Massachusetts defends inclusionary zoning as Fifth Amendment suits spread
A developer's constitutional challenge to Cambridge's affordable housing rules could reshape how 1,000+ U.S. inclusionary zoning policies function — testing whether local governance can require shared stewardship of urban space.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell is intervening to defend Cambridge’s inclusionary zoning policy against a lawsuit that could affect over 1,000 similar ordinances across 31 states. Developer Patrick Barrett challenges the city’s requirement that 20 percent of residential floor space in larger developments be sold or rented below market rate — arguing it constitutes an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment. For his proposed $57 million condominium project on Columbia Street, that would mean units worth $15 million could sell for only $3.6 million.
The suit builds on the 2024 Supreme Court decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, which opened legislative land-use rules to Fifth Amendment scrutiny. Barrett’s attorneys at Pioneer New England Legal Foundation see “enormous precedential impact,” potentially affecting not just Cambridge but Boston, Somerville, and hundreds of other jurisdictions that use inclusionary zoning to maintain economic diversity in their housing stock.
The case surfaces a fundamental governance tension: whether municipalities can mandate developers absorb costs for collective benefit, or whether property rights trump community-scale stewardship. Grounded Solutions Network’s Doug Ryan argues the constitutional questions were settled decades ago — Virginia courts found inclusionary policies constitutional once paired with incentives like density bonuses. Cambridge’s ordinance includes such structures. The question now is whether post-Sheetz jurisprudence will honor local experimentation in urban governance, or whether it will treat housing as purely private terrain beyond democratic reach.