Cambridge committee presses property owners on long-term vacant storefronts; staff to mail certified notices

The Cambridge City Council's Economic Development and University Relations Committee heard updates from property owners and residents about long-term vacant storefronts and outlined next steps at a hybrid meeting on June 27. Committee members and city staff said they will begin certified-mail outreach to owners under the recently adopted vacant-storefront policy and continue technical assistance, while the city solicitor reiterated legal constraints on enforcement.

The meeting opened with Chair Wilson describing the goal of inviting owners of properties vacant for more than five years to explain short- and long-term plans and give the community a chance to comment. Staff framed the outreach as tracking a set of long-term vacancies (the meeting referenced both 23 and 27 properties in different places) and said some spaces on the list are already filling.

Three property owners gave updates. Tan, who said the family has owned 1906 Massachusetts Ave for more than 20 years, said the last restaurant tenant closed in April 2019 and that COVID-era delays, required fire-safety upgrades (sprinklers and alarms) and unexpected construction costs have made re-tenanting difficult. "We have a hard time to find the right tenant and also the construction delay," Tan said, noting code and safety upgrades raised costs and stalled openings.

Patricia Bertram, who said she owns the commercial space at 86 Kirkland St, told the committee she divided a former single storefront into two units and has already leased one to Jamie's Ice Cream (opened last October) and the other to a cannabis dispensary that plans to begin renovations on Aug. 1. "We finally got it completely renovated," Bertram said, crediting the city's economic development staff with assistance.

David (transcribed as Nauder/Notter), representing Urban Spaces, said 117 1st St., part of a larger PUD, is about 97% leased with roughly 1,100 square feet left; he described active marketing and interim community uses while brokers seek a tenant. "We're trying to be creative," he said, describing efforts to host short-term community uses and offer subsidized rent to longstanding local businesses.

During public comment, residents pressed for stronger measures. Al May of Franklin Street cited examples from other New England towns where officials gave owners months to lease or used eminent domain, arguing such pressure had rapidly reduced vacancies elsewhere. "They had 6 months notice… those owners either find somebody or they were gonna take over the property under eminent domain," May said.

Committee members thanked the owners who attended but expressed frustration that many listed owners did not participate. Vice Mayor McGovern said owners who "hold out" or treat vacancies as tax losses are harming neighborhood vitality; he also warned that eminent domain is costly and legally complicated. "Eminent domain is not easy," McGovern said, and the committee heard from the solicitor about the expense and litigation risk involved.

City staff described causes they've documented: the cost of code upgrades and build-outs, difficulty obtaining financing for small businesses, owners holding out for specific tenants (including cannabis uses that are constrained by local buffer rules), regional or out-of-state ownership that hampers local contact, and shifting market demand toward experiential and large-format tenants. Allison Allen, Senior Manager of Economic Development, warned that reduced SBA-backed lending and other financial shifts make it especially hard for women- and minority-owned businesses to access capital.

The city solicitor told the committee that state law sets enforcement mechanisms and limits: an ordinance could be enforced by criminal complaint or tickets, but fines are legally capped (the solicitor described a statutory cap of up to $300 per day), and enforcement must be applied uniformly. The solicitor described eminent domain as a legislative power the council can use when a public purpose exists, but also said it often leads to years of litigation and sizable expense.

Staff outlined practical next steps: an updated vacant-storefront database, certified letters mailed to property owners under the new policy within weeks, continued technical assistance and tenant-matching efforts (workshops, a leasing handbook and pop-up opportunities). Staff also encouraged partnerships with local banks and leasing agents to help under-resourced entrepreneurs access space.

Owners and commenters also raised site-specific nonleasing barriers: Tan asked the city to coordinate with the MBTA and police about trespassing, drug use and a failing MBTA retaining wall that is damaging his property and discouraging tenants; he requested city help to engage MBTA and potential infrastructure funding sources.

The committee closed by thanking staff, owners and residents, highlighting a city-supported small-business pop-up marketplace scheduled for June 28-29 at 1175 Cambridge St., and adopting a motion to adjourn by roll call (three yes votes recorded). Staff said they will continue outreach and return with updates as the certified-mail campaign and database updates proceed.

What happens next: staff will begin mailing certified notices under the vacant-storefront policy, continue leasing assistance and technical workshops, and report back to the committee on responses and any recommended policy changes. The solicitor's comments made clear that stronger enforcement (fines or eminent domain) carries statutory limits and potentially high costs and litigation risk.