Seconding this. I've been going to Christine for my hair needs for years, and while she's not taking new clients, her stylists are all really good, and there's strong mentoring for junior stylists. Their coloring work is impressive.

I’m not opposing the policy, it’s good policy and I support it. My commentary is aimed at the people in this sub who are like “this is it, housing will be cheap now!” If we want a systematic drop in rental and real estate prices we need radical change.

No that’s late stage capitalism, which is significantly worse

I've never gotten color, but Franco has been my barber for about a year and he does a great job.

You could take the T, but suburban NIMBYs have left it to rot because they prefer driving in their GMC suburbans and running over children on their way to work.

[removed]

Then there is demand for city life, while pretty much every town in the country that isn’t already a city has made it illegal to upzone/densify, leading to massively inflated prices in the few cities that are available to live in.

But then, the same people who make the point that you just made will turn around and throw a hissy fit when people propose relaxing zoning restrictions

There are a large number of policies, including the one being discussed in this thread, that individually don’t move the needle much, but when combined will move the needle in the right direction. However, every single time one of these policies come up, the above argument is used to oppose such policies. “This won’t move the needle on housing, and it will inconvenience me, so I oppose it!” So the policies don’t get enacted, or get neutered, and then the needle never moves because nothing ever gets done.

There are millions of people and hundreds of thousands of homes in the greater boston metro area. Any developer trying to fix prices is just going to be undercut by another developer to make money. The market is too big for the type of collusion (at the scale of the whole region) you are describing.

And yet, here we are living in a region with artificially constrained housing supply with incredibly high demand for that housing. Sounds like “high school economics” to me.

This must be a (bad) joke but I’m going to take it seriously for a minute.

I have a friend that lives in Holden and I never see them because it’s very difficult to get to. Perhaps if I lived in Worcester it would be easier but there’s no bus service in Holden I wouldn’t be biking on those narrow hilly roads in the winter.

Moving to a place where your children cannot get around on their own, especially when they have voiced their concerns which you are ignoring, is simply child abuse. In a few years you’ll be complaining that your child has disowned you and you can’t see why.

Agreed. This is an interesting step 1. Now further steps need of be taken to ensure this doesn’t result in a ton of new high prices development without actually solving the real problems.

When Boston passed a similar law, the made it only apply to low income housing. I would have liked that better since it drove the right focus.

Factually, 2/3 of households in Cambridge own cars. There is nothing to indicate that the people who move into these houses won’t follow a similar ratio. Even if only 1/3 have cars, it still means more cars than we currently have on the streets. In no scenario does this result in fewer cars in Cambridge.

I think I see the disconnect.

1. I think minimum wage is criminal and companies that can’t afford to pay their workers enough to live off of should go out of business.
2. No one should have to live that far away. The city should structure its housing so that the low income people who support the city can also afford to live there.
3. I don’t believe this law will have any impact on housing prices because it isn’t the full solution. It is an easy step 1 that drastically favors groups that are neither part of the short or long-term solution.

I think a lot of the new housing will bring people who actually do have cars and they will just depend on the streets to park them. That will put pressure on everyone already here because of the free parking that Cambridge offers anyone considered a resident.

I see your point, but it's very likely that businesses you may want to visit will still have enough parking, even if there isn't a legal minimum.

For housing without parking, that probably doesn't really affect you, but it may help make some housing cheaper, which isn't bad.

When you are forcing people to live 50 minutes away just to work at a minimum wage job because you expect to have a parking space in every home in a city… I think that is worthy of scorn.

I go to hair at little hollow in Somerville! They're amazing at vibrant colors and I love the witch theme 😊

People aren’t dumb. Most people sell their car when they to move to NYC. You keep assuming that only people who own cars will move here but that is factually untrue.

Then the conclusion is that the lifestyle and convenience provided by the city for the past 60 years, based largely on a population that was 30% smaller than it is today, is not sustainable and must change, and is changing, as the city grows.

Frankly, I've never heard of it.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

Hey, if you die next year, than it's all moot!

[removed]