The Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District should be allowed to expire. At minimum, it should be prevented from reviewing multifamily houses and affordable units. The conservation district was established to limit new homes in one of the commonwealth’s most transit-accessible areas, and today it disrupts, delays and ultimately kills housing that would put roofs over Cantabrigians’ heads and lower rents for all.
My experience was illustrative.
Last summer, I spoke at a conservation district meeting in support of new apartments. After zoning changes from the 1970s onward, building apartments in Mid-Cambridge became harder; in the 1980s, neighbors sought stricter limits by founding the conservation district. Its organizing principles specified goals to “avoid excessive infill” and “enhance the economic vitality of the neighborhood,” euphemisms for keeping out the riffraff.
Older apartment buildings are the cheapest market-rate housing near jobs, schools and transit. For many families, including mine growing up, a two- or three-bedroom apartment is their starter home.
I mentioned that as a kid I shared a room with my sister. A sitting commissioner challenged me. She was visibly shocked and asked if we shared a room until we were 18. Many families in Cambridge share rooms between kids, especially less wealthy families. This sort of comment reveals that commissioners have a certain point of view about what, and, inextricably, who, should and should not be allowed in their neighborhood.
This attitude is not isolated. On Sept. 9, commissioners criticized (and denied) infill housing while quickly approving a (much more expensive per unit) down conversion. They heaped praise on restrictive covenants, long tools of racial and economic exclusion. In other meetings, they’ve said apartment buildings don’t “feel residential.”
The conservation district is out of touch with our housing goals. Let’s also make sure it’s out of time.
