The City Council’s decisions on the Multifamily Housing Ordinance (MFHO) must be based on reliable and comprehensive information: how proposed projects will add needed housing, and how they will displace tenants and create environmental and neighborhood disruptions. Promoters and critics may overstate the benefits and damage of MFHO housing projects. Community trust in the MFHO will require the council to consider the data.

Ending exclusionary zoning citywide has increased housing production, but does the new housing meet the needs of residents who face housing instability? MFHO did not define goals for the types, sizes, and prices of housing that would be created, although no one expected its purpose was to simply add housing units of any size or price.

Proposals in the pipeline will add an estimated 1,219 housing units — 1,047 of those market rate — under the MFHO. This data comes from the Development Tracker created and maintained by Councillor Cathie Zusy’s office. While the tracker has flaws, it is a comprehensive list of projects citing data including demolitions, neighborhood location and numbers of overall and affordable units. 

Due to the high costs of construction and financing, the market-rate units will require higher rents and prices than existing neighborhood housing to be financially viable. In response to the increase in projects, residents in neighborhoods across the city are voicing their concerns about the scale, environmental threats and displacement of their neighbors.

The council recently adopted a policy order amending the MFHO, increasing setbacks and open space, limiting heights, requiring limited parking, and preventing flooding and other environmental damage. The order required the Community Development Department (CDD) to draft zoning language and develop models showing that these proposed changes would not lower housing production compared with the original MFHO. But the comparison is more complicated. Developers weigh not only zoning but also construction and finance costs and market demand. Treating production estimates as the only test narrows the MFHO’s goal to simply adding housing units.

Unfortunately, councillors proposing this modeling are using it to weaken and defeat the modest MFHO changes. Rather than arguing the merits of the proposed changes, these councillors attempted to disable them. CDD professionals have the skills to create a model that incorporates the broad set of housing development drivers — including costs and market demand — into reliable housing production estimates. The council should direct the CDD to build that model.

The writer was a candidate for City Council in 2025.

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.

Donate now

Leave a comment