On Monday, the number of Democratic Socialists on Cambridge City Council will double, as Ayah Al-Zubi joins incumbent Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler. It remains to be seen whether two elected socialists will change much in a city so progressive it has embraced the nickname the People’s Republic of Cambridge.
The difference between the DSA and mainstream Democrats, said Sobrinho-Wheeler, is that democratic socialists are “fighting for democracy not just in our political system, not just at the ballot box, but in our economy. How do we make our workplaces, our economic institutions, our financial institutions, democratic?”
Party politics tends to play a minor role in Cambridge municipal elections. City Council races are non-partisan; there are no party primaries, and all electees in recent years have identified as Democrats. Former Councillor Sam Seidel, who served for two terms between 2008 and 2011, has a “wait-and-see” mindset about the impact they’ll have on the council. He said it was one thing to get elected as a socialist. Now the question is, “can they … organize their own selves and their own resources to actually effectuate some of [their policies] once they they’re actually sworn in on the council?”
Still, Al-Zubi and Sobrinho-Wheeler, who finished third and sixth, respectively, in November’s at-large election, are part of the biggest political moment for socialists in the United States in roughly a century, led by Zohran Mamdani becoming mayor of New York City.
The political organization under which many Democratic Socialists run, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), celebrated its year of successes in state and local races with a conference in New Orleans, La., which was attended by both Sobrinho-Wheeler and Al-Zubi.
“It was good to be at a conference in solidarity with people whose values really aligned,” said Al-Zubi. “I’m taking a lot of that energy and pouring it into city hall.”
Social housing on the docket
A key feature Al-Zubi and Sobrinho-Wheeler’s agendas are improving housing affordability, an issue that also paved the way to Mamdani’s success in New York.
Both Al-Zubi and Sobrinho-Wheeler have advocated for “social housing,” which would create new municipally owned affordable units. Al-Zubi’s version of the plan includes issuing a bond order to the tune of $50 million, an idea that she believes is “gaining momentum” with other councillors serving this upcoming term. Sobrinho-Wheeler promises to explore “all options” to pay for the program.
While some candidates in November’s election voiced concerns about the expense of maintaining the city’s budget of about $1 billion, Sobrinho-Wheeler was optimistic about Cambridge’s options even if revenue projections are shaky.
“We have a lot of flexibility. We have had a AAA bond reading for decades,” he said. “The topic is more about moderating budget growth than about cuts, and I would push back strongly on any effort to implement austerity or really cut services,” he said. He emphasized maintaining line items related to housing, mental and behavioral health and education.
Sobrinho-Wheeler said creating a plan and getting the votes for social housing would likely be a term-long project. In the meantime, other affordability measures are on the table. For Al-Zubi, one goal is “Maintaining our municipal housing program, or maybe expanding it… It’s definitely an opportunity to keep people housed,” she said. Sobrinho-Wheeler reiterated the importance of developing Cambridge’s workforce and hopes to create a job training trust in line with similar programs in Somerville and Boston.
Al-Zubi said that “what’s important to recognize is just the nature of wanting to work on an affordability agenda, having another Democratic Socialist makes that possible.”
This article was updated to correct Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler’s position in the final vote count.
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.
Although I laud the concept of making Cambridge more affordable, I do worry about over extending the finances of the city in these turbulent times.
Additionally I want to know if the advocates of bigger higher and more densely populated buildings in our city are thinking about the needed infrastructure upgrades these buildings will cost and how to establish them as fast as they are built. Our current Reservoir isn’t getting any bigger for water, the city needs lots of sewer line work, and our Fire Department needs upgrades to handle bigger buildings. Last I checked we lack fire engines that can handle 10 or 12 story buildings as has been discussed in regards to water delivery and ladders.
“While some candidates in November’s election voiced concerns about the expense of maintaining the city’s budget of about $1 billion, Sobrinho-Wheeler was optimistic about Cambridge’s options even if revenue projections are shaky.”
Of course, the city can borrow. But, what the Democratic Socialists are unwilling to understand is that it comes with consequences i.e. interest on the bond issue, and paying back the money borrowed.
As I’ve said here many times, starting several years ago, the city is in a precarious financial situation. Aside from taxes on residential units, the city’s revenues are going to continue to decline.
The city can continue to raise residential real estate taxes, but that just means a continuation of the economically challenged middle class leaving the city. This can’t be a city of only the wealthy and low income families. That would be a disaster.
This city cannot afford to do everything that everyone wants. It must allocate its resources wisely.
May I just be depressed that no one at Cambridge Day seems to know the difference between socialists and Democratic Socialists?
You are wrong, Old Boy.
Ponies for everyone!
It’s what Zondervan would have wanted!
No but seriously how many times have I read the same story with a different named attached to it over the past 35 years in Cambridge?
CambridgeJoe, CDD has testified publicly multiple times that during the Envision process, the City departments determined that Cambridge’s infrastructure can handle a significant increase in housing, more than will be built under the (then-2030, now 2040) Envision housing goals. Cambridge built very little housing in 2024 or 2025, and 2026 isn’t looking great either, so it’s not a concern under current circumstances.
There’s a version of a City revolving loan fund or similar arrangement that is largely revenue neutral or even positive if it generates future increases in property tax revenue that more than offset the borrowing costs.
The folks concerned about residential property taxes increasing should be the biggest supporters of such a program, as it’s the only path to offset the decreased valuations in commercial properties (office, lab).
The policy for decades has been to use exclusionary zoning and empowered NIMBYs to maintain a massive housing shortage, then to tax whoever to pay for some hand-picked “affordable” housing. How’s that working out? Huh? Are we going to double down now with even more liberal policies? It’s hard to imagine that a Democratic Socialist will see that the actual answer is to get out of the way – unleash private business to build what people want, where they want it. Can we at least keep that idea in mind as we do the same old for the next few years?