A few weeks ago, the Cambridge City Council unanimously passed a resolution declaring our city a sanctuary for all vulnerable people, reaffirming a commitment to protect those most at risk. In a dangerous era in which hostility and exclusion are spreading from the highest levels of national power, it was an important affirmation of the values our city strives to uphold.
Now, we face a test of that commitment. The city has announced plans to close the Transition Wellness Center, a 58-bed shelter at Spaulding Hospital that has served as a critical safety net for some of the city’s most vulnerable residents since it first opened in December 2020.
The center was created during the Covid pandemic using federal Arpa relief funds, replacing a temporary shelter in the high school’s gym. When schools reopened and shelters were still operating at reduced capacity, the center filled a critical gap. But in taking steps to prevent transmission of the virus, we ended up discovering a better way to run our shelter system.
The center is noncongregate: Rooms are shared by just a few people. Residents get a guaranteed bed, space to store their belongings, three meals a day, access to on-site medical support and more. Unlike many shelters, residents aren’t forced to leave during the daytime. The environment is calmer, more stable and more predictable – conditions that make a real difference for people navigating trauma, disability or serious health challenges.
Because of this, the center emerged as an exemplary model for what a shelter can be. We also learned, perhaps unsurprisingly, that residents across the shelter system do better when spaces aren’t overcrowded and can operate at lower density. We should build on that success, not revert to the old way of doing things.
Now that the Arpa funding has been spent, the city must decide whether to continue operating the center using its own funds. City manager Yi-An Huang has argued against doing so, pointing to the center’s higher cost per bed compared with congregate options. But it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison; his argument overlooks the deeper support, greater stability and better outcomes that the center provides for residents. It may cost more, but it also delivers more.
This reality was on full display at Monday’s meeting of the City Council, when a dozen residents of the center gave powerful public testimony. Each defended the existence of their home as a supportive environment that has helped them get back on their feet. They spoke about struggling to sleep in more chaotic environments; one resident recalled having to sleep upright in a chair due to overcrowding in other facilities. The final speaker warned that if the city failed to act, it would be sentencing residents to a “life of hell.”
They made a compelling case that the shelter is something we should be proud to have in our community, and that it is more than worthy of continued funding.
Some have argued that this should be the state’s responsibility, suggesting that many unhoused people in Cambridge’s shelter system have come from Boston or elsewhere. But that claim was undercut by Monday night’s public comment, where most shelter residents who spoke identified as long-term or lifelong Cambridge residents. One man shared that he had lived and worked here as a cab driver for 18 years before falling on hard times.
Personally, I don’t believe the length of someone’s residency should determine their eligibility for shelter. But for those who do, it’s important to acknowledge the reality: Many of the people staying at the center have deep roots in our community. They are not outsiders. They are our neighbors, and they need our support. It’s also unlikely that the state will step in.
And this brings us to perhaps the most urgent issue with the city’s current approach: There’s nowhere for these residents to go. That point was underscored Monday by Jim Stewart, longtime director of the First Church Shelter, who noted that no real transition plan has been put forward. It would be irresponsible to cram people into the wet shelter at 240 Albany St., especially given the widely rumored plans by MIT and the city to initiate long-overdue renovations of that facility.
Residents are scared, and any objective look at the situation would find that their fears are well-founded. The city cites the imminent opening of new permanent supportive housing units at 116 Norfolk St. to justify the closing, but even those won’t be able to accommodate everyone who is being displaced. The numbers don’t add up, and the transition plan is, at best, incomplete. To make matters worse, the seasonal winter warming center in the basement of the Citywide Senior Center is scheduled to close around the same time. The Transition Wellness Center usually absorbs some of the spillover from that, but this year it might not be there.
This path will lead inevitably to more people sleeping outside on our streets, struggling to survive poverty in Central and Harvard.
The best solution is to keep the center open. Sanctuary cities don’t shutter shelters amid the rise of fascism. Rather than making a cold financial calculation, let’s meet the moment and live up to the values we’ve espoused in writing. Our vulnerable neighbors are counting on us; how can we leave them high and dry?
If you agree, please take a moment to email your elected representatives and let them know. Emailing council@cambridgema.gov reaches all nine councillors at once, and copying clerk@cambridgema.gov enters it into the official record. Your message doesn’t have to be very long to have an impact!
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.