In October 2020, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, city council enacted a citywide 100 percent affordable housing overly (AHO). The AHO allows apartment buildings up to four stories in all neighborhoods in the city. However, all units must be permanently affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. The standard for affordability is paying 30 percent or less of one’s income on housing.
This is a very mixed plan. On one hand, it restores a little freedom to property owners. On the other hand, it will place new restrictions on those who build apartment buildings. The restrictions of single-family zoning have been lifted, but the restrictions of a rent cap are now in place.
While we should applaud the restoration of some freedom, we must remain cognizant that AHO wasn’t enacted as a matter of principle. It was driven entirely by political expediency. AHO is nothing more than an attempt to deal with a specific problem, not the first step towards removing all restrictions on housing producers.
Interestingly, AHO is founded on the same flawed framework as the single-family zoning it replaces. Single-family zoning has long been used to protect the interests of a particular group—upper income whites. AHO is being used to protect the interests of a different group—low-income families. Both policies are founded on the premise that the group is the standard of value.
Further, like zoning, AHO is founded on the premise that government should control land use. Individuals should not be free to use their property as they desire. Their property use is limited to what the government will permit. For example, apartment buildings taller than four stories can only be built in business districts.
This isn’t to say that we should oppose AHO or similar measures that restore some freedom. We can’t expect a century of bad policies resulting from a flawed framework to disappear overnight. We should applaud measures that restore some freedom, while making it clear that those measures are less than ideal.
Most importantly, we must explicitly reject any framework that holds the interests of the group as the standard of value. That standard inevitably pits one group against another. The current debate over single-family zoning is an example. One group—predominantly upper-class white suburbanites—wants to retain single-family to prevent another group—low-income families—from moving into their neighborhood.
We must reject the group—any group—as the standard by which we evaluate public policy. Instead, we must embrace and promote a standard that applies to all individuals. That standard is the freedom of each individual to live as he chooses, so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same. This standard applies to rich and poor, black and white, gay and heterosexual, male and female. This standard applies to everyone.