Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 4, 2024

Marching Fourth – March 4, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:27 pm

Marching Fourth – March 4, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Lion and the LambPerhaps this is the year we’ll march in like a lamb and out like a lion. There are some interesting things circling around – notably the recent Feb 28 Finance Committee meeting where City staff made it abundantly clear that the City Council might want to be just a bit less ambitious and expansive in their requests to fund everything under the sun. They are anticipating tax levy increases for the next few fiscal years in excess of 10%, and this may translate into very large jumps in property taxes – especially for single-, two-, and three-family homes. [Don’t worry, condo owners, you will likely continue to get the sweetest deal in town. The main message was “The City is at a critical inflection point and will need to take action to preserve future financial stability.”

Perhaps the two most substantive items on the week’s agenda are the final report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Central Square Lots Study Report.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the final report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). [text of report]
pulled by Wilson to announce that there will be a Public Safety Committee meeting on this on Apr 2, 3-5pm; Referred to Public Safety Committee 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Central Square Lots Study Report. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson – a says outreach was unsatisfactory, loss of Starlight Square; Yi-An Huang responds to questions about representation, nature of process of the study, role of councillors in facilitating community feedback; McGovern questions about Request for Information (RFI), Melissa Peters responds about RFI and planning for Central Square rezoning, trade-offs, housing options; Yi-An Huang refers to Lots Study as a “test fit”, desire for housing, including “affordable”, need to bring Cambridge Redevelopment Authority into process, possibility of joining with adjacent (privately-owned) properties [Note: this was exactly the point I made in the Central Square Advisory Committee (CSAC) meeting on this – especially in regard to the privately-owned lots at Prospect/Bishop Allen and building on Green Street adjacent to parking lot at Pleasant (currently hosting Needle Exchange)]; McGovern on Starlight (Lot 5) and how its loss would be upsetting to many; Yi-An Huang notes that he has discussed with with CSBID, City financial support for Starlight/Popportunity – uses phrase “square within the square”, possibility of housing, performance space, and parking at this location; Siddiqui expresses disappointment that there will be a limited Starlight season this year with an early end, notes ARPA award to support it, says there is community support to extend it; Pickett wants to reconcile Lots Study and planning for zoning changes; Melissa Peters says Lots Study and zoning planning are parallel processes, RFP will come after the zoning is completed; Pickett asks about continuing community engagement; Nolan concerns about long-term planning [Hey, isn’t there a committee with that name?], suggests citywide survey, impacts on City budget – both capital and operating budgets, quantifying value of Starlight Square; Azeem bemoans loss of Starlight, need for alternatives, offers comments on various lots and properties; Sobrinho-Wheeler uptalks; Simmons wants to refer to NLTP Committee, expresses hope for Starlight, notes decades of studies on Central Square – brings up slide (from CCJ site), Central Square as a cultural district, how this fits in with ongoing MAPC study, shallow referencing of “people of color”, dissatisfaction with degree of outreach, 44 years with 24 studies – “hurry up and wait”; Yi-An Huang notes that this “test fit” utilized past studies; disagreement about whether there is a call for action or additional feedback and study; Yi-An Huang (correctly) notes that Starlight was built as a temporary structure during Covid and that focus now should be on future alternatives; Wilson references long gap between ideas/suggestions and actions; Pickett speaks to how NLTP will take this on; McGovern expresses a “blitz” of meetings on this; Referred to NLTP 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-4, regarding recommendations and legal opinions for adjusting transportation related fees and other considered changes based on the conversations in committee on Dec 6, 2023. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan – wants to raise resident parking permit fees w/low-income discounts, fees based on vehicle size; City Solicitor Megan Bayer responds; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a communication regarding the American Rescue Plan Act’s (“ARPA”) definition of “Obligation.” [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler – what happens to unspent ARPA funds; Magan Bayer says these go back to U.S. Treasury if unspent; Matt Nelson provides additional information; Nolan asks if this has been communicated to nonprofit organizations; Yi-An Huang responds in the affirmative; Pickett wants to know what unallocated funds remain; Wilson comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-7, regarding a review of the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee. [text of report]
pulled by Pickett – reminder (from Toner) to councillors to forward their questions to Councillor Toner; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Resolution #4. Condolences on the death of Paul Ryder.   Councillor Toner

Order #1. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider a request for a dedication in a suitable location in honor of Paul Ryder.   Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Order #5. Tenant Protection Resources.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan, Wilson, Simmons; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Feb 15, 2024 to discuss the current lab, office, and retail vacancies in Cambridge and their expected impact on City revenues in the near and long term. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

February 24, 2024

Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:12 pm

Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

City HallThe previous meeting featured some rather obvious jostling for position in the process of evaluating the recent Charter Review Final Report and deciding any charter change proposal. This week should bring even more of this power struggle when the question of “next steps” is taken up. The report has already been sent to the Law Department, the Election Commission, and perhaps more departments for review, but the question now is whether this should be initially vetted within the Government Operations Committee (chaired by Councillor Toner) or if Councillor Nolan (and perhaps others) will try to bypass that initial review by creating some kind of ad-hoc committee-of-the-whole so that she can gain more control of the process. This, of course, is intertwined with the election of Mayor Simmons who appoints all the City Council committees – and those appointments were done with some care.

I will say right now that some of the proposed Charter recommendations are virtually assured to be dead on arrival at the State House, but I don’t yet know if the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (or whatever committee takes up such matters) can take an à-la-carte approach to proposed city charters or if it’s all-or-nothing. Before any modified Charter can go before Cambridge voters, it must first clear this hurdle.

I will also say that there are some aspects of the structure of Cambridge government that really should be rolled into any new Charter but which the Charter Review Committee never considered, e.g. the Special Acts that established/empowered the License Commission, the Election Commission, the Traffic Board, the Cambridge Health Alliance, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. It is commendable that the Committee chose to consolidate most of the charter specifics that were only referenced in the Plan E sections of M.G.L. Chapter 43 (sections 93-116) – at the suggestion of the Collins Center staff who were advising the Committee – but this was incomplete, probably because of lack of expertise on those specifics within the Collins Center staff. This is especially true of matters involving our proportional representation elections (an essential component of Plan E). There may be good reasons to leave some of these out of the Charter, but since they are part of how we do business, these questions should at least be part of the current discussion. [Needless to say, this should have been discussed within the now-dissolved Charter Review Committee, but that’s another conversation that has much to do with how that committee was formed.]

Here are the agenda items that caught my eye this week:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Bicycle Committee.
pulled by Nolan; PN wants committees to be “commissions” so that City Council would gain more control over these appointments, asks about whether diversity of opinion is a factor in appointments; Iram Farooq claims there is some diversity, but acknowledges that these committees are primarily advocates rather than representatives; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Pedestrian Committee.
pulled by Nolan; no additional comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, Policy Order Response #24-15 dated Feb 12, 2024 regarding drafting zoning language and related changes to allow for and encourage the continued growth, redevelopment, and evolution of Central Square. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; JSW wants to know when this would go to Planning Board; Farooq says it goes to PB when petition is filed and during the process; Toner asks if this will build upon work already done; Farooq says YES, and that advisory committees need not be consulted (really?); Nolan suggests that better methods of informing community should be considered; Pickett asks if Central Square Lots study will be integrated and how; Farooq says study in its final stages; Wilson agrees re: communication with residents; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Charter Right #1. That the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee be referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 12, 2024]
Toner says conversation should start in Gov’t Operations Committee; Nolan OK with starting there, but says it should not stay there – noting that she and Siddiqui are “deeply involved in this” (quite the understatement); Pickett draws parallel with how possible Rules changes are now being considered in committee; Siddiqui OK with starting in committee, but will participate and “brainstorming” with suggestion of a robust process; Toner explains process of culling ideas from councillors, legal questions, timeline; Wilson wants a community conversation around this; Referred to Gov’t Ops. 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Resolution #6. Resolution on the death of Charles Fried.   Councillor Nolan

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to present recommendations for the refinement and improvement of the housing permitting process to the City Council, with a focus on reducing delays, minimizing costs, and enhancing clarity and accessibility for all stakeholders.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Toner proposed amendments; JSW wants to keep “affordable” language, wants to add other groups for consultation; Toner motion to change “affordable housing” to “housing” Fails 2-6-1 (MM,PT-YES; PN,JP,SS,JSW,AW,DS-No; BA-Absent); Toner motion on simplifying processes to all housing and not just “affordable” housing, McGovern says middle-income housing should be included; Adopted 8-0-1; JSW motion to amend Toner motion to add two additional groups Adopted 8-0-1; Toner motion as amended Adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (BA Absent)

Order #2. City Council support of H.4138, The Affordable Homes Act, and urge legislators to retain the provisions for a location option transfer fee.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner will vote NO on proposed transfer fee; Nolan says Council has supported transfer fee in the past, delivers a prepared speech, says that this would not enact a tax or fee but only permit that local option (this is unbelievably naive), notes that legislation would set the range of possible fees, says this is about local control (but this begs the question about other proposed “local control” proposal to allow municipalities to create their own rent control laws); Nolan suggests motivation for supporting this is so that other municipalities would enact such a tax (again, very naive); McGovern concurs with Nolan, quotes David Kale in asserting that commercial transactions are lion’s share and that some residential exemptions could be made, expresses desire to take in as much revenue as possible; Pickett asks how this relates to existing Home Rule Petition now before the State Legislature, notes that there is already a $4.56/thousand stamp tax by state and that this would be on top of that; JSW uptalks that Legislature could act on our and Somerville’s and Cambridge’s petitions or pass current legislation, deflects by asserting that revenue raised could be used for other purposes; Pickett wants homeowners to gain maximum value in the sale of their greatest financial asset; Wilson offers generalities and suggestion that this might not lead to a tax; Simmons notes that we do use CPA fund for this but characterizes this as a “shortfall” and that (unlimited) more money is needed, notes Envision report and suggests that what we are doing is not enough; Order Adopted 6-2-1 (JP,PT – No; BA Absent)

Order #5. That the City Manager is hereby directed to confer with the City Manager’s Housing Liaison, Community Development Department, and the Cambridge Housing Authority on the feasibility of municipally-funded housing vouchers.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Pickett (who offers amendments); Nolan supports order and JP amendments; McGovern asks of motion-makers are OK with the amendments; Wilson supports amendments; both JP amendments adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 8-0-1

February 21, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 609-610: February 20, 2024

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 9:41 pm

Episode 609 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 20, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Feb 20, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Local News – Cambridge and beyond; Valentine’s Day – 46 years; City Council Goals & Objectives; the ordeal of facilitation and training; the value of informality and interaction in committee meetings; 311 vs. SeeClickFix vs. an Ombudsman vs. a simple phone call; benefiting from the existence of a problem; pros and cons of a good idea; upside-down priorities – the essential difference between a city manager and a strong mayor system. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 610 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 20, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Feb 20, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Ambiguity in affordable housing – buy vs. rent, market vs. subsidized; the DEI lens – one lens in addition to effectiveness, efficient delivery of services, and transparency; Envision – quote it when it suits you, ignore it when it doesn’t; the mythology of Central Square progress; Cycling Safety update – drawing conclusions from the inconclusive; Community Safety update – tiptoeing around the HEART problem; foreign policy or not; Charter Review Report gets political right out of the gate. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

February 14, 2024

Random Thoughts – February 14, 2024

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:23 pm

Random Thoughts – February 14, 2024

In addition to the romanticism of Valentine’s Day, this day also marks the day I moved to the Cambridge/Boston area – 46 years ago. While this means that I can never be a True Cantabrigian, my consolation is that many lifelong Cambridge residents have adopted me as a kind of lost cousin. In fact, my move to Cambridge happened on the first day that buses were running from New York to Boston after the Blizzard of ’78, so it’s always easy for me to remember when I first washed up on the shores of the People’s Republic.RW

I spent a couple of hours yesterday attending a Special City Council meeting called for the purpose of updating the City Council Goals that were most recently updated over 5 years ago in October 2017. It’s likely that the statement of Guiding Principles and City Council Goals will change little, though perhaps they’ll get a bit more specific than the rosy generalities issued in 2017.

I have to say that I have never enjoyed meetings like this where participants stumble about trying to say something relevant that might get the attention of the facilitator. I will add that these exercises often seem more like justifications for keeping “facilitation companies” going than actually producing anything useful. I might say the same thing of most “team building” exercises and virtually all “trainings” – online or in-person. Especially in the context of elected officials who are endlessly competing for credit or attention, the notion that you can train competition into collaboration seems a bit naive. They’ll either do it or they won’t.

That said, there were a few moments of wisdom, reality, and perhaps even redefinition. For example, at least one councillor noted the difference between City Council orders and committee work. This is something I appreciate – over the years I have come to view many policy orders as “drive-by orders” where some random idea is tossed into the public arena or perhaps lifted from some other municipality. Committee work used to be more like a serious detailed discussion that welcomed public participation. That hasn’t really been the case in recent years – unless you are one of the privileged few who function more like “10th councillors” thanks to your affiliation with a lobbying group that also endorses candidates in the municipal election. Everyone else just gets their two or three minutes to make a short statement before being terminated by the Chair. I liked it better when if you actually offered constructive ideas at a committee meeting you might actually be involved in a back-and-forth discussion with the councillors. Nowadays you just perform and exit – unless you are among the politically privileged.

One suggestion made at yesterday’s meeting was that the City Manager and staff should send out weekly general updates of current topics being worked on by City staff. City Manager Yi-An Huang welcomed the idea but also expressed concern about “granularity” as he noted that at any given time there are ~2000 employees working on different things. Was the suggestion to have “weeklies” really be just about getting updates on the usual “hot topics” like bike lanes, BEUDO, and plans for recently-acquired City properties? It was also not made clear if these “weeklies” would be just for councillors or if they would be publicly available. Also unanswered was how such a protocol might mesh with the current daily updates to which many of us are subscribed.

One suggestion was that there should be a 311 system – a single point of contact for resident complaints and inquiries. This brought two things to mind. First, this sounds a lot like SeeClickFix – which is supposed to be the place for residents and elected officials alike to report problems. There seemed to be some sense that this system may not be functioning as well as it should be, and that when there is no response or action the calls go to city councillors. My experience has been that some kinds of SeeClickFix reports get an almost immediate response, and others languish for months or even years. It doesn’t help that some people view SeeClickFix as just another social media outlet on which they can bitch and moan about things that often go well beyond what the City can or should do. The other thing that came to mind was the proposal from over 20 years ago to create an Ombudsman Office that would respond to resident requests. That proposal went down in flames when councillors realized that responding to such complaints was an essential part of their political existence and that transferring that responsibility would only hurt their role in providing “constituent services”. In short, councillors often benefit from the existence of a problem.

Yesterday’s facilitator suggested that city councillors should be asking questions more than making statements. The response from some councillors was that this really doesn’t work in the context of a City Council meeting where you have to wait your turn to be recognized by the Chair and where technically all remarks are made through the Chair. I would note that in committee meetings this kind of questioning and back-and-forth conversation at least used to be common (and useful). It was also pointed out that the Open Meeting Law actually thwarts this kind of questioning and collaboration.

When the facilitators displayed their distillation of apparent City Council priorities (presumably based on some kind of questionnaire), the results were both predictable and misleading. The same can be said of the periodic Resident Surveys conducted on behalf of the City. Affordable housing always tops the list but rarely, if ever, is there any clarification of what that actually means. In one sense, it’s likely that 100% of residents want their housing to be affordable, but does that mean that they want to be able to buy a home on the open market at an affordable price, or does it mean that they want the City to subsidize the purchase? The same goes even more significantly when it comes to renting an apartment. I believe most renters simply want to see more affordable rents, and not necessarily that they want the City to subsidize those rents, but you would never know that from the Resident Survey or from the councillors’ prioritization.

It is worth noting that many, perhaps most, things that residents care about are not directly addressable by city councillors, the City administration, or from any level of government. Kindness, mutual respect, neighborliness, and voluntarism form the glue of society and likely have more to do with the satisfaction of living in a town or city than anything that was ever woven into a City Council policy order.

I was especially impressed when Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan noted that a major portion of City expenditures are in infrastructure, yet there was not even a mention of this in the list of City Council priorities. Perhaps this serves to highlight the difference between the politics of being an elected councillor and the management by City administration. Indeed, one of the greatest problems with a popularly-elected mayor as CEO is that it almost guarantees a greater share of attention and resources toward popular concerns and a corresponding decrease in focus on matters like infrastructure and municipal finance. I hope our current group of councillors keep this in mind as they debate possible Charter changes. It is, in fact, this focus on such matters by City management that allows the elected councillors to focus on more visible populist concerns.

Mayor Simmons bemoaned the fact that DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) was way down on the list of priorities, but stated that “this should be the lens through which we look at things.” It’s certainly one such lens, but fiscal responsibility, effective service delivery, responsiveness, and transparency are also pretty good lenses through which to look at and evaluate what we do as a city.

There was an interesting back-and-forth about the Envision plan and how it is often quoted or ignored depending on what you want or don’t want. There also continues to be a lot of misinterpretation of the goals and metrics in that report – especially in the area of housing.

Regarding Central Square, City Manager Huang stated that many of the goals contained in past studies have already been implemented – noting, in particular, bike lanes and outdoor dining. In fact, there is little mention of bike lanes in these past studies (perhaps due to how long ago the studies were produced), and much of the outdoor dining came about not from past studies but as an emergency response to the Covid epidemic as a means of helping some local businesses to economically survive. Indeed, the only significant new developments in Central Square happened independently of past studies, e.g. the Mass & Main (Normandy/Twining) zoning petition. It is my understanding that some new zoning proposals may be forthcoming based, in part, on some of the considerations of the C2 Study (from over a decade ago), but we’ll have to see where that road leads. – Robert Winters

February 12, 2024

Having Recently Secured World Peace, the Cambridge City Council Presents its February 12, 2024 Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 4:26 pm

Having Recently Secured World Peace, the Cambridge City Council Presents its February 12, 2024 Agenda

Here’s my first pass at the Feb 12 Agenda. Please note that the City Council will also meet the following morning (Tues, Feb 13) at 8:30am at City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 344 Broadway for a Goal-Setting Session.City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO) Economic Impact Report. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Azeem, Pickett, McGovern, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Simmons, Iram Farooq, Yi-An Huang, Owen O’Riordan; Placed on File 9-0

Not surprisingly, even though this report makes it abundantly clear that results are inconclusive due to insufficient data, partisans on either side are already drawing conclusions in their respective mailing lists and blog posts. Critical thinking in Cambridge is in short supply.

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Community Safety Department Update. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; introduction of CSD staff by Liz Speakman, description of start-up of the new department, collaboration with CPD, CFD; ready to launch in March; Toner asks about how large staff will eventually be; Toner asks about liability in the event of mistakes; City Manager notes significance of rapidly-evolving situations; responders not being sent into dangerous situations; opportunities to free up police officers; Nolan comments include H.E.A.R.T., asks about CSD staff members who were let go; Simmons and City Manager make clear that personnel questions are not appropriate for City Council; McGovern expresses concern about CSD collaboration with CPD, CFD; Speakman explains that theirs is not a “co-response model” and protocols for when responders may feel unsafe in a given situation; response via 911 and hope for an alternative for direct access; Sobrinho-Wheeler (ah-ah-ah) asks about background skills of staff, Speakman explains some of the training; JSW desperately trying to inject H.E.A.R.T. into discussion; City Manager notes that H.E.A.R.T. not doing emergency response, City has tried hard to work with them, calls it a challenge how City might work with H.E.A.R.T., only submitted their proposal 2 months ago and without an operational budget, suggestion that they focus on how to use the ARPA money previously allocated; McGovern asks what happens to ARPA money if H.E.A.R.T. does not spend it; Manager notes that funds must be drawn down by the end of the year and that funds could be re-allocated to other programs; Siddiqui says allocated money can continue for additional 2 years; Manager says that ARPA money must be allocated and spent by Dec 31, 2024; Wilson comments, wants to support H.E.A.R.T.; Toner asks if H.E.A.R.T. has done same training, Speakman assumes so but cannot speak for them; Azeem says badges and uniforms can yield respect, Speakman says there are multiple perspectives on this; Placed on File 9-0

I enjoy looking back at past promotional materials from the “H.E.A.R.T” advocates – just to remind myself of their unwavering disdain for police and policing, and the fact that their entire proposal amounts to little more than overt political patronage coupled with the continuing disregard by some councillors of the Charter prohibition against dictating who should be hired by the City administration. Our new Community Safety Department and their quest for alternatives to traditional police response continues to be challenged by this political interference.

Charter Right #1. Foreign Policy in Council. [Charter Right – Siddiqui, Jan 29, 2024]
Siddiqui says she wants to “speak my truth”, would not support an outright ban on foreign policy issues; notes many people who spoke on Ceasefire resolution who had never spoken before [but this may largely be due to their not living in Cambridge]; Azeem notes that Cambridge is an attractive target for activists to press their issue that relates little to Cambridge or not at all; Pickett notes many emails that say focus should be on municipal affairs; McGovern notes that Ceasefire issue took up a lot of time but that this is not the norm, notes that that resolution was sent to our elected officials (reps, senators, president) and that this is appropriate; Toner notes that we all have our own opinions and that the city is divided on this issue – not eager to be hearing from people all around the country; Nolan says it’s important to take this up in committee, but how do we represent the people of the city and not just the super-organized groups; Wilson calls this resolution unique [really?]; Siddiqui says she heard opposite of Pickett in emails; Simmons makes distinction between the message and the messenger – the disruptive nature of “by all means necessary” – people in City Hall visibly shaken; Toner notes that Thursday meeting will be on various issues and not just this issue; Order Adopted and Referred to Gov’t. Ops. 9-0

This would merely refer the discussion to the Government Operations Committee, and there’s no real explanation for why Ms. Siddiqui chose to exercise her charter right to delay this referral.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to commence the process of drafting updated district maps and development processes, along with the zoning language and relevant ordinances to allow for and encourage the continued growth, redevelopment, and evolution of Central Square.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner
taken up early by Nolan; Azeem briefly describes the order; McGovern comments; Nolan asks if target dates are achievable noting timeline for Alewife; City Manager speaks optimistically about how this could mesh with Central Square Lots Study; suggests Feb 26 or Mar 4 for first update; Siddiqui asks when Lots Study will come back to City Council; O’Riordan estimates 4-6 weeks; Toner wants more community input but notes all the past Central Square studies; McGovern notes that this is not only about heights and densities. desire that it should be exciting and lively; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Feb 6, 2024 to discuss the potential for business corridors and squares to promote urban scale, mixed use development in which the provisions of innovation space subsidizes the delivery of housing and ground-floor retail. [text of report]
comments by Toner, Wilson; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I am generally suspicious of matters like this one, but there’s no question that added development in Central Square – both residential and commercial – makes a lot more sense than anything the previous City Council supported and ordained. I hope that a serious and honest dive into the economics of such development is part of the upcoming discussion.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to facilitate the participation in a public hearing(s) and or working session(s) to address Racial and Gender Disparities in City contracting and procurement.   Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
taken up early by Wilson; Wilson calls results of the study “disgraceful” to the Black community, blames “systemic racism”; Siddiqui says civil rights lawyers are now scrutinizing City practices; Manager says City has been contacted by Lawyers for Civil Rights but that they are misreading the report especially in regard to public companies such as Staples, notes that such companies can submit lower bids and provide faster delivery; City is now wrestling with the report; Siddiqui suggests we can be “intentional” [but it’s not at all clear how that relates to being “legal”]; Nolan says only 1% going to women and BIPOC-owned companies; Toner will schedule a committee meeting on this topic; Simmons recalls “Buy Cambridge” initiative and how money was directed to BIPOC-owned companies during Covid, need to talk to people in departments about how they choose contracts; Order Adopted 9-0

It’s worth taking a look at the October 2023 Disparity Study Report (warning – it’s 379 pages), but the Executive Summary is just 15 pages and contains all the essentials.

Order #4. That the City Solicitor in collaboration with the Commissioner of Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Community Development Department and the Police Department research rules and regulations governing the use of Electric Micromobility Devices and what, if any, authority Cambridge has to introduce its own regulations of these Devices including speed and location of use, and report back to the City Council in a timely manner.   Councillor Pickett, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
taken up early by Wilson; Pickett notes need for streets to be safe for everyone, need for clarity on how these devices are used, state allows municipalities to regulate e-bikes appropriately, but not necessarily other micromobility devices, expect mid-March response from Law Department; Toner notes that City Council is not trying to limit options for people, but also capabilities of some of these devices, need for updated rules of the road; Nolan notes need to understand the limits of our legal authority; Wilson expresses need for safety for all; Manager says speed limit for e-bikes is 18mph; Azeem notes that he owns an e-bike and cannot get speed up to 15mph; Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Charter Review Committee held their final meeting on Jan 23, 2024 to review and discuss the Final Report. [all agendas, minutes, and video links]
Nolan thanks committee; notes goals, says current Charter no longer a permitted form [that’s not true]; lauds committee’s outreach [really?]; Nolan wants whole Council to be involved in evaluating the recommendations, and ensuing process, suggests having this go before voters in a special election; Minutes Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication from Kathleen Born, Charter Review Committee Chair, transmitting the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee.
pulled by Toner; Motion #1 to refer to Solicitor, Election Commission, others; Nolan, Azeem, Siddiqui wants this referred to committee of the whole rather than just Gov’t Ops.; Pickett notes this will be a lengthy process; Wilson thanks committee for their volunteer time, wants a structure for this discussion; (2) Motion #2 to refer to Gov. Ops.: Charter Right – Simmons; Motion #1 amended 9-0; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Toner Motion #1: That the City Manager direct the Solicitors Office, Election Commission and any other department deemed necessary, to review the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee and its proposals and provide written feedback on the legality and practicality of the proposals in advance of future discussion.
Adopted 9-0

Toner Motion #2: To refer the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee to the Government Rules, Operations and Claims Committee.
Charter Right – Simmons

And so it begins. I will have a lot to say about this in the coming months. – Robert Winters

February 7, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 607-608: February 6, 2024

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,campaign finance,Central Square,Charter,City Council,Deaths — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 6:47 pm

Episode 607 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 6, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Feb 6, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Charles Fried and a Capitol tale; Peter Valentine archive; Mapping Black Cambridge; campaign finance wrap-up; Gaza capitulation and activist misbehavior; the long history of foreign policy at the Cambridge City Council; City gobbling up Central Square; what’s in store for ’24. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 608 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 6, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Feb 6, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Foreign policy; Charter Review Final Report – manager vs. mayor, voting age, non-citizen voting, even-year elections, citizen assemblies – a critique; dysfunction in how we involve residents in decision-making; City Council “finding itself”, coming to terms with prioritization; City Council committee appointments; fending off the socialists; smart ideas vs. unreasonable mandates; better ways to manage public meetings with less Zoom and more interaction. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 17, 2023

How to turn a flawed AHO2 into a net positive for Cambridge

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,City Council,Harvard Square,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Hao Wang @ 2:33 pm

How to turn a flawed AHO2 into a net positive for Cambridge

Yesterday, October 16, 2023, the three-year-old Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zoning got a boost in height to 12 stories along Cambridge’s main corridors and 15 stories in Central, Harvard, and Porter squares. However, many expect the impact of this new law to be limited. The limitation for these buildings for 100% AHUs and nonprofit builders are preferred to construct will neither lead to a widespread success as a housing solution nor create these housing units fast enough. Besides, the implementation of it will surely meet neighborhoods’ opposition.

How do we create better outcomes for this flawed ordinance?

First, we must preserve our squares and corridors to the standards and characters that our neighborhoods desire. We can build with the support of our communities. A well-intended policy to house more people in our city must come with our appeals to neighborhoods’ support. More trees and open spaces can only improve the quality of life of our new residents. Building even taller buildings at the easier-to-build places will reduce the cost of the new units than force-building them at our squares and some stretches of our corridors.

Secondly, we should motivate commercial builders and allow these buildings for mixed-use and a good portion for market rates. We have a limited capacity to build. Cambridge is not known for producing large quantities of housing units quickly. If we are mostly limited to nonprofit builders, our ability to build will not fulfill the AHO or Envision Cambridge promises.

Lastly, we need to address the broader issues facing our city. The socioeconomic underpinning has shifted since Envision Cambridge.  Our city is undergoing a likely hollowing out of our middle classes, coupled with a poverty problem.  Gentrification is already happening, though incomplete. Our teachers, scientists, researchers, police, medical staff, and young college graduates all need housing. Many of them are forced to leave Cambridge and live elsewhere. Reducing the percentage of affordable housing units to less than 25% of the new build, coupled with increasing the threshold to apply for housing assistance, can help them to live and work here, to mix with our low-income population, which in turn will generate more jobs and opportunities for our low-income population, ultimately contribute to the eradication of poverty in our city.

The AHO2, however well intended, was created with less operation experience, little impact analysis, and essentially no implementation planning. The new council should work together to turn it into a net positive for our city.

Hao Wang

2023 Cambridge City Council Candidate

https://haoforcambridge.com

October 13, 2023

Another Monday Night of Diminished Expectations – October 16, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:31 am

Another Monday Night of Diminished Expectations – October 16, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Conspicuously absent from this week’s Peoples Republic of Cambridge International Affairs Agenda is a resolution where incumbent city councillors actually have to say out loud their take on what recently transpired in Israel. Bothsidesism gives way to nosidesism as they gauge how voters might respond. Meanwhile, a vote on “AHO 2.0” to further disenfranchise residents is expected to breeze through on the same 6-3 vote (while they still can). Then there’s reparations. Here are a few things:Peoples Republic of Cambridge

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order #23-147, regarding a report on whether change in language to the CSO is necessary to enable installation of permanent, seasonal, and/or temporary outdoor dining and pop-ups alongside separated bicycle lanes consistent with Cycling Safety Ordinance that address concerns about the current situation.
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (QZ-No)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the establishment of an Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund.
Order Adopted; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,903,731.64 from Free Cash to the Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund. The $1,903,731.64 appropriated to the Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund is the only the appropriation from Free Cash attributed to Opioid Settlement funds and will be used to fund specific future projects, per requirements of the settlement agreement, which will require separate individual appropriations by the City Council.
Appropriation Adopted; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-23 which clarifies the state law on zoning petition signature requirements to ensure clarity and lawful deliberation in the future.
Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the License Commission and other relevant departments to prepare recommendations on regulations that would ban or limit the sale of nips in Cambridge. [Charter Right – Toner, Oct 2, 2023]
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to reaffirm the city’s commitment to renovating the schoolhouse at 105 Windsor Street as a top priority following the completion of the Central Square lots study. [Charter Right – Simmons, Oct 2, 2023]
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from City Council, relative to Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) amendments. (Proposed Ordinance #2023-7) [Passed to 2nd Reading, Sept 11, 2023; Amended Sept 18, 2023; Amended Further Sept 18, 2023; Eligible to be Ordained; Expires Oct 29, 2023] (ORD23#7)
Ordained 6-3 (BA,AM,MM,DS,QZ-Yes; DC,PN,PT-No)

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to 2.76.020 enacted is to protect the human rights of all the residents of the City Protect Family Inclusion and Relationship Diversity [Passed to 2nd Reading, Oct 2, 2023] (ORD23#8)

Resolution #12. Resolution on the retirement of Steven A. Cohen from the City of Cambridge Planning Board.   Councillor Carlone

Resolution #13. Resolution of the retirement of Hugh Adams Russell from the City of Cambridge Planning Board.   Councillor Carlone

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to conduct a thorough assessment regarding the feasibility, costs, and benefits of replacing the existing community notice boards on the front lawn of City Hall with one or two digital signs.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department, the Finance Department, and any other relevant departments to investigate potential mechanisms to support Cannabis Business in Cambridge.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to establish an American Freedmen Commission.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted, Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Order #8. That the City Council schedule a roundtable on Mon, Nov 13, 2023, from 3pm-5pm to receive an update from the City Manager and relevant departments on the Central Square City Lots Study.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with DPW to restore Linear Park by re-using the existing award-winning design, to create, publish and implement a climate resilience-based maintenance plan and minimize the embodied carbon of the project by re-using, wherever possible, the existing lamps and lamp posts.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended, Referred to Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning Committee 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 13, 2023 to continue the discussion of potential amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay district as outline in the Nov 21, 2022 Policy Order adopted by the City Council. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Sept 27, 2023 to discuss the report and update on the City of Cambridge Disparity Study. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. A public meeting of the Cambridge City Council’s Ordinance Committee was held on Wed, Oct 4, 2023, to discuss changes to the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge relative to Chapter 5.50, Cannabis Business Permitting. The Committee approved a motion that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Law Department, the Finance Department, and any other relevant departments to investigate potential mechanisms to support Cannabis Business in Cambridge, including but not limited to: not collecting the local tax on Cannabis product sales, refunding some of the rent that was paid while awaiting a Special Permit, and limiting the number of stores that are allowed and report back to the City Council by Nov 20, 2023. The related policy order is on this agenda. The Committee voted to send the proposed ordinance language, as amended in Committee to the Full City Council with a favorable recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
Placed on File, Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Committee Report #4. A public meeting of the Cambridge City Council’s Ordinance Committee was held on Tues, Oct 10, 2023. The Committee approved a motion to send the Zoning Ordinance Petition relative to hen keeping to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
Placed on File, Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress