Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

February 16, 2018

A look at the Brattle Street bikeway

In 2017, Cambridge installed a two-way separated bikeway on Brattle Street between Mason Street and Brattle Square. In the video here, I take a look at part of that bikeway, from Church Street to Brattle Square.

This is a high-definition video. For best viewing, start the video playing, click on “Youtube”, and then click on the Full Screen Icon — the square at the lower right.

February 13, 2018

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 291-292: Feb 13, 2018

Episode 291 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 13, 2018 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 13, 2018 at 5:30pm. Topics: Feb 12 City Council highlights – bike lanes, Inman Square redesign, Vision Zero, and more. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube]


Episode 292 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 13, 2018 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 13, 2018 at 6:00pm. Topics: Cambridge Historical Commission landmark designation reports, fate of the “Tenant Right of First Refusal” bill, and more. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube]

[Materials used in these episodes]

February 11, 2018

Rhetorical Conflict – Safe Streets and Vision Zero: February 12, 2018 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:46 pm

Rhetorical Conflict – Safe Streets and Vision Zero: February 12, 2018 Cambridge City Council meeting

BicycleThe battle for turf in the Rhetorical War continues this week with troops massing at the borders over the meaning of Vision Zero and Safe Streets. Continents could be sinking and frogs raining from the sky, but we’ll once again get to witness the turf war over allocation of space on Cambridge roads (and sidewalks). Word has it that the Boston Cyclists Union has already rung the alarm and asked all troops to report for duty in the Sullivan Chamber on Monday to argue against "safe streets for all" if that might translate into giving up an inch of sand on the beachhead of segregated bike lanes. It makes for an interesting juxtaposition with the City hosting a Big Press Conference this past week announcing its Vision Zero Plan – basically reducing the speed limit to 20mph in the major Squares (a good thing) and creating a rhetorical framework to hush up anyone who questions future road reconfigurations. After all, you know, Vision Zero. If you don’t like flexi-posts or traffic congestion or if you raise issues about road conditions in winter and safety considerations at intersections, surely you must be against traffic calming and in support of danger. Public Comment on Monday promises to be great (that is to say – bad) theater with about a 30 year age difference in opposing sides in the battle over the definition of safety.

Frankly, I’d rather talk about public transportation, but that would have far less drama. I was also unable to witness the presentation last week on the Battle of Inman Square that pitted tree huggers vs. bicycle segregationists (which actually pitted some people against themselves) in the elusive redesign of this crossroads.

Here’s the menu of my personal favorite dishes being served up at this gathering:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Lechmere National Bank building at 225/227 Cambridge Street.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Hovey & Markham Cottages located at 40 and 44 Cottage Street.

Communications #3-10,12-17. Fourteen letters opposing historical landmark designation of 40 Cottage Street.

We are blessed with our most excellent Historical Commission who generate landmark designation reports (and other publications) that are incredibly good. These two reports are no exception. In a city with so many significant historic buildings it’s not surprising that the Historical Commission is recommending landmark status in both of these reports. What makes this noteworthy are the communications – many of which were generated from the same template. Some of them even make reference to the "weaponization of the Historical Commission landmark study and designation process". Personally, I hope the homeowners of 40 Cottage Street will be allowed to renovate their home to the highest energy efficiency standards while maintaining as much historical integrity as possible. That said, either your building is landmark-worthy or it’s not, and I’d say the report strongly suggests that this one is. It’s true that various legal processes are routinely used in Cambridge to stall or block projects, but I guess it apparently does matter whose ox is gored. If you know the right people then it’s called "weaponization", and otherwise it’s called "neighborhood preservation". In any case, it will be good to hear more about how the Historical Commission balances preservation vs. modernization in a time when energy conservation and sustainability are prioritized.

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a Sustainable Materials Recovery grant from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection in the amount of $38,800 to the Grant Fund Department of Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance Account which will be used toward the purchase of food waste collection bins for the citywide curbside organics program.

The starting date is now less than two months away. Speaking as the man formerly known as "Compost Man", I’m eager to see how this plays out and what problems arise as this service is rolled out citywide. I’m also mindful of the fact that this is just as much a rediscovery of former best practices as it is of innovative new practices.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 17-111, regarding the feasibility of implementing neighborways.

In short, the report doesn’t endorse using art to calm traffic. We had a good way of handling this when I was a kid growing up in Queens, New York. We painted bases and baselines on the street and played stickball. The message to drivers was abundantly clear and there was never an altercation. We would also chant "Car Car C-A-R" when a car was coming. Other streets had hockey goals in the street that had to be moved to allow cars to pass, but nobody ever complained. We never called these "neighborways." We just called them streets.

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-01, regarding a report on possibility of a supermarket opening at 20 Sidney Street.

Perhaps nothing will come of this, but at least there’s this: "Community Development Department (CDD) staff have reached out to real estate representatives at several grocery chains, including Market Basket, Aldi, Trader Joes, and bFresh to inform them about the opportunity and connect them to Forest City. Several grocery store representatives mentioned that they do not have plans to expand at this time, or that the space is too small for their traditional size requirements. Regardless, CDD staff has relayed the grocery store chains contact information to Forest City staff. Staff will continue to explore options and communicate with Forest City about possible tenants.” In my view Aldi is the one that might work best at this site, but only if the rental agreement makes it economically feasible.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department and the Cambridge Public Health Department regarding the current status of zoning language and public health regulations for the keeping of hens and food cultivation and proposed next steps to advance the Urban Agriculture initiative.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Mayor McGovern

Perhaps we can just dispense with the supermarkets and just buy our milk and eggs from Farmer Jones down the street.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the Department of Public Works to report back to the Council on the success of the Polystyrene Ordinance, including implementation, enforcement, and remaining concerns among the business community.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui

When I was on the Recycling Advisory Committee (22 years, I believe) I often learned how some initiatives that were very appealing were actually counterproductive or, at best, a break-even proposition. For example, a "paper" drink cup is still lined with plastic, and when you take away the paper there is still a significant amount of plastic – perhaps more than in a "Styrofoam" cup. This Order asserts that expanded polystyrene (EPS), a.k.a. "Styrofoam", has been shown to leach harmful chemicals into food and beverages, but most reliable sources dispute that or note that any potential hazard is negligible. The real problem is that it’s difficult to recycle economically and it doesn’t really biodegrade.

Regarding the ban of plastic bags, except for the fact that the plastic gets caught in the machinery at the materials recovery facility (MRF), the environmental benefits of paper bags over plastic bags is not a slam dunk. Reusable bags, on the other hand, win the argument easily. That’s why the Cambridge ordinance is best referred to as the BYOB (Bring Your Own Bag) Ordinance rather than as a plastic bag ban (which it isn’t).

The jury is still out regarding the polystyrene ban. Some places now provide "compostable" plasticware, but recyclers aren’t keen on it because it doesn’t really biodegrade along with other organics except under very specialized conditions. Also, biodegradable plastic is often hard to distinguish from other plastic and this compromises the recyclability of all plastics. I suppose none of these details matter to city councillors as long as it makes them appear "environmental". I am, of course, interested to hear what DPW has to say about how the polystyrene ban has fared.

Order #4. That the City Manager and the Mayor’s Office are requested to establish a new working group consisting of a diverse set of stakeholders, including cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, small business owners, EMS/first responders, and City Officials to discuss the results of the protected bike lane pilot using clear evaluation criteria, and how best to construct a cohesive network in the future.   Councillor Mallon, Councillor Kelley, Mayor McGovern

This is simply the fulfillment of the Jan 25, 2017 memo from Iram Farooq (CDD), Owen O’Riordan (DPW), and Joseph E. Barr (Traffic). That memo states in regard to the Cambridge St. reconfiguration:

Evaluation Process
A critical part of the process will be evaluation of this corridor, both to make adjustments for future installations and to help stakeholders understand how this demonstration project is working. To provide adequate time for users to adjust to the changes, we expect the demonstration to last at least six months, after which we will make decisions about whether to retain the demonstration as a permanent improvement and whether any changes or tweaks are required based on the performance during the demonstration period.

While the exact details of the evaluation are still being determined and will be discussed as part of the community process, we expect to look at the following data both before and after implementation:

  • Parking use: occupancy and availability along both the main corridor and the adjacent side streets
  • Traffic volumes: motor vehicles and bicycles
  • Transit performance: stop dwell time, travel time, and ridership
  • Traffic compliance with parking and lane use: motor vehicles and bicycles
  • Speed
  • Crashes (acknowledging that it can be difficult to draw conclusions based on a limited period of time)
  • Ability to maintain bike path, in winter and for street cleaning.
  • Retail access: customer mode share survey
  • Retail success: sales tax receipts (if available) or other data

In other words, there was always supposed to be a evaluation of this Separated Bicycle Lane Demonstration. It’s interesting that at least one city councillor seems unable to grasp this in saying, "The protected lanes are here to stay and this order may suggest to some they are not." There is little question that enhanced bicycle (and pedestrian and motor vehicle) safety is the rule of the day (because, you know, Vision Zero), but the question remains how best to achieve this. Furthermore, saying that an evaluation will be "data driven" is insufficient. For example, banning all motor vehicles would surely produce data showing a reduction in motor vehicle crashes, but that would not imply that the ban was good policy or that a better solution was not possible.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to create additional opportunities for the community to evaluate and understand the plan to redesign Inman Square and to provide input, including: walk-in clinics between now and the next community meeting and making more details available online including alternative designs considered but deemed unworkable, traffic simulations, and other relevant data or information.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui

Perhaps nobody wants to hear this but there really are currently two feasible options available for Inman Square. One is the "current plan" to wipe out the trees in Vellucci Park, relocate some of that space to the north side, and move all bicyclists onto the sidewalks. The other is to keep Inman Square more or less as it is with its newly painted green stripes for bicycles and maybe with some tweaking of the signals, lane markings, and pedestrian phases. Do we have any safety data on how the intersection is working since the "temporary" changes were made last year?

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to report on progress and efforts made to date to provide greater access to internet services citywide for low income residents.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Simmons

Translation: Some advocates want municipal broadband whether or not there is the demonstrated need or demand, and the fact that Cambridge has a significant "free cash" position will be perpetually used to justify any required expenditures. I also wonder sometimes what fraction of people nowadays use only their phone to access anything online (and to, of course, post silly pictures).

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Carlone and Councillor Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for an additional public hearing held on Jan 24, 2018 to discuss the Zoning Petition filed by Peter Kroon, et al, to amend Section 20.50 of the Zoning Ordinance in the " Harvard Square Overlay District" dated Sept 28, 2017.

This might win the all-time award for longest committee meeting leading nowhere. At least we now know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

2017 City Council Campaign Receipts, Expenditures, and $/Vote – FINAL REPORT

Filed under: 2017 election,Cambridge,campaign finance,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 3:27 pm

The following table shows the total campaign receipts and expenditures for 2017 Cambridge City Council candidates. You can sort by any of the fields shown by clicking on the field name – one click ascending and second click descending. Figures reflect the period from Dec 1, 2016 through Jan 31, 2018.

CandidateIDReceiptsCambridge% CambridgeExpenditures
(to Jan 31)
#1 Votes$/Vote
Moree, Gregg14683$905.22$905.22100.0%$905.2246$19.68
Devereux, Jan16062$59,949.50$54,043.5090.1%$50,613.591699$29.79
Levy, Ilan16173$13,706.86$12,350.0090.1%$12,008.79246$48.82
Kelley, Craig14104$26,327.86$20,500.6077.9%$24,886.391092$22.79
Musgrave, Adriane16657$34,162.97$26,223.9976.8%$33,749.31
580$58.19
D'Ambrosio, Olivia16520$7,900.00$5,600.0070.9%$7,945.19216$36.78
Carlone, Dennis15680$40,675.89$28,275.0069.5%$35,908.611176$30.53
Harding, Richard16737$34,500.49$22,641.0065.6%$34,318.46836$41.05
Mallon, Alanna16530$55,932.88$36,539.7065.3%$51,094.851329$38.45
Burgin, Josh16709$24,189.02$14,124.5258.4%$24,104.02392$61.49
Sutton, Bryan16713$1,314.44$719.9554.8%$1,293.0845$28.74
McGovern, Marc15589$88,717.14$48,362.4954.5%$85,337.311880$45.39
Benjamin, Ronald16493$1,262.55$677.0053.6%$1,434.52242$5.93
Siddiqui, Sumbul16556$47,574.60$21,795.0047.9%$36,190.552532$14.29
Zondervan, Quinton16516$62,916.69$29,649.4247.1%$64,073.971565$40.94
Toner, Paul16576$85,390.87$39,693.2646.5%$111,739.75980$114.02
Tierney, Sean16559$31,620.29$14,400.0045.5%$30,779.71779$39.51
Simmons, Denise13783$70,646.47$29,385.0041.6%$93,897.962616$35.89
Toomey, Tim12222$75,092.81$27,067.8636.0%$41,063.881619$25.36
Volmar, Gwen16691$13,374.56$4,713.9435.2%$12,839.56248$51.77
Santos, Jeffrey16686$14,708.95$4,964.3033.8%$12,667.82147$86.18
Sivongxay, Vatsady16528$38,639.88$11,829.0030.6%$37,933.19740$51.26
Gebru, Samuel16531$66,642.14$19,805.0329.7%$65,323.20787$83.00
Okamoto, Nadya16596$10,189.49$1,235.0012.1%$10,603.52550$19.28
Lenke, Dan16771$0.00$0.00-$920.0054$17.04
Pillai, Hari16770$0.00$0.00-$0.00107$0.00
2017 City Council Campaign Receipts and Expenditures (last updated Feb 11, 2018 at 10:33pm)

Note 1: Figures reflect the period from Dec 1, 2016 through Jan 31, 2018.

Note 2: Adjustments to the totals have been made to reflect returned donations, candidate loans repaid, etc.

Note 3: There will be no additional updates except for corrections. This table is meant to give an idea what the actual total receipts and expenditures are for a full municipal election cycle. The choice to use a 14 month period is somewhat arbitrary but reflects what seems to be when campaign activity starts up and winds down.

Vote!

Current City of Cambridge Board and Commission Vacancies (Feb 11, 2018)

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:30 am

Members Sought for Cambridge Climate Protection Action Committee

City SealJan 26, 2018 – Cambridge City Manager Louis A. DePasquale is seeking new members for the Climate Protection Action Committee (CPAC). Appointees will fill a limited number of vacancies on the committee.

The committee, which consists of residents and representatives of the universities, the business community, and community organizations, advises the City on climate change policy and implementation related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the unavoidable impacts.

Cambridge has been working on climate change action since 1999. The City has an overall goal to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions at the community scale by 2050. The City is in the process of developing a Climate Action Plan which will set new climate protection goals and objectives for adoption by the City Council. In addition, a Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan is also being developed. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change will require concerted action by the entire community, and the committee is an important element of the effort to develop policies and programs to help residents, businesses, institutions, and organizations incorporate energy efficiency, renewable energy, resilience, and other measures into their homes and work places. The Committee acts a sounding board for City staff, makes recommendations to the City Manager, convenes community discussions about climate change, and is responsible for reviewing progress on the implementation of the Net Zero Action Plan. For more information about climate protection in Cambridge, visit cambridgema.gov/climate.

The committee generally meets on the second Thursday of the month, from 6-8pm, at Cambridge City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway. Any Cambridge resident or representative of a business, institution, or organization based in Cambridge who would like to work to address climate change is welcome to apply. Members are appointed by the City Manager, generally to a three year term.

The deadline for submitting an application for the Climate Protection Action Committee is February 26, 2018. Applications can be submitted to City Manager Louis A. DePasquale using the city’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter describing your interest, resume, or applicable experience can be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Mass. Ave.


Cambridge Announces Vacancies on Central Square Advisory Committee and Human Services Commission

City SealJan 31, 2018 – City Manager Louis A. DePasquale is seeking to fill vacancies on the Central Square Advisory Committee and the Human Services Commission.

The Central Square Advisory Committee helps review all major development actions in the Central Square Overlay District and monitors the progress of the non-zoning recommendations of the K2C2 Study relevant to Central Square. Members represent a cross section of stakeholders, which includes residents from abutting neighborhoods and representatives of Central Square’s business community. The Committee meets as needed to advise on non-zoning recommendations, undertakes all Large Project Reviews, and reviews and comments on all Board of Zoning Appeal variances and special permits within the Overlay District.

At this time, the following positions are vacant: The Port Representative, Riverside Representative, and Central Square Business Representative.

These appointments, to be made by the City Manager, will serve a term of three years that will expire in April 2021, with the option to renew. The Committee meets as needed based on project review needs and the status of ongoing and upcoming developments to Central Square. For more information, please contact Wendell Joseph at 617-349-9462 or wjoseph@cambridgema.gov, or visit the Central Square Advisory Committee’s webpage.

Applications to serve on this committee can be submitted to City Manager Louis A. DePasquale using the City’s online application system at www.cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience must be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. The deadline to submit an application is February 28, 2018.

The Human Services Commission advises the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager for Human Services on human services policy issues, needs assessments, and funding allocations. In collaboration with the Department of Human Service Programs, the nine-member Commission helps promote activities that enhance the quality of life for Cambridge residents. Over the years, the Commission has responded to local needs by recommending Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for a wide range of programs offered by the City and community agencies.

The Commission usually meets with the Assistant City Manager for Human Services on the second Thursday of each month from 5:30 to 7:30pm. For more information, contact Mike Payack at 617-349-6208 or mpayack@cambridgema.gov. Commission members serve without compensation. Applications to serve on this committee can be submitted to City Manager Louis A. DePasquale using the City’s online application system at www.cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience may be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. The deadline to submit an application is March 2, 2018.

February 6, 2018

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 289-290: Feb 6, 2018

Episode 289 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 6, 2018 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 6, 2018 at 5:30pm. Topics: Jerry’s Pond, Central Square crosswalks, right of first refusal. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube]


Episode 290 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 6, 2018 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Feb 6, 2018 at 6:00pm. The main topic was the proposed “Right of First Refusal” enabling legislation now at the State House. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube]

[Materials used in these episodes]

2017 Cambridge City Council Campaign Bank Reports

Filed under: 2017 election,Cambridge,campaign finance,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 10:14 pm

The following table shows the summary bank reports for 2017 Cambridge City Council candidates. You can sort by any of the fields shown by clicking on the field name – one click ascending and second click descending.

CandidateFromToStartReceiptsExpendBalanceAs OfNotes
Benjamin, Ronald01/01/1701/31/18$9.00$1,426.56$1,432.52$3.0402/01/18
Burgin, Josh06/16/1701/31/18$0.00$23,649.50$23,649.50$0.0002/01/18
Carlone, Dennis01/01/1701/31/18$17,827.87$36,169.32$43,908.61$10,088.5802/05/18Expenditures includes $8000 loan repayment
D'Ambrosio, Olivia01/01/1701/31/18$122.75$7,775.31$7,917.94-$19.8802/01/18
Devereux, Jan01/01/1701/31/18$8,715.10$55,616.36$50,574.17$13,757.2902/01/18$13672.25 transfers subtracted
Gebru, Sam01/01/1701/31/18$0.00$65,289.04$64,965.46$323.5802/01/18loans and refunds subtracted
Harding, Richard07/01/1701/31/18$1,961.06$34,985.39$34,318.46$2,627.9902/01/18$50 returned check deducted
Kelley, Craig01/01/1701/31/18$2,231.84$24,844.39$22,124.58$4,951.6502/01/18$100 returned check subtracted
Lenke, Dan08/16/1701/31/18$0.00$1,248.57$920.00$328.5702/01/18
Levy, Ilan07/16/1701/31/18$0.00$11,964.47$12,008.79-$44.3202/01/18$750 loan reimbursement subtracted
Mallon, Alanna01/01/1701/31/18$100.00$54,736.18$49,455.73$5,380.4502/01/18$900 in refunds subtracted
McGovern, Marc01/01/1701/31/18$14,966.66$70,826.09$79,416.58$6,376.1702/01/18$500 returned check subtracted
Moree, Gregg08/16/1701/15/18$0.00$905.22$905.22$0.0001/15/18$174.78 loan subtracted
Musgrave, Adriane05/16/1701/31/18$0.00$34,223.98$33,749.31$474.6702/01/18
Okamoto, Nadya03/16/1701/31/18$0.00$10,947.09$10,603.52$343.5702/01/18
Pillai, Hari07/24/1701/15/18$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0001/15/18
Santos, Jeffrey06/07/1701/31/18$0.00$13,516.75$12,561.21$955.5402/01/18$116.61 loan subtracted
Siddiqui, Sumbul02/16/1701/31/18$0.00$45,524.60$36,190.55$9,334.0502/01/18
Simmons, Denise01/01/1701/31/18$10,179.79$70,105.13$72,689.42$7,595.5002/01/18$500 excess subtracted
Sivongxay, Vatsady01/01/1701/31/18$0.00$37,905.88$37,872.35$33.5302/01/18
Sutton, Bryan06/16/1701/31/18$0.00$1,229.49$1,208.13$21.3602/01/18
Tierney, Sean02/01/1701/31/18$0.00$31,570.29$29,029.71$2,540.5802/01/18
Toner, Paul02/16/1701/31/18$0.00$86,325.01$86,159.48$165.5302/05/18
Toomey, Tim01/01/1701/31/18$4,069.67$70,081.14$49,126.17$25,024.6402/01/18$200 refund subtracted, $18144.68 loan repayments included
Volmar, Gwen06/09/1701/31/18$0.00$12,965.56$12,430.56$535.0002/01/18
Zondervan, Quinton01/01/1701/31/18$3,510.00$62,436.05$64,666.39$1,279.6602/01/18
2017 City Council Bank Reports (updated Feb 6, 2017 at 10:14pm)

Campaign Finance Reports – 2017 City Council (updated Feb 6, 9:50pm)

Vote!

February 5, 2018

Coming up at the Feb 5, 2018 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 3:49 pm

Coming up at the Feb 5, 2018 Cambridge City Council meeting

City HallHere’s my first pass (and Gronkowski didn’t pull this one down either) at the interesting agenda items with the usual brilliant/annoying observations.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to inquire whether the Community Development Department will apply for the Targeted Brownfields Assessment Grant regarding Jerry’s Pond.   Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Kelley

Many people may have forgotten this by now but there were once plans to enhance that whole area – not only by making Jerry’s Pond an available resource but also doing, dare I say, some development in the vicinity of the MBTA headhouse east of the parkway and within the fenced-in area associated with the W.R. Grace site on the north side of the path. First it was the threat of naphthalene in the soil, and then asbestos. I will never believe that permanently fencing in a contaminated site near a T station is preferable to cleaning it up and turning it into a resource rather than a liability.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department and any other relevant City Department to gain a sense of who is purchasing buildings in Cambridge.   Councillor Simmons

I think this will be very interesting information, and not only because I’d like to see just how much property Gerald Chan now owns in Cambridge. At least he lives nearby. The greater problem is that in an uncertain world there’s a lot more financial security in Cambridge real estate than in either pork bellies or Chinese financial markets. This reality is not always compatible with the quaint old notion of buying property either because you want a place to live or you need a place to operate your business. Cambridge property has in many ways become primarily a place to store wealth. Barring some new form of gold rush elsewhere I don’t see this changing any time soon.

Order #6. That the City Manager explore the possibility of an "ALL WALK" pedestrian signal at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue, Prospect Street, and River Street.   Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui

As appealing as this may seem, the traffic volumes on these streets may dictate otherwise. The greatest problem is the conflict between pedestrians crossing Mass. Ave. and right-turning vehicles from River Street onto Mass. Ave. There used to be a "slip lane" there, but that was even more hazardous for pedestrians. The real problem, in my opinion, is that many drivers and pedestrians don’t have a clue about how to balance assertiveness and courtesy. I’m reminded of a small book from about 35 years ago called "The Boston Driver’s Handbook: Wild in the Streets" that really said it all, especially the Cambridge tradition of acting aloof when crossing in Harvard Square.

I often think about writing a story on "How to Be a Pedestrian in Cambridge" complete with a guide to hand gestures and best ways to stop vehicles with just a look. These lessons will, of course, be lost on habitual cell phone users.

Order #7. City Council support of Representative Provost and the Cambridge Legislative Delegation’s efforts to pass a Right of First Refusal Bill, with an amendment for cities to provide final implementation modifications as needed.   Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui

Please explain how this will apply to a multi-family homeowner who wishes to do a formal sale to family members or close friends for a price well below what is dictated by the market. – Robert Winters

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress

%d bloggers like this: