Zoning, Cambridge, and the Supreme Court
In a 1928 Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court considered one of the two cases it has ever considered on zoning law. That case, which has formed some of the only constraints on zoning from the nation’s highest court, took place right here in Cambridge. The decision that was made by the court then should have impact on how we look at zoning today.
The Case
Nectow vs. City of Cambridge (1928) concerned a property owner who had intended to sell his property to the Ford Motor Company which was situated south of him. In 1924, when the City introduced zoning, they introduced three classes of zoning: Residential, Business, and Unrestricted. The area to the south and to the east of the property was unrestricted — and used for various industrial uses — but the property to the north and west was residential.
The owner of the property had bought the lot prior to the introduction of zoning with the intent to sell it to the Ford Motor company for the princely sum of $63,000. Because of the newly introduced residential zoning, the Ford Motor Company had backed out, leaving him in the lurch. He claimed this had been done without due process, and was a violation of his rights: that by changing his zoning from unrestricted to a residential-only zone, the City had removed a right that he had under the law.
The Result
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the property owner. The Court determined that the new zoning requirements for this particular property were inappropriate: more broadly, they determined that zoning changes “violates the Fourteenth Amendment if the health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the part of the city affected will not be promoted thereby.” Since the zone could have just as easily been redrawn one block further north with no negative effects on the welfare of the City, there was a responsibility to consider that when creating the zoning boundary.
The City was forced to redraw the zoning. To this day, that parcel is — unlike its neighbors to the north and west — is a non-residential district, circled on the map above, now part of the SD-10F district, described in zoning as “Regulations similar to Residence C with exceptions.” The lot was later a vacant lot — likely purchased by the Ford Motor Company after the Supreme Court case — and is now home to the MIT Furniture Exchange building.
In the Present Day
In today’s ordinance committee hearing (2019–08–13), the Council will likely be considering a number of amendments to the City’s proposed 100% Affordable Housing Overlay to require additional design standards for developers of affordable housing. Including these requirements in zoning is largely designed to keep control of what buildings look like in the hands of the law, rather than in the hands of the property owner.
The decision to proceed with implementing these zoning limitations will likely produce a contentious discussion, but I would ask residents to think of the same basic question that the Supreme Court considered in 1928. Some guidance to how the city’s built environment is important. When looking at the overall picture, one must consider the outcomes of these decisions. Does placing rigorous requirements on buildings change how likely they are to be built? If so, in a city with an ongoing housing crisis, does that choice achieve the goals we seek to achieve?
Zoning is only allowed to be used as a tool where it promotes safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City. Design guidelines that limit the likelihood of construction likely do the opposite.
I hope the Council will keep this concern in mind as they move forward with the Ordinance Committee hearing today.
