A Land Court hearing on Zoom Thursday morning set a schedule for Columbia Street LLC v. Cambridge, which challenges Cambridge’s 20 percent affordable housing requirement
The suit, brought by local real estate developer and attorney Patrick Barrett, asserts that the requirement is unconstitutional. The city mandates that new residential developments of 10 or more units set aside 20 percent of floor area for affordable housing, and restricts rent for residents in affordable units to 30 percent of their income.
Some have said the case has implications for municipal zoning laws nationally, and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office asked to intervene. “Because his is one of the first cases that is challenging these types of ordinances, the constitutional test and principles that are set here might wind up applying to other municipalities,” said Assistant Attorney General Kendra Kinscherf. The state’s participation was approved during the hearing.
Donald Pinto, a lawyer for Columbia Street, tried to downplay its scope: “I want to dispel the notion that … we are challenging in this case the use of inclusionary zoning as a policy tool for developing affordable housing. We’re challenging this particular inclusionary zoning ordinance.”
“Cambridge’s is a real outlier,” Pinto added. “It’s particularly onerous and draconian and, we think, clearly does not meet the constitutional standard of having a direct substantial nexus between the policy goal and this project.”
However, Lisa Goodheart, a lawyer representing Cambridge, said “the City of Cambridge stands by its inclusionary housing ordinance and vigorously defends its constitutionality.”
The city has brought in Goodheart’s team at Fitch Law Partners as well as Harvard urban planning professor and land use lawyer Jerold S. Kaydento help it defend the ordinance.
Deadlines set for discovery
Judge Sarah Turano-Flores set November 13, 2026 as the tentative deadline for fact discovery and January 13, 2027 for expert discovery, which includes the production of detailed reports by academic and professional experts. She did not set briefing deadlines. Both sides agree the case will likely be decided on the basis of expert reports and expert testimony.
The November 13 date for fact discovery split the difference between the two sides’ original requests. Columbia had asked for that phase to finish by October 2, Cambridge requested December 2. At Thursday’s hearing, Cambridge asked for an additional two months of discovery time, which was not granted.
A key component of fact discovery will be a nexus study, the policy tool used to justify changes to a regulation like this. Cambridge’s zoning mandates a periodic review of the numbers and one was underway before the lawsuit was filed.
While that study is expected to be completed this summer, it’s “really important” that the litigation is “shaped by the result and the report of the [ongoing nexus study],” said Goodheart.
Turano-Flores also set a status conference for November 10, 2026 to check on discovery progress, and made clear she’d evaluate extending the deadlines at that time.
Goodheart said she anticipates discovery into the particulars of Columbia Street’s development project, “which we know nothing about.”
Once fact discovery is completed, the case will move to expert discovery, where each side retains experts to produce reports that will form much of the basis of the legal argument on whether Cambridge’s zoning regulations are permitted.
Goodheart told the court that because of uncertainty about precisely which legal standard might ultimately be applied when the case is likely reviewed on appeal, to be efficient she expected to defend the city under two different standards, both set by the United States Supreme Court: (1) Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1987 and 1994 cases that require “rough proportionality” for takings of land; and (2) Penn Central, the 1978 case which governs regulatory takings generally.
Turano-Flores acknowledged that the January deadline for expert discovery may be a challenge because of the end-of-year holidays, so might change.
The initial status conference was delayed by several months. The case was filed in December, but was re-assigned to Judge Turano-Flores in January. Cambridge asked for more time while the Attorney General considered whether to move to intervene. A hearing was set for February but was cancelled due to a major snowstorm.
The case is “25 MISC 000746” in the Land Court, with documents available at https://www.masscourts.org.
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.
