Juggernaut or Not? – September 30, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
The dreams of A Bigger Cambridge (who prefer to be called “A Better Cambridge” for political reasons) were delayed from last week via the Charter Right. At issue is a mega-proposal shepherded on a fast track through the Housing Committee by Co-Chairs Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui with the aim of doubling (and more) the permissible heights of residential buildings across the city – and packaged with the perfectly agreeable goal of allowing multi-family housing in all zoning districts. The rallying cry to “End Exclusionary Zoning!” is the tactic being employed to push through these two very distinct initiatives, but it’s really just the record-breaking upzoning proposal that is at the heart of the controversy.
There was a great event held last Tuesday at the Main Library called “100 Years of Zoning” marking the 100th anniversary of Cambridge’s first zoning ordinance. (There were actually various “proto-zoning” ordinances already in place before 1924 under our local Building Code – largely motivated by concerns about public health and fire safety.) It was made pretty clear by the presenters that a century ago there was a concern about the proliferation of “tenement housing” that accompanied rapid population growth largely associated with immigration – and at that time the triple-decker was seen in this light. The sorting out of residential zoning districts into higher and lower density zones came a bit later.
When I was growing up in New York City, the term “tenement” was largely associated with dilapidated housing stock in which people were packed – often in unsafe conditions. This is not how I saw our triple-deckers in Cambridge and Boston when I first arrived in 1978. To me, they were graceful residential buildings with front and rear porches that originally allowed a middle-class homeowner to live and thrive in the city and to also provide affordable housing to their tenants. I chose to live in a triple-decker, and I eventually bought the building and I’m still living at the same address. You will get no argument from me about the value of triple-deckers and similar buildings. However, I don’t think they’re for everyone nor do I think that living in or next door to larger apartment buildings is for everyone.
I like some of the lower density parts of Cambridge, and I’m glad that people have been able to settle into the kind of neighborhoods that suit their preferences. It does seem to me that the philosophy (if you want to call it that) of the densifiers at “A Bigger Cambridge” is that apartment buildings should be the standard across all of Cambridge – and if you don’t like it you should move or meet your maker. I could not disagree more.
There are plenty of locations in Cambridge that I could easily identify where a larger apartment building would fit in very well and be an improvement over existing conditions. I can also point out locations where dropping a larger apartment building in would be a radical and very unwelcome change. But that’s not the ABC way. Their “vision” is to impose a single high-density standard across all of Cambridge, and they are selling this under the questionable claim that this will miraculously cause all housing to become more affordable. I don’t question the economic principle that when housing supply is increased in an equilibrium situation, then purchase prices and rents may be expected to decrease. Cambridge housing right now is not really in an equilibrium state – largely due to a couple of decades of growth in university affiliates and our local high-tech economy and a national trend of people choosing to move into the cities and closer to work (a reverse migration compared to the suburban exodus of decades ago). I will also note that there has more recently been a double reverse outward for some people in the age of Covid and work-from-home arrangements, and if ever the dream of driverless vehicles is realized many experts predict even more outward migration.
The question of affordability is an interesting one. Everyone wants housing to be affordable, but the philosophy of those working in our Housing Department seems to be that the only way to do this is via subsidized, deed-restricted housing created via government mandate – hence the so-called “Affordable Housing Overlay” 1.0, 2.0, and I’m certain we’ll soon see 3.0 and beyond as they endlessly try to game the economics of housing development. It does seem to be the case that if developers are permitted to build twice as much as-of-right, the land values will jump accordingly and this will virtually guarantee an AHO 3.0 or other mechanism to further game the economics. This escalation seems inevitable, and some neighborhoods (particular those with “soft sites”) may be ground up under the wheels of this Juggernaut.
At the last City Council meeting, Heather Hoffman posed several questions to city councillors and City staff regarding these twin zoning proposals. Here are her questions (expanded and really deserving of their own article):
1. Would increasing the inclusionary percentage violate the MBTA Communities Act?
2. Would decreasing the inclusionary percentage mean that we could not increase back to where it is now without violating the MBTA Communities Act?
3. What analysis has been done on whether this proposal would cause displacement of currently housed residents? If the answer is none, why is that?
4. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on median rents? If the answer is none, why is that?
5. What analysis has been done on what sorts of properties would be demolished? If the answer is none, why is that?
6. What analysis has been done on how this proposal would affect currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing? If the answer is none, why is that?
7. What analysis has been done on what is happening to currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing under current zoning? If the answer is none, why is that?
8. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on the market value of properties that would be upzoned by it? If the answer is none, why is that?
9. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on development under the AHO? If the answer is none, why is that?
10. What analysis has been done on how this would affect the City’s finances, especially with respect to the City’s ability to maximize tax shifting from residential to commercial properties under Prop 2-1/2? If the answer is none, why is that? Would the City have to find new commercial development prospects in order to maintain its Prop 2-1/2 balance?
The final point I will make now (made extra clear by Heather’s great questions) is that there are MANY unanswered questions about these proposed changes, and virtually zero analysis about their intended and unintended consequences.
Here are the agenda items I find interesting this week:
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Preservation Restriction at 90 Brattle Street. (CM24#214) [text of report]
pulled by Azeem; supportive comments by Azeem; overview of significance of house by Charles Sullivan and owner’s desire for additional protections; enthusiastic support by Mayor Simmons; Preservation Restriction Adopted, Communication Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Half Crown-Marsh NCD Decennial Review Report. (CM24#215) [text of report]
pulled by Azeem; questions from Azeem; Clerk clarifies that matter should be referred to Ordinance Committee; Charles Sullivan concurs with explanation; City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes that matter is not required to go to Ordinance Committee; Azeem questions process; Bayer reiterates that doesn’t need to be accepted as a petition – just a study report satisfying an ordinance requirement; Yi-An Huang notes that Council could just accept the report but that an Order will be required in next 5 months to renew NCD or amend it; Simmons asks who will remind Council and Huang says City will do this; Zusy notes benefit of NCD advice to homeowners; Report Accepted and Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to request that the City Council authorize the purchase of a parcel of land located within the town of Lexington identified as 0 Cambridge/Concord Turnpike in Lexington, Massachusetts. (CM24#216) [map]
pulled by McGovern w/purpose of finalizing tonight; comments/explanations from Owen O’Riordan, Megan Bayer (resolves litigation); Siddiqui notes Bob Reardon’s role in assessment of property; Order Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding an evaluation of the legal feasibility of the following proposals and analyze how much housing could be created under the following proposals. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern re: including requirement of inclusionary units for a 6-story building, 4-story limit otherwise; Bayer concurs; Azeem moves suspension to bring forward the related items on Charter Right (#1, #2 and #3) – prevails 9-0; Azeem comments, asks about “corridors”, Central Square, Mass. Ave., Cambridge St. and where related processes stand; Iram Farooq offers explanation and notes that they are within the limits proposed, desire to be more specific on where proposals apply; Azeem says proposals for corridors and Squares coming next year, etc., wants to move forward to Ordinance Committee; Toner asks for clarification of what Councillor Wilson wants re: inclusionary requirements and whether they would be increased beyond current requirements; Wilson explains; Toner asks if this might constitute an increase, suggests that immediate focus should be on corridors and Squares, does not want to start the clock ticking if sent now to Ordinance Committee, prefers to Table; Nolan asks about which corridors would be included – noting that Huron Ave. is not included; Farooq agrees about need for clarity on what constitutes a “corridor”; Nolan OK w/ending “exclusionary zoning” but has concerns about massive citywide upzoning, notes that focusing on corridors and squares might actually yield more housing units than proposal as written; Nolan expresses desire to include Huron Ave. among corridors and add significant heights and density along Huron Ave. and geographical distribution of more housing, wants analysis of where teardowns might be expected; Zusy shares Nolan’s concerns and would prefer more clarity prior to referring to Ordinance Committee; Zusy moves to Table pending this additional information, expresses concerns about how this is dividing the community and need for more community input; Zusy Motion to Table these three items matters to permit discussion in NLTP Committee Fails 4-5 (PN,PT,CZ,DS-Yes; BA,MM,SS,JSW,AW-No); Siddiqui wants to send to Ordinance, condescends to Zusy about NLTP Committee not being a committee of the whole, says timeline is important – meet in November, clock starts when Ordinance Committee meets on matter; Siddiqui motion to Place Communications of File and refer two petitions to Ordinance Committee; Wilson asks CDD about process if now referred to Ordinance; Farooq notes pending requests for analysis, pending request for community meetings, notes 65 days until Ordinance Committee required to meet, and then 90 days for action by City Council after that; Wilson asks for CDD recommendation and Farooq recommends sending to Ordinance Committee now to prevent “dueling ideas” (??); Simmons notes that these conversations can be confusing for the average person; McGovern wants a “Fact Sheet” as was done when AHO was railroaded through (twice), notes that Ordinance Committee could meet as late as Dec 4, then 90 days after for ordination or can be re-filed – noting that AHO was re-filed twice, saw 62 amendments (many of which were terrible), suggests that this matter is not being rushed; Toner will work with McGovern to develop the Ordinance Committee schedule, agrees with need for FAQ, suggests a Roundtable; Azeem notes that all projects that have produced affordable units have been 6 stories or greater, wants this in current Res A and Res B districts; Nolan wants clarity on what constitutes “community meetings” as opposed to City Council meetings with very limited public participation; Farooq says there would be at least two community meetings in addition to the hearings; Nolan notes perceptions of betrayal of trust, suggests using Envision definitions for what constitutes “corridors”; Farooq says additional analysis expected in November; Siddiqui wants to split motion into separate votes; Zusy notes confusion among citizens in that this proposal flies against recommendations in Envision in regard to protecting character of neighborhoods, noting that existing apartment buildings in C-Port are typically less than 3 stories, setbacks for triple-deckers – and this reality conflicts with current proposals, suggests that need for MANY amendments suggests lack of a clear plan; Simmons notes need for two votes – one simple majority for proposals meeting Housing Choice Act requirements and other requiring two-thirds majority; Megan Bayer notes that sending both to Ordinance is by simple majority; but future ordination requires simple majority for proposals to add housing and two-thirds majority for aspects that do not directly create more housing; Mgr #9 Placed on File 9-0; Charter Right #1 Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No); Charter Right #2 Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy-No); Charter Right #3 Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy-No).
Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed at the Housing Committee to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts. [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)
Charter Right #2. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition -Part 1, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)
Charter Right #3. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition – Part 2, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)
Order #3. City Council support of the Week Without Driving challenge and specifically designate Oct 3, 2024 as a day in which participants are encouraged to use alternative transportation options such as public transit, biking, carpooling, and walking. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to produce the petition(s) necessary to accomplish the goal of lowering the speed limit as much as possible on all state highways that fall within Cambridge’s geographic boundaries, including and especially Memorial Drive. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that DCR already proposing lane reductions west of JFK St. but there’s a need for more discussion needed for other sections of Memorial Drive, proposes amendment to delete reference to lane reductions; Zusy concurs with Toner noting concerns of people in neighborhoods that would be affected by re-routed traffic, notes another planned changes pending; McGovern notes statistics (1200 crashes, 446 injuries, 20 incapacitating, and 4 fatalities over last 10 years) and need to address most problematic areas sooner than later; Nolan comments and amendment; Siddiqui notes advocacy suggesting that DCR already planning lane reductions here; Yi-An Huang says City has been in close contact with DCR – 1) immediate changes for greater safety where crash occurred, 2) lower speed limit, 3) reconstruction/redesign of rotary over next 2-4 years (and relation to BU Bridge and Mass Pike project), 4) lane reductions between Eliot Bridge and JFK Street; and 5) other land reductions (that have been scaled back) – and need for more community process; Brooke McKenna notes that City can and will request that DCR lower speed limits, coordination with Conservation Commission; Siddiqui seeks clarification on lane reductions; Yi-An Huang promises more detail in writing; Simmons suggests need for more information to be disseminated to potentially affected neighborhoods; Azeem asks about matter before Conservation Commission; McKenna notes that this relates only to area in vicinity of the rotary; Azeem notes that DCR may resist major changes due to associated cost; Charter Right – Azeem
Order #5. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the City Council on the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) NOFO as soon as possible. Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0
Late Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor E. Denise Simmons, transmitting the updated 2024-2025 Committee assignments.
Placed on File as Amended 9-0
Perhaps the biggest action item on this week’s agenda is the “emergency” amendment to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance to extend the permitting preference period during which the politically connected “social equity” and “economic empowerment” applicants can have an advantage in selling recreational marijuana without any competition from their medicinal marijuana counterparts. This isn’t the first time this ordinance was extended as an “emergency” since its original adoption over 5 years ago.
