoring the reduced VMT of the people living in Cambridge that would otherwise be living in somewhere like Woburn or further out.
Also, you make an assumption that renovations have zero carbon impact whatsoever, which we know is not the case. Renovations also make the home in question more expensive without adding any additional housing stock, and usually involve evicting existing tenants, since it’s difficult to do major renovations when someone lives in the home. Take 75 Thorndike St Unit 2, for example. Currently on the market for $5500 after a renovation and furnishing. It’s a 2b2b 900sq ft apartment. You know how much rent was prior to the renovation? $2400/month. I don’t see how you can say with a straight face that construction of additional units is bad for affordability while championing renovictions like these.
> Today I am reading that basements around the city are flooding (floors destroyed) and sewage creeping into yards. This will be happening everywhere.
This line of argumentation is uninformed at best. The city requires onsite storm water retention. This means dry wells and reducing impermeable surfaces. New, code compliant development will leave the area better than it found it.
> Why are we removing the rights of citizens to appeal bad decisions of outside investors and developers (many of whom do not even live in the state or the country?
Suzanne, your xenophobic nonsense has no place in this discussion. This is just the old canard of incoherently blaming Chinese investors for bad housing policy.
The anti-zoning reform arguments are classic working-backwards-from-a-conclusion.
Some Cambridge homeowners oppose ending exclusionary zoning. It has made them wealthy. They cherry-pick isolated examples to support their preconceptions while ignoring the overwhelming evidence.
The majority of research shows that zoning reform reduces rents and does not displace residents, especially when paired with policies promoting affordable housing—precisely what Cambridge is doing.
Opponents of reform disregard these measures, which are specifically designed to prevent the unregulated development they claim is inevitable.
They also ignore studies showing that in cities with affordable housing policies, zoning reform has reduced rents without displacing tenants. Instead, they focus on outliers with inadequate policies, like Vancouver, while overlooking numerous examples where reforms successfully lowered rents.
Exclusionary zoning originated in racism and was designed to segregate communities. It has led to a housing undersupply and is a key driver of the current housing crisis.
Housing experts widely agree that solving this crisis requires zoning reform combined with affordable housing policies—Cambridge’s exact approach.
The loudest critics are often homeowners who have profited from exclusionary zoning. Their opposition is unsurprising.
“On AHO: Stop gaslighting. I have long supported AHO”
This is simply a bold faced lie. Your comments opposing it are public record and even appear on your Wikipedia page.
“On your “genuine” position to just “let them build” – this sounds rather MAGA (drill baby drill) without considering consequences”
This is a bad faith comparison and an attempt at a smear but the reality is trump agrees with you about exclusionary zoning. Building more homes in a dense urban environment where people produce much less CO2 per capita is nothing like “drill baby drill” be serious and intellectually honest for a moment, even if that is clearly difficult for you.
The city can in fact seize luxury housing and turn it into social housing. Cities and states have used eminent domain on much flimsier pretenses. Blocking all development will also turn the city into a pariah (and one that only wealthy people like you can afford to live in) but you don’t care about that, you only care about perception when it comes to helping poor people. Telling that.
The city should make progress, not keep dragging its feet because of bad faith arguments by wealthy and white NIMBYs like you, who claim to speak for low income people of color but really just don’t want to have to see them.
Anonymous commenters. Funny how you don’t want anyone to know who they are. A couple, we know, don’t even live in Cambridge.
ANON:Cantabrigand – On flooding: Yesterday it was reported on Cambridge Reddit that our YMCA was flooded. “The whole basement closed….Floor looked destroyed.” Was that a leaking pipe or the impacts of the rain? I don’t know but others have complained of flooded basements on Broadway. And please read (and support) the group addressing Alewife Brook sewage problems; https://savethealewifebrook.org/
ANON: CWEC: Renovations also have an impact on the environment, but far less than demolitions. For more information read the study, here: https://restoreoregon.org/2021/04/12/understanding-the-carbon-cost-of-demolition/
ANON:Mr. Nice: Sigh: None of the places you cite are like Cambridge! But more to the point, I and others long have SUPPORTED ending exclusionary zoning. Read our Donovan Petition before you attack; Read our website and blogs. And the study you cite does not address Cambridge, which has only 6.8 square miles, is already VERY dense and is one of those high demand cities with not only 3 local universities and 5-6 nearby ones, plus hospitals and biotech. A key cost factor is Blackstone and other housing investors. Blackstone spent $345 million in 2020 to buy up apartments in East Cambridge driving up prices there. Only 40% of our housing stock is lived in by their owners. All around the city we find housing vacancies where people are using our housing simply as a bank, knowing they will increase in value (it is a better investment for many). And I believe you are one of those who owns a condo or two in Cambridge but does not reside here.
ANON:Joe: Again, I and others long have SUPPORTED ending exclusionary zoning we are NOT anti-zoning reform. Read our Donovan Petition, the first citizen petition that sought to end exclusionary zoning. On raced-based zoning in Cambridge read Charles Sullivan (here it was about health and safety issue) but that is beyond the point, we all support allowing multi-family housing citywide. No homeowners that I have spoken with want to keep exclusionary housing, but we want a plan that will not make things worse.
On other issues raised:
1. Based on the numbers in play, we are likely to meet our 2030 goals. But the issue is also, do we want to add more expensive housing, or write a zoning petition that focuses on say rental properties. Since we have so little vacant space in the city the only thing we CAN do is demolish buildings unless we want to annex Arlington, Watertown, Somerville or parts of Boston.
2. As to demographic questions, the majority of our demolitions will be happening in our lower income neighborhoods (it is already happening there): North Cambridge, Riverside, Cambridgeport, the Port.
Please also read this study from NYC where specific demographics come into play:
https://www.manhattanbuzz.nyc/article/399/is-a-housing-shortage-really-the-reason-for-unaffordability
3. Let’s encourage transit-oriented development and higher on corridors. This proposal isn’t for that.
4. Planning is critical to addressing Infrastructure. And the city historically has negotiated with developers to help with the cost. By removing design oversight, we have removed this as a possibility, developers can simply do what they want.
5. You are incorrect on right to appeal. this plan does intentionally remove that- listen to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee discussions.
6. You are incorrect on opposition: Listen to the Planning Board meeting.
Thanks Slaw for just stating it was you and your ABC friends who decided to trash my professional wikipedia page, then posted there the lies, gaslighting what I and CCC are about, removing reference to our actual positions. When we are at a place in the city when MAGA seems the way forward, we are in a bad place. Nice job.
@Suzanne I find it interesting that you are quick to dismiss case studies of other cities as not being similar enough to Cambridge when those case studies don’t support your arguments, yet you treat this one blog post (with incorrect math) from Oregon as if it’s gospel.
As for that specific article, it is comparing apples to oranges, or apples to twice as many apples, really. It’s saying that there is more embodied carbon in a project that demolishes an existing structure and rebuilds it twice the size than there is to renovate said structure, which just seems like…duh? Of course building more space takes more material, I don’t know why that’s a revelation here.
The problem with that comparison is that the renovation does not create any more space for people to live, which is the thing we’re short on and trying to solve. Renovations don’t get us any closer to any of our housing goals, whereas doubling the living area very much can get us closer.
And again, if affordability is your concern, renovations are not the answer. It really seems obvious that you’re opposed to any redevelopment in Cambridge and are working backwards to a reason to support that position.
Also, the more you obsess over my identity, the more I feel I made the right call in not revealing it.
How exactly do you know anonymous commenters don’t live in Cambridge?
It’s pretty silly to keep bringing up the flooding point without addressing the response that new buildings have higher water retention standards and will likely improve that issue not worsen it.
It’s also silly to pretend Cambridge is some magically different place from other urban environments and cannot learn lessons from their successes.
You seem to understand why there is a lot of demand to live here and limited space to do so. Turning that into an argument against densification is again deeply silly.
You are again simply bold face lying to claim you and others you align with do not support exclusionary zoning, again your actual position is public record.
1) Cambridge is not in fact in course to meet its 2030 production goal, it is falling well short. Additionally that goal is inadequate due to continued job growth here.
2) this is in large part because the exclusionary zoning you defend protects the wealthy neighborhoods like the one you live in from that. Ending exclusionary zoning city wide would spread the burden.
3) you opposed the AHO which did exactly that. You are clearly only capable of arguing in bad faith. Density should also not be one block deep and Cambridge should maintain a mixed density missing middle orientation city wide rather than becoming more like Toronto with lines of towers separated by seas of single family homes.
4) This is simply a lie and not what this does.
5) Again simply a lie.
You have no interest in the truth or even consistency in your arguments. You will say anything to protect your property investment.
You also ignored the point I and CWEC made about renovations increasing the cost of housing and not in fact being a solution to affordability as you suggest, likely because you do not have a rebuttal. Convenient how you will make arguments and then discard them without any accountability when they are disproven. Again this demonstrates kettle logic.
Also, it’s not “trashing” or posting lies to include quotes from you with sources on your Wikipedia page. You’re free to go edit it yourself, too, and include links to your organization’s supposed positions.
I am not in ABC. I am simply a low income renter who cannot stand people who live in mansions tokenizing me to support policies that actually harm me.
What is posted on your Wikipedia page directly cites and links to sources with the quotes you made in public. Are you claiming the Boston globe piece or the other reputable sources are lying about what you said? Or maybe you are lying and don’t like having to answer for positions you have taken publicly?
Again Trump supports exclusionary zoning and NIMBY politics in general, while opposing density, walkability, affordable housing, and transit oriented development. If anyone is aligned with MAGA here it is you.
For the record, Suzanne Preston Blier opposed the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO).
She spent a whole lot of time, energy, and money trying unsuccessfully to make sure it never passed.
To say otherwise is simply lying. There’s no other word for it. Shameless, unabashed lying.
Everyone who’s been involved knows this, and anyone literate can ascertain it now. It’s all public record.
Sean, thank you for the thoughtful piece! Ignore the handful of haters.
@Suzanne, your argument is riddled with inconsistencies.
You cite Vancouver to oppose zoning reform but dismiss data from numerous other cities supporting reform with “they are not like Cambridge.” And Vancouver is?
Cities and local economies operate on similar principles—that’s why urban studies exist and why this research is relevant.
Another inconsistency: you express concern about construction’s environmental impact, yet ignore the greater harm of forcing people to commute long distances to Cambridge instead of living here.
Interesting how your environmentalism falters when it threatens your property value.
Happy to have Slaw, CWEC, and MrNice – email me separately with your actual identities so I can confirm all of you live here and are who you state you are. As to Wiki trashing – you chose to pull things out of context, saying I or CCC oppose things, neither I nor others have stated. Pure MAGA gaslighting and personal attack. NB CCC’s opposition to the AHO was that Planning Board Oversight was removed (we strongly support independent professionals). Happy to say the Planning Board is bringing some readjustments, but unhappily each unit is costing c. $100,000,000 apiece to build – far more than market rate housing costs (at c. 550,000 per unit with all the bells and whistles). Who benefits? This huge financial cost means fewer homes can be built and costs the taxpayers considerably more than we should be paying.
For those keeping score at home: I live in Cambridge and I was involved with ABC in the mid-2010s. I have long believed that CCC is a destructive organization. You’re pulling the ladder up after you. (I haven’t forgotten you, Cambridge Streets for All, I don’t like you either!) There is money to be made in housing. In a conflict between entrenched homeowners who had the foresight to be born in the 1950s and developers who are, you know, building housing, I’d rather not see money go to the anti-supply rentiers.
I’ll further point out that I am not anonymous, I am pseudonymous and will be posting under this pseudonym for the foreseeable future. The use of pseudonyms on internet forums is common practice. It was your decision and your decision alone to use your name here. Hand-wringing that you can’t individually identify those vexatious poors carries no persuasive value.
New construction is built to higher water retention standards than existing development. The height of a building has no impact on its contribution to urban runoff. This is dictated by the amount of impervious surface. If you actually care about this issue, I suggest advocating for the removal of surface parking. Otherwise your comments come across as concern trolling.
There are countless documented comments, and archives of the CCC site, but you don’t even have to leave *Cambridge Day* to see that Suzanne vigorously opposed the AHO before and after its passage.
2019 Suzanne saying the CCC was formed to oppose the AHO:
“Our coalition was founded around the proposed Affordable Housing Overly plan that would remove current citizens’ rights of legal appeal, weaken Planning Board design oversight and bring potential loss of mature trees, open spaces and local businesses. There are far smarter, more equitable ways to address affordable housing and the underlying problems of gentrification that push out African Americans and other residents.”
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2019/10/26/citizens-coalition-urges-votes-for-council-slate-that-rejects-developer-money-in-shaping-policy/
2018, first comment is Suzanne opposing the AHO:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2018/09/29/affordable-housing-in-residential-enclaves-bigger-towers-imagined-for-overlay-zoning/
2019, “Rebuttal” to a Pro-AHO LTE, coauthored by Suzanne:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2019/04/22/affordable-housing-overlay-myths-revisited-responding-to-groups-support-of-proposal/
2019, Undisputed quote about Suzanne opposing the AHO:
“Suzanne Preston Blier, a founder of the new Cambridge Citizens Coalition group and not a supporter of the overlay”
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2019/09/10/affordable-housing-overlay-is-tabled-quietly-after-year-of-fiery-debate-but-due-to-return/
2018, first comment is Suzanne opposing the overlay:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2018/09/29/affordable-housing-in-residential-enclaves-bigger-towers-imagined-for-overlay-zoning/
2021, after its passes, Suzanne still opposes the AHO, as seen in this piece written by Suzanne:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2021/08/19/the-affordable-housing-overlay-a-first-year-report/
Suzanne, I will not be emailing you. You are not the arbiter of whose voices can and cannot be heard in Cambridge. I live here, I moved here in July of 2020. I have lived in a few different neighborhoods at this point. I am a renter. That’s all you need to know about my identity, and the more you demand to know who I am, the more hesitant I am to tell you.
I did not edit your Wikipedia page, I’m just telling you that you have the power to do so to correct the record with the context you think is missing. You are a Harvard Professor, saying that quoting you in your own wikipedia page is “gaslighting” is just embarrassing. I’m not MAGA, nor do I think you are. We’re all just trying to talk about the city that we care about here, your arguments should be able to stand on their own.
>Happy to say the Planning Board is bringing some readjustments, but unhappily each unit is costing c. $100,000,000 apiece to build – far more than market rate housing costs (at c. 550,000 per unit with all the bells and whistles). Who benefits? This huge financial cost means fewer homes can be built and costs the taxpayers considerably more than we should be paying.
Can you clarify this? Beside the obvious typo (I assume you meant $1M, not $100M per unit), I don’t know what you’re even referring to.
And back to your Wikipedia page… there are only a few specific positions/claims attributed to you or CCC. Let’s go through them.
“She has opposed efforts to relax current zoning and permitting requirements which would allow building higher density housing up to six stories tall.” Are you not opposed to this? Every piece of public commentary on the matter shows that you are, in fact, opposed to upzoning to six stories.
“The Cambridge Citizens Coalition argues that the zoning changes would ‘…take away the guardrails that make sure we have some control over what our streets look like'” This one comes from a direct quote from you from the Boston Globe. Are they misquoting you? If so, you should take it up with their editorial team so they can file a correction.
“In 2020, she criticized a policy change, the Affordable Housing Overlay” — did you not ever criticize the AHO? “Blier said that the policy ‘carries major risks. No comparable plan is enacted elsewhere, much less a deeply historical urban center like Cambridge (founded in 1630) with its rich architectural legacy.'” So, is this another misquote? I highly doubt it, given it’s a direct quote from an article you wrote for Dig Boston.
“In 2024, she described a proposal to eliminate single-family exclusive zoning as ‘radical and irresponsible’ and ‘I fear that Cambridge will become the new Robert Moses.'” Did you not say this either? If so, you should probably reach out to the Crimson’s editorial team. It’s not a great look for your own employer’s newspaper to be misquoting you!
My point is, you’re taking the Wikipedia stuff too personally, and you’re using it as a cudgel to beat back any fair criticisms of your positions. These are distractions from the actual conversation the rest of us are trying to have here. You are not owed our identities, you are not owed people making your Wikipedia page paint you in the most positive light.
You are here arguing against a specific policy proposal, many of us here disagree with you and are pointing out the flaws that we see in your arguments. Let’s ignore the distractions and talk about the actual issue and substantive conversation here.
We get it you are a paranoid xenophobe but no one is going to dox themselves for you.
Incredible after adamantly denying you opposed the AHO you then admit you did for procedural reasons.
The extended processes you demand for these projects inflate the price.
@Suzanne Preston Blier I don’t feel a need to have you confirm anything. It is a little weird to think of yourself as a gatekeeper for what can be posted in a public forum.
Sigh. More anonymous commenters with typical gaslighting, but thank you for taking me back to the 2019 election and our October campaign post: HERE
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2019/10/26/citizens-coalition-urges-votes-for-council-slate-that-rejects-developer-money-in-shaping-policy/
Below is what we wrote back in the 2019 piece.
“The Cambridge Citizens Coalition was formed in May [2019] by neighborhood leaders concerned about the city and its direction. We selected a slate of impressive candidates representing diverse viewpoints, demographics, renters and owners, and districts. All share core values with the coalition and the need to get big money out of city policy. Consistent with this all, the endorsed candidates have agreed not to take donations from developers and others doing commercial business with the city; incumbent members on a slate from the A Better Cambridge Action Fund benefit from donations from developers and the building trades averaging more than $7,000 per candidate – money that benefits their whole slate.”
We also noted in this Cambridge Day piece our concerns about the AHO because it “would remove current citizens’ rights of legal appeal, weaken Planning Board design oversight and bring potential loss of mature trees, open spaces and local businesses. There are far smarter, more equitable ways to address affordable housing and the underlying problems of gentrification that push out African Americans and other residents.”
Note: Four (of nine) councillors then opposed the AHO. These included Carlone, Devereux, Kelley, and Zondervan. They “…opposed the overlay after the council majority opposed key amendments to safeguard green spaces, improve design criteria and ensure more citizen engagement.”
We share these concerns about the lack of thoughtful approaches to our housing needs today. The current plan lacks design criteria, removes critical trees and green spaces, as well as citizen engagement on buildings. And, even worse, the current plan is based around a willingness to demolish existing homes to build larger luxury housing.
Note: CCC is a citywide organization led by civic leaders from every neighborhood. It is not simply “one person” (me). As to CWEC’s point that I take the Wikipedia attack too personally, I work very hard to keep my personal and professional life out of city politics, so when people seek to misrepresent and demean in a MAGA like way by distorting things, it is HIGHLY problematic. And as to distracting from the issues, the Planning Board noted that there were far more letters that came in on this one issue than any other in their history. My understanding is that some 80% of them were residents just like me (renters and homeowners) who simply want Council to do its job and bring in professionals to do the kind of planning that is necessary to create a smart housing plan for the city.
Note too that since 2019 we have greatly expanded our reach to address critical issues around the city environment, government transparency, transit, schools, and other topics.
Some homeowners gained wealth by being fortunate to buy property at the right time. Now, they seek to block others from getting ahead.
Anyone with a track record of opposing affordable housing lacks credibility when claiming to act in renters’ best interests, especially when their actions serve their own financial gain.
What on earth is Suzanne on about? Gaslighting? Every accusation is an admission.
There’s zero attempt to make a substantive argument, simply a transparent abuse of language with a side of frivolous nonsense.
Suzanne, there is no keeping your lives separate, least of all on the internet. Like it or not, you have made yourself a public figure, and public figures don’t have separate Wikipedia articles for the different parts of their lives. Nothing in the Wikipedia page is incorrect, and you haven’t stated how it’s even misrepresenting you.
Those CCC quotes all came from you, specifically. It seems a bit silly to imply that you don’t speak for the CCC when you are in fact the President of the CCC.
Calling your neighbors “MAGA-like” poisons the well, calling criticisms of your positions “gaslighting” does too. We’re just trying to have a substantive conversation about the policy that you oppose
We desperately need new apartment buildings everywhere in Cambridge (not just at the main streets), and the max height by default should be 8-16 stories. The “arguments” from those opposing upcoming across the entire city (I’m looking at you, single family homeowners who are members of CCC) are illogical, exclusionary, and simply boring. Signed, a Cambridge homeowner.
From CCC’s page in 2019:
“We are a group of Cambridge residents from various parts of the city – and citizens from other parts of the world who live or work in Cambridge – who support smart, responsible growth, affordable housing, sustainability, the preservation of our environment and our shared architectural legacy. Fixing or stopping the radical city-wide up-zoning proposal (AHO) is an immediate concern.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20190730152526/https://www.cccoalition.org/
By “fixing” they meant removing all the things that were critical for the AHO’s success, such as increased height limits, density bonuses, and by-right permitting.
Jess: If you or other of your anonymous friends want to meet, I am happy to do so.
However the kind of personalized attack by you and the other who chose to go nameless does not help the city or any of the proposals in play.
Yesterday I was notified that someone had sent me a threatening email and my office had notified campus police. The kind of personal attack perpetuated by you and other anonymous political actors contributes to this.
I have vowed in my career and civic life not to abide bullies (including cyberbullying as here). For me, what this does is inspire me to focus even more.
NOTE: Specifically on your last post you took the text out of context, removing the important parts). https://web.archive.org/web/20190730152526/https://www.cccoalition.org/
On that same page, one will read that we wrote the following:
Affordable Housing and Responsible Growth
Cambridge City Council will be voting on a new citywide upzoning plan to add large scale affordable housing projects. This plan removes current design guidelines and oversight as well as citizens rights to legal appeal. Why? We have surpassed state mandated affordable housing goals. Yet we must do more but we need to make smart choices. Among the possibilities explored in progressive cities or advocated by progressive politicians that Cambridge is NOT doing to support affordable housing are the following:
*Tax credits for renters
*Create a housing investment at birth (baby bonds): By 18, low-income children would have nearly $50,000 to invest in a down-payment on a home.
*City financing to remodel to create low income accessory dwelling units and multi-family homes.
*7% rent stabilization for tenants who meet income criteria in buildings owned by persons or entities who have more than 4 rental units.
*Require new property owners to notify the city of tenant names and contact information; Provide legal representation for people facing lease termination or eviction.
*House the city homeless and provide aid.
*Build new mixed low and middle income affordable housing on city property (parking lots, vacant areas, above libraries and municipal buildings.
*Acquire properties in the city to renovate for affordable units.
*Provide a path to home ownership for low and middle income tenants with city-funded down payments.
*End restrictive zoning that precludes multiple family units (currently 7% of Cambridge housing.
*Allocate state funding bonuses for transportation and other funding for cities (like Cambridge) that have already met state affordable housing goals.
*Acquire shared interest affordable housing (for artists, teachers, social workers, others.
*Limit tax benefits to one home per family.
*Tax any vacancies in housing and commercial properties that exceed three months per year.
*Improve public transportation. Streets are clogged with traffic and little action is anticipated in the near future. Neither the city nor the state have added more public transportation. This much change.
*Curate commercial and residential areas in order to provide needed amenities for local residents – from grocery stores and laundry facilities to parks and health facilities.
*Modernize city infrastructure. With the city’s recent large scale growth the city infrastructure is under duress. In December 2018, just before Christmas, a Civil War era water main in West Cambridge broke flooding basements and causing millions of dollars in damage – none of it covered by the city. In East Cambridge, the large increases in labs and other commercial developments has introduced a crisis in electricity capacity, and pressure to address brought new concerns to this hard hit neighborhood to accept a massive towering electric substation next to a local primary school to help address capacity. The city needs to integrate neighborhood needs and concerns into growth plans.”
Read further on this page:
“Addressing Increased Gentrification
Cambridge is in the middle of a massive gentrification movement. More and more longtime residents are being forced out. Each case is important; each story is different.
In the Riverside area, many historic African American and hispanic families are hard hit and many more are losing their homes: https://vimeo.com/334075355/d08c28a45a
This is an ongoing problem in Cambridge:
buquad.com/2013/09/23/the-inescapable-gentrification-of-cambridge/
Seniors are also getting hit and are being forced to leave the city.
Seniors are also getting hit and are being forced to leave the city:
C, a woman in her 60s, worked for the federal government and is a long time local activist. A foreign investor purchased her building near Central Square and forced every resident to leave. With a salary just above the city cut off, she received no support from the city, and has now been forced to move out of the city and her friends of 40 years. The city has no real policy to around identifying and helping individuals forced out of residences when their units are purchased and converted to luxury condos.
W, a 98 year old woman, lived in a 4-family house owned by an elderly Caribbean American who was renting to family members. A developer hounded her to sell her house but she did not want to sell. While in the hospital for a procedure she was presented with papers and ended up signing away her house. A friend and family members caught wind of it and through a website talked about how
to void the written document they thought was predatory. Someone in the city said she would get representation, but nothing was forthcoming. The family and relatives ended up moving to Mattapan deeply upset by what transpired. The developer got the house.
Read still further on this page:
“Surging Costs and Too Little Return
A 6.12.18 article in Cambridge Day notes that tax bills in Cambridge are likely to surge with the city’s big rise in housing. Massive changes are envisioned. Major changes are envisioned in Riverside, East Cambridge, Harvard Square, North Cambridge and Alewife. The “development master plan’s call to build affordable housing will almost certainly have unsettling, expensive effects for long-term Cambridge taxpayers, officials warned Monday at a City Council roundtable. “We need to address affordable housing,” City Manager Louis A. DePasquale said. But the suggested growth “will have a huge impact.” Commercial property pays about two-thirds of the total property tax base in Cambridge – and the tax base funds about 65 percent of the city’s operating budget. The city leans on commercial taxpayers despite the fact it’s homeowners that account for about 62 percent of all the assessed property value in the city. How? Cambridge takes advantage of a state classification law that taxes commercial property at a higher rate – and Cambridge does the maximum shift, according to the city’s assessing office. ‘There are limits that are established in the state constitution that we’re not allowed to go above. If residential is growing at a faster clip, commercial would start paying a lower portion of the burden, and that would be absorbed by residential,’ said Bob Reardon, the city’s assessor. ‘The concern is that it would make the existing affordable taxes on a lot of homes less affordable. Although it would create more affordable housing, it would make existing housing less affordable. That’s something we’re trying to keep an eye on.'”
Jess, I am assuming you support nearly all of what we wrote here. But when you leave something out like this, and take statements out of context, it is classic gas-lighting. When has ABC ever proposed doing anything like we have stated. Most of their policies simply seek to advance developers, investors, and the building community. Peace!
You also claim you are being misrepresented then repeat almost verbatim the things you say are misrepresentation.
A Wikipedia page is not a linked in, it is a public encyclopedia. Your reactionary activism being accurately depreciated on it is not an attack on you. If you really think having your own politics and words stated back to you is an attack maybe you should reconsider your positions instead of attacking the people accurately quoting you?
Suzanne, repeating your own words back to you as evidence of your latest lies is not bullying.
There’s nothing wrong with being anonymous on the Internet, but for what it’s worth, I suspect you know exactly who I am. I’m posting under my real first name.
I have no interest in meeting with you. I just figured anyone following along deserved to know you are lying about supporting the AHO. You created an entire organization to oppose it.
I’m not reading the rest of your long-winded nonsense.
Suzanne, your comments are beyond the pale.
You have spent the past two days refusing to engage with reality. After spewing xenophobic nonsense, you have the audacity to pretend to be a victim.
I also doubt that anyone threatened you. The January 2, 2025 HUPD police log does not record such such an event. The one entry for that date is for an annoying call made to the School of Public Health. Besides, this sort of claim is straight out of the crybully playbook.
No one wants to “meet with you,” phrasing which has menacing overtones, because by all appearances you’re acting in bad faith.