Re: [DSNC] Digest for davissquarenc@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 3 topics
17 views
Skip to first unread message
Kathy Partridge
May 22, 2026, 4:55:44 PM (4 days ago) May 22
to daviss...@googlegroups.com
I have no problem with this, but wanted to alert the group to the fact that my invitation to the discussion group was sent to my spam folder. Fortunately, I saw it, so no harm done, but others may be the same boat.
Kathy
Kathy Partridge
On May 22, 2026, at 1:40 PM, daviss...@googlegroups.com wrote:
Derrick Rice <local....@rice.io>: May 21 09:35AM -0400
+1 to the sentiment: Neighbors' concerns and opinions shouldn't be dismissed via pejorative labeling.
I speculate that the "NIMBY" label gets deployed when folks are referring to the "character" of the neighborhood, but they never refine what it is that they exactly mean. It is sometimes seen as a Dog Whistle for NIMBYism. In practice I think this phrasing (absent more detail) is never productive.
I suggest that folks who are opposed to certain developments based on "character" do a little more work to describe what it is that they mean. Thank you, Rachel for beginning this when you say "the reasons people want to visit or live in Davis Square in the first place", but it is still unclear to me. Are lack of shadows a reason people want to visit or live in Davis Square? Is it an old-timey feel? Is it brick sidewalks? I can say that none of those are what draw *me* to Davis Square, but I could entertain that it may be true for others.
- Derrick Rice (he/him)
On Tue, May 19, 2026, at 10:49, Rachel Rosenberg wrote:
PJ Santos <peej...@gmail.com>: May 21 10:55PM -0400
As someone who somewhat self-identifies as "YIMBY", I don't appreciate
being grouped with the Reganites. I don't think it is much of a leap to say
that Republicans do not care about helping the poor, and there is no
evidence that cutting taxes for rich people would have that effect.
Conversely, I VERY sincerely want to lower housing costs, and there is
ample evidence and expert consensus that building a lot of housing would
help achieve that goal.
You're welcome to distrust experts or to prioritize other objectives over
lowering housing costs, but falsely calling us "Reganites" is the exact
kind of labeling you complained about in the first part of your email.
On a happier note, I'm glad you brought up Clarendon Hill! A few months ago
I went to meet with their Residents Alliance as a representative of the
DSNC board and talked about what we're doing + told them they're all
eligible to be members of the DSNC. (Their project is not on our tracker
because although they are eligible to be members, that building is outside
our exclusive negotiating area). Unfortunately, they also schedule their
monthly meeting for the last Monday of the month, so they won't attend many
of our meetings. However, I brought up the idea of doing a joint meeting in
their community room sometime over the summer, which I hope we'd be able to
pull off. Another interesting topic of discussion was that they also
engaged in a CBA-type negotiation with POAH/SCC, and they may be another
helpful resource for us on how to negotiate with a developer.
The board has also reached out to Weston Manor to do similar outreach. If
anyone else is interested in connecting the DSNC to underrepresented
communities, join the outreach committee!
Regarding the Clarendon Hill project, there's a lot to like about it, it
also went through the 40-B process that Copper Mill is trying to use.
However, they already owned the land, and they relied on a bunch of
grants/low-income housing funding to get the project to pencil. My
understanding is the project has been a bit messy, there've been some
delays due to the complex funding stream, and I remember there was a
labor/wage theft dispute a few years ago.
Projects like Clarendon Hill or the Broadway Star Market are great in that
they provide some much needed affordable housing, but they're flukes in
that getting the land and complex funding in order is not something we can
count on happening very often, and relying on projects like that to address
our housing shortage is pretty "thoughts + prayers"-y. By contrast, Copper
Mill is coming in with their own funding, so it can happen in parallel to
any state grants Somerville can get. I'm with you that the Copper Mill
proposal could be much better on the affordable housing front. If we end up
negotiating a CBA, we might have a choice between asking for a smaller
building, or for it to stay the same height and to deepen the affordability
requirements. I'd certainly push for the second option!
A last concern that I have about Clarendon Hill is that it is a real shame
that a big chunk of our city's affordable housing is stuck on its
outskirts, near big, unpleasant roads like the Alewife Brook or the Mystic
Parkways. The area around Davis Square is the wealthiest in the city, and
has the least amount of affordable housing. A big apartment building with
126 (or more!) affordable units built right on top of the Red Line would be
life changing!
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 5:38 PM Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Leiran Biton <leira...@gmail.com>: May 21 09:16PM -0400
The “character” of a neighborhood is a perfectly valid consideration when
thinking about what you love about the area. It’s fine to ask for more
description, from a place of curiosity; I think we should honor a person’s
sentiments when they say they enjoy the “character” of the neighborhood
without asking them to dissect their feelings.
I personally love the 2/3 family, dense rows of homes in the neighborhood.
The community that this scale of density gives rise to is unparalleled.
It’s a place you can actually get to know many of your neighbors and always
have more people to meet. It’s also not as overwhelming as I find more
vertically developed cities (e.g., NYC, Boston proper). That’s part of what
drew me to Somerville and Davis Sq in the first place.
Best,
Leiran Biton (he/him)
Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>: May 22 08:17AM -0700
Regarding Clarendon Hills, it's incredibly misleading to call it 591 units
with 216 affordable. This project is not new housing, it's a
reconstruction/addition to an older public housing project. The previous
building had 216 units of public housing, so the new construction actually
adds no new affordable housing at 80% AMI or lower. It only adds 110% AMI
and market rate housing.
The Chester St project is 3 units of residential so it also adds no new
affordable housing.
Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>: May 22 08:26AM -0700
I would also point out that, regarding that NYT article posted, "New York
can accommodate over a million new residents by strategically developing
underutilized land, such as vacant lots and single-story buildings, near
public transit hubs " - Well, the proposed Copper Mill site is exactly an
underutilized single-story building near a public transit hub. I think the
writers of this NYT article would agree that the Copper Mill site is an
excellent place for dense urban development. I'm glad you brought up this
article!
On Friday, May 22, 2026 at 11:17:28 AM UTC-4 Ashish Shrestha wrote:
Louisa Stephens Bissett <lstep...@gmail.com>: May 22 11:38AM -0400
Hello,
In case anyone would like to read the New York Times article, here is a
gift article (paywall-free link). Hope it works!
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/12/30/opinion/new-york-housing-solution.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kVA.n6ao.akO9Vd8WKgVx&smid=url-share
.
Best,
Louisa
On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 11:26 AM Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>: May 21 09:23AM -0400
Hi neighbors,
While the membership of the DSC may ultimately decide that there's merit to
the separation of this list into two, announcements and discussion, this
undemocratic unilateral decision from an unspecified "we" (though only
signed by Chris) appears to have been an ideologically motivated tactic to
suppress dissenting views, specifically mine. In a democratic
organization, there is no legitimate excuse for excluding membership input
on a decision that affects our ability to communicate with one another.
For important context, I sent my email at 10:49am on Tuesday, May 19
(screenshot below) but it was *withheld from distribution for 30+ hours*,
until May 20 at 5:38pm. During this same time frame, two other emails from
members were approved for distribution before mine, so it must have been
seen by the moderator(s). Chris's email announcing the unilateral decision
was sent just over an hour after mine was approved. Therefore that
unilateral decision must have been made *during the time period that my
email was withheld from distribution and as a reaction to the views I
expressed in my email. *Had this been something in progress prior to my
email, it would have been democratically discussed at the Monday, May 18
DSNC meeting the night before. Further, there were only 3 total DSNC
member emails sent within that 30hour timeframe, so volume of emails is not
a reasonable explanation for this sudden undemocratic action. (A stark
contrast to months ago, when there was an overwhelming volume of email
discussion on the list serve, but no similar action proposed or taken.)
I move that the membership discuss, agree upon, and ultimately adopt fair
and unbiased protocols that any moderator of the DSNC Google group will be
bound to follow. I also move that the current moderator(s) be removed, and
that a special meeting be called for the membership to select a new fair
and impartial moderator with a live vote.
The timestamp of this email is 9:21am on Thursday, May 21.
Best,
Rachel
[image: image.png]
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 7:02 PM 'Christopher Beland' via Davis Square
Elaine Almquist <elaine....@gmail.com>: May 21 02:37PM -0400
Rachel,
We've had requests from members of the neighborhood council to separate the
list into an announcement channel and discussion board for months, and
we've both discussed this at meetings and presented different options we've
been exploring (Slack, Discord, Discourse, etc.) for at least 6 months.
We're implementing this change now because we've elected a new board and
have come to a resolution on how to move forward. This was a request from
members that we assessed fully and are implementing now along with other
improvements to our communications such as our website, social media, and
other communications methods through the Outreach committee.
We are in the middle of transfering the Google Group moderation from our
old board members to our new. We just met to have our Secretary handover
and implement this yesterday evening. Apologies in any posting delays while
we are undergoing this transition. The Google Group only allows us to add
10 people at a time, and 100 people per day to the new group. It will take
a minimum of 6 days for everyone to migrated over.
Everyone is still allowed to post to the main Google group until the
Discussions list is finalized. We're all volunteer and we approve messages
as our moderators have time to do so. Only new members are moderated, but
your account was still listed as under the "new" period. I manually
overrode this to allow your messages to go through without moderation, so
you shouldn't see any delays if you continue to post.
Best,
Elaine
*Elaine F. Almquist*
*(she/her/hers)*
BlueSky @EAlmquist <https://bsky.app/profile/ealmquist.bsky.social>
Instagram: @EFAlmquist <https://www.instagram.com/efalmquist/>
Phone: 978.375.2448
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 2:10 PM Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Elaine Almquist <elaine....@gmail.com>: May 21 03:07PM -0400
We do not edit or suppress or edit any messages except the vent cleaning
messages or other obvious spam (although a few have snuck through,
regrettably.) Everyone is allowed to discuss topics of their choosing,
without prejudice of point of view, with strong encouragement that it be
relevant to Davis Square. Most people's messages go through without
moderation.
This separation of lists is meant to solve the delay for any messages that
Google Groups sends to moderation (which is only for new members or
messages that are caught automatically by Google Groups) to allow everyone
to post directly into discussion, and for everyone who only wants to
receive the official announcements of member meetings and such to opt-out,
which has been the bulk of the feedback we've received from members.
Best,
Elaine
*Elaine F. Almquist*
*(she/her/hers)*
BlueSky @EAlmquist <https://bsky.app/profile/ealmquist.bsky.social>
Instagram: @EFAlmquist <https://www.instagram.com/efalmquist/>
Phone: 978.375.2448
Tim Kness <timk...@gmail.com>: May 21 02:58PM -0400
Elaine -
I too have found the "approval" process on what posts or replies that are
seen and or suppressed to be very haphazard. I've have a number of my
responses go unplublished, edited and only sectons responded to, or even
deemed "spam" to be denied.
There appear to be No protocols in place in regards to the process, and
that moderators decisions are unclear, and are at a whim.
I also move to second Rachel's request that:
"the membership discuss, agree upon, and ultimately adopt fair and unbiased
protocols that any moderator of the DSNC Google group will be bound to
follow. I also move that the current moderator(s) be removed, and that a
special meeting be called for the membership to select a new fair and
impartial moderator with a live vote."
This issue has been a running case ever since I signed up and have been
receiving these postings.
Thank you.
Tim Kness
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 2:38 PM Elaine Almquist <elaine....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Beth Kevles <bethk...@gmail.com>: May 21 06:23PM -0400
Does anyone know how much spam suppression is automated by google? And are
the moderators able to retrieve email from the spam folder? Similarly, how
many messages are pulled into moderation-required by google rather than by
our human moderators?
That is to say, how much of the problems that we are experiencing are
caused by google's automation rather than by humans?
Thanks,
--Beth
Marilyn <mars...@gmail.com>: May 21 07:02PM -0400
Rachel, I promise, splitting the DSNC mailing list came up at the Outreach
Committee meeting on May 11. Ask Ed Woll. He was present and can confirm.
This was more than a week before your email. There is no nefarious purpose
behind the effort.
On Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:10 PM Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Christopher Beland <chris...@gmail.com>: May 21 07:06PM -0400
On Thu, 2026-05-21 at 18:23 -0400, Beth Kevles wrote:
> Does anyone know how much spam suppression is automated by google? And are the moderators able to retrieve email from the spam folder? Similarly, how many messages are pulled into moderation-required by google rather than by our human moderators?
> That is to say, how much of the problems that we are experiencing are caused by google's automation rather than by humans?
All messages sent by real non-spam humans are supposed to be approved out of the moderation queue as long as they comply with the code of conduct the DSNC membership adopted on February 23. As far as I know, no one has been moderated for violating the code of conduct since that time, it's just been dryer vent and other scams and spam.
I believe what goes into the moderation queue in the first place is anything Google marks as spam, *plus* anything from people who either aren't on the mailing list or who are individually set to "moderated". I see a lot of real humans on the list marked as "moderated", so I'm guessing that at some point after a deluge of dryer vent spam that wasn't getting caught by the automatic filter, we set everyone to "moderated" and then started flipping senders to "unmoderated" once they were somehow identified as a real human. This is what I've been doing for small DSNC committee e-mail lists, and in a small setting it's also easy to realize an email address belongs to a human when you meet them in person or on Zoom.
Everything goes into one moderation queue, so I don't think we know what got incorrectly marked as spam and what got moderated because the sender is individually marked as "moderated". It would be good practice to flip senders to "unmoderated" when it's made clear they are a real person. Maybe moderators haven't been doing that either because it's not obvious when it's needed, or because they simply haven't had the time given the size of the list and the email volume and everything else we've been busy with. I am also remembering a message or two that came from the email address of a real human, but their account was being used by a spambot, so there may be a few people who are on "moderated" in case that happens to them again.
This mailing list overhaul is a good time to revisit our practices and figure out how to fix the problem of members having a bad moderation experience, and tidy up our settings. If things are working as intended, real humans shouldn't be held up by moderation hardly ever. I've added this to the proposed agenda for the board's May 27 meeting. With the seating of a new board and handoff to a new secretary, we've also just reallocated and clarified responsibilities in an effort to spread the work around and keep up better with necessary tasks. It's not just email moderation we were falling behind on, but also web site updates and social media announcements. I'm hopeful that after a few weeks the new organizational structure will produce some visible progress.
Chris
Philip Higonnet <philiph...@gmail.com>: May 21 07:57PM -0400
Rachel and Neighbors - Confirming what Marilyn and others have noted. There’s been a long and ongoing discussion of how to find a sweet spot between those who want to get every email, while respecting folks who just want notice(s) of key events. These systems aren’t perfect. Kind volunteers with tech skills way above my pay grade are continuing to try and make that happen, from what I understand. If you felt somehow censored / silenced, that’s unfortunate and I’m sorry about that.
In a very neighborly way, I might pushback on something you said in your email from yesterday. You describe the DSNC as having “factions”. There are plenty of people the DSNC who are genuinely on the fence about this project, and look forward to learning more. I am one. There’s also some pretty amazing depth and breadth of experience in our group, as well as lots of folks with very diverse, passionate views. I’ve learned from you, for example, how important the connectivity and critical mass of the Burren, its patrons, musicians and culture are to our Square.
Most of all, I look forward to our friends in City Hall showing some leadership at this important time! Let’s get that professionally guided, result driven, Davis Square planning and zoning effort going PRONTO!
cheers
- Philip
>> The timestamp of this email is 9:21am on Thursday, May 21.
>> Best,
>> Rachel

Rivkah Lapidus <rivkah...@yahoo.com>: May 21 09:51PM
Rachel,Thank you for the summary. I am absolutely with every fiber of my being against a tower of luxury condos on already crowded Elm St. Anyone who survived Reaganomics--and many didn't, for it was then that the sharp uptick in unhoused people became of "trickle down". If you can locate former Reagan cbinet member David Stockman's critique of Reaganomics and "trickle down" (which I indelicately call Piss On... it's in an Atlantic Monthly of the era...you will find a better analysis.
Rivkah Lapidus, Ph.D., LMHC, CGP Psychotherapist, artist, writer. Somerville, MA
(617) 666-2110rivkahlapidus.com; rivkahlapidus@yahoo.comhttps://www.amazon.com/author/rivkahlapidusBoston Area Harm Reduction Therapies & Rivkah's Art & Random Whimsy on Facebook
Certified Group Psychotherapist"If I am only for myself, who will be for me? And if I were for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when?"-HillelIn compliance with HIPAA and other applicable federal and state statutes, certain types of electronic data transmissions must conform to internal and external format requirements. This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This message and any attachments may contain CONFIDENTIAL and legally protected information. If you are not the addressee and an intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others; also, please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system.
On Thursday, May 21, 2026, 01:40:46 PM EDT, daviss...@googlegroups.com <daviss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
| daviss...@googlegroups.com | | Google Groups |
Topic digest
View all topics
- food for thought on housing and affordability in Somerville - 3 Updates
- Separation of discussion and announcement lists - 1 Update
- Special DSNC Meeting June 3rd on the Elm Street Short-Term Quick-Build Improvement Proposal - 1 Update
- Helpers needed to maintain DSNC socials and Web site - 1 Update
food for thought on housing and affordability in Somerville
| Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>: May 19 10:49AM -0400
Hi all,
Some great conversations last night following the DSNC meeting, which
inspired me to compile and share the following with the full group.
Here's some food for thought that might help what feels like opposing
"factions" in the DSNC understand each other better. While I think the
YIMBY perspective has been well represented on this email thread, I don't
think the alternative perspective so many of us share (perhaps the silent
majority on the Google group and the vocal majority at community meetings)
has yet been articulated for everyone. We're not NIMBY, we're not
anti-development, and we're not anti-change. We're pro adding housing
that's 1) actually affordable, 2) permitted in a way that's supported by
comprehensive planning (not decided parcel by parcel), and 3) preserves
culture, character, and community - the reasons people want to visit or
live in Davis Square in the first place. With thoughtful planning and
development, we can achieve those goals while still building up reasonably
and preparing for the future.
Sharing some articles that help illustrate our informed position:
1) A thoughtful Somerville Times op-ed
<https://www.thesomervilletimes.com/archives/144803#comment-14785> with
data that shows a luxury-priced residential tower, even with 20-25% of
units set aside as "affordable" at 80% AMI is *not* a solution to
Somerville's affordable housing woes and will instead *exacerbate *them. I
think this is very helpful because it is based specifically on actual local
data, unlike other articles I've seen shared on the topic which look at
cities that are not necessarily comparable to Somerville. Like the
signatories from the Somerville Community Land Trust, the Community Action
Agency of Somerville, and the Somerville Community Corporation, we reject
the flawed "trickle-down housing" theory that's being shoved down our
throats by a dishonest developer and a landowner leveraging Somerville's
affordability crisis to pad their own pockets with $13 million and $42
million, respectively. I think it's safe to say among this group of
Somerville progressives that Reagan's trickle-down economics was a complete
failure so it's surprising to hear some of our progressive neighbors argue
that same theory should inform city planning decisions in 2026.
2) Here's a description of and a link to a NYT article
<https://urbanlab.nyu.edu/nyt-how-to-make-room-for-one-million-new-yorkers/>
(unfortunately NYT has a paywall) that's really interesting and exciting.
I'll paste the NYU description because it's more succinct/accurate/elegant
than any summary I could write: "The article “How to Make Room for One
Million New Yorkers” by Vishaan Chakrabarti proposes a visionary plan to
address New York City’s acute housing shortage without dramatically
altering the city’s character. Chakrabarti, leveraging his expertise as an
architect and urban planner, suggests that New York can accommodate over a
million new residents by strategically developing underutilized land, such
as vacant lots and single-story buildings, near public transit hubs. His
firm’s analysis identified potential for adding 520,245 homes, focusing on
mid-rise and high-rise buildings that blend seamlessly into existing
neighborhoods. This plan emphasizes sustainable urban growth, affordable
housing, and improved access to transportation, positioning it as a
feasible solution to the city’s escalating housing crisis while preserving
its unique urban fabric." Thanks to Steve Post for sharing this article
originally.
3) Attending the DSNC meeting and looking at the DSNC website, one would
think that no new housing is being built in the Davis Square catchment
area. That's simply not true. Clarendon Hill
<https://clarendonhill.org/>*, a
large-scale affordable development is located within the Davis Square
neighborhood boundaries identified by DSNC but not listed on the DSNC
website and never acknowledged at DSNC meetings**.* And, it's already
partially complete! At full completion the development will have 591 units
- 216 of which are affordable (36.5%). 80 units will be for
moderate-income tenants at 110% AMI; and 295 units will be market rate.
This project is a partnership between nonprofits Preservation of Affordable
Housing (POAH) and Somerville Community Corporation (SCC) and real estate
investment/development firm Gate Residential. The city was involved as
well, which shows that the city IS capable of taking action when the right
project is presented, despite what Copper Mill wants us to believe -
complaining about city inaction serves their false narrative. No thriving
businesses were demolished, no community was displaced, no cultural was
destroyed. Clarendon Hill should be a model that DSNC studies, not
ignores.
In addition to this large scale development that's a model for adding
affordable housing on the outskirts of Davis Square, there's another
development in progress that gives us a model for development within the
square's business district. Though the DSNC website says that the new
residential development at *53 Chester St. *(next to Redbones) is still in
application status and no verbal updates were given at the meeting
yesterday, this project was in fact was permitted in February and
demolition was completed this week! The building will be 4 stories, first
floor commercial with three residential units on top, adding a small bit of
housing while remaining consistent with the character of Davis Square and
not disrupting Davis' existing business, community, and culture.
I think it would be helpful for DSNC to focus thoughtfully on developments
underway that are positive models rather than fixating on debating one
controversial and unlikely proposal from a developer that we all agree is
untrustworthy (to put it mildly). Let's start working together on actual
improvements to Davis Square and pushing forward the neighborhood plan.
Best,
Rachel
|
| |
| Jeff Kaufman <jeff.t....@gmail.com>: May 21 01:15AM -0400
I don't think Clarendon Hill is inside the DSNC boundaries? Per the map
<https://map.davissquarenc.org/> (blue area) that only goes as far as Teele.
Jeff
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:38 PM Rachel Rosenberg <rachelro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
| |
| Meredith Porter <art...@rcn.com>: May 21 08:58AM -0400
Hi Jeff and everyone, Clarendon Hill is at 34 North St, not in Davis Square (the blue area), but within the 1/2 mile of the Neighborhood Boundaries, so that anyone who resides there is eligible for DSNC membership.
Best regards,
Meredith Porter ("Merit," he/him)
From: "Jeff Kaufman" <jeff.t....@gmail.com>
To: "Rachel Rosenberg" <rachelro...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" <daviss...@googlegroups.com>, "Zachary Yaro" <zmy...@gmail.com>, "Zach Meyer" <zfm...@gmail.com>, "Joel Paul" <jpau...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2026 1:15:04 AM
Subject: Re: [DSNC] food for thought on housing and affordability in Somerville
I don't think Clarendon Hill is inside the DSNC boundaries? Per the [ https://map.davissquarenc.org/ | map ] (blue area) that only goes as far as Teele.
Jeff
On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:38 PM Rachel Rosenberg < [ mailto:rachelrosenberg3@gmail.com | rachelro...@gmail.com ] > wrote:
Hi all,
Some great conversations last night following the DSNC meeting, which inspired me to compile and share the following with the full group.
Here's some food for thought that might help what feels like opposing "factions" in the DSNC understand each other better. While I think the YIMBY perspective has been well represented on this email thread, I don't think the alternative perspective so many of us share (perhaps the silent majority on the Google group and the vocal majority at community meetings) has yet been articulated for everyone. We're not NIMBY, we're not anti-development, and we're not anti-change. We're pro adding housing that's 1) actually affordable, 2) permitted in a way that's supported by comprehensive planning (not decided parcel by parcel), and 3) preserves culture, character, and community - the reasons people want to visit or live in Davis Square in the first place. With thoughtful planning and development, we can achieve those goals while still building up reasonably and preparing for the future.
Sharing some articles that help illustrate our informed position:
1) [ https://www.thesomervilletimes.com/archives/144803#comment-14785 | A thoughtful Somerville Times op-ed ] with data that shows a luxury-priced residential tower, even with 20-25% of units set aside as "affordable" at 80% AMI is not a solution to Somerville's affordable housing woes and will instead exacerbate them. I think this is very helpful because it is based specifically on actual local data, unlike other articles I've seen shared on the topic which look at cities that are not necessarily comparable to Somerville. Like the signatories from the Somerville Community Land Trust, the Community Action Agency of Somerville, and the Somerville Community Corporation, we reject the flawed "trickle-down housing" theory that's being shoved down our throats by a dishonest developer and a landowner leveraging Somerville's affordability crisis to pad their own pockets with $13million and $42 million, respectively. I think it's safe to say among this group of Somerville progressives that Reagan's trickle-down economics was a complete failure so it's surprising to hear some of our progressive neighbors argue that same theory should inform city planning decisions in 2026.
2) [ https://urbanlab.nyu.edu/nyt-how-to-make-room-for-one-million-new-yorkers/ | Here's a description of and a link to a NYT article ] (unfortunately NYT has a paywall) that's really interesting and exciting. I'll paste the NYU description because it's more succinct/accurate/elegant than any summary I could write: "The article “How to Make Room for One Million New Yorkers” by Vishaan Chakrabarti proposes a visionary plan to address New York City’s acute housing shortage without dramatically altering the city’s character. Chakrabarti, leveraging his expertise as an architect and urban planner, suggests that New York can accommodate over a million new residents by strategically developing underutilized land, such as vacant lots and single-story buildings, near public transit hubs. His firm’s analysis identified potential for adding 520,245 homes, focusing on mid-rise andhigh-rise buildings that blend seamlessly into existing neighborhoods. This plan emphasizes sustainable urban growth, affordable housing, and improved access to transportation, positioning it as a feasible solution to the city’s escalating housing crisis while preserving its unique urban fabric." Thanks to Steve Post for sharing this article originally.
3) Attending the DSNC meeting and looking at the DSNC website, one would think that no new housing is being built in the Davis Square catchment area. That's simply not true. [ https://clarendonhill.org/ | Clarendon Hill ] , a large-scale affordable development is located within the Davis Square neighborhood boundaries identified by DSNC but not listed on the DSNC website and never acknowledged at DSNC meetings . And, it's already partially complete! At full completion the development will have 591 units - 216 of which are affordable (36.5%). 80 units will be for moderate-income tenants at 110% AMI; and 295 units will be market rate. This project is a partnership between nonprofits Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH) and Somerville Community Corporation (SCC) and real estate investment/development firm Gate Residential. The city was involved as well, which shows that the city IS capable of taking action when the right project ispresented, despite what Copper Mill wants us to believe - complaining about city inaction serves their false narrative. No thriving businesses were demolished, no community was displaced, no cultural was destroyed. Clarendon Hill should be a model that DSNC studies, not ignores.
In addition to this large scale development that's a model for adding affordable housing on the outskirts of Davis Square, there's another development in progress that gives us a model for development within the square's business district. Though the DSNC website says that the new residential development at 53 Chester St. (next to Redbones) is still in application status and no verbal updates were given at the meeting yesterday, this project was in fact was permitted in February and demolition was completed this week! The building will be 4 stories, first floor commercial with three residential units on top, adding a small bit of housing while remaining consistent with the character of Davis Square and not disrupting Davis' existing business, community, and culture.
I think it would be helpful for DSNC to focus thoughtfully on developments underway that are positive models rather than fixating on debating one controversial and unlikely proposal from a developer that we all agree is untrustworthy (to put it mildly). Let's start working together on actual improvements to Davis Square and pushing forward the neighborhood plan.
Best,
Rachel
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · [ https://davissquarenc.org/ | https://DavisSquareNC.org ] · [ https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC | https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC ]
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages