Zion Sherin isn’t willing to accept a penny in donations from political action committees or corporate interest groups this election season while running for Cambridge City Council.
“Taking money from PACs can make it so that people have diverted attention,” he said. Instead, Sherin only wants donations from people. “It allows me to be truly free to represent what the people of Cambridge want most.”
The self-described “true independent” believes in “leadership that is transparent, fiscally responsible and rooted in the needs of everyday residents, not special interests,” according to a campaign release.
A lifetime registered independent, Sherin said he wants a campaign focused more on policies than political ideology. He was inspired to make a bid for a council seat by some of the issues Cambridge faces: lack of government transparency, zoning issues and the rising cost of living.
A Cornell graduate with a heavy background in business, Sherin plans to use his degree and work experience to bring more financial transparency to Cantabrigians, as well as advocating for clearer communications from City Hall, coherent public notes and better tools for understanding how decisions are made, he said.
But Sherin said the top priority is opening doors for first-time homebuyers while protecting the rights of longtime homeowners who’d like to stay in the city. He backs policies that protect single- and two-family homes and wants to expand first-time buyers’ assistance.
At the same time, Sherin wants to explore thoughtful zoning reforms that expand access without driving people out of the city.
The city has seen zoning changes that go from “one extreme to the other,” he said, citing votes to eliminate minimum parking space requirements and exclusionary zoning policies.
“We need to be a little bit more nuanced and understand that Cambridge has different areas which have different zoning,” Sherin said. He cited a roughly 4,500-square-foot building at 60 Ellery St., Mid-Cambridge, that may be demolished and replaced with a six-story building with 29 units, according to a building application.
“We should still protect buildings that are well kept and well maintained, and also protect some level of upzoning,” he said.
Contempo Builders, the homebuilding agency that filed for the home at 60 Ellery St. to be demolished, did not respond immediately for a request for comment.
When it comes at the cost of housing, Sherin – like most candidates in the upcoming election – is trying to find ways for Cantabrigians to live in the city, not just get by. He emphasizes making sure first responders can afford to live in the city.
That’s why he’s trying to implement a geographic pay system for the city’s firefighters, police officers, EMTs and 911 dispatchers. Sherin hopes giving a bonus to Cambridge first responders will help offset some of the rising housing costs the city is facing.
He also supports protected bike lanes and safer pedestrian infrastructure while understanding the need for car access for seniors, caregivers and working families.
When it comes to city street design, Sherin is mulling parking minimums for new developers or restricting new buildings from getting on-street parking permits. With the restriction in place, there will be more pressure for developers to live up to their word when planning for transit and bike parking, Sherin said.
“There are areas where you can be supportive of both parking and of bike lanes, and I think it’s really important that we have someone whose goal is to accommodate both groups, not just one is going to make one happy at the cost of another,” he said.
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.
I think Sherin may not understand how PACs work. Candidates don’t take money from them, they have to choose whether to be on their slates. The PACs spend money on their own to support candidates who are in favor or against their pet issues. No bags of money go to candidates.
If Sherin is serious about rejecting PAC influence, that’s great, but that means saying NO to being on every PAC’s slate, including ABC, CCC, CBS, CRA, and the rest. Sherin, are you truly going to stick to your word and opt out of PAC money entirely by not being on any slates?
“He backs policies that protect single- and two-family homes”
What does this actually even mean? Nothing under the zoning laws prevent the construction of single family homes or duplexes, they can be built in just about any residential plot in the city.
Furthermore… why? What is it about 1- and 2- family homes that are so crucial to the goals of the city that they need special protective policy?
The candidate “wants a campaign focused more on policies than political ideology”, but his entire rap sheet just reads as centrism for centrism’s sake, the whole “wow some people are really angry so both sides must be wrong” kneejerk reaction.
From his LinkedIn profile, it would appear that Mr. Sherin has lived in Cambridge for less than two years and has not been involved with any Cambridge organizations.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/zionatcornell
you are all yelling about new blood and younger, more diverse candidates. Here you have one. some of those 1- and 2-family houses can become opportunities for homeownership through programs. If on large lots, they can also add more units while maintaining a historical facade.
Even if he had only lived in Cambridge for two years, what difference does that make? None.
We have councilors who have lived in Cambridge for many years, but still refuse to understand that their policies have caused the economic middle class, house rich and cash poor, to leave the city.
And, it will get worse as real estate taxes for homeowners are going to rise steeply in the next three years.
Can you clarify more on the first home buyers. Are you also intending the current resident in the program to allow them to own the property 100%?
I am not saying right from the beginning, but after checking the financial stability of the owners.
Hi @Rivergoddess, to answer your question, there are many types of PACs as explained below.
Connected PACs often are tied to corporations or unions. They can’t take donations from people outside their group and can and do donate directly to candidates. There are limits to donations, and most politicians take at least some PAC money – due to the volume of PACs, these donations can constitute the majority of money raised by a candidate. I have decided not to accept direct financial contributions from PACs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t share some of the values of these groups. (1/2)
There are also Non connected PACs that can raise money from the general public and help support candidates that are in alignment with their goals.
There are also IE PACs that often run endorsements and do not donate directly to candidates, instead just endorsing the candidates they feel best represent their values.
For me personally, regardless of the PAC type or cause, I will not be accepting donations from them or corporate interest groups. I will consider endorsements, but no donations. For example, if a union that does great work in the city wants to endorse me and let their members know they would like to see me in office, I am happy to accept their endorsement, however I will pass on their donations. (2/2)
“He backs policies that protect single- and two-family homes”
—i.e., he supports the exclusionary zoning that helped create the housing crisis.
He seems like a centrist mainly for electability. His positions aim to appease, not solve Cambridge’s real challenges.
Just what we need, more short-sighted council members.
Hi @cwec,
To address your question on why single and two family homes are so important, they are normally the most accessible way for middle class families to invest. Many middle class families have the majority of their wealth tied up in their homes – homeownership is the financial backbone for the middle class, so we need to keep home ownership accessible for their economic stability and mobility. To do so, we need to create new programs and expand on existing ones that: help people buy their first home, keep property taxes reasonable (which also keeps rents down), and decrease incentives for unnecessary over-development. It’s also important to note that I’m not against all forms of development or housing expansion, just that it needs to be done thoughtfully.
Hi @Adirbaba,
I am not exactly sure what your question is, but I would love to find out. If you would like to set up a time for a quick call I would be happy to speak with you. You can email zion4office@gmail.com or book a time to chat directly on my website by clicking the “Meet with Me” tap on the Zion for Cambridge website. (ZionforCambridge.com)
Hello @Zion Sherin,
Can you please define the phrase “decrease incentives for unnecessary over-development” that you used in your response to @cwec. What is the “unnecessary over-development” in your opinion? Does it imply that there is a “necessary over-development”? How about “unnecessary under-development”, and is it the same as zoning for a single family housing only? Cheers.
Avgjoe
You said:”His positions aim to appease, not solve Cambridge’s real challenges.”
The real challenge of Cambridge is to retain the economic middle class homeowners. It is not to think that every family that wants to live in Cambridge is entitled to live in Cambridge.
If the economic middle class continues to be “taxed out”, Cambridge will not be the same city it once was.
Cambridge has already started to have a fiscal crisis although the councilors are loath to admit it. Spending on unnecessary expenses, large and small, is going to put the city in a precarious financial position during the next several years, Moodys’ rating not withstanding.
We know that there are several councilors who, because of their political beliefs, want to do things that are not fiscally sound. Sort of like Mamdani.
@Zion Sherin “they are normally the most accessible way for middle class families to invest” may be true for the rest of the country (because it is nearly impossible to build anything but single family homes in most of the country), it is not the case for Cambridge.
Median SFH sale price in Cambridge is nearly $2MM, that is not accessible to the middle class, and it never will be. Land is scarce in Cambridge and demand is extraordinary.
Do you have any details about what you would do to “protect” these homes owned by the wealthiest Cantabrigians? Because it just comes off as signaling being against development in general.
Hi Zion, you mentioned keeping property taxes down in the same comment where you say you want to support first-time home-buyers. Cambridge already has just about the lowest residential taxes in the state, excepting seasonal/vacation communities. My understanding is Cambridge’s low residential taxes actually make it more difficult for first time buyers to get their foot in the door.
Consider two homes that are otherwise similar, but one is subject to a lower property tax because it is just over the border in a neighboring city. Which will have a higher selling price? The one with the lower property tax – it’s more valuable because that continuing cost will be lower. If you have the money for a down payment on the pricier payment, you may not care, or even prefer the higher priced home. But for middle class buyers, the difference in down payments for the two homes can put the lower-taxed home it off reach. Our low property taxes are good for incumbent owners, but bad for home buyers.