Council Hopefuls Clash on Housing

Candidates for the Cambridge City Council debated the ins and outs of development last night, exchanging views on affordable housing, a massive construction project in East Cambridge, and the shape the city should take in a potential “master plan” that would guide its growth in coming years.

Fifteen candidates vying for nine seats debated at the ornate Hotel Marlowe, where about 50 Cantabrigians gathered to watch the debate sponsored by two civic groups and the Cambridge Chronicle. Only one candidate didn’t show.

In short, one-minute answers to questions submitted to a moderator by residents, the would-be councillors offered similar views on how the city should manage the lack of affordable housing in the city.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons stressed the need to “develop consistent formulas for what is affordable,” while Councillor Henrietta Davis pointed out a flaw in current development policy, which requires that new residential developments with more than 10 units devote a certain share to subsidized tenants.

The policy “only produces the same kind of units that are built in the market,” she said, and because new Cambridge residents tend to be young and affluent, “the market is producing one- to two-bedroom units” not suitable for families.

Edward J. Sullivan Jr.—the cousin of recently-retired Councillor Michael A. Sullivan—spoke more of the strains on such “middle-income people.”

“A lot of the families I know are being forced out because they can’t afford [to stay],” he said. “My focus in this election is to affect the peak middle-income families out there.”

Several contenders, including incumbent Brian P. Murphy ’86-’87, said zoning changes could help alleviate housing shortages. And Sam Seidel, an urban planner running for the second time, said creating a long-term agenda for development in Cambridge would help “sort some of these issues out through discussion, rather than at the crisis point of permitting.”

While almost all candidates said they prioritized both affordability and more open space, only a few addressed the inherent tension in these two goals.

Councillor Marjorie Decker said that though she has long supported the protection of open land, building more affordable housing will mean either less green space or denser constructions—something that many Cambridge residents, particularly in the eastern part of the city where the debate was held, have opposed.

Councillor Craig A. Kelley agreed, but said that denser constructions are needed given the city’s goals. He added that some neighborhoods—chiefly the area between Inman Square and Lechmere—have taken on too much of the burden of new housing constructions, and that if the city were to spread density evenly across the neighborhoods, much of the opposition to new construction would disappear.

When the conversation veered from the intricacies of the Cambridge housing market, the exchanges grew more pointed, especially when the candidates addressed public safety. Several candidates linked criminal populations with youths and public housing residents in their answers, and challenger Gregg Moree even ventured that when a shooting takes place, “it’s probably the kids in the housing projects.”

Though the debate was centered on the city’s housing stock—a fundamental issue that determines who is able to live in Cambridge, the candidates said—at least one long-time observer said he was not satisfied with the quality of the discourse.

“Everybody talks about how much they love a diverse city, affordable housing, clean and vibrant neighborhoods, and how much they hate rats and traffic,” said Robert Winters, the proprietor of the Cambridge Civic Journal. “Yes, we all love apple pie and Mom, and we don’t like evil people with guns. Now what are you going to do when you get elected?”

—Staff writer Paras D. Bhayani can be reached at pbhayani@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Nicholas K. Tabor can be reached at ntabor@fas.harvard.edu.