Residents urge council to protect affordable housing, keep transitional shelter as budget talks continue

Dozens of residents urged the Cambridge City Council at its April 28 meeting to protect affordable housing programs facing federal cuts and to keep a non‑congregate shelter open while the city finalizes the FY26 budget.

Public commenters named programs they said were at risk — 128 households that could lose emergency housing vouchers, 42 mixed‑status families in Cambridge Housing Authority units, the Transition Wellness Center’s 58 non‑congregate beds, and about 2,000 low‑income families served by Cambridge Rise Up. "Right to affordable housing must include the right to defend that housing," one speaker said, arguing tenants need legal counsel to preserve recorded affordability covenants. Several speakers recommended a municipal voucher program as a rapid response and proposed modest property‑tax increases to raise roughly $9 million more than the city manager’s plan.

The council did not take a new funding vote at the meeting but moved several budget items through procedural steps. Members referred the FY26 submitted budget (city manager communication) and a set of loan authorization orders to the Finance Committee for further review and passed items 3 through 11 to a second reading and referral to finance. City staff told councilors the proposed budget currently requires about a 7.8% increase in the property‑tax levy; councilors asked staff to model incremental scenarios showing the local dollar impact of smaller percentage changes.

The Transition Wellness Center — a non‑congregate shelter that city staff said is expensive to operate at its current site — was a recurring subject. Commenters implored the council to preserve the beds and asked the city to use free cash or other sources to bridge the gap. In response, the city manager reiterated fiscal constraints and recommended not renewing the current model at Spalding; the council voted to accept the city manager’s report and place it on file, a procedural step that does not itself allocate new funds.

Councilors and staff said they will continue finance committee hearings in May and aim to return for a final budget vote in June. Several members signaled willingness to explore modest levy changes if staff provide concrete cost models and transparent outreach explaining trade‑offs for taxpayers. The council also asked that choices about shelter capacity and funding be considered alongside longer‑term investments in permanent supportive housing.

What happens next: the budget and loan orders were referred to the Finance Committee for hearings May 8, 13 (schools) and 14 (public investment); the council expects a final vote on the budget June 2.