Why we support lab regulation
Everyone agrees that Cambridge has a housing affordability crisis. Biotech labs worsen that housing crisis by increasing displacement and outcompeting the new housing that our city so desperately needs. This is why we, a diverse group of residents of Cambridge, have proposed the Callender et al. zoning petition to regulate excessive biotech expansion and strike a better balance between commercial and residential development in places such as Central Square, Cambridge Street, Broadway in The Port, and North Massachusetts Avenue. We hope you’ll agree with our reasonable direction and urge the City Council to act before it is too late.
Cambridge renters must earn anywhere between three and four times the current Massachusetts minimum wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment, and there are more than 20,000 names on our affordable-housing waitlist. To address this crisis, Cambridge needs to invest substantial public funds to expand its affordable and social housing supply, and allow more market-rate multifamily units to be built. Biotech labs are simply more profitable per square foot than other uses, including three to five times more profitable per square foot than multifamily housing. Cambridge’s zoning allows this use as-of-right in every one of our squares and commercial districts. This means that labs outcompete housing as a use in many areas.
This lab profitability has had very real consequences around Cambridge. On Cambridge Street, the Mayflower Poultry building was considered by Just-A-Start and Homeowner’s Rehab Inc. for affordable housing but deemed infeasible. It is now being developed into an office and lab building. In contrast, due to the current moratorium on new laboratory and office development in the Alewife Quadrangle, the single story lab building at 735-755 Concord Ave. is now likely going to be developed into 130 to 200 units of housing, including at least 26 units of inclusionary affordable housing, instead of a lab. Finally, The Garage in Harvard Square, which might have been an ideal spot for new, affordable housing, has been approved for demolition to make way for a commercial facility that could include biotech.
Especially in the absence of simultaneously increasing housing supply, biotech labs bring substantial high-income jobs that contribute to gentrification. Cambridge’s linkage fee, meant to counterbalance the effect of commercial development on housing, does not take into account the displacing effect of market-rate renters brought by commercial development. This further exacerbates Cambridge’s affordability crisis.
Despite these important drawbacks of continued biotech expansion, we recognize and are proud of Cambridge as a hub of innovation. We love science, and appreciate the amazing work that Cambridge labs do for our community and our world. Under our zoning petition, existing labs would not be affected, and new labs would continue to be allowed in the industrial-zoned districts such as the Kendall Square area, the eastern part of Cambridgeport and parts of Alewife.
We also appreciate that labs are incredibly diverse in the type of research that they do, their profitability and in their size and footprint. We want to engage with all of the relevant stakeholders, including the broad Cambridge community, the city, the universities and the existing labs to best refine our definition of intensive lab use and strike a balance between the economic and scientific upsides of biotech development with our goals of more housing and lively squares and business corridors.
We have heard an array of voices from around Cambridge all speak in favor of this petition at recent public hearings, including scientists who work in labs, low-income tenants, younger renters and older homeowners. The proposal will next be discussed at a 3 p.m. Feb. 7 joint committee hearing, with our group of residents at the table for the discussion. We hope to work with councillors and other stakeholders at that meeting to make significant progress on language that enables us to achieve our shared goals.
We want to work toward a Cambridge where residents and locally owned, independent businesses are able to thrive in vibrant and affordable squares and corridors, shielded from further displacement pressures from many sources, including continued biotech expansion. We believe that passage of this petition would be an important step in that direction, and we are prepared to put in the work necessary to get it done.
If you would like to support the lab regulation zoning petition, sign here for updates and information.
Annamay Bourdon, Duane Callender, Lee Farris, Charles Franklin and Kavish Gandhi
The bio-techs and commercial real estate pay 2x the tax rate of residential. That helps pay for the million dollar bike lanes, parks etc. In addition, in your words
– “Biotech labs are simply more profitable per square foot than other uses, including three to five times more profitable per square foot than multifamily housing” and
– “biotech labs bring substantial high-income jobs ”
So you want to stop them from market competition because there are 20K additional people wanting to live in Cambridge? Since when are “wants” ruling over productivity, efficiency and common sense? What will you do if there are 40K on the list? Start putting housing in parks? What if that list grows to 60K? Force existing residents to double up and share housing? Where do you draw the line?
Is Cambridge the last place left in MA to live? Are other cities and town around Cambridge uninhabitable? Doesn’t Cambridge already have the highest percentage of affordable housing in all MA?
Regarding the biotechs you want to force out of city squares- where are they supposed to go? Are they are supposed to compete with big names in Kendall Square for space? So its fair to push a start up job-creating, innovating, life-changing companies to the sidelines because 20K additional people want to live in Cambridge? Again – remind me, who pays the bills for Cambridge?
If you are in the business of granting people’s wants, let me know where I can reach you because I have a lot of wants that I am getting a hard time getting fulfilled.
Also, stop gas-lighting by saying “We have heard an array of voices from around Cambridge all speak in favor of this petition at recent public hearings”
Here is the link to previous article that talks about the drubbing your team got from business leaders and residents alike.
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/12/22/first-version-of-lab-zoning-to-the-planning-board-gets-knocked-out-as-confusing-and-overly-broad/
EastCamb:
Thank you for your comments.
First, with regard to public comment: I would encourage you listen to public discussion at the 1/4 ordinance committee meeting. 20+ public commenters spoke in support of the petition. 4 spoke against. Many more wrote in favor as well, and 250+ residents signed the petition. This is the array of voices we speak of. I doubt even the councilors most opposed to our petition would describe the result of that hearing as a drubbing, so we are not gaslighting. There is a reason that a number of councilors were the ones who initiated this conversation in the first place.
The remaining comments reflect a few misnomers, in my opinion. First, Cambridge is already an incredibly wealthy city— and yes, this is partially thanks to the incredible innovation in Kendall Square. We recognize and appreciate this. However, we want a balanced perspective on how this development will extend in other areas of Cambridge. Growth at all costs is not necessary, and we are not in a financially precarious position. We have laid out our arguments, and I think I would really appreciate your commentary on the substance of them. We are not maximalists and have done our best to express that we want to tune the petition to a product that balances the amazing innovation with the negative effects that we outline. I also agree that housing cannot be put anywhere — you ascribe positions to us that you know we do not take. I would be happy to and want to engage with arguments that take seriously that there are real trade offs that our petition is trying to expose.
As far as for affordability — yes, other cities must build housing, but cambridge must too. I am happy to engage further on the specific notion that cambridge is somehow more affordable, because I think this statistic is very misleading and also misses the important comparisons, which are to nearby cities like Chelsea with quite a bit more deed restricted affordable. And in any case, to me, the metric of affordability should combine affordability of the market rate with the number of deed restricted affordable. But regardless of the affordable %, the market rate rents in Cambridge are sky-high, and Cambridge does have a local housing crisis, with far more people demanding housing here than the supply. This has caused persistent displacement of local renters over the last 20 years. 7000 of those people on the affordable waitlists already live in Cambridge, if you prefer to consider that number. They are all at risk of displacement if we do not address this crisis. Do you see this as a problem? What is your solution?
Finally, there are other places for labs to go. We do want to have a serious conversation about the definition of labs we’re restricting — as we have repeated over and over again, including in this op-ed — but it is untrue that there are not other places for innovation to take place.
We understand that there are those with different perspectives on where this should end up. We ourselves recognize the amazing contributions labs bring to the city. We hope folks on the “other side,” like yourself, would recognize the downsides that we argue for in this article, and engage with us seriously on a solution
I do not work in Biotech, but instinctively this seems like a remarkably bad idea. Biotech is a growth industry so there will be increasing demand for lab space. the area around Kendall is now dominated by large Biopharma (some home grown, some here through acquisition, some here to get access to remarkable talent). To continue innovation, you need lower cost lab space as well (an interesting parallel to our conundrum in housing). I’d say there is a lot more we can do to allow greater density for housing (and perhaps commercial space too) before I’d rely on this restrictive of a move (basically confining new lab space to 3 areas).
But also help me understand, do we not already have separate zoning for commercial, including lab space, and housing? Might just not understand but how are these in direct competition
As a matter of fact, all three of your examples sound like they were existing commercial space? Not sure what ‘the garage’ was so could be wrong there
I also want to add, as someone who works in this field – the relevant metric that we should be considering, in my opinion, when we think about the affordability of a city, is the *cost-burdenships of its residents*. This is usually defined as the % of residents who pay more than 30% of their gross income in housing expenses. Severe cost burdenship is defined similarly but for 50% of gross income. Cambridge does not rank highly on either of these metrics, which I hope is where the conversation focuses in the future. Deed-restricted affordable % matters but is only a small part of what affordable housing means.
@cport88: thanks for your response. We are highlighting parcels that are in fact in *competition* between housing and commercial use. Both uses are allowed. In our industrial districts: yes, we do not affect these, and yes, those are just for commercial. The districts under consideration are precisely a subset of the ones where housing and labs compete for uses.
Yes, the three parcels in question are / were commercial spaces, but *could* have been developed into housing. One is now going to be (in Alewife), the other was nearly (on Cambridge st.), and the other very well good have been (the Garage in Harvard Square).
We want to craft a definition that might allow for some of these innovation spaces that you describe, while also allowing other uses to compete in the districts in question, by restricting the lab use
I will add, personally, I think we will likely get to a place where we are restricting intensive lab use, where the key question is how we are defining “intensive.” You may define this as large. That is where I am coming from, and while I know the definition is not quite there – it’s a start in that direction, but needs more clarity – , that I think is where we are going.
I appreciate your engagement on this. I do really hope all will weigh the arguments for this, laid on this article, both around outcompetition *and* around displacement
> do we not already have separate zoning for commercial, including lab space, and housing? Might just not understand but how are these in direct competition
cport88 – Our “business districts” are mixed-use districts allowing both commercial and residential development.
If our residential-only zones allowed higher-density housing, then there would not be this level of competition. Unfortunately, our residential-only zones are very restrictive because too many people have said tall buildings are “inappropriate” for neighborhoods.
I would prefer that we change the large residential-only zones to support higher density, than that we try to squeeze all of our housing need into a small number of small business districts. That’s why I have reservations supporting this petition.
However, the petition’s authors are right to point out that if our residential districts are off the table, and business districts are the only place our political establishment is willing to allow dense housing…
Completely disagree with this proposal. I want Cambridge to be a vibrant and dense business and residential center. Biotech is at the heart of what makes Cambridge innovative. If we want more residential, double zoning density to build the labs and residences. This to me is an anti-development red tape proposal masked in a reasonable “we need housing” sheen
Yes, I agree with @angstrom. My personal priority is limiting continued displacement and ensuring that most growth around the city, in all places, is housing. Taguscove: thanks for your comments. We are not trying at all to be anti housing growth red tape — I think, as laid in the article, the city needs to take bold steps to increasing housing supply everywhere. This needs to include substantial public funds for building social housing — see the most recent UCLA Housing Voice podcast for a good model for a city that implemented this, in Vienna
This is silly. We can have our cake and eat it too. There is plenty of available space to build dense housing. Labs are not the barrier, and they have made Cambridge what it is today. A large lab is never going to be built in mid-cambridge (for example) but we could be building multiple large apartment buildings (if the NIMBYs would let us).
This is a remarkably bad petition for Cambridge. What is strange to me is that this petition is being spearheaded by a group that has historically blocked housing development. The Market Central project in Central was fought for years by Farris and the Cambridge Residents Alliance. One has only to do a search on this site to read the numerous op-eds released during the time of C2, its failure, and the partial win of Market Central being approved. The real irony there is that Quest Diagnostics (see also: a lab!) was being replaced with housing. So it is really hard to take this petition seriously. If this group wants housing they should file a zoning petition that supports more housing incentives. If this were to pass as written not a single unit of housing will come from it and further our devastated office market will remain a rotting husk in this city. Labs are the new office use and we should encourage more not less. Lastly the types of labs this would prohibit are exactly the kinds we need. Our startup and incubator markets need support and many of these companies are working on all manner of issues our Council wants to take the lead on from nuclear fusion to carbon free cement. We owe it to the rest of the planet not just to support this work but to encourage more of it.
It really seems like from these comments and the general political headwinds that people are getting quite fed up with NIMBYs. I know I am.
Build housing, build labs. Let the city reach its potential, for everyone.
Appreciate all the criticisms, and that many disagree with this approach. I do also want to acknowledge the role of displacement in our reasoning. And I want to say that I know that none of us who are presenting this are NIMBY’s. As I’ve written in response to many comments here, I want to see more housing density in both these and in residential areas. I personally disagree with the notion that we can leave it up to the market and simply pursue a strategy of upzoning these areas (though that should be part of it), but do think one can make this argument. We have made clear arguments about outcompetition, *as well as* displacement. If you are for more density in residential and office/business districts in Cambridge, make formal proposals to that end, and I know I myself will support them. I myself would like to see those proposals look, in large part, as well as allowing for more dense multifamily market-rate housing, the city taking bold steps of acquiring more land to lease for development of affordable housing – similar to what Mayor Wu has recently proposed in Boston. And I believe, broadly speaking, at least 50%, if not more, of the growth in our squares and corridors should be housing, and this should also be formalized in law
All of this to say: we are not NIMBYs. We made this proposal for a particular reason, but have full knowledge that it will not *solve* the housing crisis
Just an aside.
The letter said” there are more than 20,000 names on our affordable-housing waitlist.”
Clearly, these are not all current Cambridge residents.
This city has no obligation to construct affordable housing for those who do not currently live in Cambridge. Those current Cambridge residents are the ones we must care about, and should get first priority. Those not currently living in Cambridge must go to the back of the line.
We have only finite resources to construct much needed affordable housing. Let’s give it to Cambridge residents.
> Clearly, these are not all current Cambridge residents.
Nativism aside, over 7000 people on the CHA waitlist currently live or work in Cambridge and are already at the front of the line.
> We have only finite resources to construct much needed affordable housing.
We have a lot more resources than we’re currently using; better zoning and increased budget allocations would help a lot.
Kavish,
I think you should have done a background check on your co-signers on this one. It doesn’t really get much more NIMBY than the Cambridge Residents Alliance. Stating that you’d support someone else’s zoning petition that upzoned housing while we are all having to address your “housing petition” that has nothing about housing in it seems like an odd position to take. How about you guys withdraw your petition and draft something with housing in it? I’m happy to assist.
Maybe relax zoning. 20 stories residential by right along Mass ave. Lab space is allowed on floors 20 and above.
One visit to the rich country club vibe of Palo Alto and you can see the disgust. Longtime, overwhelmingly white residents zoning away opportunity for others. Big tracts of single family homes priced at million because regulations block any sensible development. This is not the Cambridge I want to see
Patrick,
Thanks for your perspective on this, I do appreciate it.
From my own conversations, I disagree with your perspective on CRA, though I imagine like many organizations there are different forces inside of it. I see CCC as the NIMBY group in Cambridge. I will acknowledge that I don’t know all of the history – I have lived in Cambridge for 7 years. I have a commitment to learning more of the histories before my time in Cambridge.
I think this petition has a lot of value in itself, outside of a specific proposal to produce more housing supply, specifically for some of the reasons outlined in this op-ed. I do think it has value in promoting housing as a use in these parcels, even if we disagree about to what extent it will have that effect. I’ve written elsewhere in comments and emails that, personally, my view on the displacing effects of labs – in a word, gentrification – is what pushes me to focus on this petition. Additionally, I personally believe that way regulate the lab use might change over time – in a way, that is why it is very valuable to define it in the zoning code, more clearly than I know we have and acknowledging all of the feedback that we have received.
I will be honest, my main concern and where I focus my energy in the city is on displacement and on rapidly addressing our homelessness crisis. I understand others come from a broader affordability perspective – and I do share that because they intersect, and that is the field where I work – but I think about things first and foremost from an anti-displacement lens. I do see gentrification as a very real force as a result of this, *on top* of the importance of the lack of increase of housing supply. I am also focused on, which I hope you will support, pushing our city to spend more direct city monies on rapidly housing all of our unhoused residents. Allies and I have estimated that it would cost ≈100/person/year extra to subsidize every unhoused person (≈1000 people, doubling the point-in-time estimate) in Cambridge fully for 2 years and partly (as a gap voucher) for the subsequent 8 years. Less aggressive approaches would be even cheaper
Finally, re: your last point, l certainly be part of conversations around drafting legislation that actively creates housing supply and deploys city funds to that end or permits more market-rate private development, as discussed in my prior comment. I focus on displacement because that is what I know the best, but I will certainly be part of those discussions. And perhaps this discussion will morph into a joint conversation of the two
I hate to refer to any changes in zoning as “upzoning” because most of the regs currently deployed in Cambridge are the culmination of multiple neighborhood organizations limiting what could be built in the city which is why 80% of housing is non-conforming. We needn’t argue about which neighborhood group is more NIMBY than the other. All I know is the CResA tried like hell to block Market Central (previously called Mass and Main) which was a lab converting to residential. CCC twists themselves in knots trying to seem reasonable on housing issues but in the end it downs matter because good zoning doesn’t care about neighborhood squabbles or whatever acronym they fly under. Maybe your position would be more compelling if you provided examples of buildings that were destined for housing but somehow missed that opportunity. In your presentation we saw the garage which is not a lab nor is it housing but currently it’s retail. Quinton showed the Middle East, a project I’m familiar with, and under current zoning housing is financially impossible … not because a lab play is so great … but because inclusionary zoning at 20% and the limited density and height we have in Central Sq, largely thanks to the CResA violently opposing a zoning effort in 2013 called C2. The Middle East site is also very different because of the current use which must be preserved. A blind spot for the housing people has always been the arts. However you haven’t provided any evidence of housing displacement due to labs. You haven’t shown how an existing office building could be converted. Gensler did this last year for Boston and the results were dismal. I guess my point is there are lots of ways to tackle this issue but your group has done what they always do; downzone and over regulate. Always the stick never the carrot. These groups have had “the wheel” for decades and are the architects of this housing crisis not its savior. I’m looking forward to lively discussion on this.
Fair re: upzoning, I fully agree that the word is not right. I can’t really comment on this history in Central, but appreciate your perspective. I have heard different versions of this from different people.
Re: particular parcels. We also discussed Mayflower Poultry and 735-755 Concord Ave, also referenced in this article; one did not become housing, one became housing during a lab/office moratorium. The Garage could very well have become housing, but now will be partially demolished and converted into some retail and some uses yet to be determined – including possibly lab. There will be no residential uses.
In Central, this is a fair point, and I’d be eager to hear your perspective on particular blocks. Fully agree re: the Middle East and being essential to preserve its use. I don’t think housing would be incompatible with that use. One block/parcel I’ve thought about is the Supreme Liquors block, which I had heard a rumor might be developed into housing but then this fell through. There are other blocks I would like to see have housing developed on, that we referenced in our presentation.
Re: office conversions – I have a lot of thoughts on this, happy to discuss more maybe offline. I will say, broadly speaking I am less than convinced that office to housing conversion is as difficult / has the barriers that people sometimes claim – from both the research I’ve seen on this and some empirical examples – but I’d like to hear more about what you think about some of the potential conversions on Mass Ave e.g.. I can cite some specific examples in a potential off-line follow-up
Displacement is discussed in this paragraph: “Especially in the absence of simultaneously increasing housing supply, biotech labs bring substantial high-income jobs that contribute to gentrification. Cambridge’s linkage fee, meant to counterbalance the effect of commercial development on housing, does not take into account the displacing effect of market-rate renters brought by commercial development. This further exacerbates Cambridge’s affordability crisis.” Given that lab development has comprised the bulk majority of commercial development for the last long while and continues to, it is the main player that I am thinking about when I am thinking about the effect of commercial development in this way. I by no means argue that this is the *only* player in this, or that gentrification-caused displacement isn’t a complicated phenomenon, but it is something that is very salient to me. But you’re right, if you make this argument, that I could envision a world where if the city was expanding its housing supply quickly and investing the substantial public funds that I think are necessary in it, and in that world this argument would have less force for me. But in this world this argument does have a lot of force for me, even if I *do* support taking the prior mentioned steps.
I have no interest in downzoning, if it means allowing for less density of housing. I take the criticism of over regulating seriously.
I’m also very interested in carrot approaches. As I’ve noted, I would like to see city government boldly acquire land, as well as leverage existing land, and lease it (through a very similar process as Mayor Wu has proposed) for social/affordable housing development. I would also like to see more permissive density for market-rate multifamily across most of these places, and in residential neighborhoods.
The best part of living in Cambridge is its neighborhoods! For some reason The City Council and the Cambridge Residents Alliance are trying to destroy them. The biggest complaint The City Manager gets is a large part of the population is not being heard. Let the neighborhoods decide what gets built, not The City Council. In East Cambridge , I will take a three story building instead of a 20 story residential building with no parking any day.
Anyone who genuinely cares about holding back the otherwise unchecked tsunami of big lab buildings in Cambridge – and Porter Square, in particular – would do well to attend a joint public hearing this Thursday online about a proposed Rezoning of White Place, behind the CVS there, so the applicant can build and profit from a 5-story Lab building, including oversized rooftop mechanicals among other things. Don’t we all agree we need… housing??? Though technically in Somerville, but right on the border, this project will mainly effect Cambridge and anyone who enjoys, lives near or works in the Porter Square Mall. Thursday at 6:30 p.m. online: https://www.somervillema.gov/events/2023/02/02/land-use-committee-joint-session-planning-board
Kavish,
You don’t really need anecdote and certainly don’t take my word for it. Just search this site and it’ll tell you all you need to know. If you’re really bored google “crush hour.” That was a fun one.
Co-Ops and land trusts huh? Is everyone reading the same book what’s it called … affordable city? Historically all groups have made perfection the enemy of progress. Tying oneself in knots to fine tune affordability will always be a losing strategy. Zone for housing, use labs to build more housing, wash rinse repeat.
@Angstrom,
Am pleased to hear that the 7000 people on the on the CHA waitlist who currently live or work in Cambridge are at the front of the line. It wasn’t Nativism on my part, just a question of fairness.
A great number of people would like to live in Cambridge. Cambridge does not have an obligation to see that their wishes are accommodated.
You said, “We have a lot more resources than we’re currently using; better zoning and increased budget allocations would help a lot.”
I agree with your thought on better zoning. However, I think your thought about increased budget allocations is off base. Exactly where are these increased allocations going to come from?
What city services or allocations from vitally needed infrastructure projects (the city is falling apart in this area), do you suggest we cut.
If you, and so many others, believe we have the ability to increase allocations from the current budget, I’m afraid we have to agree to disagree.
While so many in this city believe that it is wealthy, in the sense that the city has a lot of money for a lot of things, the facts do not support that.
The city budget is full of “fluff.” An ombudsman would be the greatest cost/benefit asset that the city could have. Forget about what Moody’s says about Cambridge finances. Moody’s said a lot of things about debt in 2006-2009, and you know how that turned out… badly.
I’ve been trying to focus councillors attention on the balance sheet of the city. They don’t seem to care. That’s a shame because very shortly the city will be forced to recognize what are today, large shortfalls.
If you can show me where I’m wrong, I’m quite willing to be corrected and admit my mistakes.
But again, please show us where the money is going to come from. Thanks.
Fair, I will google to get histories
I like co-ops and land trusts, but that’s not what I specifically mentioned: I said social housing, which incorporates a broad array of things. For quick production, I prefer Mayor Wu’s approach, which is quick city acquisition of land, which then is leased for free to developers with a very particular affordability requirements. I agree that co-ops and land trusts are not immediately scalable – though I will point you to Vienna and other European cities for similar governance models that have very successfully scaled. I would prefer public housing but I know that we’ve hollowed out the institutions that would allow us to develop land quickly, so am interested in the leasing model
If I had a nickel for every time someone said “look to Vienna” I’d have like seven dollars by now. You like Mayor Wu’s plan but let’s see it in action. Land takings can be very complicated (see also: Vail Court) and those advocating for this typically ignore some fundamental tenets of our laws. You want housing then change the zoning and remove the layered bureaucratic quagmire. Tis simple. Do not forget that in the same breath Wu advocated for takings she also wants to bring back rent control. That’ll dry up capital for housing better than any neighborhood group. It’s just too ironic that the same people calling for that old tried, tried again, failed policy are the same folks who have historically blocked all housing. In short I’d like to see how Wu’s plan implements and achieves a positive result before I’d heap on praise. In the meantime you guys could withdraw your commercial downzoning petition and draft a petition that jacks up housing (all housing) and doesn’t get lost in the weeds on affordability and Id be first in line to support.
@ Kavish Gandhi,
This city does not have the funds for quick acquisition of (expensive) land. Money does not fall from trees. Cut out a tremendous amount of fluff in city expenditures, and then we can talk about land acquisition.
Let me just say this: this is a remarkably interesting, thoughtful and helpful discussion!
I haven’t been swayed that this is the right move, but appreciate the civic spirit behind the work and engagement on the topic.
Thank you, cport88. I appreciate you all engaging with us on this. I hope you appreciate that we are engaging on this in good faith, because we see this as a real crisis, and because we see this a step in part of a larger solution.
Hah re: Patrick – I will say, I thought Vienna was a new one for housing, I try not to point to the typical ones. I am happy to point to *many* cities in Europe, Singapore, Asia, South America that have implemented similar models. It is not rocket science for the government to take this active approach, nor is it as untested as you say.
I do appreciate the challenges about acquiring land. I am happy to engage more as to particular details of how I think this might work. re: concerned43: from studying the history of this closely and also thinking about the acquisition costs, I can say that your pessimism on this is not warranted. But it will require more than just city funds, this is true. I’m happy to engage more on your specific points, there have been too many floating threads.
I’ll say, I do support removing restrictions on market rate multifamily, as I’ve said multiple times above. I just want to see the government take a much more active role alongside this.
@Kavish Ghandi,
This is a very simple question. Please tell us where the funds are going to come from re the city budget. I know you can’t tell us exactly, but give us a broad idea where you think these funds might be.
Will we be cutting back on building new schools? Cutting back on rebuilding old schools? Cutting back on fire department funding? Police funding? Cutting down on post retirement health and pensions (by far, the largest liability that the city has)? Taking on more debt? Raising taxes?
If my pessimism is not warranted, please show us why that is not so.
And because you believe that this will require more than city funds, tell us your thoughts about where these outside funds might come from.
I know a lot about municipal finance and don’t see where the money will come from to purchase land. However, I know full well that I might be missing something, so am happy to be enlightened with specific thoughts as to funding.
Hi concerned43:
To be fair, this conversation has gone far afield, and we’re just speculating here. But I’m interested nonetheless, and happy to engage further offline. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected]. This will likely be my last comment on non-lab topics here.
First, I’d want to focus on developing this program for existing city-owned land. We do have quite a bit of this (see recent inventory), for which acquisition wouldn’t be necessary
Re: other sources of funds – I’m broadly interested in this being part of a larger federal and state ‘social / public housing’ endeavor. I know that this is down the road, however, but don’t see it as too outrageous that that is where we end up in the next decade
Within the city: as far as direct ongoing sources / taxes, I think a portion of linkage could be directed towards this. I also think pilot (payment in lieu of taxes) programs with MIT/Harvard, which have not yet been established, could feed this. I am also in favor of increasing residential property taxes, but that is a separate discussion which I *know* has a lot of complexities, and would need to be based on a real needs assessment.
We do also have a substantial surplus in this city. I know you’ve written elsewhere that there are other liabilities — which I’m a little confused by when you’ve written them in terms of how the financing works but I would want to understand – but of course money can always come from this source.
Finally, in terms of cutting budgets; as probably is reflected in my opinions elsewhere, I’m for lowering the police budget and allocating those resources elsewhere in the city budget. I personally think housing is one of those “elsewhere” places, as well as alternative response, since housing stability will itself cut down on the need for ‘police response.’ I’m happy to go into the budget in more detail
I’ll also be honest; I know cities around the area that do this, and Cambridge does occasionally as well. It’s not fully new for the city to acquire property. I honestly haven’t seen a “scaled” version of this like in Vienna and other places I referenced, which is what I’m advocating for, but it’s not so uncommon. Chelsea, where I work, has done this for various different purposes, including housing. Often, these acquisitions happen on vacant or underused lots, but it doesn’t need to solely be for that
Mr. Gandhi,
Thanks for your reply.
You said: “I know you’ve written elsewhere that there are other liabilities — which I’m a little confused by when you’ve written them in terms of how the financing works but I would want to understand – but of course money can always come from this source.”
Am sorry. to say this, but this shows you have little understanding of the finances of the city.
I’ve never written anything about financing and liabilities. Why? Because what I have pointed out with regard to liabilities, has nothing to do with financing… whatever “financing” is.
I think it would be a good idea to have someone knowledgeable explain to you the financial statements of the city. And, make sure that person knows where to find and understands off balance sheet liabilities.
I know you have every good intention about zoning, office conversion, land acquisition, displacement and much else. I applaud that. I think you have to become aware that the realization of your intensions is reliant on the ability of Cambridge to be able to fund these projects.
Perhaps the money will be found. But it won’t be found by wishful thinking about finances and liabilities.
Two other things. You said “I also think pilot (payment in lieu of taxes) programs with MIT/Harvard, which have not yet been established, could feed this.” This is incorrect. Both MIT and Harvard pay PILOT.
The second thing; you said “I personally think housing is one of those “elsewhere” places, as well as alternative response, since housing stability will itself cut down on the need for ‘police response.’ ”
I think that is an idea that, if the last fifty years is any indication, not only has no merit, but is delusional.
Best,
concerned43
I’ll admit, the last message feels a little patronizing, but thanks for engaging. I do have a decent but not expert understanding of this side of things.
I should’ve spent more time to write my part about existing liabilities more clearly. I meant to say something like; I know you’re written about off-balance-sheet liabilities elsewhere – which I didn’t see you elaborate, although I may have missed it –, which would affect the wisdom of us _financing_ acquisition through $200million in Free Cash. I think this resolves your confusion about what I wrote re: financing and liabilities.
Re: pilot – I should have again been more clear. I mean strengthening these to be less voluntary, a la https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/6/pilot-bill-cambridge-2021/. I do know that they do make payments – I didn’t realize they were also under the same terminology (I thought for whatever reason that PILOT was reserved for involuntary programs, which was my mistake) but proposals a la what is described in that article is what I mean.
Your last statement about unarmed police and other alternative first response is unsupported. There is massive evidence that poverty and houselessness are key contributors to crime, so tackling these directly would limit the need for police. There is also less expansive but still important evidence about the efficacy of alternative first response, emerging from the last 5 years. I am happy to provide the citations for this but to call this delusional is mistaken
It is funny how NIMBYs oppose lab development because we need more affordable housing, but then oppose higher-density affordable housing because it will “ruin the character of our city”.
The Washington Post had an article about Nimbee, a satire that exemplifies this attitude.
“I dislike anyone or anything that threatens to change my neighborhood from what it was like the day I moved here. Any change that happened up until that moment is totally cool, though, and should be given historic preservation protection in perpetuity.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/04/nimbee-bee-mascot-satire/
There is a legitimate concern about affordable housing. The solution is to change the zoning laws to encourage developments to build affordable housing.
The solution is not to oppose development that is an economic engine for our city.
Changes to zoning laws that create affordable housing have been proposed. But, of course, and predictably, there is NIMBY opposition to that.
Please see the long explanation above as to why we are not NIMBY’s at all, both in our op-ed and in these comments.
I have no opposition to zoning laws that create affordable housing, such as the AHO.
I’d encourage you to listen to tomorrow’s hearing and hear the reasons that we support this, in addition to the ones raised in this op-ed
@Kavish Gandhi
Oh, I read what you wrote. This lab vs affordable housing is a false trade-off. You take measures that allow both. Like the new zoning laws that allow taller buildings if they include affordable housing and incentives. You seem to be using affordable housing as a tool for your anti-lab argument.
If you read any of what I’ve wrote in the many comments above and in the op-ed, I don’t think it can be reasonably argued that I think affordable housing is a means to my anti-lab ends. My day job is also in affordable housing and anti-displacement work.
I support all of the zoning provisions you mentioned. To your part, I also ask you to grapple with both the outcompetition and displacement arguments we make. Land values are extraordinarily high – talk to landowners about what they are able to buy parcels for and what uses they then *must* allow to make a profit!. This is even further true for our affordable housing developers, who are completely outcompeted and unable to pay the prices asked of them. I agree that added density is needed but it’s not sufficient to address the outcompetition problem.
I also think that not enough attention has been given to our argument about displacement, which I’m happy to restate at further length but I’ve discussed a number of times above. Linkage fees by the very methodology that calculates them do *not* address displacement – I am happy to discuss this at length