Checks to Cambridge Citizens Coalition can be mailed to CCC at P.O. Box 410291, Cambridge, MA 02141.
Get Active! Stay Alert to what is happening on the CITY WEEKLY CALENDAR
To Watch: Gentrification in Cambridge by a Concord Academy student:
https://sites.google.com/concordacademy.org/cambridgentrification/home
In Play: new City Budget. As Robert Winters notes: "... we appear to be in for the largest jump in memory - a nearly 10% increase from last year. The total City Budget for FY23 was $787,913,900 and that’s proposed to go up to $866,254,920 - a 9.9% increase (and that doesn’t include the additional $167,150,000 in loan authorizations). The budget for the Executive Department (the City Manager’s Office) is going up a whopping 50.2% from $5,638,040 to $8,467,495." Winters asks "...why the Community Development Department’s budget is going from $14,409,820 to $39,290,300, a 172.7% increase." It certainly is bewildering. Note that Affordable Housing at Jefferson Park cost city taxpayers over $900,000 per unit (well above luxury housing costs). For the city's 25 miles of bike lanes, a 80-page report stipulates that May 1is when the final approval for two plus miles of new protected bike lanes in Harvard Square must be completed. This tiny 2 mile piece of the 25 mile total bicycle lane effort will cost some $55 million (HERE). In San Diego, the cost of bike lanes skyrocketed from 200 million to well over 400 million (HERE). This is all happening at the same time that many of our offices remain empty, and key tech companies are laying off workers. A huge rise in budget costs such as we see here will call for sizable tax increases on city residents and properties (further increasing rents and personal costs) at a time when other taxes are also increasing. We need a City Council and City Staff that will be responsive to the needs of our residents.
In Play: on BEUDO (Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance) decision. This concerns the City Council's proposal requiring early conversion of large buildings from gas to electric. If the 2035 date is chosen by Council (rather than the state mandated date of 2050) for large buildings, this move may force renters in large buildings out of their homes for the months (or years) the expensive retrofitting work is being done. Owners may also seek to upgrade their rental units while they are empty or turn them into luxury condos, further increasing lease prices and displacing more residents across the city. Local businesses may be heavily impacted by these early BEUDO changes as well.
In Play: New Radical AHO Citywide Up-Zoning Petition DOUBLING current AHO heights and adding 15 story structures in our Squares and 12 story structures on our avenues PLUS density increases on many city avenues and elsewhere in the City. New housing must be consistent with what is found in adjacent neighborhoods, because these structures also will determine the local context in which still more commercial and/or luxury higher density housing will be judged and built.
Tell City Council: We have c.3000-3500 Cambridge residents on our affordable housing list. Please add new housing on city owned land; save money, add more units, and promote more equity by providing down payments for half the units so people can gain equity. In short, address OUR city-specific needs.
Write City Councillors at council@cambridgema.gov
ABC, the political group who is sponsoring this massive up-zoning petition, appears to be fund-raising off this AHO amendment proposal, reaching out to builders and developers in a March 26, 2023 Banker and Tradesman article published by the two-chairs of the ABC advocacy team. One of these individuals is also leading the effort to gut the existing Cambridge architectural preservation policies (see below). Any funding to their political pac raised through this drive will go to support their candidates in the next election.
https://sites.google.com/concordacademy.org/cambridgentrification/home
In Play: new City Budget. As Robert Winters notes: "... we appear to be in for the largest jump in memory - a nearly 10% increase from last year. The total City Budget for FY23 was $787,913,900 and that’s proposed to go up to $866,254,920 - a 9.9% increase (and that doesn’t include the additional $167,150,000 in loan authorizations). The budget for the Executive Department (the City Manager’s Office) is going up a whopping 50.2% from $5,638,040 to $8,467,495." Winters asks "...why the Community Development Department’s budget is going from $14,409,820 to $39,290,300, a 172.7% increase." It certainly is bewildering. Note that Affordable Housing at Jefferson Park cost city taxpayers over $900,000 per unit (well above luxury housing costs). For the city's 25 miles of bike lanes, a 80-page report stipulates that May 1is when the final approval for two plus miles of new protected bike lanes in Harvard Square must be completed. This tiny 2 mile piece of the 25 mile total bicycle lane effort will cost some $55 million (HERE). In San Diego, the cost of bike lanes skyrocketed from 200 million to well over 400 million (HERE). This is all happening at the same time that many of our offices remain empty, and key tech companies are laying off workers. A huge rise in budget costs such as we see here will call for sizable tax increases on city residents and properties (further increasing rents and personal costs) at a time when other taxes are also increasing. We need a City Council and City Staff that will be responsive to the needs of our residents.
In Play: on BEUDO (Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance) decision. This concerns the City Council's proposal requiring early conversion of large buildings from gas to electric. If the 2035 date is chosen by Council (rather than the state mandated date of 2050) for large buildings, this move may force renters in large buildings out of their homes for the months (or years) the expensive retrofitting work is being done. Owners may also seek to upgrade their rental units while they are empty or turn them into luxury condos, further increasing lease prices and displacing more residents across the city. Local businesses may be heavily impacted by these early BEUDO changes as well.
In Play: New Radical AHO Citywide Up-Zoning Petition DOUBLING current AHO heights and adding 15 story structures in our Squares and 12 story structures on our avenues PLUS density increases on many city avenues and elsewhere in the City. New housing must be consistent with what is found in adjacent neighborhoods, because these structures also will determine the local context in which still more commercial and/or luxury higher density housing will be judged and built.
Tell City Council: We have c.3000-3500 Cambridge residents on our affordable housing list. Please add new housing on city owned land; save money, add more units, and promote more equity by providing down payments for half the units so people can gain equity. In short, address OUR city-specific needs.
Write City Councillors at council@cambridgema.gov
ABC, the political group who is sponsoring this massive up-zoning petition, appears to be fund-raising off this AHO amendment proposal, reaching out to builders and developers in a March 26, 2023 Banker and Tradesman article published by the two-chairs of the ABC advocacy team. One of these individuals is also leading the effort to gut the existing Cambridge architectural preservation policies (see below). Any funding to their political pac raised through this drive will go to support their candidates in the next election.
Also in Play: key City Councillors are pushing to gut our highly regarded Architectural Preservation Policies
Read the proposed new NCD language HERE
Read about the proposed East Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District HERE
Write City Councillors to support our historic buildings at council@cambridgema.gov
Read about the proposed East Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District HERE
Write City Councillors to support our historic buildings at council@cambridgema.gov
CITY CHARTER REVIEW ISSUES
CCC Steering Committee Supports:
Keeping the current City Manager System, Keeping 2-year Terms, Changing to a Mix of District-based and at-large Councillors.
Keeping the current City Manager System, Keeping 2-year Terms, Changing to a Mix of District-based and at-large Councillors.
Cambridge Cannot House Everyone who Wants to Live Here
Cambridge is not big enough to provide properties for all who want to invest here
There are currently c.3,000-3,500 Cambridge city residents on the affordable housing list. We can indeed find housing for this group through thoughtful planning and building the requisite housing on city owned property, and asking the city acquire property specifically for this purpose. We could even help at least half these residents build equity by providing down payments (or working with local banks to do so) for these Cambridge residents to purchase homes within these city owned properties. Building towering 25 story skyscrapers for segregated housing is a model that failed when the federal government did it in the fifties. Here we are not even required to provide green spaces, trees, or parking so people can get to work and back, to say nothing of the needed infrastructure to make this work. The so-called 21,000 wait list – is one that seems never to have been cleared and comprises people throughout the area (and country) who would like to live in Cambridge (or anywhere in some cases).
Cambridge is c.6 square miles (far smaller than Boston – which has a smaller list) and we are a very dense (city top 4-5 in the country with a population over 100K). We already have exceeded state goals on housing because we are an exceedingly generous community (a good thing) and way surpass most other area and state municipalities. We are a good and moral city but we need to be advancing far more thoughtful policies that are practical, sustainable, and will make a real difference. What we need is an actual city plan (block by block) that includes affordable and mixed income housing, viable nearby transportation (15 minutes to reach other areas of the city), as well as more green spaces and parks (particularly in our denser neighborhoods) and trees (it is this that keeps down devastating heat island impacts (adding to both environmental and health inequities). In short we ned to focus on smart city policies that get proven results, and help people build equity, rather than an array of ideologically driven policies.
Are there studies/info that show causality/correlations between AH, impacts on housing market and equity/wealth gap? Yes - elsewhere. One of the most important professionals is an urban planner who lives in Vancouver who has long argued that adding more housing often increases housing costs in high density/high demand cities like Vancouver (and Cambridge). He argues that the very best way to address housing needs is to build on city-owned land because then you are not increasing property values, housing costs, and taxes often on those who cannot afford them. See his recent analysis on “Why More Housing Supply Won’t Solve Affordability” here: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-more-housing-supply-wont-solve-unaffordability
He offers 5 key reasons, one of which is that a frenzy of outside investors are buying up housing stock. That is also what is happening here (in spades). Another is that we (like Vancouver) are hemmed in geographically and have no way to grow outward.
Cambridge is c.6 square miles (far smaller than Boston – which has a smaller list) and we are a very dense (city top 4-5 in the country with a population over 100K). We already have exceeded state goals on housing because we are an exceedingly generous community (a good thing) and way surpass most other area and state municipalities. We are a good and moral city but we need to be advancing far more thoughtful policies that are practical, sustainable, and will make a real difference. What we need is an actual city plan (block by block) that includes affordable and mixed income housing, viable nearby transportation (15 minutes to reach other areas of the city), as well as more green spaces and parks (particularly in our denser neighborhoods) and trees (it is this that keeps down devastating heat island impacts (adding to both environmental and health inequities). In short we ned to focus on smart city policies that get proven results, and help people build equity, rather than an array of ideologically driven policies.
Are there studies/info that show causality/correlations between AH, impacts on housing market and equity/wealth gap? Yes - elsewhere. One of the most important professionals is an urban planner who lives in Vancouver who has long argued that adding more housing often increases housing costs in high density/high demand cities like Vancouver (and Cambridge). He argues that the very best way to address housing needs is to build on city-owned land because then you are not increasing property values, housing costs, and taxes often on those who cannot afford them. See his recent analysis on “Why More Housing Supply Won’t Solve Affordability” here: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-why-more-housing-supply-wont-solve-unaffordability
He offers 5 key reasons, one of which is that a frenzy of outside investors are buying up housing stock. That is also what is happening here (in spades). Another is that we (like Vancouver) are hemmed in geographically and have no way to grow outward.
|
This radical up zoning is on a fast track to confirmation. It was discussed at the November 21 City Council Meeting, and has been moved to both the Housing and Neighborhood/Longterm Planning Committees. These committees likely will meet at the beginning of the new year. Of note: we have learned that last year six AHO developments were approved (with some 1000 units) so the current system is working. Moreover the city itself owns land with 13 parking lots in Central Square, and building additional AHOs on city-owned land makes for more financial sense and will not increase property values/housing costs to the same degree. Last year there were six AHO projects approved in the city with some new 1,000 units. Some of the city's own properties should be used for new affordable housing, would be less expensive to build because we already own the property and would have less impacts on adjacent property values. Moreover if we fund these units we could restrict them to the 2,500 or so Cambridge residents on the Affordable Housing list (currently there are about 7,000 Cambridge residents AND workers on this list.
If we built on our own city property with our own funds we also could reserve more units for home purchases so residents would be able to build equity.
To be allowed if the AHO UP-ZONING PETITION PASSES:
Affordable Housing Developments in major Cambridge and Minor Corridors (see map below) can become 10, 11 or 15 stories high. In Cambridge City Squares (see map below) AHO structures can be taller than the current 23 story Rindge Towers. These structures also will be allowed anywhere in the city if multiple properties are joined together. Above right is an image of what such a 25 story structure might look like in Harvard Square at the Bank of America site. By way of comparison, the very tall Harvard Smith Center is only ten (10) stories tall. We are currently working with architects to create models of likely impacts for other neighborhoods of the city.
Affordable Housing Developments in major Cambridge and Minor Corridors (see map below) can become 10, 11 or 15 stories high. In Cambridge City Squares (see map below) AHO structures can be taller than the current 23 story Rindge Towers. These structures also will be allowed anywhere in the city if multiple properties are joined together. Above right is an image of what such a 25 story structure might look like in Harvard Square at the Bank of America site. By way of comparison, the very tall Harvard Smith Center is only ten (10) stories tall. We are currently working with architects to create models of likely impacts for other neighborhoods of the city.
What parts of the city will be impacted by this zoning petition, and to what degree? Those residents living near major Squares (or several-property compositions) may see new structures reaching 25 story (280') heights. Those residents living near avenues or corridors in the cities may going forward have affordable housing developments reaching 9, 10 or 13 stories without setbacks, parking, or green spaces. SEE MAP BELOW.
KEY TAKE AWAYS
- 25 Story AHO buildings will be allowed in all our major Squares (Central, Harvard, and Leslie-Porter) as well as multi-lot properties that meet certain criteria. These structures may be without parking, property setbacks, or buffer zones to residential areas. Multi-property combinations will be counted as AHO squares for purposes of enhanced height limits. There will be no limits on resident numbers (density, FAR)
- 9-10-13 Story AHO structures will be allowed on major corridors and key other avenues: These include not only Massachusetts Avenue but also Albany Street, Alewife Brook Parkway, Bishop Allen Drive, Broadway, Cambridge Street, Concord Avenue, First Street, Fresh Pond Parkway, Memorial Drive, Mount Auburn Street, Prospect Street, and Sidney Street. These structures would be allowed to be built without parking, property setbacks, or buffer zones between residential areas. There will be no limits to resident numbers (density, FAR).
- Any project that retains at least 5% of its green space, or adds green space (even a minuscule 10' SF area) will have no height limitations whatsoever, although it is possible that other limiting language may apply.
Robert Winters of Cambridge Civic Journal writes of this radical up-zoning petition: "This may well be the most outrageous proposal I have ever seen from this or any other Cambridge City Council." Any such structure built will become the new norm against which new structures of any time will be compared for local "context" and architectural appropriateness in arguing for extra historical or zoning allowances.
MAJOR ISSUES are in play in this radical new AHO zoning petition.
MAJOR ISSUES are in play in this radical new AHO zoning petition.
- INFRASTRUCTURE: Lack of any consideration of existing or near future infrastructure needs (schools, hospitals, water, electricity, transportation)
- ENVIRONMENT: Further loss of trees and green spaces since there are no minimal setbacks or green yard spaces required. Climate change factors are not being addressed - rising flood level considerations, and issues of water displacement impacts with the deep footing impacts of tall dense buildings. Likely heat island impacts will also be considerable.
- SOCIAL EQUITY: These large structures will segregate lower income tenants without providing any means to build equity (by not including home ownership or other possibilities). Note many of these AHO residents, including minorities, are not current Cambridge residents. Nor, will tenants in these housing units be able to include grown children or others in their units as is possible in other properties.
- TRANSPORTATION: Most of these developments likely will not be built on a major transportation corridor (Mass Ave. specifically) and this will make it very difficult for these residents to access places of work or shopping sites.
- OUR CITY PLANNING PRIORITIES ARE OVERLOOKED: This citywide one-size fits all radical up-zoning runs counter to both key Envision Goals and local neighborhood and area-based planning processes that are already in play, in essence countering current decision-making processes and work that has long been in place.
- HAS THE NEED CHANGED since the original AHO was passed? Six (6) AHO developments were approved last year (with 1000 new units). Roughly 7,000 Cambridge-specific residents are on our AHO sign-up list; there also are roughly 70 Cambridge-specific unhoused residents. Our current AHO housing policies are working as planned to address these needs, particularly since some AHO units turn over relatively quickly. Massive high-density housing projects such as these recall the failed federal and local funded projects of the 1950s that have now been condemned in most places.
Timeline on the new AHO Amendment: This will first be discussed at the Nov. 21, 2022 City Council Meeting and likely will be forwarded to the Housing and/or Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committees for discussion and public comment. After this it would likely come back to the Ordinance Committee before going to the Planning Board and then back to City Council for ordination, likely in the early New Year.
ALSO ISSUES OF NOTE IN THE WEEKS AHEAD
Mon, Nov 21 10:00 am The City Council’s Health and Environment Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss how to expand the availability of electric vehicle charging across the City and to review the effectiveness and accountability built into the City’s existing Green Fleet Policy. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
Tues, Nov 22 12:30 pm The City Council’s Economic Development and University Relations Committee will conduct a public meeting to receive an update on the BEUDO amendments from the Community Development Department and a discussion of the environmental and economic impact of BEUDO on residential, business and academic properties/communities. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
ALSO ISSUES OF NOTE IN THE WEEKS AHEAD
Mon, Nov 21 10:00 am The City Council’s Health and Environment Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss how to expand the availability of electric vehicle charging across the City and to review the effectiveness and accountability built into the City’s existing Green Fleet Policy. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
Tues, Nov 22 12:30 pm The City Council’s Economic Development and University Relations Committee will conduct a public meeting to receive an update on the BEUDO amendments from the Community Development Department and a discussion of the environmental and economic impact of BEUDO on residential, business and academic properties/communities. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
ISSUES IN PLAY
Lisa Dreier (North Cambridge) - Leadership Strategies and Sustainable Development
Fabrizio Gentili (East Cambridge) - Real Estate Agent, ECPT
Phil Sego (The Port) - Environmental Advocate, former Sierra Club Board
Merry White (North Cambridge) - Anthropologist, Author
Pam Winters (North Cambridge) - former Planning Board Member
Fabrizio Gentili (East Cambridge) - Real Estate Agent, ECPT
Phil Sego (The Port) - Environmental Advocate, former Sierra Club Board
Merry White (North Cambridge) - Anthropologist, Author
Pam Winters (North Cambridge) - former Planning Board Member
NEW CCC BLOGS
|
|
|
Don’t let developers delimit our city’s future. DONATE TO CCC to support thoughtful planning, neighborhoods, and sustainability: https://www.cccoalition.org/joindonate.html
|
ISSUES 2022: Housing Costs, Environment, and Smart Planning
|
|
|
Three-Part Advancing Housing Affordability (AHA) Zoning Petition (pieces of a larger whole). See AHA link on this site for further information.
AHA UPDATE: Meeting Results of the November 16, 2021 City Council Ordinance Committee and Planning Board Meetings: The City Council Ordinance Committee decided to keep the AHA “in Committee” so that further work can be done on it. And they asked CDD to work with the Planning Board to come up with guidelines for new Single- and Two-Family District zoning language. The Planning Board, aware of the Council’s decision, gave a unfavorable vote to the AHA “as written” with the idea that the AHA proposals would be taken up by CDD and the Planning Board at a future meeting. At the same time, the Planning Board lauded the goals of the AHA petition and Hugh Russell noted that Part III of the AHA petition sought to address the root of our housing problem. This latter issue will be key if we are to have any sustainable plan going forward to address this.
One of the things we are asking for is that housing be added to the Parking, Transportation, Demand Management Ordinance where key decisions for commercial and institutional employers are made. With CDD now requiring that sometimes 20% of new commercial employees live in Cambridge, but not requiring that these groups address city and area housing needs has exacerbated the problem and made it untenable, particularly since what was supposed to be a new City Plan (Envision) has yet to be used to create a city wide housing plan, so we end up with more and more long term residents being displaced, and both rental and home ownership prices sky-rocketing.
AHA UPDATE: Meeting Results of the November 16, 2021 City Council Ordinance Committee and Planning Board Meetings: The City Council Ordinance Committee decided to keep the AHA “in Committee” so that further work can be done on it. And they asked CDD to work with the Planning Board to come up with guidelines for new Single- and Two-Family District zoning language. The Planning Board, aware of the Council’s decision, gave a unfavorable vote to the AHA “as written” with the idea that the AHA proposals would be taken up by CDD and the Planning Board at a future meeting. At the same time, the Planning Board lauded the goals of the AHA petition and Hugh Russell noted that Part III of the AHA petition sought to address the root of our housing problem. This latter issue will be key if we are to have any sustainable plan going forward to address this.
One of the things we are asking for is that housing be added to the Parking, Transportation, Demand Management Ordinance where key decisions for commercial and institutional employers are made. With CDD now requiring that sometimes 20% of new commercial employees live in Cambridge, but not requiring that these groups address city and area housing needs has exacerbated the problem and made it untenable, particularly since what was supposed to be a new City Plan (Envision) has yet to be used to create a city wide housing plan, so we end up with more and more long term residents being displaced, and both rental and home ownership prices sky-rocketing.
WATCH “How to Build Better Affordable Housing” a video by star videographer Federico Muchnik, put out by the Walden Neighbors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcMxysb2U7s Three of CCC's candidates - Dennis Carlone, Nicola Williams, and Patty Nolan - all speak passionately in this video of the need for thoughtful design in affordable housing.
PLEASE READ: Frogs-R-Us: Its Unrestrained Development that is threatening to boil us if we don't hop to polls
and Playing Monopoly in Cambridge is not just a game
Frogs-R-Us addresses some of the issues around developer interests and investments in Cambridge; Playing Monopoly takes up core issues in the architectural preservation issues around a move by another political party to gut long-standing conservation and historic preservation efforts in Cambridge
and Playing Monopoly in Cambridge is not just a game
Frogs-R-Us addresses some of the issues around developer interests and investments in Cambridge; Playing Monopoly takes up core issues in the architectural preservation issues around a move by another political party to gut long-standing conservation and historic preservation efforts in Cambridge
|
|
Above image left; the cover to Jean-François Batellier’s 1978 cartoon collection, “No Deposit, No Return.”; right: cover of Cambridge Monopoly game.
THANK YOU again! Wed. Sept. 29th, the City Council Ordinance Committee sent back to the City (manager), a plan (petition) to gut our citywide preservation efforts. The committee asked the City Solicitor to determine if the petition was even legal and have required the petition to work with the CHC on possible compromise language.
Video of the October 29 Ordinance Committee Hearing on the petition to limit Neighborhood Conservation Districts with a majority of the public commentary opposed to this attempt to let developers have more power. Watch CHC Executive Director, Charles Sullivan on the building and social history of this area: www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/historicalcommission/pdf/echistoryandresarchitecture.pdf
Video of the October 29 Ordinance Committee Hearing on the petition to limit Neighborhood Conservation Districts with a majority of the public commentary opposed to this attempt to let developers have more power. Watch CHC Executive Director, Charles Sullivan on the building and social history of this area: www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/historicalcommission/pdf/echistoryandresarchitecture.pdf
THANK YOU! CCC's 2021 City Council Candidate Forum on Sept 26 from 4-6 PM went off without a hitch with a great Host Kerry Costello, a great moderator, Chuck Hinds, and a terrific group of City Council Candidates. Over 100 people were in the audience. A video of the event is now posted on Youtube: https://youtu.be/dnK2HglPr-8
Read about CCC's City Council Endorsees BELOW and on our Election Page.
Read about CCC's City Council Endorsees BELOW and on our Election Page.
Read the candidate questionnaires and news about the 2021 Cambridge City Council Election: www.cccoalition.org/election.html
NEED TO REGISTER TO VOTE? GO TO: bit.ly/Register2voteMA
Register to vote by October 13, 2021
VOTE BY MAIL Apply for Mail-in Ballot by Oct 19, 2021
Email: elections@cambridgema.gov Fax: 617-349-4366
Mail to the Cambridge Election Commission 51 Inman Street. 0213
Return Ballot to above address by Nov. 2
*Allow up to 7 days for ballot delivery by mail in each direction.
OTHER VOTING OPTIONS
Ballot Drop Box or Early Voting Sites: bit.lydropboxsites
Or VOTE IN PERSON ON NOVEMBER 2
Where to Vote? bit.ly/VotingPlaceMA
Register to vote by October 13, 2021
VOTE BY MAIL Apply for Mail-in Ballot by Oct 19, 2021
Email: elections@cambridgema.gov Fax: 617-349-4366
Mail to the Cambridge Election Commission 51 Inman Street. 0213
Return Ballot to above address by Nov. 2
*Allow up to 7 days for ballot delivery by mail in each direction.
OTHER VOTING OPTIONS
Ballot Drop Box or Early Voting Sites: bit.lydropboxsites
Or VOTE IN PERSON ON NOVEMBER 2
Where to Vote? bit.ly/VotingPlaceMA
Recent Cambridge Citizens Coalition Research and Opinion Pieces published in Cambridge Day
Promoting a More Livable Cambridge
Change can’t wait. We need bold, progressive polices to address our most pressing issues
POLICIES THAT MATTER ON:
1. Environmental Equity - addressing climate change can't wait! Safeguard trees and green spaces in every neighborhood.
2. Housing - stop gentrification, end exclusive single family zoning, create a real path to home ownership; add more mixed income housing
3. Smart Growth - we need a Citywide plan for smart growth (people before profits)
4. Neighborhoods are key (retain and build on naturally affordable longterm sustainable housing)
5. We live in an historic city; let's work together to preserve our rich architectural diversity.
6. Policies for equity (from Broadband and HEART to Universal Pre-K)
Recent CCC Events
... an August 2 City Hall Rally co-sponsored by 15 Cambridge groups supporting trees.
An important rally hosted by My Brothers Keeper and focused on recent gun violence (photos below) preceded the above tree rally at this same site.
Earlier, on June 17, 2021, many CCC leaders were out in support of a housing rally. the Peoples Housing Rally, opposing the misnamed Missing Middle Housing petition that sought to up-zone the whole city to add more luxury (market-based) housing in backyards and other areas (see images below).
WE ARE ALREADY IN A HOUSING CRISIS - DO WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE IT WORSE?!
Assault on Neighborhood Conservation Efforts
This petition has been introduced and forwarded by City Council to the Ordinance Committee. This petition ,that one could call the "Neighborhood Conservation District" (NGC) Assault Petition, was received from an individual often allied with the pro-developer political Pac calling itself "A Better Cambridge (ABC)." The petition seeks to gut Cambridge's long standing architectural preservation means, local areas established by neighbors to preserve the unique eclectic mix of housing in their area. What this petition does? It removes the right of citizens to petition the City on this matter, enabling City Council (who already must approve any new Conservation District after the study period, to stop the process before it even starts. Citizens will lose long established rights. And, Council (not citizens) can change the language of established districts, and have redefined criteria for existing Boards, from District residents who bring professional knowledge to these issues, to simply ones ownership status. Who benefits? Largely out-of-time developers, and non-resident monied investors (many of whom represent national and global financial interests), and those seeking to build large McMansions inconsistent with our long-standing local neighborhoods. Why this matters? Cambridge, founded in 1630, one of the oldest planned cities in America. Its history, and the legacy of its rich architecture matters - whether we are talking about workers cottages or more elite residences, workplaces, or one time battlegrounds. Because Cambridge neighborhoods matter, and this is just one more effort (based in part on a national drive) to end restrictions on developers and investors to build more luxury housing in this already very dense and very historic city - further gentrifying these areas, and forcing out long term lower income residents. We know that Neighborhood Conservation Districts help to keep rental and housing costs more stable, but this is not just about economic issues, and we know that our tourism economy and local businesses are dependent on our unique historical and architectural legacy; This petition is also about environmental sustainability - maintaining sound architecture. Please write City Council at: council@cambridgema.gov and CC the City Clerk at: cityclerk@cambridgema.gov
Read: the "Neighborhood Conservation District Assault Petition" at www.cccoalition.org/docsinfo.html
Addressing false gods: Discredit, Debunk, Deliver
Read: the "Neighborhood Conservation District Assault Petition" at www.cccoalition.org/docsinfo.html
Addressing false gods: Discredit, Debunk, Deliver
