The YIMBY movement has a major win in Cambridge, even as many neighbors cry foul
At City Hall, there were the young YIMBYs, like those among the 10 Harvard students from a group called the Harvard Undergraduate Urban Sustainability Lab, or HUUSL (pronounced like 'hustle'), who had come to watch the vote.
Advertisement
There were casual YIMBYs who called in to say they hoped new housing would make it easier to get a Cambridge apartment, or keep rents from spiking every year.
And there were the more hardcore YIMBYs, like the chatty and zealous members of A Better Cambridge, the city's most visible and best organized YIMBY group that has pushed, very
hard, to make it easier for developers to build bigger.
YIMBYs of all stripes.
'The door has been opened,' said Fred Watts, a 33-year-old data scientist who lives in Kendall Square, and who came to City Hall see the ordinance passed. 'There's going to be a hundred city councils hopefully seeing our demonstration saying this is possible and worthwhile.'
Related
:
The ordinance, which has been tweaked
Advertisement
Other rules were added during months of debate, including minimum amounts of green space needed in the developments, and a rule that six stories can only be built under the law on lots that are at least 5,000 square feet.
A hotly debated effort among councilors earlier this year to allow only three stories, and an additional three only if developers added the 'affordable' units,
Monday's night version passed 8-1. Only Councilor Catherine Zusy opposed it, calling it a 'recipe for random development at the whim of developers.'
Debate over the sweeping zoning reform, which all sides agree is likely to set in motion a major change in the cityscape,
Some of the critics feared giving developers this much freedom to build would do little to make Cambridge more affordable, and might only drive home and apartment prices higher, while lining the pockets of investors or people who already own homes.
Related
:
'It hurts my heart when I hear people who are renting say they want this proposal to maintain their rent,' said Sara Nelson, a 52-year-old Cambridge resident who is a pediatrician in Chelsea
and works with families who are being battered by the housing crisis.
'It's not realistic. It's a dream.'
She has tried to convince officials to use public funds to, for example, offer zero-interest loans to low-income families looking to buy in the city, or pay to build affordable housing directly.
Advertisement
'Prices aren't going to go down unless there is a non-market influence put into it,' Nelson said, adding, with a laugh, 'My family thinks I'm a socialist, but that's OK.'
To others, the solution offered by loosening zoning was just common sense.
Emma Bouton, 27, said she felt lucky to have found an apartment at all in Cambridge when she moved into her unit near Fresh Pond last summer, given how competitive the market is.
She's getting married this year, and thinking about raising a family here, but can't imagine doing so with rents rising every year, and too few less expensive options nearby. Walking her dog in the neighborhood, she has been struck by the number of big lots occupied by only one home.
'I just think about what it would mean to be able to have a multi-story apartment building there,' Bouton said. 'What would it mean for more families to be able to live in Cambridge and have more supply bring the cost down for all the renters here?'
The vote on Monday had come with somewhat of a deadline, as failure to pass it might have meant having to wait months to try again.
Councilor Patricia Nolan, before the meeting started, said she thought there was still more room to refine it, but that there was enough momentum, and pressure from the YIMBY movement, that waiting longer to tweak the rules wasn't feasible.
'I am really excited and thrilled that we're going to do something. It's just unfortunate it's not the best proposal that we had on the table,' she said.
Related
:
Advertisement
As the votes came in, a crowd of YIMBYs in a gallery viewing area leaned over a railing to record it on their phones. There was halting applause and a single 'woo!'
An after-party was held across the street, at 730 Tavern, although it hadn't been planned ahead of time. Actually the whole thing had been 'organized by private developers,' one of the revelers said, grinning.
It was a joke, but distrust in the industry and a belief that the YIMBY movement overall is too much in the thrall of real estate investors has been at the center of the debate here as the movement began zeroing in on Cambridge.
Clara Wellons was one of those skeptics.
Born 38 years ago in a house on Green Street in Cambridge — literally in the house, as her mom favored a home-birth — she said she and her parents have for her whole life been battling with what she described as rapacious building developers intent on turning Cambridge into a hub for luxury high-rises. She worried about neighbors having less say in what gets built, and where that might lead.
'What I see happening to not just my neighborhood, but to Cambridge, is Kendall Square,' Wellons said, referring to a neighborhood where large glass towers have sprouted. 'It's kind of a mini-New York City. I love New York, but my parents came to Cambridge to have a family. They wanted to have clean air and a healthy environment.'
To the YIMBYs, though, many concerns about the law during its drafting were at best misguided, or at worst, disingenuous.
Advertisement
'They're always coming up with arguments that at the end of the day are meant to just stop anything from happening,' said Dan Eisner, a Cambridge resident who strongly supported the up-zoning push.
'People have this inherent distrust of developers. You see that in places like Cambridge because there's this anti-business mentality in progressive communities. They don't trust people who make a lot of money,' Eisner said. 'They don't want to see developers make money. Well, that's kind of what makes the world go round.'
Spencer Buell can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvard gets new legal backing from 5 Ivies and over 12,000 alumni
Twenty four universities, including five Ivy League schools, and more than 12,000 alumni took measures to back Harvard University in its legal battle against the Trump administration, which has threatened it with slashing billions of dollars in grants. Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania, along with several other schools, filed an amicus brief on Monday in support of the nation's oldest university, arguing that the funding freeze would impact more than just Harvard, due to the interconnectedness of scientific research, and would ultimately hinder American innovation and economic growth. Also on Monday, the group of 12,041 Harvard alumni filed a separate brief describing the withholding of funds as a 'reckless and unlawful' attempt to assert control over the school and other higher education institutions. 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' the alumni said in the brief. 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all.' The amicus briefs aim to provide expertise or insight to the court, but the schools and individuals are not parties in the lawsuit itself. Harvard in April rejected the government's list of 10 demands, including auditing viewpoints of the student body, a move the administration says is aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. After the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million 'in multi-year contract value,' Harvard hit back with a lawsuit. The brief filed by the universities included other prominent institutions like Georgetown, Johns Hopkins and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The only Ivy League schools missing were Cornell and Columbia universities. The schools argued that the partnership between the government and academia has long led to critical advancements, from the The Human Genome Project to the Covid-19 vaccine. And that funding cuts to one school could endanger research at others. Harvard, MIT and Princeton, for example, have received funding from the National Institutes of Health for a project that could potentially yield tools to treat Alzheimer's disease. 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' the brief said. The universities said in the brief that the cuts would only cause more harm to the United States' ability to compete in science and academia. 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' the brief said. Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, said in a letter to the school's community that it was critical to make a legal argument against the funding cuts. 'Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,' Kornbluth said. The Harvard alumni filed their brief in support of the school's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week. If granted, the summary judgment would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni, which include comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret E. Atwood and Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., wrote in the brief that the administration's 'end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms.' The alumni also slammed the administration's concerns over antisemitism as rationale over the funding freeze. 'We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or anywhere else in our society,' the alumni said in its brief. 'Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process and proper bases and findings by the Government — should not be used as a pretext for the illegal and unconstitutional punishment and takeover of an academic institution by the Government.' The government's demands on Harvard, the alumni said in the brief, 'have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism' or any other form of discrimination on campus. 'Rather, its demands stifle the very engagement, teaching, and research that bring communities together, heighten our understanding of one another, and advance solutions that directly benefit us all,' the brief said. The show of legal support comes amid a monthslong back-and-forth between the administration and Harvard University. Most recently, the school sued the administration after Trump issued a proclamation last week denying visas for foreign students trying to come to the U.S. to attend the prestigious school. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Tom Cotton Do-Over
Five years ago last Tuesday, The New York Times, after considerable internal turmoil, published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) advocating that the federal government unilaterally send military troops to quell the riots ripping through the country in the wake of the Minneapolis police killing of George Floyd. The piece led directly to the firing of multiple Times editors, the resignation and eventual relaunch of Times controversialist Bari Weiss, and an appended 317-word editor's note lamenting that "the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published," among other derangements. It also, crucially, did not deliver its intended result: Cities continued to burn, some for months on end, and President Donald Trump never did impose military troops on any unwilling governor. On the five-year anniversary of Cotton's unrequited exhortation to power, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles began snatching illegal immigrants and asylum seekers who had arrived for previously scheduled check-ins, and detaining them in a makeshift detention facility in the basement, some with their whole families (including U.S. citizen children). Such process bait-and-switches, including of at least one married father of four who thought he was going to his final naturalization interview, have been conducted across the country during Trump's second term as part of a White House pledge to increase immigration arrests tenfold from the 2024 average of 300 per day to 3,000. Last Tuesday's nationwide haul, assisted by text messages urging asylum seekers to check in early for appointments, reached a record 2,200. On Wednesday, as protesters began gathering outside the Roybal Building, Trump announced a travel ban on citizens of 12 countries (Cotton was pleased) and threatened "large scale fines" on California Democratic Gov. Gavin "Newscum" for allowing biological males to compete in girls' high school athletics—a precursor to a Harvard-style culture war showdown over federal funding. The stage was thus set for Friday's visually dramatic escalation of street-level conflict in Southern California. ICE that morning kicked off what it would later advertise as a 30-day campaign of raids on local workplaces suspected of employing or harboring illegal immigrants, with heavily armed agents, in both unmarked SUVs and military-style transports, throwing flash-bang grenades and tear-gas cannisters, cuffing suspected perps and objecting protesters alike. (The latter including the powerful president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU, David Huerta.) In a Democrat-dominated city of 1.5 million foreign-born residents, in the nation's most immigrant-rich state, where infamously ineffective politicians have long touted sanctuary from immigration enforcement while defining themselves largely in opposition to Trump, the prospect of a theatrical clash probably looked to the White House like a win-win-win: Draw out the most self-defeating elements of the protest left, highlight the intransigent ineptitude of once-ambitious Dems, and continue to scare immigrant communities into self-deportation. All while releasing pent-up demand for a 2020 rewrite. "Tom Cotton," tweeted National Review's Jeff Blehar Saturday, "now has the chance to publish the funniest LA Times op-ed ever." The administration could barely contain its enthusiasm Saturday night. Even as protests Friday had been mostly limited, even in the most fed-credulous estimates, to around 2,000 combined people in two targeted locations—the Roybal detention center downtown, and the streets around a Home Depot 15 miles south in the city of Paramount near where an ICE caravan had massed—officials tripped over themselves to flex preemptive muscle over the riotous landscape. "If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!" the president of the United States posted on Truth Social at 8:25 p.m. Eastern time. (Best as I can ascertain from a great distance, at the time of Trump's assertion there had been one reported protest-related looting incident, and zero looting-related arrests.) Within an hour, the White House announced the first uninvited deployment of the National Guard in 60 years. "Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers, while one half of America's political leadership has decided that border enforcement is evil," Vice President J.D. Vance chimed in at 9:23 p.m. Eastern time. Ten minutes later Vance suggested that the presence of "foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement" meets the legal definition of invasion, thereby clearing the way for a more robust military response. Up jumped Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil; a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK," the former Fox News host tweet-shouted at 10:06 p.m. Eastern time Saturday night. "The @DeptofDefense is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert." Seven hundred Marines were indeed mobilized from nearby Twentynine Palms on Monday night; the Associated Press reported unreassuringly that "the Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil." Meanwhile, the White House ordered up an additional 2,000 National Guard troops as well. By then, the administration's initial depictions of out-of-control lawlessness had graduated from anticipatory to plausible, if geographically contained largely within a five-minute walk of where this past week's conflicts began, the Roybal building. Demonstrators on Sunday shut down the 101 freeway, hurled rocks and electric scooters at cop cars, set fire to a handful of driverless Waymos, threw bottles and fireworks at law enforcement, defaced government buildings, and looted several businesses. "These past few nights we've seen a level that disgusts every good person in this city," L.A. Police Chief Jim McDonnell said Sunday, describing his forces as "overwhelmed." Such unforced protesting errors (including—yes!—waving predominantly Mexican flags at rallies backing immigration to the U.S.), were as predictable as morning fog on a June beach, not that that in any way deprives rioters of their own miserable agency. Californians looted after the deadly Altadena fires, for goodness' sake. Local Dems couldn't manage to say "knock off the rioting" without foregrounding Trump. And very little imagination is required to recall unchecked violence back in the summer of 2020, or indeed 1992. But those many conservatives, including of the otherwise anti-Trump variety, who are gleefully posting images of rooftop Koreans and cheering on federal militarism directed at residents of a great (if grossly mismanaged) American city, may benefit from reflecting on the ways June 2025 does not resemble June 2020, let alone the Bosch-style hellscape of early '90s L.A. The first is sheer scale. In Los Angeles County alone, there were at least 50 separate public demonstrations in the days after Floyd, with more than a dozen cases of looting and vandalism. Nationwide, there were 19 deaths, 14,000 arrests, and property losses estimated at $2 billion. More than 30 states activated their National Guard. Aside from the unrepeatable black swan aspect of COVID-lockdown decompression, the societal institutions most aligned with those protests—the media, academia, lefty nonprofits—are all significantly weaker than five years ago, in no small part through the are-you-kidding-me overreach and circular firing squads of that particularly insane season. The second difference is directional. Minneapolis police did nothing to residents of any city outside Minneapolis. That season's enemies were institutional, historical, impossibly overgeneralized. This year, specifically localized protests (so far, anyway) are arising—not just in L.A., but in Dallas, San Francisco, Santa Ana, and elsewhere—in response to discrete federal enforcement actions frequently carried out in disorientingly authoritarian manner. As The Wall Street Journal put it in a news article Monday, "Federal agents make warrantless arrests. Masked agents take people into custody without identifying themselves. Plainclothes agents in at least a dozen cities have arrested migrants who showed up to their court hearings. And across the U.S., people suspected of being in the country illegally are disappearing into the federal detention system without notice to families or lawyers, according to attorneys, witnesses and officials." Such actions tend to put affected communities on the defensive alert. Good!, retort immigration restrictionists, and we'll see about that. American public opinion is foursquare behind deporting criminals and prosecuting rioters; far more queasy about shipping away longtime residents with jobs and U.S. citizen nuclear family. Which brings up a final point that conservative deportation enthusiasts should be clear about, just as they press opponents to admit they don't want noncriminals to be deported: The expulsions they have longed for are sending legal residents to foreign prisons in authoritarian countries, being carried out in White House defiance of the Supreme Court, and under the auspices of a deputy chief of staff who believes this cause demonstrates that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended." American citizens (including a U.S. marshal) who either "fit the description" or are reckless enough to not be carrying an ID have found themselves detained and even jailed. We are almost, if not quite, living in a Tom Cotton universe. And sure enough, here was the militaristic senator taking a victory lap in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday afternoon, advocating an "overwhelming show of force," describing "areas of Los Angeles" as "lawless hellscapes," and arguing, cretinously, that "if anything, these riots are worse" than in 2020. The Insurrection Act that Cotton advocates using as of Tuesday had not yet been invoked, leaving the summoned military mostly in the role of protecting federal buildings. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who Monday night asserted that L.A. is "not a city of immigrants, they are a city of criminals," reportedly wrote a letter Sunday to Hegseth urging him to have the U.S. Marines make arrests, which would likely run afoul of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. The protests in L.A. Monday were reportedly quieter than Sunday; Tuesday's are only now getting started. One can only hope, against all recent experience of American political violence, that both sides choose not to engage in the escalation that they have clearly, and frighteningly, been pining for. The post The Tom Cotton Do-Over appeared first on
CNBC
11 hours ago
- CNBC
I believe economic hard data over the soft data right now, says fmr. CEA Chair Jason Furman
Jason Furman, former CEA Chair & Harvard Professor, joins 'Closing Bell Overtime' to talk the state of the U.S. economy, upcoming inflation data, and more.
