“Let’s Stick with What’s Not Working”: Michelle Wu Doubles Down on a Failing Housing Policy

At a recent housing forum, Mayor Michelle Wu had a chance to recalibrate. To explain why Boston—despite an unprecedented housing crisis and the best of intentions—is building fewer homes than ever.

But instead of learning from what’s clearly not working, she doubled down. She blamed high interest rates and tariffs – and leaned harder into a housing agenda that has left permitted units stalled, made construction financially impractical, and pushed Boston backwards while our national and regional neighbors move forward.

Let’s be clear: Michelle Wu is smart. I know – we both went to Harvard. But smart doesn’t mean right. And her housing strategy of excessive affordability mandates, transfer taxes, and threats of mandated rent control has made it nearly impossible to get anything built in Boston. It’s not working. And yet, she’s insisting we stick with it.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

On Tuesday night, she accused me of “going backwards” on housing. But the numbers show going backwards is exactly what’s happening under her administration.

The first half of this year has seen the worst pace of housing construction in years, with only 852 units being given building permits. That’s a 27 percent drop from a year ago – leaving us at a 13-year housing production low.

So, what’s really going backwards? Housing construction in Boston.

It is important to note that the Mayor’s own consultants at RKG Associates warned this would happen. In their 2022 feasibility study, they found that raising Boston’s Inclusionary Development Policy (IDP) from 13% to 20% would make most projects financially infeasible. They pointed to Cambridge, which saw its housing pipeline stall after going to 20%. She ignored them – and went ahead and copied Cambridge anyway.

Meanwhile, Developers Are Leaving

National developers have walked away from Boston. Some of the largest developers in the nation are in Everett but have steered clear of investing in Boston. Scape USA won approval for a 23-story tower in Fenway last year, with 400 units. That project is now on the auction block — unheard of for a fully permitted, shovel-ready development.

Michelle Wu continues to blame construction costs for the slowdown – but those costs are high across the country. In cities like Austin, developers are still building. Why? Because they’re focused on creative, common-sense reforms and willing to work as a good faith partners with the private sector. They’re focused not on process and rules and optics – but results.

In contrast, Wu stopped talking to developers. On Tuesday night, she again painted them as villains, ignoring that these projects bring jobs, tax revenue, philanthropic investment — and yes, housing. She’s effectively said: I don’t want you in my office. And they’ve listened.

Math That Matters

Here’s some math to consider:

• What’s 20% of zero? Zero. That’s the reality of the Mayor’s housing policy: sky-high affordability mandates on projects that never get built.

• What’s 13% of 26,000? 3,380. That’s how many affordable homes we’re not building because her costly mandates have sidelined 26,000 units citywide. My plan will add those 3,380 new units to Boston’s affordable housing portfolio because it will also get those 26,000 units built.

Mayor Wu claims she’s created 6,800 affordable units. But the city’s own housing production data says otherwise: just 2,200 new affordable units since she took office through the end of three years. It’s a shell game: repackaging commitments, counting rehabs and already-planned projects. Meanwhile, the real crisis deepens.

Cambridge, Somerville, and San Francisco: A Warning

Boston hasn’t been alone in pushing IDP to 20%. Cambridge and Somerville did as well. And like Boston, both saw development grind to a halt. It wasn’t just a coincidence. It was the inevitable result of pricing projects out of viability.

San Francisco offers the most high-profile cautionary tale. Long celebrated for progressive housing policies, the city found itself in a “doom loop” of empty office buildings, stalled housing production and declining population. Even there, officials are reversing course. They’re cutting mandates, slashing fees, and streamlining approvals. A new mayor is taking San Francisco in the right direction while Mayor Wu continues to march Boston in a dangerous direction.

The Transfer Tax Trap

One of the topics of discussion Tuesday night was the Mayor’s 2% transfer tax on real estate sales above $2 million. It might sound fair in theory. But in an economic crisis, it’s the equivalent of walking into an expensive grocery store and finding a surprise 2% surcharge at checkout. That might work when times are good – but in a crisis, it’s practically daring people to shop elsewhere.

We’re already seeing the consequences. Fully permitted buildings being forced into auction. More downtown commercial properties will follow. Some will go for pennies on the dollar. And when a building’s value falls from $120 million to $30 million, it’s not just the developer who loses — it’s the city, through lost tax revenue, stalled economic activity, and fewer homes for residents. But Mayor Wu’s policy is to add more stress and expenses on these properties.

My Housing Plan: Affordable & Financeable

Thanks largely to Mayors Menino and Walsh, Boston already ranks #1 in the nation for the percentage of income-restricted housing — 19.5%. Most of that serves households under 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). That’s important. But I’ve proposed expanding affordability targets to 90% and 120% AMI as well. Why? Because it helps working families who are priced out but don’t qualify for traditional subsidies. It also makes projects more financeable, since they generate slightly higher rents that can secure private financing.

Cities like Everett and Revere are building thousands of new homes despite being a fraction of the size of Boston. Why? Because their mayors focus on outcomes. Their rates are stable. They’re not digging in on failed strategies – or scaring away capital. They’re building.

Demonstrating What Democrats Can Accomplish

For me, this debate is about more than housing. It’s about whether we, as Democrats, are ready to govern with more than good intentions.

Across the country, Democrats are recognizing the urgency of this moment. Whether it’s housing, transportation, health care, or clean energy, mayors, governors and others are pushing back on well-meaning ideas that are stacked so high with rules that nothing ever gets accomplished.

What we’re seeing isn’t a shift to the center – it’s a decisive step forward that is progressive in values but pragmatic in execution. It’s recognizing that you can’t have affordability without supply. You can’t deliver equity without execution. And you can’t govern by slogans – you have to deliver results.

Because if we don’t, the critics will be right: that blue cities are more focused on process than progress, more invested in purity than productivity, and more comfortable with rules than results.

That’s not the kind of Democratic leadership we need. And it’s not the kind Boston will get in my administration.