Cambridge Multi-Family Zoning Reform

[sean99090900]

Does anyone here read Matt Yglesias lmao, I'm not a subscriber but occasionally I skim the intros to his blog.

Inclusionary zoning is a tax on housing

Sometimes, policies have unintended consequences or unforeseen downsides

open.substack.com

What makes housing more affordable is increasing the supply of housing. Affordability requirements do generate some quantity of subsidized units, which is nice for the people who get them. But it finances their construction in what has to be the most destructive possible way: a focused tax on nearby new construction. If Cambridge wants more subsidized housing, the way to do that is to zone as permissibly as possible, then use general tax revenue to pay for the construction of subsidized units.

 

[BeansTheCat]

Does anyone here read Matt Yglesias lmao, I'm not a subscriber but occasionally I skim the intros to his blog.

Inclusionary zoning is a tax on housing

Sometimes, policies have unintended consequences or unforeseen downsides

open.substack.com

Just a guess, but I assume almost all forum members understand this dynamic. Even most of the general public, if you're patient with them, can come around to the idea that IDP requirements increase new housing costs.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that nobody trusts local/state governments to build decent public housing, especially here. The state of BHA properties is frankly abysmal, and Cambridge is only doing somewhat better. Until the public sector proves it can build and maintain quality sub-market rate housing, it will be pretty hard to scrap inclusionary zoning policies (40B zoning exemptions don't help either). Making more public housing mixed-income housing, with units for varying income levels and even some rented at market rates, is one solweution to this. Revenues increase which makes maintenance and upkeep easier, and market rate renters won't put up with the shenanigans that public housing authorities often pull. The only drawback, which is mostly political, is that the property as a whole is "less affordable" than it could theoretically be. The rebuttal is that more public housing, and therefore more affordable units, can be built overall, even if there are less at any one particular site.

There is another conversation to be had about the downsides of affordable units at large, as opposed to providing cash assistance to renters (like Section 8 vouchers). I'm not going down that rabbit hole here, but it does provide another set of arguments against IDP.