AMWJ

AMWJ t1_ix8bqxw wrote

I can't imagine what you mean by waste of resources - the developers are "paying for everything" because they can make money off of the housing they build. And not just a small amount - they're jumping through hoops here to get approved under the AHO because this is a lucrative gig, presumably. Why would the city not be able to run housing at least not taking a loss?

1

AMWJ t1_ix6zalx wrote

What exactly is Cambridge's median income? I expected, after the AHO passed, for Cambridge to maintain that as a readily accessible number, so that it's possible to validate that a developer is in compliance. However, I can't find such a number published officially with Google searches.

It seems this specifically applies to anything that the AHO would already apply to - aka where 100% of the units are rented at 1/3 of 85% of median income. As long as that's true, I'm for it.

I do, though, wish the Council was doing more to ensure housing for those below that line. 85% of median income seems to exclude such a huge number of residents of our city, so it seems concerning that this is held up as the cheapest Cambridge can make housing. The city should be pushing for (a) city-run housing, (b) radically cheaper housing solutions, especially for minority communities who've lived in our city for centuries, and (c) pressure on landlords to create processes to rent-to-own.

1

AMWJ t1_ira2ktd wrote

How do all these council-members think we'll believe them that this is only for this year, when they do this every single year, and there's no particular reason it couldn't happen this year? This is Huang's first year, and this would've been a perfect time to "change".

They could literally have said, at any time in the last few months since our new Manager got the job, "Hey, I'd like this money to go towards rent relief instead of tax relief, could you present an alternative that has that when you draft your proposal?" And then, they could vote no on this one knowing there's an alternative.

15