If you wish to Register as a user, ask a question, or perhaps even be an author (subject to the discretion of the Editor), send an e-mail message to:
forum@cambridgecivic.com
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
This forum serves two purposes.
• To facilitate discussion among readers, its contributors, and its editor.
• To permit stories posted here to appear on other sites and to more easily be indexed by search engines and other tools.
If you're interested in being an author on this site, i.e. writing and editing your own articles, click on "Contact Us" and introduce yourself.
One more thing - we use real names on this forum. Anonymously posted comments or fake names are not welcome and may be rejected.
Powered by WordPress
Lived in Cambridge all of my life and just want to stay informed.
Comment by John — January 11, 2026 @ 8:36 pm
Robert,
I have a question about an old compatriot of yours — Patrick Barrett III. I understood he sold his house in Cambridge for $4 million dollars and has moved to a $1 million place in Maine. He still wears silly t-shirts and looks like a street bum, but he can write coherently. He has stated his case to the Land Court that he cannot make a profit on his Cambridge project as long as it requires city-imposed requirements for inclusionary zoning. The clear implication is that there is something wrong with city officials and their imposition of rules on affordable housing.
Unfortunately, no one has asked about alternate models for development, on which most developers base their conclusions. Does Barrett conclude there are alternate models for calculating profits that allow for practical development and profit? No one seems to be doing that. Cambridge complains that Patrick has not released his calculations. Developers complain that city staff have not release their data justifying the setting of standards for affordability. The arguments we are seeing in Land Court from both sides are not epics of logic and disclosure. Something is wrong here.
What is needed as a case study which looks at an issue from at least two perspectives. Plan X makes certain assumptions and reaches certain conclusions. The same is done for another case study assuming developer’s traditional methods and assumptions.
I have one approach because I live there. I am 82 years old and my three decker is 101 years old. I want to preserve it for another century.
My three decker has one floor occupied by me, the owner since I bought the house for $35,000 in 1973. Another floor is rented for $1,500 a month, clearly in the low-income category. A third floor is vacant and being prepared for renovation. I also have problems with asbestos and lead. I estimate renovation work will cost about $1.5 million.
My plan is to apply for a housing trust application into which I can move my $2 million property equity. I plan to open a HELOC account with a bank which gives me access to a Letter of Credit to allow for expenditures to improve the house. The trust arrangement provided legal protection and stability for my investment and any credits or loans by the bank. I with to reduce levels of asbestos and lead and at the same time arrange for low-income rents from the building. The big cost will be $1.5 million for renovation work, mainly to kitchens and bathrooms. I will make no profit on the work.
Now the developers option, using the way they are operating these days. First they must purchase the property, using a $2 million value for equity. Next they must invest $1.5 million to $2.5 million in gut rehab, which is expensive but also removes asbestos and lead.
The third step for the developers it to set their own profit of $500,000 per unit or $1.5 million total. The sum total of expenses under the developer’s model is $5 million, compared to the non-profit trust model of $1.5 million. Hence the developer’s way of doing things costs three times as much as the trust model, which also has the advantage of my will that specified the purpose of the project for low-income housing.
Those are the basics of the funding calculation, with developers far too expensive and unlikely to meet the housing goals of the will. The comparison is not even close, and is caused by the forced purchase of properties at the beginning and ends with developer’s profits.
I am not surprised that Patrick cannot find a way to show a profit with affordability rules, because his fundamental process is so inefficient. The developers should have developed a better model, and they could have done so had they organized about a trust model.
You are in the middle of many issues in dispute in this City and I am presenting one that calls looking at new alternatives — both for my house and other houses owned outright by Cambridge residents.
I am a Mechanical Engineer by training and am not expert in the ways of developers. We need an explanation from developers — any of them — to explain their high-cost and dependence on only one funding option. On reviewing the numbers, I find it a miracle that the development community could produce any affordable housing in recent years.
A classic example of the problem is 610-614 Hamilton Street, right next to Cathie Zusy’s house. It is an 1870s duplex and sold five years ago for $550,000. Recently it sold for over $2 million as part of the enthusiasm arising from upzoning. This developer may be in the hole for $2.2 million and he has not even stated on house construction yet. This house is the immediate neighbor to 202 Hamilton, Cathie Zusy’s house.
See what you can make of this situation, because I never expected the final comparison to be what I think it is.
Steve Kaiser
189-191 Hamilton Street
Cambridge, Mass.
=======================
Comment by Stephen Henry Kaiser — March 22, 2026 @ 2:44 pm
Robert,
Sorry for the various typos in my previous email. I have Long COVID and suffer from fatigue much of the day. When I go out I use a wheelchair. My mind still seems sharp and creative. It is my legs that are failing me.
SK
====
Comment by Stephen Kaiser — March 22, 2026 @ 2:54 pm
Steve – I did some light editing of your typos.
Comment by Robert Winters — March 22, 2026 @ 3:40 pm