First, thank you to every candidate willing to step up and serve our community. Running for office takes courage, regardless of where we disagree on policy.
That said, numerous Cambridge City Council candidates are making impossible housing promises ahead of November’s election.
Adding 12,500 housing units likely means at least 3,000 new students, as a very conservative, if not overly conservative, estimate based on the number of family-sized apartments in a report by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. Cambridge spends more than $36,000 per student annually. At minimum, that’s a $100 million annual increase before the likely cost of building additional schools. More residents will also mean higher incremental costs for police, fire, water and other services, each of which requiring their own one-time and ongoing funding requirements.
Of course, that assumes we can build so many new units. We completed just 39 units in 2023 while promising thousands. Our 20 percent inclusionary zoning requirement seems to have made construction financially impossible. A Boston Globe article in May reported that the 2400 Massachusetts Ave. project sits stalled because affordability mandates cut projected revenue to $90 million from $108 million, probably killing the deal entirely.
I support affordable housing because proximity to work transforms lives and strengthens communities. But I oppose shallow promises that mislead voters while worsening the crisis. Mathematical reality always defeats political intentions.
Before November, demand candidates answer: How much will your plans cost? How will you fund operations? Which services will you cut?
Cambridge’s housing crisis is too serious for campaign fantasies that basic arithmetic exposes as fiscally reckless.
Patrick Murray, Arlington 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.
Is your complaint that we’re building too much, or not enough? You bring up both.
Multifamily zoning will not result in $108MM in costs overnight, nor will it come without additional revenue. Those new buildings have much higher property tax bills than what they replace.
Also, in many cases, the cost of the infrastructure does not scale linearly with the increased population. Fixed costs are a real thing, and their impact on the budget is minimized by increasing the population. Repaving a road costs more or less the same, no matter how many people live along that road.
Also, these buildings aren’t popping up overnight. It will take years for that 12,500 figure to come true.
I’m supporting candidates that want more housing, because more housing is lower costs, more options, and higher quality homes. We added 50k jobs in the last 25 years, it’s time for our housing stock to catch up.
Studies of budget impact find that building multifamily homes has a positive impact, meaning if Cambridge taxpayers want to keep taxes low, they should support building more multifamily homes, not fewer.
The Harvard JCHS report also does not support the claim in this op-ed. The JCHS report is about the 100% Affordable Housing Overlay, which as the report itself states, has a much lower housing goal.
The 100% Affordable Housing Overlay has around 1,000 affordable homes in the pipeline, but given the many challenges to finance and build affordable homes, those homes will take many years to be built and will likely not be complete by 2030.
Thus, it will only add a small fraction of the number of students posited. But the op-ed is absolutely correct that it will transform lives! You can read about one young woman, Christine Mumm, who went from homeless to housed here. https://cambridge-housing.org/home-at-last-christina-mumms-journey-to-norfolk-street/
Kids and families bad, giant owner property tax abatements good. Yawn.
On the one hand, the author claims that having new residents is always a drain on a city, because they cost more than they contribute in tax revenue. This is plainly absurd: new residents also bring new revenue — especially given the restrictions of Prop 2.5, new growth is the best way to add new tax revenue. New taxpayers generally pay for themselves, even if they have (heaven forbid) children.
On the other hand, the author also seems to argue that because there are multiple obstacles to housing production, we should not set goals for housing production, or aim to increase housing production. Clearly, this is also absurd: there’s no silver bullet, but obviously we need to work to spur housing production. No, we won’t hit our goals immediately or without further work. No, that doesn’t mean we should give up.
Perhaps Mr. Murray should factor in the additional revenue that thousands of new homes would bring.
Multifamily homes are revenue-positive, even after accounting for per-pupil costs and even the costs of building new schools.
It may also behoove him to familiarize himself with Proposition 2½, which limits how existing revenue can be increased. Importantly, it _doesn’t_ limit adding revenue from new property, meaning building new homes is vital to Cambridge’s fiscal health.
Now, Cambridge’s levy is still below its Prop 2 ½ limits, so if he’s worried about paying for things, it might be good to look first at how Cambridge is leaving money on the table that it could collect. You’ve got the lowest tax rate around!
It may also be helpful if Mr. Murray remembers that, for years under the previous City Manager, tax revenues were _returned_ to residents, instead of being saved for future needs.
In short: your math doesn’t check out, Mr. Murray.
Patrick,
I’m confused, so help me here.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the city adds 12,500 housing units. Who lives in those housing units? Are they people who already live in Cambridge and want to move into new housing?
Are they people who do not currently live in Cambridge, but want to move to the city?
In either situation, it means that at least 25,000 (probably closer to 40,000) new residents will live in Cambridge if 12,500 housing units are built.
As you said, this will require more schools. It will also severely strain the city’s municipal resources other than the schools.
My question is why is Cambridge encouraging a significant number of people to move here? The city is already very densely populated, and the city has an extremely diverse population.
We do not need more people living in Cambridge. There is no rational need for what might be a 30% increase in population.
This letter gets housing wrong.
New housing isn’t just a “cost.” It adds property taxes, supports local business, and reduces displacement and long commutes.
Stalled projects are due to high interest rates and construction costs, not inclusionary zoning.
The real fiscal recklessness is failing to build, driving rents up, worsening inequality, and pushing out working families, making it tougher for businesses to find workers.
The author’s threat of cutting services is unsubstantiated fearmongering, typical of NIMBY arguments.
In Cambridge, jobs far outpaced housing. A strong economy requires housing for the workers those jobs attract. Exclusionary zoning blocked it. Creating jobs without homes only deepens the crisis.
The NIMBY “solution” to a crisis to do nothing? That’s easy to say from when you’re not spending half of your income on rent.
Cambridge’s birth rate is sharply down, which translates into school enrollment numbers dropping, and we just closed a school. It would help the health of the school system to increase the school age population to avoid further closures that would almost certainly result in staff and teacher layoffs.
Dear @old boy
Please be the first to stand on the Cambridge city boundary and ask everyone coming in “are you moving in? We are full!” Our city was lucky to be a vibrant locality with lots of well paying jobs. People have a right to live here, even if some don’t approve.
@Old Boy. Cambridge has been developing comercial properties and creating new jobs. The Cambridge workforce has been steadily rising. You have to make new housing if you make new jobs or else you get a housing crisis.
That’s a rational need.
Would you rather have all those workers driving here and increasing traffic?
That’s a rational need.
Lack of housing is a drag on the local economy. Businesses have trouble hiring if workers face high rents or long commutes. Residents can’t afford to spend money in local businesses if they are spending much of their income on rent.
That’s a rational need.
Increased density is good for local businesses. More people mean more customers.
That’s a rational need.
@Old Boy we have added 50k jobs in the past few decades, and our population hasn’t caught up. Increasing the population means less traffic, because people won’t need to drive into work. It also means lower housing costs compared to what they would otherwise be due to increased supply, and it means greater choice in housing for people that already live here.
As the author cites, the math is relatively straight forward.
Average unit size in Cambridge ~ 825sqft
12,500 units ~ 10MMsqft
Average real estate value ~$1k/sqft
Total residential unit value ~ $10B
Cambridge current real estate tax ~ $6.35/$1k
Total Cambridge tax revenue ~ $65MM
As the poster mentioned, the cost per student alone in the school district outstrips “new” revenue.
I’d be curious where Mr. Byrnes gets his data that says multi-family units are “net positive”. Certainly not what this data seems to convey.
This factors in no additional externalities – capital outlays required to support population increase, police, etc.
I am all for affordable housing for low-to-middle income earners. The current plan is NOT the way, and I look forward to voting out the sitting council in November.
As an additional note to the comment above, we are also in a slide into a shrinking national economy and a crashing jobs market. Adding new housing does not necessarily mean more jobs, just more people looking for jobs in the long term if this turns into a multi year recession (and it could very well be such for the next 3 years without a drastic change at the Federal Level).
Speculative building will happen… and empty buildings do not improve the city they add to problems and risks. I remember what happened during the Savings & Loan recession in other parts of the state and what happened under the recession before Obama got into office.
Please Look at the long story over the past 60 years…
@adiletta Your math doesn’t add up.
City tax revenue comes from more than residential property taxes. It also includes commercial activity, excise taxes, and other recurring sources.
Your argument ignores the economic boost from new residents. Their spending power and support for local businesses increase commercial tax receipts. In short, more people = more customers.
Your fiscal analysis is flawed. It should consider only the incremental cost per new resident or household, since many city expenses (e.g., building maintenance) don’t scale linearly with population.
The claim that “multi-family units are not net positive” contradicts extensive professional research.
Numerous independent studies (including from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Massachusetts-based fiscal analyses) find that multi-family housing, especially in dense cities like Cambridge, is often fiscally positive.
@adiletta the author is probably overestimating the actual enrollment of students in Cambridge from the new housing units. If we look at the number of students enrolled in CPSD schools (7,103) divided by the total housing stock in Cambridge (58,170), we get a ratio of 0.122 students per household. Multiplying that number by the 12,500 figure gives us an estimated 1526 new students, far lower than the 3000 the author mentioned, which brings the increased cost down to ~$55MM.
Of course, that’s assuming that there are no fixed costs of running the school district. If we consider that not every cost of running the school district will scale linearly with enrollment, the actual increased cost for schooling will likely be lower than that figure.
That also assumes that the households moving in are representative of Cambridge, but new residents are probably less likely to have children, and more likely to be wealthier and therefore enroll their children in private schools.
@Henry, this is just not true.
FY25 Tax revenue – $712MM
This is ~72% of operating revenues.
Of that $712MM, $628MM is property tax levy, 88%. While you “technically” may be correct that non-property tax revenue contributes to the overall budget, it is disingenuous (to say the least) to generically describe “other sources” of revenue that new residents might contribute that are meaningful in comparison to the property taxes.
Let’s start dealing with facts.
If you have specific studies that you can cite – rather than making a claim they exist, I’m happy to read them and perhaps they’ll inform my opinion.
OK, let’s stick to facts.
Research consistently shows that multi-family housing, especially in dense cities like Cambridge, is fiscally positive. It generates more tax revenue per acre and uses infrastructure more efficiently than single-family development.
https://housingtoolkit.nmhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/D_NMHC_PDF-Sections_Multifamily-Benefits_PG-36-TO-44.pdf
When zoning barriers are eased by ending single-family-only zoning, reducing parking minimums, and allowing adaptive reuse, more housing gets built. That lets more workers live nearby, supports small-business hiring, shortens commutes, improves employee retention, and expands the customer base for local shops and restaurants.
https://elgl.org/zoning-reform-impacts-main-street-america/
Business is an important source of revenue for the city. Commercial properties paying about 66% of the city’s total property tax levy, while residential properties make up around 34%.
Facts!
@Henry
Research consistently shows that multi-family housing, especially in dense cities like Cambridge, is fiscally positive.
You’ve cited no such research. The study you cited compares tax revenues for “traditional suburbs” versus denser options. That’s not the argument here. Of course 8 story buildings are “more efficient” than a single family. Moreover, the author of said cited study is a consulting firm whose business goal is the deployment of dense towers in downtowns. An independent analysis it is not.
It generates more tax revenue per acre and uses infrastructure more efficiently than single-family development.
Again, this is entirely irrelevant. The author is asking the question, what’s the actual cost to build and who will ultimately bear that cost. None of these reponses provide any answers, merely distilling the comments down to a “build, baby, build” refrain.
Part 1 of 2.
Part 2 of 2:
When zoning barriers are eased by ending single-family-only zoning, reducing parking minimums, and allowing adaptive reuse, more housing gets built.
Again, this is not the author’s argument. Moreover, many are advocating for some sense of keeping community and design, and not putting our city in the hands of developers.
That lets more workers live nearby, supports small-business hiring, shortens commutes, improves employee retention, and expands the customer base for local shops and restaurants.
Absolutely nothing to do with the author’s point. If you want to explain how shortening worker commutes is a net positive to the city’s currently poor financial situation, by all means go ahead.
Business is an important source of revenue for the city.
The major business contributors are large corporations and universities, which will not be effected by a change in housing policy one way or another. Macro economic factors influence their decisions.
1 of 2
Thank you for engaging. The goal of affordable housing isn’t controversial. What matters is whether plans will actually work versus stall out.
Affordable housing means lower property values, less tax revenue per unit, and less economic activity per household than market-rate housing. That’s the definition, not a criticism. And it’s exactly why we need it.
But candidates cannot claim units will be affordable AND generate the same tax revenue. The math doesn’t work both ways.
Voters deserve answers: What will subsidies cost? How will we pay? Cambridge has thousands of studios and one-bedrooms, but the affordable housing pipeline targets families with larger units.
Developers aren’t charities. They are businesses putting capital at risk. If returns don’t justify risk, nothing gets built. Worse, inadequate economics mean worse housing. When margins are razor-thin, you get bottom-tier builders. Corners get cut, quality suffers, and vulnerable families pay the price.
2 of 2
Good construction requires proper materials, competent management, and contingencies. That costs money. Developers need returns sufficient to justify risk and deliver quality work.
Candidates should provide basic details: projected property taxes, incremental expenses for schools and infrastructure, subsidy amounts, funding sources, and how to ensure adequate economics for quality builders and safe construction jobs.
This isn’t anti-housing. This is pro-reality.
We can build affordable housing only if we’re honest about costs and realistic about what it takes to get built well.
Candidates should show voters a complete plan or acknowledge they’re still developing one. An idea and a plan are different things. Hope is not a strategy. We need concrete plans, not aspirations.
Let’s stop pretending opposition to proposals means opposition to affordable housing. The real question is HOW it gets built, not IF or WHY.
Thank you to all candidates volunteering to serve our city.
Claims about “housing quality” are just NIMBY propaganda. Affordable housing doesn’t mean poor construction—Cambridge enforces strict codes and oversight for all projects. Saying the city ignores quality is simply false.
@adiletta
Your “suburb study” critique entirely misses the point: density improves fiscal efficiency by spreading infrastructure costs across more taxpayers. The NIMBY line that “it won’t work here” is nonsense. The same principles apply everywhere.
I note that you ask others for sources and research but provide none of your own.
You’re also wrong about business. Local business depend on nearby residents. More people mean stronger businesses and that grows the tax base.
And it’s ironic that NIMBYs accuse developers of conflicts of interest while ignoring their own, protecting property values. At least developers build what the city needs.
It’s astonishing how often anti-development activists spread disinformation.
Multi-family affordable housing does not mean poor construction or no oversight.
Anyone who has tried to build in Cambridge knows the permitting and review process is extensive and ensures quality.
Zoning reform doesn’t change that. Claiming more multi-family housing means poor construction is simply false.
History tells us that people who mislead the public do not have the public interest at heart.
The new developments in Cambridge are built to be far more energy efficient than the older buildings they replace.
Notice that this is something the anti-development lobby never seems to acknowledge when criticizing new housing.
NIMBYs claim developers build “luxury condos” or use “poor-quality construction” just to make money.
But a quick look proves both claims false:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/10/13/business/cambridge-housing-12-stories/
“The design is cutting-edge; it would be built almost entirely from laminated wood—a mass timber concept that’s both more cost-effective and energy-efficient.”
“All 73 apartments will be reserved for low- and middle-income residents.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if they tried convince people that the fast-food structure currently there is “historic”.
A 12-story Cambridge building made of mass timber proves the anti-development crowd wrong.
They warned that zoning reform would bring only luxury condos and shoddy construction.
Yet this project offers well-designed, sustainable housing for middle- and low-income renters. Mass timber is energy-efficient, fire-resistant, and produces far fewer greenhouse gases than steel or concrete.
Cutting-edge design and affordability. This is the exact opposite of what the NIMBYs predicted.
And have you noticed? Anti-development candidate’s campaign signs almost always sit in front of the most expensive homes.
Makes you think.