Steven,

A zoning change does not automatically create housing, nor any financial burden — to the city or otherwise. Your comments seem orthogonal to the proposal at hand.

I agree that this proposal is not a panacea for affordable housing in Cambridge, and also agree that there’s an affordability gap between median income and higher incomes.

The proposal does not allow for units created under these zoning rules to be rented to those with incomes greater than the area median income, so your comment on incomes of $150k-$200k seem out of place in the context of this proposal. (Frankly, as an income earner in that bracket for several years, I don’t feel like that’s the area where the most help is needed: we made do, while families making less than median are going to have a much harder time doing so.)

Since this zoning change *doesn’t* have any direct costs to the city, I’m not sure what “program costs” you’re referring to, nor what “serious financial implications” would exist. Certainly, before undertaking any particular housing development, the partners involved should consider financial costs and rewards, but again, the AHO doesn’t do that.

Your comment on taking advantage of the zoning changes might be a reasonable concern, but frankly, seems at odds with the current language, and — given the city maintains a level of control over permitting — would likely not be possible even if there are “loopholes” in the language.

Housing corridors are frankly just a fancy way of saying “Not in My Backyard.” I understand that this reduces controversy, but I think it does so at significant cost to our community and our residents, and I hope that the City continues to not to follow that approach. It simply does too much to limit the value of the AHO.