It is time to have a serious conversation about "contract zoning," the practice of local governments accommodating corporate interests by rezoning parcel-by-parcel. In exchange for a specific community benefit (such as a portion of the parcel designated for affordable housing or sidewalk construction), developers receive increased density—often multiple times bigger than what prior zoning allowed.  

The poster child for contract zoning is Kendall Square, where a small group of developers rezoned the entire area parcel by parcel. MITIMCO, the real estate investment arm of MIT, paid $75 Million per acre for 10 acres of land at the Volpe site. In exchange, it will build the new Department of Transportation building, at the cost of $500 million. On the 10 acres it owns, MITIMCO will build five towers between 300 and 500 feet tall. Initially, zoning allows a maximum height in the area of 85 feet. 

While growth has benefits, contract zoning comes with several hidden costs.  

The most obvious consequence is a skyrocketing speculative residential real estate market and accompanying affordability crisis. Real Estate investors realizing the opportunity will pay top dollar for residential properties knowing what is to come. The acquired properties are either flipped or rented, generating a 15 to 25 percent a year return on investment. The practice puts pressure on the residential market, pushing prices through the roof. Residential taxes increase proportionally to the property value. Seniors and many other residents find themselves unable to pay or plan for such an increase. As a result, they call investors, cash out, and move away from city centers. It is what drives gentrification. The property values keep climbing as residential investors compete with each other for a piece of the pie. City centers become unaffordable, but for the 1%. 

A less apparent but more catastrophic consequence of contract zoning is that it takes away local government's ability to plan its infrastructure holistically. Because each commercial parcel will undergo a rezoning, the density and use requirements are unknown. The other two main infrastructure problems we are facing are transportation and energy, both having a significant impact on our climate and intertwined with housing. 

As we build our city centers through contract zoning, we neglect the accompanying transportation planning entirely. Who could think public transportation was not a requirement of growth? How can we not anticipate that more commercial density in a city center would not bring more people into the city? Without proper public transportation, people will have to use their cars. It means more vehicles on the streets, more congestion, parking issues, and increased green gas emission, leading to an overall decrease in quality of life for us and our planet.

Another example of our failure is energy planning, best exemplified by the Eversource electrical substation at 135 Fulkerson Street near an elementary school, a park, and two residential neighborhoods, East Cambridge, and Linden Park. This station—a potential monster of a structure—is entirely inappropriate.  An alternative solution must found. 

According to Eversource, the density planed in Kendall Square, with data from 2018, is what requires the substation. Kendall Square will consume 100 MW of electricity, almost doubling the energy of the entire City of Cambridge. Eighty-five percent of this added electricity having fossil fuels as its source in complete contradiction with the City of Cambridge's climate emergency. To accommodate the development of Kendall Square, the City of Cambridge does not require net-zero buildings until 2025. It is unconscionable. All new commercial buildings must be net-zero starting now. But more importantly, it is the result of an understanding that for contract zoning to work effectively, it must have the least possible resistance. Caring for our planet and each other is deemed an impediment to growth, resistance.

We know we are in a climate crisis and must act now. The practice of contract zoning has exacerbated the infrastructure crisis, from housing to energy, to an unsustainable level. We can and must stop it. Instead, we must, at the City and State level, holistically plan equitable infrastructures for a sustainable net zero growth. It is shameful to push the consequences of our actions onto future generations. We must act now, prioritize people and our planet. And Cambridge should lead by example.

- ilan
PS: check out the post below, my interview with Alexandra from Tufts, and the Wendy Brown talk.

​I wrote this in response to a discussion on a listserve.  

We must understand that our systemic set of Plan E makes it almost impossible to effectively address the endemic racism. Plan E is a corporate set up, with a CEO, the appointed City Manager, a Board of Director, the City Council, the board amongst themselves choose the Mayor. We do not elect our Mayor. Very much like in any corporation, the power lies with the CEO. The board is purely advisory. Although it has the power to fire the City Manager, it is challenging and requires a significant mistake by the City Manager. The role of the City Manager is to make money and ensure we can offer the basic service, i.e., education, infrastructure maintenance, etc … The set up makes the decision-makers unaccountable to the people because what is considered a significant error is only tied to the financial success of the City. So any decision made as long as it doesn’t affect the bottom line will not have any consequences. Racism doesn’t affect the bottom line. Hence, it can remain unsolved. Despite our collective will to seriously address the issue. The work done over the last few years by BSU has been extraordinary, especially considering the context. But our systemic set up has not evolved one iota. We are still where we were five years ago, with very little progress. Cities around us have done a far better job. 

Cambridge is systemically racist and gender-biased, and we need to address the issue.  Suffice to look at how a white man was selected as Mayor, despite two minority women having won the popular vote in the last election.  When was there ever a minority or/and woman City Manager, the decision-maker?  When was there ever a minority or/and woman  CFO, the holder of the purse? Unfortunately, I’m not yet convinced we are willing to take the necessary steps to do so.