Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 12, 2025

Current City of Cambridge Board and Commission Vacancies (May 12, 2025)

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government — Tags: boards and commissions, Cambridge government — Robert Winters @ 10:55 am

Volunteer Opportunities – Cambridge Boards & Commissions

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Council on Aging Board

May 12, 2025 – The Cambridge Council on Aging (COA) is seeking interested individuals to serve on its board to help advocate for important issues impacting older adults (residents ages 60 and older). City Seal

The purpose of the COA board is to:

Promote and encourage existing and new services and activities intended to enhance and improve the quality of life of older persons in the city; Advise the City Manager on all matters pertaining to the welfare of older adults who live in Cambridge ; Advocate for older adults in Cambridge . Board members also support COA/ Senior Center staff with community outreach for services, benefits, activities and programs available to older adults.

Applicants must be Cambridge residents, age 60 or older.

The Council on Aging meets virtually via the Zoom platform on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, 9:30-11am.

For more information about the Council on Aging, please contact Susan Pacheco, Executive Director of the Council on Aging at 617-349-6220 or at spacheco@cambridgema.gov.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, June 16, 2025. Applications can be submitted using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/Apply. A cover letter and resume, or an overview of relevant experience, can also be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are also available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue.

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Public Planting Committee

Apr 30, 2025 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking Cambridge residents interested in serving on the City’s Public Planting Committee. City Seal

The Public Planting Committee is charged with the responsibility of promoting and improving the quality and diversity of plantings throughout all areas of Cambridge. This includes reviewing planting plans for new public work in the city; advising the city on effective maintenance of public plantings; supporting the role of the Urban Forestry Division of the Cambridge Public Works Department; and encouraging interest in public plantings in all neighborhoods.

Committee members are appointed to 2-year terms. Candidates should be Cambridge residents who have an interest in urban forestry and landscape issues, and, ideally, experience in horticulture.

The Committee holds a hybrid meeting on the second Wednesday of each month, from 5:30-7pm, at the Department of Public Works, 147 Hampshire Street, Frazier Building Conference Room, Cambridge. Committee members and the public can also attend virtually.

Applications to serve on this committee can be submitted by Monday, June 2, 2025 using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/Apply. A cover letter and résumé or applicable experience can be submitted during the online application process.

For more information about the committee, contact David Lefcourt, City Arborist, at 617-349-6433 or dlefcourt@cambridgema.gov.

Members Sought for Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee

Apr 24, 2025 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking new members for the Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee, a five-member board established to review applications for new Commercial Parking Permits. City Seal

The Commercial Parking Control Committee is established pursuant to Chapter 10.16.030 of the Cambridge Municipal Code. Committee members will be appointed by the Cambridge City Council and initial appointment will be for a term of 1-3 years and will be eligible for reappointment.

Applicants must be Cambridge residents. No person shall be appointed to the Committee who has a financial interest in commercial parking in Cambridge.

Members of the Commercial Parking Control Committee should be able to:

Participate in a collaborative process with other Committee members.
Consider diverse ideas and perspectives with empathy and respect.
Be willing to work with the Cambridge Department of Transportation.
Review and understand the City of Cambridge’s policies, rules, and regulations related to Commercial Parking; understand issues related to the safety, sustainability, and accessibility of the city’s transportation network and its operations.
Be willing to navigate complex issues related to how parking supports public policy, accessibility, economic development, and other City of Cambridge goals.
Demonstrate strong attentiveness and listening skills to complex presentations and discussions.

The Commercial Parking Control Committee will meet on an as-needed basis (at least biannually) based on submission of applications for Commercial Parking Permits. Members must review applications and application materials prior to each meeting they attend. Recent changes in city regulations establishing Flexible Parking Corridors have lowered barriers to the establishment of Commercial Parking, and we anticipate a renewed interest in Commercial Parking Permits. For more information on Flexible Parking Corridors, visit https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/flexibleparkingcorridors.

Under the provisions of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, meetings are usually required to be in person, although the Commercial Parking Control Committee may meet remotely under the temporary Open Meeting Law provisions.

Applications to serve on this committee can be submitted by Monday, June 2, 2025, to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/Apply. A cover letter and résumé or applicable experience should be submitted during the online application process.

Member Sought for Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Board of Commissioners Vacancy

Apr 10, 2025 – What is the Cambridge Housing Authority? City Seal
The Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) was established in 1935. It provides long-term rental housing and rental assistance. More than 10,000 low-income families, elders, and disabled individuals receive this assistance. CHA invests in Cambridge families and provides enhanced support to 10% of the city population. The CHA mission is to develop and manage safe, good quality, affordable housing for low-income individuals and families in a manner which promotes citizenship, community and self-reliance in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. Learn more about Cambridge Housing Authority.

What are the terms of appointment for the CHA Board?
The Board of Commissioners is a five-member Board with each member serving five years. One member is appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts; the remaining four members are appointed by the Cambridge City Manager and confirmed by the Cambridge City Council. All Board members must be residents of Cambridge, and one member must physically reside in CHA/affiliate owned housing.

What is the role of the Cambridge Housing Authority Board?
The CHA Board oversees the Agency’s direction. This includes approving:

Contract awards
Budget decisions
Formal submissions to state and federal funding agencies
Planning and reporting documents
Major policy decisions

Commissioners also serve as board members on CHA’s five non-profit affiliates. The Board appoints an Executive Director to oversee the housing authority and implement the Board’s policies.

What kind of skills/experience should members have?
For this vacant seat, applicants must be residents of CHA/affiliate-owned housing. Cambridge Housing Authority commissioners should believe in the mission of the Housing Authority and the urgent need for affordable housing in Cambridge. Preferred skills include:

Computer literacy to participate in hybrid meetings
Ability to interact with the public
Advocacy skills

How can I apply to serve on the committee?
Applications to serve on the Board can be submitted using the City of Cambridge’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience may be submitted during the online application process.

The application deadline is Monday, May 12, 2025.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Comments (4)

May 11, 2025

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,City Council — Tags: budget, Cambridge, City Council, Diane LeBlanc, history, housing, Inclusionary Housing, Inclusionary Zoning, Patrick Barrett, zoning — Robert Winters @ 5:10 pm

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The FY26 Budget Hearings are continuing, but here are the highlights for this week’s regular City Council meeting… comments and additional details to follow: City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to technical corrections that should be made to the Floodplain Zoning text. (CM25#118) [text of report]
pulled by McGovern along with Committee Report #1; comments by Nolan, Zusy; text amended 9-0 per Committee Report #1; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Apr 30, 2025 to hold a public hearing on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 5.000 and Section 20.70 with the intent of (1) replacing the Floodplain Overlay and Planning Board Special Permit with the Massachusetts model ordinance structure for permitting development in the flood plain through administrative review; (2) updating references to the most recent FEMA maps to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program; and (3) revising other parts of the Zoning Ordinance for internal consistency. The Committee voted favorably to accept the amendments and forward them to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled early along with Manager’s Agenda #1; Report Accepted, Place on File 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to meet with the leadership of the Harvard Square Business Association to discuss the proposal and to take the necessary steps to facilitate the release of $72,000 to fund the RFP development for the tunnel engineering study. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, City Manager Huang re: cost considerations, Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan re: pedestrianizing a portion of Harvard Square and skepticism re: tunnel proposal, McGovern, Toner, Nolan, Azeem; Charter Right – Azeem

I saw some images and videos of the abandoned tunnel under Brattle Street several years ago. This is a very intriguing idea.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to ensure that all city owned parking lots, with a focus on school complexes, including the still under construction parking at Tobin/Darby Vassal school complex, could be made available for after-hours use by residents. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan re: more general parking concerns; add Siddiqui, Zusy, Wilson as sponsors 9-0; Toner notes that this is a request, a hope – notes that parking used to be available in off hours; Simmons comments, proposed amendment adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

On the Table #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-22, regarding a request to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to open the publicly owned parking at the King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School Complex for either residential free parking or commercial parking opportunities during “off” hours. [Tabled – May 5, 2025]

Charter Right #1. The City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Inclusionary Housing Study, explore remedies to address the lack of housing starts and provide for consideration draft amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and explore other incentives to encourage developers to include affordable units beyond the requirement voluntarily. [Charter Right – Azeem, May 5, 2025]
Azeem amendment by substitution, McGovern amendment to change date from January 2026 to October 2025; late communication from Chris Cotter (Housing) re: Inclusionary Housing; Toner, Simmons comments; [Editor’s Note: Chris Cotter’s testimony – esp. re: amount of time required for “study”, failure to conduct study on schedule – seems evasive and less than sincere]; Azeem wants accelerated timeline, does not support lowering 20% inclusionary requirement; comments by Zusy, City Manager Huang (noting that lowering pct. would not legally require a study); Simmons comments; date change from Jan 2026 to Oct 2025 adopted 9-0; Nolan, Toner amendments noting (in part) that the required study was not done and a reminder that adjustments of IZ percentages for different project sizes was requested in Sept 2024; comments by Nolan, Toner, Zusy (noting possible reduction in housing demand due to federal policies), Cotter, Wilson, Huang; Azeem calls the question (to end discussion) – voted 9-0; Nolan, Toner amendments adopted 9-0; JSW comments – not in favor of any reductions, wants even higher required percentages for larger projects, use of AHT funds to subsidize; Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Late Communication #2. A communication was received from Director of Housing, Chris Cotter. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

The original Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (1998) made sense in that the mandate for subsidized units in projects of 10 or more units came with a density bonus plus one additional market-rate unit for every mandated “affordable” unit. The revised ordinance (2017) was politically driven and economically nonsensical. The City Council could now amend the ordinance to reflect current conditions and economic reality … or they can act politically and ensure that few new inclusionary housing units are ever built. Indeed, many of the inclusionary units that have come on line in recent years were ones that were hatched prior to the current ordinance. Municipal election years can confound good decision-making.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to include in the FY26 Operating Budget a continued commitment to Emergency Housing Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing and Mixed Status Families, and the Transition Wellness Center, as well as allocate the necessary resources to establish a municipal successor to Rise Up Cambridge that builds on its mission of providing direct, dignified economic support to families. [Charter Right – Wilson, May 5, 2025]
Wilson proposes substitute Order that; Wilson elaborates that substitute order calls for “allocation of at least 25 additional housing vouchers or $1 million, whichever is greater, that would be open to the 20 remaining residents at the Transitional Wellness Center who do not have a permanent housing placement in process and to other shelter residents in Cambridge; and to allocate funding for a successor program to Rise Up Cambridge as soon as possible”; comments by Wilson, McGovern; Ellen Semonoff reports that there are some beds available at 240 Albany Street for people in recovery, efforts now being made to find situations for all remaining TWC occupants; Nolan comments, proposed amendment to require report of scope and cost of any Rise Up successor program; comments by Yi-An Huang of projects now in pipeline by Affordable Housing Trust (AHT); comments by Zusy re: open-ended continuing costs associated with keeping TWC open, fact that an unlimited number of people will continue to come to Cambridge for our generous services, suggests greater support for 240 Albany St./Bay Cove rather than open-ended provision of vouchers; Toner asks if additional $1 million for vouchers is feasible; Yi-An Huang notes that vouchers would be specifically for those in transition to permanent supportive housing; Toner expresses concerns about wording of request to fund a successor to Rise Up program; McGovern elaborates on possible options for successor program, criteria for eligibility, implementation dates; Wilson addresses matter of a “benefit cliff” that could potentially trigger loss of MassHealth benefits, implementation timeline (hoping to have everything up and running by Jan 1, 2026); Siddiqui notes that getting this into FY2026 Budget may not be possible; Toner expresses concerns about operation of proposed program and where the money would be coming from; Yi-An Huang says there is a path to creating a successor program – challenge is resourcing, questions of scale of program, prioritization; JSW comments about ARPA, opening of shelters, would prefer to give vouchers to all residents of all shelters, calls Rise Up successor program critical; Zusy to vote No because City budget otherwise seeing cuts; Nolan amendment to Substitute Order Adopted 9-0; Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Some councillors must have not read the memo regarding the need for greater fiscal restraint for the time being. And, of course, municipal election years can confound good decision-making.

Charter Right #3. First floor retail policy order. [Charter Right – Zusy, May 5, 2025]
Toner offers additional amendment that the Order be referred to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee and the the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee for a hearing and discussion before being forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for deliberation; comments by Zusy about value of neighborhood retail; Nolan, JSW, Azeem comments; Amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent)

I live in a BA-1 zone (mixed residential/commercial), but I don’t think this would be advisable for all residential zones. It’s one thing to grandfather existing small retail establishments, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to open up all residential zone to ground floor retail. Besides, isn’t everyone aware of how many vacant retail spaces there are right now and the fact that a lot of retail is croaking?

Resolution #7. Resolution congratulating Diane LeBlanc on her Retirement. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
pulled by Simmons for comments; additional comments by McGovern, Toner, Siddiqui, Azeem, Nolan, Zusy, Wilson, Sobrinho-Wheeler, City Council Assistant Naomie Stephen; standing ovation for Diane LeBlanc; comments by Diane LeBlanc w/appreciation and thanks to staff of City Clerk’s Office

Diane LeBlanc has been a blessing for the last three years. We are an historic city and it has been great to have someone with a background as an archivist in the role of City Clerk.

Committee Report #2. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on May 5, 2025 to initiate the process of re-appointing the City Auditor, PO25#62. The Committee voted favorably to forward the re-appointment of the City Auditor, Joseph McCann, to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Joseph McCann reappointed to another 3-year term as City Auditor 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Comments (0)

May 5, 2025

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,City Council,cycling,history,transportation — Tags: boards and commissions, budget, Cambridge, City Council, cycling, elections, housing, Patrick Barrett, transportation, Urban design, zoning — Robert Winters @ 12:54 pm

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are the featured items this week. I’ll offer minimal comments for now – summaries to follow after the meeting. Cinco de Mayo

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang on executive order re: sanctuary cities, federal grant agreements (esp. HUD grants), federal budget w/significant cuts to programs; creation of federal funding stabilization fund, executive actions outpacing legal/court responses, expected steep cuts, proposed elimination of entire CDBG program, housing eligibility; JSL asks about how these interact with Cambridge budget process; Nolan notes loss of coastal resiliency funding; Zusy asks why are waiting to reduce budget until FY27, Manager notes that City is making some adjustments now, Zusy suggests making some judicious cuts now; Manager notes that City has contingency plans, won’t sign on to Trump mandates, expected legal challenges, possible funding losses; Zusy asks about Free Cash status and prognosis, concerns about depleting cash reserves in order to fund various requests; Azeem – suspend rules to take up Order #6; City Manager says he understands intention behind Order #6 but we cannot do everything and must remain fiscally responsible, will provide more detailed responses during Budget Hearings, TWC response already provided, Rise Up successor planning to follow for FY27 and not FY26, prioritization of major proposals now underway; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-14, regarding a home rule petition allowing Cambridge to end the practice of property owners passing on broker’s fees to tenants. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-22, regarding a request to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to open the publicly owned parking at the King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School Complex for either residential free parking or commercial parking opportunities during “off” hours.
pulled by Nolan; Nolan comments; Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan notes that this is still before the Buildings & Grounds Subcommittee of the School Committee; Wilson, McGovern, Zusy, Azeem comments; Yi-An Huang notes that current garage not designed for public use, possibility of converting it while preserving school safety; Simmons explains status as Chair of School Committee; Tabled 8-0-1 (Zusy Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Subandha Karmacharya as a member of the Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship for a term of three years.
Appointment Confirmed 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Carolyn Zern as a member of the Planning Board for a term of five years.
pulled by Zusy (asking about term lengths of boards); explanations by Melissa Peters (CDD), Mayor Simmons; Appointment Confirmed 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the AHO Heights Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the prioritization of zoning priorities. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Zusy; responses by Melissa Peters (CDD); Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. City Council support of the completion of the Mass Central Rail Trail. Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Nolan to be added as sponsor; comments by Zusy; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I go back a long way on this one and on other rails-to-trails projects. Back in the 1980s I rode/walked along the route of what would eventually become the Minuteman Bikeway with a lead person from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). [Andy and I also played on the same Boston Junior Park League baseball team.] I was also tasked along with two other bicycle advocates to chart out the markings and intersections along the entire route of the Minuteman Bikeway, and I witnessed all stages of its construction. In the early 1990s, my friend David Goode was tasked by the Mass. Department of Environmental Management (now folded into the DCR) to research the available right-of-way of the Mass Central Railroad west of Route 495, especially around Berlin, MA west to the Wachusetts Reservoir in Clinton, MA. I purchased a hybrid bike for this purpose – the same bike that I use today – so that David and I could explore the route. So we loaded the bikes into my old VW Bus and we headed west. We not only explored the section of the RR right-of-way built after the Wachusett Dam forced a change in the route, but also the original right-of-way that had gone back to nature. That was an adventure. The culmination of our exploration was at the reservoir where we scrambled up a hillside and found the long-abandoned Clinton Tunnel through which westbound trains once passed before immediately finding themselves on the highest wooden trestle in New England as they passed over the South Nashua River below the dam. It was great fun going through the Clinton Tunnel on our bikes, and I have returned on several occasions.

Many sections of what is now the Mass Central Rail Trail, including most of the section through Weston which originally faced strong local opposition, have now been built. I attended some of those meetings in Weston 30 years ago. There are trade-offs between having a more primitive, unimproved right-of-way vs. a paved bikeway, and I could understand and appreciate the differing points of view. On balance, the Mass Central Rail Trail continues to be a great long-term project as it wends its way toward a greater degree of completion.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant staff to investigate bike pod storage options to be placed in suitable areas in the City to provide residents and visitors safe storage options. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; comments by JSW; Toner, Zusy, Nolan comments – issues of how to add these w/o negative impacts, nontrivial cost; Simmons amendment to analyze cost adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to prepare an update with details on the status of potential civilian flagger operations in the Cambridge police union contract and work with relevant city staff to explore a civilian traffic flagger program and update the current police union contract on the City’s website. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Toner; comments by JSW, Toner (noting that active police officers, retired officers, officers from other communities, and only then civilian flaggers; City gets 10% of the fee), Zusy ($64.50/hour and a 4 hour minimum), Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0

This order is just an echo of similar orders from years past. I saw primarily civilian flaggers during my various cross-country trips. In Massachusetts, every time the idea is suggested it has been met with anecdotes about how a uniformed police flagger foiled a crime and why this “proves” the need to have only uniformed officers doing this job. This is total nonsense. It’s the same sort of protectionism that has kept requirements for lucrative police details in many situations where any competent person could do the job.

Order #5. The City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Inclusionary Housing Study, explore remedies to address the lack of housing starts and provide for consideration draft amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and explore other incentives to encourage developers to include affordable units beyond the requirement voluntarily. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan; City Manager acknowledges the economics; Melissa Peters (CDD) notes that IZ has been main driver of affordable units; Azeem comments – notes that an 8% inclusionary requirement might pencil out, higher percentages currently infeasible; McGovern asks how long the analysis would take, Melissa reports from Chris Cotter an estimate of 9 months; McGovern recounts history of how current requirement would come to be and the 5-year review has not been done, still believes that AHO will surpass production of IZ, notes political perceptions of making any changes; JSW opposes lowering of 20% requirement as well as quick implementation of any changes, suggests tiered requirements; Siddiqui comments; Zusy supports intention of this Order, agrees with adopting a temporary reduction in mandate pending detailed study, notes dearth of new Inclusionary units over last 3 years – though contradicted by numbers in Budget Book and elsewhere; Melissa Peters notes distinction between issuance of building permits and actual construction; Toner reiterates that 5-year study now overdue; Zusy asks to be added as co-sponsor of original Order; Substitute Order by Azeem, JSW, Siddiqui, McGovern; Wilson comments (wants to use Affordable Housing Trust to subsidize IZ), Manager responds that it may be possible; Nolan comments, including whether a seeking a variance is a possibility, Melissa Peters suggests this would not qualify as a hardship; McGovern suggests changing reporting date on substitute amendment from January 2026 to October 2025; Charter Right – Azeem

Please read the letter from Patrick Barrett on this topic. City Council initiatives are often more performative than practical.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to include in the FY26 Operating Budget a continued commitment to Emergency Housing Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing and Mixed Status Families, and the Transition Wellness Center, as well as allocate the necessary resources to establish a municipal successor to Rise Up Cambridge that builds on its mission of providing direct, dignified economic support to families. Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Voted along with City Manager #1; Simmons substitute language for Order #6; McGovern wants to spend down Free Cash and raises property taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list of additional programs and extension of existing programs set to expire; Wilson also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list; JSW also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list; Siddiqui also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list – especially the Rise Up local welfare program; Toner objects to references to “the unelected City Manager” who is hired by the elected City Council, notes that Council voted 8-1 to maintain city manager form of government, 9-0 to extend City Manager’s contract, recalls discussions over this past year in Finance Committee re: fiscal restraint, notes that Rise Up was funded by ARPA and not from property taxes, City Manager has been clear along about the greater wisdom in closing the ARPA-funded Transition Wellness Center in favor of better alternatives, will support substitute Order, need more time to structure any possible Rise Up successor, not the right time to be funding new programs; Nolan notes that City Council and City Administration has pushed back hard on federal actions, City Manager has stood firmly in support of community values, would prefer to find efficiencies in existing budget to fund emergency measures, notes large residential property tax increases in recent years and that this also affects rents; Zusy calls programs commendable but we don’t have the funds to continue them all, willing to seek efficiencies in order to free up some funding; Simmons notes that leadership requires difficult choices, asks Council to support substitute amendment to Order #6; Azeem notes that he initially voted to find more $ to support TWC but that this has led to additional demands to fund many other things, and we don’t have unlimited capacity to fund all these things, do support municipal voucher initiative, calls Rise Up program very effective, wants City Council orders to be respected and feels that current City Manager follows City Council orders more than his predecessors; McGovern reiterates that we have enough money from Free Cash to fund everything; Simmons Substitution Adopted 5-4 (BA,PN,PT,CZ,DS-Yes; MM,SS,JSW,AW-No); Wilson Charter Right on Substitute Order

Committee Report #2. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on April 17, 2025 to discuss the feasibility of a successor program to Rise Up. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

While I cannot say for sure, this policy order has a distinct quality of a municipal election year rallying device. All of its sponsors have attended Finance Committee meetings regarding the questionable feasibility and advisability of these programs, and it seems like a combination of ignorance and arrogance to continue to insist that these all be funded. ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) was a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus bill passed by Congress to aid in recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It was never intended to be a permanent addition to the operating budgets of cities and states that accepted ARPA funding. The key word in “Transition Wellness Center” is “Transition” – indicative of a short-term accommodation to reduce shelter occupancies during the worst period of the COVID epidemic. The “Rise Up Cambridge” local welfare program was also principally funded by ARPA, and any successor program would have to be more limited and with stricter eligibility requirements. [Needless to say, welfare programs are best funded through the state and federal government rather than as individual municipal programs.] Emergency housing vouchers in response to major changes in federal housing policies and funding seem like an appropriate conversation in the moment, but any notion that the City can simply take on all of these costs and burdens is woefully naive.

It is noteworthy that the Cambridge Democratic City Committee (CDCC) has signed on as a sponsor of a rally scheduled to coincide with the City Council meeting. I am a member of the CDCC (Ward 6) and I don’t recall there being any mention of this anywhere or any vote to endorse these proposed measures. Then again, the CDCC – much like so many political organizations – is prone to acting as an extension of a small number of activists who have inserted themselves as principal decision-makers who feel little or no need to consult their membership.

Order #7. First floor retail policy order. Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; amendments proposed by Toner, Nolan; comments by Azeem, McGovern, Zusy, Siddiqui; Melissa Peters responds; Nolan amendment Fails 4-4-1 (PN,SS,JSW,DS-Yes; MM,PT,AW,CZ-No; Present-BA]; Melissa Peters explains options for amendment to zoning; Zusy concerns re: “other appropriate areas of the city”; Toner explains the intention of the Order; JSW says he would welcome retail or restaurant next door without any qualifications; Zusy notes what was done in Somerville; Charter Right – Zusy

Neighborhood-scale retail is a great amenity, but I don’t think it would make sense or be welcome at all locations in all residential districts. This is why zones such as the BA-1 and BA-2 zones were created – to permit these uses in locations where they already existed and where they can coexist with neighbors. I know – I live in a BA-1 zone.

Resolution #14. Resolution on the death of Doane Perry. Councillor Nolan

Doane was a jewel of a human being. Doane also served for a time as President of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association (MCNA). I have enduring respect for all of the people who have assumed the burden of heading up a neighborhood association and taken on the often-difficult task of developing consensus from a broad range of differing opinions.

Committee Report #1. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on April 10, 2025 to discuss services being provided to the unhoused community and an update on the opioid settlement. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy for minor amendment (pg 3); Report Accepted as Amended, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on April 29, 2025 on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 11.000 with the intent to amend certain subsections of the Affordable Housing Overlay, Section 11.207 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, with the intent of limiting allowable height increases in Residence C-1 districts, removing references to provisions in the base zoning that are no longer applicable, and clarifying references to departments responsible for enforcement. The Ordinance Committee voted favorably to accept the amendments and forward them to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Zoning Petition Amended 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Note: The FY2026 Budget Hearings start this week.

Comments (1)

May 2, 2025

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,MBTA,planning — Tags: Cambridge, City Council, City Manager, housing, Inclusionary Housing, Inclusionary Zoning, Patrick Barrett, zoning — PatrickWBarrettIII @ 4:57 pm

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance – a letter from Patrick Barrett

Date: May 1, 2025 Patrick Barrett

City Manager Yi-An Huang
Mayor E. Denise Simmons
Members of the Cambridge City Council
City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Subject: Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203)

Dear City Manager Huang, Mayor Simmons, and Honorable Members of the City Council,

I write to highlight critical legal and economic flaws in Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203), which mandates that 20% of residential floor area in developments with 10 or more units be dedicated to affordable units. While the City’s affordability goals are laudable, the ordinance’s non-compliance with state law, reliance on outdated economic assumptions, failure to meet procedural mandates, and disproportionate impact on smaller developers demand immediate action. Specifically, I address: (1) non-compliance with the MBTA Communities Act; (2) failure to conduct a required nexus study by April 2022; (3) reliance on the outdated 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report amidst changed economic conditions; and (4) legal vulnerabilities under recent judicial precedents.

1. Non-Compliance with the MBTA Communities Act
The MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A), enacted in January 2021, requires MBTA communities like Cambridge to establish a zoning district of reasonable size allowing multi-family housing as-of-right with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, located within 0.5 miles of a transit station, without age restrictions and suitable for families. Cambridge, as a rapid-transit community, was required to submit a compliant zoning ordinance to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) by December 31, 2023. We have been certified compliant however we are not in compliance with our own zoning requirements and lack a valid economic feasibility analysis (EFA). This opens the question of the validity of certification and what if any standards are being met in certification. If Cambridge is to be an example to other towns currently fighting the MBTA Communities Act we must, at a bare minimum, be in compliance with our own laws. Further the 2025 Multifamily Housing Zoning Amendment eliminated most of the “bonus” density awarded to inclusionary projects as a financial offset. This was done without a corresponding nexus study which would have been required to show the impact of removing bonuses anticipated by the Rosen report.

The February 2025 zoning reform, allowing multi-family housing citywide up to four stories (six stories for inclusionary projects on lots ?5,000 sq ft), aligns with Section 3A’s density and as-of-right requirements. However, the 20% affordability requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines, which permit up to 10% of units at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) without an economic feasibility analysis (EFA). Higher percentages, up to 20%, require an EFA demonstrating financial viability. Cambridge’s blanket 20% requirement, applied citywide without a recent EFA, is not in compliance, as it clearly does render projects economically infeasible without significant cross collateralization as seen in 121 Broadway, and is particularly onerous given rising costs since 2016.

2. Failure to Conduct a Required Nexus Study (Section 11.203.2(c))
Section 11.203.2(c) mandates that the City “initiate a reevaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement at an interval of no more than five (5) years” to assess the percentage of affordable units, income eligibility, and program effectiveness. The ordinance was amended in April 2017, increasing the requirement from 15% to 20% based on the 2016 Rosen report. The first reevaluation was due by April 2022.

No evidence indicates a comprehensive reevaluation occurred. The 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report, documenting 258 units completed or under construction, is a progress update, not a nexus study. The Community Development Department’s (CDD) ongoing monitoring (1,200+ units since 1998) and the 2025 reform do not fulfill Section 11.203.2(c)’s mandate. This procedural failure undermines the ordinance’s legitimacy, as the City cannot justify the 20% rate’s proportionality under Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024), which requires legislative exactions to be tailored to project-specific impacts. Non-compliance suggests arbitrary policymaking, exposing the ordinance to legal challenges.

3. Outdated 2016 Rosen Report and Changed Economic Conditions
The 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report recommended increasing the inclusionary requirement to 20%, contingent on four conditions to ensure economic feasibility. The report’s economic assumptions are outdated due to significant changes by 2025 in interest rates, land costs, construction costs, utility costs, capitalization rates (cap rates), and new zoning regulations not anticipated in 2016. Most conditions remain unmet, exacerbating the ordinance’s adverse impact, particularly on smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units.

Analysis of the Rosen Report

• Interest Rate: The report assumed a blended interest rate of 4.5–5.0% for construction and permanent loans reflecting 2016 market conditions. By 2025, interest rates have risen to 8.5–10.8%, increasing debt costs.

• Land Cost per Unit: The report estimated residual land costs at $50,000–$170,000 per unit for multi-family developments (6–300 units), with smaller projects at higher costs (~$150,000–$170,000) and larger ones at lower costs (~$50,000–$80,000). By 2025, land costs have escalated to $150,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% increase), requiring ~$200,000/year additional NOI at a 5.0% cap rate, unfeasible without higher rents or incentives.

o Disproportionate Impact: Smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units but under 200 face greater economic barriers under the 20% inclusionary mandate compared to larger or incentivized projects permitted under the 15% mandate (December 2016–June 2017), such as 425 Mass Ave & 47 Bishop Allen Drive (completed 2018 by Twining Properties), 195-211 Concord Turnpike (completed 2018 by Bozzuto Group), and more recent projects like 121 Broadway which levered outstanding commitments, increased density, and funding from the CRA. Market Central, including 47 Bishop Allen Drive, leveraged a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting ground floor area exemptions, an FAR increase to 6.5, a special overlay re-mapping, and height increases to 195 feet from by-right 55 feet and special permit 80 feet, enabling affordability via retail (15,400 sq ft) and residential revenue (Link, Watermark). Atmark Cambridge used mixed-use revenue (retail). Smaller projects lack such advantages, facing:

• High Land Costs: ~$200,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% higher than 2016), increasing financial burdens.

• Rising Construction Costs: Up 50-60% since 2016, straining budgets for projects without economies of scale.

• New Zoning Costs: Article 22 (2018, amended 2023), tree protection (2019), and climate resilience (2021) add 10–25% to costs ($1.5M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft).

• Removal of Density Bonus: The 2025 six-story bonus for lots ?5,000 sq ft is absent in high-density zones (e.g., Central Square) or insufficient to offset 20% mandate costs without density bonuses.

• Permitting Delays: Community meetings (Footnote 37) and environmental reviews add $20,000–$50,000, disproportionate for smaller developers. As-of-Right projects subject to Article 19.50 averaging roughly 7-12 months and 11 – 20 months if a 19.23 special permit is required.

• Construction Costs: The report assumed stable prices (~$200–$300/sq ft). By 2025, costs have risen nearly 40% due to supply chain issues, labor shortages, and inflation.

• Utility Costs: The report implied 2016 utility costs. In 2025, costs have risen significantly, reducing NOI:

o Electricity: Up 38% (22.5 to 31 ¢/kWh), increasing monthly costs by $150/unit, reducing NOI by $14,688/year for 12 units.

o Natural Gas: Up 67% ($1.50 to $2.50/therm), reducing NOI by $14,400/year for 12 units.

o Heating Oil: Up 52% ($2.70 to $4.10/gallon), reducing NOI by $10,800/year for 12 units.

For a 12-unit project, a $39,888 NOI drop lowers value by ~$864,000 at a 5.0% cap rate, hitting smaller projects harder.

• Cap Rate Comparison: The report implied cap rates of 4.5–5.0% (Class A/B) and 5.0–5.5% (Class C). In 2025, cap rates are 4.8–5.3% (Class A/B) and 5.3–5.8% (Class C, CBRE), driven by higher interest rates and costs. A $1M NOI project at 4.5% (2016) yields $22.22M, but at 5.0% with $43,200 NOI drop (2025), yields $19.12M—a 14% valuation drop, worse for smaller projects with higher effective cap rates (~5.5%).

Additional Post-2016 Zoning Changes
Since 2016, Cambridge adopted regulations not anticipated in the Rosen Report, increasing costs:

• Article 22 – Sustainable Design and Development (2018, amended 2023): Mandates LEED certification and net-zero readiness for projects over 25,000 sq ft, adding 10–25% to costs ($6M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft per BXP reports) and $10,000–$50,000+ in application delays not including costs to carry.

• Tree Protection Ordinance Enhancements (2019): Requires tree permits ($100–$500/tree) and replacements ($500–$1,500/tree), adding $5,000–$20,000 and $10,000–$30,000 in delays.

• Climate Resilience Requirements (2021): Mandates flood-resistant designs, adding 5–15% to costs ($1.5M–$5M for 50,000 sq ft) and $20,000–$50,000 in delays.

• Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (2022): Saves $500k–$2.5M by removing $50,000–$100,000/space, but most for sale condo buildings seek to add parking not remove it thus the bonus only truly applies in a rental scenario.

These changes increase costs by 10–25%, offsetting parking savings and rendering the 20% mandate unfeasible for smaller projects without density bonuses.

Four Conditions for Raising Inclusionary Requirement Outlined In Rosen
The Rosen report outlined four conditions to support the 20% requirement:

1. Increased Density Bonuses: Recommended citywide FAR bonuses.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 2025 six-story bonus (lots ?5,000 sq ft) is limited or absent in high-density zones, unlike Market Central’s PUD concessions. Removing density bonuses further undermines feasibility, likely requiring a new nexus study and opening to challenge the current ordinance.

2. Flexible Requirements for Smaller Projects: Suggested tiered percentages (e.g., 10–15% for <20 units).

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 20% mandate is uniform, deterring smaller projects. It is not clear that 10% works for smaller projects (10 – 20 units) based 2025 conditions.

3. Streamlined Permitting Processes: Advocated faster permitting.

o 2025 Relevance: Partially Met. As-of-right zoning and parking elimination help, but community meetings (footnote 37), special permits through Article 19, Small Project Review in Article 19.50, environmental reviews, and traffic and parking mitigation add massive delays.

4. Periodic Reevaluation: Required reassessments every five years.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. No 2022 reevaluation occurred, leaving the 20% rate unadjusted despite cost escalations, removal of bonuses, and passage of the MBTA Communities Act.

The unmet conditions and outdated assumptions (4.5–5.0% interest rate vs. 8.5–10.8%, $50,000–$170,000 vs. $150,000–$250,000 land cost, 40% construction cost increase, 20–136% utility cost increases, 4.5–5.0% vs. 4.8–5.3% cap rates) make the 20% mandate infeasible for smaller projects, especially without density bonuses.

4. Legal Vulnerabilities

The ordinance faces legal risks:

• Unconstitutional Takings: The 20% mandate lacks proportionality, failing the Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz test, relying on the outdated 2016 Rosen report without a 2022 nexus study. Removing density bonuses would exacerbate this by increasing the exaction’s burden without justified impact assessments, risking due process violations.

• MBTA Communities Act: The 20% requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines (10% without EFA, 20% with EFA). Without bonuses, a new EFA is needed to prove feasibility, or the ordinance risks non-compliance with Section 3A.

5. Recommendations

To address these flaws, I urge the City to:

1. Reduce the Inclusionary Housing Requirement: Lower to 10% without an EFA to comply with M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A as an emergency measure for the next three years.

2. Initiate a Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz-Compliant Study: Conduct a nexus study per Section 11.203.2(c) to justify exactions. Require CDD act immediately and limit time to completion.

3. Explore Returning Development Bonuses: Direct the Cambridge Community Development Department to create bonuses that anticipate the 2025 multifamily housing change including but not limited to fast tract permitting, removing Article 19, scaling inclusionary with tailored nexus studies per Sheetz, and any other potential bonus to offset the exorbitant burden IZ zoning places on residential development.

Cambridge’s housing leadership is commendable, but the ordinance’s flaws undermine its effectiveness and legality. Please work to rapidly address the issues raised herein to address the urgency of the housing crisis we are in and to ensure we do not further encumber ourselves with ineffective counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,
Patrick W. Barrett III

Comments (0)

April 28, 2025

Budget Season – April 28, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,recycling — Tags: budget, Cambridge, Cambridge government, Cambridge Police, City Council, City Manager, COVID-19, municipal broadband, Plan E, recycling — Robert Winters @ 2:56 pm

Budget Season – April 28, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

This week brings the FY2026 Budget with the Budget Hearings to commence next week. Here are the items of special interest this week: Coins

The Budget and the Loan Orders

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the FY2026 submitted budget and appropriation orders for the General Fund, Water Fund, and Public Investment Fund. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; Nolan notes that FY2026 Budget now exceeds $1 billion, asks councillors which departments should be pulled, requests questions to be submitted in advance, objects to a recent department head exit not being included in the Budget, wants more detailed information on Loan Orders – will pass to 2nd Reading and refer to Finance Committee; brief comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang, Asst. City Manager for Fiscal Affairs Claire Spinner, Budget Director Taha Jennings; Councillor Wilson asks about process for seeking greater tax increases; additional McGovern, Simmons comments re: reducing residential exemption, increasing property taxes and public engagement; Yi-An Huang, Claire Spinner, Taha Jennings note that City has kept Council apprised much earlier in the process due to new economic environment, fact that setting of tax rates depend on other factors to be known later, altering residential exemption would only shift money around and not the tax levy which is a 7.8% increase, possible shift from commercial to residential taxpayers; McGovern entertains notion of increasing taxes to fund pet projects; Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Because the City decided this year to decouple employee benefits from the individual department budgets, it’s a bit difficult to do my usual multi-year comparisons of individual department budgets. Some of the key features of the FY26 Budget are:

a) an overall 3.7% increase in the Operating Budget [from $955,584,350 in the FY25 Adopted Budget to $991,181,320 in the FY26 Submitted Budget;

b) a Public Investment Budget of $41,204,770 and Loan Authorizations of $109,936,000 (see below) yielding a Total Capital Budget of $151,140,770;

c) a total property tax levy of $677,732,415 to support the General Fund Operating and Capital Budgets – an increase of 7.85% from the FY25 property tax levy; and

d) 19 new full-time positions.

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $7,500,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of open space at Ahern Field and surrounding amenities. [text of Loan Order]
#3-#11 pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $16,500,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks. [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $11,100,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. Funds will support significant building improvements and deferred maintenance projects. Proposed projects include but are not limited to upgrades of Public Works facilities, municipal offices, youth centers, branch libraries, fire stations, and deferred maintenance. [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $19,986,000 to provide funds for financing school building upgrades. [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $27,500,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of surface enhancements and sewer and drainage infrastructure improvements in Central Square. [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $3,000,000 to provide funds for the sewer Combined Sewer Overflow Program and for planning and design of a floodwater storage tank. [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $7,500,000 to provide funds for the sewer Capital Repairs Program and projects related to climate change preparedness efforts. (CM25#99) [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $15,250,000 to provide funds for Ozone Generator replacement; Lead Service Line replacement; and water works construction projects in coordination with DPW street restoration projects, which include repair and or replacement of water infrastructure at Dana Street, Sciarappa Street, Massachusetts Ave 4, Haskell Street and Hillside Avenue. [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,600,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of open space at Wilder Lee Playground and play areas at 359 Broadway. [text of Loan Order]
pulled by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee 9-0

A Work in Progress

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the Community Safety Department. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Yi-An Huang notes that Community Safety Director Liz Speakman will be moving on to the Boston Area Race Crisis Center, to be succeeded by Marie Mathieu (who has been social worker at libraries and more recently as Asst. Director of Clinical Services with the Community Safety Department); comments by Marie Mathieu, Liz Speakman; Sobrinho-Wheeler tries to stoke controversy over existence of a parallel co-response initiative within the Cambridge Police Department (per Harvard Crimson article); McGovern comments; Nolan discusses definitions of co-response vs. “alternative response” and rationale for there being a clinician within Emergency Communications (well-explained by Owen O’Riordan & McGovern); Nolan notes the George Floyd period and how CSD can to exist, very inappropriately asks Liz Speakman if tension of not realizing the full potential of CARE and the stress of perhaps not feeling fully supported part of the reason you are leaving; Simmons notes that this is a very inappropriate question; Liz Speakman makes a personal statement expressing gratitude; Zusy comments about redundant services; Azeem asks about # of phone calls expected (8-10 calls/day); Siddiqui, Wilson, Simmons comments; Yi-An Huang notes great strides of CPD in “progressive policing”, offers explanation of distinction between CPD and CARE responses; Placed on File, Referred to Public Safety Committee 9-0

I really want this new department to be successful, but I am not all clear about what its actual function is.

Unfulfilled Wish Lists and Good Enough For Now

Manager’s Agenda #15. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-8, regarding a request to create a plan with a schedule and milestones to move forward with the creation of a Municipal Broadband Network and present it for consideration by the Council at a Finance Committee meeting in the context of capital projects for coming years. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate departments to review the city’s digital equity work to date, assessing whether residents’ digital needs are or could be better provided for and to propose how we can better meet their needs. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy re: delay in municipal broadband, Chromebooks distributed but no one knows how to use them; Nolan comments on past Digital Equity Study; Wilson notes that Manning Apts. residents did receive some training with the Chromebooks; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #18. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager regarding the Transition Wellness Center (TWC). [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler who wants to fund anything and everything; comments by McGovern who would still like to fund TWC for another year; comments by Wilson who “wants to move some dollars around to make this work”; Zusy notes that there is $48.7 million and $15.5 Million for homelessness and housing stability in FY26 Budget for housing – very generous; Nolan comments; Simmons notes that Yi-An Huang recommends not continuing the TWC and has explained the basis for this recommendation, additional comments that this was never meant as a permanent solution; Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Mar 27, 2025 to receive a status update on the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding in Cambridge, as well as to review and discuss the Police Department budget for FY26 before it is submitted to the City Manager, as required under Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 2.74.040, and to further discuss the Free Cash Appropriation Requests, CM25#40 and CM25#41, referred to the Finance Committee on Mar 17, 2025. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I suppose it’s fair to say that elected officials (and candidates) are often judged on what they promise to deliver and not necessarily on their ability to deliver on those promises. It’s also easy in our system to play good cop/bad cop with the City Manager and the City Administration by making a show of how hard you tried to establish and fund an initiative that may actually make little sense on financial or practical grounds. One great example is the proposal for municipal broadband – and I take note of a City Council Order this week to focus instead on “assessing whether residents’ digital needs are or could be better provided for and to propose how we can better meet their needs.” A more recent example is the divided vote on whether to reverse course and continue the Covid-era Transition Wellness Center. The Manager is recommending to proceed with its planned closure and to find alternate accommodations for its few remaining residents. It remains to be seen whether the City will find a suitable alternative to the “Rise Up” local welfare program that was created from the ARPA windfall.

The Little Stuff That Counts

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to establish a Lost and Found program at Cambridge City Hall. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to assemble a list of public and private spaces available to the public, indoors and outdoors, noting contact information and any associated requirements, ensuring that there are public meeting places identified in each neighborhood. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Toner, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy noting that CDD used to have a listing of indoor meeting spaces and that this should be restored and to also include outdoor spaces; Order Adopted 9-0

I like these kinds of bread-and-butter initiatives – practical and ordinary stuff. I will suggest that any accounting of available public and private meeting and event spaces should include outreach to the many churches and related buildings that are actually plentiful.

It’s A Job

Order #4. City Council requesting that the Chair of the Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee initiate the process of re-appointing the City Auditor. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Simmons notes that the Order already states that this is to be referred to Gov’t Operations Committee (though the Order actually only refers this to the Chair of the committee); McGovern, Nolan, Toner comments; Order Adopted, Referred to Gov’t Operations Committee 9-0

There will also have to be a process to appoint a new City Clear when our dear Diane LeBlanc retires next month. Paula Crane will serve as Interim City Clerk in the meantime, and I hope she’ll at least consider taking on the City Clerk role for the next three years.

That moment when you celebrate the retirement of someone you knew when he first took the job 33 years ago.

Resolution #7. Congratulations to Officer Victor Martignetti on his retirement from the Cambridge Police Department. Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons

You really become aware of the passage of time when you see people who you knew when they started a job now retiring decades later. Victor isn’t the first. There have been quite a few long-term City employees whose long careers began and ended on my watch.

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Mar 20, 2025. The meeting was a Cannabis Roundtable with cannabis businesses to discuss issues facing the retail cannabis industry in Cambridge and discuss potential changes, including adjustments to the current 1,800-foot buffer zones and introduction of social consumption. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I continue to be amazed at the degree to which our City Council caters to this one industry. If only they could be as receptive to the concerns of the rest of us.

Committee Report #2. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Mar 25, 2025 to review and discuss the update to the Zero Waste Master Plan (ZWMP) 2.0. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Comments (0)

April 14, 2025

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Charter,City Council — Tags: budget, Cambridge, Cambridge Charter, Cambridge government, City Council, Plan E, proportional representation, transportation — Robert Winters @ 2:42 pm

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

My taxes are almost done (yeah, I never get an early start), and the City Council meets on the eve of Tax Day. Here are the agenda items that distracted me this week: Peoples Republic of Cambridge

Money Talks

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Nolan; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang re: Harvard President Alan Garber’s announcement to not cooperate w/threats from Trump Administration, courage of students and others in standing up to administration; cancellation of federal grants, breach of order by federal government, positions terminated, programs cut or eliminated (such as LIHEAP), danger of the coming years, confronting the federal government; comments by Nolan, Siddiqui (asks about Volpe, no word yet); Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge FY2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Claire Spinner (Finance), Joseph McCann (Auditor), Robert Mahoney (independent audit consultant), Zusy, Simmons; Placed on File 9-0

Talking about Transportation

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-67 regarding Cambridge Bicycle Plan Update and Consideration of Network Connections. (CM25#82) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (TPT), Stephanie Groll (Transportation Planning – now part of Transportation Department), Toner (on how CSO might be modified), Owen O’Riordan (looking at all modes of traffic, achieving a high degree of consensus), Zusy, Wilson (wants more details in spelling out the “network”, EW routes vs. NS routes; McKenna talks about the 2015 process and “vision”, calls NS routes “low speed, low volume” vs. EW routes “requiring” separation; Wilson asks how Broadway became included in current plan, McKenna says it was added in the 2020 plan; Nick Schmidt (new pedestrian and bicycle program manager) introduced; McKenna says development of the Network Vision independent of the Cycling Safety Ordinance, claims there was a public process [Is that really true? – I don’t recall there be any such process.]; Wilson addresses broader concerns re: CSO and needs of actual people; McGovern says Main Street was not part of the Ordinance, McKenna says the Ordinance calls for 25 miles, some streets (the “special four”) specified, says Brattle Street and Main Street “essential” to be added to network; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-23 regarding a Citywide Shuttle Bus Pilot program. (CM25#84) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Toner, Zusy, Siddiqui, Brooke McKenna; Referred to both Neighborhood & Long-Range Planning Committee and Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Mon, Mar 17, 2025 with MIT transportation experts and City staff to brainstorm ways to better accommodate mobility for all users as we continue to promote the use of sustainable modes. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)

This and That

Order #1. City Council opposition to Federal efforts to defund or censor museums. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Nolan; comments by Simmons, Nolan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. That the City Council go on record declaring Earth Day, April 22 in the year 2025 “Sustainable Cambridge Day” and that the City Manager is requested to communicate to all City departments the City’s commitment to our climate goals and the need to support the efforts of the Sustainable Cambridge initiative. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Nolan for comments; Order Adopted 9-0

Charter Right #1. Continued funding of the Transitional Wellness Center. [Charter Right – Toner, Apr 7, 2025]
McGovern proposed amendment Adopted 7-0-0-2 (Azeem, Zusy – Present); Toner notes Human Services Committee meeting on this topic, Manager was clear about lack of funding for continued operation; City Manager Huang comments on Cambridge many investments for unhoused communities, fact that this proposed expenditure would add considerable expense and City is already opening permanent supporting housing; Toner, Zusy to vote No while acknowledging good services provided by the TWC; McGovern challenges Zusy unnecessarily, gets agitated suggesting he’ll just bring this up again, suggests false choices between this and trees and other matters, calls his colleagues statements “shameful”; Sobrinho-Wheeler supports the Order and suggests lack of prioritization process, wants the City Council to take more control of the Budget process (bad idea); Nolan notes that there is a lot of desire to fund everything, but it’s unfair to shame each other on financial and other decisions, does not agree with referring this to Finance Committee; Simmons expresses concerns about promoting a program that is not well run; Wilson will vote Yes on the proposal; McGovern comments; Yi-An Huang notes that if we had no resources there would be no hard choices, and some (limited) funding creates environment where priorities must be set and choices must be made, and further notes that federal cuts can affect local choices, each year’s budget feeds into the next year’s budget; McGovern again suggests that this should be a priority in addition to other pet projects like municipal broadband; Siddiqui suggests rethinking the Wednesday’s Finance Committee meeting agenda, continues to promote her own “Rise Up” local welfare program; Azeem notes simultaneous expiration of ARPA funding and losses in federal funding, asks when any decisions re: Spaulding program must be made; Ellen Semonoff says a date is difficult to determine – there are 22 people still at TWC, and the longer people stay based on possibility of extension the more likely they may find themselves with no next step, notes that if TWC does not close now it will be more difficult to do so in the future; City Manager notes that funding TWC will make it more difficult to fund a successor program to the “Rise Up” local welfare program; Nolan additional comments re: many proposed projects; McGovern objects to suggestion of vouchers vs. TWC; Order Adopted as Amended 5-4; Reconsideration Fails 0-9
[My own personal opinion is that this entire conversation is proof positive why it would be a terrible idea to have legislators wrest more control over city management with the goal of promoting specific (often politically motivated) projects – the essential definition of political patronage – which can sometimes produce good benefits, but often not. I will add that if some of the current councillors could have their way, property taxes would soar, especially in light of recent news regarding Kendall Square commercial property challenges and their tax levy implications.]

Only 279 Communications this week. One, in particular, stood out above all the others:

Communication #208. Patrick W Barrett III, re: PO25#49. [text of communication]

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Mar 5, 2025 to receive an update on the state of the arts in Cambridge and discuss how the City is currently supporting artists and art organizations through grant programs and funding, with a focus on the Central Square Cultural district. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)

The Cambridge Charter

Committee Report #3. The Cambridge City Council’s Special Committee of the Whole/Charter Review was held on Fri, Mar 28, 2025 to review the communication from the City Solicitor with updates in the Charter review process that was referred from the Mar 17, 2025 City Council meeting. [text of report]
Rules Suspended to take up early along with Comm & Reports #2 and #3; Siddiqui thanks all involved; Toner comments; March 28, 2025 revisions voted Adopted 9-0; Committee Report Placed on File 9-0; Comm. & Reports #2 Placed on File 9-0 (superseded by ; City Solicitor Megan Bayer walks through changes in latest Draft; Siddiqui motion to accept latest changes Adopted 9-0; comments by Nolan re: Charter Review Committee; Sobrinho-Wheeler addresses removal procedures, McKenna notes state law regarding conviction of felony and removal upon sentencing (as was the case with former Councillor William Walsh in 1994); Zusy on review of ordinances every decade, Mayer responds [Note: They used to be not only reviewed but frequently published as a bound volume], McKenna notes that existing ordinances would be a 6 inch wide bound volume; Simmons speaks on half of School Committee member Caroline Hunter re: role of the Mayor on the School Committee; McGovern remarks on review of ordinances suggesting that the period of review be baked into the ordinance language itself; Wilson expresses gratitude to Law Department and Charter Review Committee, how to put into practice the review of ordinances, Bayer notes this would be a significant undertaking; Megan Bayer notes that many City departments are affected by ordinances and that they should be involved in their review; Siddiqui acknowledges Clerk’s Office, notes many CRC recommendation that have been referred to Government Operations for future consideration; McGovern says Gov’t Operations meetings will be scheduled; Toner asks if charter review must be done every 10 years or does clock start w/adoption of any revision, Bayer notes that it would be every 10 years (in a year ending in a ”2”); Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting an update regarding Revised Charter Draft including Home Rule Draft.
Placed on File 9-0 (superseded by late communication below)

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting – Updated City Charter Revised Charter Draft.
Placed on File 9-0; Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Late Order #3. That the City Council approve the motions that passed favorably in the Special Committee of the Whole/Charter Review on March 28, 2025. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#55)
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Order #4. That the Council accept the new additional changes as detailed that the Law Department has made that the Special Committee did not vote on. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#56)
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Order #5. That the City Council petition the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to enact the attached home rule petition entitled, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE; provided, that the Legislature may make such incidental changes necessary to effectuate passage of this petition. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#57)
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Order #6. That the City Council request that State Rep. Marjorie Decker sponsor the home rule petition entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. Councillor Siddiqui
Nolan amends to have rest of delegation invited, Siddiqui very truculent in response; Amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)

This has been a long haul, and not such a pleasant one. On the bright side, there won’t be any major changes to the general framework of Cambridge municipal government. We’ll still have a city manager form of government with all at-large elections conducted via proportional representation with some added flexibility for the Election Commission to slightly modify the tabulation methods (the one thing I wanted to see for many years). The City Council will continue to choose their own Chair (the Mayor), but the Mayor will serve as an ordinary member of the School Committee with its Chair being elected by the School Committee (something I suggested over 20 years ago). Also, I was finally heard regarding the matter of keeping intact the current mechanisms for Resident Initiative Petitions and Referenda (which the City Council had originally eliminated). The updating of the language and overall structure of the proposed Charter is also a worthwhile change.

On the negative side (for starters): (a) the selection of the original Charter Review Committee was tainted and driven by the whims of the Mayor at that time; (b) the current penalties under the Plan E Charter for City Council interference (not acting through the City Manager) were eliminated (a very bad thing); and (c) at every step the City Council insisted on greater control of budgetary matters, board appointments, and more. I can only speculate how the whole procedure may have been different (and probably better) had there been an actual Charter Commission – as opposed to having only incumbent city councillors having any say regarding any changes in the structure our municipal government.

Assuming the posted draft of the new Charter is approved by the City Council, it will then have to be reviewed by the Attorney General and the Home Rule Petition will have to be approved by the State Legislature. If all that takes place, it will then come back to the voters of Cambridge – optimistically in time for the November 2025 election, but it could potentially be further delayed. – Robert Winters

Comments (0)

April 4, 2025

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,City Council,cycling,Fresh Pond,transportation — Tags: A Bigger Cambridge, Cambridge, City Council, Garden Street, Gerald Chan, neighborhood conservation districts, opportunism, tabloid journalism, traffic, transportation, Urban design, vacancies, water — Robert Winters @ 1:51 pm

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Light Blue

Not that you could ever tell from the scandalous focus of the local tabloids, but the Big Issue residents are hotly debating now is whether the Garden Street road configuration should stay or go. Beyond the sideshows and the political posturing and opportunism, here are a few things of interest on this week’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Cambridge Public Schools’ long-term facilities condition assessment. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang, Interim School Superintendent David Murphy, Councillors Wilson, Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a proposed amendment to the Drought Ordinance. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; Unfinished Business #4 brought forward; Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to Cambridge Municipal Code 13.08, Water System Regulations and Chapter 13.12, Water Reservoirs. [Passed to 2nd Reading Mar 24, 2025; Eligible To Be Ordained Apr 7, 2025] [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; Ordained as Amended 9-0

Order #1. That the City Council send a formal invitation to Mr. Gerald Chan to come before the Economic Development and University Relations Committee to answer questions and present his plans for the Harvard Square Movie Theater, as well as his other vacant properties in the City. Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by McGovern (paradoxically endorsing nostalgia and preservation while simultaneously endorsing wholesale changes in built environment); comments by Siddiqui re: legal imitations in what Council can do; comments by Wilson, Simmons; Toner proposes amendment to bring in 23 other vacant storefront owners; Zusy supports amendment, wants to extend to other property owners but without shaming; McGovern OK with amendment but expects this will take several meetings, dismisses suggestion that this is “shaming”; Zusy suggests that singling out one property owner not ideal, there are broader considerations; Amendment Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Mar 11, 2025 with the City Solicitor and the Community Development Department, Economic Opportunity Division, to discuss concerns with vacant store fronts and commercial properties in Cambridge, and prior efforts and possible options such as new policies, taxes, and/or fines to reduce the number of vacant store fronts and commercial properties in Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #2. Continued funding of the Transitional Wellness Center. Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by McGovern with some history of funding for this facility; Sobrinho-Wheeler advocates for keeping it open beyond ARPA funding; Wilson comments; Yi-An Huang notes current funding is ~$3 million/year which would likely rise, contracts would need to be extended, more information for these and similar services will be forthcoming; Charter Right – Toner

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-68 re: Garden Street two-way traffic alternatives. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mar 31, 2025] [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler (JSW) along with Charter Right #3; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #3. That the City Manager and appropriate staff move forward with Option 4 to reopen Garden Street to two-way traffic while maintaining separated bike lanes. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mar 31, 2025]
pulled by Toner along with Charter Right #1; JSW proposed amendment by substitution calling for more analysis and not moving forward with Option #4; Toner expresses appreciation for JSW amendment but wants to move forward with 2-way preference; Nolan notes that there have already been many changes to other road redesigns, supports bi-directional bike lanes as safest alternative; Siddiqui aligns w/JSW; Azeem agrees w/JSW amendment and focuses on cost of different options; TPT Director Brooke McKenna suggests estimated cost of Option #4 to be $137,000 with timeline of Summer 2026, additional costs associated w/utilities; Azeem uses cost to rationalize making no changes; Zusy suggests that JSW amendment would just be “kicking the can down the road”, need to take a vote on this now and resolve outstanding issues re: loading zones, etc.; Wilson appreciates spirit of JSW amendment, notes that these issues are city-wide pinning neighbors against each other, making movement across the city difficult, insufficient outreach to those affected; McGovern notes dissatisfaction of some neighbors but wants to keep current configuration; JSW Amendment Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,SS,JSW-Yes; PN,PT,AW,CZ,DS-No); Toner notes that some will be unhappy either way, resounding push-back after restricting to 1-way; Nolan notes that many came out in support for Option #1 (keep 1-way) due to organized effort, speaks in support of bi-directional bike lanes, notes $50 million on Mass. Ave. due to provision of bike lanes; Zusy notes that while TPT reports were rational there is also need for safety for drivers and not just cyclists, 42,000 registered vehicles and Garden Street a strongly preferred route for hundreds of years, rollover accidents caused by current configuration, school-related traffic increases anticipated; Siddiqui says safety data supports Option #1, but McKenna says crash analysis has not been done, acknowledges increase in rollover crashes but does not ascribe cause; McKenna notes potential congestion problems (which is interesting in that the TPT position has been in favor of congestion in that it leads to reduced speeds); Yi-An Huang notes that bike lane debates among most contentious in many communities, notes the many trade-offs; Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan notes thought given by TPT in regard to Garden Street and other streets where road configurations are planned, notes that all four options provide safe passage for all users; Wilson comments on difficult and divisive conversation, notes similar shifting points of view in Cambridge and other communities, fact that there have been fatalities last year – all on roads with separated bike lanes; JSW notes that if Option #4 is chosen there are limited means to provide replacement parking or loading zones (which didn’t seem to be a concern for the Mass. Ave. bike lanes); McGovern expresses concerns about the “pendulum” of changing back and forth, acknowledges complaints about Brattle Street bi-directional bike lanes; McKenna notes concerns about people not looking both ways when crossing bi-directional bike lanes; Simmons motion to end debate Prevails 8-1 (SS-No); Order (to move forward w/Option #4 – 2-way operation of Garden Street) Adopted 5-4 (PN,PT,AW,CZ,DS-Yes; BA,MM,SS,JSW-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Note: The notion that the City Council should not be making decisions on road configurations that would revert Garden Street to 2-way traffic is ironic to say the least. The entire (amended) Cycling Safety Ordinance that mandated specific treatments for specific roads was based on this same sort of “political traffic engineering”. It seems pretty clear to many of us that this level of micromanagement is fundamentally problematic, and it is, in fact, the rigidity of the timelines that were established in the Ordinance that have created all of this mess. I will add that this entire topic is mainly about “winning” for the Cambridge Bike Safety group.

656 Communications – almost all of which have to do with Garden Street bike lanes and parking, plus a lesser number having to do with (a) Half-Crown Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District (and ABC’s never-ending quest to bulldoze Cambridge history), and (b) “Our squares and corridors”. There were relatively few about the Councillor Toner situation, and opinions varied widely. Clearly, bike lanes and the built environment (including glass houses) are higher on the list of resident priorities.

Late Order #4. That the City Council formally go on record to urge, in the strongest possible terms, the Harvard Corporation to stand up in defense of the values that are fundamental to both the University and our democracy; and that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to act with urgency and coordinate a response and consult with all relevant city, regional, and state entities to develop a united front and take all action possible to counter this assault on the foundational values of our city as a center of higher learning. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons (PO25#52)
Comments by Nolan; Yi-An Huang remarks noting centuries-old relationship between Harvard and Cambridge, need to stand up to Trump Administration and their unlawful actions; Simmons and all councillors ask to be added as sponsors and that this be also directed to our legislative delegation; Siddiqui notes Globe opinion article by Niko Bowie and Benjamin Edelson entitled “Harvard’s Moment of Truth”; McGovern comments re: “vindictive bullies” (irony noted); Azeem asks about what actions City could take; Yi-An Huang notes that having City Council on record is important, ongoing meetings with the Harvard Corporation, action of taking a $750 million bond to ensure liquidity in the event of shut-off of federal funding, growing set of faculty and alumni speaking up, “there is a voice of truth and integrity that needs to come out”; Nolan amendment Adopted as Amended 9-0

Comments (0)

April 1, 2025

Switching from Cable TV

Filed under: Cambridge,Comcast — Tags: Cable TV, Red Sox, Roku, TCM, Turner Classic Movies, YouTubeTV — Robert Winters @ 1:42 pm

Apr 1, 2025 Update – It took a while, but I finally turned in my Comcast Cable TV box in favor of a Roku streaming device, and I have a temporary new phone number through Ooma while I navigate the process of migrating my current phone number over to the new service. There are some good things about the big switch and some bad things. I like the fact that I no longer have to drag several feet of coaxial cable around when I move the TV cart. Roku is all wireless. The great thing is that I now get Turner Classic Movies (TCM) – and I LOVE watching old movies. Unfortunately, the way I get TCM is via YouTubeTV and that costs me something like $80-$90 per month, but that’s still a lot better than what Comcast was charging without TCM. There are other ways to get TCM and there are some downsides to YouTubeTV (mainly the pain-in-the-ass menus you have to navigate), so I may look into alternatives. Often the only way to find out what you really want is to try out the alternatives. Blow Up Your TV

The worst part of this switch is the rat’s nest of different apps and menus that you have to navigate. The Comcast channel lineup was much easier to master – so much so that I may one day give Comcast another chance to redeem themselves (but only if I can get one of those less expensive “introductory offers” again). I also had to pay to get NESN 360 in order to get the Red Sox games (not that that’s been so great watching Rafael Devers break records for most times striking out – and he’s still batting .000 after 5 games). I paid a lot up front for NESN 360, but that came with 4 tickets to Red Sox games at Fenway. Hopefully Devers will recover his ability to hit by the time I go to a game.

One of the more ridiculous things about the new setup is that if I feel like watching “Svengoolie” on MyTV on a Saturday night, the only way I can do this is by switching the source to a TV antenna to get it over-the-air. You can get it via other paid packages, but I really don’t want to do that for little scraps. Among the more delightful things about the new setup is that I can set it to automatically record all shows like “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “Saturday Night Live” – though it took me a while to figure out that you do this by adding them to your “Library”. I can also watch every episode of “How It’s Made” and every episode of “South Park” (the perfect antidote to the often poisonous wokeness of Cambridge). Other full runs of shows are available, but you often only find out after many steps that it will cost you extra. I wish they would just say that up front.

Another downside is that I can no longer watch CCTV because the local access channels don’t seem to be part of any package other than Comcast. Perhaps that can be remedied some day. Fortunately, I can still access City Council meetings via live stream or Zoom on the computer, and the recordings are available soon after the meetings. The recordings are usually preferable because you can fast forward past some of the stupidity. You can also get a transcript – often entertaining to see the errors in the voice recognition. Things like “Council Sabinia Bill yields the floor” or “Councilor Susie” or “Councilor Zuzzi, floor is yours”. I also think “Masson Main” sounds so much more exotic than “Mass and Main”. Perhaps “Market Central” could be re-branded accordingly. “We have been working with Michael Modesty.” In fact, the voice recognition software generally works quite well.

Perhaps the single worst thing about the new setup is that sometimes you have to log in to a computer to get enter a code before you can watch something or add a channel. This whole streaming thing is evolving, and it’s a bit like TV in the 1950s where you might get just a station ID image because the channel still hasn’t figured out all the technical details like how to feed commercials into the program gaps. The whole experience makes me feel like a beta tester or a lab rat, and I have become very angry and frustrated at times just trying to do things that ought to be simple. – RW

May 23, 2024 – I am finally getting around to changing from my current “Triple Play” plan with Comcast to something better, but I need advice.

I certainly need to maintain a fast Internet connection for many reasons – not the least of which is an online course I teach via Zoom in the fall (and office hours). I also do the Cambridge InsideOut show via Zoom. For telephone (not cell phone) I have a device from Ooma that I can use for VoIP phone service at low cost.

The difficult part to understand is how to navigate the various streaming options in such a way that I don’t end up paying even more than I am currently forking over to Comcast. My primary TV needs are old movies (like TCM), Red Sox games, Twilight Zone, real news stations like BBC, all the local channels (of course), some science stuff (we’re really into cosmology), South Park, and a few other things. My understanding is that streaming can be a real data hog, and though Comcast doesn’t currently charge extra for excess data, they will likely do so at some point.

Sooo…. I am looking for a plan here. Any sage advice?

Comments (0)

Older Posts »

Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 12, 2025

Current City of Cambridge Board and Commission Vacancies (May 12, 2025)

Volunteer Opportunities – Cambridge Boards & Commissions

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Council on Aging Board

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Public Planting Committee

Members Sought for Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee

Member Sought for Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Board of Commissioners Vacancy

Like this:

May 11, 2025

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

May 5, 2025

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

May 2, 2025

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance – a letter from Patrick Barrett

Like this:

April 28, 2025

Budget Season – April 28, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Budget Season – April 28, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

April 14, 2025

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

April 4, 2025

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

April 1, 2025

Switching from Cable TV

Like this:

We take civility very seriously here. Any threats or abusive behavior of any kind will get you banned for life.

May 12, 2025

Volunteer Opportunities – Cambridge Boards & Commissions

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Council on Aging Board

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Public Planting Committee

Members Sought for Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee

Member Sought for Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Board of Commissioners Vacancy

Share this:

Like this:

May 11, 2025

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

May 5, 2025

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

May 2, 2025

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance – a letter from Patrick Barrett

Share this:

Like this:

April 28, 2025

Budget Season – April 28, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

April 14, 2025

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

April 4, 2025

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

April 1, 2025

Share this:

Like this:

We take civility very seriously here. Any threats or abusive behavior of any kind will get you banned for life.