Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 11, 2025

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The FY26 Budget Hearings are continuing, but here are the highlights for this week’s regular City Council meeting… comments and additional details to follow:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to technical corrections that should be made to the Floodplain Zoning text. (CM25#118) [text of report]
pulled by McGovern along with Committee Report #1; comments by Nolan, Zusy; text amended 9-0 per Committee Report #1; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Apr 30, 2025 to hold a public hearing on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 5.000 and Section 20.70 with the intent of (1) replacing the Floodplain Overlay and Planning Board Special Permit with the Massachusetts model ordinance structure for permitting development in the flood plain through administrative review; (2) updating references to the most recent FEMA maps to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program; and (3) revising other parts of the Zoning Ordinance for internal consistency. The Committee voted favorably to accept the amendments and forward them to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled early along with Manager’s Agenda #1; Report Accepted, Place on File 9-0


Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to meet with the leadership of the Harvard Square Business Association to discuss the proposal and to take the necessary steps to facilitate the release of $72,000 to fund the RFP development for the tunnel engineering study.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, City Manager Huang re: cost considerations, Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan re: pedestrianizing a portion of Harvard Square and skepticism re: tunnel proposal, McGovern, Toner, Nolan, Azeem; Charter Right – Azeem

I saw some images and videos of the abandoned tunnel under Brattle Street several years ago. This is a very intriguing idea.


Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to ensure that all city owned parking lots, with a focus on school complexes, including the still under construction parking at Tobin/Darby Vassal school complex, could be made available for after-hours use by residents.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan re: more general parking concerns; add Siddiqui, Zusy, Wilson as sponsors 9-0; Toner notes that this is a request, a hope – notes that parking used to be available in off hours; Simmons comments, proposed amendment adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

On the Table #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-22, regarding a request to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to open the publicly owned parking at the King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School Complex for either residential free parking or commercial parking opportunities during “off” hours. [Tabled – May 5, 2025]


Charter Right #1. The City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Inclusionary Housing Study, explore remedies to address the lack of housing starts and provide for consideration draft amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and explore other incentives to encourage developers to include affordable units beyond the requirement voluntarily. [Charter Right – Azeem, May 5, 2025]
Azeem amendment by substitution, McGovern amendment to change date from January 2026 to October 2025; late communication from Chris Cotter (Housing) re: Inclusionary Housing; Toner, Simmons comments; [Editor’s Note: Chris Cotter’s testimony – esp. re: amount of time required for “study”, failure to conduct study on schedule – seems evasive and less than sincere]; Azeem wants accelerated timeline, does not support lowering 20% inclusionary requirement; comments by Zusy, City Manager Huang (noting that lowering pct. would not legally require a study); Simmons comments; date change from Jan 2026 to Oct 2025 adopted 9-0; Nolan, Toner amendments noting (in part) that the required study was not done and a reminder that adjustments of IZ percentages for different project sizes was requested in Sept 2024; comments by Nolan, Toner, Zusy (noting possible reduction in housing demand due to federal policies), Cotter, Wilson, Huang; Azeem calls the question (to end discussion) – voted 9-0; Nolan, Toner amendments adopted 9-0; JSW comments – not in favor of any reductions, wants even higher required percentages for larger projects, use of AHT funds to subsidize; Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Late Communication #2. A communication was received from Director of Housing, Chris Cotter. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

The original Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (1998) made sense in that the mandate for subsidized units in projects of 10 or more units came with a density bonus plus one additional market-rate unit for every mandated “affordable” unit. The revised ordinance (2017) was politically driven and economically nonsensical. The City Council could now amend the ordinance to reflect current conditions and economic reality … or they can act politically and ensure that few new inclusionary housing units are ever built. Indeed, many of the inclusionary units that have come on line in recent years were ones that were hatched prior to the current ordinance. Municipal election years can confound good decision-making.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to include in the FY26 Operating Budget a continued commitment to Emergency Housing Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing and Mixed Status Families, and the Transition Wellness Center, as well as allocate the necessary resources to establish a municipal successor to Rise Up Cambridge that builds on its mission of providing direct, dignified economic support to families. [Charter Right – Wilson, May 5, 2025]
Wilson proposes substitute Order that; Wilson elaborates that substitute order calls for “allocation of at least 25 additional housing vouchers or $1 million, whichever is greater, that would be open to the 20 remaining residents at the Transitional Wellness Center who do not have a permanent housing placement in process and to other shelter residents in Cambridge; and to allocate funding for a successor program to Rise Up Cambridge as soon as possible”; comments by Wilson, McGovern; Ellen Semonoff reports that there are some beds available at 240 Albany Street for people in recovery, efforts now being made to find situations for all remaining TWC occupants; Nolan comments, proposed amendment to require report of scope and cost of any Rise Up successor program; comments by Yi-An Huang of projects now in pipeline by Affordable Housing Trust (AHT); comments by Zusy re: open-ended continuing costs associated with keeping TWC open, fact that an unlimited number of people will continue to come to Cambridge for our generous services, suggests greater support for 240 Albany St./Bay Cove rather than open-ended provision of vouchers; Toner asks if additional $1 million for vouchers is feasible; Yi-An Huang notes that vouchers would be specifically for those in transition to permanent supportive housing; Toner expresses concerns about wording of request to fund a successor to Rise Up program; McGovern elaborates on possible options for successor program, criteria for eligibility, implementation dates; Wilson addresses matter of a “benefit cliff” that could potentially trigger loss of MassHealth benefits, implementation timeline (hoping to have everything up and running by Jan 1, 2026); Siddiqui notes that getting this into FY2026 Budget may not be possible; Toner expresses concerns about operation of proposed program and where the money would be coming from; Yi-An Huang says there is a path to creating a successor program – challenge is resourcing, questions of scale of program, prioritization; JSW comments about ARPA, opening of shelters, would prefer to give vouchers to all residents of all shelters, calls Rise Up successor program critical; Zusy to vote No because City budget otherwise seeing cuts; Nolan amendment to Substitute Order Adopted 9-0; Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Some councillors must have not read the memo regarding the need for greater fiscal restraint for the time being. And, of course, municipal election years can confound good decision-making.

Charter Right #3. First floor retail policy order. [Charter Right – Zusy, May 5, 2025]
Toner offers additional amendment that the Order be referred to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee and the the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee for a hearing and discussion before being forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for deliberation; comments by Zusy about value of neighborhood retail; Nolan, JSW, Azeem comments; Amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent)

I live in a BA-1 zone (mixed residential/commercial), but I don’t think this would be advisable for all residential zones. It’s one thing to grandfather existing small retail establishments, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to open up all residential zone to ground floor retail. Besides, isn’t everyone aware of how many vacant retail spaces there are right now and the fact that a lot of retail is croaking?

Resolution #7. Resolution congratulating Diane LeBlanc on her Retirement.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
pulled by Simmons for comments; additional comments by McGovern, Toner, Siddiqui, Azeem, Nolan, Zusy, Wilson, Sobrinho-Wheeler, City Council Assistant Naomie Stephen; standing ovation for Diane LeBlanc; comments by Diane LeBlanc w/appreciation and thanks to staff of City Clerk’s Office

Diane LeBlanc has been a blessing for the last three years. We are an historic city and it has been great to have someone with a background as an archivist in the role of City Clerk.

Committee Report #2. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on May 5, 2025 to initiate the process of re-appointing the City Auditor, PO25#62. The Committee voted favorably to forward the re-appointment of the City Auditor, Joseph McCann, to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Joseph McCann reappointed to another 3-year term as City Auditor 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

May 5, 2025

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are the featured items this week. I’ll offer minimal comments for now – summaries to follow after the meeting.Cinco de Mayo

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang on executive order re: sanctuary cities, federal grant agreements (esp. HUD grants), federal budget w/significant cuts to programs; creation of federal funding stabilization fund, executive actions outpacing legal/court responses, expected steep cuts, proposed elimination of entire CDBG program, housing eligibility; JSL asks about how these interact with Cambridge budget process; Nolan notes loss of coastal resiliency funding; Zusy asks why are waiting to reduce budget until FY27, Manager notes that City is making some adjustments now, Zusy suggests making some judicious cuts now; Manager notes that City has contingency plans, won’t sign on to Trump mandates, expected legal challenges, possible funding losses; Zusy asks about Free Cash status and prognosis, concerns about depleting cash reserves in order to fund various requests; Azeem – suspend rules to take up Order #6; City Manager says he understands intention behind Order #6 but we cannot do everything and must remain fiscally responsible, will provide more detailed responses during Budget Hearings, TWC response already provided, Rise Up successor planning to follow for FY27 and not FY26, prioritization of major proposals now underway; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-14, regarding a home rule petition allowing Cambridge to end the practice of property owners passing on broker’s fees to tenants. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-22, regarding a request to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to open the publicly owned parking at the King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School Complex for either residential free parking or commercial parking opportunities during “off” hours.
pulled by Nolan; Nolan comments; Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan notes that this is still before the Buildings & Grounds Subcommittee of the School Committee; Wilson, McGovern, Zusy, Azeem comments; Yi-An Huang notes that current garage not designed for public use, possibility of converting it while preserving school safety; Simmons explains status as Chair of School Committee; Tabled 8-0-1 (Zusy Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Subandha Karmacharya as a member of the Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship for a term of three years.
Appointment Confirmed 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Carolyn Zern as a member of the Planning Board for a term of five years.
pulled by Zusy (asking about term lengths of boards); explanations by Melissa Peters (CDD), Mayor Simmons; Appointment Confirmed 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the AHO Heights Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the prioritization of zoning priorities. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Zusy; responses by Melissa Peters (CDD); Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. City Council support of the completion of the Mass Central Rail Trail.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Nolan to be added as sponsor; comments by Zusy; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I go back a long way on this one and on other rails-to-trails projects. Back in the 1980s I rode/walked along the route of what would eventually become the Minuteman Bikeway with a lead person from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). [Andy and I also played on the same Boston Junior Park League baseball team.] I was also tasked along with two other bicycle advocates to chart out the markings and intersections along the entire route of the Minuteman Bikeway, and I witnessed all stages of its construction. In the early 1990s, my friend David Goode was tasked by the Mass. Department of Environmental Management (now folded into the DCR) to research the available right-of-way of the Mass Central Railroad west of Route 495, especially around Berlin, MA west to the Wachusetts Reservoir in Clinton, MA. I purchased a hybrid bike for this purpose – the same bike that I use today – so that David and I could explore the route. So we loaded the bikes into my old VW Bus and we headed west. We not only explored the section of the RR right-of-way built after the Wachusett Dam forced a change in the route, but also the original right-of-way that had gone back to nature. That was an adventure. The culmination of our exploration was at the reservoir where we scrambled up a hillside and found the long-abandoned Clinton Tunnel through which westbound trains once passed before immediately finding themselves on the highest wooden trestle in New England as they passed over the South Nashua River below the dam. It was great fun going through the Clinton Tunnel on our bikes, and I have returned on several occasions.

Clinton Tunnel - west portal Clinton Trestle

Many sections of what is now the Mass Central Rail Trail, including most of the section through Weston which originally faced strong local opposition, have now been built. I attended some of those meetings in Weston 30 years ago. There are trade-offs between having a more primitive, unimproved right-of-way vs. a paved bikeway, and I could understand and appreciate the differing points of view. On balance, the Mass Central Rail Trail continues to be a great long-term project as it wends its way toward a greater degree of completion.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant staff to investigate bike pod storage options to be placed in suitable areas in the City to provide residents and visitors safe storage options.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; comments by JSW; Toner, Zusy, Nolan comments – issues of how to add these w/o negative impacts, nontrivial cost; Simmons amendment to analyze cost adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to prepare an update with details on the status of potential civilian flagger operations in the Cambridge police union contract and work with relevant city staff to explore a civilian traffic flagger program and update the current police union contract on the City’s website.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Toner; comments by JSW, Toner (noting that active police officers, retired officers, officers from other communities, and only then civilian flaggers; City gets 10% of the fee), Zusy ($64.50/hour and a 4 hour minimum), Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0

This order is just an echo of similar orders from years past. I saw primarily civilian flaggers during my various cross-country trips. In Massachusetts, every time the idea is suggested it has been met with anecdotes about how a uniformed police flagger foiled a crime and why this “proves” the need to have only uniformed officers doing this job. This is total nonsense. It’s the same sort of protectionism that has kept requirements for lucrative police details in many situations where any competent person could do the job.

Order #5. The City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Inclusionary Housing Study, explore remedies to address the lack of housing starts and provide for consideration draft amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and explore other incentives to encourage developers to include affordable units beyond the requirement voluntarily.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan; City Manager acknowledges the economics; Melissa Peters (CDD) notes that IZ has been main driver of affordable units; Azeem comments – notes that an 8% inclusionary requirement might pencil out, higher percentages currently infeasible; McGovern asks how long the analysis would take, Melissa reports from Chris Cotter an estimate of 9 months; McGovern recounts history of how current requirement would come to be and the 5-year review has not been done, still believes that AHO will surpass production of IZ, notes political perceptions of making any changes; JSW opposes lowering of 20% requirement as well as quick implementation of any changes, suggests tiered requirements; Siddiqui comments; Zusy supports intention of this Order, agrees with adopting a temporary reduction in mandate pending detailed study, notes dearth of new Inclusionary units over last 3 years – though contradicted by numbers in Budget Book and elsewhere; Melissa Peters notes distinction between issuance of building permits and actual construction; Toner reiterates that 5-year study now overdue; Zusy asks to be added as co-sponsor of original Order; Substitute Order by Azeem, JSW, Siddiqui, McGovern; Wilson comments (wants to use Affordable Housing Trust to subsidize IZ), Manager responds that it may be possible; Nolan comments, including whether a seeking a variance is a possibility, Melissa Peters suggests this would not qualify as a hardship; McGovern suggests changing reporting date on substitute amendment from January 2026 to October 2025; Charter Right – Azeem

Please read the letter from Patrick Barrett on this topic. City Council initiatives are often more performative than practical.


Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to include in the FY26 Operating Budget a continued commitment to Emergency Housing Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing and Mixed Status Families, and the Transition Wellness Center, as well as allocate the necessary resources to establish a municipal successor to Rise Up Cambridge that builds on its mission of providing direct, dignified economic support to families.   Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Voted along with City Manager #1; Simmons substitute language for Order #6; McGovern wants to spend down Free Cash and raises property taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list of additional programs and extension of existing programs set to expire; Wilson also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list; JSW also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list; Siddiqui also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list – especially the Rise Up local welfare program; Toner objects to references to “the unelected City Manager” who is hired by the elected City Council, notes that Council voted 8-1 to maintain city manager form of government, 9-0 to extend City Manager’s contract, recalls discussions over this past year in Finance Committee re: fiscal restraint, notes that Rise Up was funded by ARPA and not from property taxes, City Manager has been clear along about the greater wisdom in closing the ARPA-funded Transition Wellness Center in favor of better alternatives, will support substitute Order, need more time to structure any possible Rise Up successor, not the right time to be funding new programs; Nolan notes that City Council and City Administration has pushed back hard on federal actions, City Manager has stood firmly in support of community values, would prefer to find efficiencies in existing budget to fund emergency measures, notes large residential property tax increases in recent years and that this also affects rents; Zusy calls programs commendable but we don’t have the funds to continue them all, willing to seek efficiencies in order to free up some funding; Simmons notes that leadership requires difficult choices, asks Council to support substitute amendment to Order #6; Azeem notes that he initially voted to find more $ to support TWC but that this has led to additional demands to fund many other things, and we don’t have unlimited capacity to fund all these things, do support municipal voucher initiative, calls Rise Up program very effective, wants City Council orders to be respected and feels that current City Manager follows City Council orders more than his predecessors; McGovern reiterates that we have enough money from Free Cash to fund everything; Simmons Substitution Adopted 5-4 (BA,PN,PT,CZ,DS-Yes; MM,SS,JSW,AW-No); Wilson Charter Right on Substitute Order

Committee Report #2. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on April 17, 2025 to discuss the feasibility of a successor program to Rise Up. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

While I cannot say for sure, this policy order has a distinct quality of a municipal election year rallying device. All of its sponsors have attended Finance Committee meetings regarding the questionable feasibility and advisability of these programs, and it seems like a combination of ignorance and arrogance to continue to insist that these all be funded. ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) was a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus bill passed by Congress to aid in recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It was never intended to be a permanent addition to the operating budgets of cities and states that accepted ARPA funding. The key word in “Transition Wellness Center” is “Transition” – indicative of a short-term accommodation to reduce shelter occupancies during the worst period of the COVID epidemic. The “Rise Up Cambridge” local welfare program was also principally funded by ARPA, and any successor program would have to be more limited and with stricter eligibility requirements. [Needless to say, welfare programs are best funded through the state and federal government rather than as individual municipal programs.] Emergency housing vouchers in response to major changes in federal housing policies and funding seem like an appropriate conversation in the moment, but any notion that the City can simply take on all of these costs and burdens is woefully naive.

It is noteworthy that the Cambridge Democratic City Committee (CDCC) has signed on as a sponsor of a rally scheduled to coincide with the City Council meeting. I am a member of the CDCC (Ward 6) and I don’t recall there being any mention of this anywhere or any vote to endorse these proposed measures. Then again, the CDCC – much like so many political organizations – is prone to acting as an extension of a small number of activists who have inserted themselves as principal decision-makers who feel little or no need to consult their membership.


Order #7. First floor retail policy order.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; amendments proposed by Toner, Nolan; comments by Azeem, McGovern, Zusy, Siddiqui; Melissa Peters responds; Nolan amendment Fails 4-4-1 (PN,SS,JSW,DS-Yes; MM,PT,AW,CZ-No; Present-BA]; Melissa Peters explains options for amendment to zoning; Zusy concerns re: “other appropriate areas of the city”; Toner explains the intention of the Order; JSW says he would welcome retail or restaurant next door without any qualifications; Zusy notes what was done in Somerville; Charter Right – Zusy

Neighborhood-scale retail is a great amenity, but I don’t think it would make sense or be welcome at all locations in all residential districts. This is why zones such as the BA-1 and BA-2 zones were created – to permit these uses in locations where they already existed and where they can coexist with neighbors. I know – I live in a BA-1 zone.

Resolution #14. Resolution on the death of Doane Perry.   Councillor Nolan

Doane was a jewel of a human being. Doane also served for a time as President of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association (MCNA). I have enduring respect for all of the people who have assumed the burden of heading up a neighborhood association and taken on the often-difficult task of developing consensus from a broad range of differing opinions.

Committee Report #1. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on April 10, 2025 to discuss services being provided to the unhoused community and an update on the opioid settlement. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy for minor amendment (pg 3); Report Accepted as Amended, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on April 29, 2025 on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 11.000 with the intent to amend certain subsections of the Affordable Housing Overlay, Section 11.207 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, with the intent of limiting allowable height increases in Residence C-1 districts, removing references to provisions in the base zoning that are no longer applicable, and clarifying references to departments responsible for enforcement. The Ordinance Committee voted favorably to accept the amendments and forward them to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Zoning Petition Amended 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Note: The FY2026 Budget Hearings start this week.

May 2, 2025

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance – a letter from Patrick Barrett

Date: May 1, 2025Patrick Barrett

City Manager Yi-An Huang
Mayor E. Denise Simmons
Members of the Cambridge City Council
City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Subject: Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203)

Dear City Manager Huang, Mayor Simmons, and Honorable Members of the City Council,

I write to highlight critical legal and economic flaws in Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203), which mandates that 20% of residential floor area in developments with 10 or more units be dedicated to affordable units. While the City’s affordability goals are laudable, the ordinance’s non-compliance with state law, reliance on outdated economic assumptions, failure to meet procedural mandates, and disproportionate impact on smaller developers demand immediate action. Specifically, I address: (1) non-compliance with the MBTA Communities Act; (2) failure to conduct a required nexus study by April 2022; (3) reliance on the outdated 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report amidst changed economic conditions; and (4) legal vulnerabilities under recent judicial precedents.

1. Non-Compliance with the MBTA Communities Act
The MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A), enacted in January 2021, requires MBTA communities like Cambridge to establish a zoning district of reasonable size allowing multi-family housing as-of-right with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, located within 0.5 miles of a transit station, without age restrictions and suitable for families. Cambridge, as a rapid-transit community, was required to submit a compliant zoning ordinance to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) by December 31, 2023. We have been certified compliant however we are not in compliance with our own zoning requirements and lack a valid economic feasibility analysis (EFA). This opens the question of the validity of certification and what if any standards are being met in certification. If Cambridge is to be an example to other towns currently fighting the MBTA Communities Act we must, at a bare minimum, be in compliance with our own laws. Further the 2025 Multifamily Housing Zoning Amendment eliminated most of the “bonus” density awarded to inclusionary projects as a financial offset. This was done without a corresponding nexus study which would have been required to show the impact of removing bonuses anticipated by the Rosen report.

The February 2025 zoning reform, allowing multi-family housing citywide up to four stories (six stories for inclusionary projects on lots ?5,000 sq ft), aligns with Section 3A’s density and as-of-right requirements. However, the 20% affordability requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines, which permit up to 10% of units at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) without an economic feasibility analysis (EFA). Higher percentages, up to 20%, require an EFA demonstrating financial viability. Cambridge’s blanket 20% requirement, applied citywide without a recent EFA, is not in compliance, as it clearly does render projects economically infeasible without significant cross collateralization as seen in 121 Broadway, and is particularly onerous given rising costs since 2016.

2. Failure to Conduct a Required Nexus Study (Section 11.203.2(c))
Section 11.203.2(c) mandates that the City “initiate a reevaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement at an interval of no more than five (5) years” to assess the percentage of affordable units, income eligibility, and program effectiveness. The ordinance was amended in April 2017, increasing the requirement from 15% to 20% based on the 2016 Rosen report. The first reevaluation was due by April 2022.

No evidence indicates a comprehensive reevaluation occurred. The 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report, documenting 258 units completed or under construction, is a progress update, not a nexus study. The Community Development Department’s (CDD) ongoing monitoring (1,200+ units since 1998) and the 2025 reform do not fulfill Section 11.203.2(c)’s mandate. This procedural failure undermines the ordinance’s legitimacy, as the City cannot justify the 20% rate’s proportionality under Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024), which requires legislative exactions to be tailored to project-specific impacts. Non-compliance suggests arbitrary policymaking, exposing the ordinance to legal challenges.

3. Outdated 2016 Rosen Report and Changed Economic Conditions
The 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report recommended increasing the inclusionary requirement to 20%, contingent on four conditions to ensure economic feasibility. The report’s economic assumptions are outdated due to significant changes by 2025 in interest rates, land costs, construction costs, utility costs, capitalization rates (cap rates), and new zoning regulations not anticipated in 2016. Most conditions remain unmet, exacerbating the ordinance’s adverse impact, particularly on smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units.

Analysis of the Rosen Report

Interest Rate: The report assumed a blended interest rate of 4.5–5.0% for construction and permanent loans reflecting 2016 market conditions. By 2025, interest rates have risen to 8.5–10.8%, increasing debt costs.

Land Cost per Unit: The report estimated residual land costs at $50,000–$170,000 per unit for multi-family developments (6–300 units), with smaller projects at higher costs (~$150,000–$170,000) and larger ones at lower costs (~$50,000–$80,000). By 2025, land costs have escalated to $150,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% increase), requiring ~$200,000/year additional NOI at a 5.0% cap rate, unfeasible without higher rents or incentives.

o Disproportionate Impact: Smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units but under 200 face greater economic barriers under the 20% inclusionary mandate compared to larger or incentivized projects permitted under the 15% mandate (December 2016–June 2017), such as 425 Mass Ave & 47 Bishop Allen Drive (completed 2018 by Twining Properties), 195-211 Concord Turnpike (completed 2018 by Bozzuto Group), and more recent projects like 121 Broadway which levered outstanding commitments, increased density, and funding from the CRA. Market Central, including 47 Bishop Allen Drive, leveraged a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting ground floor area exemptions, an FAR increase to 6.5, a special overlay re-mapping, and height increases to 195 feet from by-right 55 feet and special permit 80 feet, enabling affordability via retail (15,400 sq ft) and residential revenue (Link, Watermark). Atmark Cambridge used mixed-use revenue (retail). Smaller projects lack such advantages, facing:

High Land Costs: ~$200,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% higher than 2016), increasing financial burdens.

Rising Construction Costs: Up 50-60% since 2016, straining budgets for projects without economies of scale.

New Zoning Costs: Article 22 (2018, amended 2023), tree protection (2019), and climate resilience (2021) add 10–25% to costs ($1.5M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft).

Removal of Density Bonus: The 2025 six-story bonus for lots ?5,000 sq ft is absent in high-density zones (e.g., Central Square) or insufficient to offset 20% mandate costs without density bonuses.

Permitting Delays: Community meetings (Footnote 37) and environmental reviews add $20,000–$50,000, disproportionate for smaller developers. As-of-Right projects subject to Article 19.50 averaging roughly 7-12 months and 11 – 20 months if a 19.23 special permit is required.

Construction Costs: The report assumed stable prices (~$200–$300/sq ft). By 2025, costs have risen nearly 40% due to supply chain issues, labor shortages, and inflation.

Utility Costs: The report implied 2016 utility costs. In 2025, costs have risen significantly, reducing NOI:

o Electricity: Up 38% (22.5 to 31 ¢/kWh), increasing monthly costs by $150/unit, reducing NOI by $14,688/year for 12 units.

o Natural Gas: Up 67% ($1.50 to $2.50/therm), reducing NOI by $14,400/year for 12 units.

o Heating Oil: Up 52% ($2.70 to $4.10/gallon), reducing NOI by $10,800/year for 12 units.

For a 12-unit project, a $39,888 NOI drop lowers value by ~$864,000 at a 5.0% cap rate, hitting smaller projects harder.

Cap Rate Comparison: The report implied cap rates of 4.5–5.0% (Class A/B) and 5.0–5.5% (Class C). In 2025, cap rates are 4.8–5.3% (Class A/B) and 5.3–5.8% (Class C, CBRE), driven by higher interest rates and costs. A $1M NOI project at 4.5% (2016) yields $22.22M, but at 5.0% with $43,200 NOI drop (2025), yields $19.12M—a 14% valuation drop, worse for smaller projects with higher effective cap rates (~5.5%).

Additional Post-2016 Zoning Changes
Since 2016, Cambridge adopted regulations not anticipated in the Rosen Report, increasing costs:

Article 22 – Sustainable Design and Development (2018, amended 2023): Mandates LEED certification and net-zero readiness for projects over 25,000 sq ft, adding 10–25% to costs ($6M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft per BXP reports) and $10,000–$50,000+ in application delays not including costs to carry.

Tree Protection Ordinance Enhancements (2019): Requires tree permits ($100–$500/tree) and replacements ($500–$1,500/tree), adding $5,000–$20,000 and $10,000–$30,000 in delays.

Climate Resilience Requirements (2021): Mandates flood-resistant designs, adding 5–15% to costs ($1.5M–$5M for 50,000 sq ft) and $20,000–$50,000 in delays.

Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (2022): Saves $500k–$2.5M by removing $50,000–$100,000/space, but most for sale condo buildings seek to add parking not remove it thus the bonus only truly applies in a rental scenario.

These changes increase costs by 10–25%, offsetting parking savings and rendering the 20% mandate unfeasible for smaller projects without density bonuses.

Four Conditions for Raising Inclusionary Requirement Outlined In Rosen
The Rosen report outlined four conditions to support the 20% requirement:

1. Increased Density Bonuses: Recommended citywide FAR bonuses.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 2025 six-story bonus (lots ?5,000 sq ft) is limited or absent in high-density zones, unlike Market Central’s PUD concessions. Removing density bonuses further undermines feasibility, likely requiring a new nexus study and opening to challenge the current ordinance.

2. Flexible Requirements for Smaller Projects: Suggested tiered percentages (e.g., 10–15% for <20 units).

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 20% mandate is uniform, deterring smaller projects. It is not clear that 10% works for smaller projects (10 – 20 units) based 2025 conditions.

3. Streamlined Permitting Processes: Advocated faster permitting.

o 2025 Relevance: Partially Met. As-of-right zoning and parking elimination help, but community meetings (footnote 37), special permits through Article 19, Small Project Review in Article 19.50, environmental reviews, and traffic and parking mitigation add massive delays.

4. Periodic Reevaluation: Required reassessments every five years.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. No 2022 reevaluation occurred, leaving the 20% rate unadjusted despite cost escalations, removal of bonuses, and passage of the MBTA Communities Act.

The unmet conditions and outdated assumptions (4.5–5.0% interest rate vs. 8.5–10.8%, $50,000–$170,000 vs. $150,000–$250,000 land cost, 40% construction cost increase, 20–136% utility cost increases, 4.5–5.0% vs. 4.8–5.3% cap rates) make the 20% mandate infeasible for smaller projects, especially without density bonuses.

4. Legal Vulnerabilities

The ordinance faces legal risks:

Unconstitutional Takings: The 20% mandate lacks proportionality, failing the Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz test, relying on the outdated 2016 Rosen report without a 2022 nexus study. Removing density bonuses would exacerbate this by increasing the exaction’s burden without justified impact assessments, risking due process violations.

MBTA Communities Act: The 20% requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines (10% without EFA, 20% with EFA). Without bonuses, a new EFA is needed to prove feasibility, or the ordinance risks non-compliance with Section 3A.

5. Recommendations

To address these flaws, I urge the City to:

1. Reduce the Inclusionary Housing Requirement: Lower to 10% without an EFA to comply with M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A as an emergency measure for the next three years.

2. Initiate a Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz-Compliant Study: Conduct a nexus study per Section 11.203.2(c) to justify exactions. Require CDD act immediately and limit time to completion.

3. Explore Returning Development Bonuses: Direct the Cambridge Community Development Department to create bonuses that anticipate the 2025 multifamily housing change including but not limited to fast tract permitting, removing Article 19, scaling inclusionary with tailored nexus studies per Sheetz, and any other potential bonus to offset the exorbitant burden IZ zoning places on residential development.

Cambridge’s housing leadership is commendable, but the ordinance’s flaws undermine its effectiveness and legality. Please work to rapidly address the issues raised herein to address the urgency of the housing crisis we are in and to ensure we do not further encumber ourselves with ineffective counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,
Patrick W. Barrett III

July 2, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 623-624: July 2, 2024

Episode 623 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 2, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on July 2, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Starlight Square Retrospective: 2020-2024. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 624 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 2, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on July 2, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Possible future of Starlight Square – floating some ideas; compatibility with housing; creating a Square within the Square; working with abutting property owners for best solutions; the problem of self-appointed spokespersons for people they don’t represent; cyclist fatalities at Mt Auburn/DeWolfe and now at Hampshire/Portland, the problem with intersections and visibility, better solutions needed, hostility and vengefulness by bike lane advocates; noteworthy board appointments; Central Lots Study and future zoning considerations continue – “hurry up and wait”; PILOT agreements; upcoming meetings of interest; accountability of Affordable Housing Trust; Charter Review status – what should happen, keep it simple; DPW gratitude; Cambridge Jazz Festival coming July 27; government role in local news? – reinvention needed, a problem that needs to be solved; a final note on Presidential election prospects. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

September 20, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 599-600: September 19, 2023

Episode 599 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 19, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Sept 19, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Candidate’s Eye View of municipal election, candidate forums; national focus ? local competence; some observations on endorsing organizations; AHO restricting housing growth; “100% affordable” vs. mixed-income housing; Special Permit alternative with good criteria; false dichotomy of affordable housing vs. commercial/lab; actual cost of deed-restricted units. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 600 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 19, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Sept 19, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: The Never-Ending Study of Central Square and City Council Policy Order; Zoning Reform; C2 Study recommendations now ready for prime time; Arts & Entertainment + Housing; the short-sightedness of only “100% affordable”, deed-restricted housing; infeasible housing policies; let planners actually plan; in support of big audacious plans and reimagination; getting past anti-capitalism and decommodification; quoting Envision while ignoring it. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

September 6, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 597-598: September 5, 2023

Episode 597 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 5, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Aug 1, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Municipal election updates; changing hats; Candidate Pages – many good new candidates; endorsing organizations; the problematic “Bike Pledge” and the fallacy of perfection of the Cycling Safety Ordinance; misinterpretation of election results and slates; feeders vs. preferred candidates; the purpose of proportional representation – and the need for a strong executive; bringing ideas rather than beliefs; representation vs. advocacy; perverse candidate questionnaires; deviation from party line may lead to job loss or non-appointment – a problem in democracy; tax troubles on the horizon. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 598 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 5, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Sept 5, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Taxes, tax classification, and Prop 2½; fiction and promise of candidate handcards; taking wrong roads toward housing affordability; the problem of earmarking housing for specific groups; driving vs. “The T” and delusional thinking; looking at housing and transportation holistically, unilateral “solutions” are not solutions; Cambridge is better because of its diversity of housing styles and densities; solving problems or just taking down “the aristocracy”; the need to walk and observe; CDD undoing decades of better planning; lefties need to find more joy in life. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

August 1, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 595-596: August 1, 2023

Episode 595 – Cambridge InsideOut: Aug 1, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Aug 1, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Municipal election updates – final list of candidates; proposed 2030 gas ban amendment – de minimus benefit, detrimental effect on commercial kitchens, cultural discrimination; the problem of elected officials who don’t care what you think, exerting control and accomplishing litte; half truths sold as whole cloth. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 596 – Cambridge InsideOut: Aug 1, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Aug 1, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Interesting candidates and not just radicals; civic resources and appreciation; the positive aspects of candidacy; Candidate Pages – individuals, not organizations; tail wagging the dog – bike lanes and AHO, narrow interests attempting to define the election issues; AHO – violating planning and zoning principles, the big lie of addressing affordability; the “other issues” that may be far more important; Is proportional representation really proportional? Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

July 19, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 593-594: July 18, 2023

Episode 593 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 18, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on July 18, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Saundra Graham; municipal election updates, candidates; Charter concerns; state of the Council; representatives vs. activists, democrats vs. progressives; the problem with City Council Aides; troubles in the Mayor’s Office; Ned Sennott – reporter-councillor; councillor never meant as a full-time profession. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 594 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 18, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on July 18, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Platform? – just be a representative; School Committee challenges – do the math; School Committee candidates; fallacy of throwing money and expecting solutions; loss of multi-families and disappearance of working/middle class; market distortions; myth of the Cambridge-centric universe; mandates as lazy governance; subculture of smart and reasonable people. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress