A Better Cambridge sent out a questionnaire to all 2023 Cambridge City Council candidates, and received 21 responses. You can read the full responses from each candidate by clicking their name below, or compare responses from different candidates by jumping straight into the questions below on this page!
In addition, for candidates who attended our candidate forum, we've placed links to the video of their appearance below their photo. The full forum video can be found here.
Jump to answers on:
Ayah Al-Zubi
In this reality, as the youngest candidate, I deeply grasp the disillusionment many feel about our politics. My campaign for Cambridge City Council is driven by the belief that we can rebuild the bonds between government and our community. In these changing times, with innovation as our guide, we have a moral duty as leaders to serve the people with unwavering justice, radical transparency, and a relentless commitment to the pursuit of a fairer future for all.
Burhan Azeem
Councilor Burhan Azeeem is running for his second term on the Cambridge City Council, where he has spearheaded efforts to address the housing crisis. Councilor Azeem is an MIT-graduated engineer who grew up with housing insecurity. Before pursuing elected office, he was on the board of A Better Cambridge, and founded a housing nonprofit called Abundant Housing. An engineer by day and a volunteer EMT at night, he has gotten to know Cambridge from inside an ambulance.
Doug Brown
I am a part-time project manager and full-time stay-at-home dad. I am married with 3 young kids, ages 9, 11, and 13. I have a background in software product management and education. I have been active in local issues for a decade. My focus during that time has been on smart urban planning, climate resiliency, zoning reform, support for families (particularly middle income families), and efforts to increase municipal transparency and accountability.
Peter Hsu
I am a practicing physician who cares about our community just as much as I care about my patients and their families. Even as a physician, my colleagues and I agree that Cambridge is very expensive to live in. I do not sugarcoat things, and with a research background in health policy, I understand not every policy makes everyone happy. However, I believe it is important to create and shape policies that strengthen and protect the common or core values of our city. If elected, I will do my best to vote for policies that create a more affordable, diverse, sustainable, and vibrant Cambridge.
Adrienne Klein
I am a dedicated public servant, I am continually impressed by the people and services here, and I am looking to continue to serve Cambridge residents by taking on a role where I can have even more impact. I advocate for inclusive access to infrastructure and services including housing, transportation, and childcare. I envision a Cambridge where opportunities are increasing, where locally-owned businesses flourish and all residents are represented by their government and service providers. I will fight tirelessly for a just legal system and to protect the environment for future generations here in Cambridge. By voting for me, you are voting for a candidate who will stand up to ensure a Cambridge that uplifts everyone.
Marc McGovern
Since joining the Council 10 years ago, I have been a leader on housing issues. From raising the Inclusionary Zoning percentage, to raising the linkage fee, to most notably, the Affordable Housing Overlay, I don’t give lip service to supporting housing, I champion it. As a social worker of 30 years, I have worked with some of the most vulnerable families in our state. I know the difference stable housing can make in a person’s life. And for those renters moving to Cambridge, I want you to be able to settle here, as my great-grandfather did in 1918. I want you to plant your roots, and raise your family in this wonderful city. While some see the “character” of Cambridge as the look of our buildings, I see the character as the people who live in those buildings. Our diversity is our strength, and we are losing it. I don’t want Cambridge to become a bigger Wellesley. I want Cambridge to be a thriving, diverse, multi-cultural city, and to have that, we need to build more housing.
Joe McGuirk
Joe is a father of two wonderful grown children, and lives with his patient and loving wife, along with his dear pal, Harry the cat. He was born in Cambridge and grew up in the nearby suburbs. He moved back to Cambridge as a young adult and has rented in and around the city for thirty years. He has worked in the local restaurant scene for over three decades as a bartender. In his career, he has won many accolades locally and has appeared on national public radio and in local and national magazines. During his long and successful years in the food industry, Joe has advocated for locally owned small restaurants and their workers. In 2022, Joe and a few colleagues used the pop-up McGuirk’s Folly to highlight struggles of restaurant workers in cities with rising housing costs and stagnating wages, with a focus on sustainability. He is an avid reader and gamer.
Federico Muchnik
Federico attended the Cambridge Public Schools, having gone to Peabody Elementary followed by the Pilot School at Cambridge Rindge and Latin. He grew up next to Saint Peter’s Field where he played little league baseball for the Cambridge Red Sox. After college he returned to Cambridge where he became an activist, producing films on local issues including a controversial development project in Harvard Square, life inside a youth center in Central Square, and a profile of a visually impaired African-American blues musician living in affordable housing. His interest in activism and politics comes from his mother, Rita Arditti, and her work with women's rights and science. Federico is a lifelong teacher, most recently as adjunct professor of film production and history at Lesley University. As a long time resident and chronicler of past and present city life, Federico understands Cambridge and its needs. He is a committed, active, involved citizen who enjoys engaging with people and hearing their stories. He brings an articulate voice and unique perspective of what the city has been, where it stands today, and what it can become in the years ahead. Working with the city's numerous and diverse communities Federico believes there's a common-sense way to retain Cambridge's small town charm while continuing to grow as a world-class city.
Patty Nolan
I have served the City of Cambridge as an elected official since 2005, first as a member of the School Committee, and since 2020 as a Councillor. My priorities are integrity and good governance, and they guide every policy decision I make. Before Council, I was a consultant in corporate strategy, for non profits, on employee ownership and ran an environmental company
Sumbul Siddiqui
I am a lifelong Cambridge resident who grew up in Cambridge affordable housing at the Rindge Towers and Roosevelt Towers. After graduating from Cambridge Public Schools, I attended Brown University and Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and became a legal aid attorney. I have led the RISE UP program expansion this year expanding $500/month over 18 months for almost 2000 families. I established the universal pre-k working group this term that has led to reaching our goal of free preschool for all 4 year olds and some 3 years starting in 2024. I have also worked to establish early college at CRLS and a community college fund called Cambridge Promise.
E. Denise Simmons
Denise Simmons is a lifelong resident of Cambridge, currently serving her 11th term on the Cambridge City Council. Denise has spent the past three decades working to better her community – first as the Executive Director of the Cambridge Civic Unity Committee in the 1980s, then as a member of the Cambridge School Committee in the 1990s, and since 2002, as a member of the Cambridge City Council. Denise has twice served as Mayor of Cambridge, and she hopes to continue working to make City Hall more accessible and more accountable to a greater number and scope of people.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
I’m running for City Council because Cambridge can lead the way on housing and child care affordability, climate resilience and sustainability, safe streets, and reliable transportation. I previously served on the City Council in 2020-2021. In my first term, I helped pass the original Affordable Housing Overlay, worked on legislation to increase the City’s affordable housing linkage fee, and introduced the 2020 Cycling Safety Ordinance that is creating miles of new bike and bus lanes in Cambridge. Since my previous term on the City Council, I’ve been the New England Progressive Governance Director for the Working Families Party, working with state and local elected officials, advocates, and residents to craft legislation on affordable housing, child care, and more. Before starting on the Council, I worked at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge. I live in Cambridgeport with my partner and our cat, Eden, and like two-thirds of Cambridge residents, I’m a renter.
Paul F. Toner
My name is Paul Toner and I am seeking reelection to a second term on the Cambridge City Council. I am a lifelong resident of Cambridge and live in the home of my great-grandfather with my wife, Susan Connelly, and our children Grace and Jack. I am running for City Council becaus I believe in public servic and government’s capacity to improve people’s lives. As a teacher. Lawyer, union and nonprofit leader, I have the skills and experience needed to engage diverse views, build consensus, and navigate the political process, to lead change.
Dan Totten
Dan is a democratic socialist and a queer renter from Central Square running to continue Councillor Zondervan’s legacy of progress after six years of public service as his council aide. At city hall, he played a major role in researching, drafting, and advancing legislation (such as eliminating parking minimums and legalizing mid-rise affordable housing) while also helping hundreds of residents navigate homelessness and housing instability. Let’s build a Cambridge that works for all of us - not just the wealthy and well-connected!
Vernon K. Walker
Vernon is an African-Amercian renter who resides in the Kendall Sqaure neighborhood running for Cambridge City Council. Vernon is currently the Program Director of the Communities Responding to Extreme Weather (CREW) organization located in Harvard Sqaure area. CREW is a program that is under the Better Future Project umbrella. Vernon The Better Future Project is a environmental nonprofit. CREW helps prepare communities for extreme weather (i.e. heatwaves, floods, etc.) through education, service and planning. Vernon started with working for CREW in 2019. Vernon background includes earning a master in theological studies from Boston University in 2016. Currently, Vernon is also a part-time graduate student at Tufts University pursing a master degree in public policy with a focus on environmental justice. From 2016-2017, Vernon worked in the homeless field as an Outreach Specialist at Pine Street Inn helping the unhoused find resources that would help them experience housing stability in their lives. From 2017-2018, Vernon worked as a case manager at the Boston Rescue Mission working to help my clients build their lives back. I worked with clients to help them apply for Boston Public Housing an fill out other housing applications. I believe we should build a Cambridge that accommodates all of us and not just the rich!
Hao Wang
My name is Hao Wang, and I am seeking election to the first term on the Cambridge City Council. I lived in Cambridge for 30 years and am a homeowner for 25. Coming from China as a student, I owe Cambridge for my postgraduate education, having earned my Ph.D. from MIT and MPA from Harvard. My elder son Juneau Wang goes to BU, and my younger son wants to go to MIT, both for biology. I am running because I love Cambridge and want it to be an inclusive, livable city with sustainability and competent government. Having served in government, not-for-profit, and private sector, helping some of the world's leading cities transform, I want to help Cambridge achieve its goals and objectives. I am an engineer by training, knowing the technologies and methods for electrification, environmental conservation, and new energy vehicles. Having worked in the country's largest mental health systems, I have dealt with behavioral health crises, opioid abuse, and homelessness in New York City. I want to help Cambridge in its current and future challenges.
Ayesha Wilson
Ayesha M. Wilson is a social worker and a Senior Teacher-Counselor with the Cambridge Housing Authority’s Work Force program. In her two terms on the Cambridge School Committee, she has worked on the City’s new universal pre-K program, advocated for the Office of Equity Inclusion and Belonging, and successfully secured funding for eleven new school social workers.
Robert Winters
I have been actively involved in Cambridge civic affairs for over 35 years.
Cathie Zusy
I have worked to foster community for 25 years, leading the revitalization of Magazine Beach Park (the City’s second largest park); co-launching the restoration of the 1886 St. Augustine’s African-Orthodox Church; originating the community art event “If This House Could Talk…”; and advocating for open space, native plants, and the arts. I love Cambridge’s energy and diversity. Through my decades of community service, I have come to know how the City is governed and managed – and the importance of collaboration to achieve goals. I want to bring my skills, energy and imagination to the City Council to help make Cambridge its best. This includes tackling the challenges of housing, transportation, and climate change. My community service has included: President, Magazine Beach Partners Past President & Current Treasurer, Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association Member, Cambridge News Advisory Board Treasurer, Afterworks (after-school program for immigrant children) Board Member, Cambridge Performance Project (Community Schools arts program) Co-founder, Cambridgeport Neighborhood Group Former Member, Morse School Improvement Council & Community School Advisory Committee
Ayah Al-Zubi
As a renter who has experienced the reality of Cambridge's soaring rents, my journey reflects the everyday struggles many of us face. From the exhausting days of moving under the scorching sun, to the unlikely friendships formed with the mice in my apartment, I understand the challenges of renting. This connection to the struggle runs deep, having lived as a nomad during my childhood, beginning in affordable housing and never getting the chance to build a stable community.
Burhan Azeem
Burhan moved to the US from Pakistan. He and his family were quite poor and lived with another family - sharing a 3 bedroom with 11 people. He grew up on food stamps and medicare. They would move often as children - almost every year. He was lucky to get a full scholarship to MIT and now serve as your city councillor. He’s one of the only renters in city hall.
Doug Brown
I moved to Cambridge 24 years ago. During that time I have moved 6 times, including 3 homes that I owned and renovated and 3 apartments that I rented. I have friends who own and friends who rent. I don’t believe that either is “better” than the other. I have never lived in public or subsidized housing, though I did experience a brief period of homelessness after college when high housing costs forced me to live in my car for a time.
John Hanratty
I rented for 17 years after college before I could afford to put an down payment on the condo where I live today in Cambridge. The price was about $200,000. In my 20's, I had a couple years without a sufficient income, and had to rely on help from friends to have a place to stay. I remember looking in the window of a Red Lobster wondering how anyone could afford to go to restaurant. This experience stays with me to this day.
Peter Hsu
I own my current place, but buying it was not an easy process. Folks assume physicians are rich, which might be true for some just like in every profession, but for physicians living in Cambridge, I personally do not believe most of my colleagues, including myself, have the monetary power to just buy a house without some serious planning or thinking, simply because it is a huge amount to invest. Although I own my unit, I do rent out two of my rooms at a reasonable and affordable price, and thus far, I have been getting very positive feedback from folks on how just these little things have made a difference in their lives. Therefore, my Cambridge living situation and experience has definitely confirmed my belief that, if elected, I will do my very best to vote for policies that would allow more affordable housing and reasonable, stronger tenant protection.
Adrienne Klein
My husband and I were able to purchase our home in 2022 via an affordable housing lottery operated by the City’s Community Development Department for first-time home buyers. Prior to that we lived in subsidized housing in Cambridge. We also lived in a market rate unit, and I have previously rented at market rate in Cambridge. Without the lottery we wouldn’t have been able to stay in Cambridge and we understand the difficulties of surviving in Cambridge on a limited income. That absolutely influences my policy priorities, positions and will continue to drive my approach to problem solving.
Marc McGovern
My family has lived in Cambridge since 1918. I currently live in my family home with my wife and 13 year-old twins. Although I was a renter for the majority of my life, I was not housing insecure. I always knew that I had a family home if needed. It is that privilege that makes me such a strong supporter of housing development, affordable housing especially. I know the difference housing security meant in my life and I want other people to have it as well. Prior to serving on the City Council, I served on the Cambridge School Committee, and what became crystal clear was that no matter how great our teachers were, or our curriculum was, our students were not going to meet their full potential if they were housing insecure, or had to worry about food on the table or their electricity being turned off. This is why I ran for City Council. Although many in Cambridge are doing well, far to many are not. It is my commitment to making sure that everyone has what they need to be successful that drove me to run for Council. I have been fighting for social and economic justice and will continue to do so.
Joe McGuirk
I was a teenaged parent, and moved back to Cambridge in my mid twenties after I separated from my first wife. I was already working here, and I rented an apartment to be closer to my jobs. Being a young single parent, working at lower income jobs, housing was my biggest source of stress. I think I moved 12 times in the first decade after my divorce. The desperation and anxiety caused by my housing instability was pretty rough. I had to make choices to solve short-term issues at the cost of creating longer-term issues. Like buying food instead of paying bills on time. A trip to Davis Square to pay my cable bill to restore the internet was a common outing. I once even “borrowed” electricity from my landlord as I waited for payday so I could pay my utility bill. I was unaware of the term at the time, but I was rent burdened for most of my adult life. In retrospect, there were actions I could have taken. I could have applied for subsidized housing, or done more advocacy for people like myself, but I also recognize that economic pressures, along with the stigma in my community associated with asking for help, made it difficult for me to take those actions. I just didn’t have the bandwidth, and I was ashamed of my inability to lead a stable life. (My children did, eventually, live in subsidized housing, with their mom.)
Federico Muchnik
I've rented, I presently own, and I have not lived in public housing, so my experience with housing in Cambridge ranges from living in a dilapidated 2 bedroom with my mother who somehow managed to keep us afloat to buying a condo with my wife and daughter, to living in a short term rental, to owning a home.
Patty Nolan
With my spouse, I own a two family in Cambridge which provides a NOAH, naturally occurring affordable housing for low income residents. We receive no subsidies from the city - and like other small landlords know that we fill an important part of the Cambridge housing landscape. We rent below market since we were lucky enough to buy a 2 family when we - on non profit salaries - could, which we couldn't do today. I understand the market pressures for maintaining such units and see the effects of high housing costs on my two adult children. As a renter for many years in several cities I know the stress of yearly rent increases. My understanding of market issues, housing policies and city finances, along with my commitment to enact meaningful change has led me to support many initiatives aimed at increasing support and funding for affordable housing in the city.
Frantz Pierre
Yes I’m currently living in a subsidized unit. I grow up on section 8. I also worked at a Housing Specialists and a Care Coordinator for the elder saving them from evictions. Yes it has a huge impacted on me running for office. I believe a lot of family are dealing with similar issue with housing such as rent adjustments and not feeling comfortable speaking with housing due to lack of communication.
Sumbul Siddiqui
I grew up in Cambridge affordable housing at the Rindge towers, now known as Fresh Pond Apartments, and then in 5th grade moved to Roosevelt Towers mid-rise in Wellington-Harrington/East Cambridge, where my parents still live. This personal experience, specifically in Cambridge, has shaped my decision to run for city council and keep running. I am often working with residents in public or subsidized housing and have built many important relationships that have shaped my policy work. I was able to buy a condo in Cambridgeport in November 2018.
E. Denise Simmons
I am a renter in Cambridge and I recognize the importance of having a multitude of housing options in our city - market rate, subsidized, studio units, family-sized units, and everything in between. We are in a regional housing crisis that has been growing in scope ever since the loss of rent control. I, members of my family, my friends, co-workers, have all been directly impacted by this to one degree or another.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
After my parents separated when I was a toddler, my mom and I moved into subsidized housing in Springfield, MA. As a renter in Cambridge, I personally understand the need for better tenant protections and rent stabilization, the necessity of ending exclusionary zoning to allow more affordable housing to be created, and the possibilities that new housing options like a community land trust and social housing can present. I’ve also volunteered with groups like City Life / Vida Urbana to support tenant unions to fight for better living conditions, resist displacement, and effect policy. Working at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy also shaped my understanding of land-use policy and interest in engaging on issues of housing, climate, transit, zoning, and planning, which is so much of the work that the Council does.
Paul F. Toner
My perspective on housing and land-use is informed by my experience as a lifelong resident, former renter, homeowner, educator, and union leader. It has also been informed by my wife, Susan Connelly, who is a current member of the Cambridge, Housing Authority, former member of the zoning board, and as a 30 year career and developing, managing, and advocating for affordable housing across Massachusetts. Having lived in growing up in Cambridge of the last 50 years, I have been witness to the enormous changes in our city, resulting from the extension of the redline, elimination of rent control, and the development of East Cambridge, I Kendall Square and North Cambridge. The demographics of the city have changed, especially in terms of its socioeconomic composition. Which has had an impact on the character of the city as well. As a teacher is state and national union leader I have also observed impact on my own students and their families who live in public, and or affordable housing and on students across the state housing instability, and the stress that goes along with it negatively impact students and their academic progress and ability to engage in the opportunities provided through city services due to transiency. These experiences have given me an appreciation for the importance of maximizing, unlimited land and building more housing stock for residence of all income levels to provide greater housing stability but also they need to seek a balance with providing quality open space for residents to be able to access. Finally based on my wife’s work, I realize that there are many communities that are not carry their weight when it comes to providing more housing opportunities for families across the state, and we should be leading, but also cajoling our neighboring communities to live up to their housing obligations.
Dan Totten
I’m a renter in Central Square. My bedroom is about 80 square feet and I live with three roommates. Any one of these years, I could face displacement from the city. Renting alone or even just with fewer roommates in Cambridge is an impossible dream. Yet the city is my home, a place where I feel welcome. I never want to leave. This is a reality I share with many people who live in our city, and indeed renters make up 66% of the population. Yet our voices are grossly underrepresented at city hall and in decision making spaces. I’m running to change that. A central component of my work for Councillor Zondervan was managing a caseload of constituents looking for help with housing, including many unhoused people. Six years of working directly with some of our city’s most vulnerable residents has prepared me to represent them at city hall. I understand the realities of their world and the specific ways in which our safety net needs to be improved with investment to better meet their needs.
Vernon K. Walker
I have lived in public housing in Philadelphia as I raised in a public housing development in West Philadelphia and then in my teenage years South Philadelphia. When I first moved to Cambridge in 2020, I was market rate renter for several years in an apartment in North Cambridge. The landlord provided me notice that he was intending to sell his place so I was forced to move in 2022. With a desire to stay in Cambridge and with the prices of market-rate rent out of reach for my budget, I decided to apply for the Cambridge inclusionary program, which allows me to stay in the city and afford to pay rent in the city without having to have roommates. My experience as a renter has inspired me to run because currently the city has 66% renters but only two councilors that are renters on the council. Renters need equitable representation on the council and people of color need equitable representation. I am also inspired to run for Council because extreme weather impacts (i.e. heatwaves, floods, etc.) will become stronger in the coming years and Cambridge would benefit greatly from having a Councilor who has the experience in climate adaptation work to help push policies that help prepare city residents for extreme weather.
Hao Wang
I have been a resident for 30 years and homeowner for 25 in Cambridge. I never lived in public or subsidized housing. My housing experience here included being a student living on MIT campus, a landlord renting my units, a human service executive, and an educator teaching public informatics. In New York City, in the last three plus years, I worked for a not-for-profit health and human service agency that routinely housed 3,000 of people who otherwise would be unhoused or in severe behavioral illness. Housing security is critical to public health and our social stability. I have been a board member of our own Riverside Community Care for two years. I believe our not-for-profit organizations can lead the way to address our housing crisis and I believe it will take all of us, including Harvard, MIT, and larger business, in addition to an efficient government, to overcome our challenges.
Ayesha Wilson
I grew up in public housing in Cambridge. I have rented in Cambridge, and I currently pay my rent by providing live-in support at a home for disabled adults. After I graduated from the Work Force program (a career development program for CHA residents), I chose to devote my life to serving Cambridge youth, and that path led me to become a social worker working at the Cambridge Housing Authority and to the School Committee. I’m running for City Council because I know first-hand how hard it is to afford to stay in Cambridge—even with a good middle-class union job, and even with multiple jobs—and I know that when people have the safe, stable, and affordable housing that I had growing up, they can contribute to our communities like I have.
Robert Winters
My primary reasons for being a candidate are (a) the Charter review process; (b) lack of City Council responsiveness; and (c) I have a great deal of expertise to offer.
Cathie Zusy
My husband and I purchased our home in Cambridgeport in 1995. We paid more than we wanted to then. We were both renters prior. I am sensitive to the need for cheaper entry level housing for individuals and families. When we first moved to this area, we each rented rooms and small apartments for $450 and $650 a month—not the $2k-$3k that a one-bedroom apartment costs now. It was a lot easier to get by. I could manage this rent and a career in the arts. I have never lived in public or subsidized housing.
Ayah Al-Zubi
As we tackle these pressing housing issues, we need to focus on creating more affordable housing and prevent biotech and pharmaceutical companies from driving up housing costs if they’re not going to do their part in addressing the housing crises. Right now, with the AHO we’re making progress on creating the opportunities to build affordable housing, but we need to incentivize the creation of these homes. Also, it's crucial to support tenant rights through a rental assistance program and we need to bring our homeless community into the conversation. Because someone doesn’t have the means to secure a home, it doesn’t mean their worth should be lost in the conversation. This includes all forms of homelessness: transitional, chronic, episodic, and hidden. We need to work more on investing in our homeless shelters so that we invest in our most vulnerable communities. The bottom line is that we should always put people over profit.
Burhan Azeem
Cambridge residents consistently rate the cost of housing as a top priority. Addressing our housing crisis has been my priority on the Council, and if re-elected I’ll build on my progress this first term to make real progress in our housing crisis. To productively address our housing crisis we need to address supply, subsidy, and stability. This means that we need to build more housing, provide more resources to help people afford housing, and strengthen protections for residents. I’ve been proud to lead on all In my first term, I’ve led efforts to expand the Affordable Housing Overlay. The AHO is one of our strongest tools to create more housing. By loosening the restrictions on 100% affordable development, the AHO allows nonprofit affordable housing developers to compete in Cambridge’s tight real estate market and bring many more units online than they otherwise could. I was also a leader in getting citywide parking minimums removed. Parking minimums drive up the cost of building housing, and are particularly unnecessary in Cambridge, where so many people don’t own cars. The AHO increased both supply and stability, and parking minimums help with housing supply. I’ve also worked to increase the financial resources the City can bring in to aid affordable housing development. I’ve voted to increase the linkage fee for developers to raise more money for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I support a Tenant Right-to-Counsel and boosting resources to the Office of Housing Liaison. I look forward to working on all of these priorities in the coming term and making Cambridge a more affordable place to live.
Doug Brown
As long as I have lived in Cambridge, our City has had a housing affordability issue. (My first apartment here included 6 other roommates). Cambridge is a desirable place to live, as shown by both our housing prices and our housing waitlist. Though the problem is too big to solve on our own (at current costs, clearing the entire waitlist would cost us more than $20 billion), a multi-pronged approach may help address the most pressing housing needs of our residents. For those Cambridge residents currently on the waitlist, I support the City issuing a housing bond to support increased housing production. For renters who wish to own, I believe that we should support the creation of a community land trust to enable more home ownership opportunities. I also would support a city program to provide grants or 0% interest loans for first-time down payments. For renters who prefer continuing to rent, we need to solve our vacancy issue. 10% of all housing units are currently vacant, often due to real estate speculation and/or foreign investment, but also because owners can’t afford to fund necessary repairs. Some states are experimenting with controls on house flipping and on foreign ownership, while others are providing grants to fund repairs. We should pursue both options. For current owners, it’s time to consider moderate zoning reform to allow incremental expansion of the existing housing stock. And for all residents, I support funding an ADU grant program as an economical and fast way to add units in existing neighborhoods. Vermont, California, and even Boston have such programs, with grants up to $50,000 for each ADU, provided the grantees agree to rent only to full-time residents and keep rents at a fair price. In the end, making progress against this seemingly forever problem is less about specific programs and approaches, and more about how we all live together and make decisions in an already dense urban environment.
John Hanratty
Cambridge's success in attracting good paying 45,000 jobs is the envy of the country. These jobs provide a considerable opportunity to residents of Cambridge and the region. The 2020 Census (from CDD site) says Cambridge has about 50,000 households. Cambridge is one of the US's densest cities, so demand is very high and land expensive. The result is that long-time residents, working people, and low-income people cannot afford to live here. Our firefighters, teachers, nurses, and working professionals can't live where they work. As pointed out in the question, this number is quite large. We can not rely on one solution to address this problem. A combination of solutions is required to meet this problem. We cannot build our way out of this problem. First, the unhoused presents an acute problem across the country and region. We as a city must work locally and regionally to address this problem. The homelessness problem requires a concentrated effort but is more complex than just the cost of housing. We must approach the causes with specifically targeted programs and accommodations to help these people in need. Addiction, mental health, and bad luck represent many of these. We must help these people. Second, Cambridge is a congested and difficult-to-reach city. Many of those 45,000 people with good-paying jobs would prefer to live in towns with yards, open space, and less traffic. The problem is that commuting takes more than an hour each way. This circumstance causes them to look in Cambridge for housing. We could significantly reduce demand for housing by improving transportation to/from/within Cambridge. We can start by fixing congestion in Cambridge and then work regionally. This strategy could reduce housing demand by 10,000 or more. Third, Cambridge needs a realistic plan for addressing low-income and working-class housing. (There are more delineations but not enough space to discuss here). Cambridge is recognized for one of the highest percentages of affordable housing in the US. I support continuing our effort with a balanced approach between working-class and low-income housing. We must also check our assumptions and realistically measure results. I have doubts that housing without parking or green space will be attractive to families, working-class, or low-income households. We should measure these assumptions to improve our offering. Finally, we must act regionally. The demand for affordable housing in Cambridge will not diminish if we continue to build and no one else does. Or if Cambridge is unreachable from other affordable places in the region. One solution will not fix the housing problem.
Peter Hsu
Housing abundance, hosing affordability, and environmental sustainability.
Adrienne Klein
There are no easy answers here, but we need investment, education and creativity to find solutions. 1) Build more housing: I support the Affordable Housing Overlay, limiting non-residential development in our commercial squares and along major corridors, and allowing for multi-family housing in every neighborhood. 2) Protect existing homeowners and renters before they are displaced: Revamp Cambridge’s inclusionary housing programs which includes expanding middle income homeownership; initiate technical assistance programs that connect residents with vendors and information, like the newly introduced Electrify Cambridge; exploring ways to cap rent increases and end brokers fees, and City investment in the creation of and support for tenant councils and unions. 3) Update Zoning: Ensure multi-unit home options including the subdivision of larger homes and the creation of triple-deckers, duplexes, and other apartments is possible in every neighborhood in Cambridge; explore social housing options and mixed use development by getting creative and considering municipally owned land and/or housing.
Marc McGovern
We need to build more housing. The data is clear. Supply has not kept pace with demand. Not even close. Hopefully the amendments to the AHO will pass this term. If not, I will be putting them forward again next term. But we know that the AHO is only one tool. We need to pass the Missing Middle petition to allow for smaller housing, starter homes, to be built. This term I co-sponsored a motion to increase funding to the Affordable Housing Trust by $20 million to allow them more flexibility in purchasing available property. That order passed on a 5-4 vote and now sits on the desk of the City Manager. I will continue to fight to get that funding. We must end exclusionary zoning, and not just performatively, but make the zoning changes necessary to ensure that the type of housing we want built can actually be built. The city needs to purchase more land and then use that land for housing. We also need to build on land we already own, like the parking lots in Central.
Joe McGuirk
Solving the housing crisis is a major challenge for Cambridge, as well as our nation. There is no single solution to this, so we must attack the problem from many angles. Creating more housing density is one, which has the added benefit of helping us address our carbon footprint. In Cambridge, that means building upwards as we do not have many options for going wider. We must invest more in the realm of affordable housing, which is the purpose of the AHO. AHO 2.0 gives tools that will allow our affordable housing builders opportunities to create more units. To further support the creation of new affordable housing the City should capitalize a loan fund for affordable housing developers. Developers would be able to borrow money from the City at below market interest rates in order to acquire property on which they plan to build 100% affordable housing. This would allow developers to move quickly to purchase property and significantly decrease the carrying costs for affordable housing. This fund would complement the Affordable Housing Overlay, making our City one of the simplest and most supportive communities in which to build 100% affordable housing. To create new affordable housing, the City should make additional funding available for developers, especially non-profit developers, for affordable housing. The City should pursue a real estate transfer tax on commercial and residential sales over a certain amount. It is key that we are able to capitalize on the enormous wealth generated in our City to support the construction of affordable housing. I would propose a pilot program for moveable municipal vouchers.This would be targeted at renters not already receiving government support for their housing who are earning less than 60% of the Area Median Income. These renters would pay 30% of their income on rent every month, and the City would pay the difference between the renter’s share and the fair market rent (established annually by HUD) for their apartment based on the apartment size and location (based on zip code). My family’s story is full of ways that government policy, particularly housing policy, lifted us into the working class and middle class. In that history, though, are some of the clearest examples of how our government excluded People of Color, particularly Black people, from that uplift. It has been clearly documented how Black people were systematically left out of the housing market in the 20th century. Racism in housing has evolved since then and continues to be ever present in the housing market today. It is our obligation to address and redress these past and persistent inequities within our housing system. We should take a look at the ZBA. Many affordable housing proposals languish as they wait for the opportunity to present (or re-present) their plans. These delays slow the process and can lead to proposals being withdrawn. We should consider a paid ZBA staff that will be able to meet more regularly, as well as be more amenable to addressing outdated and restrictive zoning practices. I would advocate for an income tax credit for landlords who charge below market rates. In Cambridge, these small landlords are integral to keeping market rates from rising even higher. We should advocate at the state level, to encourage this continued behavior.
Federico Muchnik
Build quality affordable public housing. Revise the AHO to encourage mid-rise, gentle density townhouses in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The profit-driven public housing market is part of the problem. Profit, not quality-of-life, is driving land development. Avoid repeating the public housing mistakes of the past. Build smaller, smarter, more efficient homes. Scale matters: for humane housing, economic and environmental justice. Promote rent-to-own policies for low income families. Hold the city and developers accountable in respecting the city's design heritage. The "lab bubble" has burst. We need a moratorium on the construction of new lab space in favor of new home construction, especially affordable housing. Develop a long-term city wide housing plan where all neighborhoods contribute to the city’s affordable housing needs. Demand that Harvard and M.I.T. follow through on their stated commitment to build more student housing.
Patty Nolan
As a City Councilor it's important to convey the housing crisis honestly to our constituents and frame discussions of effective housing policies from both a local and a regional perspective. I have sought to get better data on the waitlists - how many of the 4400+ people on the waitlist who live in Cambridge are in dire need - meaning unhoused, in situations that are too crowded or dangerous - so we can prioritize getting them housed first. Our most vulnerable deserve to get housing first. From a local Cambridge perspective I have been public about wanting us to tackle per unit costs: approaching $1 million /affordable housing unit. If we can bring that down to even $700K/unit we can house 30% more people, since funding is the limiting factor. Another priority is to secure more funding through a transfer fee and our increased linkage fee. I was the only councillor to propose housing on a site in West Cambridge for a model small (6-8 unit) home ownership opportunity - on city property. And I have advocated that the city buy property and have put forth a specific proposal for the large property recently purchased in West Cambridge. I urged the City Manager to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all city owned properties to see if other such opportunities exist and intend to follow through on its progress so it isn’t another useless filed report. We also need to monitor the city’s current policies for inclusionary housing and linkage fees to ensure that they are not too onerous and discourage development in Cambridge. From a regional perspective a top priority is to get the state and other communities to do more. In the Boston Housing Report Card, Cambridge stands out for doing the most - alongside Boston. I have supported the transfer fee on property over $2m and will continue to work with the state on a home rule petition to be able to enact that legislation. The housing crisis is a regional one and Cambridge can’t solve it alone. We need to work with regional agencies to ensure that policies and funding are in place to ease housing costs and build more in the metro core, such as the MBTA Communities act to increase multi family housing in every community near transit stations.
Frantz Pierre
I believe we need brand new equity program which will help the community grow income which would help the family growth and generations to come.
Sumbul Siddiqui
As a city councillor, my top priorities to address our housing crisis align with what is in our Envision Cambridge plan. I would prioritize City and other public property that is available for disposition to develop housing, and acquire any property (e.g like we have from Lesley University) to help more affordable housing. Another priority would be to increase existing City funds and explore options for new revenue sources and support for dedicated affordable housing. I am also very much interested in supporting legislative and other efforts to improve protections for tenants at risk of displacement. I am in favor of changing zoning to enable more housing, especially more affordable housing, to be built along major corridors, squares, and in other areas that have the capacity to accommodate growth and are well served by transit. Other ideas that have emerged are municipal vouchers and having an affordable housing bond to build more affordable housing.
E. Denise Simmons
I will continue supporting the kind of legislation I have long championed - looking at adjusting our Inclusionary ordinance, adjusting our linkage fees, passing amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay District, and exploring other ideas that, when combined, can help us try to get this issue under a semblance of control. I have served as Chair of the Housing Committee the past several terms, and I will continue to vet these ideas and policies in my role as chair.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
To create more affordable housing in the city, Cambridge should expand the Affordable Housing Overlay, strengthen tenant rights, incentivize creating housing especially in areas that have relatively little like Kendall Square and Alewife, and utilize our prop 2 ½ levy capacity to put millions more toward affordable housing each year. As the Council has been working on this year, Cambridge should expand the AHO to allow for more units and diverse types of affordable and public housing throughout the city, including on major corridors and near transit. If the Council is not able to pass the AHO amendments that have been discussed this term for whatever reason, this will be one of the first items on my agenda. Cambridge should also seek to improve tenant support by learning from cities such as Somerville and Boston that have recently strengthened their tenant rights notification requirements and provide robust assistance through a fully staffed, multilingual Office of Housing Stability. Unlike many other municipalities in Massachusetts, Cambridge is significantly below its Prop 2 ½ levy limit in our annual budget. Due to our commercial tax base and split-rate, even a modest increase would generate millions more dollars of revenue in the annual budget, a large portion of which would come from levies on corporate landholders. Finally, Cambridge should re-examine how our planning and zoning processes lead to the creation of housing or lack thereof, particularly in areas like Kendall and Alewife, that currently have relatively little housing. Given the ongoing underutilization of office space due to remote work, this should include exploring how to incentivize the conversion of commercial space to housing, as Boston and other municipalities have been doing.
Paul F. Toner
I will continue to work with my fellow councillors, city staff, nonprofit and for profit developers to identify opportunities to purchase land, fund the Affordable Housing Trust, and remove unnecessary zoning and other barriers to building more housing across income levels from subsidized to market rate.
Dan Totten
I’m glad ABC agrees that the housing crisis is in part caused by the massive amount of commercial development over the decades. Restricting new purpose-built biotech in our squares is a bonafide pro-housing policy because that is what drives the cost of land insanely through the roof, impeding housing production of all kinds. I have nothing against science and innovation, but new development that doesn’t contain any residential dwelling units of any kind should absolutely be restricted. I’m not saying that this is the only thing we need to do, but I think it would be a lot easier to find common ground if ABC as an org would accept the economic and “housing impediment” arguments for this being part of the solution. A lot of the other housing affordability stuff I want to focus on is covered in other sections, so I’m going to use this space to highlight some specific improvements that need to be made to our shelter system. Conditions at YMCA Central House need to be addressed by the city. Residents at this facility need more direct support and case management. They also deserve a dedicated kitchen space and some common dining areas - right now each resident just has a microwave and a fridge in their room, and there is only one sink in the entire building where they are allowed to wash dishes. It has been several months since residents submitted their petition demanding better conditions, and there has been nothing but silence from the city. Similarly, 240 Albany Street needs to be renovated and upgraded. Residents of the wet shelter face deplorable conditions and many on our streets refuse to go there because of how bad it is. There are often incidents of harassment and discrimination. One of the goals of including Albany Street in the amendments to the AHO (it was my idea) was to legalize an as-of-right pathway for 240 to be redeveloped with, for instance, several stories of permanent supportive housing on top of the shelter.
Vernon K. Walker
It is well known that Cambridge is suffering from a housing crisis fueled by a lack of affordable housing units. Two thirds of the city population are renters and the path to homeownership is difficult. I advocate expanding rental vouchers and homeownership assistance and I am eager to join the City Council to explore and implement my ideas. Some of my ideas include supporting the amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay to ensure that we have more affordable housing development being built. I also support a municipal renter voucher that would subsidized rent for low-income to moderate renters that want to be able rent market rate units. I would also support the city expanding the Inclusionary Housing requirement for the new market rate developments to reserve 30% floor area for affordable housing units instead of the 20% that it currently has in place. I agree more using should be built in the city, I question how effective it would be just to build more market rate housing as the market rate housing prices are increasing becoming more higher.
Hao Wang
Essential workforce housing, in the midst of the housing crisis, is my top priority. I have authored an op-ed on Cambridge Day (https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/09/05/workforce-housing-is-critical-for-cambridge-keeping-the-essential-from-doctors-to-police/) alerting the exodus of our essential workers from doctors to police to city workers. We are just out of the pandemic, we learnt how important our essential workers are to our communities. As for low income housing at large, I am supportive of an eventual dual-pricing system similar to that of Singapore where I specifically studied affordable housing policies and public health infrastructure. I want to compare and share other cities' experience for a long term strategy for Cambridge.
Ayesha Wilson
My top priority is making Cambridge more affordable. To do so, I support zoning tools like the AHO that expand the supply of permanently affordable housing, as well as additional city investment in the Affordable Housing Trust. I also support changing our zoning to make it easier to build more multi-family homes, which are generally more affordable than single-family homes. We need to strengthen public housing and other affordable housing because many people will never be able to afford market rents in Cambridge, and we also need to make those market rents more affordable because only about one in five Cambridge residents have the opportunity to live in subsidized housing. I also strongly prioritize stability, and will work with our legislative delegation to secure a local option for rent stabilization. I’m open to many policy tools that meet my broader goals of making Cambridge more affordable and helping Cambridge residents stay in their homes.
Robert Winters
Permitting housing growth where most appropriate while acknowledging that no city can address housing affordability unilaterally.
Cathie Zusy
I agree that we need to add more housing for people of all economic means and the infrastructure to support it. This should be smart growth near transit hubs and corridors. But we also need to preserve architectural character and neighborhood cohesion. We don’t want oversized buildings built anywhere and everywhere, casting shadows, filling green open spaces and decimating old trees. Everyone needs light, the sky and access to nature. We need balance. It costs about $1m to build an affordable housing unit in Cambridge. At that cost, we can’t provide housing for everyone who would like to live here. Currently 15% of our housing is income restricted (about 8,500 units). Most neighboring towns only have 6-10% of their housing stock as affordable units. So we while we should continue to expand our housing inventory, this is a regional issue that we can’t solve alone. This is especially so because 1. this is already a very densely packed city with very high real estate and construction prices; and 2. there is a worldwide demand for real estate here. (We have the trifecta: we are close to Boston, the capital; close to Harvard and MIT; and close to Kendall Sq., an innovation hub.) I also understand that while we may have a waiting list for housing of over 22,000, that fewer than 6,000 of these people live or work in Cambridge.
These exclusionary zoning rules promote suburban sprawl, deepen patterns of segregation, and undermine housing affordability. As Councillor, will you champion efforts to end exclusionary zoning in Cambridge by reforming the zoning code to allow, at minimum, four-story multi-family housing by right in all Cambridge neighborhoods? [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Please explain.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling in Buchanan v. Warley in 1917, which ended race-based zoning, many cities across the United States continued to use methods that bypassed this ruling to maintain segregation of people of color. We need to support the low-income, people of color, and working class families who have been systemically boxed out of their right to live prosperously. Our Affordable Housing Overlay currently supports this progress, but explicitly up-zoning for our market-rate will exacerbate the declining livelihood of the working class people. If for-profit developers want to build, they should also be held to the responsibility of serving the low-income people. We need to build proactive measures to make sure we maintain empathy in our fight for justice.
Burhan Azeem
Yes.
I support four-story multi-family housing zoning by right across the City. Apartment bans have a sordid history, drive up housing costs, and segregate our neighborhoods. I’m particularly enthusiastic about the role that legalizing missing middle housing can play in bringing housing units online within a shorter timeframe. While arranging financing and permitting for large projects is a complicated endeavor, it needn’t be so for the sort of missing-middle housing that characterizes Cambridge’s built environment. This is particularly important in a high-interest-rate environment. Let’s legalize apartments.
Doug Brown
Yes.
The so-called Brown petition, which I filed with the City Council this spring and will refile if elected in November, proposes the elimination of single family-only zoning across the City, increases FAR allowances, incrementally reduces lot size requirements and increases unit counts, further liberalizes ADU rules, and updates numerous other zoning requirements that often frustrate homeowners in need of renovations.
John Hanratty
Generally Yes.
I agree that the city should update zoning rules to reflect the realities today. I agree that in many areas. I agree there are many areas of the city that could handle more density and should update their zoning to allow it. in general, I do not like "one size fits all" solutions that fail to take into account the particular circumstances in each neighborhood. A thoughtful update of zoning laws could significantly increase housing options.
I disagree with the terms "exclusionary zoning" and "weaponized zoning code." The citizens of Cambridge generally support affordable housing efforts and accept that more density is inevitable. ABC's goals would be better served treating citizens as partners rather than adversaries. Along with housing density, there is a very strong desire for green space and less congestion. I think people in affordable housing or not want a healthy and inviting neighborhood.
Peter Hsu
Yes.
I think it is reasonable and appropriate to end exclusionary zoning. I believe four-story is also reasonable, but how high do we go should be discussed and carefully planned.
Adrienne Klein
Generally Yes.
I agree that exclusionary zoning continues to uphold structures of systematic harm. I will support efforts to end exclusionary zoning in Cambridge and to simplify the zoning code so that more multi-family and multi-use development becomes possible. The housing needs to meet the demand, so I support creating housing that families can utilize. I also believe the City must consider purchasing properties as an investment and then allowing development on that land while retaining rights to the first floor, allowing for innovative future programming that could support small businesses.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
During my term as Mayor, my office produced a report, "The Kind of City which is Desirable and Obtainable: A Brief History of Zoning in Cambridge." What we found is that Cambridge played a large role in the fight to allow cities the right to create their own zoning. What we also found is that once we had that authority, many of the decisions were based on racist and classist believes. Parts of Cambridge were designated as "more desirable" and those places were zoned for large lots and single family homes. Our current zoning is built on these racist principals. Now, none of us were alive then and aren't responsible for those decisions, but we are alive now, and we are responsible for either letting them continue or not. Every neighborhood must be part of solving our housing crisis. We must dismantle our past mistakes. Every current Councillor, and likely every candidate will agree with this. The question is how far are they willing to go. Are we going to do this in name only, or are we going to change zoning requirements to allow more housing to be built. I will support zoning changes.
Joe McGuirk
Yes.
While housing for lower and middle income residents is my key concern, I appreciate the need for more market rate housing. I support comprehensive zoning reform.
I fully support allowing as-of-right multifamily housing on every residential lot in Cambridge. I believe that at least four-plexes should be allowed by right. There is a clear correlation, shown by the in-depth analysis done by political scientists at BU, that communities that allow by-right multifamily housing have a higher share of multifamily housing permitted than communities that do not. Reducing the barriers to creating this kind of housing will have a significant impact on the total number of new units created in Cambridge in the long run, and particularly missing middle housing that our City desperately needs.
Federico Muchnik
Generally Yes.
I cannot. The language used in your setup includes words like "weaponize" and your hyperlinks point to documents it will take days if not weeks for me to read, mark up, marinate, digest, interpret, and draw conclusions and action. I am inclined to learn more about zoning laws, reform of the code, and moving to 4 story housing (though I likely draw the line on the number of units per complex). As for "in all Cambridge neighborhoods", that's an awfully sweeping statement and seems to run roughshod over the entire city. For example, now that Kendall Square has embraced 20 story buildings, will we build 4 story housing units there? Your statement feels biased towards seeking my approval of your agenda in toto - when - in fact - we likely agree on some things and not on others. Thank you!
Patty Nolan
Generally Yes.
However, it depends on whether open space and green space would be compromised - in which case I could not. IN general, I support 4 story multi family as of right anywhere unless it compromises open space. Housing affordability is a complex ecosystem of many factors, so I would find it problematic to say that zoning policies alone are the culprit for high housing costs. And there is much evidence that reducing zoning regulations across the board in high demand areas such as Cambridge would actually raise land costs, acerbating an already problematic situation. But I believe there is still much in Cambridge we can do to foster the kind of growth we want to see and in the areas of the city we would like to see it. I was the lead sponsor to start the process to end single family housing in the city, and I continue to champion that. I have been pushing CDD to provide more comprehensive zoning policies based on need and opportunities in under represented neighborhoods. I was the first Councilor, with Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, to propose ending parking minimums and I have been a strong advocate for policies that lead to home ownership. Across the board policies, while expedient, distort impacts. Allowing more density across the entire city will mainly impact areas like East Cambridge and Cambridgeport which already are bearing the brunt of displacement and development.
Frantz Pierre
Yes.
If it promotes segregation and affecting the cost of living we must change the zoning codes.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes.
We must do everything we can to reduce regulatory barriers that limit the market’s ability to build small, lower-cost homes on expensive land.There is extensive research that shows small-scale multi-family housing like triple-deckers, four-plexes, and six-plexes can improve affordability. Additionally, we know city-wide zoning reforms would then help increase supply of housing, while also making those communities financially accessible to many more families. I am hopeful the council can keep working to address housing affordability through ending exclusionary zoning, and reforming the zoning code.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
I will keep my answer brief and just state that my record shows I support efforts to increase our ability to build and create more housing. The ideas you have suggested above would speak to developing more homes, across a wider swath of the city, and that is exactly what we need. My hope is that we shall have a City Council that stands united in pushing for these policies in 2024.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes.
Yes, the triple-decker I live in, which was built several decades ago, is currently illegal to build in much of the city. In multiple zoning districts, the zoning currently prohibits anything except a single-family home or duplex, which bans any new triple-deckers or apartment buildings. And even in my neighborhood, which on paper allows multi-family housing under the current zoning, my apartment likely couldn’t be built today because the set-back and minimum lot-size requirements prohibit it. According to the City’s data, the median cost of a single-family home in Cambridge is more than $1.7 million, which is out of the range of the vast majority of people in Cambridge. Yet the City’s zoning encourages existing housing, including more affordable triple-deckers and apartments, be torn down and replaced with large and expensive single-unit houses. We need to instead encourage more affordable types of housing, including four-story multi-family housing and beyond, in areas where it is currently only possible to build mostly expensive single-unit housing.
Paul F. Toner
Generally Yes.
Although I do not agree with all of the statements in the preamble to your question, my answer is generally yes, I would consider supporting reforms the zoning code to allow, at minimum, four-story multi-family housing by right in all Cambridge neighborhoods. However, I would need more details before committing to a yes response.
Dan Totten
Yes.
In fact we already did reform the zoning code to allow, at minimum, four-story multi-family housing by right in all Cambridge neighborhoods -- through the Affordable Housing Overlay. Doing the exact same thing for market rate would neutralize the advantage that AHO is intended to confer. However, it doesn’t actually seem like AHO will generate much land acquisition inside the neighborhoods…so I’m open to the idea that we need another strategy. I support a conditional upzoning approach to see if we can find a way to generate affordability as part of every development. I also think we should develop a social housing model based off Rep Connolly’s bill H.3873 and then allow that as of right. Both of these strategies would necessarily increase density and height, but the difference is who benefits.
Rather than undoing a century of racist and classist status quo, upzoning for market housing only in a neighborhood like The Port would end up being the next chapter in that injustice. Many groups and individuals pointed this out the last time this was proposed, resulting in that petition losing the council majority it needed to advance. If we truly want to end the racist and classist status quo, we need to spend our time developing strategies that will specifically benefit the working class. Developers would be under no obligation to build additional units just because you told them they could. I have no issue with the concept that additional height and density are part of the solution -- even in an already dense city like Cambridge -- but I do not buy the trickle-down theory of economics that is being used to justify the upzoning of a multicultural neighborhood for market rate housing as somehow advancing racial and economic justice. A full ⅓ of the units in our neighborhood are subsidized including many Section 8 Voucher holders placed in market rate units. We have to be treated with more sensitivity. I say that as one of the only candidates who actually lives in The Port.
Vernon K. Walker
Yes.
I support a reform to the zoning laws in general that would allow people to build multi-family units in Cambridge neighborhoods with intentions of helping historically marginalized being able to stay in the city. I support looking at all strategies that would look at adding affordable housing units to the city. I do think the strategy could include looking at how the social housing model bill that Rep. Mike Connolly put forward in the State House could help with the housing crisis in Cambridge.
I also think we should take measures to ensure that the rest of Cambridge communities does not turn into Kendall Square in the sense that there are just a lots of commercial buildings in the community with no residential homes. I like living in Kendall Square but I am concerned that if Porter Square or Central Square turns into Kendall Square, lots of renters in those communities would be displaced. Kendall Sqaure is good for the city as the city is able to charge a high
Hao Wang
Generally Yes.
I share the sentiment in the framing of this question. Cambridge should be an anti-racist city. We should be inclusive. I disagree, though; the historical city zoning was solely created for racial and class segregation. Our Cambridge was beautiful today because our residents wanted specific architectural standards and the separation between business and residential districts. We should allow more housing in the city and relax the zoning in selected corridors and squares, but in doing so we should not eliminate our identity and character formed in the last 400 years. As a city councilor, I will be steadfast in pushing for affordable housing while upholding our architectural standards and protecting our character.
Ayesha Wilson
Yes.
Every neighborhood in Cambridge is a great place to live with access to exceptional public schools, parks, and transit, and we have a responsibility to make all of our neighborhoods accessible to more people.
Robert Winters
Generally Not.
Some areas are best suited to greater heights and densities than others - in particular those areas with ample public transportation.
Cathie Zusy
No.
I don't think our housing shortage is due to conscious classism or racism. Property is costly in Cambridge and it's expensive to build here. Also, developers haven't received clear messaging from the City about where and what they can build. Envision Cambridge was a first. Step. Now we need to provide zoning guidelines.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Generally Not.
The deep-seeded grip of capitalism will have you thinking that this is a key pillar, but you can't expect to solve the problem by the very same system that put us in this place.
Burhan Azeem
Yes.
Market-rate housing development is a characteristic of every city--in the US and abroad--that has any level of affordability. In the US, The Minneapolis-Saint Paul region has seen some of the lowest rent (and cost of living) increases, and this is in no small part because the region has seen significant growth in all kinds of housing stock.
Doug Brown
Generally Yes.
Though I support new housing construction at all price levels, in my experience additional market-rate housing, particularly in large and less desirable new developments, does little to effect low- or moderate-income housing supply in the short- to medium-term and may, via condo conversions and house flipping, actually increase displacement and limit low/moderate income home ownership opportunities.
John Hanratty
Generally Yes.
I agree that we need more market-rate housing. Aggressive building of affordable housing competes directly with market-rate housing for sites. Without market-rate housing, the middle class is further pushed out. As I understand, most affordable housing in Cambridge addresses people at or below 60% of the median income. Without market-rate development, the middle 60% to 130% of the median group gets squeezed (e.g., nurses, teachers, insurance salespeople). So, market-rate housing is a pillar.
The limiting factor is that Cambridge is dense, and there is a ceiling to this approach. If we intend to make Cambridge a city of skyscrapers, we cannot neglect the associated quality of life issues. This approach is a complicated question.
Peter Hsu
Generally Yes.
This has to do with simple economics in finding that great balance between demand and supply (an extremely difficult task to achieve). Therefore, new market-rate housing development is a key pillar in making Cambridge an affordable city, especially rate of influx and efflux of residents remain stable.
Adrienne Klein
Generally Yes.
I agree that continued development of market rate housing is necessary for Cambridge to become a more affordable city. There is not currently enough housing stock which drives up prices. While subsidies and incentives should be directed to the affordable stock, zoning and development review procedures should welcome new housing, and permitting procedures should be clear, navigable and timely so that anyone interested in building housing can get through the process.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
After rent control was voted out in 1994, a number of things came together. The government control over rents was lost, leading to increased home values. That led to many long-time homeowners selling their rental property, which led to increased condo conversion, thus taking formally rental stock off the market. At the same time, Kendall Square was growing with industries that paid much higher wages then the factories decades before. With less government control, fewer units available and an increase in people moving to the city, who were making high wages, is it any surprise that rents skyrocketed? Some will say, "We will never build our way out of this," I'm not sure that's true, but what I am sure of is NOT building housing isn't the answer.
Joe McGuirk
Yes.
See the answer to the previous question.
Federico Muchnik
Generally Yes.
The question feels intrinsically biased. Sure, in general I'm for new housing but it's the market-rate part that irks me, though I won't go into why here.
Patty Nolan
Generally Not.
Given the amount of market rate housing that the City of Cambridge has built without any impact on lowering housing costs I would not feel comfortable making that claim to our residents, because it hasn’t happened here. While the City can put in policies that help guide or slow development though our zoning laws, the council has no impact on market development which is mainly capital driven. If housing prices start to drop too much the market may simply stop building. If we increase exactions on development in Cambridge too high they will stop building here. There are many other important policy decisions that need to be enacted at the state or federal level to effectively stabilize housing costs. We cannot house everyone in Cambridge, and the key to dropping housing costs must include a regional plan. And, social housing and co-ops and land trusts must be part of the discussion and solution - more than building or incentivizing only market rate housing.
Frantz Pierre
Generally Yes.
Yes I agree we have to change and be more flexible to fix the problem ms we face today.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Generally Yes.
Our inclusionary units in market rate developments have been a key way for us to keep residents in the city. I will say that the market rate rents at some of the “luxury” buildings in Cambridge range from $3500 for a studio to $4095 for a one bedroom are well out of reach for many. This is the range at Park 151. I think about the widening economic inequality in our city, and how difficult it is for those who have middle-income incomes to afford any of these market rate developments, so I am glad we have a middle income inclusionary program. There is definitely a greater need for those earning at or below 80 percent AMI.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
I firmly believe that some of our issues boil down to a matter of supply and demand; if we have several thousand new jobs in the city and only several hundred new homes, then this crisis will remain in place. If we have a greater sense of parity between the number of jobs in the area and the number of units available, it will ease the crunch.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Generally Yes.
Cambridge has long been a city defined by its racial and economic diversity, and we risk losing that if most of the housing that’s available is out of reach to working-class residents and wait-lists for affordable housing have more than 20,000 people on them. Only encouraging that all housing becomes broadly affordable will maintain Cambridge as a community for everyone. Exclusionary zoning dates back to the era of red-lining and racial covenants designed to keep diversity out of certain areas. Cambridge must end this type of zoning, which has kept the types of housing that most people can afford out of significant parts of our city and has too often instead prioritized the creation of new multi-million dollar McMansion-style housing. We also need to invest significantly more in affordable housing, which Cambridge has the capacity to do. And while broad affordability is definitely the goal to strive for, a market-only approach to housing affordability will not solve Cambridge’s housing crisis in the same way the market hasn’t met the basic human needs like education or healthcare—we need to combine ending exclusionary zoning with a robust public response in terms of public funding, tenant protections like rent control, tenant opportunity to purchase, right to counsel, and community responses like CDCs and Community Land Trusts.
Paul F. Toner
Yes.
Yes, I do believe that new market-rate housing development is a key to making Cambridge more affordable, especially for the large percentage of young professionals and families who will not qualify for subsidies or inclusionary units, but simply do not earn enough to purchase a home or multi bedroom condominium at current market rates. I believe increasing the supply will help us lower rents and free up more units.
Dan Totten
Generally Not.
As a democratic socialist, I don’t think that capitalism and market-based reforms will make Cambridge an affordable city. I certainly don’t accept the trickle-down theory of economics that is laid out in this question, and you’ve vastly oversimplified the problem. You can link to as many blog posts from Matthew Yglesias as you want, but there is plenty of research that paints a complicated picture. As Yonah Freemark said, “it pays to be deliberate about how we work to increase housing”. He points out that SB50 in California does not allow the demolition of existing rental housing and it also gives extra time to communities directly facing the threat of gentrification. He posits that these provisions, included to “confront affordability head-on”, will “likely moderate the potential negative, speculative impacts of upzoning” -- and I agree with him.
The claim that market rate housing lowers rents for nearby residents who can’t afford to live there is outlandish. Look at my street, Bishop Allen Drive, where Market Central did not make things more affordable. In fact, the owner of the 11-unit rental building located in between Market Central and my building has filed for a special permit to demolish and build a bunch of expensive condos. But we still haven’t gotten to the narnia where the new housing lowers the rents for people who can’t afford to live there. And sure you can argue that the largest housing development in the square wasn’t enough units to achieve the effect that those studies argue is possible, but that’s kind of exactly the point…there will never be enough supply to satisfy the endless demand that exists to live in Cambridge, especially when we decline to restrict new commercial development, and messing with the zoning in an attempt to get there puts working class renters in the crossfire unless we are very intentional and creative about where and how we proceed.
Vernon K. Walker
Generally Not.
I would have to see more deviance to suggest that market rate housing will make Cambridge affordable. I agree there needs to be more housing in Cambridge as "according to the 2017-21 American Community Survey, Cambridge has a population density of 18,274 persons per square mile and 8,124 housing units per square mile. These figures are equivalent to 29 people and 13 housing units per acre. As of 2021, Cambridge is the tenth most densely populated city in the United States." That information is taken from the Cambridge Community Development Department.
It is clear that we have a housing shortage in our city.
Will more market rate housing development help make Cambridge affordable? I would be open to having more conversation about this strategy and learning more in other cities how market-rate housing has made a city more affordable.
Hao Wang
Yes.
As a diverse and inclusive City, Cambridge should not exclude any vibrant commercial sector. As a graduate of Harvard and MIT, I stayed to live and work here after graduation. I could only imagine when our sons and daughters want to do the same after theirs. We should maintain attractiveness to young professionals who earn enough to live and work here and keep Cambridge renewed and vibrant.
Ayesha Wilson
Yes.
More than 80% of Cambridge residents live in market-rate homes, including many market-rate renters. That means that lowering (or at least stabilizing) market-rate rents is the most important housing goal for many residents, and I support using every tool in our toolbox to make that happen, including both market-rate development and rent stabilization.
Robert Winters
Generally Yes.
Though on a regional level greater supply should satisfy some demand and reduce prices/rents, this is not always the case in more confined geographical areas.
Cathie Zusy
Generally Not.
There is a global and insatiable demand for housing here. People will want to live here as long as Cambridge remains a vital community and innovation center, with great schools and city services, and historic character, parks and big old trees. I understand your impulse to build more, with less restrictions, hoping that it will make Cambridge affordable. But I don't think this is true and believe that the helter skelter development that would result could ruin what is wonderful about this City.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes.
Our AHO has made intentional progress with this question. Also, I believe that we need to work with our universities because having two world-class institutions in two squares with billions of dollars, means we need to hold our ground and work with them to address student housing in a way that also builds more affordable housing and frees up housing that students are in. These institutions need to invest more in the infrastructure that their students are using. So, they need to stand by their grand missions of making the world a better place by investing in the spaces and people they have historically taken advantage of.
Burhan Azeem
Yes.
I support both by-right boosts to density and height within walking distance of MBTA stations and more conditional zoning focused on value capture in the areas of our City best served by transit. Building more housing near transit cuts down on emissions and promotes road safety (road accidents are, tragically and preventably, a leading cause of death in this country). Additionally, building more near transit is a great way to raise capital money for transit and invest in our transit system.
Doug Brown
Generally Yes.
Yes, I believe that access to quality transit is important for new housing creation and for future climate efforts. As a result, I have long supported a pedestrian bridge, underpass, and rail stop for new housing at Alewife/Rindge Ave, at the same time that I have opposed the inclusion of our secondary corridors that are not served by mass transit in the latest AHO amendments.
John Hanratty
Generally Yes.
I believe that areas around MTBA station could support density but not without considering the quality of life around the area. Well-planned density could enhance the community. The idea that people around MTBA stations don't need green space, parking, or other forms of transportation is faulty. Tall buildings require a lot of infrastructure (e.g., sewage, electricity, transportation) to support them, so planning is needed and will not happen without planning.
Peter Hsu
Generally Yes.
Environmental sustainability should be a key consideration in any project and I personally believe transit-oriented housing development does promote environmental sustainability. However, how high do we go should be discussed and planned carefully.
Adrienne Klein
Yes.
Building near transit allows the City to create the needed units to house our growing population, while also providing the environmental benefit of reducing single-car trips. It is key to promote transit-oriented development and as an elected official, I would listen to recommendations and advocate for the particular needs of any neighborhood around specific development projects.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
Cambridge has to do more and lead. I don't accept the mantra, "We've done enough." I don't accept it on environmental issues and I don't accept it on housing. I know the MBTA has many issues, and some will use that as an excuse not to build more housing. You can always find an excuse to keep the status quo, and we certainly have to work as a city and state to address public transportation, but we have to chew gum and walk at the same time. Building more dense around transit is good for the environment and it is good for housing. The Market Central building in Central Square houses approximately 500 people on less than an acre, across the street from the Red Line, that is a good thing. Not touched on in this question is also that it is good for our local businesses. All those folks in Market Central show and eat locally.
Joe McGuirk
Yes.
We can certainly do more than what the state has mandated as a minimum requirement. There are ample reasons to create more density around our public transit hubs, with no compelling reason not to, hence my support for AHO 2.0.
We are resolved to reduce our carbon footprint, but this cannot translate into denying housing for our lower and middle income residents who are facing displacement due to the costs of housing. Increasing density is proven to lower housing costs as well as improving energy efficiency. Doing so around public transportation is obviously necessary.
Federico Muchnik
Generally Yes.
Sure, though what that height and density ought to be is another question.
Patty Nolan
Yes.
Yes, Cambridge needs to look at our existing codes around transit hubs and examine if we are getting the type of development we would like to see. I have been pushing the city to reexamine North Mass Ave from Harvard Square to the Arlington border as one such project that needs to be done. And as stated above, I was the first Councilor to propose ending parking restrictions. We already have one of the denest cities in the country, and can be even denser, but cannot solve this problem alone. I’m thrilled with the communities act and glad the state is holding communities not complying accountable. However, it all comes down to details and specifics.
Frantz Pierre
Generally Yes.
I think it could be beneficial but it’s almost impossible to get a 3 to 4 bedroom apartment in the city. So I think that affecting family’s in a major way.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Generally Yes.
I fully support more transit-oriented development. There are a number of concerns with how reliable the MBTA is, but overall the impact of transit-oriented development is important.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
This is part of what has been called for in the Affordable Housing Overlay, and it is what I and others must continually push for as new developments near our transit hubs are considered. I will certainly continue to speak out loud and forcefully in favor of this.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes.
Yes, nearly all of Cambridge is within a short walk of a public transit stop, either a bus stop or the Red or Green Lines. It does not make sense that triple-deckers and other apartments are banned in much of the city through our zoning—either explicitly, by allowing only single and two-family housing, or implicitly, through minimum lot size requirements and other zoning measures. Additionally, corridors like Mass Ave which are well-served by public-investments in subway and bus lines have sections with very little housing available to residents and workers, which the City can and should do more to improve via zoning and planning processes. The proposal for housing at 2072 Mass Ave, which would have been 100% affordable and within sight of a T stop, is a prime example of the kind of transit-oriented housing that should be possible under our zoning but is currently not.
Paul F. Toner
Yes.
No further explanation needed.
Dan Totten
Generally Yes.
Yes, and we already got started through the new amendments to the overlay. Like I’ve said previously, I have no issues with additional height and density but I just want to be very intentional about how we move forward when it comes to market rate housing specifically - by restricting new non-residential development, protecting existing rental housing, and being more sensitive to neighborhoods with substantial communities of color and a higher percentage of low income renters, such as The Port. I would, for example, support consideration of what it would take to get more housing in Harvard Square.
I would also support a Student Housing Overlay that would function similarly to the AHO to legalize additional height and density for the universities so that they can build student housing. It would be important to explore how we could require this housing to be affordable to the students as a condition of the upzoning. MIT owns a large number of parking lots and underutilized one-story buildings in Cambridgeport (for example along Sidney Street) and they should be put to use, in part to affordably house additional students.
Vernon K. Walker
Yes.
I support having taller buildings that reach 15 stories in the Squares in Cambridge. This is what the AHO 2.0 would allow for developers to do just that if they commit to building 100% affordable housing buildings.
We certainly do have mixed-income developments like the one I live in around Kendall Sqaure. I would be in favor of exploring how we can increase the minimum amount of affordable units from 20% to 30%.
Hao Wang
Generally Yes.
For historical squares such as Harvard Square, regardless of how close it is to the public transit, as a city councilor, I will advocate the preservation of the existing landscape and topology, not to use it to accommodate affordable housing. I will work hard to go above and beyond for transit-oriented housing development elsewhere.
Ayesha Wilson
Yes.
Yes, and we also need to work with the T to strengthen service and make transit a viable option for more people. It’s not acceptable for a Red Line trip from Alewife to Boston to take an hour on some days. Transit-oriented development requires both good housing and good transit in order to meet its goals, and the past two years have been discouraging on the transit side.
Robert Winters
Generally Yes.
I don't this need much explanation. This is the policy endorsed by the Commonwealth and it's generally a good strategy.
Cathie Zusy
Generally Not.
Yes, we want smart growth, but AHO and AHO 2 will already encourage this.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
I believe we should make sure that 40% actually goes to residential because it's not guaranteed. With Fresh Pond, these 18-20 stories need to show more intentionality towards building affordable units. We also need to bring in public transportation more into this conversation to ensure the connectivity and accessibility of these plans to elevate their sustainability and potential.
Burhan Azeem
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Yes
Explanation:
I support the Alewife Overlay District, and I support rezoning the Fresh Pond shopping center with an eye toward significant residential development. The area is adjacent to transit (Alewife Red Line and a potential future commuter rail station even closer to the area being redeveloped) and has clear potential to be a dense, sustainable residential community. A future rezoning (and eventual redevelopment) of the Fresh Pond shopping center should be grounded in a commitment to residential, mixed-income housing, transit access, and connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods. I believe that such a redevelopment could not only provide much-needed new housing but substantially improve infrastructure, mobility, and quality of life for the adjacent area. We’ve seen that the the best development takes place when there’s close collaboration between the city, other public-sector partners, and private-sector developers; that’s what I’d like to see in Fresh Pond.
Doug Brown
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Yes
Explanation:
I served on the original Envision Alewife Working Group and the more recent Alewife Zoning Working Group. I support the Working Groups’ final conclusions. I also expect to be actively involved in crafting new rules for the shopping center.
John Hanratty
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
I don't know enough about the details to comment.
Peter Hsu
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Not
Explanation:
I believe the proposed overlay district generally serves our city's goals for Alewife's public realm, built form, site development, sustainability, and resiliency. I must confess, I do not know enough about the reason and appropriateness for rezoning the Fresh Pond shopping center, but based on my understanding, the current layout is designed to accommodate future active use. I think I will need to learn more about the risks and benefits associated with rezoning in relation to future active use in order to make an informed decision.
Adrienne Klein
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Not
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Not
Explanation:
I generally do not support adding additional overlay districts as the priority should be simplifying the existing zoning code and creating a whole city plan versus neighborhood specific zoning. I thoroughly support negotiating developer-funded infrastructure improvements. Finally, I do not support rezoning the Fresh Pond shopping center until there has been increased residential building in other neighborhoods in Cambridge.
Marc McGovern
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Yes
Explanation:
Overall, I think this plan is good. I would have liked to see more height allowed. If everything goes right and all property owners develop their property to the maximum allowed under this zoning, we will achieve approximately 3,000 housing units. That's good, but our Envision goals says we need 12,500 units by 2030. I don't know how we get there without building taller. The shopping mall is a great opportunity, if it ever becomes available. Unlike other family owned properties, like in Harvard Sq, where the next generation sells the property, the Fresh Pond Mall is now in it's second or third generation of family ownership. There is no indication that they are willing to sell anytime soon. So, yes, we should rezone and create more opportunities, but we can't rely on that mall being sold as our solution, at least not in the short term.
Joe McGuirk
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Yes
Explanation:
In general, I support the Overlay, which will create new and needed housing alongside
commercial properties. For the commercial properties, we should encourage light industry that will create entry level jobs, which is more needed than developing lab space. The council and city manager should ensure that this is the result. The Fresh Pond Shopping Center should have been part of the initial overlay, and needs rezoning as well. This area would provide many needed units to answer the high demand. It seems to me that when we made the choice to create more jobs in our city, we also created an obligation to create more housing, for those folks who would be working at these new jobs, but also for the folks who have been impacted by the growing demand for housing and the subsequent rise in costs of our limited housing stock.
Federico Muchnik
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: No
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: No
Explanation:
I'd be glad to support something I knew more about. Alas, this story isn't something I'm up on - though I'll certainly look at your materials.
Patty Nolan
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
As the councilor who proposed the moratorium in order to ensure that we put the work into zoning, I am very proud that we proved the naysayers wrong. The overlay is an excellent proposal - and shows that the community can come together to make good zoning changes. The city’s lack of focus and comprehensive policies has resulted in the over investment in highly lucrative commercial properties versus housing. Instead of letting the market dictate what happens in Alewife the building moratorium made sense and has meant that we - the council - working with the community - forced the city to put policies and zoning in place to incentivize housing.
Unlike Alewife, which is in flux for both use and ownership, the Fresh Pond shopping center is currently private property. rezoing presents a different challenge when it is just one property currently operating in one way - can be done, should be done, but rezoning alone won't necessarily yield any change without incentivizing types of development. I support working to get solar panels and more development there. If there was some interest to change ownership the city should certainly look at changing the zoning to encourage more housing. I also want to make sure that Eversource whose substation is not part of the Overlay, has all it needs to increase capacity to serve an all electric community in Alewife and the entire area surrounding alewife.
Frantz Pierre
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
Yes I believe it needs to be updated with the possibility for Cambridge resident to open up business in the community.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Yes
Explanation:
The City Council was intentional with putting together a working group for this area, and ultimately, I agree with the recommendations. The shopping center area is ripe for more residential development, and I am exciting about the potential opportunities there.
E. Denise Simmons
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
Fresh Pond and the Alewife area are undergoing great change, and have been for the past few years. The time has come to look at the entire area with fresh eyes and an understanding that this whole area needs to be looked at holistically, and we need to be willing to re-zone the area in accordance with what we think the area will support and what the needs of people who will be living there will be. I believe this is an issue whose time has come.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Yes
Explanation:
Incentivizing more housing in Alewife, which has seen the creation of many more jobs than homes, is an important planning goal. We should also push for more improvements to amenities and transportation connections in Alewife through direct public investments and zoning contributions in order to make it into a vibrant, walkable neighborhood like so many others in our city. I would have been interested in seeing the Fresh Pond shopping center included in the rezoning.
The Fresh Pond shopping center is located on a piece of land a short walk from a major public transit site but is currently used mostly for car storage. I would be interested in rezoning the parcel in a way that incentives housing and planning for better connections to public transit and multi-modal paths.
Paul F. Toner
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Yes
Explanation:
Yes, I support the proposed overlay district. I would also support quickly moving to have CDD work on a plan to rezone the Fresh Pond shopping center, especially since there are no current plans for the owner to sell the property.
Dan Totten
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
The initial overlay district is going to be decided well before the new council is sworn in. I hope that the current council looks at projected outcomes of the proposed zoning and seriously considers whether the proposal on the table will learn from mistakes made in Kendall to generate a neighborhood that is more balanced between commercial development and housing. We also need to think about how this will impact the AHO, I know that affordable providers have taken an extensive look at properties along that stretch of Concord Ave.
Just to be clear, the 40% housing requirement only kicks in if they take advantage of the density bonuses…there is no actual requirement that 40% of the total GFA of the project will be housing, and in fact that outcome seems very unlikely. The irony here is that ABC seems poised to rubber stamp a process and proposal that prioritizes perceived neighborhood impact instead of really figuring out what it would have taken to generate a world class mixed-use neighborhood. And by the way, the city should have just paid for that bridge across the tracks a long time ago.
I agree that the “East Quad” conversation will be an opportunity to have this conversation again. I think it makes sense to restrict biotech development entirely in the “East Quad”. I’m not opposed to height of 18-20 stories in principle but I would want to see a substantial affordability component above and beyond the 20% inclusionary on the books. Let’s make housing the only use and require additional affordable units, then that height starts to make sense. I think it would also be important to secure substantial open space on that site in light of that height, particularly to benefit the residents of the Rindge Towers as well as the new residents. Also this is a small thing but ideally we would figure out a way to keep a movie theater and the outdoor beer garden concept that has been undertaken over there in recent years.
Vernon K. Walker
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
I support the idea of having an overlay to he Alewife area. I would like to see that number increase from 40% to 50% residential.
I do support rezoning Fresh Pond Shopping Center so more housing could be added. I would also support keeping some business in that area so residents can have places close by to do grocery shopping (Trader Joes, Wholefood).
Hao Wang
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: No
Explanation: I will pay attention to the details of this overlay. Alewife is close to public transit. There are new developments there already. Though I wish the new buildings had been designed more excellently, nothing beats adding a few thousand housing units for Cambridge. I think the power station in the area should be redesigned indoors so that more floors can be created to house electricity peak-shaping solutions. The Fresh Pond shopping center should be enlarged (in terms of square footage) to support more businesses instead of residential as part of the community infrastructure necessary for the new housing units.
Ayesha Wilson
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
I generally support the proposed overlay. I want a stronger guarantee that the bridge across the tracks will be built, but other than that, I agree with the goal of building more homes in Alewife.
I also generally support rezoning the shopping center. I want to make sure there is still a strong retail base there in any rezoning, but I am open to additional housing over retail, which would provide more customers.
Robert Winters
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Yes
Explanation:
I would support inclusion of the shopping center, but I would not necessarily support 18-20 stories. That would require a lot more community input and feedback from all quarters.
Cathie Zusy
Do you support the Alewife Overlay District?: Generally Yes
Do you support rezoning the Fresh Pond Shopping center?: Generally Not
Explanation:
I don't know. (That's not an answer option!) I am concerned about all of this concentrated development in the Great Swamp and I think it's crazy that the City didn't zone it long ago, ensuring that it would have a street grid, green open spaces, City land for City services and a bridge connecting it to the Alewife T.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes.
The AHO's expansion is a great advancement towards ensuring the diversity of Cambridge. Especially as we envision our squares, this will bring more vibrancy and community to Cambridge. This will also encourage use of public transportation because the relationship between the two is pivotal to ensuring that people can live, access their jobs and explore the spaces around them.
Burhan Azeem
Yes.
I wrote the bill and I wholeheartedly support it.
Doug Brown
No.
I don’t support the AHO, particularly along secondary corridors that have neither retail nor quality public transit. I also believe that the heights and dimensions permitted under the proposed AHO amendments are extreme and entirely inappropriate for existing neighborhoods.
John Hanratty
No.
Developments of this size require some planning and oversight. There are many factors that must be addressed in each case. I'm not against taller building but the ordinance is to broad.
Peter Hsu
Yes.
Generally, I believe we need more units in order to be affordable and I do believe the proposal to expand the Affordable Housing Overlay is intended to achieve affordability in the long run. Therefore, as of now, I do support this proposal. However, I must also admit that I believe I have to learn more from both sides in order to make an informed decision.
Adrienne Klein
Yes.
I support the expanded Affordable Housing Overlay, which focuses growth toward production of affordable housing and concentrates it in areas well-served by transit. This zoning change does not mean every building will grow to 12-15 stories or do so overnight; rather, it sends a signal that as a city, Cambridge is pro-growth, anti-displacement and excited to partner to secure more housing opportunities for our families. As an elected official, I would listen to recommendations and advocate for the particular needs of any neighborhood around specific development projects. The AHO is simply a way to respond to another form of feedback: the pressing needs of the thousands who, year after year, are looking for an affordable place to call home.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
I was the lead sponsor on the original AHO and a co-sponsor on the amendments. Cambridge is 6.5 square miles. Take out what Harvard, MIT and the City owns and our commercial property and we simply don't have enough space to build 4-5 story buildings and meet our need. The fact that I personally like taller buildings is irrelevant. This is about how do we solve our housing crisis and build more units. When the original AHO was debated, opponents said, "We should allow height and density on the corridors." That is exactly what the amendments do, and yet those folks are still opposed. No one has been able to show a real plan, not a wishful plan, to build the number of units we need without building taller.
Joe McGuirk
Yes.
Folks are naturally afraid of change. When people hear about bold policies, they are understandably anxious over how their neighborhoods might be affected. But as someone who has struggled to remain a resident here, I can tell you that change has already come. Housing costs have become so overwhelming, many of our neighbors have already been forced out, only to be replaced by wealthier folks, in both home ownership and rentals. Displacement of lower- and middle-income residents is a much bigger threat to Cambridge than changes to our skyline.
This is why I support the amendment to the AHO. This will allow us to build more affordable housing along our major corridors and squares. I have spoken to the folks who develop and administer Cambridge’s affordable housing units and they overwhelmingly support both the AHO and the new amendment. It will absolutely lead to change but change we need. This change will not happen rapidly. The amendment simply makes it more likely that we can build affordable housing. Residents will still be able to give input on what that will look like, but no longer will we be able to stonewall good projects. And down the line, our neighborhoods will return to places where people from various income levels live in proximity to each other, rather than the enclaves of wealth they have become. The change that has happened over the last twenty years is not due to increased housing density. It is due to the influx of wealth at the cost of displacing those unable to afford the rising housing costs.
It is easy to be dismissive of imperfect solutions to our housing crisis when you don’t have to worry about where you are going to live in the next few months. But for those of us who do not own our homes, even imperfect solutions are better than the status quo. Lower and middle-income residents are essential to the well-being of our city but are being displaced.
Without meaningful action, Cambridge will continue its current path and become a city of wealth and poverty, with few in the space between. This will lead to a very different Cambridge than the vision we commonly hold about our city. We are proud of our city’s ideals, those of equity, inclusivity, and diversity. We cannot claim that we represent these ideals if we continue to displace lower and middle-income residents.
Federico Muchnik
No.
I could explain to you why the AHO is bad for the city but your questionnaire leads me to believe you are set in your ways, so why spend time trying to change the very tenet that forms the backbone of your platform? Tell you what: I look forward to a spirited debate on the topic, working for the loyal opposition.
More quality affordable housing is the central plank on my campaign's platform, like you - but we differ on how to accomplish this.
Is it classist for me to say: Fortune Magazine voted Cambridge the #1 city to live in in the USA? Me? A lower middle class guy that grew up here? Did Fortune cite Cambridge's skyscrapers, wind tunnels, shadowed streets, and Manhattan-esque structures in Kendall as the reason why it's #1.
The article: https://fortune.com/well/ranking/best-places-families/
Patty Nolan
No.
The amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay are still being written and examined, so it's impossible to give a simple yes or no answer. Are there squares or corridors in the city where such heights are appropriate? Yes, possibly. Are there squares and corridors across the entire city that should get that kind of height? Treating part of Concord Avenue with single and 2-family homes the same as Mass. AVenue is not appropriate. Envision corridors should be used to propose height differentiated by corridor.
Frantz Pierre
Yes.
I believe this will effect the elderly in a positive way.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes.
I do think that there have been a range of discussions on whether 15 and 12 are feasible for the affordable housing developers given the costs. I view the overlay as one important tool to address our housing crisis.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
I am one of the councilors currently pushing for this, and I believe this will offer greater flexibility to affordable housing developers who are seeking to create viable new projects. The ability to develop such buildings in our major squares will add life and vitality to the squares, and provide much-needed housing - homes - to so many who are currently struggling to remain a part of our community.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes.
Yes, I was a co-sponsor of the original Affordable Housing Overlay and am proud that my election in 2019 helped get it across the finish line. The original AHO was designed to be a “floor” for affordable housing in Cambridge, and I’ve been disappointed to see the BZA suggest that the Affordable Housing Overlay should instead be a “ceiling” over which it may not approve affordable housing proposals. I support the City Council expanding the Affordable Housing Overlay to encompass creating affordable housing up to at least 15 stories in major squares and 12 stories along corridors.
Paul F. Toner
No.
I do not support the current proposal to expand the Affordable Housing Overlay to 15 stories in the squares and 12 stories in the corridors. I think the proposal was introduced in such a way that it has caused unnecessary division in our city before the original AHO was reviewed as promised. I want more community input but I personally could support 15 stories in Porter and Harvard Square, even higher in Central or Kendall. I do not support a blanket 12 stories on all of our corridors. I believe that in some areas that may be appropriate but on other stretches of our corridors it should be in reasonable proportion to the heights surrounding the proposed new AHO project.
Dan Totten
Yes.
I’m so excited that this is about to pass as someone who played a major role in researching and drafting the proposal during the summer of 2022. It was great in particular to work on this effort with Councillors Azeem and McGovern, ABC, and the affordable housing providers themselves. Building technology is advancing fast and mass timber construction will very soon be legal at these heights in Massachusetts. I have already heard about a parcel in Central Square that could become viable for affordable housing as soon as these amendments pass (in addition to Vail Court, of course).
Some have said that this proposal will “destroy the neighborhood character” by redefining our streetscapes with too many taller buildings, but we already have buildings of this height in every neighborhood! Either way, I feel that the character of our city is really defined by having a population that is diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, and income -- and not necessarily by the size of the buildings or some vague feeling of nostalgia derived from the squares not changing at all architecturally.
Some have said that this proposal will result in housing that won’t be nice for people to live in, but the truth is that taller buildings are a great living option for many people. Life at a greater height can come with many hidden benefits including less intrusion of street-level noise, an inspiring view, and/or a close-knit community. There are tens of thousands of low income people who want to live in Cambridge, and nobody will be forced to move into any particular buildings that they don’t want to live in. In my experience, however, most applicants are not concerned with the height of the buildings and really just want an affordable place to live in Cambridge. We already have numerous examples of affordable housing being successful at taller heights in Cambridge. Our goal is to create more options for folks who are waiting!
Vernon K. Walker
Yes.
I support this because there is a housing crisis in our city and having more affordable housing options is one way to ensure that people/families that want to live in Cambridge can live here as their households may not make the city median family income of
$204,661.
I support Cambridge being a diverse city and as someone that lives In a tall building, it has it perks. I support expanding of the AHO to allow for more taller buildings to be built that can offer more affordable housing housing.
Hao Wang
Yes.
I believe affordable housing and workforce housing can benefit from these new developments. In many aspects, it is the best way to go. However, as a city councilor, I will be sensitive to preserving certain historical characters in the squares and corridors to prevent them from being damaged and removed.
Ayesha Wilson
Yes.
The recent AHO annual report showed that it has been successful so far, but there are also too many projects like 2072 Mass Ave that are not covered. These amendments are reasonable and necessary to build more affordable housing.
Robert Winters
No.
I didn't support he original "Affordable Housing Overlay" as written or as originally proposed when I was a member of the Envision Cambridge Housing Working Group, and the current proposal is worse. There are far better and fairer ways to do this. It should not just be about maximizing the number of subsidized units.
Cathie Zusy
No.
For proposed developments not to be reviewed by the Planning Board or neighboring community is crazy. We need checks and balances and design review, while often painful, often improve outcomes. We also need setbacks and need to protect historic buildings and open space. And we can't cast shadows wherever. Neighbors are impacted by tall buildings!
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes.
Our budget, one of the largest in the New England region, has the capacity to invest more in affordable housing—especially when it's the top concern of Cambridge residents.
Burhan Azeem
Generally Yes.
We’re not going to get to housing affordability without substantial public-sector involvement. This includes increased funding for the Affordable Housing Trust and using our excellent bond rating to support mixed-income housing development.
Doug Brown
Generally Yes.
While I support increasing public funding for NON-PROFIT affordable housing developers, I oppose the City bankrolling FOR-PROFIT affordable developers and believe that all developers receiving public funding should be required to publish a pro forma that fully details their project finances.
John Hanratty
Generally Yes.
I would like to study the results so far to fully agree. Have we spent the money wisely, Did we attain the stated goals.
Peter Hsu
Generally Yes.
We all know housing affordability is a major issue for our city and, therefore, I do support in proportioning more of our city's budget to affordable housing. The key thing I need to consider is if we were to increase our city's funding for affordable housing, how does that affect the project that was going to use that budget.
Adrienne Klein
Generally Yes.
The AHT needs additional funding, and I would advocate for increases through multiple sources. First, it’s important to note that encouraging development or implementing zoning reforms in line with ABC’s advocacy for commercial or mixed use development could itself create substantial AHT revenue. In addition to one-time contributions, ongoing revenue is also needed. I’m more concerned with growing the overall amount to meet residents’ needs than establishing an abstract percentage goal tied to the operating budget. With that said, to further link market rate housing growth to affordable housing, I would support linking a portion of new property tax revenues from market rate development to contribute to the AHT on an ongoing basis.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
I was co-sponsor on this motion, which not only included raising the AHT budget by $20 million in FY24, but also developing a plan to increase the AHT budget to 10% of the city's operating budget. I don't just agree with this, I'm sponsoring it.
Joe McGuirk
Generally Yes.
In principle, I agree with this idea. As is evident in my other responses, I feel that the displacement of lower and middle income residents is the single biggest problem facing Cambridge, and we should have a robust plan to counter that. However, I am not so well versed in our budget to claim that we can double our financial commitment without curtailing other services our city needs. I plan that by the time I am called to vote on this, I will be better informed to make the right choice for our most vulnerable residents.
Federico Muchnik
Yes.
Yes, more money for affordable housing. Who wouldn't want it?
Patty Nolan
No.
We are already spending more than most cities. And not spending on other crises facing us - notably the climate crisis. I am open to more increases, and believe before deciding any set increase we need to have a citywide discussion of which areas of the city budget deserve more funds and which can be cut back. To do such a massive increase in housing, it would mean a decrease elsewhere. Through my leadership on the Finance Committee the City Council held the first ever public forums with the City Manager to help influence financial funding decisions which resulted in significant additional funding for affordable housing. Prior to my role on the Committee there were no such meetings. So yes, we must increase funding for affordable housing, but creating an arbitrary percentage to the budget may not be such a wise policy decision. And, we need a fund for climate and environmental justice - which is now drastically underfunded. That crisis deserves as much funding as housing. The city is spending upwards of $50 million on housing - which is more than almost every other city in the country on a per capita basis. We should celebrate and get other cities to match us.
Frantz Pierre
Yes.
Yea sound like a great idea to support the community.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes.
There are some revenue sources that are legislative dependent like the real estate transfer fee, so I think it is critical we look at our own city funding, and have a plan to increase funding for affordable housing given the rising costs.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
I would be comfortable going even higher than 10 percent of the City's budget (though I don't know what the magic number I would land on would be). The bottom line is that we all say that affordable housing is one of our top priorities, and if that is truly the case, then we need to put our money where our mouth is. We cannot create more land on which to build, but by infusing a significant amount of money into our Affordable Housing Trust, we shall at least have more options with which to pursue various housing projects. That is going to require a sustained, significant financial investment from the City.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes.
Yes, With housing costs continuing to be out of reach for most residents and a CHA waiting list with more than 20,000 people on it, Cambridge must prioritize affordable housing in its budget. A municipal budget is both a planning document and a moral document, and according to Cambridge’s annual resident surveys, housing continues to be most residents’ top concern. Cambridge also has the budget capacity to fund affordable housing at 10% of the City budget without a significant increase to residential property taxes due to the significant amount of tax revenue generated by commercial real estate and the city’s split-rate property tax.
Paul F. Toner
No.
I do not support increasing the affordable housing budget to 10% of the City Budget. The City has other needs and priorities and under our current budget we have substantial funding available for affordable housing. If new projects come forward that the city deems worthy funding we are currently able to take money out of our reserves to make the purchase and I have been informed that doing so involves less bureaucratic process. If we put it into the Affordable Housing Trust, we no longer have access to the funds if other priorities or exigencies occur. I would rather have the city remain nimble in being able to use its resources.
Dan Totten
Yes.
Of course I support this, but the way you’ve worded this question is misleading. You make it seem like we secured $20 million in additional funding for the AHT this year over what had previously been spent, but in fact the city manager moved that money from the capital expenses and gave AHT only a modest increase over previous years, and only further increased funds by 1.6 million after the council whined about it. Though the calls were for a true $20 million increase, the manager came back and punted that discussion until Fall 2023 and said that doing so would affect other priorities like universal preschool and municipal broadband. I disagree with the manager and don’t see a reason why we have to choose between a larger increase to the AHT and those other important priorities. Low income people who would live in the affordable housing that money eventually produces would benefit immensely from the preschool and broadband initiatives. We have to do both. I would also want to see part of that substantial increase to AHT funds to go towards funding a municipal voucher program.
Finally, I want to point out that it was actually Councillors Zondervan and Carlone that convinced the former city manager to end the precedent of not spending any non-cpa local revenue on affordable housing, and the initial capital expenditures on affordable housing happened in large part because of them.
Here’s the link to the manager’s agenda item in case anyone wants to read more: https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=19692&highlightTerms=Affordable%20housing%20trust
Vernon K. Walker
Yes.
The city has a surplus of millions of dollars in the budget and I support Cambridge having municipal vouchers that would be able help renters in the city. Using the additional surplus to aid renters would be beneficial like to renters like creating a 7-day hotline for renters to call into for help with unresolved tenant-landlord issues. The hotline can also be used for renters to report issues that impact quality of life like mold in the unit, etc.
Hao Wang
Generally Not.
I need to learn more about the city budget analysis. In general, I want us to balance our budget. I may very well support such an increase should savings from other projects can fund it.
Ayesha Wilson
Generally Yes.
In principle, yes. In practice, I know from my experience in municipal budgeting on the School Committee that even a financially sound city like Cambridge needs to pick between competing priorities sometimes, and I’d want to understand more about if any cuts would be needed to facilitate a 10% commitment. Cambridge also consistently allocates the maximum of our Community Preservation Act funding to housing. I also recognize that the funding only matters if we can use it, and support tools like the AHO to facilitate development.
Robert Winters
No.
The City has many needs, and the focus on subsidized housing without any constraints or goals is wrongheaded.
Cathie Zusy
Generally Not.
Let's see what our budget priorities and needs are. We also need to answer: how much of our housing should be affordable housing? Currently, 15% of our housing is income restricted. As is, Cambridge provides far more affordable housing than most neighboring communities.
Ayah Al-Zubi
We need to support tenants through right-to-counsel, increase access to support for those experiencing transitional homelessness, and explore a rental assistance program, all of which we could move forward with by creating a team in the City dedicated to this.
Burhan Azeem
I support tenant right-to-counsel, which would ensure that all those facing eviction have legal representation.
Doug Brown
As discussed earlier, Cambridge has a displacement problem, driven by condo conversions, house flipping, and increased foreign property speculation. I would propose new rules to address each of these areas, including a right of tenant first refusal, limits on foreign investment, a “real person” rule disclosing the true purchasers of properties, anti-flipping rules, and a vacancy tax similar to Washington DC.
John Hanratty
I would rather see the city provide rent relief for hardship cases than force landlords to absorb months of missed rent payments. Most landlords are not wealth corporations or unfeeling people. If the don't get paid, they can't make their payments. Putting the burden on these landlords will act to reduce the rental stock. They will sell the units to people who will live there or require more background checks.
Peter Hsu
I believe some of the key strategies would involve better tenant education, increasing funding for tenant protection mainly in the forms of eviction prevention and housing support, better communication and guidelines for landlords, and better research and analyses on displacement data pertinent to our city.
Adrienne Klein
Tenants need to understand their rights better, they need to have access to legal representation, and they need to have access to flexible funding sources that can be deployed quickly. They also need to have access to more affordable housing. I support the Tenant Displacement Task Force recommendations, with the first step to ensure tenants are aware of and can more easily access the existing programs by streamlining application processes, providing more technical support and accompaniment to tenants is key to improving access. This aligns with the Task force’s recommendation of a “One-Stop-Shop'' for housing stabilization. I would advocate to leverage available stock by considering incentives to landlords accepting Sect. 8 vouchers and to advocate that the city explore funding municipal vouchers. I support developing multi-unit home options which means allowing the subdivision of larger homes and the creation of triple-deckers, duplexes, and other apartments across Cambridge. We also need to strengthen legal support for tenants facing eviction. Finally, I support the City Council’s adoption of a Tenants’ Right to Organize Ordinance to reinforce protections.
Marc McGovern
I created this task force when I was Mayor. This is challenging because so much does lie with the State. What we have done locally is increase funding for legal aid for tenants, which I supported. We also developed a tenants right's handbook so that tenants know ahead of time, what their rights are. It is so sad when a tenant is facing eviction and moves out before knowing what their rights are. I think we need to look at a rent stabilization program to cap the percentage of annual rent increases. This is outside of what Cambridge can do on its own, but I voted for our home rule petition to allow us to have this conversation.
Joe McGuirk
please see answer below in which I cover policies our city can mandate
Federico Muchnik
I'm not well versed on this matter just yet - I promise I will be, but...an anecdote: I Black blind 72 year old diabetic friend of mine living at 21 Walden Square felt he could no longer stay because auditors for Winn Development reviewing his tax returns suggested he was earning too much to be living at 21. So...somewhat traumatized by the auditor's yearly examination of his income + Winn Development consistently raising the rent by a hundred bucks or more per year left him no choice but to move - to 15 Lambert Street. Assisted living. He's not wild about his new place and he misses his friends. If someone is given a place to live and starts to earn good money, I'm wondering how ethical it is that they have to move out. Complicated, I know. Anyway...here's the story, if you'd like to see the film: https://vimeo.com/840485204/8cdf1fc47a?share=copy
Patty Nolan
This question illustrates the limits of the powers of local government and hence the importance of framing housing discussions correctly. The Tenant Displacement Task Force never completed its work and is a great example of the city’s practice of filing away reports without using them to enact meaningful policies. We need to have some conversations and investigations on Rent Stabilization. There is much more work that should be done on this issue.
Frantz Pierre
I believe rent control would assist in that matter
Sumbul Siddiqui
We need to continue supporting our nonprofits and Multi-Service center to help residents with housing stability and housing search services. Making sure tenants have access to information is also key, which is why we enacted the Tenants Rights and Resources Ordinance. One of the task force recommendations was to establish a more permanent, funded partnership with Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT) to continue providing these services and building its organizing capacity in perpetuity. Last term, we were able to provide funding to ACT, and the goal is to continue supporting them. We have to continue to work with our property owners to reduce the number of actions taken against tenants that result in eviction-related court filings. In cases when a housing entity must take legal action against a tenant, it is most often on account of non-payment of rent and does not result in a physical eviction. However, any eviction-associated court filing, regardless of outcome, can be a long-term liability for a renter and may prevent a tenant from securing necessary housing in the future. Encouraging the City and its housing providers to reduce the number of actions is very important. Other strategies include expanding homelessness prevention services, including emergency resources and support, legal and mediation services and foreclosure prevention counseling. In the end, there are a multitude of strategies and they all go hand and hand. While one of the recommendations from the reports was to adopt a City Condominium Conversion Ordinance that “updates” and strengthens the state condominium law in the service of Cambridge tenants, after a number of conversations with the City and some advocates, I don’t think this will actually do anything as effective to prevent displacement.
E. Denise Simmons
I think we took an important step in creating the Housing Liaison to the City Manager position a couple of years back, and by providing some support staff for that position in subsequent years. I think we should explore expanding the staff support for that position and providing further stabilization case workers. Furthermore, we need to further fund community partners like Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services to assure that those who are at risk of being evicted have access to low-cost or free legal representation. We do commit funding to this organization, but I do think we need to be more proactive in investing significantly more funding to ensure that the number of attorneys on hand are able to handle the caseloads.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Cambridge should create an Office of Housing Stability as a one-stop shop to help tenants with legal and housing search issues in all of Cambridge’s most spoken languages, lead policy work at the local and state levels, and collect data on housing in Cambridge, including on construction, cost, eviction, and displacement, to help guide policy-making. While some of this work currently exists, Cambridge should follow the lead of Boston and Somerville in creating a single-office to guide all the different aspects and provide a clear, initial point of access for residents. I’ve also worked with the lead sponsor, Mayor Siddiqui, on a Condo Conversion Ordinance to provide eviction protections, a right to purchase, and relocation assistance of $10-15k to tenants who cannot purchase in buildings that are being converted from rental apartments to condos. Additionally, given how much Massachusetts limits the authority of municipalities on tenant protections, we must work with municipalities across the Commonwealth to instill greater urgency to pass policies which are available to cities in other states. Anti-displacement measures, including rent control, just cause eviction, and tenant opportunity to purchase (TOPA), are tools that the City desperately needs in its toolbox, and Cambridge should work together with advocates in municipalities across Massachusetts to pass them statewide.
Paul F. Toner
To help prevent displacement, I believe the city should support and expand upon the recommendations in the mayors report. Education of tenants, streamlining and coordinating tenant services, increased funding for vouchers and providing access to legal counsel and mediation programs to tenants are all essential. In addition, we must ensure that there are adequate rent subsidies, especially during crisis situations like the pandemic.
Dan Totten
Municipal vouchers - we need to establish a program like Boston and Somerville. Boston is spending $10 million on theirs! Increasing the supply of vouchers is very important because the truth is that state law comes down very strongly on the side of the landlords, making it very hard to actually prevent displacement. In that regulatory environment, the best thing we can do is have a really robust safety net to catch people in this situation. Condo conversion - there is a lot we can do without having to ask the state for permission. Everybody has talked about this for a while and I hope we can get it done early next term if there isn’t progress by the end of this term. Condo conversion has been decimating the city’s rental housing stock for several decades and much of the damage is done, but these changes would still make a difference especially in neighborhoods like The Port and Cambridgeport. Legal counsel - let’s provide it for any tenant in the city who receives a notice to quit. Right now you need to be extremely low income to qualify for free legal counsel. But as someone who has actually supported tenants by accompanying them into eviction court, I have witnessed firsthand the difference that legal support can make. This is a money issue - we don’t need permission from the state. Wraparound case management for anyone who scores in the middle range or higher on their C-CAN assessment. Implement the recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Commitee on Homelessness. Ultimately what we really need to do is blocked at the state level, as you point out, and so this is a really challenging part of the conversation where the state is preventing us from stopping what is happening, and all we can really do on our own right at this moment is strengthen the safety net to catch and support people who are impacted.
Vernon K. Walker
Cambridge should have a 24 hour city-wide program that provides a hotline for renters. The 24 hour hotline would be helpful to someone that is getting evicted at 1am in the morning and the landlord changing the locks on the door therefore locking the tenant out of their unit. Having the hotline to call for help would be helpful for that tenant in the moment. The hotline would allow tenants the opportunity to book an appointment with someone in the Office of Housing Liaison during the day business hours to seek deeper help for their situation. The Hotline would provide educational informational which would equip tenants with information about their legal rights and responsibilities as renters, as well as available resources and supports. The hotline could be under the office of Housing Liaison. Cambridge could also look at the data where the most evictions are happening across the city and offer free community workshops that focus on providing overall educational resources for the community and list of available advocacy services for tentants.
Hao Wang
The essential workforce housing should consider housing allowance to help tenants pay rent. Cambridge has done an excellent job protecting tenants' rights.
Ayesha Wilson
I support implementing the four key recommendation areas of the Task Force report (improving tenant education, passing a condo conversion ordinance, increasing funding, and improving data collection), and appreciate the work of the task force, Mayor Siddiqui, and her team in developing them. Data collection (both quantitative data and hearing stories in community) is especially important so we can understand what is driving displacement and adjust our policies to respond.
Robert Winters
Existing and future tenants and potential homeowners need more options in Cambridge and in the region. The economy and the workforce has changed and continues to change as it has since Cambridge was established. I do not support rent control and I am suspicious of various rent stabilization schemes that may unfairly restrict property owners from making good decisions about their property. All too often tenant protections translate into owners defensively creating high barriers to entry for tenants.
Cathie Zusy
I don't know. I need to learn more about this!
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes.
We need rent stabilization, but at a lower percentage than Mayor Wu's. I can't afford to rent the apartment I'm in at a 10% cap, let alone a 5%. We also need to make sure we're continuing to address limiting condo conversions because they are also hurting renters in Cambridge.
Burhan Azeem
Yes.
I also support rent stabilization, just cause eviction and measures to prevent condo conversations.
Doug Brown
Generally Yes.
I support increased tenant protections, though the specifics of any such proposal needs to be carefully weighed against the likely impacts on local housing availability and quality.
John Hanratty
Generally Not.
Rent control has proven time and again not to work.
Peter Hsu
Yes.
I favor tenant protections that are reasonable, which is generally the case when passed through legislature. I do support capping rent increases and I am saying this as a landlord. I think 10% is reasonable as long as other "risks" remain stable. I definitely support requiring just cause for eviction.
Adrienne Klein
Yes.
I support Bill H.1378 allowing Cambridge to implement policies appropriate to protect tenant’s rights and support diversity in residency. I would support requiring just cause for evictions, working to eliminate tenant paid-broker fees, regulating condominium conversion, and capping rent increases.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
Joe McGuirk
Yes.
Rent stabilization better happen soon. I have spoken to many renters who have seen huge increases in their rents since Mayor Wu publicized her petition. I believe that this is a reaction to the proposal. We need action fast, to ensure this rent gouging does not continue.
Our City is made up overwhelmingly of renters. Over 60% of Cambridge households rent, nearly double the national average. We are long overdue for a sufficiently staffed one-stop-shop City run office to provide support for renters. I would work to augment and transform the existing Office of the Housing Liaison into an Office of Tenants’ Rights. This office would manage several initiatives aimed at evening the playing field between renters and their landlords. This would include the following concepts.
* Coordinate the staffing for legal support for tenants fighting displacement and eviction
The federal and state governments have been lagging in the establishment and implementation of guaranteed legal counsel in housing court. Less than 10% of MA tenants in housing court have legal counsel and over 90% of landlords arrive at court with legal counsel. Until the state and federal governments make representation guaranteed in housing court, we must step in and ensure that all tenants have a right to counsel.
* Create and manage a landlord licensing program
Boston and many other major cities maintain a rental licensing program which ensures that all landlords in the City are meeting minimum standards annually. There is no reason that our bars and restaurants should be more regulated than our rental housing; a licensing program would allow the City to keep up-to-date data on the details of the rental housing supply and provide the City the power to enforce existing rules governing the minimum standards of rental housing in our City.
Federico Muchnik
Yes.
Don't know enough about Wu's petition to answer.
Patty Nolan
Yes.
Yes, the city needs to continue its work on enacting tenant protections like eviction notifications, access to legal assistance, and educating renters of their rights. Mayor Wu’s proposal seems reasonable and should be explored for how it might work in the Cambridge context.
Frantz Pierre
Yes.
I believe rent control would help the whole community and not just some.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes.
I am supportive of any city tenant protections that can lead to less displacement. My office receives calls from so many tenants whose landlord has increased their rent by thousands of dollars/month. Having rent stabilization would be a start. I think a future council must consider a home rule petition to at least start the conversation.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
I would favor that, yes.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes.
I have worked to advance tenant protection legislation as a resident, former City Councillor, and in my current role working with state and local legislators across New England. If such legislation were to pass, I would push to enact local ordinances including rent stabilization, just cause eviction, and tenant opportunity to purchase (TOPA). In my previous term on the Council, I also worked on efforts led by the mayor to strengthen Cambridge’s condo conversion ordinance to protect tenants in rental units where the property owner sought to convert the building to condos.
Paul F. Toner
Generally Not.
As previously stated, I would support and expand upon the recommendations in the mayors report - Education of tenants, streamlining and coordinating tenant services, increased funding for vouchers and providing access to legal counsel and mediation programs to tenants are all essential. I support most of the tenant protections outlined in the legislation but I do not support the rent stabilization proposal. I think it will have the unintended effect of causing rents to go up rapidly prior to its implementation (I think that is already happening based on the mere suggestion that rent control may return) and I believe it will reduce the production of more housing stock.
Dan Totten
Yes.
I’m glad that Boston advanced something and got the conversation going, but I would want to go even farther to make sure a home rule petition from Cambridge actually speaks to the pain of people who rent. Speaking personally as a market renter, I am
typically faced with at most a 3% increase each year. I would all but certainly have
to move away if my landlord ever raised rent by the 10% allowable under Mayor
Wu’s proposal. So the threshold needs to be much lower. I think in a city like
Cambridge the other area to really push on is vacancy decontrol. The apartment
shouldn’t automatically become market rate when the tenant moves out, that is a
major grift!
Something that often gets lost in this discussion is the degree to which
implementing rent control would benefit tenants who have a Section 8. The market
is so out of control in Cambridge that it is often impossible to find a unit
comfortably below the voucher limit within city limits, especially for low income
families. For those who do find a unit, any subsequent rent increase could put
them over the limit and force them to choose between paying 100% of the
difference out of pocket (in addition to the 30% of gross income they already pay)
or moving on to somewhere else. Sometimes that means an abrupt move to
another city altogether and a difficult school transition for the kids. Cambridge
Housing Authority has found clever ways to raise the voucher limit over the years,
but that has meant fewer total vouchers available overall because there was no
simultaneous increase in the total amount of money available from the federal
government. These are major issues that only the passage of rent control would
address.
Vernon K. Walker
Yes.
It is a great thing that Boston is looking at capping the rent increase. I was fortunate not to have my rent go up less then 10% when I lived in Portor Square but if the rent would have gone up by 10% it would have become a cost burden for me. Because of the high cost of living in Cambridge I think the cap on rent should be lower then what Boston has at 10%.
We know the need for housing in the city is greater then the supply of housing available. One way to ensure that market rate housing can stay within range of tenant budget from year to year is have a cap on the rent increase.
Hao Wang
Generally Yes.
We should study how rent stabilization worked for New York City. The reality is NYC had tens of thousands of units vacant, while the rent is skyrocketing and more people than ever needed apartment rental. As a city councilor, I want to simulate the solution to see how much impact it has on the city residents.
Ayesha Wilson
Yes.
I would favor an approach to rent stabilization where buildings built before a cutoff year have rent increases limited to the inflation rate plus a small percentage.
Robert Winters
Generally Not.
If a rent stabilization program to cap exorbitant increases was proposed with no other provisions, I might support that. Unfortunately, no such proposal has yet been floated.
Cathie Zusy
Generally Not.
I don't know about this. Again, "don't know" wasn't an answer option!
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes.
Housing policy is intersectional with so many other policies including climate, racial, and economic to name a few. Pursuing climate policy and housing policy is powerful in also addressing racial justice. This is because the impacts of climate change disproportionately affect people of color, especially BIPOC communities. We need to invest in climate conscious initiatives like more green spaces for high density areas.
Burhan Azeem
Yes.
I absolutely agree that housing policy is climate policy. Taking climate seriously means being smart on housing policy and doing all that we can to build high-quality decarbonized housing here in Cambridge. Building dense housing in Cambridge means less sprawling, carbon-intensive suburban development, fewer vehicle miles traveled, and more use of transit and active transportation (and, by reducing commute times, increases quality of life). Another, under-appreciated, aspect of this is that this policy gives the City the ability to ensure that even more units of housing are fully electric and decarbonized, again assisting in meeting our climate goals.
Doug Brown
Yes.
I served as the Co-chair of the City’s Climate Resilient Zoning Task Force, which recently updated the Zoning Ordinance to include new resiliency measures. I believe that more density is appropriate, but only it it can be done responsibly with proper protections for open space, reuse of historic structures, and truly equitable transit options.
John Hanratty
Generally Not.
I really don't believe the research. I did a fellowship in clean energy and started two clean energy companies. I've studied carbon issues and I don't see how density in any way reduces carbon.
Peter Hsu
Yes.
In general, I believe the more able or capable someone is, he or she will likely need to take on more responsibility in order to make our community and society better. In my opinion, Cambridge is a great, awesome, and capable city with lots of opportunities and potentials, so I do believe we have a climate obligation to pursue greater density city-side and allow more people to live here.
Adrienne Klein
Yes.
We need to make investments that address our twin crisis of climate and housing affordability. Cambridge is going to need more housing, and by increasing housing density, we can reduce sprawl and traffic congestion, make more efficient use of land, and plan strategically to advance multiple goals. By using urban infill in order to balance green spaces with urban use spaces, Cambridge would be providing pleasant places for people to live, green businesses, and a more environmentally friendly neighborhood in general.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
As stated previously, I believe that people living closer to where they work and to public transit is good for our environment. We currently have teachers and other city employees who live in Brockton and Framingham and drive into Cambridge everyday. That isn't good for traffic, for the environment or for their quality of life. Not to mention, I want a city where people who teach our kids, clean our streets and work in our local businesses can live, not just for the environment but because it makes us a stronger community.
Joe McGuirk
Yes.
As Cambridge seeks to create a resilient and sustainable city in the face of an increasingly hostile climate, we must ensure that we do not displace lower and middle income residents who are essential to our city’s well-being. Climate justice must accompany climate policy, and that makes housing a climate issue. Our city is fortunate in its resources. By allowing displacement to continue, we are not serving our displaced residents, and doing so we create burdens for other communities.Infill is apparent in my part of the city, and I believe in many cases adds to the charm of our neighborhoods. While I recognize that other communities in our region must do more to alleviate the housing crisis, I believe that some areas of our city must do their part as well. I live in the part of the city that has historically taken the bulk of the burden of creating more density, and we will continue to do so. With that said, I think we need to create density along our corridors and in our squares, even if it means changing the skyline of those neighborhoods that have been less densely populated. In this way, our city will be a leader in attempting to solve the interconnected issues of climate change and housing needs.
Federico Muchnik
Generally Yes.
Cities are very energy efficient. Much more than suburbs. What else is there to say?
Patty Nolan
Generally Yes.
This is another important national conversation that needs to be tailored to the conditions here in Cambridge. The research on urban infill and climate is not clear cut. And Cambridge already has higher density than most other cities cited in the works - which means the assumption in the question is not supported by the comparisons. The map of emissions per capita on the ABC reading list shows wide swaths of land in the country with far less density than Cambridge with fewer emissions per capita. Thus, urban density does not automatically mean lower emissions - the map also shows places like Schenectady and Syracuse in NY, with much lower densite with lower emissions - so we need to be careful in our assertions. Infill, while an aid to reducing GHG emissions for lower-density towns and cities, may not be appropriate for cities with density comparable to ours in Cambridge and doesn’t seem to yield the most emissions benefit. The California cities citing infill are not like Cambridge. So we should be sure that our policies for infill growth don’t impact parts of our city that trigger diminishing returns. There are significant issues that new construction have on our environment, especially if tearing down existing structures and generating certain building materials. And, infill that eliminates open space is counter to our environmental justice goals.
Frantz Pierre
Generally Yes.
I believe as a whole we should work on building a safer and cleaner environment.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes.
We have a housing and climate crisis. I don’t believe because we are adding more density, our neighborhoods are less livable. We can be thoughtful about how we plan for greater density city-wide. There was an article by Brookings Institute titled “We can’t beat the climate crisis without rethinking land use.” The article discussed low-density development practices stating “low-density neighborhoods require more physical capital per person, meaning more building materials and emissions to manufacture concrete, asphalt, piping, and other material inputs. All that concrete and asphalt radiate heat back into the atmosphere and can reduce public health due to higher temperatures. The same impervious surfaces also lead to water resource challenges such as greater stormwater runoff and flash flooding. In the most extreme situations, sprawling development moves into areas prone to flooding or forest fires.” On the other hand, higher-density development offers the better option to manage growth while protecting clean air and water by placing new developments in areas where the most infrastructure already exists to manage air and water quality. If more housing in Cambridge is achieved by relaxing exclusionary zoning laws and prioritizing high-density housing development, it will have a vast positive impact on the environment.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
In short, the more people we can have living close enough to their jobs so that they can walk, bike, or take mass transit to work - and therefore be less dependent upon their cars - the better. Creating affordable housing that will enable people to have these transit options is the right thing to do on so many levels, and certainly the positive impact on our planet is one of them.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes.
Creating more affordable housing in Cambridge is not just a climate issue but an economic, racial equity, and labor issue. Right now, many working-class people spend hours each week commuting to and from their jobs in Cambridge because they cannot afford to live here. Meanwhile, thousands of Cambridge residents have been priced out of their homes and displaced to other communities, but continue commuting here for work. That means greater emissions produced by people to get to Cambridge, but it also means workers are spending more time stuck in traffic and less time with their families or getting to doctor’s appointments. Ending exclusionary zoning and taxing big corporations to create new public and affordable housing both reduces emissions and allows workers who are getting priced out of Cambridge—custodians, social workers, teachers, and others—to live here and have access to Cambridge’s bountiful amenities—our wonderful parks, schools, and libraries—and thus spending less of their lives commuting each week.
Municipal policies like improving public transit and transportation are also key to addressing climate change. Making it easier to get around by bus, subway, bike, or foot both reduces emissions and makes it easier for residents who cannot afford a car to get around the city. We can do this by adding dedicated bus and bike lanes, eliminating fares that burden low-income residents and delays travel time—especially for bus travel where fares are collected as riders board—and investing in municipal sidewalk snow removal.
Paul F. Toner
Yes.
No further explanation necessary
Dan Totten
Generally Yes.
I appreciate that it is easier to live a low-carbon lifestyle in Cambridge, but there is a danger in thinking that lifestyle changes are the most powerful tool we have. Seriously confronting climate change requires confronting capitalism itself, and in Cambridge that looks like holding some of the most powerful corporations in the world accountable for the emissions they spew. I’m proud we got that done with the Green New Deal for Cambridge, which amounts to some of the strongest legislation on climate change anywhere in the country - aimed at holding the biggest polluters accountable and including a justice component to help low income residents get well-paying jobs in the emerging green economy. I’m very proud of the movement I helped lead over a period of years which included many students, renters, and people of all ages who relentlessly demanded climate justice until we won. In doing so, we have set ourselves up to demonstrate to the world that this work can be done on the timeline that is necessary and called for by the science.
Vernon K. Walker
Generally Yes.
Higher densities can support community life and can lead to more facilities, efficiencies of scale, and funding systems to pay for services and infrastructures. This can also lead to the need for more green space in the community and fewer cars on the road as people could walk or bike or catch public transit to travel throughout the city.
Hao Wang
Generally Yes.
New technologies are available to regulate energy consumption in apartment buildings. If we support large and dense buildings to be built in the city, it is the best time to implement green energy and energy consumption monitoring during construction.
Ayesha Wilson
Yes.
Cambridge is one of the greenest places in the country to live based on per-person carbon emissions, and one of the most important things we can do is make sure that more people who want to live the low-carbon lifestyle that is available here can do so.
Robert Winters
Generally Not.
Cambridge is already is one of the most densely populated cities in the state and the country. There are some opportunities for additional growth, but I would not support wholesale disruption to the residential character of Cambridge.
Cathie Zusy
Generally Yes.
I believe in smart growth and that we must grow our housing for people of all economic means!
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes.
We need to maintain proportional representation and transitioning to a ward-based system would not support this. By staying in the system we're in, we're calling on City Councillors to remain aware and invested in the different neighborhoods in Cambridge and how they're impacted.
Burhan Azeem
Yes.
Proportional representation ensures that different constituencies can make their voices heard while preventing gerrymandering and other forms of electoral manipulation endemic to district-based systems. It especially makes sense for renters who often move across wards.
Doug Brown
Yes.
I favor an at-large system of representation, as I believe that it better ensures Councilors will work together on issues outside their neighborhoods.
John Hanratty
No.
At large city councilors do not work well for citizens. There are nine councillors, not one returns your call as a voter or citizen. Since we voted them in, they should work for us. THEY DO NOT WORK FOR OR REPRESENT THE CITIZENS
Peter Hsu
Yes.
I personally think the current system is working fine for Cambridge and I do agree ward-based system can be associated with negative effects on political representation and housing production.
Adrienne Klein
Generally Yes.
I will refer to the recommendations of the Charter Review Committee tasked with the comprehensive review of the options provided by the Collins Center.
Marc McGovern
Yes.
An at-large system is challenging for those of us who run for office, but I'm concerned that a ward based system will lead to less progressive decisions. When you are a ward rep, your job is to advocate for your ward. Your votes depend on the voters in your ward. This makes it more difficult to take a city wide view. You are more inclined to listen to the louder voices in your ward, often concentrating power to fewer and fewer people.
Joe McGuirk
Yes.
I believe in the Plan E government. I just think the council must use the tools in their toolbox to ensure it works. There have been concerns that the city manager holds too much power in our city, but that is power granted by the council. The council must have the will to use the tools at hand if they feel the manager is not doing their job well. Plan E also allows for true representation of all residents as a ward based council or a shared ward and at-large council will end up placing the concerns over neighborhoods above concerns for the city in general. In a city where more than 60% of residents rent, at-large elections allow for those renters to choose council members based on the shared values rather than a shared zip code or polling location. Landowners already have outsized impacts on our city policies. Changing our charter might lead to even more power to this minority.
Federico Muchnik
Generally Not.
The matter merits more research. Did you know that the last time Cambridge's government was changed was in 1940? That's 83 years and counting under this current form of governing. In 1940 homes had no solar panels, building materials were vastly different, the population was nowhere near as ethnically or economically diverse as it is now, Harvard and MIT pretty much ran the show, there was one postal system, no UPS, no FedEx, no Amazon, no recycling, no IT....no remote work. Anyway...our system of government could most certainly use an update, or at least a closer look - to - you know - perhaps be more in tune with the times.
Patty Nolan
Generally Yes.
I support a combination of at large and ward based. I was the Councilor who began our city’s first Charter Review process in 85 years by engaging the Collins Center and putting Charter Policies on the ballot in 2019. Currently the Charter Review Committee is expected to provide their recommendations to the city at the end of this year. They have been very active in soliciting residents' perspectives and experiences for over a year while the Collins Center has provided them with various options for government formats. Once that report is presented the city can engage in a public conversation about the Committee's recommendations. I believe that a system with a combination of at large and ward based seats is more democratic - so I currently support them. Boston and Somerville and Newton all have a combination - I don’t understand ABC’s opposition since democracy is at the core of good governance.
Frantz Pierre
Generally Yes.
I’m open to it
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes.
I support the reasons that ABC has to oppose at-large proportional representation. As someone who lives in Ward 5, but has a strong constituency in North Cambridge because of growing up there, it would be challenging not to be a strong voice for those renters.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes.
I am in favor of city councilors being accountable to, and trying to speak to the needs of, the whole of the city, and not just one section of it. While we each may develop our areas of interest and expertise, and while we may each have our pockets of strength and supporters, we are still all moved to speak to the entirety of the community as at-large councilors, and I believe the city is better governed as a result.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes.
Yes, I would oppose efforts to move away from Cambridge’s proportional representation electoral system to a ward-based system. Proportional representation allows greater representation for residents and candidates that would be shut out in a ward-based system. The benefit that is sometimes given as an argument for ward-based systems is better constituent services by having a dedicated Councillor for each neighborhood, but there are ways of achieving that without changing the electoral model.
Paul F. Toner
Yes.
I support the current at large system. In fact, I opposed and voted against the charter review ballot question as a voter because I believe our current City Manager form of government is better than a strong mayor system. In my opinion the problem with getting things done has more to do with the multitude of competing priorities that each Councillor has brought to every council meeting.
Dan Totten
Yes.
I support proportional representation and I completely agree that we should not switch to any sort of ward-based system. It is certainly possible to get elected largely on the back of a single neighborhood under PR, but all nine councillors are at least theoretically expected to represent the entire city once they take office. Given the degree of variability between Cambridge’s neighborhoods and even often block-by-block within them, it would be difficult if not impossible to devise a ward-based system that didn’t further entrench the power of property owners and anti-change activists. We have increasingly seen that PR leads to a council that is diverse in both identity and ideology, and as a result this past council term has been the most productive in recent memory. Ward councillors would have been for example a lot less likely to support eliminating minimum parking requirements, legalizing mid and high rise density as-of-right through the affordable housing overlay, and expanding the protected bike lane network -- all things we got done. Introducing representatives that are specifically and exclusively focused on a single corner of the city would make it harder to advance racial and economic justice through policymaking, and would have the overall effect of making the council much less representative of the city as a whole. Count me out! If the Charter Review Committee puts forward a proposal that includes switching to ward representation, I will work hard to oppose it at the ballot box in 2025.
Vernon K. Walker
Yes.
I support proportional representation and agree that we should not switch to any sort of ward-based system. Having all the city councillors represent the whole city so in theory they can be attentive to social issues facing all 13 neighborhoods in the city. I don't foresee a ward-based system empowering renters and ward-based system could possibly create less diverse council.
Hao Wang
Generally Yes.
The city has been divisive and polarized over critical issues. I understand why some of us want to return to a ward-based system. However, that will run the risk of hardening the divide. I'd rather keep working the system to advocate civic engagement.
Ayesha Wilson
Yes.
I strongly favor preserving our current election system. Geography is an important part of political representation, and candidates still have the option of running and winning with neighborhood-focused campaigns if they choose to. But as a School Committee member, I’ve found that our city works best when elected officials can earn support from any voter. As just one example, in my 2021 campaign, I was able to earn disproportionate support from public housing residents. In a ward-based system, it’s harder for an important but geographically diverse constituency to make their voice heard.
Robert Winters
Generally Yes.
If you would like a good explanation of proportional representation I would be happy to oblige. I would like to see more input and more effective input from residents generally, but I would not support the creation of gerrymandered wards.
Cathie Zusy
Yes.
We need to elect Councillors who will govern for ALL OF THE CITY.
Ayah Al-Zubi
I believe that we need to hold the City Manager more accountable,. There could be possible ways to do this through giving more executive power to the Mayor for example.
Burhan Azeem
I am pushing to have even year elections where voter turnout is higher and more people can get involved in our government.
Doug Brown
I support 10-year term limits for all elected and appointed officials, as well as municipal lobbyist registration to ensure that Councilors are not unduly influenced by outside interests.
Peter Hsu
None I can think of right now, but I am a newbie and will learn more.
Adrienne Klein
While a ward-based system would give residents a clear contact within the City to reach out to about an issue, but I definitely understand the suggestion that it could cause problems for simplifying the zoning ordinance/housing production.
Marc McGovern
I would like to see longer terms. Running every two years is very challenging, and I'm not talking about just the campaigning. Passing policy and making changes takes time, and although we want to move quickly, especially when it comes to the environment and housing, it is sometimes feels that we are always in a rush.
Joe McGuirk
I fear that changing our form will be detrimental to addressing the crisis of housing, for the reasons I stated above. I agree in whole with ABC’s 3 point take on changes to our government, in the attached blog post.
Federico Muchnik
I don't know enough about the charter changes to answer this.
Patty Nolan
The council should have the same budget authority as the School Committee. And the council should have approval over all members of all multi-member bodies not only boards and commissions. And the council should have department head approval.
Frantz Pierre
No
Sumbul Siddiqui
I do think having longer terms especially if there is a pro housing council would be beneficial. I also would continue to support the City Council having veto power over the unelected land use board appointments.
E. Denise Simmons
I do not believe there are changes to our charter that shall help us address this crisis. I believe it is down to the will of the council to make it clear to the city manager and his or her administration that this remains a top priority, and that we must do more than pay lip service to it. Whether or not our charter changes has no bearing on this.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes, Cambridge can follow the model of Malden and a number of other cities in Massachusetts by having a charter which requires that the City Solicitor position be appointed by the City Council, which is already the case for the City Clerk position in Cambridge. Having the Solicitor—who is the head of the Law Department—appointed by the City Council, which makes laws for the city, would streamline and strengthen governance, especially as it relates to housing and planning issues. Another charter change that would be useful is having department head appointments by the City Manager be approved by the City Council, which other cities including Framingham have in their charters. Since voters approved the change in 2021, the Council now must confirm City Manager appointments to boards and commissions. Confirmation for department heads would be a similar extension of this type of check and balance in the charter that would give Cambridge’s elected representatives on the Council oversight into who runs the City’s planning processes. Finally, I’m also interested in continuing discussion about having an elected Mayor in Cambridge. There are a range of possibilities for the particular powers of the mayor, but I believe that it could be helpful to have an executive with a direct mandate from voters—who overwhelmingly want to see progress on housing affordability in Cambridge —helping to drive policy and planning decisions.
Paul F. Toner
I will not be supporting anything beyond prudent clean up language to align our charter with current state law.
Dan Totten
The big problem with our form of government is that the executive branch is unelected and therefore not directly accountable to the voters. I support moving towards a democratically elected executive branch, either a traditional strong elected mayor or a bicameral approach in which the executive branch consists of multiple elected officials. Sure the council could theoretically fire an underperforming city manager, but it takes 6-12 months to find and hire somebody new, with no guarantees that they will be any sort of improvement over whoever was previously in place. City Manager Huang has progressive values and has certainly offered incremental improvements over the previous regime, but his tenure has also strengthened my resolve that the position itself is fundamentally undemocratic and therefore problematic. Having a democratically elected executive branch would certainly help address the housing crisis.
Vernon K. Walker
A stronger systems of checks and balances. I don't think the city manager should be able to reject policy orders that have a 9-0 council vote. I think we we need to have a system where the mayor can take executive action on issues that are pressing and urgent.
Hao Wang
I'd consider (1) a strong mayor system; (2) empowering city planning board; and (3) excusing any councilors from issues pertinent to strong pledge the councilors made to special interest groups.
Ayesha Wilson
Overall, I think that we already have the tools we need to address our housing crisis with our current charter, but may be open to some changes after further discussion and after full recommendations from the charter review committee.
Robert Winters
The City Charter is not the appropriate place to address specific matters such as housing policy and/or programs.
Cathie Zusy
No.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: We need to increase the diversity of these boards, part of this is a total lack of access to political engagement. Historically, this has been afforded to a particular demographic, so we need to think of productive ways to increase the diversity and at the foundation of this is accessibility to knowledge and power.
Burhan Azeem
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: There’s a well-documented problem of public meetings and boards being unrepresentative--BU professors Katherine Einstein, Maxwell Palmer, and David Glick have conducted extensive research on this across Massachusetts municipalities.
Doug Brown
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Not
Explanation: "As mentioned above, I support term limits for all elected and appointed officials, including the City Council, School Committee, and all boards and commissions. I believe that none of these positions were ever meant to be lifetime appointments, and, in the case of City Councilors, that 10 years is enough time to accomplish a legislative agenda.
Regarding NCDs, I support efforts to diversify membership but strongly believe that members must be neighborhood residents if at all possible. I do not support recent efforts to weak NCDs. Despite talk of “holding up” projects, NCDs and other appointed boards and commissions result in better project outcomes in most if not all cases."
John Hanratty
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Not
Explanation: I haven't read the explicit text in a while so I can't cite specifics. (Your survey is very long, so I don't have time to re-read it).
Peter Hsu
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: I believe it is really in Cambridge's best interest to have unelected land use boards to be more representative of what our city is and what Cambridge stands for, including diversity, resilience, affordability, and sustainability.
Adrienne Klein
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Yes
Explanation: I agree that these bodies need reform in order to ensure more representative membership and participation in decision making. I support some of the NCD reforms. I will need more time to review and consider the impact of the reforms on effective operation of the land use boards.
Marc McGovern
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: I respect those who serve on our boards and commissions, even if I don't always agree with them. It is a huge time commitment for no pay (although we recently approved small stipends). However, I think sometimes our boards and commissions are not forward thinking enough. If you haven't read the book "Neighborhood Defenders" then you must. We know that these boards often have little diversity and that impacts discussion and votes. One BZA member said he didn't vote for 2072 Mass Ave because he doesn't like 9 story buildings. Our housing decisions should not be based on a person's individual taste, but rather on what we need to do to solve our crisis. I also think that sometimes these discussions become to granular that we lose sight of the big picture. Rather than discussing if a window should go two inches to the left or right, lets remember that housing is about the people who live in that housing.
Joe McGuirk
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: As I said in 2021, I support comprehensive zoning reform and believe that we must change the way our zoning board is selected.
Federico Muchnik
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Yes
Explanation: Let me go to your line: "despite being unrepresentative of the city at large" - - - From what I have learned talking to voters, it's the City Council they feel is "being unrepresentative of the city at large".
Patty Nolan
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Not
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Yes
Explanation: I was instrumental in getting the Council to have some influence over the appointments for these boards and Commissions, for the first time in our history under Plan E. I led the effort to vote on charter changes - approved overwhelmingly by the voters. I don't think those bodies need reform, since we have already reformed them by having council approval of members. We should expect diversity in its members, and we should also expect a certain amount of expertise and understanding for these important subjects. I believe that the boards and commissions generally have and had members with deep expertise, thoughtful approach and important diverse perspectives. The 2072 project asked for about 17 variance/changes and the Planning Board agreed with 16 - that is hardly being shot down. The NCD reforms being proposed now bring in needed changes that will make NCDs better. I support the changes proposed which are jointly agreed to by the working group. For the remaining two areas of conflict I support the Historical Commission’s wording.
Frantz Pierre
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: Yes because I believe the community ain’t being heard
Sumbul Siddiqui
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: I do support the NCD reforms because the goal is to strike a balance between the need for more housing and historic preservation. So many barriers to building housing exist. Given that the current ordinance was drafted over 40 years ago, I am supportive of ways to reform the rules and update the ordinance. I appreciate the work that has gone into this effort.
E. Denise Simmons
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Not
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Not
Explanation: I believe that we need fresh blood on these boards, and that we need greater diversity upon them. I do not believe that we need to change their overall mission or how they operate. Once we have newer members, from a greater variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, I believe they shall function in a healthier fashion.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: Yes, in my previous term on the Council, I pushed for the charter amendment that now requires City Manager appointments to these boards be approved by the City Council. I also pushed for the addition of paid stipends for serving on these boards to encourage a greater diversity of residents to apply. These boards have a tremendous amount of power over housing and planning decisions, and there is more we can do to examine what powers they have and recruit a greater diversity of qualified applicants who may not have been able to—or may not have considered—serving previously.
Too often, neighborhood and historical preservation—not just in Cambridge but nationally—have unfortunately been used as tools by appointed bodies that are less representative than the community as a whole in terms of racial and economic diversity to block housing. While there will continue to be important work for historical bodies educating and passing on the unique legacy of Cambridge, that goal can be achieved without preserving in amber areas that are currently among the most expensive and exclusive. For hundreds of years, Cambridge has evolved and changed to meet the needs of residents. A pressing need now is for housing that people can actually afford, and we need to ensure that enabling legislation for preservation doesn’t block that goal.
Paul F. Toner
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Not
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Yes
Explanation: I think these boards function the way they were designed to and have legal obligations that they must meet in rendering their decisions. I agree with some of the proposed reforms around increasing diverse representation on these boards, having two 5 year terms for a total of 10 years, etc.. I do not agree with completely removing any review or oversight by NCDs/Historical Commission.
Dan Totten
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: In terms of reforming the boards, I’m definitely in support after having spent many hours attending these meetings over the years. It will be interesting to see what happens with the manager’s recent shakeups of the BZA and Planning Board, but there is a fundamental issue that all of these appointments are made by a single unelected, unaccountable executive. In practice, the council’s newfound power to vote on appointments has changed very little. Bigger picture we might want to explore a charter change to make some of these bodies democratically elected. Also, the current structure of the committees of the city council doesn’t really lend itself to much general conversation on land use. As a result, the council has gotten a large number of complex citizen zoning petitions that it hasn’t known what to do with. A more serious general conversation is needed, and creating a dedicated land use committee of the council could help make it happen.
With respect to the proposed NCD reforms, I’m excited about where we ended up. I had the privilege of doing quite a bit of work on this at city hall. We brought together people on all sides of this issue and spent a great deal of time arriving at something that everybody could live with, that passed legal muster, and that will likely sail through the council unanimously when it is voted on in September. I represented Councillor Zondervan in these discussions and even proposed some of the language that ended up in the final version. We got to the point where CHC and proponents agreed on almost all of the changes, and so I feel like this discussion really exemplifies how well the current council has worked together to get things done. One undersung component of the amendments establishes a staggered decennial review of each NCD - so the conversation about their effectiveness will continue on into the future.
Vernon K. Walker
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Yes
Explanation: Diversity is a good thing and diversifying the NCD is needed. We have a city that is 66% renters and renters need to have equitable representation on the NCD. Not diversifying the NCD further marginalizes a segment of the population in Cambridge and keeps renters from having positions on the NCD.
Hao Wang
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Yes
Explanation: I am supportive of broader representations in the relevant boards and committees.
Ayesha Wilson
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Yes
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: Generally Yes
Explanation: I strongly support the proposed changes to exempt affordable housing and amplify the voices of renters. I’m not convinced that term limits are always productive toward those goals. On the School Committee, I have learned a lot from my long-tenured colleague Fred Fantini who is celebrating his retirement this year, and I think there is value to institutional memory on some City bodies.
Robert Winters
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: Generally Not
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: No
Explanation: I don't agree with your assessments of what actually happened with some of the examples you choose to cite. I also have significant concerns about what the real agenda is behind eviscerating neighborhood conservation districts which have generally been a good thing.
Cathie Zusy
Do you believe land use boards need reform generally?: No
Do you support the proposed NCD reforms specifically?: No
Explanation: I think that your efforts here are and will be destructive to the City. Housing shouldn't be built anywhere and anywhere. We need checks and balances. Planning, Zoning and Historical Commission boards are made of people with a broad interest in the City--not just an interest in building more housing. We need this balance. These board members also often have architectural, planning or historic preservation expertise that is invaluable.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes, I would support is this. I would be in conversation with the City Manager via meetings making sure I as a representative hold the City Manager accountable. Part of this also includes making sure we create a structure in which we stay organized on all policy orders, their dates, and actions taken all accessible to the community.
Burhan Azeem
The city manager’s office has historically not prioritized housing but I believe our new manager will. I will leave the specifics of roles to him but I’ve been working with Yi-An Huang very closely and feel like we will make a lot of progress on meeting our housing goals. We just need a strong city council to stand by them.
Doug Brown
I support the current City Manager in whatever way he chooses to organize or reorganize his administration. I trust his judgement to do what is best for the City. It is the Council’s job to set clear expectations of WHAT our housing goals are, not to instruct the Manager on HOW to achieve those goals. For too long, the Council has been lacking in clear goal setting.
John Hanratty
Some combination might make sense but from their titles they seem to be doing very different things.
Peter Hsu
I support combining the City's housing functions in a new Housing Department, which can either be headed by our City Manager, a new Assistant City Manager, or another name that most of us agree upon. I believe having a dedicated task force is in Cambridge's best interest in order to fight the current housing crisis. Because of the fact this housing crisis is both real and hugely impactful, I do believe holding our City Manager and city staff highly accountable for meeting housing goals is reasonable and appropriate.
Adrienne Klein
Housing must be a clear priority for the City, reorganizing the city’s housing functions and creating an executive level position to streamline services would indicate an investment in and focus on housing but it would not be enough. I would support funding additional positions either within all of those departments or a new centralized department, and clearer coordination including co-location, streamlining of data collection and information sharing to ensure everyone is “pulling” in the same direction. I would also support including housing goals in the annual evaluation of the City Manager, increased transparency and tracking of units created, residents displaced, and tying budget increases including salary incentives to meeting housing goals.
Marc McGovern
I would. On one hand having multiple departments working together can be a strength, it can also be a challenge. Although you want everyone pulling in the same direction, it is often beneficial to have a designated department or person who is overseeing implementation. Sometimes saying "its everyone's job" can turn into it being "no one's job." This is defiantly worth exploring.
Joe McGuirk
In general I support this idea, although I have not researched it well to this point. I believe that our council must use whatever options necessary to ensure our city manager complies with the wishes of the residents, including the possibility of replacing the city manager with one more willing to accede to council wishes. The manager should have the will to ensure that staff also performs their tasks.
Federico Muchnik
No, I would not - at first glance - support combining things because I believe a system of checks and balances and a democratic deliberative system based on dialogue and consensus - while it may be clumsy and slow - is still better than a housing Czar sitting behind a desk rubber stamping the wishes of the developer du jour or the current politics of the city council. How specifically would I hold the City Manager and city staff accountable for meeting housing goals? Answer: Clear and enforceable project management (heck, Microsoft Project is a good tool).
Patty Nolan
Generally I would support combining the housing efforts under one department. However, we should first know what cities have a better record and how they are organized. The premise that we don’t do enough is not based on facts. The Boston Housing Report Card report shows that Cambridge has produced far more housing than most, the share of renters who are rent burdened hasn’t increased in 20 years and and have a very high percent of residences that are subsidized. We recently hired a City Manager who has extensive experience in creating effectively functioning governing bodies and it's important that we work to define goals and priorities in this and other areas. Of course Cambridge can do even more in housing. However, we need to be aware of how far we have come, and how many units of affordable housing we are producing. If every community had Cambridge’s record, the housing situation would be radically better.
Frantz Pierre
100 percent.
Sumbul Siddiqui
While I support the Office of Housing Liaison, I think there should be some changes made to the structure of the Housing Division within the Community Development Department and the Multi-Service Center. I think it can be confusing for residents to figure out who to go to help because everything is scattered across different departments. I don’t doubt that important work happens on a daily basis, but I wonder how we can be more effective. We have constituent services and policy making happening across all departments. I don’t have specific recommendations but would be willing to have more conversations about this. One way to hold the City Manager and city staff accountable for meeting housing goals would be to incorporate SMART goals within the City Manager’s goal setting process and evaluation.
E. Denise Simmons
I agree that the City Manager's office does not appear to be taking strong enough action on this matter. I do not necessarily agree that it is due to the housing functions being scattered across different departments, though, and I believe that if we had a city manager who truly had a strong grasp of this housing crisis, and who made it a point of making this a central focus of his or her administration, then it would be dealt with by the City accordingly. My sense is that the City Council does need to be more unified in making housing a top priority, the Council needs to practice restraint in terms of all the various competing policy orders that are sent to the City Manager and the CDD for their attention - and there needs to be greater coordination with groups like ABC to continually keep the heat on the City Manager over this issue. Currently, I feel like so many of us - City Councilors, advocacy groups, individuals - are pulling the City Manager in a number of different directions at any given time, continually shifting the message of where the focus ought to be. I would rather find ways to have us all work together to compel the administration to keep a sharp focus on affordable housing. My hope is that we will be able to achieve this in the months ahead, and particularly heading into the new year.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes, I would support the creation of a dedicated Housing Department headed by an Assistant City Manager as a way to streamline and strengthen the City’s commitment to its affordable housing goals. This would also facilitate the creation of a dedicated Office of Housing Stability within the new Department, which Somerville and Boston have. In my previous term on the Council, I pushed for the Council to do a public performance review of the City Manager—which was required in the Manager’s contract but had not been followed through on. I also successfully pushed to include the requirement for an annual City Manager performance review as a charter amendment, which was passed by voters in 2021. If elected to the Council again, I would seek to partner with, and hold accountable, the City Manager and staff both through regular check-in and committee meetings, as well as through enhanced checks and balances written into the City’s charter via the ongoing charter review process. Ultimately, currently, only the nine City Councillors have a say on the city’s chief executive and administration of city government, and I take that responsibility very seriously.
Paul F. Toner
I would support conducting an organizational review of CDD and creating a more streamlined department. I am not sure I would push for a new Assistant City Manager position. I think if there are real performance problems in the department that the City Manager should be evaluating his leadership team and making the necessary changes in leadership. I also believe the City Council and staff need to get clear on what the numeric goals are for subsidized, inclusionary, and market rate housing options
Dan Totten
I definitely agree that Cambridge’s executive branch isn’t doing enough to address the housing crisis and I also agree that we need to restructure departments. I think DHSP and CDD have both ballooned to the point where they need to be broken up. As someone who has worked extensively with people facing housing instability and homelessness, I think we should combine the housing functions of DHSP with the Office of the Housing Liaison and CDD’s management of the inclusionary housing program to create a Department of Housing Stability led by Maura Pensak. We need a one-stop-shop for people who are facing these struggles, including wraparound case management. The current system is frustratingly complicated even for those who know it well like myself. I think CDD is actually the correct home for land use, they just have too many other functions that need to be pared back. For example, the transportation functions and management of the parks should be consolidated into other departments so that there is a more unified vision with respect to each of those. That would also make more space for land use discussions and ultimately more effectively hold the administration accountable to our housing goals and priorities.
Vernon K. Walker
I support a restricting of city hall and combining different offices into a new Housing Department. I think funding should be set aside to create a new Housing liaison position in the Mayor office to work with new restricted Housing Department to ensure that the Envision Cambridge goal become on track to be met. The liaison would have bi-weekly meetings with a team from the newly created Housing Department so that communication is a clear, consistent and timely between the Mayor team and the Housing Department. The Liaison would report to the Mayor on the updated status of if the new department is helping the city reach it Envision Cambridge housing goals.
Hao Wang
I would delegate this decision to the City Manager.
Ayesha Wilson
I haven’t had the conversations with City staff that I would need to have to understand the implications of this move. Sometimes creating a new office focused on an issue can be productive—I spearheaded a successful push on the School Committee to create an Office of Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging—but I don’t believe in proposing staffing changes without deeper conversations with the people involved. I also know that housing touches everything and can be hard to separate into one department—in my professional role with the Work Force program, I know that we benefit from having a youth development program built into the Cambridge Housing Authority. In short, I support the goal of making the housing crisis a major strategic focus, but I’m not yet entirely sure what changes would support that goal.
Robert Winters
I don't believe that 12,500 figure was ever meant to be anything other than an estimate, and I don't recall it ever being decided upon by either the Envision Cambridge Housing Working Group (I was a member and attended every meeting) or the overall Envision Cambridge Advisory Committee (also a member). City staff simply penciled it in. I might support the creation of a Housing Department even if only to bring its function out of CDD and into the daylight.
Cathie Zusy
I don't know. Need to think about that. That we have 1.5k affordable units currently under construction is a good thing! Again, we need to answer: How much additional housing do we want to add--for all economic levels.
Ayah Al-Zubi
No
Burhan Azeem
Yes
Doug Brown
Yes
John Hanratty
Yes
Peter Hsu
Yes
Adrienne Klein
Yes
Marc McGovern
Yes
Joe McGuirk
Yes
Federico Muchnik
Yes
Patty Nolan
Yes
Frantz Pierre
Yes
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes
E. Denise Simmons
Yes
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes
Paul F. Toner
No
Dan Totten
No
Vernon K. Walker
No
Hao Wang
Yes
Ayesha Wilson
Yes
Robert Winters
No
Cathie Zusy
No
Ayah Al-Zubi
Housing is a human right. It is a building block in creating community. We need to be intentional about our commitment to supporting the communities that have been historically neglected. It is an intersectional issue, meaning when we talk about housing, we need to talk about climate justice, racial justice, economic justice, and educational equity. My background has been in education and sports advocacy. There is nothing stronger than coming together in community and growing in knowledge on our stories, data, and history to under how we can and should move forward. I want to listen and I want to grow with you to create a more safe, just, and vibrant Cambridge.
Burhan Azeem
I wrote the bill ending parking minimums and was very excited about that. We already seen examples of 4 unit proposals turn into 19 units with more open space and higer level of affordability. It also allowed hundreds of unused parking spaces in East Cambridge to be rented out.
Doug Brown
I believe that Cambridge needs to do more for our middle-income families, which recent studies suggest are departing the city at an alarming rate. Besides high housing costs, such support must address other significant challenges to moderate-income families, including underperforming middle schools, limited child care and after school options, and even simple concerns like the availability of convenient public restrooms and working water fountains in all our public parks and playgrounds.
Peter Hsu
I believe in working together to achieve a common goal. I also believe in respecting different opinions in order to form stronger and more inclusive policies. Together, I believe we can make Cambridge better!
Adrienne Klein
I have extensive experience working as an individual advocate and providing constituent services to residents here in Cambridge. I have a strong understanding of where there are unmet needs and what gaps exist currently in the operations of our municipal government. My entire career has been focused on helping marginalized groups access resources and justice. The breadth and depth of my experience informs my decision making and my prioritization. I have a strong ability to bridge divides and am unafraid to work with everyone to build consensus. I am not pedantic or single issue focused but willing to continue to learn, ask and rely on the expertise of the city staff and others. I am ethical and not afraid to stand up against ingrained power structures, my politics are personal. I have a proven track record of collaborative work, seeking thoughtful solutions and determination to solve problems for our citizens.
Marc McGovern
Anyone who has followed my work on the Council knows how important these issues are to me. I am not the type of person who just gives lip service to my support for housing, I fight for it. I put my neck out there and take the lumps. I make no apologies for wanting more housing and more affordable housing in Cambridge. Having a diverse population makes us stronger. When I graduated from CRLS there were over 50 languages spoken in our high school. That experience prepared me for the world far better then any class I took. I want to protect that diversity. That is the true "character" of our city and it is the responsibility of those of us who have more, to support those who have less. That is what community is all about.
Joe McGuirk
I believe the biggest issue our city faces is displacement of lower and middle income residents, many of whom are renters like myself. I believe we are essential to the well-being of our city, as we perform necessary jobs and add to our diversity. I believe that those of us who are struggling to remain here need voices on the council with that lived experience. This is why I am running. We lower and middle income residents, we long time renters, are often underrepresented on our city council, and we need council members from our ranks.
Patty Nolan
I have a record of getting meaningful policies enacted along with the necessary funding sources, because I listen, bring in different perspectives, respect expertise from a range of experience and understand how the legislative system works. I look forward to working on the City Council to continue the important work that has already led to one of the region's best levels of housing production. I also recognize that there are many priorities in the city and we should not be mirroring the national discourse of division. Like other challenges - affordable housing requires that we work together AND acknowledge that we cannot solve the issue alone. I also want to reiterate that housing should not be considered apart from our other needs that take funding and effort - from basic city operations to public safety to climate resilience to education for all ages.
Sumbul Siddiqui
I would like to highlight the tenant advocacy work my office was a part of this term. At the end of January 20 22, Vice Mayor Mallon and I sent a letter to the Affordable Housing Trust outlining our concerns regarding WinnCompanies’ property management at Walden Square, raised to us by current residents. Our concerns included egregious and unresolved pest infestation issues, a lack of appropriate communication from management to residents, and an environment of intimidation and suggestion that residents should leave if they are dissatisfied. This was in anticipation of WinnCompanies’s request to the Affordable Housing Trust for funds to support Walden Phase 2, which they presented as creating much needed deed-restricted additional affordable housing units for families. Following that letter, my office hosted three meetings with high level WinnCompanies management and four meetings to hear directly from residents. A lot of progress has been made including but not limited to: In 2022, 7 units were renovated, in 2023, 50 units are planned for renovation; 4 units have been converted to ADA and 4 more are in process; communications to residents have been translated into English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Somali, Amharic and Arabic languages, and an iPad installed outside the office to assist with translation for residents; reimbursements totaling $20,799.99 have been made to 3 households to address losses caused by management’s neglect (repeated pest treatment, mold, leaks); additional extermination services were contracted and currently out of 240 Units at Walden Square on average, 31 have pest issues, this is comparable with other large properties in the area. Another area I have worked on is pushing for improvements to our affordable housing homeownership process. Specifically, many residents have expressed concern about the resale formula and inheritance policy. There will be specific recommendations that come before the City Council later this fall/early winter. Finally, the Vice Mayor and I had a series of meetings on the feasibility of creating a new fully municipally funded voucher program. We submitted a policy order requesting that the City Manager work with the Cambridge Housing Authority, CDD, and the Housing Liaison's office to explore how we could have a similar program to Somerville or Boston. Many residents end up doing a section 8 voucher in order to be in inclusionary housing.
E. Denise Simmons
I have long been honored to work with A Better Cambridge, I believe our values and goals are in alignment, and I look forward to continuing to work with you in the months and years to come.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
I believe expanding affordable child care and after-school programs is deeply intertwined with housing affordability as a means of making Cambridge a place that everyone can call home. Having worked on this issue in my current job, I hope to bring strategies of adding financial support for families, expanding the number of available spots for children, and increasing educational support and compensation for childhood educators to improve staffing and retention to Cambridge. I’m also a supporter of improving safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists, especially because I lost part of my two front teeth in a bike crash in Cambridge on a street that did not have protected bike lanes. In my previous term on the Council, I passed the 2020 Cycling Safety Ordinance that is creating miles of new bike and bus lanes in Cambridge and pushed for increased municipal sidewalk snow removal. Finally, I’m also a believer in adding municipal broadband in Cambridge to end the virtual Comcast monopoly on broadband internet in the city. Nearly 50% of low-income households do not have access to broadband and all of us are stuck with too few options for internet access, with inadequate service and high costs.
Paul F. Toner
I am not seeking the ABC endorsement but wanted to share my responses with ABC. Although I agree with the majority of your priorities, I prefer not to seek your endorsement at this time. I want to have the freedom to make independent decisions based on what I believe is the proper course of action and not to feel obligated to vote based on receiving your endorsement.
Dan Totten
Even though I won’t be taking ABC’s endorsement this cycle, I look forward to continuing to find common ground and get things done together on the council. As a council aide I was even more effective at advancing our shared priorities than some of the ABC-endorsed councillors were. I have the experience and dedication necessary to find that common ground and lead us to even more victories. Also, I have quite a few other policy ideas as well, including: Continue our progress on climate justice, affordable housing construction, protected bike lanes, and HEART as a police alternative. Achieve universal afterschool through a city ordinance. Pilot a local, fare-free, on-demand transit option - one possible circuit is between Kendall, Lechmere, and Inman Square. Advance queer justice by requiring safer options for transgender people living in the shelter system and establishing affordable and intentional LGBTQ+ senior housing. Raise the minimum wage for city employees to at least $25/hour. Stand with city unions including the educators, the janitors, the nurses, the coffeeshop workers, the clerical workers, the grad students, and all other workers organizing for better conditions. Stand with tenants and especially demand better treatment from the Cambridge Housing Authority. Expand the School Health Program to include positions dedicated to mental health at every school in the district. Demand justice for Faisal by siding with the movement, reducing the police budget to expand social services, and nurturing HEART as our trusted community alternative. Fight for Jerry’s Pond and the funding that was promised to move forward with environmental justice and ecological restoration on Rindge Ave. Make Cambridge even more fun by asking the state for permission to extend nightlife hours past 2 AM in Central and Harvard. Protect the Middle East nightclub and other cultural institutions. Expand and institutionalize outdoor dining. Create new multipurpose field space. Simplify the process for hosting a special event on public property. Plant way more trees, especially in the densest neighborhoods. Accelerate implementation of the Urban Forest Master Plan.
Vernon K. Walker
I believe that housing is a human right and everyone should have a right to housing. I agree with ABC on the need for more affordable housing in the city of Cambridge. We have a crisis in our city where the historically marginalized populations like people of color, immigrants, and lower- income people, as well as middle-income people are increasingly facing displacement because of the rising cost of rent. Some teachers, social workers, nurses, etc. can't afford to rent at market rate or buy a house in the beloved city. I am interested in working together to tackle the housing crisis in the city and I have history of bringing together groups of people from diverse backgrounds to work for a common goal. In my role at CREW, I have brought together housing justice advocates, racial justice advocates and climate justice advocates together through intersectionality panels to devise plans in which people with different social justice interest can work together. All those issues are intersectional and it will take a coalition to fight them together to achieve real policy wins. We need a coalition of climate groups, racial justice and housing groups to come together in Cambridge to advance a progressive agenda that ensures that we have more affordable housing available for the unhoused population living in Cambridge as well as the lower-income, middle-income, etc.
Hao Wang
For Cambridge to be an inclusive and livable city, I support essential workforce housing, thriving local businesses, competent and fair government, and a sustainable environment. Any significant policies that ignore civic engagement and even displace some of our residents should be discarded. As a city councilor, I will rely on data and transparent reporting, focusing on solutions rather than political ideologues. We need to reunite the divided city.
Ayesha Wilson
In addition to the professional experiences that will inform my work as a Councillor, I will also bring my lived experiences to the table. I am a proud member of Teamsters Local 122 and would be the only current union member on the Council, and I was also proud to earn the endorsement of the Greater Boston Labor Council. I would also be only the third Black woman on the City Council in the history of Cambridge, and will be committed to racial justice and uplifting the most marginalized people in Cambridge in everything that I do.
Robert Winters
I would like to participate in your Candidate Forum even though my positions do not align very well with those of your organization. That said, I think I have a lot to offer as a city councillor in many ways that go well beyond the narrow agenda of your organization.
If you want to limit to only seeing answers from a smaller number of candidates, you can uncheck the boxes below.
