Bluesky, Nothin’ but Bluesky from now on – March 2, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting
With apologies to Irving Berlin and Al Jolson. This week has some choice agenda items, but I’m especially amused by the Order calling for the City of Cambridge to never again post anything on X, a.k.a. Twitter. News silos smiling at me, nothing but news silos do I see.
Anyway, here’s my first pass at the interesting stuff:
Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting a communication from City Manager, Yi-An Huang, relative to a federal update including an update on relevant court cases. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Yi-An Huang, Azeem, Deputy City Solicitor Elliott Veloso; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting a communication from City Manager, Yi-An Huang, regarding appropriation of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Recycling Dividends Program (RDP) grant, in the amount of $84,500, to the Grant Fund Public Works Other Ordinary Maintenance Account. [text of report]
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (McGovern Absent)
My interest in this item is primarily based on this: “Funds will help pay for supplies for the new location of the Recycle Center…” Do tell! This is the first I’m hearing about a possible relocation of the Recycle Center (now in the DPW Yard).
Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting a communication from City Manager, Yi-An Huang, relative to AR26#13, regarding an update on the establishment of a municipal supportive housing voucher program. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Al-Zubi, Housing Liaison Maura Pensak (+1), Flaherty; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting a communication from City Solicitor Megan Bayer regarding amendments to the transfer fee home rule petition. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; taken up with On The Table #3; comments by Zusy, Flaherty, Elliot Veloso, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Al-Zubi, Nolan, Chris Cotter, Siddiqui; Amended 8-0-0-1 (Al-Zubi Present); Home Rule Petition Adopted as Amended 9-0
On The Table #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to AR25-69, regarding a review of the previous home rule petition and prepare a new petition that would allow Cambridge to enact a Real Estate Transfer Fee to be sent to the state legislature. [Charter Right – Nolan, Jan 26, 2026; Tabled as Amended Feb 9, 2026]
taken up with Mgr #9; Amended 8-0-0-1 (Al-Zubi Present); Home Rule Petition Adopted as Amended 9-0
I’ll repeat my comments from January 26: It is worth noting that there already are taxes on the sale of real estate in Massachusetts. The Mass. real estate transfer tax (also known as stamp tax) is $4.56 per $1,000 of the property’s value, plus the newer “millionaire’s tax” on sales over $1 million – due at closing to the Registry of Deeds. The Affordable Care Act also has its 3.8% “Net Investment Income Tax” that applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. A local Real Estate Transfer Fee would be on top of those other taxes.
This proposed additional transfer tax would be 2% of the portion of the purchase price exceeding $1,000,000. This was before the City Council on Feb 26, 2024, and the Council at that time adopted the Order on a 6-2-1 vote with Joan Pickett and Paul Toner voting No, and Burhan Azeem Absent. The most recent call to re-file the home rule petition was on Dec 8, 2025, and it passed 8-1 with Paul Toner voting No. I would be inclined to vote against this – or at least demand a full accounting of the total fees and taxes associated with a real estate sale. There is also the larger question that should be asked about what fraction of a city’s housing stock should be taken out of private ownership and moved into government or government-related ownership. The socialists certainly have made their preferences clear.
Order #1. Order in support of transparency and consistent publication of meeting agendas and materials. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
pulled by Simmons for comments; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #2. Order re: capital budget lifecycle reconciliation prior to FY27 approval. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Flaherty
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, Zusy, Nolan, Siddiqui; Nolan amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct all City departments, boards, commissions, and offices to discontinue all official posting and engagement on X within 60 days; and to include an explanation of why the City will no longer use X. Councillor Al-Zubi, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Nolan; comments by Al-Zubi, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler (noting oligarchs, billionaires a la Sanders – also would prefer to discontinue use of Facebook in favor of Bluesky, Mastodon, Reddit), Zusy, Flaherty, Azeem, Siddiqui; Sobrinho-Wheeler amendments adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
[Note – The City of Cambridge currently has approximately 21,200 followers on Twitter/X and 20,000 on Facebook. In comparison, they have only 985 on Bluesky. The Cambridge Police Department currently has approximately 35,900 followers on Twitter/X and 20,000 on Facebook. The Cambridge Fire Department currently has approximately 17,600 followers on Twitter/X and 19,000 on Facebook. The Cambridge Office of Tourism currently has approximately 10,500 followers on Twitter/X and 16,000 on Facebook.]
The Cambridge City Council can be endlessly amusing when it’s not being aggravating. This Order is in the “amusement” category.
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff and report back with information as the first step in the exploration of a potential Cambridge Snow Corps Program. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Al-Zubi
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan, McGovern, Azeem, Flaherty, Simmons, Siddiqui; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #5. That the Cambridge City Council supports House Bill H.3754, and Senate Bill S.2344, “An Act Relative To Traffic Regulation Using Road Safety Cameras”; and that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with relevant departments to review the state bills referenced as well as the previously filed home rule petition and prepare a new home rule petition that would allow Cambridge to install and operate cameras to enforce red light, speeding, or other moving violations as outlined in H.3754 and S.2344 and the prior home rule. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Al-Zubi; comments by Nolan, (who objects to police making traffic stops), Al-Zubi (who wants the Transportation Department to be the enforcing agency rather than the Police Department), Zusy (concerns about surveillance); Order Adopted 8-0-0-1 (Zusy – Present)
Perhaps one day the Cambridge City Council will see fit to have a consistent viewpoint on cameras and surveillance.
Order #7. That the Regular City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, Apr 6, 2026 be a roundtable/working meeting to discuss the best future uses of City-owned properties and associated redevelopment processes, as requested in PO26#5. Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Azeem
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #10. City Council support of S.2726/H.3594: “An Act Regarding Free Expression”. Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Al-Zubi
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #12. City Council support of S.428/H.4207: “An Act Relative to School Libraries”. Councillor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Al-Zubi
pulled by Flaherty; comments by McGovern, Flaherty; add Flaherty as sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Does this include a prohibition on banning any particular books by Dr. Seuss or Mark Twain?
Order #13. Include discussion of other changes to the Cambridge Street zoning at the upcoming Ordinance Committee meeting about active ground floor use. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Nolan; comments by Zusy, Nolan, McGovern, Melissa Peters (CDD), Al-Zubi; Charter Right – Al-Zubi
Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to raise the fee of the parking permit program for all residents to $75, consider how to include a self-identified check off option so as not to increase administrative costs for a subsidized fee of $25 for residents who live in affordable housing, are enrolled in a program such as SNAP or are low income, remove the senior exemption for the residential parking permit program and lower the number of cars that individual residents are allowed to get a residential parking permit for from four to two. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 9, 2026]
comments by Nolan (wants everyone to pay $75, no exceptions), Simmons (w/amendments to exempt seniors), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Flaherty (proposes that this be sent to Transportation Committee for further discussion), McGovern, Siddiqui (improperly and arrogantly overrides debate w/motion to Table so that she can personally broker any modifications to the Order rather than refer to committee – Simmons objects to the ruling of the Chair); Tabled 8-0-0-1 (Al-Zubi – Present); A further proposed amendment by Al-Zubi was not introduced prior to tabling
I would love to see an honest audit of the actual costs of the Resident Permit Parking program – and not just a made-to-order job from the Department of Congestion, Obstruction, and Aggravation. It’s also worth noting that many of the public communications submitted this week came from known members of the anti-car, bike-only brigade. Is this really about revenue or is this more about politics? Methinks it’s the latter and not the former. A $75 junk fee won’t break me, but I wish they would restrict their changes to simply limiting the number of permits per household.
Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the City Council and relevant City departments on the process by which Cambridge can expand free early child care offerings, including models for means-tested programming, and exploration of non-City funding sources, from the state or foundations. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 9, 2026]
comments by Nolan, Simmons w/amendments), McGovern, Zusy, Siddiqui, Azeem; Simmons amendments Adopted 8-1 (Zusy – No); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-0-1 (Zusy – Present)
On The Table #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a plan to align all housing and homeless services and programs into a unified Housing Department. [Tabled – Feb 9, 2026]
A Public Hearing on this is now scheduled as part of the March 9 City Council meeting.
Committee Report #1-#4. Special Meetings of the Cambridge City Council’s City Clerk Preliminary Screening Committee were held on Sept 9, Sept 19, Sept 24, and Oct 10, 2025. The committee moved to executive session to consider applicants for the position of City Clerk, because doing so in open session would have detrimental effect in obtaining qualified applicants. [Sept 9 report][Sept 19 report][Sept 24 report][Oct 10 report]
Reports Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
These reports are from last year’s process that did not yield a result. Announcement of the new committee appointments was on the Feb 9 meeting agenda.
Committee Report #5. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Dec 16, 2025 with the Office of Tourism to provide an update on the Tourism Office’s efforts as it relates to destination marketing, visitor services, as well as an update on the tourism destination marketing district program. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #6. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Feb 10, 2026 on a zoning petition by the Cambridge City Council. The petition proposes changes to section 4.50 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to allow as of right in all zoning districts, religious and educational uses, and childcare uses (CM25#288). The committee voted favorably to forward the petition to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation to pass to a Second Reading. [text of report]
Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Communications & Reports #2. Communicating information from the School Committee. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
Notable in this report is this: Educator & Stakeholder Engagement (Motion #26-017): This motion recognizes that educators and key stakeholders need more structured opportunities to engage beyond standard public comment. It directs the Governance Subcommittee to research options such as designated educator presentations, non-voting membership, or other mechanisms, and to consider structured parent and caregiver input.
Several new members of the School Committee flew into their seats on the wings of endorsements by the Cambridge Education Association (formerly the Cambridge Teachers Union) and a well-funded campaign by the Massachusetts Teachers Association with several conditions associated with the endorsement. Prominent among these was that, if elected, their endorsed candidates would move to give the Teachers Union a non-voting seat on the School Committee with the right to engage in all of their deliberations. Personally, I think this a dreadful idea. The School Committee represents the voters and the parents of children in the Cambridge Public Schools – and not the union leadership.
