A Better Cambridge sent out a questionnaire to all 2025 Cambridge City Council candidates, and received 16 responses.
Ayah Al-Zubi
I am a working class renter and democratic socialist running for Cambridge City Council. I came within inches of winning a seat in 2023 and I’m running again because I believe in making this city dignified and affordable for everyone. I immigrated to the United States, from Jordan, with my family when I was young and we moved around a lot growing up. Cambridge has become my home, where I feel a deep sense of community and I’m committed to giving back. As a Co-Chair of Cambridge DSA, I led campaigns to make Harvard pay its fair share in PILOT contributions, center community approaches to public safety, switch to a democratically elected executive branch, and prevent the unjust closure of a 58-bed homeless shelter. Though we were ultimately unable to prevent the closure of that shelter, our advocacy led directly to the creation of a Municipal Voucher Program and an additional million dollars to house people surviving poverty on our streets. Because of our work, 25 people will be housed who otherwise would have nowhere to go. In Trump’s America, our campaign has a vision to protect and empower our neighbors on the local level.
Burhan Azeem
Housing costs too much. Bringing down the cost of housing and building more climate-friendly housing near transit has been a laser focus of mine over the past two terms, and I’m committed to doing more in my third term. This term, I passed new citywide zoning that undoes generations of exclusionary zoning and allows multifamily housing across Cambridge. In my last term, I wrote legislation that removed parking minimums citywide, which unnecessarily forced the ⅓ of Cambridge households that don’t own a car to pay hundreds of thousands for unused parking spaces. This historic legislation has been recognized as a huge step towards more affordable housing and pushed forward a nationwide movement. I also wrote the legislation to expand the Affordable Housing Overlay and build much-needed housing in the city. I've also voted to ban broker's fees (now pending authorization by the state legislature under a home rule petition) and supported expanding tenants' right to a lawyer.
Dana Bullister
My name is Dana Bullister and I’m running for Cambridge City Council to ensure our city leads in enacting powerful, effective policies that truly benefit ordinary people while fostering a diverse, vibrant, and sustainable community. My background is in data science, economics, and policy and I'm currently pursuing a PhD at Northeastern University at the intersection of design and public policy. I also serve as Board Chair of the YWCA Cambridge, an incredible local organization that provides affordable housing and vital services to some of our community's most vulnerable. I have lived in Cambridge for over a decade as a renter without a car, relying on biking and public transit to get around. I know firsthand how difficult it has become for working people, young families, and longtime residents to stay here as housing costs rise. On the Council, my priorities will include ensuring a more affordable city, championing smart growth paired with safer sustainable transit options, and innovating through unique and exciting initiatives that strengthen government responsiveness and accountability. Especially important among these are vital systemic changes that help balance political influence, such as reducing the impact of money in elections, adopting a "flipped lobbying" approach, and increasing access and transparency surrounding voting. In this chaotic time, I believe that Cambridge—one of the most well-resourced, forward-thinking, and progressive cities in the country—has a vital role to play in leading the task of envisioning and building better government. By embracing critical systemic solutions, I believe we can better execute on democratic governance to serve our people rather than the wealthiest interest groups or loudest stakeholders. This is a root cause of substantial dysfunction and also where Cambridge is well-placed to contribute inspired, creative ideas and solutions. Things do not have to be business as usual. This is our chance to lead.
Tim Flaherty
I’m Tim Flaherty. I’m running for City Council because I love Cambridge. I’ve lived here for 60 years - my whole life. I grew up in North Cambridge, in a two-family on Woodbridge Street. It felt like I knew every family within a 20-block radius; I loved that sense of community and still have many strong friendships from childhood. My wife Lisa and I now live in West Cambridge, with our 14-year-old son Timothy. I loved coaching him and the Tigers in Little League and kids from across the city in CYO basketball, and I love walking our dog Bozo around Fresh Pond. So why am I running? Because I think I can help. Cambridge is a special place: inhabited by the most welcoming and generous people on the planet; home to the greatest universities in the world; an epicenter for innovation in biotech, health care, and clean energy. We have been creative in providing access to education, housing, civil rights, and providing help to the marginalized. Yet we can do more. Our politics are too often polarized. We can make more concrete progress when united than divided, especially in a legislative body. I believe I can provide mature and seasoned leadership that will advance common ground, compromise, and real progress. My professional life has prepared me well for the Cambridge City Council. I started my legal career as a prosecutor and have now spent over 25 years primarily as a criminal defense attorney. The justice system is often a highly polarized environment; I have a strong track record of navigating its complexities and achieving just outcomes for my clients, often against considerable odds. For the last several years, I have helped start and run 3 cannabis dispensaries, in Cambridge and elsewhere. I’m deeply familiar with the financial struggle of small businesses, especially those facing zoning and regulatory issues. These professional experiences have prepared me how to find creative solutions in the legal and business arenas, and hopefully, on the Council.
Peter Hsu
My name is Peter Hsu and I am a currently practicing physician. I would love to raise the standards of public health for all Cantabrigians, but in particular the most vulnerable populations in Cambridge, including but not limited to folks with homelessness, substance use issues, mental health problems, disabilities, impairments, dementia, and family members needing to stay home to take care of some of these populations. Public health covers more than just eliminating used needles from playgrounds and taking care of the uninsured or underinsured patients. Public health also encompasses affordable housing, bike lanes, environmental sustainability, and fair economics. Having an academic background in public health, I believe in science and data over ideologies. I will work with all sides to make Cambridge healthier, safer, and more united! I appreciate ABC for this opportunity to explain myself.
Ned Melanson
I’m a public defender, disability attorney, renter in Cambridgeport, walker, cyclist, all-around progressive urbanist, and housing and tenant advocate. In my law practice, I serve people living with disabilities, helping them get government or insurance benefits they've earned, in addition to my work at Cambridge District Court as a public defender (or "bar advocate"). The problems they face are often tied to broader societal and economic forces--and worth highlighting here that housing scarcity is just about the biggest driver of those forces.
Marc McGovern
Thank you for this opportunity. I'm proud to have been a part of ABC since it's early stages and to have earned their endorsement in every City Council election. As someone who has lived in Cambridge for all his life and raised children here, I know what a special and wonderful place Cambridge is, and I want more people to be able to experience that by being able to afford to live here. I was raised in a family that taught me the importance of community and working to leave the world a better place. That is why I became a social worker with children and families over 30 years ago. That is why I ran for Cambridge School Committee in 2003 and City Council in 2013. I have dedicated my entire life to working toward making tangible differences in people’s lives. On the Council, I have worked to make Cambridge a socially and economically just community for all, by tackling issues like housing supply and affordability, addressing homelessness and addiction, improving educational services, addressing food and income insecurity, and supporting our immigrant community. We have made a lot of strides in Cambridge, but there is more still to do. Far too many people struggle to afford to live here. One in seven children go to bed hungry. We have a higher poverty rate than the state average. We have over 500 unhoused people living on our streets who deserve better. I’m running for re-election to continue the progress we have made and to address the areas were we still need to do better.
Patty Nolan
I wasn’t born in Cambridge, but I chose to make it my home and raise my family because I love it. Since moving here in 1991, I’ve worked in our schools, nonprofits, and local initiatives, fighting for affordable housing, strong climate action, and great public schools. On City Council, I bring a practical, data-driven, and collaborative approach—working to make Cambridge more equitable, sustainable, and a place where long-time residents and new neighbors alike can thrive. And, I am not easy to characterize since I truly listen to many perspectives, and am not tied to any specific policy until I determine what is best for the city as a whole. Which can put me at odds with focused interest groups, including ABC.
Stanislav Rivkin
I’m committed to building a better, more hopeful future for working people in Cambridge—families like the one I grew up in. I immigrated to the United States from Uzbekistan as a child. During those first years, my father delivered pizzas for a living and my mother worked as a babysitter. We relied on subsidized housing, food stamps, and Medicaid to get by. I saw firsthand that no matter how hard my parents worked, these programs were the difference between merely surviving and building a life, reaching our goals, and eventually giving back to our community. My experience taught me what's possible when we invest in our neighbors and our city. Unfortunately, in Cambridge and across the country, too many families have been left behind. That’s why I’m running for City Council: To make sure hope and opportunity are accessible to everyone. For the past 15 years, I have dedicated my career to this fight. I have worked tirelessly to uplift my community, growing programs to support at-risk youth and reduce houselessness, teaching thousands of students the skills necessary to create a fairer future, building the next generation of education and civic leaders we desperately need, and designing policy strategies for our community to build a world we’re proud of.
Zion Sherin
Zion Sherin has a deep passion for housing. As a person in his 20s, he understands the frustration many young people feel—wanting to build a future but struggling to afford a place to call their own. His hands-on background as an instrument operator for a land surveying company, along with experience as a mason and plumbing helper, gives him a practical understanding of how housing gets built from the ground up. Combined with his education in Economics and Finance from Cornell, Zion is able to critically evaluate policies and focus on what will truly make housing more affordable for everyone.
Sumbul Siddiqui
I’m running for re-election to the City Council to continue my passion for constituent services with meaningful policy reform. During my time on the Council, I’ve twice co- led the Housing Committee, working to expand affordable housing opportunities, strengthen tenant protections, and ensure city policies reflect the needs of our most vulnerable communities. I helped pass Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay and our new multi-family zoning ordinance. I am a graduate of the Cambridge Public Schools, Brown University and Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Before running for office, I worked as a legal aid attorney.
E. Denise Simmons
As a lifelong Cambridge resident and small business owner, I have served on the City Council for more than two decades and am currently in my third term as mayor. In 2008 I became the nation’s first Black, openly lesbian mayor and the first Black woman to serve as mayor in Massachusetts. Over my tenure I have worked to make City Hall more responsive by opening the mayor’s parlor to the public and holding town hall sessions so residents can speak directly to civic leaders. I have led efforts to triple the linkage fees that developers must pay into the Affordable Housing Trust and to double the percentage of mandatory affordable units in new developments. I championed the Affordable Housing Overlay and recent elimination of exclusionary single family zoning. My approach remains pragmatic: focus on results, ensure everyone is at the table, and leave a city that is fair and open to people of all incomes and backgrounds.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
I’m running for re-election to the City Council because Cambridge can lead the way on housing and child care affordability, climate resilience and sustainability, safe streets, and reliable transportation. During my time on the Council, I’ve led the work on the City Council to end forced broker fees to rent an apartment, helped pass Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay, worked on legislation to increase the City’s affordable housing linkage fee, introduced the 2020 Cycling Safety Ordinance that is creating miles of new bike and bus lanes in Cambridge, and strengthened Cambridge’s Welcoming Community Ordinance to help protect immigrant residents from federal overreach. Before starting on the Council, I worked at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge. I’ve also served as 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. I live in Cambridgeport with my partner and our cat, Eden, and like two-thirds of Cambridge residents, I’m a renter.
Louise Venden
I am an experienced housing advocate, business owner and a new voice for developing common sense solutions to challenges and obstacles in meeting housing goals, protecting and strengthening social safety net programs, and making our government accountable for results.
Ayesha Wilson
Ayesha M. Wilson is a mom of a toddler, a social worker, a former school committee member and serving in her first term on the council. She has been a valued voice to the council. Raising awareness around community inclusion on all issues including housing, education, childcare, small businesses, and economic development. A lifelong resident, Ayesha is seeking re-election to the Cambridge City Council. With over 20 years of experience in human services and youth work, her leadership, insight, and vision are dedicated to building a Cambridge that benefits everyone.
Cathie Zusy
I have dedicated two and a half decades working to strengthen community life in Cambridge, with a special focus on protecting and revitalizing our green spaces. My proudest accomplishment has been leading the transformation of 17 acre Magazine Beach Park. When I first got involved, the park was neglected and underused. Through persistent organizing, coalition building, and advocacy, I helped secure almost ten million dollars in public investment to restore its wetlands, expand its playing fields, and create a thriving urban habitat where people and nature coexist. Today, Magazine Beach is a vibrant community resource, and its success has become a model for how local residents can reclaim and restore open space. As Cambridge becomes more dense, green open spaces will become even more important. Especially in the city, everyone needs access to nature. When Cambridge City Councillor Joan Pickett passed away, I was honored to fill her seat on the Cambridge City Council. Since then, I have brought the same persistence and collaborative approach to the citywide challenges that I brought to community advocacy. On the Council, I have engaged Harvard and MIT experts to advise on housing and transportation issues; advocated for balanced transportation, separated bike lanes and parking solutions; challenged spending amidst rising commercial vacancies and institutional cutbacks; and championed the arts, culture and digital access. I was the sole vote against the Multifamily Housing Ordinance, not because I oppose building more housing, but because I believe that the new zoning will overwhelmingly produce luxury housing, raise housing costs, and displace the very residents it was intended to support. I was young once, too, and am the mother of a 27-year old. I understand the challenges that young people and middle and lower income people face trying to live in Cambridge and am committed to finding and instituting solutions to expand our pool of affordable housing options.
Ayah Al-Zubi
It’s been quite the journey! I have moved 5+ times in this city over the past roughly seven years due to rising rents and bad landlord experiences. As a renter, I understand the experiences of many people in our city and, currently, we don’t have enough renter representation on council that reflects our lived experiences. Moving around, I had a stronger likelihood of befriending the mice in my apartments than I did my landlords, who, in certain places, neglected to provide a dignified living situation. Growing up, I moved around a lot as well and have lived in subsidized housing.
Do you rent or own?: Rent
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: Yes
Burhan Azeem
My commitment to bringing down the cost of living and making Cambridge was shaped by my childhood. When my family first moved to the United States, we shared an apartment with extended family and lived in fear of eviction.
I was lucky enough to get a full scholarship to MIT, where I studied materials engineering and served part-time as an EMT in Cambridge, where I was privileged to help my neighbors in some of their most vulnerable moments.
After graduating, I worked as an entrepreneur, helping to grow a healthcare startup from six employees to hundreds of employees, and eventual acquisition.
I’ve seen firsthand how Cambridge changes lives and generates tremendous opportunity. Now, we have to make sure that it’s affordable and accessible for the next generation. Cities like Cambridge should be a driver of economic opportunity and upward mobility, and I’m going to keep fighting to make it affordable.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Dana Bullister
I am a renter in Cambridge and have lived as such for over a decade. I first lived in East Cambridge and, more recently, in Central Square. My housing journey here has deeply shaped why I'm running for City Council.
I first moved to Cambridge not long after I graduated college to be closer to my job. As an entry-level worker, I strived to gain a financial foothold and save as much as possible while I established my career. To this end, I rented at a house in East Cambridge that was shared with nine other young people. This was the most affordable arrangement at the time; I paid $800 per month.
Although living conditions were cramped (my room was big enough to hold a twin bed and not much else and I shared a bathroom with two male strangers-turned-housemates), it was still my best option. That is because this room allowed me to live in Cambridge and access its incredible communities and opportunities while saving for the future. In East Cambridge I was able to grow my savings, connect with lifelong friends, and eventually rent my own place.
That experience cemented my belief that access to a diverse range of affordable housing options—even those that may seem humble—can be a life-changing path to opportunity. After nearly eight years in that house, I was able to move into my own rented space in Central Square. What worries me, though, is that the very room I once rented for $800 now has a substantially higher market rate. For many new graduates, working people, and families, options that once made Cambridge accessible are slipping out of reach.
I'm running for City Council because I want to ensure that people starting out—or simply trying to get by—still have the chance to live here. And, ideally, they would not need to choose between crowded housing or being priced out entirely. Everyone deserves a fair shot at finding stability. I am so grateful for the opportunity I was given and I want to ensure that others in my position have that chance, too.
Do you rent or own?: Rent
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Tim Flaherty
I grew up in a two-family on Woodbridge Street in North Cambridge and I now live in a single-family home on Fresh Pond Parkway in West Cambridge with my family. I also rented an apartment near Harvard Square for about 10 years when I began my legal career as a prosecutor. Many of my friends from childhood have been priced out of the housing market in Cambridge. I grew up with families that lived in Jefferson Park, Walden Square and Corcoran Park, as well as in 3-deckers and 2-family homes in North Cambridge. Those families sold their homes at enormous valuations, resulting in a significant displacement of middle-class families. Many of my childhood friends left Cambridge due to a lack of housing and for other opportunities. We need leadership that promotes transit housing, corridor up-zoning, and a zoning code that prevents this middle-class displacement and encourages families to grow here. We must not abdicate our responsibility to our residents by relinquishing the leverage we have in granting variances, design review, community input, and public participation. Additional housing can be developed with smart planning.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Peter Hsu
My personal experience of housing in Cambridge is that it has been extremely expensive to live here. Even as an attending physician, I am really not able to afford a "dream home" like most of my colleagues living in other cities can. I believe Cambridge needs more affordable housing for all socioeconomic classes; affordable housing is a big part of public health, which is my major running platform and a topic near and dear to my heart.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Ned Melanson
I'm a renter with two roommates living in Cambridgeport. I was able to find a place in Cambridge by chance 5 years ago (moving from Boston). I never toured the apartment before I signed the lease, which was necessary to "beat out" 20 other groups that were touring/competing for the place. I've been lucky enough to live there since. That’s not a sign of a healthy housing market, and things have gotten worse from there.
Some people put the “housing crisis” in scare-quotes, like it’s hypothetical. It’s not hypothetical, it’s not a meme, and it affects a very broad set of the population. For people like my clients, for people like me, for young families and many older generations, it’s not something to put in quotation marks. It’s something we think about every single day.
Do you rent or own?: Rent
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Marc McGovern
I have been privileged when it comes to housing. I live in a home purchased by my great-grandparents in 1918. Our home had four apartments and it was occupied entirely by family. It is this privilege that has led me to being such a strong supporter of housing supply and affordability. I was lucky. A person’s housing shouldn’t be based on luck. My mother was 25 years old with three children when my parents divorced. She didn’t have a college degree. She was on welfare. If not for my great-grandparents, our lives would have been very different. I understand that privilege and I want to use that to help others. Everyone should be able to afford housing.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Patty Nolan
I rented all my life, in Cambridge after college, then New York, New Haven, Chicago, and Boston, until I married and we bought a home. I have two children in their 20s who are struggling to find an affordable place to rent in the area, since neither is working in a high-paying field. Their perspectives, their friends, and my knowing people of all ages who live in Cambridge, many of whom rent or have high mortgages, inform my views on housing.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Stanislav Rivkin
I am a renter; I grew up low-income and lived in subsidized housing as a child. These experiences drive my passion to support working families, including through affordable housing.
Do you rent or own?: Rent
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: Yes
Zion Sherin
My personal experience with housing in Cambridge has shaped a lot of how I see the city’s challenges and opportunities. As a young person, I’ve felt how difficult moving and finding an apartment can be. That perspective has given me a deeper appreciation for the struggles renters face, whether it’s uncertainty about rising costs, limited protections, or the constant pressure of displacement.
Do you rent or own?: Rent
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Sumbul Siddiqui
I grew up in Cambridge affordable housing at the Rindge Towers, now known as Fresh Pond Apartments, and in fifth grade, I moved to Roosevelt Towers in Wellington-Harrington/East Cambridge, where my parents still live. This personal experience in Cambridge has been a guiding force in my decision to run for City Council and continue serving. Through my work with residents in public and subsidized housing, I have built strong relationships that have shaped my policy priorities. Many of the decisions I make are informed by the voices and needs of these community members.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: Yes
E. Denise Simmons
I was born and raised in Cambridge and have seen firsthand how housing costs have transformed our city. Many longtime residents cannot afford to stay. I co sponsored the policy order to end exclusionary single family zoning because I recognize that we’re losing many folks in our community because of the cost of housing. Chairing and co-chairing the Housing Committee across multiple terms, I have heard from families waiting for years on an affordable housing wait list that now numbers around 10,000 households. These experiences drive me to push for policies that increase supply, protect tenants and preserve the social fabric of our neighborhoods.
Do you rent or own?: Rent
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: Yes
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 and Boston DSA 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 City Council does.
Do you rent or own?: Rent
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: Yes
Louise Venden
I lived on Chester Street for 2 years in the 1990's, became a skilled housing advocate in pulic office elsewhere, and voiced my support for effective housing policies at City Council meetings and Town Halls.I l rented for a year at Avalon Elevate in 2016 abd got to know Cambridge Crossing. I presented information to Cambridge City Councilors via email and attempted to gain appointment to the Cambridge Planning Board. I joined ABC to promote building more housing here.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Ayesha Wilson
Growing up as the oldest of three girls, in a single parent Jamaican immigrant household in Jefferson Park in Cambridge, I witnessed first hand the socioeconomic barriers that families face. My mother worked hard to save money and give us experiences beyond Cambridge to break the stigma of being “project kids.” Despite her efforts, we often faced food insecurity and made many sacrifices to keep healthy food on the table.
Having a low income is incredibly difficult. For young children, these financial struggles can create traumatic moments that many may not understand, but it is something I can relate to. We don’t always consider how these experiences affect children, who are often left to endure them alone. These early struggles fueled my passion for advocacy, particularly for children and families facing similar hardships.
I was inspired to run for School Committee, which I served for 4 years, after witnessing injustices in the education system as a Teacher Counselor at CRLS. Serving during the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the challenges our most vulnerable learners faced and opened my eyes to broader issues like mental health, housing, food insecurity and after school needs for students with special learning needs. When time passed and three City Council seats opened, I asked myself, “If not now, then when? And if not me, then who?” I ran to ensure all residents, especially the most vulnerable, have a voice at the table—because without that voice, their needs are often overlooked. I want to represent all residents of Cambridge, specifically Cambridge’s youth and our most marginalized residents.
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: Yes
Cathie Zusy
My housing experience didn’t inspire by decision to run for City Council. I knew that my track record of community activism could help propel the Council forward.
Thirty years ago, My husband and I purchased our first home in Cambridgeport, paying more than we’d budgeted. Previously, we had both been renters. I am sensitive to the need for entry level housing opportunities for both renters and prospective homeowners. When we first moved to this area, we each rented rooms and small apartments for $450 and $650 a month—not the three or four thousand that a one-bedroom apartment costs now. I could manage this rent as a research assistant at the MFA and live comfortably. I realize that this is no longer the case.
I have never lived in public or subsidized housing. In my twenties, I did live in “naturally affordable units,” old housing stock, often attics!
Do you rent or own?: Own
Have you ever lived in public or subsidized housing?: No
Ayah Al-Zubi
Generally Yes
I would have preferred the 3+3 option because it was projected to produce even more inclusionary units than what we ended up with. But, I believe we ended up in a reasonable place and I would not vote to undo it. However, I would support reasonable amendments that address environmental concerns and I want to make sure our inclusionary zoning percentage does not decrease.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally No
Burhan Azeem
Yes
I was the main sponsor of this legislation along with my colleague Cllr. Sumbul Siddiqui
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Yes
Dana Bullister
Yes
Yes, I strongly support keeping Cambridge's new multifamily zoning in place. Undoing decades of exclusionary zoning was a historic step forward for housing justice and economic opportunity in our city.
For too long, our zoning code effectively banned apartments across much of Cambridge, leaving most of the land available only for single-family homes or small duplexes. This made housing scarce, drove up rents, and excluded many lower- and middle-income families, young people, and seniors from being able to live here. The reform passed in early 2025 opens the door for more homes, which means more opportunities for people to put down roots, access jobs, and participate in our civic and cultural life.
At the same time, we must pair zoning reform with strong affordability measures, tenant protections, and community investment. Legalizing multifamily housing is not the only step, but it is a necessary foundation. By keeping this change, Cambridge is affirming its commitment to inclusivity, sustainability, and fairness.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Yes
Tim Flaherty
Generally No
A city-wide zoning policy that allows 4 story construction on any size lot, on any street in the city, as of right, and 6 story construction on lots of 5,000 feet, fails to recognize and appreciate the leverage the city has over developers in granting variances to appropriate housing developments. Creating this relief as of right, while politically expedient, is an abdication of governmental responsibility. Cambridge has unilaterally allowed developers an opportunity to manipulate the zoning for profit.
This up-zoning seeks to spur affordable housing, yet it incentivizes the creation of luxury units. Real estate developers are not altruistic, they are profit-seeking. The inclusionary requirements can easily be avoided while constructing luxury condos throughout the city.
To guarantee the construction of more affordable housing, the city must create incentives.
A better and more effective way to increase affordable housing is to incentivize the repurposing of vacant office buildings into affordable housing, examining city-owned buildings and property for the development of Municipal Housing which prioritizes home rental and/or ownership of Municipal Housing for essential city workers such as teachers, police, and fire, or Cambridge families that are in the process of being displaced.
I also support incentivizing the development of Accessory Dwellings Units throughout the City with tax credits, grants, and low-interest loans. I support the creation of a Cambridge First Home Ownership Program that provides below-market rate mortgages for qualified Cambridge families. I support the development of dense housing in corridors and other appropriate locations within walking distance to MBTA stations.
Cambridge can, and must, create more middle-class housing.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Yes
Peter Hsu
Generally Yes
I believe the multifamily housing zoning changes are intended to decrease living cost for Cambridge residents which is an extremely important consideration and something near and dear to my heart. However, as Cambridge is already pretty densely populated, what we have seen is the demolishment of existing buildings, many of them with rental units in order to have some new multifamily developments, and this phenomenon unfortunately leads to renter displacement. In addition, unintended effects on neighboring solar panels and increased demand for parking have become issues for many. Therefore, I believe any future buildings greater than three stories should require review by somebody that allows professional input by one of the city volunteer committees and no new project that does not add TWO PLUS NEW units should be allowed to incorporate the new up-zoning criteria.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally Yes
Ned Melanson
Yes
For over a hundred years, Cambridge implemented zoning that made it harder to build housing. Conspicuously, it was even harder to build in some neighborhoods than others. For example, our now-beloved triple-deckers, among many other buildings, were deemed illegal years after they were built.
Before City Council undid exclusionary zoning, construction hadn’t halted. Instead, we saw many cases of downconversions, leading to gigantic mansions or townhomes. Cambridge’s population has been going up, but the housing stock had been whittling down.
We have a full-blown crisis. No one tool will fix it all, but this one matters, and more importantly, it lays the foundation for gradual improvements over time.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Yes
Marc McGovern
Yes
During my term as mayor (2018-2019) my office conducted a study on the history of zoning in Cambridge. That report clearly outlined the history of racist and classist zoning in our community. Certain areas, mostly west of Harvard Square, were deemed “desirable” and zoning was enacted to exclude multi-family housing, which was more affordable, from being built. Other areas, mostly east of Harvard Square, were deemed as less or not desirable and that is where density was allowed. This put most of the multi family housing, which was less expensive, in certain neighborhoods. This zoning divided our city. It created gated neighborhoods, not with iron fences, but through zoning. I wasn’t around when that was done, but I am around today, and if I didn’t take steps to undue that ugly history, then I would be endorsing it. I am proud that this Council undid that wrong.
The other reason the Multi-Family Housing Ordinance is important is because we have a housing shortage. We need to build more housing. When you take Cambridge’s small geographical size, take out the property that Harvard, MIT, and the city owns, as well as Fresh Pond, Danahy Park, Cambridge Common etc., we do not have a lot of land to build on. We must build taller buildings if we are going to addressing our housing needs. Cambridge engaged in a city-wide visioning process, called Envision Cambridge. The housing group from that process recommended, among other things, that Cambridge build 12,500 new units of housing. That is impossible if we are only building single, two and three family homes. We don’t have the space. If we are going to come close to that number, then we need taller buildings. By passing this ordinance, we struck a balance. We will be building much taller buildings in our square and corridors, and slightly taller buildings in our neighborhoods, working toward reaching our goal.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally Yes
Patty Nolan
Yes
I voted for the zoning change, since I have long wanted to allow multi-family zoning across the city and was the first with Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler to get the process of exploring ending single-family-only zones with a policy order that five years later ultimately led to the ordinance this year. I worked to forge the compromise that passed. I know some wanted more aggressive reform - I am glad we found a compromise. However, I would support a 3+3, which I voted for and did not pass- failing by one vote. And we should explore whether the green space is sufficient to protect against urban heat islands. I have also worked and proposed that we consider if solar can be protected without impeding building. A key reason I supported 3+3 is that it had more potential to produce more middle-income housing, since the incentive to tear down 3 families was less, so one could build next to a 3-family instead of producing bigger units without increasing the number of units.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Yes
Stanislav Rivkin
Generally No
I oppose the zoning as passed. First, I would like to see some percentage of inclusionary units to be required and accessible for folks below 50% AMI. I would also like to see the overall inclusionary unit minimum raised, and required (at a lower percentage) for developments of 7-9 units. Finally, there are certain components such as parking and setback minimums that can be decided on a neighborhood basis, in a brief but meaningful consultation with the community, rather than by right.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: No
Zion Sherin
Generally No
I supported expanding multifamily zoning in ways that reflect Cambridge’s character, such as triple-deckers and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These types of housing increase supply while fitting naturally into our neighborhoods.
What I do not support is allowing large apartment buildings to be built by-right without careful planning. For developments of that scale, we need to ensure they are designed thoughtfully, that city infrastructure and services can handle the increased demand, and that tenants’ needs, not just developers’ profits, are considered.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally No
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes
I am glad to have been part of this effort as the Housing Committee Co-Chair. Cambridge’s multifamily housing zoning changes have expanded development opportunities by allowing more diverse housing types beyond single- and two-family homes across the city. The reforms simplify the approval process by permitting certain additions and enlargements without requiring dimensional relief, while also making dimensional requirements more flexible to encourage development.
It is still too early to know exactly how these changes will play out, but they were necessary because we had to ask ourselves: Are we willing to accept the status quo, where housing opportunities are limited and we perpetuate exclusionary zoning? This zoning reform is one important tool for creating more housing in the city, helping to increase access for residents of different incomes and life stages.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally Yes
E. Denise Simmons
Yes
Ending single‑family zoning is an important step toward a more inclusive city. I supported this legislation because it eliminates artificial barriers that have kept families out and gives us another tool to address our housing shortage. By allowing four‑story buildings citywide and incentivizing six‑story buildings when 20% of units are affordable, we can create more homes while maintaining design guidelines and open space. This change must be coupled with strict affordability requirements and tenant protections so that growth benefits those most at risk of displacement.
.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally No
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes
The triple-decker I live in, which was built several decades ago, was until this year illegal to build in much of the city. In multiple zoning districts, the previous zoning prohibited 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 allowed multi-family housing under the previous zoning, my apartment likely couldn’t have been built today because of the set-back and minimum lot-size requirements prohibited 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 previous zoning encouraged existing housing, including more affordable triple-deckers and apartments, to 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 was previously only possible to build mostly expensive single-unit housing. Cambridge’s Multi-Family Housing Ordinance does that. And it has been exciting to see the ordinance become an inspiration for other cities—including our neighbor Somerville.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally Yes
Louise Venden
Generally Yes
MHF has enabled making our neighborhoods home to more diverse residents of all incomes, old, young, families and retired people. MFH has generated heated disputes in neighborhoods and lawsuits with the HDC and Conservation Commision imposing control. The HDC and CC should not be imposing their discretion, but the CDD should use their neighborhood plans to engage residents in more active roles in reviewing housing proposals. One size and style does not fit all in this City where neighborhoods engage both long term residents and newcomers eager to live here long term. A variety of housing sizes in all neighborhoods will help us engage in more productive conversations and actions to realize our goals.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Yes
Ayesha Wilson
Generally Yes
I support the Multifamily Housing Zoning because it creates more housing availability and affordability in previously restricted areas. This decision is one of the first steps to help address the ongoing housing crisis we are facing that has been disproportionately displacing many low-income, immigrant families out of the city.
However, I did present a 3+3 zoning option, which would produce more affordability and had more consensus with community groups. Unfortunately, it did not pass within the council. I would be open to revisiting if we know we can win that vote.
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Generally Yes
Cathie Zusy
No
No. I recognize the need to ignite housing production, but disagree with this blanket upzoning. We can not rely on private developers to build our affordable housing and since there is an insatiable demand for housing in Cambridge, this zoning change will and has already enabled luxury housing production while increasing property values, and displacing the residents it was intended to serve. The as of right zoning has set neighbor against neighbor, and developer against neighbor, stripping homeowners of open space, trees, light, air and solar array protections. We can certainly find better ways to develop housing without allowing disrupting our neighborhoods. Envision Cambridge recommended preserving our neighborhoods and focusing development on the corridors and in transition districts. Transition districts are often on the edges of neighborhoods, adjacent to parking lots and low rise industrial buildings. Why are we doing the exact opposite?
Would you support adjusting the program if the study finds it is not working as intended?: Yes
The City’s current inclusionary zoning requires that 20% of square footage in new construction of more than 10,000 square feet be rented or sold at below market rates, one of the strictest in the nation. Done well, inclusionary zoning can reduce segregation and add more affordable homes, but done poorly, it can render urgently-needed new housing unviable and drive up housing costs While waiting on a fuller study next year, CDD outlined several options for the Council to consider in the near term, including:
How can Cambridge’s inclusionary zoning program be improved? Would you support adjusting the program if the study found that it is not working as intended?
Ayah Al-Zubi
I strongly support keeping the 20% requirement. The change I would support is finding a way to make the ordinance apply to projects that are less than 10 units. For example, the project across the street from Vice Mayor McGovern’s house should contain inclusionary units. We should not have allowed that to be built without any inclusionary units at all. The zoning was passed with a broad coalition on the back of projections that assumed 20% and I find it troubling that some councillors began an effort to lower the percentage mere weeks after it passed. We have seen a number of inclusionary housing projects enter the pipeline in recent months, indicating that the zoning amendments are working as intended and 20% is indeed feasible,even in these most difficult economic conditions. We should not lower the percentage on the basis that a few individual developers have claimed that they are not able to make enough of a profit off of one of their projects. Thus, I strongly oppose temporarily easing the requirement or using Affordable Housing Trust funds to assist for-profit developers. I am open to a tax rebate or reduced permitting fees, but generally I prefer a wait-and-see approach. I will certainly review the study and take it into account, but there is, currently, no evidence to suggest that the program cannot work. Our economic conditions are changing and lowering the percentage will set an exclusivity precedent for the kind of city we hope to build. I will be thinking longer term as I make this decision.
Burhan Azeem
It's important to have integration and politically powerful to say that every new building has incomes for low income residents. I would try and make inclsuionary not hinder housing production by paying for it through a tax abatement.
Dana Bullister
Yes, I would support adjusting the inclusionary zoning program if the CDD study finds it is not working as intended. Inclusionary zoning is one of Cambridge's strongest tools for producing affordable housing and we need to ensure that it delivers on its promise. We should first evaluate whether the program's 20% set-aside is best calibrated for producing the most added affordable units. A threshold that is too low can result in too few affordable units. A threshold that is too high can comprise a burden so onerous that it prevents almost all new construction—including that of affordable units—thus also reducing affordability. I believe we should choose a threshold that maximizes the number of added affordable homes. Our government has the responsibility to do its homework to ensure this happens so that we can maximize affordability in our community. Finally, we need to pair inclusionary zoning with other strategies that include streamlined permitting, public land for housing, state-level funding, and stronger tenant protections so that it is part of a comprehensive housing approach. Inclusionary zoning is essential, but it cannot be the only tool we rely on to address Cambridge's affordability crisis.
Tim Flaherty
Any inclusionary program that relies entirely on the private sector, without government grants, low-interest loans, or tax rebates, etc., is deficient because it fails to recognize that development is strictly profit driven. The requirement that 20% of units be sold or rented at 50%-80% of the AMI necessarily increases construction costs and incentives the development of less housing units at a higher price point to deliberately avoid the inclusionary requirement and maximize profits. Inclusionary housing can be developed through a Municipal Housing program or with financial vehicles that are tied to the inclusionary aspect of the development. However, because the current inclusionary zoning is as of right, it has eliminated the city's power to grant variances when appropriate and further tie the variance to an inclusionary requirement, and an aspirational goal, to the award of a financial vehicles to fund the project and stabilize investments.
Peter Hsu
First and foremost, by having regular, unbiased market feasibility studies that require developers to participate. In addition, I believe we also need to push much harder for the City to build on its own land (affordable housing, parking lots, etc) and work with supermarkets to build over them. Furthermore, we can and should prioritize Cambridge residents and certain occupations like teachers, nurses, firefighters, social workers, case manages, police, veterans etc.
Ned Melanson
I’m in favor of tweaking the program if it results in more IZ units and market rate units getting built. To quote more than one sitting City Councillor, “20% of 0 is still 0.” We should be judged on results, not grandstanding--so I want to see what CDD comes up with.
Marc McGovern
Cambridge's IZ percentage was 11.5%. I was one of the leaders, along with Councillor Simmons, to increase that percentage to 20%. I am not eager to reduce that percentage. However, I do understand that a 20% subsidy requirement, paid entirely by the developer, is a significant expense, and that in the current market has contributed to less housing being built. 20% of zero is zero, so we must be willing to look at the possibility of reducing that percentage but it would not be my first choice. There are many reasons why building housing is financially challenging. Interest rates, tariffs, construction costs, are all playing a significant role. If I thought that lowering the IZ percentage alone would spark a wave of housing development, then that may make a difference, but I don't think that is the case. I would support other measures including tax incentives and abatements, creating some type of accelerated program like in Boston, even issuing housing bonds to help with financing before cutting IZ in half. Now, the City is engaging in a Nexus study. The Nexus study is our legal justification to set the IZ percentage. If that study comes back and says we need to lower the percentage, then that becomes a different conversation because our program needs to be legally sound. That study will come back next year and we will see what it says.
Patty Nolan
It depends on the results of the study. We have seen several recent projects stalled with the IZ stated as the reason hundreds of housing units are not being built, and if the study finds that this is indeed the case and that adjusting the city’s IZ policy would help then I am certainly open to what the study finds, and I am open to a tiered system, where smaller projects have a lower percent and only the largest projects have the highest percent. Assuming that is what will get more housing built, and is legal to do. In the meantime, I am open to supporting the two projects currently on hold that are close to permitting and cannot get financing - 745 Concord Ave and 2400 Mass Ave. For those projects, the city should consider having the Affordable Housing Trust [AHT] use some funds for equity investment - to get the projects started. And see if that model of using some AHT funds as soft equity can produce more housing. I am also open to tax incentives and reduced permitting fees.
Stanislav Rivkin
The study is premature and will not collect sufficient data upon which to draw legitimate conclusions. We live in an anomalous economic moment, characterized in this context by high interest rates and a President who makes petulant economic decisions resulting in price instability for many construction goods. As a result of this unpredictability, a brief sample of time will not provide us with necessary clarity regarding how inclusionary rates will impact housing construction in the future. I do not support lowering the inclusionary percentage. We can improve the program by allowing folks below 50% AMI to qualify for inclusionary units. I am open to offering incentives such as tax rebates or reduced permitting fees, as well as low-interest financing vehicles.
Zion Sherin
I believe it is critical to protect and expand affordable housing in Cambridge. Reducing our inclusionary housing percentage would undermine that goal in the long run. Mayor Wu in Boston has expressed that keeping it at 20% is both possible and necessary, and I believe Cambridge should be able to do the same. I am open to exploring models like Washington, D.C., which use tiered percentages to ensure affordability for households across different income levels, not just those near the median. However, I would only support a change if it truly helps Cambridge residents, not if it simply increases profits for large developers.
Sumbul Siddiqui
I agree with many of the questions the Council and others have sent to the Community Development Department in thinking about how to improve the program:
• A range of set-aside requirements, including those with requirements under the current
20% (e.g. 10% to 15% of net residential floor area);
• a set-aside ratio that varies based on building size;
• the impact of setting affordable rents based on affordability targets (e.g. 60% or 65% of
AMI) rather than rents calculated as 30% of actual tenant household income on
development financial feasibility;
• reducing the threshold for compliance with inclusionary requirements from 10 units or
10,000 s.f. to 6 or 8 units;
• the feasibility and advisability of a variable set-aside requirement (with set maximum and
minimum requirements) which could adapt to different market conditions.
Thinking carefully about how we treat smaller versus larger projects is especially important. In some cities, smaller developers are allowed to make a payment in lieu of building on-site units when meeting the requirement isn’t financially feasible. Considering a similar approach in Cambridge could help encourage additional development while still expanding the city’s stock of affordable housing.
E. Denise Simmons
First, maintain the 20% requirement but offer flexibility for deeper affordability tiers, such as allowing projects to reach 25% in exchange for height bonuses. Second, expedite reviews for inclusionary projects and provide early guidance so developers know what is expected. Third, expand direct funding through the Affordable Housing Trust; Cambridge already invests more than $40 million per year, but additional capital could possibly help make marginal projects viable. Finally, couple inclusionary zoning with tenant selection reforms and broader eviction protections.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
The City’s current Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance has successfully created more than a thousand affordable homes, but there are also ways it can be improved. For example, the current ordinance requires that any housing with 10 units or more include 20% affordable but does not require that any housing with fewer than 10 units have any affordability requirement. This has resulted in Cambridge having more developments with just under 10 units and significantly fewer developments with just over 10 units than the city would have otherwise. One way Cambridge could address this disparity is by adding a step function into the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. For buildings with fewer units, the inclusionary zoning requirement could require five, ten, or fifteen percent to be affordable. For larger buildings where the current 20% IZ requirement has been successful, it could remain the same. And for very large buildings, the requirement could be even greater than 20%. By adding in a step function, Cambridge could create more affordable homes, and more housing total, than are being built currently. Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance also mandates that developments with more than 10 units meet the IZ requirements by building affordable units on-site rather than allowing an in-lieu payment to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust, which is an approach other cities have allowed. While I generally think this makes sense due to Cambridge’s high land costs, for smaller developments where it is impossible for a development to meet the current requirement through on-site units and pencil out, it may make sense to allow payments to the Affordable Housing Trust for smaller developments since the purpose of inclusionary zoning requirements is to encourage new affordable units to be built.
Louise Venden
Dramatically increased financing and construction costs have made many affordable projects financially unfeasible, We need to survey affordable housing developers of the many stalled projects in the pipeline and find out if a Boston Style Accelerator Program with MAssHousing support, direct City investment in public/private partnerships, District Improvement Districts or increasing funding through the Affordable Housing Trust will help. It is likely that all these tools will be required to address the specific challenges developers face. Adoption and State approval of a Housing Trust to fund projects for middle income and low income Cambridge residents and workers would enable targetting support for the lost middle and be limited to residents and people who work here.
Ayesha Wilson
I want to strengthen Cambridge’s inclusionary zoning program by increasing the current requirement that 20% of square footage in new construction be rented or sold at below-market rates. While I recognize that this is already one of the strictest zoning requirements in the country and many developers want that percentage to be lower, the reality is that housing is still extremely expensive. We, as the city of Cambridge, can and must do better. Twenty percent is not enough to meet the urgent need for affordable housing. Respectfully, I believe we should raise this requirement while also increasing contributions to both our community benefits fund and our affordable housing trust, so that AHO developers can build more and serve the residents who need it most.
Cathie Zusy
Yes. I am open to lowering the inclusionary percentage required but only if CDD’s spring report suggests that this is necessary and not for MFH Ordinance projects. With the MFH Ordinance, we have already given developers extraordinary bonuses by allowing greater heights, removing Floor Area Ratio restrictions, reducing open space requirements, eliminating any parking space minimums and allowing as of right construction. We should not reward them further for the havoc and uncertainty they are creating. I am more sympathetic to larger development projects on corridors, e.g., 2400 Mass. Ave., which is well designed and won neighborhood support. Note: I think it will be several months before we see the effect of the Trump administration’s assault on our education, science, health and technology sectors and its impact on our housing needs. We should wait until CDD issues its full report before reducing the inclusionary percentage.
Although some barriers to new housing are outside the city’s control (e.g., high interest rates, construction costs), what else can Cambridge do to kickstart more housing construction? Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?
Ayah Al-Zubi
Let’s pursue a social housing pilot by establishing a revolving loan fund and issuing a bond order of at least $50 million. This would create hundreds of units across the city at all income levels, including market rate.
We also need to increase funding. There are many strategies to pursue. Some are at the state level, like the real estate transfer fee. Another is to negotiate a strong PILOT agreement with Harvard (and MIT!). Some of the PILOT funds should be directly allocated into the new social housing revolving loan fund.
I also support raising Cambridge’s property tax levy because our residential taxes are half of Somerville’s and some of the lowest in the region because commercial properties are taxed at a much higher rate than homes. That means when the levy goes up, most of the increase is automatically paid by commercial developers, not residents. By modestly raising the levy, we can bring in millions in new revenue while keeping the impact on residents minimal, a fair and sustainable way to fund affordable housing and protect our communities.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally No
Burhan Azeem
The biggest barriers are still the process steps like the historical/conservation districts that are stopping projects and creating a lot of legal uncertainty.
I’m also very supportive of public-sector financing to expand mixed-income housing production and would love to finance social housing.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally Yes
Dana Bullister
Cambridge can and must do more to make it feasible to build the homes our community urgently needs. While broader economic factors are largely beyond our control, we can reduce local barriers that make housing harder and more expensive to build.
First, we should continue to streamline our permitting and approval processes so that projects don't get bogged down in delays and administrative overhead that add cost and uncertainty. We can also incentivize the reuse of underutilized commercial and institutional sites for housing, helping adapt our built environment to today’s needs. Targeted tax incentives or fee reductions can help unlock projects that would otherwise be financially marginal.
I also support seeking to legalize mid-rise single-stair housing in Massachusetts to further reduce outdated restrictions on providing greatly needed homes. This constitutes unnecessary red tape that does not improve safety but does increase construction costs by 15–25%, depressing the construction of small and mid-sized developments. Allowing this would open up new, more affordable forms of housing that fit well in Cambridge's neighborhoods.
Finally, Cambridge should deepen its partnerships with nonprofit developers, community land trusts, and state agencies to layer financing tools and maximize affordable housing production. We must ensure that our zoning reforms are paired with practical support for projects to actually break ground.
In short, Cambridge cannot control the macroeconomy, but we can control how hostile our local rules are to new homes. By cutting unnecessary red tape and aligning incentives, we can kickstart the needed housing provision that keeps our community livable and inclusive.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
Tim Flaherty
The City of Cambridge can develop Municipal Housing. I recognize that our operational and capital budgets are at capacity, and the softening of the commercial property tax base may lead to a shift of increased burdens to the residential tax base, but the city has an opportunity. I believe that the city should explore purchasing the Riverview condo building that is earmarked for demolition. I believe the city should engage in discussions with the state to determine if the state rainy-day fund is available in this emergency situation, determine what financial contributions the state is prepared to make towards its MBTA housing goals, and the city should also explore a public-private partnership between the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and one of the region's most significant builders (Suffolk, Gilbane, Turner) to develop Municipal Housing. This project, although very complicated, could serve as a pilot program.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally No
Peter Hsu
For the short-term, I would push to have any new lab or office space be readily convertible to housing, by adding specific criteria. In the long run, along the main arteries within the City, I favor bringing density bonuses back along with providing other compliance options in order to allow developers to have more flexibility.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally Yes
Ned Melanson
I'd advocate for funded/subsidized inclusionary zoning. One example of a program like this is in Chicago, where they enacted the Green Social Housing Ordinance. This created a publicly managed fund that provides low-cost financing and equity investments for developing affordable, mixed-income housing. I believe that we cannot sit by and hope that the market provides affordable housing--we need to fund it and invest in it ourselves as a city.
Beyond funded IZ projects, I'd advocate for more social housing projects run by the Cambridge Housing Authority. There are still plenty of unused or underutilized lots in Cambridge, city-owned and privately-owned, that could be better utilized as social housing. This will require increased investment from the City, but I believe it is of vital importance to increase our affordable housing supply. Our property tax system in Cambridge could use some reform, but if the right progressive changes are made, we can ensure there is revenue to fund social housing projects for the long-term. Social housing has the added benefit of acting like a "public option" that private landlords must compete with, helping moderate rents.
I think reducing permitting fees is an easy win in this case, though, of course, it does not go far enough. Reducing barriers like demolition delays, historical preservation, and neighborhood conservation district processes, and/or making these processes run simultaneously rather than staggered can do a lot to reduce the permitting time for a project. Overall, we need to find the right balance between community input, regulation/permitting, and the time it takes to get shovels in the ground on a housing project. In the current volatile economic climate, every month a project is delayed risks sinking the entire thing.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
Marc McGovern
As stated above, we can look at tax incentives, abatements, bonds, and the city helping to offset the cost of development through funding support. We already made a significant decision to help reduce development costs by eliminating the parking requirement, so looking at other zoning changes that may help offset costs will be important. We also need to streamline our permitting process so that projects can move forward more quickly. Added delay costs money and can lead to projects being abandoned, or so significantly downsized that we lose needed units.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
Patty Nolan
This is a regional issue, and I believe we need to focus especially on increasing our supply of affordable and income-restricted housing. Here are some potential models and strategies for kickstarting that growth:
-The use of Boston’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule for zoning which will ensure new housing while taking into consideration the effects on local communities that have historically been discriminated against.
-Support the adoption of a real estate transfer tax up to 2% on new sales of real estate above the city-wide median sale price of $1.1 million and direct proceeds to the Cambridge-only Affordable Housing Trust.
-Push for limited equity co-ops, community land trusts, and publicly-funded social housing focused on permanent affordability, social equality, and democratic resident control.
-Review all our permitting and ordinances for inconsistencies and contradictions. We can streamline our processes without compromising our climate goals.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
Stanislav Rivkin
I support of a Housing Acceleration Fund, which should be used for both private and public projects, with priority given to Social Housing developments and 100% affordable housing developments. Potentially as a separate vehicle, we must issue substantial bonds to capitalize these developments.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally Yes
Zion Sherin
I would support the city leveraging its excellent bond rating to secure loans that could be directed to nonprofits committed to building 100% affordable housing. This approach would allow Cambridge to expand affordable housing opportunities while keeping long-term community needs ahead of developer profits.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally Yes
Sumbul Siddiqui
While some barriers to new housing, like high interest rates and construction costs, are beyond the City’s control, Cambridge has some tools to encourage development. The City can continue to leverage zoning, permitting, and development requirements to support housing construction, as we have already begun to do. Additional strategies could include offering tax incentives to lower operating costs and improve project feasibility, providing capital support such as low-interest loans or preferred equity to help developers close financing gaps, reducing or exempting building permit fees for multifamily projects, and advocating for changes to building code requirements—such as legalizing mid-rise single-stair buildings. According to a recent Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies report, allowing single-stair buildings up to six stories could significantly expand housing supply, reduce construction costs, and improve design flexibility while maintaining safety standards.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
E. Denise Simmons
• Expand city acquisitions: Continue purchasing sites for 100% affordable projects and use eminent domain when long‑vacant lots hinder progress.
• Streamline permitting: Reduce unnecessary delays, especially from historic reviews, while maintaining genuine preservation.
• Increase funding: Continue to monitor linkage fees and explore housing bonds or revolving funds.
• Eliminate remaining barriers: We have already removed minimum lot sizes, caps on unit counts and parking minimums; further reforms could include tax abatements for projects that exceed affordability thresholds.
• Support nonprofit and cooperative models: Provide technical assistance and gap funding for community land trusts and limited‑equity co‑ops to develop permanently affordable housing.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally Yes
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Reduce building permit fees -- especially for affordable housing developments, streamline the permitting process, and advocate for improvements to the state building code that currently prevent the creation of more affordable housing.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
Louise Venden
Cambridge needs a comprehensive Housing Needs Study in order to determine the size, amenities, rent vs own and location needs of residents ike the one done by the UMAss Amherst Donahue Institute for the Cape Cod Commission. Do we need more studios, one bedrooms, two or three bedrooms what amenities are most important and what area has the greatest demand based on where people want to live? These data should be used to offer developers guidance or market research and to prioritize City funding support for projects. Cambridge needs an Accelerator Program, increased funding for the Affordable Trust, establishment of a Housing Trust to provide direct funding for public/private partnerships aimed exclusively at housing for Cambridge residents and people working here. Projects funded through the Housing Trust should include ownership projects targetting the lost middle who have fewer housing options. Adoption of these tools must require followup measures of their effectiveness in moving projects forward and getting housing actully built. The city could also offer a Lease to Locals program where people hosting Airbnb rentals are offered stipends to rent to year round tenants covering part of the net revenues they receive from short term rentals. Passing ambitious laws opening doors like the AHO has not created the number of housing units needed in the five years it has been law. Developlers want to develop. Let's help them.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
Ayesha Wilson
I believe that increasing contributions to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, discussing reviews of the Multifamily Zoning, and perhaps revisiting 3+3 zoning, can help us produce more housing. Additional funding for the Trust would support non-market-rate development, building on its long-standing commitment to creating high-quality, well-integrated housing that will remain affordable for future generations.
Being sure to have annual reviews of the current zoning, celebrate areas of success and understand the areas of challenges.
I also want to revisit the 3+3 multifamily housing zoning. There was overwhelming community support for this zoning because it would create some of the most affordable housing possible in Cambridge, but unfortunately it did not pass. I would be open to bringing it back if we know we can win that vote, as it would expand affordability and build consensus with community groups.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Generally Yes
Cathie Zusy
I have proposed repeatedly that the City establish a Cambridge Housing Production Fund – possibly paid for by our local universities, banks, corporations and philanthropic individuals. Like Boston’s Housing Accelerator Fund, Montgomery County, MD’s Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund, and Chattanooga, TN’s Affordable Housing PILOT program, it would lower the cost of short-term financing to developers, lowering the overall cost of development to preserve or build new affordable housing.
I also think that neighborhoods should be engaged in siting future affordable housing. In my own community of Cambridgeport I can identify many places—in transition districts identified by Envision Cambridge—where housing could be built to the benefit of the community.
Would you support a Housing Acceleration Fund similar to what Boston has created?: Yes
Cambridge requires approval by the Historical Commission for redevelopment of all buildings more than 50 years old - a large and growing majority of buildings in Cambridge. This process increases the time and cost to build new housing, often prohibitively. If the building is deemed historically significant and redevelopment approval is denied, redevelopment is delayed for a year after the decision, which the Historical Commission may seek to make permanent if the City Council agrees. When making its recommendations, the Cambridge Historical Commission heavily favors building preservation, finding most buildings presented to them historically significant. Is this the right balance? [Yes/Generally Yes/Generally Not/No]
Ayah Al-Zubi
Generally Yes
Burhan Azeem
No
Dana Bullister
No
Tim Flaherty
Generally No
Peter Hsu
Generally Yes
Ned Melanson
No
Marc McGovern
No
Patty Nolan
Generally No
Stanislav Rivkin
Generally Yes
Zion Sherin
Generally Yes
Sumbul Siddiqui
No
E. Denise Simmons
Generally No
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
No
Louise Venden
Generally No
Ayesha Wilson
Generally No
Cathie Zusy
Yes
In addition to the city-wide demolition delay, Cambridge has four neighborhood conservation districts (NCDs) that subject projects within their boundaries to further oversight. Despite being prohibited by law from restricting density, NCDs have nonetheless acted to delay and prohibit projects that would add new homes in the name of neighborhood character. Is this the right balance? [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No]
Ayah Al-Zubi
No
Burhan Azeem
No
Dana Bullister
No
Tim Flaherty
Generally Yes
Peter Hsu
Generally No
Ned Melanson
No
Marc McGovern
No
Patty Nolan
Generally No
Stanislav Rivkin
Generally Yes
Zion Sherin
Yes
Sumbul Siddiqui
No
E. Denise Simmons
Generally No
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
No
Louise Venden
No
Ayesha Wilson
No
Cathie Zusy
Yes
Cambridge’s approach to historical preservation focuses almost exclusively on preserving buildings rather than preserving communities, whose members are being displaced by a shortage of homes and rising housing costs. What can Cambridge do to strike the right balance between preserving its people and its historical buildings?
Ayah Al-Zubi
Cambridge cannot scale biotech and luxury housing indefinitely without consequences. Up zoning alone doesn’t solve displacement; it can accelerate gentrification by inflating land values and fueling speculation. Our land is being auctioned to the highest bidder while working-class residents pay the price. Preserving our people means protecting communities: through piloting social housing, passing rent control at the ballot, and expanding municipal vouchers. It also means acknowledging the harm communities of color in Cambridge have faced for generations. I supported the 2023 changes that limited NCD power and believe they struck a good balance. I’m open to further adjustments to ensure that intent is upheld. While Cambridge’s neighborhoods have unique architectural and historical significance, preservation should meet a high bar. The 2023 amendments rightly added equity goals to the CHC’s purpose, broadening appreciation for historically marginalized individuals who’ve shaped our city. We now must live up to that commitment. I applaud the CHC’s support of the Spears project on Western Ave. Yes, we’re losing three nearly 200-year-old buildings with important pasts, but in exchange we gain 15 subsidized homes, including family-sized units. That means children who might otherwise be displaced can grow up here, attend our schools, and thrive. I’m more concerned about the Harriet Jacobs case. That building has an important history and it’s being preserved. In fact, restoration and public access will help tell that story better. While I wish the addition were all housing and not mostly hotel, it’s unfortunate that the CHC delayed it by accepting a landmark petition. If demolition were proposed, the situation would be different, but from a preservation standpoint, this plan has real merit. CHC should only intervene in truly exceptional cases when affordable housing is at stake. So far, none have met that bar. I’ll keep a close eye on this dynamic.
Burhan Azeem
We should link our preservation requirements to the national registrar of historic places. It provides a strong determination of what's gone through the process and been found historical before a development starts. I view the Harriet Jacobs House and 17 Story Street as a particularly representative case – here, we had a project that would have refurbished a historically significant house and made it a prominent part of a thoughtful new development. Many supported this, but others attacked any departure from the status quo. They passed a hostile landmarking study that is both preventing preservation and new homes.
Dana Bullister
Cambridge needs to do a better job balancing the preservation of its historic architecture with the preservation of its people and communities. Right now, our approach tilts too heavily toward protecting buildings while leaving residents vulnerable to displacement as housing costs rise. Under current rules, almost every building over 50 years old must go through Historical Commission review before it can be redeveloped. This means that the vast majority of buildings in Cambridge are subject to a process that increases cost and delay, often by a year or more. In practice, the Commission deems most buildings historically significant, making redevelopment difficult even when what we need most is more homes for people. Similarly, Neighborhood Conservation Districts, though legally prohibited from restricting density, have often delayed or blocked housing projects under the banner of preserving "character." This is not the right balance. Historical preservation should not be used as a back door to block new housing or to prioritize bricks and mortar over living communities. We can and should honor truly unique historic structures, but our first priority must be keeping Cambridge accessible, diverse, and inclusive. To strike the right balance, we should reform the preservation process so that it is more selective and focused on buildings of genuine, citywide significance. At the same time, we must recognize that preserving communities means ensuring people can afford to stay here. That requires allowing more housing—especially affordable housing—while reducing unnecessary procedural hurdles that drive up costs. Preservation should serve people, not the other way around. By narrowing the scope of preservation rules and focusing on both affordability and history, Cambridge can protect what is truly irreplaceable: the communities that make this city vibrant.
Tim Flaherty
A historic designation must require more than the building is simply 50 years old; a historic designation must be connected to an historic event, person, or movement, or the building itself is an example of period architecture that is becoming extinct. The process of designation must be based upon clear criteria and should be made on a regular schedule, i.e., the city should make a bi-annual review of existing structures in the 50-year-old range. However, NCDs are a vehicle through which public participation is mandated and are therefore necessary.
Peter Hsu
This is a tough question and I believe the answer is to find the right balance among views of various neighborhoods, perspectives of developers, and the City's aim in representing and advocating for the most vulnerable populations in Cambridge that need housing. For the purpose of answering this question, I believe having a good definition of "historical" agreed upon by most residents and developers would be the most crucial step.
Ned Melanson
Cambridge is Cambridge because of its history, of its people and buildings. I’ve talked to petitioners, I’ve spoken with abutters while knocking doors, and have attended several of these commissions’ meetings. There are some simple things we can do to improve these processes that would benefit all sides and tone things down. For example: there’s separate “questions” vs “comments” phases to these meetings, and they’ve been blurred. Let’s overhaul meeting procedures so they look more like City Council meetings, and put written questions to petitioners and have those answered live. I suspect some of that could be done now and is uncontroversial--it wouldn’t diminish public input opportunity, and it would promote calm and orderliness. Importantly, it would make life easier on the staff who have to manage these contentious meetings. The public’s focus in these meetings has been largely about whether we should allow new housing in a handful of projects. I think it’s clear where I stand on that, but that's one small side of preservation--according to this summer’s Director’s Report, we’re not done digitizing our archives. We don’t even have a complete, searchable accounting of the CHC plaques in the city (also ongoing). It takes a long time not only for a petitioner to prepare an application, but to get before the Commissions themselves. At the same time, the amount of work piled on the professional CHC staff has skyrocketed. It doesn’t seem like we’re getting the outcomes the City Council wants. These Commissions should be about history preservation, grant determinations, education, and promotion--not leveraged as a new venue for abutter vetoes above and beyond historic concerns. In places where there’s ambiguity about the process, we should make that clearer and easier to understand for everybody. We have world-class historical commission staff and resources; I want their energy focused on documentation and education, not endless meetings.
Marc McGovern
Cambridge is an old city. We have a lot of history here that should be valued and protected, but the system we have is not the right balance. Every building over 50 years old should not be considered historic. There are many people who don't like the current, boxed shaped single family homes that are being built. I wonder what they would say in 50 years when someone on the Historical Commissions says, ""We need to protect these homes, they are perfect example of early 21st century, boxed architecture."" So, one thing I would do is roll back that requirement. Is it every home over 100 years, or 150 years, I'm not sure, we will have to have that discussion, but 50 years is less than my lifetime, that does not make a building historic. There is also vague criteria used to determine what is actually "historic," which leads to decisions that more based on the personal feelings of the individuals who are serving then on a fair and clear criteria. For example, the Commission uses three criteria for determining if a building is "significant": 1. The building is listed on the National Register. 2. It is “importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the city or the Commonwealth." 3. It is historically or architecturally significant in terms of period, style, construction method, or association with a notable architect or builder. While criteria (1) and (3) are relatively objective, the second half of criterion (2) is so broadly worded that it grants the Commission near-total discretion. This opens the door to decisions based on internal preferences, selective interpretation, or pre-existing agendas.
Patty Nolan
Cambridge should preserve truly historic buildings—and not all buildings fit that category. An example was the vote I took on the historic buildings that comprise the BB&N Lower School. The history is dear to me, since the place was one of the first to provide education for girls and has a wonderful history. And yet, the building which was recommended for landmarking by the Historical Commission did not, in my view, merit that designation, so I voted against the recommendation. And the petition failed, and the building, along with two others that had been subject to demolition delay, was allowed to be demolished. While that was not for housing, it is for educational purposes. Similarly, I will vote against landmarking the building at 45 Mt. Auburn since I believe it should not be landmarked. There are other buildings I would vote to preserve. The current process goes too far, sweeping in almost every structure over 50 years old and stalling housing we desperately need. We need a fairer, faster system that protects what’s truly significant without letting outdated rules block new housing and sustainability goals. Preserving neighborhood character is a legitimate concern, and I support NCDs existence. I also believe that NCDs sometimes go beyond their mandate and end up blocking or inhibiting the construction of housing or other building expansion. The current balance isn’t right—we must ensure NCDs protect true historic and cultural value without being used to delay or stop projects that add homes, promote sustainability, and advance equity. At the same time, we should not be dismissive of sincerely felt concerns that neighbors have about conservation/preservation and avoid caricaturing or villainizing them, which only ends up fueling more resentment and polarization.
Stanislav Rivkin
For educational, historical, and economic reasons (tourism), we should not destroy historic buildings, and the Cambridge Historical Commission must enforce standards for historical significance. Cambridge is home to some of the most significant historical sites and neighborhoods in the United States, preserving our country’s architectural and cultural heritage. NCDs should be able to restrict destruction of structures within their borders when said structures are deemed significant, and where the neighborhood has been largely preserved to this point. I do not believe they should block new constructions unless they demonstrate that an existing structure will be substantially impacted as a result. Regarding striking the right balance, how will private development not displace folks earning below 50% AMI? How will private construction in a particular neighborhood lower rental cost when the price per square foot in newer constructions is higher than the price per square foot of older buildings (naturally occurring “affordable” housing)? I do believe social housing, community land trusts, and an expansion of the municipal voucher program could keep communities together while preserving our existing buildings.
Zion Sherin
Development often goes hand-in-hand with gentrification. Across the country, we’ve seen local residents pushed out by new market-rate projects. Cambridge must take a different path, one that protects communities while still expanding housing. One solution is to create more incentives for historic homes to be converted into co-ops, giving residents collective ownership and stability. Another is to encourage thoughtful additions to existing buildings. A great example is right behind my apartment at 116 Norfolk, where the original building was preserved while the number of homes grew from about 20 units to over 60. This kind of approach allows us to increase housing supply without erasing our neighborhoods.
Sumbul Siddiqui
We need to consider what the true goal of preservation should be. The Historical Commission’s slide deck for the City Council shows that nearly all buildings deemed “not significant” between 1980 and 2025 were commercial or institutional, while residential properties are almost always subjected to historical review. The Commission’s criteria—particularly the language linking a building to the “broad architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history” of the city or Commonwealth—gives them broad discretion that can appear arbitrary. Although a few buildings have avoided delays, many residential owners never formally apply for demolition permits because the process is lengthy, costly, and opaque, favoring long-term owners or wealthier buyers. This system discourages small- and medium-scale development and constrains the pace of housing construction that recent zoning reforms were intended to support. If preservation truly valued communities as well as structures, proposals like the plan to preserve and enhance access to the Harriet Jacobs House would not be halted. Preservation decisions should be based on verifiable and thoughtful criteria the well-being of the communities.
E. Denise Simmons
We should refocus preservation on communities, not just structures. That means: (1) modernizing the demolition‑delay ordinance so it applies only to buildings with demonstrable historic significance; (2) making Historical Commission decisions advisory for projects that include significant affordable housing; (3) investing in documentation and public education so that, when a building is demolished, its history is preserved in archives or museums rather than in bricks; and (4) prioritizing anti‑displacement measures so residents can remain in the neighborhoods they helped build. Without housing, there will be no community left to appreciate preserved facades.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Cambridge’s current historical delay and revision criteria are not well defined and have actually led to the diminishment of neighborhood character and historical preservation in some cases. One example is the halting of a proposal to preserve and improve access to the Harriet Jacobs house, which would strengthen and increase community connection to the home of a famous Cambridge abolitionist. It is a prime example of the detail of a building’s structure being prioritized over access to the actual history and relationship to the people who live in it that make up a building’s true historical significance. Given that the main requirement for added delays and revisions in any development is that the current building is more than fifty years old, even the new developments currently being proposed—that are considered by some to be out of touch with the current neighborhood character—will themselves be protected fifty years from now. There should be more thoughtful and thorough criteria for historical significance and protection than just the age of a building.
Louise Venden
The Council must clarify HDC an NDC roles and specify features relevant to their review. In many places the HDC has been called the "pretty police", ignoring improvements in environmentally sound building materials, solar panels and attainment of other City goals like increasing housing development and implementing more permissive zoning ordinances. Many buildings over 50 years old have not been well maintained and windows, insulation and exterior fascades do not meet current environmental standards. Demolishing them generates environmental damage, but the new buildings offer decades of energy savings in addition to making homes for the hundreds of people pushed out of Cambridge each year.
Ayesha Wilson
I think having a committee meeting on this topic would be helpful. This would create space for community members, preservation advocates, and housing experts to come together and share perspectives. By including residents in the decision-making process, Cambridge can work toward solutions and create policies that address both historical preservation and housing affordability.
Cathie Zusy
Since the MFH Ordinance passed in February, the CHC has been asked about the historical significance of over 100 buildings—since they are now the gatekeepers for demolitions. In many cases, the CHC has said that the buildings were not significant. Part of the charm of living in Cambridge, an old American City, founded in 1630, is that the cityscape includes buildings from 1681 on. These structures add character and architectural richness to the City. According the Neighborhood Scout, 47% of our housing stock was built before 1939, 12% between 1940 and 1969, and about 40% since 1970. So quite a lot of building has happened since 1970! Cambridge can preserve its significant historic buildings and accommodate new construction. These two things can work together. Also, take note that demolishing existing housing stock, often much better built and with better materials than new construction, releases embodied carbon. Tearing down solid old buildings to build bigger flimsy ones, that are built to have a thirty-year lifespan, makes no sense! The Neighborhood Conservation District, developed by the Cambridge Historic Commission, and now used throughout the country, is a tool used to help preserve neighborhoods with distinct character. Homeowners or developers in these districts present proposed exterior building changes to the CHC staff who then work with them to ensure that they are in keeping with the local architecture. Much of the CHC’s work focuses on providing guidance re doors, windows and fences. These “small” architectural details can make a world of visual difference. Look at CHC before and after photos and you’ll see how significant this, mostly non-binding mentoring has been. NCDs are a good thing. We are not going to preserve communities by tearing down historic structures and building big, often out of scale, generic luxury housing in its place.
Do you support any of these near-term solutions?
Ayah Al-Zubi
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally No
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
To clarify my response to the first question in this section: what matters is not how often the Commission deems a building historically “significant,” but how those determinations are applied. In almost all cases, redevelopment proposals that include inclusionary housing should be allowed to move forward. In rare instances, however, it is appropriate for the Commission to put its foot down. None of the recent proposals rise to that level and the balance is lost if tools like demolition delay or “preferably preserved” rulings are used too broadly to block or delay projects.
I support making NCD review advisory-only for projects that include inclusionary housing, which I believe was the intent of the 2023 amendments. If further changes are needed to accomplish that intent, I will support them.
I also think it’s worth exploring a narrower scope for demolition delay, along the lines of what you suggested. It is not clear what the 2019 council’s rationale was for extending it from six months to twelve.
Most importantly, we need commissioners who are ready to be judicious and only intercede in the most exceptional cases when affordable housing is at stake. The city manager makes appointments and I would vote against candidates who don’t seem prepared to strike this balance and prioritize subsidized housing. To get there, we need community members who are prepared to step up and thread this needle. I am watching closely to see how current and future cases are resolved as we determine whether and how the law should further change to ensure affordable housing can advance while respecting history in appropriate cases.
Burhan Azeem
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes, Generally Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes, Generally Yes
I would set it to 1850 and remove demolition delay.
Dana Bullister
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Tim Flaherty
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Peter Hsu
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally No
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes, Generally No
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
I believe we have a lot of very important historic homes up to the 1950s, but I think the cutoff for "historic" can be discussed and re-defined.
Ned Melanson
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
50 years is a huge majority of every building in the city, even though some newer buildings hold historical significance. Surely there’s a way to honor that history that doesn’t involve adding tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of starting a project in the form of long delays, or inevitably blocking desperately needed housing? Surely we can get the expertise of the CHC to petitioners faster than we are today. I would support some combination of the above short-term solutions, and I’d also first ask the experts (the staff), ”what would result in the most housing being built at the least expense of history?” and start there. Maybe that means more plaques; maybe that means changing criteria, which they cannot do, but the City Council can.
Marc McGovern
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Patty Nolan
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
I am open to all these changes - in general supportive. Still, I would want to hear a discussion of potential impact before deciding on any. The demo delay was increased recently from 6 months to 12 months in 2019.
Stanislav Rivkin
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally No
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] No
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Zion Sherin
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally No
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally No
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Sumbul Siddiqui
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
E. Denise Simmons
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects – Yes. If a redevelopment includes 20 % or more affordable units, the Historical Commission should serve in an advisory role rather than having veto power. Only for pre 1900 & NRHP – Generally Yes. Requiring demolition review only for structures built before 1900 or listed on the National Register focuses resources on genuinely historic buildings. Demo delay only 6 months – Yes. A six month delay would give preservationists time to document and salvage, while reducing costs for housing projects. The goal of any reform should be to ensure that the city’s preservation tools are aligned with its equity goals. We cannot preserve the past at the cost of pushing out current residents.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Louise Venden
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Ayesha Wilson
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally Yes
Cathie Zusy
Making review by the Historical Commission / NCDs advisory only for inclusionary zoning projects [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] No
Limiting demo delay to buildings on the National Register of Historic Places or built prior to 1900 [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] No
Returning the demo delay from one year to six months [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Generally No
Apparently, demolition delays seldom take a whole year.
Do you support a “walkshed” approach to zoning squares and corridors? [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] This means allowing greater density extending out to within walking distance of transit. (For example, phasing in greater density within a quarter mile of corridors or within half a mile of squares.) The City’s current proposals tend to only upzone on major streets / within major squares themselves.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes
Yes. In fact, we recently passed a sweeping citywide zoning reform that enables much taller and denser inclusionary housing within a quarter mile of corridors and within a half mile of squares.
I’d prioritize continuing that “walkshed” approach by zoning for and funding a social housing pilot. I’m not inherently opposed to additional height or density; my focus is always on making sure everyone, including as many vulnerable people as possible, can benefit from the final product. A social housing pilot would have the potential to produce hundreds of new homes in every neighborhood of the city, some market rate and some subsidized.
Burhan Azeem
Generally Yes
I would support this but I would say that the zoning for Cambridge Street, Mass Ave and Central Sqaure is very far along. I would hesitate to restart the process and instead pass what we can and build on top of it.
Dana Bullister
Yes
Yes, I support a "walkshed" approach to zoning squares and corridors. Cambridge should think not just about the main streets and squares themselves, but about the broader neighborhoods that are within walking distance of them.
The goal of rezoning is to create vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable communities where more people can live close to transit, jobs, and daily needs. Limiting additional housing to only the parcels directly on Massachusetts Avenue or the heart of Central Square leaves a tremendous amount of land underused and misses an opportunity to make a real dent in our housing shortage. By extending greater density to the walkshed—say, within a quarter mile of corridors and a half mile of squares—we can unlock space for thousands of additional homes, without overwhelming any one block.
This approach also distributes new housing more equitably. If we only upzone the “front doors” of major streets, we risk creating a sharp divide between busy corridors and neighborhoods frozen in place behind them. A walkshed model smooths that transition, supports small businesses with more foot traffic, and ensures that more people can enjoy the benefits of living near transit and community amenities.
Finally, a walkshed approach better matches our climate and equity goals. More homes near transit mean fewer car trips, lower emissions, and easier access to opportunity for people who rely on walking, biking, or public transportation.
In short, walkshed zoning recognizes that Cambridge is a walking city. By upzoning not just the streets but the neighborhoods within walking distance of them, we can build a more inclusive, sustainable, and connected future.
Tim Flaherty
Generally No
I support transit housing and corridor upzoning, but I grew up in North Cambridge right off Mass Ave and less than a 1/2 mile from Davis Square. I can tell you from personal experience that the Walkshed Zoning proposal is simply too much.
Peter Hsu
Generally Yes
I support this (walkshed zoning) if it were for more affordable housing. Also, I believe there should be plenty of discussions among neighborhood residents, investors, and expert professionals (urban planning, housing economy, etc) in order to strike the best balance we can among increasing housing density, preserving green space, and minimizing parking space wipe out.
Ned Melanson
Yes
I think walkshed zoning is a great way to create more housing near transit and jobs. Allowing more density in the step-down areas reduces car reliance, help provide customers to businesses and fill vacant storefronts, and play an important part in reducing the environmental footprint and reducing costs in the longterm, while improving our tax base.
Marc McGovern
Yes
If someone lives within a quarter or half mile of transit, then why does it matter if they live on a corridor or side street? The distance is the distance.
Patty Nolan
Generally Yes
The city should certainly focus on building up housing that has easy, walkable access to transit, jobs, parks, commercial space, and other amenities. While the city’s current proposals do tend to focus on the major streets and squares themselves, these proposals are the ones that are the easiest to build consensus around within our communities. Given the urgent needs of our current affordable housing crisis, it is important to build support for extending density beyond the squares and corridors, and have it be tiered. We did little to inform the community about the multi-family zoning changes, which have led to people feeling left out, dismissed, disrespected, and ignored. Yes, we had meetings - but I, as a homeowner, got more mailings about the tree protection ordinance and far more informative about Participatory Budgeting, both of which have far less impact on people’s lives and the community, than I did about the multi-family zoning proposal. The community as a whole is open to change if we truly are open to hearing and listening to people. Not all will embrace change, of course. And, many will if given the time to learn about it and the rationale. And compromises, like the one made for the multi-family zoning, will be more palatable if we do effective community outreach on major changes. Now, we should work to ensure that the corridors and squares that are or will be upzoned areas can be a strong backbone before moving onto areas and parcels that, although within the “walkshed,” may be more controversial than upzoning the main streets and corridors themselves.
Stanislav Rivkin
Generally Yes
I would need to see the exact language of the proposal. For example, I do not support 10 stories in the middle of a residential street just because it happens to be within walking distance of the Porter Square T, if this is what you’re asking. Anywhere in Cambridge is walkable, so this would effectively open up the entire city to “squares and corridors” heights.
Zion Sherin
Generally No
I believe the easiest path for the Council is often to make broad zoning changes, but that’s not always the right path. The proper approach is fine-grained zoning, crafted street by street, so that new development reflects the character and needs of each neighborhood instead of a one-size-fits-all policy.
Yes, this is more work for the Council. But I’m ready to do that hard work, because if it makes Cambridge stronger and fairer, it’s worth it.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Generally Yes
I am open to incorporating a walkshed approach into planning and zoning for Cambridge’s squares and corridors. Allowing higher-density development within walking distance of transit could increase housing supply, promote transit-oriented development, and create a smoother transition between corridor and neighborhood zones, making the distinction between them less rigid and more integrated.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes
A walkshed approach would distribute growth more equitably and reduce speculation on a single corridor. By allowing 4–6 stories on side streets near transit, we can increase supply while avoiding canyonization of main streets. This must be paired with tenant protections and a share of deeply affordable units, so we are building inclusive neighborhoods rather than islands of luxury.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes
Yes, I believe Cambridge's current definition of corridors and neighborhoods in planning and zoning discussions could be improved by adding in a walkshed approach. This would both create additional housing, more transit-oriented development, and perhaps also make the distinction between neighborhood and corridor zoning less pronounced and more blended.
Louise Venden
Generally Yes
This is a next step goal. Cambridge must focus our resources on ensuring proposed and existing projects get approved and built. Taking on too many changes will dilute CDD and City Council attention from making the ordinances they have passed effective and getting housing built. Developers spend a lot of money preparing proposals, so let them focus on the most promising projects so many of which are already moving forward.
Ayesha Wilson
Generally Yes
I personally believe that we could go higher in our squares and corridors. I grew up in Jefferson Park right next to Rindge Towers, which is 22 stories. So I am personally not afraid of heights, however, I understand this is a very concerning topic that deserves more thoughtful conversations.
Cathie Zusy
No
Let’s start with upzoning the corridors and squares and transition districts before upzoning neighborhoods haphazardly. I appreciate that downtowns are generally districts and more than one street, but we need to do neighborhood specific form-based zoning studies first.
The City’s Cambridge Street proposal, stalled since 2023, suggests allowing up to 8 stories on Cambridge Street in the most recent version, with up to 12 allowed at one intersection. Does it go far enough? [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No]
Ayah Al-Zubi
About right
I’m open to this additional height though it’s important to me that we keep a differential between what height is allowed for 100% subsidized and social housing, versus what height is allowed for market rate housing. This differential is important to ensure that those producing greater amounts of subsidized housing are most heavily advantaged.
I want to require new projects to have an active ground floor use so that Cambridge Street remains a vibrant destination. We are really lucky to live in a place that doesn’t restrict active ground floor uses to a single downtown. Cambridge is special in part because it has many “downtowns”; there are active ground floor uses throughout the city. Let’s keep it that way as we move forward!
I also think it’s important to distinguish between housing, biotech, and hotels. As we increase heights for housing, there should not be a corresponding increase for biotech and hotels. In fact, if we’re serious about building more housing, we will take steps to restrict these uses. That’s the only way to ensure that we actually end up with new housing. Hotels in particular represent a loophole for developers to skirt both our inclusionary zoning law and our AirBnB regulations. To close that loophole, we’ll need to redefine “hotel” as a commercial use instead of a residential one. That way, new hotels have to follow the rules we set for new commercial development, instead of being able to follow the rules we set for new residential housing development. I hope that there will be broad agreement on this point.
Burhan Azeem
About right
I do worry that 8 stories is a deadzone for development and encourage our community development department to make numbers that work.
Dana Bullister
Not far enough
Cambridge Street is one of our city’s most important corridors, linking Inman Square, East Cambridge, and Lechmere, and it is well served by transit and close to major job centers. Given the scale of our housing crisis, the current proposal—8 stories along most of the corridor and up to 12 at one intersection—represents progress, but it does not go far enough to meet the need.
By limiting most of Cambridge Street to 8 stories, we risk underutilizing land where taller, mixed-use buildings could provide many more homes, support small businesses with greater foot traffic, and strengthen the street’s vitality. Other corridors in Cambridge, such as Central Square and Kendall, show how well-planned mid- to high-rise housing can expand affordability, reduce displacement, and create dynamic, walkable neighborhoods.
In short, the current proposal is a step in the right direction, but Cambridge Street can and should accommodate more housing than what’s on the table today. If we are serious about keeping Cambridge livable and inclusive, we must take full advantage of opportunities like this to build more homes where they make the most sense.
Tim Flaherty
Too far
Cambridge Street cannot sustain that development.
Peter Hsu
About right
I would support higher if we could include more affordable units.
Ned Melanson
Not far enough
Cambridge Street is a transit accessible corridor that connects two major hubs (Inman and Lechmere) and is home many businesses, including bars & restaurants, food & beverage stores, barbershops, medical offices, daycares, coffee shops, various companies, and more. I think going up to 12 stories along Cambridge Street and higher in some intersections (i.e. closer to or exceeding the North Mass Ave proposal) would help add critically needed housing supply, support these businesses, and help us achieve our goals of transit-oriented development.
Marc McGovern
About right
Cambridge St. is not as wide a street as Mass Ave, for example. I think 8 stories on most of Cambridge St. is about right, but I think we need to identify more than one location where we can go 12 or higher.
Patty Nolan
About right
Generally supportive of this proposed zoning, although that high height should require setbacks after 6 stories. Increasing housing supply around transit corridors is clearly beneficial. The real issue the city needs to address is jobs and workforce opportunities - that should be the basis for community benefits, possibly if the inclusionary goes down as a result of the study.
Stanislav Rivkin
About right
We need to make sure this zoning encourages considerable affordable housing.
Zion Sherin
Too far
I think 12 stories may be too far.
Sumbul Siddiqui
About right
I believe certain areas, such as parts of Cambridge Street near Lechmere and the Webster Windsor Sub-District, are well-suited for increased building heights beyond 12 stories. For other areas, I am open to additional height increases, but I also want to respect the insights and recommendations from the community process and planning study that was conducted.
E. Denise Simmons
About right
This is about right, although (if the council would take this walk with me), I could also support a phased approach that allows 10–12 stories with 25 % affordability at key nodes, which could produce more homes while providing resources for public improvements. Without such increases, we risk leaving too much housing potential on the table and failing to meet our production targets.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Not far enough
Cambridge's Multi-Family Zoning allows for up to 6 stories in neighborhoods, so 8 stories on Cambridge Street would not be a significant increase above that for what is one of Cambridge's main corridors. I'm concerned that 8 stories is an in-between spot for housing construction that may not actually pencil out.
Louise Venden
About right
As an East Cambridge resident, I know that residents enjoy the scale and atmoshpere of this old fashioned streetscape. The 2023 plan relies on 2019 data which ignores many economic and demographic changes as commercial activity drops, small businesses face challenges and close, and new residents move into our neighborhood. Current housing development proposals favor sites in other areas with better access to amenties and needed by residents, like employment, education, shopping, transportaion and recreation. Cambridge Crossing nearby has brought more rental and ownership housing into the area, and further community outreach of buinesses and residents on Cambridge street is needed to determine if this proposal is a high priority prospect for building more housing. Trying to move forward with too many proposals and changes dilutes CDD resources and takes the focus away from the critical goal of gaining more direct City funding for housing development through the tools described earlier. Cambridge is a wealthy city and has not invested enough in directly funding housing development.
Ayesha Wilson
About right
I believe we can responsibly build higher in our squares and corridors. I grew up in Jefferson Park right next to Rindge Towers, which is 22 stories tall. A maximum height of 12 stories is a reasonable balance and it allows for more housing. While I am personally not afraid of heights, I understand not everyone is comfortable with that. That is why 12 stories feels like a strong middle ground.
Cathie Zusy
Too far
I think that 8-12 stories it too high for Cambridge Street, which is a very narrow street. Also, we should assess who we are housing, our vacancies, and consider who we want to house—setting housing goals—before dramatically upzoning Cambridge.
The City’s most recent North Mass Ave proposal would allow for more height and density between Cambridge Common and the Arlington line, up to 11 stories on Mass Ave and up to 18 stories in Porter Square. Does it go far enough? [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No]
Ayah Al-Zubi
About right
Similar to the previous question, I’m open to this additional height though it’s important to me that we keep a differential between what height is allowed for 100% subsidized and social housing, versus what height is allowed for market rate housing. This differential is important to ensure that those producing greater amounts of subsidized housing are most heavily advantaged.
I want to require new projects to have an active ground floor use so that North Mass Ave remains a vibrant destination. We are really lucky to live in a place that doesn’t restrict active ground floor uses to a single downtown. Cambridge is special in part because it has many “downtowns”; there are active ground floor uses throughout the city. Let’s keep it that way as we move forward!
I also think it’s important to distinguish between housing, biotech, and hotels. As we increase heights for housing, there should not be a corresponding increase for biotech and hotels. In fact, if we’re serious about building more housing, we will take steps to restrict these uses. That’s the only way to ensure that we actually end up with new housing. Hotels in particular represent a loophole for developers to skirt both our inclusionary zoning law and our AirBnB regulations. To close that loophole, we’ll need to redefine “hotel” as a commercial use instead of a residential one. That way, new hotels have to follow the rules we set for new commercial development, instead of being able to follow the rules we set for new residential housing development. I hope that there will be broad agreement on this point.
Burhan Azeem
About right
I think this is a great proposal. I would just shift the 11 stories to 12 in order to make buildings pencil as the unit economics are far better at 12.
Dana Bullister
Not far enough
North Mass Ave is one of Cambridge’s most important transit corridors, linking neighborhoods to jobs, shops, and services while connecting directly into the Red Line at Porter Square. The City’s proposal to allow up to 11 stories along most of the avenue and up to 18 stories at Porter is a step in the right direction, but it still underestimates both the scale of our housing crisis and the potential of this corridor.
With rents and home prices continuing to climb, Cambridge cannot afford to miss opportunities for more homes in exactly the places where density makes the most sense: near transit, jobs, and vibrant commercial areas. Limiting much of Mass Ave to 11 stories risks locking in scarcity at a time when we should be opening the door for more residents to share in the benefits of living here.
Allowing greater height and density would not only create more homes—including affordable units through inclusionary zoning—it would also reduce displacement pressures, support small businesses with more consistent foot traffic, and advance our climate goals by encouraging walking, biking, and transit instead of driving.
Tim Flaherty
Too far
The MBTA tracks run beneath Porter Square and while transit housing there is appropriate, 18 stories is too dense for that location. Again, I grew up in North Cambridge about 10 blocks from the Porter Square shopping center and I do not believe that neighborhood can sustain a development of that size.
Peter Hsu
About right
There should be a master plan done for this that integrates existing homes in the area. I would also support higher/more stories if we could include more affordable units for low income or very low income individuals/families.
Ned Melanson
Not far enough
Given the transit options available at Porter and along Mass Ave, we should seriously consider allowing for taller buildings in this proposal than what is currently being put forward. I would support 12 stories or more along Mass Ave and more than 18 stories in Porter.
Marc McGovern
About right
I think this about right. Mass Ave is our major corridor. Let's remember, that allowing 11 or 18 stories does not mean that building can't be taller, it just means that the developer would have to file for zoning relief, which would allow the city to negotiate some additional community benefits. 11 or 18 stories for "as of right" development seems about right. Maybe we could do 12 and 20.
Patty Nolan
About right
Generally, the same thought process as the above question.
Stanislav Rivkin
About right
We need to make sure this zoning encourages considerable affordable housing.
Zion Sherin
Too far
Most of the residents in the area believe 18 stories is too high.
Sumbul Siddiqui
About right
I support exploring greater building heights and density when it helps generate more affordable housing and tangible community benefits, while also respecting and incorporating input from the community process.
E. Denise Simmons
About right
Allowing up to 11 stories along Mass Ave and 18 in Porter Square balances the need for significant new housing near transit with neighborhood context. Porter Square is already a commercial node; 18 stories with strong affordability requirements could deliver hundreds of new homes. However, we must monitor market conditions and be prepared to adjust if the proposal fails to produce the desired level of affordability or if infrastructure cannot support the growth.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
About right
I'm open to additional height and density if it would lead to increased amounts of affordable housing and community benefits. Given that much of Mass Ave near the Arlington line is single or two stories, eleven stories on Mass Ave and 18 near Porter would allow for much more flexibility and should lead to a substantial amount of additional affordable and market rate housing.
Louise Venden
About right
The 2072 Mass Ave should receive support and taller buildings along this corridor would serve the housing needs of many workers, students and low income people for transportaion access, groceries, retail, and welcoming community organizations. The area is ideal for AHO projects because it is rich in these amenities. The exisiting scale and streetscape invites larger projects boosting addition of hundreds of units over time where smaller 30-50 unit projects in other neighborhoods will have incremental impact on helping us catch up with outstanding housing demand.
Ayesha Wilson
About right
I believe we can responsibly build higher in our squares and corridors to meet the demands of housing. At the same time, we don’t want residents to feel overwhelmed by development. I know taller buildings can work in Cambridge. Still, I think the proposed 11 stories on Mass Ave and 18 in Porter Square may be good.
Cathie Zusy
Too far
I think that 11-18 stories is already too high. Again, we must assess who we are housing, our vacancies, and consider who we want to house—setting housing goals—before dramatically upzoning Cambridge.
How would you like to see Central Square rezoned? (The City does not have a specific proposal yet, but CDD has discussed 18 stories on Mass Ave and 8 in the surrounding area.)
Ayah Al-Zubi
Similar to above, I want to make sure we (1) maintain a differential between market rate projects and 100% affordable/social housing, (2) restrict new biotech and hotel development, and (3) require active, vibrant ground floor uses. The third point is particularly important with respect to Central Square because it is a bonafide regional cultural destination, one of the best nightlife scenes in the Boston region. I’m concerned that there is a correlation between the most developable parcels and the parcels that host our most cherished cultural institutions. For example, Cantab, ManRay, and the Middle East are all housed in one story buildings on fairly large lots. I want us to think deeply about how to keep these institutions moving forward! I also would love to see the Intercontinental parking lot (corner of Prospect + Bishop Allen) and Vail Court brought into the Overlay District, so that we can see taller development in those spots. This is particularly important for Vail Court since it's a city owned lot; I want to unlock the potential to do a tall AHO development or social housing here. The rezoning of Central Square also has huge implications for how the numerous city lots are developed. At the H-Mart lot, I would love to see a world class cultural destination with lots of affordable housing on top. I also want to see preservation of the Potluck mural; it could be restored and integrated into the entrance of the new cultural space. It was frustrating that the city chose not to continue with Starlight Square. Any permanent space that emerges should be free to everyone and be as community led as Starlight was. Black and Brown folks from The Port were, by and large, the producers of Starlight which is part of what made it so special. To realize this vision, the city will need to make a substantial investment instead of insisting on a cost neutral approach. Central Square and The Port are very deserving; that community has been underserved for too long.
Burhan Azeem
Central Square is the place most residents agree we should add housing. I don't have a number that's optimal but we shouldn't pass on this opportunity.
Dana Bullister
Central Square, where I live, is the historic heart of Cambridge, and it should also be one of the places where we welcome the most new housing, jobs, and community life. I support ambitious rezoning here that allows significantly more homes—paired with affordability requirements, tenant protections, and thoughtful urban design. The CDD’s early discussion of allowing up to 18 stories along Massachusetts Avenue and 8 stories in the surrounding area is a strong starting point. Central already has taller buildings, excellent transit access, and a rich mix of shops and services. This makes it one of the best places in the city for more housing, especially affordable housing, without displacing existing communities. Rezoning Central Square should also go hand in hand with strategies to preserve and expand cultural space, protect small businesses, and activate the public realm. Wider sidewalks, safer bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and more community gathering places will ensure that greater density enhances quality of life rather than straining it.
Tim Flaherty
If there is any area of Cambridge that can sustain 18 stories, Central Square may have the best opportunity because of its proximity to Boston and MIT. I think Central Square may benefit from an increase in residential units, thereby increasing the number of walking wallets, increasing the number of dynamic retail locations, and increasing the vitality of an underperforming yet optimally located business district.
Peter Hsu
I would like to see taller than 18 stories on Mass Ave, but with taller/more units dedicated to affordable housing (low income and below). I am okay considering 8 stories in the surrounding area, but this would also need a master plan to integrate existing homes around these new buildings.
Ned Melanson
Central Square is one of our best opportunities for rezoning. It sits right on top of the Red Line and is a hub for cultural, commercial, and residential life in Cambridge. I think more people should live in Central to contribute to its magic, and building densely there will help alleviate the housing shortage in Cambridge. I think the proposal is a good start, but I would be open to exploring more options, including taller buildings in the heart of Central.
Marc McGovern
I support at least 18 stories on Mass Ave. We already have buildings of those heights in Central. I think we can go to 10-12 stories for "as of right" development in the surrounding areas, depending on location. For example, building on some of the city owned lots that already border buildings that are 19-20 stories, adding a taller building there would be appropriate.
Patty Nolan
The City does not have a specific proposal yet, but CDD has discussed 18 stories on Mass Ave and 8 in the surrounding area.
Stanislav Rivkin
I would like it rezoned only after extensive neighborhood consultation and good faith compromise. I would also like to see the city’s proposal and associated impact analysis before committing to a specific height or density.
Zion Sherin
As someone who lives just two blocks from the center of Central Square, I know the area could benefit from thoughtful development. Many of my neighbors feel the same way, but they want to see growth that is carefully planned, not large “by-right” buildings appearing without community input. I will fight to ensure that any new development in Central Square supports the nonprofits that make our community strong. More buildings mean more people, and that creates added pressure on already resource-stretched organizations. Nonprofits like the Community Art Center and The Dance Complex are vital to our neighborhood, and I will not allow developers to profit here without making sure Central Square residents are taken care of!
Sumbul Siddiqui
I would like to see Central Square rezoned in a way that supports increased housing, especially affordable units, while enhancing public spaces that strengthen community connection. The rezoning should also support the Square’s diverse mix of retail, cultural, and nonprofit uses to preserve its unique character. Additionally, we have an opportunity to leverage the city-owned lots in Central Square to help advance these goals.
E. Denise Simmons
Central Square should accommodate substantial height near the Red Line station—up to 18 stories on Mass Ave—and step down to eight stories within the surrounding area. Rezoning should require a minimum of 25% affordable units for projects exceeding 12 stories, encourage mixed‑use ground floors, and fund public realm improvements such as wider sidewalks, tree canopies and public restrooms. The city should also explore public‑private partnerships to redevelop vacant lots like Vail Court, once that area is finally cleared for development.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
I evaluate new zoning and construction in Cambridge based on whether it will increase housing affordability, be built with union labor and by companies who aren’t guilty of wage theft, be welcomed by neighbors and the Cambridge community, and provide community benefits that help make the city a more equitable and vibrant place to live.
Louise Venden
Central Square needs further study to identify housing development options. The development challenge is not how many stories would fit developer pro formas, but what needs to be done to make this area more appealing to more residents. Development is risky and developers reduce risk by choosing projects where they can attract an occupant pool ready to pay the rent or ownership costs before they spend money planning a building. Central Square residents face day to day challenges and many current residents would rather live in other areas of Cambridge. Despite Central Square's ideal location with T service, nearby restaurants and access to public services, the area suffers from many empty storefronts, dirt and trash, and homeless people congregating to get each other through the day. Closing the 58 bed Transition Wellness Center on Cambridge street sent more people onto the streets joining hundreds already in need of housing and wrap around services. TWC cost too much and renegotiation and planning should have saved the shelter given the increasing challenges facing low income and unhoused people here. Until Cambridge prioritizes offering housing and services to these residents, Central Square is unlikely to attract developer proposals because there are other sites with the same amenities, less safety concerns and better retail and offerings.
Ayesha Wilson
I am not 100% sure on this one yet. There are so many community opinions on this that I would respectfully need a lot more information before I can have a specific thought. Especially since the City does not have a specific proposal yet, but CDD has discussed 18 stories on Mass Ave and 8 in the surrounding area.
Cathie Zusy
Again, we should assess who we are housing, our vacancies, and consider who we want to house—setting housing goals—before we upzone. I think that we could have an occasional tall building at Central Square, but, mostly, it should be about 6 stories in height—its historical height. While I think that, of all places, Central Square, our historical downtown, is where we should have smart growth, I remain concerned that tall buildings cast long shadows. It will be critical that future development at Central includes green open spaces, cultural amenities and some parking. It is our Cultural District!
Ayah Al-Zubi
See above: (1) maintain a differential between market rate projects and 100% affordable/social housing, (2) restrict new biotech and hotel development, and (3) require active, vibrant ground floor uses.
Burhan Azeem
While we are trying to get great zoning in all these areas, my focus is always on passing them. Terms are limited in time and it's easy to let things falter. The original central square zoning wasn't perfect but then it never passed and nothings been done for a decade.
Dana Bullister
My top priority for rezoning our squares and corridors is to address Cambridge’s housing crisis by allowing significantly more homes—especially affordable ones—in the places best served by transit, jobs, and community amenities. Squares and corridors are the backbone of our city: they are where people gather, shop, and connect, and they should also be where we welcome more residents. First, I want rezoning to unlock meaningful new housing supply while ensuring a substantial portion are affordable under our inclusionary zoning program. More homes along corridors like Mass Ave and in squares like Central, Porter, and Inman will reduce displacement pressure elsewhere and expand access to opportunity. Second, I believe in a walkshed approach, extending greater density within a quarter mile of corridors and half a mile of squares. Third, rezoning must go hand in hand with improvements to public space and infrastructure—safer streets for walking and biking, better transit amenities, and protections for small businesses and cultural institutions that give our squares their character. Density should enhance community life, not overwhelm it. Finally, I want rezoning to reflect our climate and equity goals: putting more people near transit reduces car dependence and emissions, while making Cambridge more accessible to renters, working families, and new graduates.
Tim Flaherty
Increase corridor density and promote transit housing in squares where MBTA stations are located.
Peter Hsu
Convenience to public transit; low and moderate income housing; amenities like day care, vest parks, grocery stores; underground parking if able.
Ned Melanson
My priorities for squares and corridor rezoning are: transit-oriented development, improving the viability of our small businesses, fighting climate change, alleviating the housing shortage and homelessness crisis, and reducing rent inflation. Housing is a structural and systemic issue that leads to many of our current problems in Cambridge, but by building more housing of all kinds (affordable/subsidized, social, and market), housing can become part of the solution. Rezoning our squares and corridors is an amazing opportunity to increase the housing supply in Cambridge and make our city more welcoming and livable for all.
Marc McGovern
Building taller buildings to accommodate more housing. Providing incentives for 100% affordable development. Supporting and requiring ground floor retail/commercial. Sidewalk and infrastructure improvements.
Patty Nolan
The squares and corridors are appropriate for development since they are near transit, and are generally wider streets, which means heights are in line with good urban design guidelines. The priority is for us to complete the ones in process - Mass. Ave & Porter, Cambridge & Inman, and Mass Ave & Central.
Stanislav Rivkin
We need first floor retail; a diversity of commerce (including access to affordable groceries); safe and accessible transportation; mitigation of gentrification and displacement as a result of rezoning; and increased density to the extent it is appropriate for the surrounding infrastructure and it provides affordable housing.
Zion Sherin
My priority is making sure new development creates livable communities with green spaces, access to public transportation, and designs that put people first! I will also make sure developers contribute to the Community Benefits Fund so that our nonprofits, which are the backbone of Cambridge, have the resources they need to thrive.
Sumbul Siddiqui
My priorities for squares and corridor rezoning are to support vibrant, mixed-use development that integrates retail, cultural, and nonprofit spaces with new housing. I also want to leverage opportunities on city-owned lots for community-oriented projects, and ensure that zoning updates reflect the insights of the community process. I think expanding development within walking distance of transit, using a walkshed approach, can increase density thoughtfully and create smoother transitions between corridors and neighborhoods. Raising residential height limits will allow for more housing in the squares and corridor rezoning,
E. Denise Simmons
• Housing affordability: tie increased height to higher percentages of affordable units.
• Transit‑oriented development: concentrate density near bus and rail to reduce car dependence.
• Active streets: require ground‑floor retail or community space, and fund pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements.
• Anti‑displacement: provide relocation assistance for residents or businesses affected by redevelopment.
• Climate resilience: incorporate green roofs, storm‑water management and energy‑efficient design.
• Historic respect: maintain human‑scale street walls and protect landmark buildings while allowing height behind them.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
My priorities for squares and corridors rezoning include increasing housing affordability through the creation of more housing—which takes into account the new multi-family housing zoning in neighborhoods and recognizes that corridors and squares should include additional housing beyond that. They also include transit-oriented development, walkability, and vibrant ground floor retail.
Louise Venden
Identify those squares and corridors with the highest likelihood of attracting affordable and middle market rate developer housing proposals and focus on supporting those projects. There are many projects for building hundreds of housing units that are already approved in areas throughout the city, and in this uncertain economic environment with rising costs, interest for investing in new large projects will be limited. Cambridge does not have the staff and funding resources to generate support for ambitious housing projects everywhere. Financial challenges ahead require that we focus efforts on those areas and projects that offer construction of the most near term housing meeting middle income and affordable housing needs. Some corridors are clearly attracting more developer interest than others. The City has very limited impact on the market forces driving housing development, so we must work beside developers on their promising projects and not try to draw them into consideration of areas they don't see as viable in the near term.
Ayesha Wilson
Ultimately maximizing on squares and corridors makes the most sense. Some information was shared earlier this year, looking forward to learning more.
Cathie Zusy
*Height should be appropriate to the width of the street. Cambridge St. is narrow, so it should be less high.
*Height should be near major transit centers.
*We need green open spaces, trees, grocery stores and other amenities located near these dense population centers, including access to car shares and some parking.
*We must be sensitive to the relationship of corridor development to abutting neighborhoods.
ABC is proud to have supported the original 100% Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) and its expansion, which have resulted in the production of hundreds of permanently subsidized homes. However, in addition to zoning, AHO projects rely in part on financial contributions from the City via the Affordable Housing Trust. According to the City Manager, the City’s budget has limited ability to grow, and funding for affordable housing from the Trump Administration is in question. What level of City subsidies to affordable housing do you support? [Increased/Current/Reduced]
Ayah Al-Zubi
Increased
Burhan Azeem
Increased
Dana Bullister
Increased
Tim Flaherty
Decreased
Peter Hsu
Increased
Ned Melanson
Increased
Marc McGovern
Increased
Patty Nolan
Current
Stanislav Rivkin
Increased
Zion Sherin
Increased
Sumbul Siddiqui
Increased
E. Denise Simmons
Increased
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Increased
Louise Venden
Increased
Ayesha Wilson
Increased
Cathie Zusy
Current
Ayah Al-Zubi
Yes AHO is a great model for building subsidized homes. I would have voted for both rounds, and I’ll vote for a third if there is one. I’m very excited about 2072 Mass Ave returning as an even taller project. The fact that it will include 73 subsidized units, with 12 for extremely low-income families, shows the power of the AHO. That said, challenges remain. The AHO’s impact is limited by dependence on LIHTC funding as Cambridge receives a fraction of the fixed number of statewide credits. Each nonprofit developer has a pipeline ready to go, but securing credits is a bottleneck. LIHTC also struggles to serve the very lowest-income households. Its “sweet spot” is around 50% of AMI, but extremely low-income households require further subsidies. Meanwhile, inclusionary zoning makes buildings that are 80% unsubsidized. Those in subsidized inclusionary units have reported feeling unwelcome, likely worsened by being a small fraction of a building’s population. Social housing addresses all of these challenges, so it’s essential that we explore it as a complement. Social housing creates more evenly mixed-income developments. It avoids the LIHTC and recycles money: once the building is paid for, profits from market rents go to a revolving loan fund to be reinvested in the next project. By contrast, AHO projects use subsidy dollars once and those funds are gone. The city should launch a pilot by issuing bonds into a revolving loan fund, positioning us for the upcoming state funding opportunity secured by Rep. Connolly, who has endorsed me. AHO and a Social Housing Pilot would work well in tandem: AHO removes zoning barriers and delivers 100% subsidized projects; social housing adds a scalable, self-reinforcing financing model for genuine mixed-income housing. Together, they could create hundreds of new homes across Cambridge and ensure that our neighbors with the lowest incomes are not left behind. Please join us in saying “yes, in my backyard” to social housing in Cambridge! If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Burhan Azeem
Yes The AHO is fantastic and has resulted in an incredible amount of new affordable housing opportunities across Cambridge. I would love to find ways to support more mixed income buildings as well. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? No
Dana Bullister
Yes I believe the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is the right model for Cambridge to build subsidized homes. The AHO has already delivered hundreds of permanently affordable homes, and it represents one of the most effective tools we have for ensuring that working families, seniors, and low- and moderate-income residents can continue to live in Cambridge. By giving nonprofit developers zoning relief and streamlined approvals, the AHO makes it possible to build affordable homes in neighborhoods where they otherwise would not be financially or politically feasible. This is critical in a city where market pressures push rents and home prices far beyond what most residents can afford. But zoning is only part of the picture—the AHO also depends on financial support from the City and outside sources. With federal funding uncertain, Cambridge must step up to fill the gap. Investing more local dollars into the Affordable Housing Trust is an investment in the stability, diversity, and inclusivity of our community. Increased subsidies will make more projects viable and allow us to reach deeper levels of affordability, ensuring that the homes built truly serve those most at risk of displacement. At the same time, I believe we should continue to evaluate ways to strengthen the AHO—such as pairing it with tenant protections, small business preservation strategies, and public realm improvements—so that new affordable housing enhances both the lives of its residents and the surrounding community. In short, the AHO is a proven and necessary model, and with stronger City subsidies we can ensure that Cambridge remains a place where people of all incomes and backgrounds can thrive. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Tim Flaherty
Yes Cambridge has been very generous in developing programs and providing resources to create more affordable housing in the city. We go beyond most every other municipality in our support for affordable housing and in the current climate we cannot do more without making hard decisions about making cuts in other services/programs or significantly increasing residential property taxes. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Peter Hsu
Yes Because AHO allows the creation of new, permanently affordable housing that is denser than what might be allowed under base zoning. In addition, AHO creates a new review process through which new affordable housing can be approved more efficiently. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Ned Melanson
Yes The AHO is a great tool to give affordable housing developers an edge in the housing market (versus market rate developers) and we must make sure this edge remains in place if and when we rezone the squares and corridors (i.e. expanding the AHO to scale with squares and corridor rezoning). It has resulted in hundreds of affordable units getting built in Cambridge that would not have been possible otherwise. Thus, it has been a policy success story. But we can do more, especially from the funding perspective. I'd like to see more money going to subsidize affordable developments, via the Affordable Housing Trust or even a new funding vehicle. Seeing the results of this sumer’s AHO report from CDD made it clearer than ever: the AHO is a success and we must continue to support it! If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Marc McGovern
Yes I was proud to be one of the leaders on the AHO. I called for it's passage in my State of the City address when I was mayor. Unfortunately, we were one vote short, but we did pass it the following term. Despite it's success, it is still frustrating that it takes so long to actually see the buildings built. Some of that is not on the city. The process of obtaining funding for affordable projects takes a long time. It is certainly faster than before the AHO, but I wish we could get these buildings built more quickly. During the budget cycle a few years ago, I co-sponsored a policy order to increase the funding for the Affordable Housing Trust. I am proud that the funding has grown from approximately $10 million to $40 million, but I have called for the city to invest 10% of the total budget in affordable housing, which would push that number over $90 million per year. If affordable housing is the number one goal in the city, then we should fund it that way. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? No
Patty Nolan
Yes I believe the city is providing an appropriate level of subsidies. We allocate about $40 million a year, which far surpasses the city’s Envision goals, which were $20 million by 2030. Thanks to the council's concerted action, notably from councillors Carlone and Mazen working to push for more funding, the amount of funding for affordable housing doubled. And as a result, which the Boston Housing Report Card confirms, Cambridge is building and funding proportionately more affordable housing than any other community. Cambridge is one of the few municipalities building housing, including affordable housing, in the greater Boston area. Now, what we have to focus on is lowering the costs per unit, which are approaching a million dollars a unit. That is much higher than market-rate housing - we need to bring those costs down, which would enable us to build more housing for the same amount. The AHO allows projects to move forward more quickly without special permits or variances. I have always supported that part of the AHO. I believe all AHO projects should meet the highest climate and sustainability standards (which don’t cost more) and reserve units for people making median income - the teachers and non-profit staff who make good salaries and can’t afford Cambridge. I proposed those additions, and they were voted down, so I voted No. My support overall is characterized as being against the whole idea, which is demonstrably wrong. Most projects built under the AHO would have been built without it, although probably not as fast. And the concentration of poverty is unfortunate - it goes against best practice for economic mobility. With the AHO expansion, I would have preferred starting with squares and corridors before riling up neighborhoods across the city with the prospect of very different buildings. Those issues related to AH - climate, middle income, and focus on corridors - are all now being discussed as important. I was ahead of the curve. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? No
Stanislav Rivkin
Yes AHO is one appropriate model out of many. Social Housing is another potential vehicle to increase housing at all income levels, including below 50% AMI, and ensure accountability regarding the maintenance of the building and service to residents. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Zion Sherin
Yes I believe Cambridge needs truly affordable housing. That means creating a more transparent and effective process to ensure these homes are built in the neighborhoods where they are needed most. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes I’m proud to have helped advance the Affordable Housing Overlay and supported its expansion to allow taller developments in our major squares and along key corridors. This type of housing is essential to maintaining Cambridge’s diversity—I wouldn’t be here without it. We need more of it, and the City must continue to prioritize affordable housing, including exploring creative funding strategies, such as leveraging city-owned lots. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? No
E. Denise Simmons
Yes The AHO removes discretionary review for qualified projects, saving time and money. In a city where land and construction costs are high, delays can be fatal. By allowing modest height bonuses and reduced parking requirements, the AHO helps make deeply affordable projects feasible. In a housing emergency, we need tools like the AHO to produce units quickly. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? No
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
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 at times suggest that the Affordable Housing Overlay should instead be a “ceiling” over which it may not approve affordable housing proposals. I supported 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. 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. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? No
Louise Venden
Yes AHO is a very important tool for increasing affordable housing development. Although there are hundreds of units on the drawing boards, most AHO projects are stalled. The AHO June 30 Annual Report showed 7 projects under review, 459 units under construction and one 62 unit project completed. It also lists potential AHO sites that have been or are currently under consideration. While this is a good start, Cambridge must find a way to help these 459 units get built and deploy staff or engage outside consultants to move site evaluations forward. Yes, development takes a long time, but thousands of Cambridge residents are leaving each year in part because they cannot find housing. Even those with well paying middle income jobs spend so much in rent that they move to cities like Watertown and Arlington where they can buy modest homes or rent at lower rates in order to save a downpayment. I have met several young working people and couples, some with young children, who desperately wnat to stay here, but simply cannot find housing. They make too much to qualify for affordable housing. Cambridge wait lists for Affordable housing remain very long despite reaching a remakable level where 15% of total housing units are Affordable. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Ayesha Wilson
Yes Yes, I believe the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) is the right model for Cambridge to build subsidized homes because it directly addresses our city’s urgent need for affordable housing. The AHO streamlines the approval process and removes barriers that often delay or prevent affordable housing projects from moving forward. By giving affordable housing developers more flexibility in height, density, and zoning requirements, we are ensuring that more projects can actually be built in every neighborhood, not just in certain areas. Importantly, the AHO helps keep Cambridge accessible to low- and moderate-income families, immigrants, and essential workers who might otherwise be priced out. While no policy is perfect, the AHO is a critical tool that moves us closer to equity, economic diversity, and long-term affordability in our city. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
Cathie Zusy
No In FY26 we’ll spend about $42m on affordable housing and $17m on services for the unhoused. Currently it costs about $1m to build a housing unit in Cambridge. In New Hampshire, one can build 3-4 units for that cost. Cambridge must work to expand its affordable housing stock, but we can’t house everyone. We must improve and expand our mass transit so that it is easier to commute into Cambridge. Not everyone can live here. I think that as of right construction for these big AHO buildings is problematic and that grouping poorer people together has proven not to be a good idea. Mixed income housing produces better outcomes. I also think that neighborhood associations should be enlisted in helping to site these developments. The 2024 Cambridge Resident Opinion Survey listed lack of affordable housing as the City’s top issue. Put residents to use in identifying appropriate places for housing development—encourage their buy in from the outset—ideally for mixed income development, but if we can’t figure out how to do that, for affordable housing. If you voted against the original proposal or its expansion, has your opinion changed? Didn't vote on either AHO
There is a growing body of research indicating urban infill is a powerful tool, if not the most powerful tool, that local governments have at their disposal for reducing carbon emissions. This is because letting people live near jobs and transit reduces sprawl, lengthy car commutes, and deforestation. Does Cambridge have a moral obligation to fight climate change by building more housing? [Yes/Generally/Generally Not/No] Please explain.
Ayah Al-Zubi
Generally Yes We have a moral obligation to fight climate change in every way possible, but it’s a stretch to say urban infill is the “most powerful tool” at our disposal. We need to drive our emissions to zero through innovative strategies that set an example for the rest of the world. Cutting emissions from a six-square-mile city won’t by itself save the planet, but pioneering the tactics and policies that get us there just might. Urban infill is one piece of that work, no doubt, especially since new residential is now required to be all-electric. As a socialist, I believe we need to move away from an analysis that focuses on reducing people’s individual carbon footprints. In fact, the concept of “carbon footprint” can be traced back to the big fossil fuel companies; it was popularized as a scheme to make people feel guilty about their individual choices while taking the focus away from the fossil fuel companies. But according to one study, just 57 companies are linked to 80% of global emissions since 2016. In Cambridge, something like 70% of the city’s total emissions come from our existing biotech. That’s why I’m proud to support the Green New Deal for Cambridge: it directly targets our city’s biggest polluters, demanding they cut emissions to zero, while also creating economic opportunity for the most vulnerable through green jobs. At the same time, we must confront emissions from residential buildings with strong, equitable standards and ensure that climate justice guides our housing policy. That means protecting healthy, significant trees and listening to residents’ environmental concerns, especially the most vulnerable, not cutting corners in the name of for profit development. Housing justice and climate justice have to advance together, not at each other’s expense.
Burhan Azeem
Yes Yes. The current Administration has recklessly dismantled the Inflation Reduction Act and other climate policy pillars. Thankfully, we can fight back on the local level. The most potent tool we have here is to let more people live in cities, and then to make sure people always have the option to get around without a car. I was also very proud to vote for the Fossil Fuel Free Ordinance, which ensures that new construction will be decarbonized.
Dana Bullister
Yes Yes. Cambridge absolutely has a moral obligation to fight climate change by building more housing. Research is clear: one of the most effective ways cities can reduce carbon emissions is by allowing more people to live near jobs, transit, and community resources. When we don’t build enough housing in Cambridge, demand doesn’t disappear—it spills outward, pushing families into farther suburbs where sprawl, deforestation, and long car commutes significantly increase emissions. By embracing urban infill, Cambridge can reduce regional sprawl while strengthening our own community. More homes near Red Line and Green Line stations, bus corridors, and bike infrastructure mean more residents walking, biking, and using transit instead of driving. This isn’t just a housing policy—it’s a climate policy. We also have a responsibility to ensure that the new housing we build is itself sustainable: energy-efficient, climate-resilient, and designed to meet our net-zero goals. Pairing zoning reform with strong green building standards, electrification, and investments in resilient infrastructure will allow us to add the homes we need while reducing emissions and preparing for a changing climate. The moral case is simple: failing to build enough housing here forces others into high-emission lifestyles elsewhere. Cambridge must do its part by creating more homes within our borders and ensuring that they are both affordable and sustainable. Housing policy and climate policy are inseparable, and we must treat them as such.
Tim Flaherty
No This question assumes that housing is a remedy for carbon emissions. I'm not sure I accept that premise, although I understand it conceptually and generally agree with it. However, assuming that people work within walking distance of their job is utopian. Cambridge has a moral obligation, as do we all, to fight climate change. But the true moral obligation Cambridge has is to do all it can to improve the quality of life of its residents.
Peter Hsu
Yes As a city with so much talent and potential, Cambridge should bear more social responsibilities than most other cities in the nation. Therefore, I believe Cambridge does have a. moral obligation to fight climae change by building more housing.
Ned Melanson
Yes Climate change is a global crisis, but every community must do its part to fight it. For municipalities, that means using the tools at their disposal and centering climate in the areas where they have the most influence, including land use and zoning, building codes, and transportation and street-level policy. The most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions is to build densely and near public transit, jobs, and necessities, so people can walk, cycle, and ride to their destinations rather than drive. If Cambridge does not pursue this sort of transit-oriented and walkable development, we are failing not only to provide a livable city for our current and future residents, we are failing morally to do our part in fighting climate change.
Marc McGovern
Yes Cambridge's population doubles during the work day. Many of those people cycle or take public transportation, but the majority do not. They drive. By building more housing so folks can walk or more easily bike to work, we would decrease cars, which would not only help to decrease emissions, but also it would lead to decreases in traffic and parking issues.
Patty Nolan
Generally Yes Yes—Cambridge has a moral obligation to act on climate, and housing is a big part of that. There is no question that building more homes near workplaces and transit corridors has the potential to reduce sprawl, cut car commutes, and lower emissions. At the same time, we have not seen a reduction in traffic, even as we added thousands of units. However, if infill leads to less permeable green space, then urban heat islands could be worse, and environmental justice areas will suffer the most. And infill Cambridge already has little green space in most of the city. West Cambridge could have more infill, without erasing all permeable green space. With the fossil fuel ordinance that passed, which I was proud to lead, all new construction will be fossil fuel-free, which will do more to help the climate than anything else. There are many cities and wide swaths of land in the country with far less density than Cambridge, with fewer emissions per capita. Urban density and infill do not automatically mean lower emissions.
Stanislav Rivkin
Generally No Our moral obligation is to reduce our net emissions to 0, rather than pursue a particular vector for doing so. Demolitions also result in substantial emissions, as do new constructions. We need to comprehensively decarbonize rather than merely building bigger.
Zion Sherin
Generally No Development must be approached with caution, especially in areas like Alewife Brook, where infrastructure challenges persist. In 2023 alone, over 26 million gallons of untreated sewage overflowed into Alewife Brook due to Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). These events pose significant environmental and public health risks, particularly to vulnerable communities. While increasing housing is essential, it's crucial to consider the environmental impact of new developments. Demolitions can lead to the loss of green spaces, which can’t be replaced with rooftop gardens, inaccessible to pollinators like bees and bunnies. However, thoughtful additions, such as converting single-family homes into multi-family units, can provide housing without compromising environmental integrity. We must ensure that new developments are sustainable, integrate green spaces, and do not exacerbate existing infrastructure challenges. By prioritizing environmentally conscious planning, we can create livable communities that serve both current and future residents that is truly better for the environment.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Yes We are facing both a housing crisis and a climate crisis, and the two are deeply connected. As the Brookings Institution noted in “We can’t beat the climate crisis without rethinking land use,” low-density development comes at a steep cost: it requires more building materials and energy, increases heat retention, and creates greater risks of flooding and other environmental hazards. In contrast, higher-density development allows us to house more people sustainably by reducing emissions, protecting clean air and water, and using existing infrastructure more efficiently. In Cambridge, ending exclusionary zoning and prioritizing high-density housing will not only address our urgent housing needs—it will also be a meaningful step in combating the climate crisis.
E. Denise Simmons
Yes The transportation sector is the largest source of emissions in Massachusetts. When people live farther from jobs, they drive more. By legalizing multifamily housing citywide, Cambridge has already taken a significant step towards environmental responsibility. We must continue by rezoning corridors, building eco-friendly affordable buildings and providing robust transit and active transportation options.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yes Creating more affordable housing in Cambridge is a climate issue and also an economic, racial justice, 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.
Louise Venden
Yes Building more housing here helps reduce car travel for commuters, replace inefficient HVAC systems, and reduce energy waste generated by poorly insulated older buildings with leaky, inefficient windows. Using limited land resources to build properties with more units allows the city to increase parkland and increase public transit serving the increased neighborhood density. With more riders in a given area, the demand supports more service. Of course increasing public transit use will require working with abutting communities to improve MBTA T and bus service, EZRide shuttles, and incentivizing businesses to offer T passes or subsidize more EZride service.
Ayesha Wilson
Generally Yes I believe Cambridge does have a moral obligation to address climate change, and building more housing in the city is a key part of that responsibility. When housing is concentrated near public transit, jobs, and essential services, it reduces the need for long commutes and car dependence, which in turn lowers greenhouse gas emissions. By encouraging well-planned, higher-density development in existing neighborhoods and along transit corridors, we can create more sustainable, walkable communities while also meeting our urgent housing needs. At the same time, climate-conscious development must prioritize energy efficiency, green building standards, and preservation of open space. Balancing these priorities ensures that as Cambridge grows, we reduce our carbon footprint while maintaining a livable, equitable city for all residents.
Cathie Zusy
No Cambridge has a moral obligation to fight climate change—we are a leader in this—and cities are environmentally efficient by nature, but we can’t house everyone. 15% of our housing stock is already affordable housing and we are also already a very dense city. Housing is a regional issue that Cambridge can’t solve it on its own. Other cities must build more housing, too.
Over the past year, ABC advocated for more resources for access to counsel for tenants facing eviction, pushed for the City to better notify tenants of their rights, and supported the end of tenant-paid broker fees. Yet, tenants are still often at the mercy of their landlords. Besides building more housing so that tenants have more negotiating power and pay lower rents, what else can the City do to protect tenants? Please specify whether your proposal would require state legislation.
Ayah Al-Zubi
We urgently need to pass rent control! Though it would require state legislation, a broad left-labor coalition has recently formed to collect signatures and get it on the ballot in 2026. If they are successful, I will do everything possible to get it passed. Other mechanisms I want to explore are expanding the new municipal voucher program so that more people surviving poverty on our streets can live in supportive housing, creating an emergency assistance program to help with evictions, moving costs, and counsel, strengthening the condo conversion ordinance, exploring how to reduce the burden and imposition of income verification, reducing discrimination within inclusionary buildings, creating a local health ordinance for landlords, and creating a moving in/out guide.
Burhan Azeem
I faced a lot of economic uncertainty growing up and had to move a lot. This matters to me an incredible amount. My legislative aide is a tenant attorney and I spend a lot of time thinking about how we can improve the experience of tenants. I strongly support giving all tenants a right to a lawyer. I also support requiring all rental units to be listed on a rental registry, as they are in Boston, to promote greater transparency, accountability for landlords, and to give us as policymakers more insight into the contours of our housing crisis
Dana Bullister
Beyond building more housing and the measures already mentioned, Cambridge should strengthen relocation and anti-displacement support by expanding emergency rental assistance, creating a tenant relocation fund when buildings are redeveloped, and requiring advance notice well beyond the state minimums for eviction proceedings. Cambridge can also expand support for legal counsel during eviction proceedings. These actions would not require state legislation. This investment would give tenants real protections to enable them to live with security and dignity. Cambridge must lead by using these vital tools that we already have locally.
Tim Flaherty
I have no specific policy proposals at this time.
Peter Hsu
We must do much more on lease terminations and huge increases in lease costs. Perhaps we provide an oversight board that would monitor for "excessive" amount of lease terminations per property and provide guidance/recommendations to both renters and owners as appropriate.
Ned Melanson
My top priority would be guaranteeing the right to counsel for tenants in eviction proceedings. This can be done without a home rule petition and would provide some leverage to tenants in proceedings that often favor landlords who have attorneys on retainer. I'm also open to exploring rent stabilization (capping rent increases on existing tenants while exempting new construction) and anti-displacement policies. I favor anti-displacement policies here, especially displacement compensation rules (new developer buys property and has to pay market rate first month's rent, last month's, and security deposit in compensation to any tenants that are getting displaced). I favor this policy over rent stabilization because it has less distortionary effects on the housing market while providing a measure of justice to displaced tenants and some financial cushion for them to be able to find a new apartment. Further, we need data on displacement, and we need more tenant education. I was happy to see the eviction record sealing bill pass in the State House, but I'm sure many tenants do not even know about this new law, which requires the tenant to affirmatively get their eviction record sealed (and only is allowed in certain cases). A public education campaign by the City could help bridge this knowledge gap. If we pass right to counsel in Cambridge, a similar campaign would be helpful to get the word out on that.
Marc McGovern
As mayor I launched the Tenant Protections Task Force, which was chaired brilliantly by Councillor Siddiqui. Many of those recommendations, including increasing funding for attorneys, as well as creating a guide to tenant protections have been implemented. I also supported the efforts led by Councillor Sobrino-Wheeler to eliminate brokerage fees. I support rent stabilization which would need state approval. We need Just Cause Eviction policies, some of which we may be able to do locally. We need to continue to educate tenants of their rights and provide them with legal assistance if needed. We need stronger polices and support, including financial, to allow tenants the right to organize. There are also communities that have ""Right to Redetermination"" laws that allow tenants to pay back rent to avoid eviction. We should look into establishing that protection in Cambridge.
Patty Nolan
In addition to the above-mentioned proposals that ABC has advocated for, I am open to rent stabilization and interested in a rental registry like Somerville is exploring. That would also allow us to require energy audits. I may be open to supporting the state bill limiting some rent increases, but I am concerned about unintended consequences.
Stanislav Rivkin
• Create an Office of Housing Stability, dedicated to comprehensively supporting renters throughout the lifecycle of their tenancy and housing search
• Institute Good Landlord programs that reward landlords with tax incentives to keep units affordable and in good condition.
• Encourage broker fees to not be passed down to the tenant in the form of higher rent by providing incentives to landlords who do not use brokers.
• Fight for rent stabilization. We need to do everything possible to support the likely November ballot initiative.
• Promote tenant unionization.
• Build abundant social housing to address affordability.
Zion Sherin
I am a strong advocate for tenant rights. One policy I support is a “right to return”, ensuring that when new developments are built, existing tenants can move back at the same rent once construction is complete. I also believe developers should be responsible for tenant relocation costs if residents are given less than six months’ notice prior to demolition; covering moving fees, first month’s rent, and security deposit. I am actively working with tenants to develop systems that ensure renters get back their security deposits fairly and on time. I haven’t gotten everything figured out quite yet, but please feel free to check my website for it later on. Not all of us own property, and we need to look out for those that don’t because we matter too!
Sumbul Siddiqui
We need to continue supporting our nonprofits and the Multi-Service Center to help residents with housing stability and housing search services. Ensuring tenants have access to information is also key, which is why we enacted the Tenants’ Rights and Resources Ordinance. We must also keep working with property owners to reduce the number of actions that lead to eviction-related court filings. While most filings are for non-payment of rent and do not result in physical eviction, any filing—regardless of outcome—creates a long-term liability that can make it harder for tenants to secure housing in the future. This term, after years of advocacy, eviction sealing became law, and we need to be committed to making sure residents understand how to seal their records. One recommendation has been to adopt a City Condominium Conversion Ordinance that would strengthen state law in service of Cambridge tenants. I would also push to enact local ordinances that provide tenants with stronger protections and more stability, including rent stabilization, just cause eviction, and tenant opportunity to purchase (TOPA). While all of these efforts would require state legislation, these tools would help prevent displacement, give tenants a fair chance to remain in their homes, and ensure that residents have a pathway to secure long-term housing in Cambridge. Finally, residents currently navigate multiple city offices for housing support—the City Manager’s Office Housing Liaison, the Multi-Service Center in the same building, and the Community Development Department (CDD). This can be confusing. It would be helpful to explore ways to better coordinate or combine efforts so that housing services are easier to access and more streamlined for residents.
E. Denise Simmons
• Right to counsel: Expand funding so every tenant facing eviction has access to legal representation. The council recently supported a policy order to increase legal representation for tenants; I amended it to ensure that notices of tenants’ rights are sent to property managers as well as tenants.
.
• Rent stabilization: Pursue a home‑rule petition to allow reasonable limits on rent increases. In 2023, I said we should “do all that we can, including that, to keep our city as affordable as possible”. This would require state legislation to lift the statewide ban on rent control.
• Eviction diversion: Expand emergency rental assistance and mediation programs, building on the city’s funding for homelessness services and rental vouchers.
• Data transparency: Require landlords to register rents and eviction filings to identify patterns of abuse.
• Anti‑discrimination enforcement: Strengthen enforcement against discrimination based on source of income, race or family status. Several of these proposals—rent stabilization, broker‑fee elimination and data reporting—do require state enabling legislation.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
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. 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. Cambridge should also expand upon the City’s Housing Liaison position 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.
Louise Venden
Consider funding support for a higher level of Inclusionary Housing rentals in projects through partnerships with developers to offset the cost of building units with limited reveue potentialto offset building costs. Inclusionary rental unit wait lists are very long andgrowing. The City should also help tenants seek MA Rental Vouchers, expecially since Section 8 vouchers are under attack by Trump. Cambridge should seek state approval for a Housing Trust enabling the city to offer funding for more projects for residents and workers and property tax relief for landlords who keep rents low. Boston has adopted an opt in feature of MA law M.G.L. c. 59, § 5O which allows reduced property taxes for landlords meeting affordable rent levels to year round residents. I can't find a simliar progream in Cambridge, but it may exist somewhere in the website labyrinth.
Ayesha Wilson
Cambridge can take several steps to better protect tenants, many of which can be implemented locally. The city should fully fund and expand tenant assistance programs, including rental assistance, legal aid, and emergency housing stabilization funds, to help residents at risk of eviction stay in their homes. Strengthening tenant education and outreach is also important and we need to fund programs that inform residents about their rights, available resources, and mediation services. Furthermore, Cambridge can expand the right-to-counsel support in housing court by increasing funding to nonprofit legal organizations to ensure that more tenants have access to legal representation during eviction proceedings. However, recognizing that some proposals require state action. Rent stabilization or rent control, for example, cannot be enacted by Cambridge without state legislation. Advocating for these measures at the state level could provide additional safeguards, helping to prevent sudden rent increases and displacement, and ensuring that all tenants, especially those most vulnerable, have a fair chance to remain in their homes.
Cathie Zusy
We must strengthen property maintenance standards, ensure timely and proper handling of security deposits, and provide easier access to tenant resources and legal aid. If we make it too hard or risky for landlords, however, we’ll lose rental units. That would be a problem.
Cambridge’s form of government is relatively unique in the US. It features a City Manager appointed by a City Council that is elected at large (i.e., no wards) via ranked choice. Elections are held during odd years where turnout is low, and the City government relies heavily on public comment, which is not representative of the city as a whole. What would you like to do to improve how Cambridge governs itself?
Ayah Al-Zubi
I believe our current form of government is not democratic because we don’t get to vote for the city manager. I would love to switch to an elected executive branch (mayoral race). I also want to allow non-citizens and youth to vote in local elections, and I want to switch municipal elections to an even year for turnout. We also need to maintain at-large proportional representation as a basic matter of equity. All of these concepts were supported by a majority of the recent Charter Review Committee. We need more transparency and accessibility to government. I want to make a guide for civic engagement in multiple languages that can be accessible. This is the bare minimum. I don't mean the translation that you see on the current main website. I mean a guide to how to do X, how to do Y, how to make your voice feel heard. In this way, I'm excited to be able to create community building and empowerment sessions where I will work to organize these community members on how to be heard. The second would be to work on addressing how to make meetings more accessible. When working families are navigating jobs, transportation, kids, food, etc. it can be difficult to find the time to share your voice. I want to work on making our meeting agenda notes easy to navigate. I don’t believe in the form of government we currently have because it has led to frustrations from City Council and residents on direct accountability to advancing policies. So, I want to work on exploring what possibilities there are with structure and creative solutions to accessibility. I'm open to other ideas!
Burhan Azeem
We should make it easier for people to engage with local politics! I strongly support moving elections to even-numbered years, which in itself should significantly boost turnout and encourage more people to become civically engaged.
Dana Bullister
There are several impactful ways by which Cambridge can improve the way it governs to increase transparency, heighten accountability, and strengthen citizen voice. First, our city government relies heavily on public comment as a near-sole means for gathering community input on ongoing policy decisions. This process, though valuable, can also paint a highly unrepresentative picture of the true priorities of our broader community. In particular, this process can neglect the perspectives of busy parents, service workers, students, the unhoused, seniors, and others who simply don’t have the schedule, bandwidth, or ability to initiate such participation. Our city should set aside modest resources for community outreach that models a "flipped lobbying" approach. Rather than reacting to input from our most politically savvy, our government should initiate proactive outreach via polling for high-stakes issues to collect more empirically representative snapshots of the priorities among affected communities. This can be a powerful tool for ensuring the needs of our most time-strapped, politically inexperienced, and generally overburdened do not continually fall through the cracks of our system. I also support further limiting the role of money in politics, which can magnify political inequities. This can be done by further reducing maximum campaign contributions via home rule petition (see Boulder, Colorado). Another initiative to consider is pilot testing five-star voting. This can explore whether simpler, more transparent voting could strengthen accountability, increase expressive power, and provide better insight into community preferences. Our city should also strengthen its relationships with our unique local research and innovation ecosystems to pilot other fresh ideas in better governance. Cambridge is a powerhouse of material innovation. We should be a trailblazer in social innovation as well. This is our chance to lead in building better government.
Tim Flaherty
I am hoping to win a seat in this election. If enough voters believe I should have the opportunity, I will work collaboratively with the council, city manager, and relevant city staff and department heads to learn the inner workings of Cambridge city government. I believe it is presumptuous of me to suggest any improvements to how Cambridge governs itself when I have no first-hand experience how the administration works. In my view, better listening, improved transparency, more effective communication, and increased engagement with residents are the most important improvements Cambridge needs to make to better govern itself.
Peter Hsu
I believe by having some/most of our City Councillors elected by wards (instead of all at large) would likely result in more accountability.
Ned Melanson
We should change our election year to even years to increase turnout. For public comment, I'd like to explore ways to incorporate and preserve the public's right to comment while ensuring the Council does not only rely on live public comment. I applaud councillors and candidates who advocate for “reverse lobbying” to reach members of the public who don’t have the resources or time to attend these meetings. For example, caregivers often cannot be heard at public meetings, and have limited time to write in testimony. Tabling in public spaces or knocking doors after the campaign ends are good examples of this.
Marc McGovern
Although I am not always happy with our form of government, I do think it has worked well. Cambridge is a great city and the most financially stable city in the state. That didn't happen by accident, and it didn't happen because we haven't provided amazing services for our residents. Just this past weekend, for example, I visited every fenced in dog park in the city as part of National Dog Appreciation Day. I was sitting on a bench in Toomey Park in East Cambridge and smiling. I was looking at a beautiful park for children, adults and yes, dogs. 99% of the people in Cambridge live withing a 1/4 mile of a park. We send all 4 years to preschool for free. We are building new school buildings. We are a safe city. We are a walkable city. We just opened 93 studio apartments for unhoused Cambridge residents to move them off the street. These things, and more, don't happen if a city has a dysfunctional government. Although campaigning citywide can be challenging, I support it because we are not a large city and it requires Councillors to pay attention to every neighborhood, which also allows us to have more freedom to support policies that may be beneficial to the entire city, but may not be popular in our particular district. One thing we have to do better, and we have made progress, is making sure that we are getting more voices to the table. Our boards and commissions are mainly made up of older home owners who have the time to participate. To be clear, I appreciate anyone who volunteers their time to take part in serving the community, but we need more balance. I was proud to work with others to change the make up of some of these boards to require a broader range of participants, including renters.
Patty Nolan
Cambridge’s government is not unique except for using Ranked choice. More than half of cities with over 100K residents have a manager-council form of government. This November, we’ll be voting on a new charter, which would make some good changes in clarifying roles, allowing a more democratic way to count votes, and updating language. I was a leader with Councillors Siddiqui and Sobrinho-Wheeler in that effort. I supported more changes, but there was no majority support, including stronger budget authority, as I had as a School committee member. I am also open to considering that a mayor instead of a city manager could improve accountability and transparency.
Stanislav Rivkin
-Create a public financing system for local elections, preferably using Democracy Vouchers
-Hold elections in even years
-Institute term limits
-Directly elect the mayor
-Allow mayor to overrule city manager with the city council’s approval
-Allow two-way engagement with city councilors at public comment
-Hold town halls to augment public comment
Zion Sherin
There are many ideas for improving Cambridge city government, and I am eager to hear all suggestions. As a challenger I have not fully seen every detail of how the current system operates, and I want to see firsthand the challenges before proposing any drastic changes. One reform I do support is term limits, both locally and nationally. I also believe elected officials should be more accessible to residents, so we don’t rely solely on public comment periods as many people may not feel comfortable speaking in public or may face accessibility challenges.
Sumbul Siddiqui
As-Co Chair of the Charter Review Committee, we made some important changes but can go further. The new recommended charter is clear, modern, and easy to understand, following best practices for accessible, gender-neutral language. It keeps regular ten-year reviews, strengthens oversight of the city manager, clerk, and auditor, clarifies budget and governance roles, and retains ranked choice voting while allowing modernized tabulation. It also codifies existing elections practices like early voting, vote by mail, and accessible systems, making Cambridge’s government more transparent, accountable, and easier for residents to navigate. I also believe we can improve how public comment is conducted to ensure more diverse voices are heard, and I am open to continuing the conversation about Cambridge’s form of government, as this initial reform process did not fully explore all possibilities.
E. Denise Simmons
I support the current Plan E charter because it provides a clear separation between the policy-setting Council and the day to day administration of the City Manager. This “firewall” allows the manager to run the city professionally without undue political influence. However, I agree that our system can be more inclusive. We should:
(1) move municipal elections to even year cycles to increase turnout;
(2) strengthen civic education so residents understand proportional representation;
(3) adopt publicly funded elections to reduce the influence of money;
(4) diversify Boards and Commissions to reflect the city’s demographics;
(5) strengthen our community engagement processes to ensure we’re speaking to and with a greater cross-section of our community.
I do not support switching to a strong mayor system, as it would politicize the day to day running of the city and reduce accountability.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
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. 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.
Louise Venden
The Council missed an important opprtunity to change how the Mayor is elected. The Mayor should be elected by popular vote at large, not by sitting councilors. Election by the councilors encourages them play to their narrow constituency and make trade offs with each other to gain and keep influence. The weak Council system is weakened further by not making the Mayor gain support from the entire voting public. The Council should also have more control over budget making by establishing their own independent Budget Oversight staff so that they have adequate resources to gain influence and diretc resources that may differ from those of the City Manager. I also favor 4 year stagerred terms to provide more time for councilors to focus on their goals rather than getting ready for reelction every 18 months. Also, the City Manager performance review does not follow Human Resources best practices of setting measurable goals in specific terms allowing an accessible and informative summary of performance to voters. The review offers only three categories of goal achievement: met, partially met and not met ratings. Many goals are routine functions like hiring staff, holding meet and greets, and doing surveys that are assumed as part of he joob. Management of the nearly Billion dollar budget and accomplishing ambitious Housing, education and human services goals requires more detailed descriptions of performance expectations....affordable units built, numbers of children enrolled in PreK, police department performance, and impacts of Equity and Inlusion efforts on hiring, services and opportunities.
Ayesha Wilson
Cambridge’s government structure gives residents many opportunities to participate, but it also presents challenges in ensuring that decision-making reflects the entire community. Low voter turnout in odd-year elections and reliance on public comment can mean that only a small, highly vocal segment of residents is shaping policy. To improve how Cambridge governs itself, one change I would propose is community engagement. We need to redefine what meaningful engagement looks like for the City of Cambridge. This means going beyond surface-level outreach and truly connecting with communities that have historically been left out of decision-making processes. To achieve this, we should prioritize engaging residents where they are. Additionally, hosting regular, accessible town halls will ensure that more residents, especially those who are often excluded, have a consistent and genuine opportunity to participate. Real community engagement requires intentionality, transparency, and a commitment to amplifying voices that are too often unheard. The second change I would propose is establishing clear definitions and measurable outcomes for community engagement. Many residents are not actively involved in local policy, elections, or council meetings, so we need a more intentional process that brings participation directly to them. This could include hosting meetings in accessible public spaces, like libraries or community rooms in public housing, and creating engagement strategies that ensure every resident, regardless of background, feels represented and empowered. As Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley said, “Those closest to the pain should be closest to the power,” and the only way to achieve that is through thoughtful, deliberate engagement.
Cathie Zusy
I would encourage City staff to listen more closely to its informed and often longtime homeowners and neighborhood groups and not be bullied by organized groups mostly made up of transient residents and funded by development interests. Note: We just updated the City Charter; this won’t happen again for ten years.
Ayah Al-Zubi
I want to clarify why I am not seeking your endorsement, despite aligning with you on many policy stances. I don’t believe we can solve the housing crisis by relying on the same market-driven mechanisms that helped create it. From my perspective, that has been central to ABC’s approach. The emphasis on trickle-down economics and deregulation prioritizes the most privileged among us. It harms low-income people, people of color, and marginalized communities because it erases the history, stories, and struggles of those who have already been displaced. This is part of why I am a democratic socialist: our housing crisis is rooted in an unequal distribution of wealth and power, including right here in Cambridge. It was great to see ABC members show up to oppose closing the shelter this past spring. I hope we can build more trust and common ground by working together on priorities that truly center low-income residents like launching a social housing pilot to create hundreds of new homes across the city at all income levels, dramatically increasing revenue for subsidized housing of all kinds, and winning rent control at the ballot box in 2026. The question is what kind of housing are we prioritizing with our precious resources and staff capacity? If ABC is willing to put more weight behind these kinds of efforts, I believe there is real potential for us to grow closer in the future.
Burhan Azeem
1. I have been the lead sponsor and author of the amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay, removal of parking mandates, and the multifamily housing ordinance. I deeply believe we need more housing of all types and have been doing the work to make sure Cambridge builds.
2. I also believe the rest of the state needs to do its part and instead of using that as an excuse, I founded Abundant Housing MA and have been working with the governor and the state house to implement the MBTA communities act (which pushes suburbs to build housing) and legalize small homes statewide.
Dana Bullister
At the heart of my candidacy is a deep love for Cambridge and a commitment to ensuring it remains a place where people of all backgrounds can thrive. I’ve lived here for over a decade as a renter, biking or scootering and taking public transit every day, and I know firsthand the challenges of staying in this city as housing costs rise. Those experiences drive my focus on affordability, equity, and sustainability. I also bring a strong record of community leadership. As Chair of the Board of YWCA Cambridge, I’ve worked to expand affordable housing and vital social services for women and families. Professionally, I’m a data scientist trained in economics and policy, and I’m currently pursuing a PhD focused on how we can design systems that empower communities and improve democracy. I will bring both lived experience and technical expertise to the Council. My campaign is about building a Cambridge that lives up to its values: affordable, inclusive, sustainable, and responsive to its people. That means fighting for more housing and tenant protections, tackling climate change through smart growth, ensuring safer streets for walking and biking, and rethinking how government engages with residents so that busy parents, service workers, seniors, students, and unhoused neighbors all have a voice—not just the loudest or most well-connected. I am running because I believe Cambridge can lead the way in showing what a just, innovative, and people-centered city looks like. Together, we can make this community stronger for everyone who calls it home.
Tim Flaherty
I am a life-long resident of Cambridge. I grew up in a two-family in North Cambridge, lived in an apartment outside of Harvard Square, and now live in a single-family in West Cambridge. I am intimately familiar with the day-to-day concerns faced by residents in each of our neighborhoods. I am a former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, and I have interacted with hundreds of Cambridge families from every demographic in our city. I am the father of a boy entering the 8th grade, I have coached little league baseball and CYO basketball, I have been active in my community working to mentor and assist young adults touched by trauma from urban violence, and I have worked in countless ways to provide opportunity and to help others. I love Cambridge, and I know first-hand the challenges that real people face, from day care, to affordability, to education, transportation, health care, elder care, to crime and justice, not because I read about it or studied it, but because I have lived it.
Peter Hsu
I believe diversity and being willing to work with those who have different opinions than us ultimately drive our society forward and better. I would love to be endorsed by ABC, but if I do not get endorsed by ABC, I will still be more than happy to work with ABC!
Ned Melanson
Housing has been the center of my political journey since I moved to Cambridge. In my work as a public defender at Cambridge District Court, I represent many Cambridge residents experiencing homelessness and addiction. Similarly, in my disability law practice, I represent people throughout the Commonwealth who experience housing insecurity and struggle with accessibility. I'm a renter myself and hope to own a home and put down roots in Cambridge one day. I knocked on doors for pro-housing candidates in 2023 and have been advocating for pro-housing policies, including the AHO and the multifamily housing upzoning, since then. I decided to run this year because we need another strong housing advocate on the Council in 2026, someone who will not only defend the remarkable gains of the past few years, but push forward a new vision for Cambridge that emphasizes affordability, abundance, and accessibility.
Marc McGovern
I want to thank ABC for there past support and for all of the work they have done to organize and advocate. We could not have made this progress without all of you. I would be honored to earn your endorsement again this year.
Patty Nolan
We in Cambridge too often mirror the national discourse that we decry. Too much polarization, inflexibility, and dismissal of people’s experiences and concerns. I try very hard to do good policy work that is impactful and addresses the deep problems - like housing - in a thoughtful way. Too often, that is not supported. Wish ABC could do more on that front. And what is missing in all the talk about housing affordability is the need for better-paying jobs. If people made an adequate income, they could afford the housing costs.
Stanislav Rivkin
My top priorities are to reform government, expand affordable housing, and reverse income inequality. City Council must have the resources, leverage, and mandate to hold officials accountable and reflect the democratic will of voters. Cambridge must lead an ambitious but strategic initiative to build abundant affordable housing through social housing, community land trusts, vouchers, and strong inclusionary requirements. And as Cambridge’s wealth grows, we must ensure low- and middle-income families can thrive, with supports including universal childcare, extension of the Rise Up program, food security support, and transportation assistance financed by those who have benefited most. These priorities will create a fairer, more inclusive city where all residents can flourish.
Zion Sherin
One thing that sets my campaign apart is my decision not to accept money from developers or Political Action Committees (PACs). PACs play a much larger role in financing local campaigns than most people realize, and I believe relying on them can distract elected officials from focusing on the people. This doesn’t mean I oppose PACs or the principles they represent. If a PAC supports my values, I will gladly seek their endorsement and let them communicate to their members why they support me, but I will never take their money.
Sumbul Siddiqui
Aside from zoning reform and tenant displacement, I have focused on elevating residents’ concerns, particularly around Cambridge’s affordable homeownership programs, including HomeBridge. Over the past few years, residents raised issues with the resale formula and inheritance policies, which limited wealth-building and prevented owners from passing homes to heirs without city approval. After extensive surveys, listening sessions, and discussions with the Affordable Housing Trust, the program was updated: resale values now grow by 2.5% per year plus credits for improvements, and owners can pass homes directly to family members or other chosen heirs who meet income limits. While these changes improve returns, some residents remain concerned about limits on wealth-building and mobility, especially for aging owners needing funds for care or wishing to move to market-rate housing. I have also worked with residents to raise awareness with the Affordable Housing Trust and City Manager about past investments. For example, the Print Shop condominiums, a 24-unit affordable building in the Port neighborhood, face significant maintenance challenges despite being only 15 years old, including leaks, elevator shutdowns, and deteriorating infrastructure. In response, the Trust allocated $3 million in October 2023 for essential repairs, but rising fees and assessments still raise concerns about long-term affordability and sustainability. Overall, I have a proven track record of getting things done in a variety of areas. Over the last four terms, I have advanced major initiatives—from zoning reform and to helping bring Universal Pre-K to Cambridge—while centering residents’ voices and needs.
E. Denise Simmons
Cambridge needs experienced, pragmatic leadership to navigate a housing crisis, climate emergency and rising inequality. Over the decades, I have delivered results—helping to triple developer fees and double inclusionary requirements, co chairing the Task Force to Reimagine Public Safety, launching Safe Streets meetings to address violence, and championing universal preschool. I remain committed to centering those who have historically been left out and to asking, “Who’s not in the room, and how do we bring them in?”. I will continue to fight for a Cambridge that is affordable, inclusive and sustainable for all.
Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler
I have led efforts this term to strengthen Cambridge’s Welcoming Community Ordinance to protect immigrant residents and put Cambridge on record as a sanctuary for LGBTQ+ residents. I believe both of these efforts are deeply intertwined with the need to create more affordable housing in Cambridge. Being a welcoming city on paper doesn’t mean a thing if people who are being persecuted by the federal government and other states can not actually afford to live in Cambridge. When we say “All are welcome in Cambridge” we should not have to put an asterisk beside it to clarify that it means only if you can afford it. I also believe expanding affordable child care and after-school programs is connected with housing affordability as a means of making Cambridge a place that everyone can call home. 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 introduced 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 a strong supporter of 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.
Louise Venden
Cambridge faces challenging financial and human service challenges as buinesses and nonprofits downsize, people lose their jobs, support for transportaion and housing diminshies and residents with middle and lower incomes leave. Prioritizing expenditures and allocating resources to the most important goals and making sure they are achieved is possible and necessary to fulfill promises made to struggling residents. We need to get results and make government accountable for creating more housing, lowering car traffic, improving public education, and building consensus in this robust ambitious community.
Ayesha Wilson
Cathie Zusy
I am committed to helping to solve the housing problem in Cambridge. I understand that it’s real and have great sympathy for anyone who didn’t purchase housing in Cambridge twenty years or more ago. To remain a vital city, young people must be able to live here. But giving private developers a free for all to build anywhere and anyhow will not solve our housing problem. Their goal is to make money. We must be more clever and sensitive to what we’ve got and what we aspire Cambridge to be as we move forward. Allowing developers to build without guardrails is not going to get us to where we want to go. It will only diminish what has been a beautiful and highly livable city. We should be following the recommendations of Envision Cambridge, not ignoring it. We also must advance broader transportation initiatives, making it easier for people to commute into Cambridge. Unbridled upzoning and deregulation are not the answers. We must work smarter and more creatively to address this issue. Housing challenges are not ours alone, they are a nation-wide and global concern. To preserve our communities, we must continue to build affordable housing and provide housing vouchers and other supports to allow those who don’t have $400,000-$800,000 to purchase a studio apartment in Cambridge. To create more “affordable housing,” we need to encourage our local universities to build more student housing, support the creation of a Cambridge Land Trust, discourage REIT and overseas investors from buying investment properties, and incentivize homeowners to lease empty rooms and charge lower than market rates for rental units.
If you want to limit to only seeing answers from a smaller number of candidates, you can uncheck the boxes below.
