Cambridge city councillor Burhan Azeem bought a $1.2 million two-family home in June, spurring questions about his intentions among some residents ahead of a vote on multifamily zoning.
He announced the purchase in a Bluesky post in December.
“I’ve been very proud of being a renter but … I’ve been living with roommates and saving most of my income for years and was finally able to buy a house here!” the post reads. “There’s current tenants and I have my own lease so no immediate plans to move, but excited to be here to stay.”
Azeem was featured in a 2022 Boston Magazine article for having trouble finding a place to rent despite being a councillor.
“I think there’s a misconception about how bad it is,” he told Boston Magazine at the time. “I could save 50 percent of my salary probably for another 10, 20 years and I wouldn’t come close to being able to buy an apartment in Cambridge.”
In an interview, Azeem clarified that extenuating circumstances, along with searching for an apartment in the middle of Boston’s September lease cycle, made it particularly difficult for him to find an apartment at the time.
“Once I graduated in 2019, my bank account started at zero,” he said. “I spent the first one or two years as a renter, and that’s when the Globe story came out. Basically, what happened was I ended up saving a lot of money because I saved over 50 percent of my income, I lived with roommates and I had a very small apartment.”
He also explained that he qualified for a higher mortgage since he is able to rent out one of the units even once he lives there.
Elizabeth Bisio, who works with Azeem at a veterinary care startup, said she wasn’t surprised that he could afford a home purchase.
“He saves a lot,” Bisio said. “He drinks Soylent.”
Skeptical residents
Some residents have expressed concern that Azeem stands to benefit from a proposed zoning petition that allows for four-story buildings as-of-right in all residential areas, along with loosening other restrictions.
“He bought this and then filed his rezoning petition. Perfect property for a teardown,” one resident wrote in an email chain.
Proposals for eliminating multifamily zoning in Cambridge date back to at least 2021. The current rezoning process began in March. Though the policy order to create zoning language for six-story buildings as-of-right was initially sponsored by Azeem and councillor Sumbul Siddiqui, it was approved unanimously on by the City Council in September.
“His new property would benefit greatly from this new upzoning he’s pushing on the city,” another wrote. Eight out of nine councillors have indicated support for the current petition. “I find it truly distressing that he suddenly bought and filed so close in time.”
Heather Hoffman, a local title examiner, wrote that she believes that Azeem bought the property for investment purposes only.
“There are three reasons,” she said. “I could have discounted any of them in isolation, but, taken together, they strongly suggest to me, as a conveyancer and title examiner for more than 30 years, that he does not intend to live there.”
She cited Azeem’s listing his rental address as his mailing address on the deed and his not declaring a homestead, an option presented to all mortgagors that protects a person’s primary residence. She also pointed out the addition of a rider to his mortgage that deletes the standard requirement in the mortgage that the owner live in the property.
Hoffman serves on the advisory team for the Cambridge Citizens Coalition and previously served as treasurer. That residents group supports multifamily zoning but favors letting the current proposal expire due to concerns that its details lack guardrails against gentrification. Hoffman said in a later email that her professional opinion as a title examiner has nothing to do with any political affiliation.
Azeem’s response
In response to these concerns, Azeem repeated points from his initial Bluesky post.
“I am not planning on tearing down or redeveloping the property. I’m not a developer, and this was not the consideration when I bought it,” he said. “Currently tenants are living there, and I have a lease of my own, so it is technically an investment property. I would like to live there eventually but not immediately, and want to be clear about that.”
“I believe that lots of homeowners benefit from the housing shortage that causes home prices to be artificially inflated,” he continued. “This zoning affects every single lot in the city. It’d only be fair to ask every homeowner if they benefit from the housing shortage and how that affects their vote.”
Several other councillors are homeowners, with some owning multifamily homes worth more than $2 million, according to the real estate platform Zillow.
Azeem has pushed for upzoning since his first election cycle in 2021 and earlier founded Abundant Housing MA, which advocates for zoning reform and increasing housing production.
“I would say I’ve been incredibly consistent about what I would do if elected,” he said.
This post was updated Feb. 4-5, 2025, with additional information in the “Skeptical residents” section on a proposal for eliminating multifamily zoning and on the Cambridge Citizens Coalition.
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.
Is there actual evidence of a unique personal benefit here, or is this just what ‘some people are saying’?
Burhan has been absolutely consistent in advocating for more housing units through increased zoning density. He co-founded a group called Abundant Housing, which advocates for these policies. He also campaigned extensively on this, and neither his allies nor his opponents are surprised that he is advancing this legislation.
Regarding specific or unique benefits, I remain puzzled:
If anything, he does not stand to benefit from the greatest zoning changes—his lot size is not the required 5,000 square feet for a larger project.
How does living there right now affect his ability to financially benefit from the zoning? There are tens of thousands of rental units—this is neither uncommon nor a unique benefit for his property.
He has been extremely consistent.
“Councilors who run on a pro-housing, pro-renter platform can never buy a home,” seems like a great rule to try to establish if you don’t like pro-housing councillors or the policies they support.
This feels like an unfocused hit piece sponsored by the CCC and not up to the usual standards of this publication. What is the story here, that Azeem bought the property via nefarious means? Otherwise there’s nothing special about a city councilor owning property in Cambridge.
Unfortunately for Councillor Azeem, this looks really bad. His explanations for both his ability to pay for his house himself at age 27, and his purchase of a “home” that 8 months later he still has no plans to move into, both strain credulity. That these things are occurring while he is championing legislation that would enrich real estate investors is deeply concerning.
In order to assure voters that his explanations are true and that all of this is ethical, Councillor Azeem should recuse himself from the Council’s zoning discussions and votes until he has submitted to an independent review of how all of this is possible. If he resists, the rest of the Council should protect the city’s and their own reputations and demand it.
I’m sorry but this indeed is suspicious. And I feel that the councillors who own investment property in the city that is not owner occupied is a big red flag in regards to these various motions and a conflict of interest.
Cicero as always comes to mind in such matters.
“Who Benefits?”
Congratulations to councillor Burhan Azeem on finally finding a home he could purchase. Please ignore this CCC meaningless article. “Oh my god, he could either rent 1 apartment or (shudder) build a small 4 apartment building and rent 3, increasing the housing stock in Cambridge!!!”
The sky must be falling. I am especially perplexed by the calls for councillor Azeem to excuse himself from any zoning votes. Excuse me? I would say every councillor that has bought a house longer than 5 years ago should excuse themselves, since they directly benefit from the housing prices staying sky high!
Councillor Burhan Azeem, ignore this article and please vote to increase the construction in our city. Every renter and every homeowner worried about their children being able to afford something in this town has your support.
All councilors who own property should recuse themselves from zoning decisions then.
Shameful, desperate, and low effort publication.
Cambridge City Council Code of Conduct-
Chapter 2.117 – Code Of Conduct For City Officials
2.117.040 –
No municipal official or employee shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use such municipal official’s or such employee’s position, influence or power to influence or effect any City governmental decision or action in which such municipal official or employee knows or has reason to know that such official or employee has any economic interest.
Rules of the City Council
Rule #13. No member shall vote on any question, or serve on any committee, where their private interest is immediately concerned distinct from that of the public.
All City employees, including all elected and appointed officials, are subject to the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Law.
Azeem should recuse himself from the final vote, or he’ll put the MFZ at risk under 2.117.110 Violations and Penalties.
This article and these responses read like a bunch of rich old white people claiming the only way a young POC could buy a house is through nefarious means.
CD should pull this article and apologize.
The anti-zoning reform crowd is shameless.
Who benefits from exclusionary zoning? The same homeowners attacking Councillor Azeem. It’s hypocritical to criticize him for buying property just as they did.
Azeem’s home purchase doesn’t compromise his integrity on zoning reform:
He’s advocated for upzoning since before his election.
His purchase was the result of years of saving.
He’s been transparent about it.
The proposed zoning changes affect all properties, not just his.
Azeem’s consistency and openness prove his commitment to tackling Cambridge’s housing challenges.
If it is suspicious for someone without generational wealth to buy a home in Cambridge, then maybe that’s a sign that we need to legalize building more of them.
Also, incumbent homeowners are similarly conflicted when they vote to restrict migration into Cambridge by limiting housing density. I look forward to reading the Cambridge Day exposé on that topic.
@cambridgeresident I agree—Cambridge Day owes an apology. Azeem’s “offense”? Buying property in Cambridge.
@kdolan By that logic, every council member who owns property should recuse themselves from zoning votes—which would be all of them.
Defenders of exclusionary zoning are getting increasingly desperate and their arguments increasingly ridiculous. in Cambridge . OMG, Azeem bought property like every other council member. Shocking!
@kdolan, you should re-read what you posted:
“…where their private interest is immediately concerned distinct from that of the public.”
Seeing as considerable numbers of the public in Cambridge own property, including almost all of the City Council, it would seem quite clear that Councilor Azeem’s private interest is not distinct from the public’s.
Have fun wasting your money on a baseless suit.
Councillor Azeem looks like the good guy in this article to me. He’s been incredibly consistent in his views that more housing should be built in Cambridge–since 2021 at least (and probably well before that). He hit a life goal and rite of passage–we should celebrate this rather than cook up baseless speculation about his motives.
Azeem could have taken his MIT degree and made plenty of money working at Google or Apple, but clearly that’s not his priority.
When our best and brightest choose public service, let’s support them when they are able to balance the demands and milestones of life with the time and effort it takes to lead our city.
Thank you Councillor Azeem!
This is a pretty gross hit piece.
Congratulations to Councillor Azeem on finding a way to afford to live in Cambridge. As the former General Counsel of the State Ethics Commission, nothing I see here violates the conflict of interest law, which explicitly allows him to participate fully in a “matter [that] involves a determination of general policy [if his] interest … is shared with a substantial segment of the population of the municipality.” G.L c. 268A, sec. 19(b)(3).
He has been extremely consistent.
“Councilors who run on a pro-housing, pro-renter platform can never buy a home” is not a reasonable ethics rule. If it were, the personal cost of holding pro-housing policy positions would be enormous.
Also, I’m not sure why Heather Hoffman’s connection to CCC is described as so tenuous. She’s their former treasurer and is *currently* listed on their site as a member of their Advisory Board.
Yeah I’m not sure what the exact story here is? Someone who has been publicly for housing reform on the council for years bought their first home (announced at minimum almost 2 months ago), and someone tied to group who’s against the reform pointed out those two facts?
In terms of “cui bono” from this policy, it seems to me that all Cambridge residents do. If it’s disqualifying to own property and then pass housing reform, I’m not sure how any city council could able to do anything.
I personally think Hoffman’s connection to CCC is disqualifying in terms of commenting on the private motivations of an opposing politician – having a non-CCC-affiliated expert quoted in this article would help distinguish it from an attack ad.
So an MIT kid decides to run for office and stay and own property here and we are upset. That guy has been pushing housing supply since his first debate in his first losing bid. I am impressed he seems like his passion is matched with commitment to stay here. Headline should read “ google investigation “ uncovers something that is completely kosher and in fact good news”. By the way not sure whatever semblance of what got passed increases anyone’s property value.
Congrats to Councilor Azeem for purchasing an investment property just 5 years out of college. But this seems off-brand for the Councilor. After all, he and his fellow pro-growth Councilors have spent the past 5 years vilifying property owners, particularly property owners in West Cambridge, and have repeatedly claimed that it was nearly impossible to find housing here. Perhaps this cognitive dissonance is why he waited so long to (sheepishly) announce his purchase?
A little math:
Burhan has been making at least $86K for his city council position and maybe $50K ish as an EMT; that’s $136K a year. for about three years. So if he’s been able to save even half his salary, (he said he’d saved over half) by doubling up & living with roommates then he might have $200K saved. That’s close to a 20% down payment on $1.2 million. And I imagine he started saving before he became a council member.
Along with David E. Sullivan I see no conflict of interest.
More power to him.
Other ideas… can we add commentary in this article from ethics experts? Several commenters here suggest that even IF he never intended to live here this wouldn’t violate any conflict of interest rules. That again feels more relevant than some hypocritical statements from motivated activists…
I always try to find a way to agree with Doug Brown and will agree to one point he made . The constant mantra that no one can afford to live here is overly cyclical and disuades some folks from Trying. I have helped a fair share of folks buy market and affordable ownership units and while it not easy and it may not be the “ dream house” its possible for many. Again congrats to Burhan , because he consistently supports increasing supply , he should only be praised for buying a home and showing he is willing to invest in Cambridge. Kudos to David Sullivan for his always learned ethics clarification
@David Sullivan. This is actually the text of
G.L c. 268A, sec. 19(b) you quote.
(b) It shall not be a violation of this section (1) if the municipal employee first advises the official responsible for appointment to his position of the nature and circumstances of the particular matter and makes full disclosure of such financial interest, and receives in advance a written determination made by that official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the municipality may expect from the employee
I note that one poster here estimates that Councilor Azeem had substantial income from EMT. When he first ran I actually voted for him based on this. While he was licensed in 2017 as basic EMT, he never refiled after the original filing in 2017. In essence his license expired many years ago and during his time as a student. I also note, during the time that he was in dire need of affordable housing I personally emailed him three units he could have afforded in East Cambridge without burdening himself with roomates.
https://checkahealthlicense.mass.gov/search
I’m against the more extreme of the upzoning proposals, but come on, give the guy a break!!! He deserves to buy a home just like anyone else. I’m glad for him and glad he has the funds to live in a permanent residence.
Why is this news?! A city councillor buying a home in his own city. Laughable.
Azeem used his financial situation to run for office, saying he couldn’t afford rent. Fine. He now has an investment property. He doesn’t live there. So is housing affordable after all?
In reply to the comment on the “responses read like a bunch of rich old white people,” People who find this behavior suspicious are of all races, ages, and financial backgrounds.
@LL Azem, like everyone else, is trying to get ahead financially. He’s making an investment, not planning to tear it down for luxury housing, as the anti-zoning reform crowd claims. He’ll move in when he can afford to—nothing wrong with that.
Why not criticize homeowners who vote to protect exclusionary zoning that boosts their wealth? Isn’t that more suspicious?
Congratulations, Councilor Azeem, on buying a home *and* making the most-commented-on housing action since… any recent plan to build affordable housing in Cambridge.
Perhaps Cambridge Day will deign to publish this comment, unlike the others that have been dumped by the moderator.
I have been providing unbiased, fact-based title information to Cambridge Day for years. This was just another time, as far as I knew, when my professional expertise was called upon to explain real estate title information. I did not expect the author, who asked me for my professional opinion, to insult me by suggesting that it was based on politics rather than facts. I was not asked what I think about Councillor Azeem’s character nor what I think about the proposed upzoning, and my opinion that this was the purchase of an investment property, which turns out to be correct, has nothing to do with either of those.
It’s a sorry state of affairs that so many people seem unable to deal with an accurate factual analysis without assuming that it has to be based on politics rather than facts because they think they don’t like my politics.
This is such sloppy journalism. The article should be retracted entirely.
Cambridge Day has a habit of publishing weird takes on any given issue that cause outrage and accomplish nothing else except deepening divides – and probably getting more clicks in the process. This one shatters most records.
@kdolan you listed one of the three scenarios in which it’s not a violation by a municipal employee. The third scenario was posted by the commenter you’re replying to, which a plain reading shows that it doesn’t seem to apply to Azeem here.
As for the “Azeem struggled with rent” argument I’m seeing people make, I don’t think that’s supported by anything he’s said publicly. The quote about not being able to afford after 30, 40 years seems to only be about his salary as a councilor, which is the subject of the article.
Azeem has also never hid that he is employed beyond his position on the council. He’s been employed in the tech sector since 2019, it’s not crazy to assume that he could’ve saved enough money for a down payment over six years.
As others have pointed out, his position on housing policy has been consistent this whole time. This story seems to be placing unbalanced scrutiny on one member of the council over others.
It’s not illegal for a Cambridge City Councillor to buy property and profit – Councillor Azeem has that right. But using a position of power to boost an investment’s value through legislation? That’s where ethics get murky. Intentional or not, Azeem stands to gain from his West Cambridge property, and his zoning proposal likely enhances that investment.
His housing track record is irrelevant. Being consistent on housing while pushing ethically questionable legislation doesn’t erase the conflict of interest.
The reaction from Azeem’s supporters is telling. Labeling opposition as “old white men” is inaccurate and dismissive. It ignores diverse voices, including the NAACP Cambridge, Our Revolution, and others, who oppose this petition. They recognize its potential negative impact on lower-income residents.
It’s time to update our view on race in 2025 Cambridge. This isn’t about race; it’s about ethical governance and consequences for all residents, especially those of limited means.
Also, Cambridge Day and Alyssa Chen, please continue investigating and shedding light to Cambridge City Council activities.