The Cambridge City Council is poised to pass a zoning petition (on Monday) that would allow much taller and denser housing in all residential areas. This action – essentially irreversible – deserves especially careful consideration by all residents who will be affected.
I believe what’s most important for the long-term livability of Cambridge is how we make collective decisions about such fundamental elements of life in our city. The vast majority of city residents know very little, if anything, about the proposed changes and range of likely outcomes that will affect their daily lives. We will all benefit from expanded community engagement and a mechanism for adapting to unexpected outcomes (such as an increase only in luxury housing stock).
Let wisdom be our guide – I’m not referring to anything esoteric, but rather a kind of practical wisdom made up of of five elements: clear awareness of the present situation, inspired vision of possible futures, sound understanding of past trajectories, honoring multiple perspectives and decisive and flexible action.
Below are the kinds of questions we should be asking before making a final decision about this issue:
Present: What problem are we trying to solve? How are we trying to solve it? Why do we think our solution will work? What are the alternatives? How will we measure success?
Future: What is our vision for the future of Cambridge? Is “Envision Cambridge” still a compelling vision? Should it be updated? Who benefits and who does not?
Past: What from Cambridge’s past is important to consider? What should be conserved? What should be changed? What trajectories are shaping our present situation?
Diverse perspectives: What different perspectives should be included in our research, deliberation and decision-making? What strategies are needed to engage various stakeholders? How should differences be treated (acknowledged, changed, combined, etc.)?
Action: What specific language should be included in the zoning petition? How can we assess desired outcomes? How can we adjust zoning regulations in response to unexpected outcomes or changing circumstances?
Some analysis and summaries of these topics have been shared publicly by city departments, advocacy organizations, engaged citizens and journalists. See list of resources. Who knows about these kinds of resources? Who would benefit from knowing and responding?
A relatively small number of highly vocal city residents and other interested parties share their views during our open meetings at City Council and related committees. Despite a wide range of personal and professional opinions, the truth is, no one knows for certain how the real estate market will respond to this type of zoning change in Cambridge with its unique set of historical, educational and cultural features. We should continue to ask “who is not in the room?”
We should take a collective breath, pause and revisit this zoning issue in a follow-up petition. This issue is not going away. Some change in residential zoning is inevitable. Pushing it through now, though, risks many surprised and unhappy residents, lawsuits and backlash. Creating a more inclusive process is the wise choice in everyone’s best interest.
Councillors should vote “no” on the current petition, settle legal complications (such as conflicts of interest) and expand the conversation before making a final decision.
Jim Gray, Michael Way, 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.
Nearly a full council term isn’t enough process, apparently.
Yes, the whole thing is too rushed and complex, with a narrow majority driving change without regard for what could be a large number of unintended negative consequences. Doubly strange that this biggest of changes could be enacted in the shortest of times with the least opportunity for reflection.
But there are also easy ways to improve access and affordability immediately, and these changes could be made with 75-100% support of the Councillors. Most obvious would be allowing multifamily housing on every lot in the city, and allowing an extra story of height for affordable units.
The Council should should make broadly supported changes immediately–ones with 7 or more “yes” votes, for example. Then look more closely and carefully at those where a large minority is warning of problems. As concerns are resolved, we can relax more rules in step by step fashion.
I am sorry, what?!!! You need more time to understand the housing crisis? You need more details? The author writes as if we don’t know what solves the high rents and home prices: more taller housing built everywhere, not just on a few street corners. The issue has been studied for years. The proposals are modest and really underwhelming, yet they are too much for the NIMBY crowd. I guess they do prefer homelessness and long commutes. Why ? I truly do not know.
Setting aside how disingenuous this process claim is given the inordinate amount of process zoning reform has had for approaching a decade now, nothing is more divisive—or a bigger waste of time and money—than a losing lawsuit against the City.
Ironic that those who claim to have concerns about City finances now threaten to cause the City to waste a bunch of money defending against a lawsuit, especially given that former State Ethics Commission General Counsel David Sullivan already weighed in that “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).”
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter268A/Section19
This issue has been discussed for decades, and this particular plan has had years of discussion.
It is interesting that some residents feel urgency about high housing prices and others don’t. I’m curious about which residents feel that high housing prices are not an immediate problem, like the author of this piece. Are they people who bought their houses long ago (or got off the affordable housing waiting list long ago), and have all their friends and family in a similar situation? It feels like we might be inhabiting very different slices of the same city.
Utter nonsense. The proposed zoning changes are a well-researched, necessary step to address Cambridge’s housing challenges.
This issue has been studied for years with extensive community engagement. We know the problem and the solution.
This is a typical NIMBY tactic—delay under the pretense of needing more information.
They must like the idea of workers driving into Cambridge and creating traffic jams and more pollution.
The author claims they’re “not referring to anything esoteric” but then asks a series of vague, subjective questions.
One question, however, is clear: Who benefits?
The answer: Long-time homeowners profit from exclusionary zoning, which has inflated their property values. And unsurprisingly, they’re the ones opposing zoning reform.
Funny how some people want to ask so many questions about zoning reform, yet do not question that status quo that grew their wealth.
In Cambridge, city council candidates run on platforms and then we have an election to decide who gets on the city council. This past election there were plenty of candidates who opposed this kind of zoning reform, but overall the candidates that ran on ending exclusionary zoning did quite well. It’s hard for a city process to be more inclusive than an election. In the 2023 city council election more than 23,000 people participated.
After the election, there has continued to be quite a lot of community process. CDD sent a mailer describing this proposal to every household in the city. There were open houses, meetings of the city council, the planning board, the housing committee, the neighborhood and long term planning commitee, all sorts of opportunities for public comment. Given that council terms are only two years, I don’t think that more process is feasible or desirable. Our democratically elected city council need to be allowed to make changes.
The city sent out a postcard-sized mailer on the upzoning, but most residents I’ve spoken with do not know about it. They didn’t do their due diligence in notifying the public; they are poking a sleeping bear. This could have been done much more thoughtfully. End exclusionary zoning and increase affordable housing, but the current MFH will result in tear-downs being replaced with more luxury units than affordable ones. It’s too bad, opportunity missed.
@LL Your claim is false. Upzoning doesn’t lead to tear-downs or luxury developments—research shows it reduces housing costs without displacing residents.
The city has conducted extensive public outreach, and this issue has been widely reported and discussed for years. If people haven’t engaged until now, that’s on them.
Jim Gray wants answers to his 22 questions? Most all have been asked before and answers are readily available on the city website and elsewhere.
Peter Glick arbitrarily wants to set the minimum votes to pass zoning reform at seven? Well, the current proposal has repeatedly been advanced by Council votes of 8-1.
Gray wants to avoid “many surprised and unhappy residents”? The best way for the Council to achieve that goal is to review the work already accomplished, ignore calls to count vote totals backwards, pass the current proposal and move on to remedy the rest of the housing mistakes of the past decades.
@LL building more housing is just that: building more housing. I would take a case of having 10-20 apartments over 1 five million dollar house. As far as poking a sleeping bear: 60% of Cambridge residents are renters. Please let’s poke every “bear” and see if the majority wants to build more housing.