Council Updates, Action Packed February, and More

Multifamily Housing Zoning Petition
On Monday the City Council is set to pass – and finalize – the most consequential zoning change in decades, the Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions, Parts 1 and 2. The changes include streamlining permitting, simplifying some of the zoning code, standardizing requirements, and allowing multi-family housing in every district of the city. The current proposal would allow 4 stories of residential building by right, with an additional 2 stories automatically allowed for buildings on lots larger than 5000 SF provided the project includes some affordable housing (which means they comply with the Inclusionary Housing Requirements of 20% of units affordable, likely to middle income residents), i.e. “4+2”.

I worked on the 4+2 compromise before us – and respect all of us who worked collaboratively to amend the original proposal. I am glad those amendments gained broad council support, including mine. But there is a better proposal which gets us closer to our goals that I supported, which is the option presented by Councillors Ayesha Wilson and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler. That option, “3+3+3” w/o lot restrictions, is a better way forward for the city. That option accomplishes the goal of allowing multifamily housing in every neighborhood and gives a greater incentive – 3 stories instead of 2 – to choose to build a project with affordable housing. The city’s projections (which are estimates, but broadly do provide a good comparison in general between scenarios), show the 3+3 will produce more units of housing and significantly more affordable units, both in the medium term of the next five years, and 15 years. According to the projections, the 3+3 proposal could deliver 550 more units of housing and 260 more affordable units by 2040. That is a meaningful difference.

Furthermore, in pure economic terms, under 3+3  land prices should go up a little less, making it easier for affordable housing developers to compete for properties and keep unit costs lower. Those who claim that very little will be built under the 3+3 versus the 4+2 have not been out in our neighborhoods, like mine in West Cambridge, and talked with neighbors who know of specific properties primed for development that will be built under either option. I have been out and have talked to small developers who confirm that 3+3 is as much of a game changer for infill lots as 4+2.

I also believe 3+3 gets us going in the right direction and will allow us to understand the landscape of increased development opportunity. We will know in short order whether the type of housing we hope to see will be built. If 3+3 proves insufficient in creating more market rate housing, we could decide to change to 4+2. If, however, as feared 4+2 leads primarily to luxury development, it will be more difficult to go down to 3+3 to get more of the affordable units we crave and desperately need.

I am aware some people think of me as a NIMBY – since I voted against the AHO. They don’t remember that I proposed we include provisions to 1) ensure a small percentage of units for middle income, 2) ensure sustainability in projects, and 3) monitor geographic distribution of affordable housing across the city. None of those provisions passed, so I voted no. But now each of those are central to city affordable housing discussions. I am also proud to have sponsored the first policy order in 2020 to start the long process of allowing multi-family zoning across the city – which has culminated in Monday’s vote.

If we want to be intentional about retaining affordability, especially in neighborhoods, then we need to zone to require it. If by relaxing development standards we are incentivizing housing development, we should use those incentives to increase overall housing and affordability through inclusionary zoning. I encourage all who care about housing and affordable housing to urge the council to support the 3+3 option.

Municipal Broadband
This week I am cosponsoring a policy order with Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, and Wilson, which asks the City Manager to take next steps in furtherance of the creation of a municipal broadband network. This policy order asks the City Manager to present a plan and schedule of milestones to be put forward for consideration by Council in the context of our long term capital budget planning. I fully support us moving forward on the next steps, and refine our models and understand how to implement broadband and what it would cost in investment. There are still a lot of complicated details to work through and questions to answer before we make a commitment as a city. I am committed to having those conversations because I believe that municipal broadband is an essential investment in our residents and in our future. Municipal broadband will cost money and will require a significant public-private partnership, and yet we need to make these kinds of investments. Just as we invested $299 million in building a new school, we should invest the $100-$200 million in a future-proof municipal internet network. This investment is important and can protect residents’ essential utility service for many decades as well as provide immediate cost benefits to residents through competition.