Zoning continued to draw lively debate as the new Cambridge city council term kicked off on Monday.
The biggest matter of interest was a petition (ORD 2025 # 17) to create four new zoning districts in the corridor from Cambridge Street’s intersection with Fayette Street through Inman Square to its East Cambridge intersection with East Street. This “upzoning” would increase the number of new units that could be built from 520 to 1190, according to the Cambridge Community Development Department. If approved, there could be up to eight stories of residential housing along the length of the corridor, up to 10 stories in parts of Inman Square, up to 12 stories near Webster Ave. and Windsor St., and up to 15 stories near Lechmere Square
The petition, which implements the findings of the Our Cambridge Street Study that brought together neighbors and policymakers between to establish goals from the area, was unanimously recommended to city council by the planning board during its October 21st meeting.
Supporters of the petition argued on Monday that increasing the housing capacity would improve affordability by helping meet the current demand.
“Tonight, I am calling for you to do well by our people, to do well by renters like myself, and to do well by process,” said Dana Bullister, who was the first runner-up in November’s election to join council. She made reference to the Our Cambridge Street Study, saying “The most important priority of our council should [be] addressing the single most important priority of our residents, which is addressing our severe housing crisis.”
Opponents, however, say that the ordinance will displace current residents as buildings that are currently there would need to be torn down to build taller residences. And if the new buildings have fewer than ten units, they would also not need to have dedicated affordable housing units.
Lee Farris, president of the Cambridge Residents Alliance, argued that the new petition would result in six-floor residential buildings with no affordable units and no active ground floor. She said the new zones would not be subject to the City’s “4+2” model, which only allows six stories if affordability requirements are met. “Many councilors have said that the inclusionary units are a key reason why they support the petition. Now it appears there will be very few,” she said.
The petition was tabled at the end of last term, when three of the city’s nine councilors voted against advancing it for further consideration. It was tabled for a second time during last night’s meeting to allow the council more time to deliberate the measure, according to Mayor Siddiqui. The council has one more meeting, on January 26, before the petition expires on January 28th.
Beyond zoning, the City Council also considered and approved several policy orders (POs) on Monday night, all by unanimous vote. They include a PO to install speed humps along Fayerweather Street, and a PO for city staff to find ways to exclude certain residents near MBTA stops from getting street parking permits. Some councilors expressed the need to encourage public transit use in lieu of parking, given that residential buildings are no longer required to provide on-site spots.
“This policy order was inspired because there’s extraordinary parking scarcity in many areas,” said Councilor Cathie Zusy, one of its sponsors. She said making permits available to everyone moving into new housing would add to “parking misery.”
One order aimed to explore new ideas for city memorials beyond park benches and street dedications, while another was also unanimously passed to mark 2026 as the Centennial Celebration of Negro History Week, which was celebrated during the second week of February from 1926 until it was expanded in 1976 to become Black History Month.
“This is an opportunity for our city to [look at] the contributions of individuals and how we got where we are,” said Councilor E. Denise Simmons. She noted that it was important to tell the story of the people “whose sweat and labor not only built this city, but have had extraordinary contributions that have been erased and marginalized.”
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.
>>The petition, which implements the findings of the Our Cambridge Street Study…
No, the petition does not do that. The original Our Cambridge Street Study called for maximum height of six stories. Then the prior city council last summer unilaterally ordered the Community Development Department to change the height rules to 10, 12, or 15 stories depending on specific parts of Cambridge Street.
It’s that unilateral move, and the departure from the Cambridge Street plan, that has residents on Cambridge Street so upset. What we have in front of us is NOT the One Cambridge Street plan.
No one would finance redevelopment to build a six story building that’s under 10,000 sq ft, which is where Cambridge inclusionary zoning begins. It’s definitely not viable to both include 20% IZ and subsidize retail in the first floor of six—NIMBYs just want to add a bunch of poison pills to kill housing.
The Solicitor has already said that banning certain residents from street parking is unconstitutional. The City should raise the cost for street parking permits instead with exemptions for lower income residents.
Parking scarcity is part of “the high cost of free parking,” a tragedy of the commons situation.
Lots of people have cars who rarely use them and would not if the City didn’t artificially subsidize parking costs. If we’re serious about the environment, why are we encouraging car ownership by subsiding parking?!
@Reader: Hear, hear! We shouldn’t block progress just to preserve car storage. Many people don’t own or can’t afford cars.
Taller buildings make sense, economically and developmentally.
More height means more housing, which we need. It also means more customers for local businesses.
Denser living and thriving local shops reduce car dependence, a win for everyone.
Cities must build housing to match job growth, or a housing shortage will drag down the economy.
This 6-story limit is a backdoor attempt to block development.
Developers will not invest in projects capped that low, and NIMBYs, having lost their broader fight against housing, are using this restriction to stop it another way. Cambridge voters have spoken: they want more housing.
This cap lets a small group undermine that democratic decision.
Thank you Cathy Zusy for your recognizing and speaking to this critical issue.
For many long time residents without parking associated with our homes, the loss of our street parking to the new bike lane infrastructure is an existential threat to our ability to continue to live in the neighborhoods we’ve been part of for decades.
And now the addition of hundreds of new housing units nearby without including parking as part and parcel of the development criteria will surely be the end of life as we’ve known it here in our beloved neighborhoods.
With all due respect to our solicitor, i encourage full exploration of writing into the deeds for any and all new development without associated parking, an acknowledgment that these new addresses will be forever ineligible for street parking permits. This as policy should meld nicely with the desire to minimize the introduction of more cars into the city, and dramatically reduce opposition to new housing developments.
Michael Buck
Antrim St.
Reader, you seem to have forgotten the many times the Law Department has opined (correctly) that the cost of parking permits cannot legally exceed the cost of administering the program without a home rule petition allowing it.
I will remind all of the people hanging their hats, hopes and dreams on inclusionary zoning to look at three lawsuits, the Arnold Circle one that challenged IZ’s legality, the Lubavitch of Cambridge challenge to the denial of its Banks Street BZA petition, and the current Takings Clause challenge to IZ. The City caved completely in the first two without even coming close to trial.
On the live suit, remember the City’s position on inclusionary zoning was that it violated the Takings Clause and therefore required adequate compensation to the developer until Councillors got tired of following the law a year ago. Purely coincidentally, city staff initiated a nexus study a few weeks ago (which was several years overdue). Maybe wait for the verdict on that?
>The Solicitor has already said that banning certain residents from street parking is unconstitutional
The city solicitor most certainly did not say that.
Calling the loss of parking spots an “existential threat” that will “surely be the end of life as we’ve known it” is simply not credible.
Recent surveys show that 34 to 52 percent of housing units in Cambridge report having no vehicles, so many residents do not rely on cars at all. If easy parking is truly essential for someone, city living may not be the right fit.
“Free” parking is not actually free. It uses scarce land and drives up housing costs, traffic, congestion, and pollution. Those burdens fall on all residents, especially lower-income households that are less likely to own cars.
And finally, protected bike lanes cut accidents by about 50 percent. Getting hit by a car is a real existential risk. Losing a parking space is not.
cjfman, the current City Solicitor hasn’t said that (yet), but her predecessors sure did. If I get some time to look, I’ll see if I can dig up the previous opinions offered to the City Council on the topic. Why don’t you take a look as well?
The current City Solicitor has opined on a related question. You can read the report here (http://rwinters.com/council/030424M7.pdf). Her predecessor submitted a previous report from 2002 in response to this exact question as Item 2 of the City Manager’s Agenda for the April 1, 2013, City Council meeting. The TL;DR is that the law does not allow the City of Cambridge to deny a residential parking sticker to a resident who registers a car as principally garaged in Cambridge. You have to download the entire agenda in order to read the report, but it’s available at the Meeting Portal that’s being phased out.
Housing is a human right. Parking is not. People who can afford cars should not expect others to subsidize free parking on public land.
Streets are dangerous, and many people bike because they cannot afford cars. Lives are at stake. Those who can afford cars should not expect others to risk their lives so they can store private vehicles on public land.
Once again, we see Cathie Zusy focused on the convenience and desires of the affluent rather than the basic needs of most vulnerable members of our community. So much for public service.