With housing affordability and development pressures at odds, the Cambridge City Council on Monday debated how to strike the right balance as it prepares for a new study, expected to be completed by fall 2026, to set construction “linkage” fees that help pay for affordable housing and job training.
Cambridge has commissioned similar “nexus” studies in the past, most recently in 2019, to advise on how much developers should pay to offset the impact of new commercial development. That year’s study led to the implementation of linkage fees of $20.10 per square foot, which increased to $33.34 per square foot in October 2022 – in general triggered when projects reach 30,000 square feet. According to a memo from the city manager, the current housing contribution rate is $36.36 per square foot.
Developers and some councillors have cautioned that additional fees and requirements could discourage new construction, or inadvertently define construction trends as developers shape or limit projects to avoid higher costs.
“At $20 a square foot, they’re going to pay around $2 million, and if they add five extra square feet, they’re going to pay $2.5 million,” councillor Burhan Azeem said. “There’s going to be a dead zone in every situation where you have that jump.”
Vice mayor Marc McGovern said understanding the broader economic picture, including how much development the city needs to remain viable, is crucial when making decisions about fees.
“We do have to be mindful when we add more and more fees to construction of the impact that has. We tend to look at these things in isolation,” McGovern said. He had a goal for the study authors: “I hope it tells us what’s really happening, not just what we think happens on paper.”
According to Chris Cotter, the city’s housing director, the study will consider anticipated development, vacancy rates and the local economy.
Councillors also questioned who would benefit from affordable housing created through the linkage funds. Many of the commercial developments that qualify for the fees are lab and office buildings, and many employees in those sectors earn too much to qualify for affordable housing.
“I’ve always had difficulty completely understanding,” councillor Paul Toner said, “what exactly is the nexus between building high-end commercial space and the need for more affordable housing?”
In the past, linkage fees for affordable housing and job training have been described as a measure to counteract gentrification, a way to keep residents in the city when commercial buildings attract new residents who might displace them with the ability to pay higher rents. But Cotter had an additional answer – that lower-wage workers such as janitorial and maintenance staff would qualify. He said the study will include surveys of existing employees in Cambridge to better understand who takes jobs in the city and may need housing.
McGovern emphasized that not everyone working in Cambridge’s labs and offices earns a high salary.
“People think, ‘Oh, look at all these people working in these buildings – they’re all making a ton of money, and they’re ruining the city,’” McGovern said. “It’s a lot of people working in those jobs who aren’t making that money.”
Toner moved to place the motion on file, which passed unanimously, 9-0.
Other actions
Solar zoning: A debate emerged over proposed zoning calling for the architecture of tall buildings to include stepbacks to preserve sunlight for neighbors’ rooftop solar panels.
Developers and housing advocates argued that the stepbacks would effectively cap new housing at four stories, threatening Cambridge’s multifamily housing production – zoning passed in February allowed six-story multifamily buildings citywide if they include affordable housing – and inclusionary zoning goals. Environmental advocates countered that solar access is crucial to the city’s net-zero plans, and that residents who invested in rooftop solar under city encouragement deserve protection.
Many councillors said they heard valid points from both sides and called for more data before making a decision. “We have to have a balanced view. We do want to build housing, but we also have sustainability goals,” councillor Cathie Zusy said. “Balance is key.”
After discussion, the council voted 8-1 to refer the matter to the Housing and Health & Environment committees for study and developer consultation. Zusy voted “reluctantly yes”; Toner was the lone “no.”
Councillor Patty Nolan committed to scheduling a follow-up meeting as soon as possible to continue balancing solar protection and housing production.
Gold Star Mothers Park: The council addressed the closing of Gold Star Mothers Park, which was shut down after a September soil test found chemical contamination.
The closing has alarmed residents, particularly parents, who raised concerns about the safety of public parks where children play. At the meeting, residents praised the city’s transparency but expressed frustration that contamination went undetected for so long. They called for testing of other neighborhood playgrounds to ensure safety.
“This hit everyone hard. It’s not enough to fence off one playground,” Toner said. “We need to prove to parents that every park in this city is safe.”
The Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Health hosts a community meeting Oct. 16 to share the full results of testing at the park. Councillors also requested information about sources of lead exposure for children, efforts to reduce lead levels and data on lead trends among Cambridge children.
Alewife walkways and Russell Field: Residents voiced concerns about safety on paths around Alewife and the Linear Park, citing drug use, homeless encampments and poor lighting.
“People wrote in to say a child was pricked by a used needle at nearby Gibbons Park and that they had witnessed someone shooting up,” resident Lisa Burke said, referring to reports from a local newsletter.
Residents thanked city staff for a cleanup program that recovered 3,500 needles over the past month.
The council acknowledged residents’ concerns and outlined next steps, including coordination between the city and local property owners, community involvement in all planning efforts, improved lighting, expanded social services, relocation of litter-prone textile bins and ongoing oversight and reporting.
The motion passed 9-0.
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.
Entry level alone, lab workers are making 70-80% of AMI. Cambridge continues to do everything they can to drive developers out of town. Whether its the fees, the permitting or the pushback from neighborhood coalitions, a lot of developers do not want to business here because of the headache of dealing with the process and the lousy ROI’s that they are expected to accept.