Friend,
I hope you and your loved ones stayed safe during this weekend's winter storm. A huge thank you to our Department of Public Works crews who worked through brutal conditions to keep our streets clear and our community safe. Their dedication—especially during extreme weather—reminds us why supporting frontline workers and strong labor protections must be at the center of our work. When we talk about building power in Cambridge, we mean worker power.
Monday night's City Council meeting was a big one, with major votes on the Cambridge Street upzoning, the Democracy Center landmark designation, and City Hall security measures. Here's what happened and where I stood.
Municipal Supportive Housing Vouchers: Demanding Accountability
My policy order requesting a comprehensive update on the Municipal Supportive Housing Voucher (MSHV) program passed as part of the consent agenda—a list of routine items that the Council votes on together without individual discussion.
The MSHV program was set up in June 2025 with a $1 million budget to provide 25 vouchers for unhoused residents to get into permanent housing with supportive services. The program came out of community organizing around the closure of the Transition Wellness Center—a clear example of how grassroots pressure can win real gains.
But winning the program isn't enough. We need to make sure it actually delivers. The City said back in August 2025 that Cambridge Housing Authority would launch the program by late September, but we haven't received an update since then.
Our policy order, co-sponsored with Councillor McGovern, seeks answers: How many vouchers have been issued? Are former Transition Wellness Center residents being prioritized? What support services are actually in place? How are we fighting voucher discrimination? The City Manager has 30 days to respond with this information.
Under a federal administration actively going after our most vulnerable neighbors, timely implementation and transparency are essential. Housing is a human right, and programs meant to house people need to be held accountable to actually do it.
Cambridge Street Upzoning: Why I Voted No
The Cambridge Street zoning petition passed 6-3 with amendments. I voted no.
This wasn't a vote against housing or against upzoning Cambridge Street. It was a vote against giving away huge development rights to private capital without guaranteeing real community benefits in return.
What the Petition Does
The Cambridge Street zoning petition emerged from the Our Cambridge Street Planning Study, a community process conducted from October 2021 to January 2023 that engaged residents along the corridor between Inman Square and Lechmere Station. The original zoning petition, introduced in September 2025, proposed allowing residential buildings up to 8 stories along most of the corridor, with taller buildings (10, 12, and 15 stories) in select high-density areas near transit.
Councillor Nolan and Mayor Siddiqui proposed amendments to reduce the heights in the original petition. City staff prepared revised language reflecting these amendments, which set new height limits along the corridor:
• Main Corridor & Inman Square: 6 stories (CAM-6)
• Webster/Windsor: 12 stories (CAM-12)
• Lechmere: 10 stories (CAM-10)
The amended petition requires buildings exceeding 6 stories or 75 feet in height to comply with our citywide inclusionary housing requirement of 20% affordable units—regardless of building size.
NO: Sobrinho-Wheeler, Flaherty
PRESENT: Al-Zubi
NO: Al-Zubi, Zusy, Flaherty
The Core Problem: Locking in Heights, Not Affordability
Here's what makes this vote so frustrating: This petition dramatically increases how tall buildings can be along Cambridge Street, creating millions of dollars in extra land value for developers and property owners. In exchange, we're told we'll get 20% affordable housing through our citywide inclusionary zoning requirement.
But that 20% requirement is under siege from two directions: the courts and the market.
On the legal front, a lawsuit filed in December 2025 is trying to blow up Cambridge's inclusionary zoning ordinance entirely, claiming it's an illegal "taking" of private property. The suit, backed by the right-wing Pioneer Institute and local real estate developer Patrick Barrett, argues that making developers provide affordable units without direct payment violates the Fifth Amendment. The city is fighting back, and I'm confident that we will prevail, but the lawsuit creates real uncertainty around the foundation of our inclusionary requirements.
On the economic front, that 20% requirement is legally based on a 2016 economic feasibility study that's wildly outdated. A new feasibility study arrives in June 2026—just five months away.
That study will almost certainly show that 20% inclusionary housing is no longer economically viable under current market conditions. Construction costs have exploded 50–60% since 2016. Interest rates have more than doubled. When the study arrives showing that 20% "doesn't pencil," the Council will likely vote to lower the inclusionary percentage—which I will fight hard against.
Why 20% Matters
The 20% threshold isn't arbitrary. Research on mixed-income housing shows that developments need at least 20–30% affordable units to achieve genuine social integration. Below that threshold, we risk creating class-segregated buildings where low-income residents are isolated in separate wings or floors. When affordable units drop to 10% or 15%, buildings become de facto luxury housing with token affordable units, perpetuating rather than addressing economic segregation.
This is exactly why locking in 20% directly into the Cambridge Street zoning would have been so important. If we're giving away permanent development rights worth millions, we should guarantee permanent community benefits—not temporary ones vulnerable to both legal attack and economic revision.
The 20% affordability requirement faces challenges from both the courts and the coming feasibility study. Meanwhile, the development rights we approved Monday night are far more difficult to reverse.
"Here's what makes tonight's vote especially difficult for me to support: We're giving away our leverage for free. The 20% affordable housing requirement isn't written directly into this zoning—it relies on Section 11.203 of our citywide inclusionary ordinance, which can be changed by a simple council vote once the June nexus study shows it's no longer economically justifiable. We could have written 20% directly into this Cambridge Street zoning as a condition for these new heights. Instead, we're locking in the heights permanently while leaving the affordability requirement temporary and vulnerable."
We Could Have Done This Differently
We could have written 20% affordability directly into the Cambridge Street zoning itself, making it a permanent condition for accessing these new heights.
This approach came up during the last Council term, but City Solicitor Megan Bayer said that locking in a specific percentage would create potential inconsistency across different zoning districts. I get the concern about consistency. But I think the bigger inconsistency is giving away permanent development rights in exchange for temporary, vulnerable affordability requirements.
That way, even when the 20% number in Section 11.203 gets amended downward after the June study, developers building on Cambridge Street under these new height allowances would still be locked into 20%.
Why Waiting Until June Is Due Diligence, Not Delay
Some argued that waiting would delay housing production. I disagree.
Here's what people need to understand: This ordinance doesn't build housing—it creates zoning capacity.
The actual timeline from zoning change to people moving in is typically 3–7 years, including land assembly (6–18 months), financing (3–12 months), design and permitting (12–24 months), and construction (18–36 months).
Waiting 5 months for the economic feasibility study and keeping our leverage doesn't meaningfully slow that down.
"Those who asserted that waiting five months for the June study would meaningfully delay affordable housing retreated behind ever more tenuous redoubts as this argument was swiftly exposed as nothing more than an emotive talking point disconnected from the reality of the permitting and building timeline. This manufactured urgency took advantage of limited public information and capacity to appreciate how the June study would fundamentally alter this upzoning—creating a fabricated crisis that pressured the Council to give away leverage before we had the economic data to negotiate effectively. These tired political gimmicks are increasingly straining credulity and meeting the skepticism they deserve locally—our community is smarter than that and deserves better."
The timeline would have been ideal: spend the next five months getting serious about alternatives like social housing—which the state's Affordable Homes Act makes possible through a pilot program. Social housing means publicly owned, permanently affordable housing that's taken off the speculative market entirely. Unlike inclusionary zoning, which depends on private developers and market conditions, social housing creates housing as a public good—controlled by residents and communities, not profit margins. The state legislation gives us the tools to start building this infrastructure. We should be using these five months to explore how Cambridge can participate in the pilot program, identify sites, and develop a real alternative to our over-reliance on market-rate development with inclusionary requirements that are under constant pressure. Then, when the feasibility study arrives in June, have an informed conversation about restructuring our approach with current economic data. And we could revisit this Cambridge Street zoning with 20% affordability written directly into it, rather than imported by reference from Section 11.203.
The only real emergency we face is the affordable housing crisis itself. And this petition—with an inclusionary requirement that will likely change in five months—doesn't adequately address that crisis while handing over significant value to developers and landowners without guaranteeing real community benefits.
Despite considerable pressure, I stood proudly alongside community activists and low-income tenants—tireless organizers from the Cambridge Residents Alliance, Mass Senior Action Council, Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition, and others—challenging narratives that prioritize capital accumulation over community benefit, in defense of the truth.
On Process and Participation
We also want to be honest about the process. I abstained on the amendment vote because I'm new to this council and haven't felt like part of this process. Last-minute deals struck right before a vote aren't how we should be doing this work.
Major zoning changes deserve real public engagement and careful deliberation among councilors. When amendments get negotiated in the final hours before a vote, it limits our ability to fully think through the implications, hear from affected community members, and make sure we're making the best decisions for Cambridge residents.
Democratic governance requires more than just holding public hearings—it requires genuine opportunities for councilors and community members alike to understand, discuss, and shape proposals before they come to a vote. This matters even more when we're making decisions that will shape our city for decades.
"I want to be clear: I am open to voting yes on zoning proposals that deliver meaningful, guaranteed community benefits. I need to feel confident with what we can deliver on affordability when proceeding with these and this petition does not do that at this time. We can do better and we should do better."
Democracy Center Landmark Designation: Protecting Grassroots Organizing Space
The proposal to designate 43–45 Mount Auburn Street (the Democracy Center) as a historic landmark failed 2-7. I voted yes to landmark the building.
NO: Azeem, Flaherty, McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui
The Democracy Center at 43-45 Mount Auburn Street in Harvard Square. Photo: Elyse C. Goncalves
The Nathaniel Stickney House, built in 1846, is a rare surviving mid-19th century wood-frame residence in Harvard Square. It's already on the National Register of Historic Places and sits within the Harvard Square Conservation District. For over two decades, this historic building has housed the Democracy Center—a vital organizing hub that gave office space to progressive nonprofits and hosted over 100 local and national groups for meetings, workshops, and organizing.
Organizations like the Better Future Project (which ran Harvard's fossil fuel divestment campaign), the Black Response, HEART (our unarmed crisis response team), and dozens of other grassroots groups called this space home. In a city where commercial real estate pushes out independent organizing spaces, the Democracy Center was essential infrastructure for movement-building.
In April 2024, the Foundation for Civic Leadership—which owns the building—announced it would close for necessary renovations and tenant organizations relocated by July 1st. The Foundation for Civic Leadership, run by Ian Simmons, has a long history of supporting progressive causes and provided below-market rents to community organizations for years. The building was assessed at $5.1 million this year—purchased for $2.8 million in 2002.
I supported landmarking for three interconnected reasons:
First, historical significance. The Cambridge Historical Commission specifically wanted to "recapture" the size and shape constraint powers that were removed by the Neighborhood Conservation District amendments in October 2023 but are still present in landmarking. Commission Director Charles Sullivan noted that the proposed addition's tower would be adjacent to St. Paul's Church, and some of the owner's sketches included what he called "really grotesque" options, including cantilevers over the relocated historic building.
Second, community accountability. Landmarking creates a public process for any major changes to the building, ensuring the community gets a voice in what happens to this historically and politically significant space. Given that dozens of organizations and hundreds of activists depended on this space, they deserve to be part of conversations about its future.
Third, protecting organizing infrastructure. From a socialist perspective, this vote was about recognizing that physical space for organizing is a scarce and essential resource. When we lose these spaces, we lose the infrastructure that makes movement-building possible.
Fourth, protecting against future ownership changes. Landmark designation ensures that even if the building is sold to a new owner, the protections remain in place—the landmark requirements travel with the property, not the owner.
We lost this vote 2–7. However, we're encouraged that Ian Simmons has committed to ongoing community conversations about the building's future. This presents an opportunity for genuine collaboration about how this historic space can continue serving our community's organizing needs. We look forward to participating in these conversations and working constructively with the Foundation to ensure that community voices—especially from the organizations and activists who depended on this space—are centered in decisions about its future use.
The fight for community control over organizing spaces continues, and we're committed to ensuring those spaces remain accessible to the grassroots movements that need them.
City Hall Security: Demanding Democratic Process
The City Hall security policy order—which requested the City Manager provide a report on security measures and recommendations for improvements—sparked significant debate. After amendments from both Councillor Simmons and myself (mine was co-sponsored by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler), Councillor Simmons' amended version ultimately passed.
YES: Al-Zubi, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui
NO: Azeem, Flaherty, McGovern, Simmons, Zusy
Simmons Amendment (Council Approval): Passed 7–1–1
YES: Azeem, Flaherty, McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Zusy, Siddiqui
NO: Sobrinho-Wheeler
PRESENT: Al-Zubi
Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler and I introduced an amendment to shorten the timeline for the City Manager's report to 30 days and focus the initial report on understanding current security measures before jumping to recommendations for improvements. Our concern: this conversation needs to be explicitly thoughtful and democratic because City Hall is where residents engage with government.
Even in our debate, people understood the proposal differently—some thought it might include metal detectors, others said that wasn't the intent. Councillor Flaherty noted that courthouses have metal detectors and it "elevates decorum," while Vice Mayor Azeem suggested that places like Boston City Hall and the State House make you feel more welcome because of the implicit safety from security measures.
That lack of clarity is exactly why we need a strong foundation of what currently exists before exploring next steps. City Manager Yi-An Huang acknowledged the inherent challenges in City Hall's layout—it has to have two entrances, the ADA entrance at the back and the main stairs at the front—and suggested working with a smaller group to think through different scenarios and their costs.
Councillor Simmons emphasized this isn't about turning City Hall into a fortress, but about "safety, plain and simple," noting that "luck is not a safety strategy." She added an amendment making clear that any recommendations would require City Council approval before implementation.
Breaking this into phases—first understanding current measures in a focused 30-day report, then democratically developing recommendations through the Civic Unity Committee—would have brought more voices into the process and ensured thoughtfulness about a space that belongs to all of us.
Our amendment didn't pass, but Councillor Simmons' amendment asserting Council approval of any potential measures did. I voted present on that final amendment because while I support Council oversight, I remain concerned about the scope and timeline of the review. I remain committed to ensuring that any changes to City Hall security prioritize accessibility and democratic engagement alongside safety.
Other Key Items
My core questions remain:
• Sanctuary city litigation: Are we documenting harm effectively for future cases?
• HUD funding threats: How do we protect our $6 million in Continuum of Care funding from conditions requiring immigration enforcement cooperation?
• SNAP benefit cuts: Can we absorb potential cuts to the $2 million supporting 10,000 Cambridge residents?
The City Manager also reminded us that the next potential government shutdown would be January 30th—this Friday—absent Congressional intervention.
I am working with community partners to ensure that symbolic gestures like this are backed up with robust efforts to protect our immigrant neighbors from DHS and ICE enforcement. We are awaiting a formal response to our public records request with Cambridge PD, which will inform our next steps. This is just the beginning of our ongoing work together.
Upcoming Council Meeting
Sullivan Chamber and Zoom
Special roundtable to discuss the results of the 2025 Cambridge Resident Survey. This will be a focused working session rather than a regular meeting format. No public comment.
Sullivan Chamber and Zoom
City Council meetings are open to the public and streamed online. You can attend in person or join via Zoom. Sign up to speak at public comment >>
Stay Connected
These votes matter. The decisions we make now about housing policy, community benefits, and democratic process will shape Cambridge for decades.
We want to hear from you. Reply to this email or reach out at [email protected]. You can also reach my legislative aide, Owen Mortner, at [email protected].
If you need urgent assistance from our office, call 857-500-7928. We are here for you.
Get help from our office >>
Visit the official Council website >>
Thank you for reading, for engaging, and for holding me accountable to the values we share. This work is only possible because of our community organizing together.
Subscribe to our official newsletter >>
Join the People's Committee list >>
Peace be upon you,
Ayah