TIME TO CONTEMPLATE our Recent Zoning Experience by Stephen Kaiser

9/20/2019

At this point, we should contemplate questions about our recent zoning experience.  There are
many political questions, but let me list some questions of substance about the zoning and what
we were told or not told.

* Why did such a radical transformation of City zoning need to apply
city-wide?  It should have been phased in a section at a time, rather than
one massive lump that went down in flames.

* Why were we given only one alternative to consider and not a choice of
options?  Regardless of our views and hopes on the housing question, the
only choice we had was the CDD "discussion draft" which contained only one
huge option -- why no choice?

* Why did City Council meetings on the Overlay Zoning go on for weeks
without distribution of  even the CDD discussion draft?  Why was the Final
report on Envision not distributed until weeks later?

* Why did the Envision report not include results of the special study of
Alewife -- what had gone wrong and what needed to be done?

* Why was there no comprehensive study of transportation -- traffic and
transit, especially for the Alewife area?  Why was there no discussion of
the existing peak hour traffic congestion at Alewife?

* Why was there no master plan for energy?  The Envision report said the
City could do an energy study, but no one did it.  Now we are in a crisis
situation at Kendall Square, with massive amounts of new development
projected in the coming decade, yet insufficient electricity capacity from
Eversource to handle the new energy loads : why did the city not make a plan
to anticipate this problem?

* What sections of the Envision report need to be done all over, in order to
provide planning guidance for the City in the future?

* Why was there no AHO alternative which could have followed the SPOA
proposals, to build on the existing housing supply in Cambridge, with
addition and subdivision of units?  Would such an alternative result in
significantly lower subsidies?

* There was no limit on AHO subsidies.  The sky is the limit.    Advocates
presented only one calculation of a sample AHO unit with rental and subsidy
-- and the subsidy was over $380,000 per unit.  How cost-efficient was any
such cost proposal?  What would be the subsidy if costs of new housing rise
to $600,000 or higher per unit, as real estate trends indicate?

* Advocates could never agree on a number of new AHO units per year we would
get.  Why could we get no better numbers on new AHO units that a variation
from as low as 30 to as high as 100 units a year ?

* How did an original discussion draft contain no FAR limits for AHO at all,
and then after extensive rewriting result in FARs being reinserted, but
allowing four times the FAR density for AHO?  Where is the gradualism in a
quadrupling of density?

* Why did no one explain what form-based zoning is, and how it has been
advocated by Smart Growth groups, even as they have renamed it "form based
codes" rather than "form-based zoning" ?  Is AHO the first step towards
getting rid of zoning?

* Why was there no comparison of the city-wide need for affordable housing
and how many units would be provided by AHO?

* Why were issues of aesthetics, bulk, and impacts on established
neighborhoods not shown in greater detail and with better visual methods?
Why was the Fire Department not consulted on the reduced setbacks?

* Why was the plan aimed only at moderate- and middle-income zoning, and why
did it totally ignore low-income households and elderly on fixed income?

* Why did the plan propose radical changes to open space, tree canopy and
parking?

* Why was no program of housing conservation proposed, to preserve the
affordable housing we now have?

* How did such a poor-quality proposal as Overlay zoning become such a focus
of housing planning for the City?  Why did the $3 million Envision plan fail
so badly?  How about rewriting the Envision report to make it useful as a
plan, and have the report approved (with public hearings) by the Planning
Board and/or the City Council?

* Why would anyone seek to refile either the original Overlay zoning
petition or its extensively revised version?  Should we instead agree to
rewrite the whole thing and begin with the SPOA proposal to "create
smaller-sized units in existing buildings"?

These are the questions I have so far, and I am looking for answers.

Note: Stephen Kaiser is a member of CCC's Advisory Research Team

3 Comments

Robert Camacho

9/23/2019 04:40:10 pm

To reach answers to some of Mr. Kaisers questions about the Affordable Housing Overlay and Our Recent Zoning Experience it is necessary to consider the state of the current government in Cambridge.

In a recent article in digBoston on the Sullivan Courthouse fiasco, entitled "How Cambridge can put public need before private greed", the author, Jason Pramas states
that "...both city and state governments are squaring off against the large numbers of Cantabrigians who have long wanted to see the courthouse property used to build more affordable housing units. Something desperately needed by the thousands of people now on public housing waiting lists." Pramas goes on to state, "This is because people who believe very strongly that corporations should run the show in our society—neoliberals, as they’re commonly called—occupy most of the positions in all the key departments, committees, and elected bodies that make decisions about development and taxation in cities like Cambridge nationwide."

It is well known that the Cambridge City Manager is pro-development as are most of the individuals he has appointed including the Deputy City Manager and various Assistant City Managers for Finance, Community Development and so on.

So to return to our Recent Zoning Experience and Mr kaiser's questions:

* Why did such a radical transformation of City zoning need to apply city-wide? It should have been phased in a section at a time, rather than one massive lump that went down in flames.

My reply: In order to weaken the zoning protections of all property owners, home owners, small business owners.

To continue:

* Why were we given only one alternative to consider and not a choice of options? Regardless of our views and hopes on the housing question, the only choice we had was the CDD "discussion draft" which contained only one huge option -- why no choice?

Those writing the proposal didn’t want there to be a choice.

*Why did City Council meetings on the Overlay Zoning go on for weeks without distribution of even the CDD discussion draft? Why was the Final report on Envision not distributed until weeks later?

The City Council meetings went on for weeks because some members, Carlone, Kelly, Devereaux and Zondervan initially believed that the Overlay proponents were acting in good faith. However, the proponents of the AHO on the Council were not acting in good faith, nor was the CDD acting in good faith.
These factions were more than happy to let Carlone, Kelly, and Devereaux work on the AHO to make it palatable enough to be passed. But the original proposal was so loosely and poorly written that it soon be glaringly apparent that the only motive behind such a deficient document was to abscond with the few zoning rights current homeowners and small business owners currently enjoy.

When those rights were safely in the hands of developers, the pro AHO councilors and the CDD would have been more than happy to let the affordable housing developers write and deliver all the documentation while the city would be left holding the bag with an unenforceable document that originally did not even contain the word, or any derivatives of the word “compliance”.

The following questions can be answered as a group.

*Why did the Envision report not include results of the special study of Alewife -- what had gone wrong and what needed to be done?

* Why was there no comprehensive study of transportation -- traffic and transit, especially for the Alewife area? Why was there no discussion of the existing peak hour traffic congestion at Alewife?

* Why was there no master plan for energy? The Envision report said the City could do an energy study, but no one did it. Now we are in a crisis situation at Kendall Square, with massive amounts of new development projected in the coming decade, yet insufficient electricity capacity from Eversource to handle the new energy loads : why did the city not make a plan to anticipate this problem?

I believe all these systemic problems, primary concerns and vital issues were secondary to the proponents and writers of the AHO because a discussion of any of these issues would have delayed the attainment of the sole, main purpose of the AHO, which was and remains the blatant theft of the current zoning rights of the citizens of Cambridge and to give them to developers.

As for Alewife, should the AHO be passed by a future council, the developers will throw a bone or two of affordable housing to the Council as long as a massive buildup of commercial development is allowed. This will easily be done because the Planning Board will be stripped of its authority by the AHO in any project even remotely involved with affordable housing.

Transportation and automotive traffic gridlock are sure to increase as I believe that the developers do not care what devastation they leave in their wake. They will be perfectly happy to make their millions and get out of

9/27/2019 10:01:45 am

Sorry 'bout the long replay. Anyway, to continue...
Transportation and automotive traffic gridlock are sure to increase as I believe that the developers do not care what devastation they leave in their wake. They will be perfectly happy to make their millions and get out of Dodge leaving the citizens of Cambridge with 8 to 12 hour traffic jams.

The AHO developers apparently don’t care about electrical, water and sewer infrastructure either because that will be a major City problem once they develop all they want, in any way they want, (don’t forget, there will be no Planning Board oversight with any project even remotely connected to affordable housing), get their money and leave. By then the Council proponents backing the AHO will have made their “bones”, at least two of them would probably retire, and one will endeavor to further his political career at the state level; that will leave those councilors who opposed the AHO and the other gullible councilors who were foolish enough to support the AHO left holding a very big bag.

* Why was there no AHO alternative which could have followed the SPOA proposals, to build on the existing housing supply in Cambridge, with addition and subdivision of units? Would such an alternative result in significantly lower subsidies?

There was no AHO alternative which could have followed the SPOA proposals to build on the existing housing supply in Cambridge, because 1) the SPOA was late in coming to the game, and 2) the proponents of the AHO didn't have the desire or patience to develop affordable housing piecemeal, they wanted the whole pie immediately. Having zoning "as of right" was their real goal. Having acheieved that they could take their time to develop plans to make as much money as possible.

* There was no limit on AHO subsidies. The sky is the limit.
Advocates presented only one calculation of a sample AHO unit with rental and subsidy -- and the subsidy was over $380,000 per unit. How cost-efficient was any such cost proposal? What would be the subsidy if costs of new housing rise to $600,000 or higher per unit, as real estate trends indicate?

I reply that developers were in it for the money. Why have limits when when they own the zoning "as of right"? A weak council that approved AHO in the first place wouldn't fight what the developers want. The City Manager is pro-development. Most of the City employees hired by city management are pro development. Only when developer demands became so blatently obvious as real estate costs continue to rise would there be any pushback by the Council. By that time how much havoc and damage would be done to Cambridge neighborhoods?

* Advocates could never agree on a number of new AHO units per year we would get. Why could we get no better numbers on new AHO units that a variation from as low as 30 to as high as 100 units a year ?

I believe they may not have even known themselves. Whatever the reason, however, rest assured that their primary motive would be to make as much money as possible. If a totally pro AHO council is elected in November, again the sky will be the limit.

* How did an original discussion draft contain no FAR limits for AHO at all, and then after extensive rewriting result in FARs being reinserted, but allowing four times the FAR density for AHO? Where is the gradualism in a quadrupling of density?

The original AHO was so loosely and so poorly written purposefully to lull gullible Council supporters into believing developers had the needs of those requiring affordable housing first in mind. Fortunately, Councilman Carlone, an architect and urban planner, recognized the AHO for the fraud it was and, in spite of that, in good faith, tried to fix it. Eventually, however, I believe even he was overwhelmed with the total lack of planning and thought that went into this rediculous proposal, and fortunately for us, so did Councillors Devereau, Kelly and Zondervan.

* Why was there no comparison of the city-wide need for affordable housing and how many units would be provided by AHO?

That would have delayed the passage of the proposal.

* Why were issues of aesthetics, bulk, and impacts on established neighborhoods not shown in greater detail and with better visual methods? Why was the Fire Department not consulted on the reduced setbacks?

This question further points out how poorly written the proposal was in the first place.

* Why did the plan propose radical changes to open space, tree canopy and parking?

The short answer is that the developers proposing the AHO don't believe in open space, tree canopy and parking because those concerns detract from more building space.

* Why was no program of housing conservation proposed, to preserve the affordable housing we now have?

More conservation, less new building.

* How did such a poor-quality proposal as Overlay zoning become such a focus of housing planning for the City? Why did the $3 million Envision p

9/27/2019 10:09:56 am

I promise -this is the end.

* How did such a poor-quality proposal as Overlay zoning become such a focus of housing planning for the City? Why did the $3 million Envision plan fail so badly? How about rewriting the Envision report to make it useful as a plan, and have the report approved (with public hearings) by the Planning Board and/or the City Council?

City management passion for building, certainly CDD passion for building to keep the AHO on life-support. Rewriting Envision could work.

* Why would anyone seek to refile either the original Overlay zoning petition or its extensively revised version? Should we instead agree to rewrite the whole thing and begin with the SPOA proposal to "create smaller-sized units in existing buildings"?

Yes, we should.

The End

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Blog Posts

TIME TO CONTEMPLATE our Recent Zoning Experience by Stephen Kaiser

Leave a Reply.

Location

Contact Us

Subscribe Today!