Heading Downhill Fast – May 11, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting
Here are the agenda items that interested me this week:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the City’s digital equity work. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Maria McCauley, Sue Walsh, McGovern, Al-Zubi, Jason Lee, Zusy, Siddiqui; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $312,000 to support the City’s digital equity efforts through a Digital Navigator position at the Cambridge Public Library for up to 3 years. [text of report]
Order Adopted 9-0
The report on the City’s digital equity work is impressively detailed and also direct and honest about the reasons for focusing on digital equity rather than investing a king’s ransom on a Municipal Broadband network. I will make only two relevant comments. First, for many people (including me), accessing and learning how to use technology often comes via help from friends and some degree of trial and error rather than through a City-sponsored program. Second, many people – including many of my students – primarily use their phones for Internet access and for most of their digital needs. This fact was not mentioned in the report. Personally, I have never had anything other than a land-line, and I don’t think I could get by without a fast desktop computer loaded with useful software.
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $65,000 to support World Cup watch parties across Cambridge. [text of report]
Order Adopted 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the successful completion of the 221 Mount Auburn Street demolition. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Kathy Watkins, Azeem, Yi-An Huang, Zusy, Flaherty, McGovern; Placed on File 9-0
I am very interested to see how the condominium owners who lost their homes will recover at least some of their investment. I also have some questions regarding whether the owners of a building lost in a fire or, in this case, an emergency demolition must follow all current zoning rules or if they can simply rebuild, more or less, to the specifications of the previous structure. I recall that after the Berkshire Street conflagration of December 2016 the Planning Board made some recommendations in this regard in early 2017 which became the basis for Ordinance 1393 that was ordained on April 24, 2017.
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the relevant departments to immediately request Empower to resign from the Massachusetts High Technology Council and consider options for transitioning the City of Cambridge out of Empower and transferring its retirement accounts into one of the City’s other retirement programs should Empower continue to be a member of the MHTC. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Al-Zubi, Mayor Siddiqui
Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler
This is yet another example of the intolerance of the current City Council. Simply because an entity espouses a different point of view, the knee-jerk response is to disaffiliate. By the way, I still use Twitter daily – and it’s nice to know that it’s like wearing a cloaking device where I can be invisible to city councillors who could never possibly admit that they will be seen anywhere but Bluesky or another approved social media. I also continue to happily bank at Citizens Bank.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments including the Law Department to ensure that there is no new data collected by ShotSpotter devices and all existing data shall be kept, used, or deleted only as required by law under our Welcoming Community Ordinance and Surveillance Technology Ordinance. Councillor Al-Zubi, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Simmons; comments by Al-Zubi, Simmons (on “performative allyism” and “saviorism of marginalized people”, calls the order “borderline insulting to people who look like me” – “Have you had your son shot down in the street? I have.”); Charter Right – Azeem
This Order is an outgrowth of the comically inept Public Safety Committee meeting that I attended on April 29 at which virtually all of the public comment came from DSA members. They expressed their belief that their private conversations were being recorded. However, the presentation from the Cambridge Police clearly stated: “There has never been a conversation recorded in Cambridge.”
The Order asserts that “ShotSpotter … has a false positive rate of about 82 percent in Cambridge.” I know math is hard for some people, but I will simply point out that if ShotSpotter detected even a single car backfire or a firecracker and if there were zero gunshots in Cambridge, the false positive rate would be 100%. The fact that most detections are not caused by gunfire should perhaps best be understood as Cambridge having relatively few gunfire incidents – an unequivocally good thing.
Let’s be clear what Councillors Al-Zubi, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, and Nolan are calling for in this Order (as it speaks volumes about the low priority they apparently afford public safety): (1) That the City Manager … rescind prior approval of ShotSpotter, including ending any and all contracts with ShotSpotter; and (2) That the City Manager … direct the Police Department to stop using ShotSpotter, including turning off and physically removing the surveillance tools no later than 90 days. This is just crazy.
Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Mayor’s Office, Law Department, Election Commission, and other relevant City Departments to engage the Collins Center in assisting the City in reviewing policy options for allowing Cambridge voters to directly elect the City’s Mayor. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, Nolan, Azeem (would prefer Instant Runoff), Zusy (questions why this is being considered now, calls it a distraction), Siddiqui (who still apparently believes that only incumbent city councillors should be involved in proposing charter changes), Megan Bayer, Flaherty (sees this as Step 1 toward eliminating our city manager form of government, says the mayoral selection was a very positive experience – politics at its finest, outstanding), Simmons (notes that the mayoral question did not meet the threshold for consideration from the Charter Review Committee); Charter Right – Simmons
Though this Order calls only for “reviewing policy options”, let’s be clear that this is really about the desire of some councillors – and especially our current Mayor – to eat their cake and have it too. There was a recent Charter Review process – one in which Ms. Siddiqui placed her thumb on the scale in the appointment of the Charter Review Committee – which resulted in a new Charter that was adopted only a few months ago. Perhaps the greatest flaw in that entire flawed process was that it ultimately placed essentially all choice in what would be presented to voters into the hands of incumbent city councillors. Then again, simply going with what a slim majority of the Charter Review Committee recommended would have been even worse. It was a small miracle that most of the really crazy stuff received enough push-back that we managed to somehow get a proposed Charter that preserved most of the good aspects of the previous Plan E Charter.
As has been pointed out many times, the position of Mayor in Cambridge is really comparable to the position of President of the City Council in cities like Boston and elsewhere. The CEO of Cambridge is its City Manager who is hired by majority vote of the City Council. A directly elected mayor is more appropriate to a strong mayor system of local government – and that is not the form of government that voters approved last November.
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to do extensive outreach to residents, businesses, and property owners to communicate the current water level status and take all measures to reduce nonessential water use citywide, and provide a report on citywide water usage and water supply. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Nolan for comments; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #5. Foreign Policy Issues in the City Council. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons
pulled by Simmons; comments by Nolan (no one is silencing anyone, notes that it would be equally inappropriate for our federal representatives to weigh in on our local issues), Simmons (notes that issues outside Cambridge do often affect us locally, but this is about we use our time here), Azeem (moves to bring forward Charter Right #1); Azeem notes that his views have changed, calls City Council processes strange – most matters go through a committee process, but a matter like this goes through no process, says he will now support this foreign policy order on Cuba, questions image of Cambridge as a progressive city if this only has 5 votes; McGovern says he will vote for this, says it is our business to take a stand on Cuba; Al-Zubi will vote No, attacks Israel, says the Council can do what it wants; Sobrinho-Wheeler says he will vote Yes on Cuba resolution, No on the Order re: foreign policy issues, suggests that only millionaires can have influence at the U.S. Congressional level; Zusy expresses sympathy for the people of Cuba, but we could take up issues from around the world at every meeting – will vote for this Order, but will vote “Present” on the Cuba issue; Flaherty will also vote “Present” on the Cuba order – we could do this every week, but we should focus on things within our boundaries, notes upcoming local charity drives for Cuban people and invites people to open their wallets; Siddiqui says she will support Cuba resolution and will vote No on Order #5; Simmons responds to public commentary re: Caroline Hunter and her fight against apartheid in South Africa and how much grief she got in Cambridge at the time for her efforts – will not vote for the Cuba issue – why won’t we address voting rights matters now in the center of national debate – notes the many important matters that have happened in Cambridge that received little or no attention; Order Adopted 6-3 (Azeem, Flaherty, McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Zusy – Yes; Al-Zubi, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui – No)
Charter Right #1. That the City Council go on record calling upon President Trump to immediately rescind Executive Order 14380, immediately enter meaningful negotiations with the Cuban government with the goal of ending the United States oil embargo, and carry out his foreign policy agenda with respect to the wishes of the people of the United States and in accordance with international law. [Charter Right – Nolan, May 4, 2026]
Azeem motion to take this up with Order #5 (see above); additional comments by Nolan; Order Adopted 5-0-0-4 (Al-Zubi, Azeem, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui – Yes; Flaherty, Nolan, Simmons, Zusy – Present)
I am eager to hear what State Senate candidate Azeem will have to say about this. He did, after all, make a very clear statement a while back about his intention to vote “Present” on all such foreign policy orders, but I suppose when there’s a throng of potential DSA worker bees in the audience clamoring in support of this particular policy order, it’s probably good for the campaign to jettison previous positions.
At the May 4 City Council meeting three councillors (Nolan, Simmons, Flaherty) stated that they would be voting “Present” on this Cuba order. I hope they can get to five voting “Present”, and I say that even though I agree that maintaining the current impasse with Cuba is ridiculous.
By the way, whenever the topic of Cuba comes up, I can’t get the Irving Berlin song “See You in C-U-B-A” out of my head. The Chenille Sisters also have a great version.
Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the projected fiscal impact of maintaining the current exemption for seniors, along with any administrative steps necessary to do so. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zusy
This seemed to be the consensus at the April 28 meeting of the City Council’s Transportation (etc.) Committee. I really hope this Order prevails if for no other reason than that the permit fee is a nuisance. Meanwhile, in neighboring Arlington, there’s this: “COA Parking Sticker entitles the sticker-holder to park for FREE in Arlington at metered parking spots and in municipal parking lots, up to the maximum time posted on the meter (4 hours).”
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, Zusy, McGovern (w/various proposed amendments, also wants to exempt low-income people), Al-Zubi (refers to “class analysis”), Flaherty (would like to be added as sponsor, feels that no senior should pay the fee while Transportation is getting $22 million in revenue), Azeem (worried that we’re trying to get too clever with this); Nolan (still believe we should charge what the program costs, but never questions the cost estimates – still wants to maintain $75 for all but with checkoff to reduce to $25, including seniors); Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler
Communications & Reports #3. Draft 2026-2027 Rules of the City Council [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler for comments; Late Policy Order (Flaherty, Councillor Simmons) introduced, JSW immediate Charter Right; Nolan disagrees with 9:00pm proposed end time – feels 10:00pm would be more appropriate, has other suggested amendment re: striking a proposed cap of only two opportunities to speak on a given matter; Siddiqui outlines options; Azeem agrees with Nolan proposed amendments, agrees with breaking meeting into two days when needed; Al-Zubi prefers to refer to committee or to exercise Charter Right; Siddiqui moves to adopt rules; Charter Right – Flaherty
Late Order #7. That a special Committee of the City Council be formed to conduct a full and complete analysis of each of the proposed changes, with full the goal of a transparent understanding of each of the proposed changes and the implications. Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Simmons
Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler
Perhaps the most interesting proposed Rules change is this:
Rule 17A. All regular meetings of the City Council shall be held that week starting on Monday and ending on Tuesday. The City Council meeting shall start on Monday at 5:30pm and shall continue until either the conclusion of all business on the agenda or until the meeting recesses at 9:00pm, whichever occurs sooner. If the meeting is recessed on Monday at 9:00pm, the City Council meeting will resume the following Tuesday at 1:00pm and shall continue until the conclusion of all business on the agenda or until 5:00pm, whichever occurs sooner.
I think this is a terrible idea. – RW
This week’s agenda is dominated by several City Council Orders meant to address (or navigate around) the contentious issue of whether the proposed separated bicycle lanes, removal of most of the existing parking, and loss of curb access should proceed on Broadway as currently mandated by the Cycling Safety Ordinance. This is not really a matter of safety so much as political clout. Some straightforward analysis using the current registered voter list indicates that those who want the street reconfiguration to proceed as planned are approximately 25 years younger than those who have signed the petition opposing the reconfiguration. It is also anecdotally clear that there is also a large gap in socioeconomic status. Basically, young professionals are well-represented among those wanting to remove the parking, and those in opposition include far more seniors, people with mobility issues, and people who need their motor vehicles for work and chores.
