CAMBRIDGE – Residents in Cambridge, Massachusetts have been forced to evacuate their condos after structural problems were discovered.

Families who’ve called the Riverview Condos home are finding themselves uprooting their lives and calling moving trucks without much notice.

“It’s been devastating, people who have lived here for nearly 50 years now have to move, many seniors live here,” said a resident who wanted to keep her privacy. “To see all of these people needing to leave their residence and not knowing where exactly they’re going has been extremely distressful for them and also for me just seeing the looks on their faces every morning with concern and anxiety and depression.”

Building deemed unsafe

It’s been prime real estate in Cambridge overlooking the Charles River since the 1960s, but city officials said the building is not safe because of structural issues that engineers discovered during a roof replacement construction project.

Now the management company, Thayer and Associates, said the building must be fortified, so residents and everything have to go. The company said for six decades, they didn’t know substandard concrete was used in the original construction of the building and that reinforcing steel (rebar) had been improperly placed within it.

“Until recently, no one had any reason to suspect the errors that occurred in the original construction. Rebar is by definition concealed by the concrete it is intended to reinforce, and the slabs were largely covered by flooring and other finishings,” said Candice Morse, president of the company, Cambridge-based Thayer & Associates.

Kristina Klamer came to pick up her 92-year-old grandma who’s lived in the building for about a decade.

“I’m very disappointed in the way things are being handled, it’s really upsetting,” said Klammer. “I just feel really sad for her that she has all of these possessions, all of these photo books and memories from her life and she has no place to put them. She just has to get rid of them. But to have to do this so soon with this deadline is really difficult.”

The property management group said they’re trying to help residents and have held informational meetings, but residents say they’re footing their moving bills on their own.

“Stressed out by the whole thing, it’s really a matter of not knowing or clear instructions,” said Linda who’s helping her friend move and taking her in. “It was very short notice, and a lot of the people are older, a lot of them are in their 80s and to all of a sudden be finding, like my friend she doesn’t have a place to go.”

Could be year before return

And some say it could be at a year before they can come back to their beloved homes.

“There’s a lot of mixed messages, I think people are just left with a lot of questions that are unanswered, so I think that’s where the frustration is because people don’t know what to do,” said one resident.

The big concern too is that a lot of rentals are challenging in the Cambridge area with the academic calendar.

Residents said they have about four weeks to move all their belongings out.

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

“With this passing, I plan to run in this upcoming election,” said Nicole Coakley, a 43-year-old mother of five and a full-time therapist. Coakley has run twice for Springfield City Council but said she was unsure if she’d try again for a seat on the panel, until now.

During her earlier campaigns, Coakley often took her youngest daughter, now 6, with her to campaign events. She’d then rely on her campaign manager to watch her as Coakley spoke with voters. “For somebody like me, a single parent, we can’t afford that additional financial cost to help cover child care,” she said. With this proposal, “Massachusetts is moving to level the political playing field.”

State rules already allow candidates to spend their campaign cash on tuxedos, body armor, or expensive parties, as long as it’s for the “enhancement of [their] political future” and is not “primarily for personal use.”

They have not been allowed, however, to use political donations to pay a baby sitter while they campaign door to door or attend an evening fund-raising event.

Massachusetts already boasts some of the highest child care costs in the country, if not the highest, according to one measure. A child care center in Massachusetts costs an average of $19,961 annually for a toddler, and family- or home-based care costs $13,344, according to a 2023 report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Both were the highest of any state in the US.

“Even if you raise the money, you can’t spend it on something you need. And it’s much more valuable to campaign door to door than it is to pay for a mailing,” said state Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, a Somerville Democrat who has pushed the campaign finance proposal in the Massachusetts Senate.

“If you don’t have relatives or friends to take care of your kids while you’re campaigning, it’s almost impossible to do it,” she said. “This is just one more barrier.”

At least 30 states already allow candidates to use campaign funds for child care, as does the federal election system, according to Vote Mama Foundation, which supports mothers running for public office.

Many have used it, too. Since 2018, at least 68 federal candidates have tapped their campaign for child care funds, spending nearly $718,000 collectively, according to data Vote Mama Foundation published earlier this year. A little more than half of those candidates were women, and 46 percent of those who spent campaign money on child care were people of color.

Still, Massachusetts has long lagged in making the change. A legislative effort in 2017 to allow candidates to expense child care to their campaigns failed. In 2020, a legislative commission recommended the change, arguing it should be allowed when it’s the “direct result of the candidate’s campaign activities.” The state Senate then twice approved language last session, but it never reached then-governor Charlie Baker’s desk.

Supporters saw an opening this session at a time when State House leaders were roundly committed to trying to ease the state’s child care woes.

The proposal included in the economic development bill would allow candidates to spend campaign money on “baby-sitting services,” either by an individual baby sitter or a center, that “occur as a result of campaign activities.” It would bar candidates from paying their family members for child care, unless those relatives run or are employed by a professional child care service.

“We know that moms take the brunt of house work, the child care work. Even if they’re working moms, even if they’re career politicians, they still have to be moms,” said Shaitia Spruell, executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Women. “This will absolutely increase the number of women running for office — and hopefully the women in office.”

By some measures, Massachusetts has made notable gains on that front. Five of the state’s six statewide constitutional officers are women, including Governor Maura Healey, the first woman to be elected to that office in state history. She and Kim Driscoll are also one of the country’s first female governor-lieutenant governor duos.

Elsewhere in the State House, however, representation is lacking. Women currently make up 30 percent of the Legislature, but 51 percent of the state’s population. The House and Senate are slated to begin their next two-year session in January with fewer women (61) than it started this session with, according to the Massachusetts Caucus of Women Legislators.

“If you want a diverse legislative body, then you have to be intentional about creating opportunities and removing barriers. And that’s what we did here,” said state Representative Joan Meschino, a Hull Democrat who has cosponsored bills with Representative Mike Connolly of Cambridge to allow candidates to expense child care to their campaigns.

“The bill helps break down those economic barriers,” she said. “That’s going to help open the door.”

Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him @mattpstout.