Posted by Andrew Ejiofor.
A local developer has filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts Land Court challenging the City of Cambridge’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which is part of the city’s zoning code. The ordinance requires that developers of new residential projects either include affordable units on-site or set aside a portion of the development for income-restricted housing. Under Cambridge’s policy, developers must allocate 20% of the floor space of qualifying projects to below-market-rate units or income-capped rents, a requirement the plaintiff argues is overly burdensome and illegal. The lawsuit, brought by Columbia St LLC, with representation by the Pioneer New England Legal Foundation, claims that this mandate unfairly singles out developers to shoulder the costs of addressing the city’s housing affordability crisis; a burden the plaintiff contends should be supported more broadly by the public or through other mechanisms.
The city has defended the ordinance as a legitimate tool to promote socioeconomic diversity and expand affordable housing in a market where housing costs are high. Cambridge points out that inclusionary zoning has been used for decades and is a model for other high-cost communities seeking to ensure that new development contributes to broader affordability goals. Supporters of the policy argue that without such requirements, it would be significantly harder for low- and moderate-income residents to gain access to housing in Cambridge’s competitive real estate market.
The Cambridge inclusionary zoning lawsuit highlights a persistent tension in land-use policy between public interest goals and private property rights. On one hand, cities like Cambridge face acute housing affordability challenges, and inclusionary zoning is a tool to ensure that new development doesn’t exclusively benefit wealthier households or investors. By requiring developers to provide a share of affordable units, the city attempts to align private profit incentives with broader social goals. Without such mandates, market forces alone are unlikely to produce housing accessible to lower-income residents in expensive urban areas. In my opinion, this approach reflects a principled and necessary attempt by local government to intervene in a market that has proven highly exclusionary and inequitable.
However, the legal challenge also raises valid questions about fairness and economic feasibility. Developers argue that high mandatory inclusionary requirements can make projects financially unviable or deter investment, potentially slowing the overall pace of housing production. This tension is especially present in markets like Cambridge where construction costs, land values, and regulatory hurdles are already high. If developers are unable to pencil deals because of steep affordability obligations, the result could reduce the total supply of housing, including affordable units, which would undermine the goal the policy seeks to achieve.
Ultimately, finding a balance that ensures robust housing production while meaningfully addressing affordability requires both proper policy design and constructive engagement among stakeholders. Relying solely on litigation as the mechanism for resolving disputes risks creating adversarial dynamics that can stall progress on pressing housing needs. A more collaborative process, like including phased requirements, targeted subsidies, or impact fee alternatives, might help cities like Cambridge preserve both development incentives and equitable access to housing.
Andrew is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/5/cambridge-zoning-lawsuit