Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

December 14, 2009

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:53 pm

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting will be the next to last of the 2008-09 City Council term with one more to go next Monday. It’s notable how the number of Council Orders and Resolutions drops precipitously after Election Day. The City Manager has 7 responses to City Council requests on his agenda (dealing with parking, police details, the Red Line, tree wells, railroad tracks, trash pickup, and scabies), but we are blessed with just 3 new City Council Orders. Fortunately, Councillor Davis submitted the following Order before flying the coop on her way to Copenhagen:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments including the Inspectional Services Department and the City Solicitor to report back to the 2010 City Council in January on what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.   Councillor Davis

I have met these chickens and I hope we can provide them legal, affordable housing in Cambridge. This reminds me of the rooster that used to live behind a house on Columbia street diagonally behind the Squirrel Brand Community Garden (before the City sacrificed half the garden to build an underutilized mini-park in the name of community access – but I digress). I don’t know whether the rooster died or was evicted, but it was once a marvelous thing to hear the cock crow while visiting that garden. I’m sure the “new people” moving into the neighborhood did not appreciate that bird as I did.

So, let’s change the ordinances to allow the chickens to come home to roost. Maybe we should get some cows to graze on the Common while we’re at it.

There’s also this:

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cable Television Department to determine the reason for Comcast to be conducting a poll regarding the City’s Cable Channels and CCTV channels.   Councillor Toomey

I don’t know what the Evil Empire of Comcast is up to with this poll, but I’ll be happy to offer some feedback right here. It was not very nice to take away virtually all of the TV stations for Basic Analog Cable customers other than those that can be picked up off the air. Except for New England Cable News, CCTV, and the municipal stations, everything else recently vanished. Perhaps some stations would return if I got their digital service, but I expect that will require at least another $50 per month for the privilege of getting back some of these commercial-laden stations and it’s hard to justify this. I believe I’d have to pay close to $100 per month to see any Red Sox games. Meanwhile, Comcast is in the process of buying the National Broadcast Company (NBC) from General Electric for perhaps $35 billion. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him to break up the trusts?

My inclination is to say good-bye to Comcast. I hope others in Cambridge feel the same way. Of course, I’m sure the Evil Empire will only try to find other ways to restrict access to television programs unless their trolls are paid handsomely in order to buy up even more media companies. Welcome to The World of More.

Other business on tonight’s agenda includes 6 City Council committee reports as our elected officials scurry to close out the books for this term. There’s also the official word from the Election Commission that the School Committee Recount returned the same winners (after considerable cost even though there was essentially no chance that the results would change). — RW

November 26, 2009

Voter turnout in Cambridge by precinct

Filed under: 2009 Election,City Council — Robert Winters @ 10:40 am

Nov 26 – Voter turnout in Cambridge by precinct in the recent Cambridge City Council election:

Precinct Reg. voters Voted turnout Precinct Reg. voters Voted turnout Precinct Reg. voters Voted turnout
9-1 2160 788 36.5% 3-1 1593 468 29.4% 4-2 2319 536 23.1%
1-2 1686 609 36.1% 4-1 2092 603 28.8% 3-3 1539 336 21.8%
11-3 2403 861 35.8% 8-2 2002 552 27.6% 6-2 2035 428 21.0%
9-2 2346 812 34.6% 2-1 1817 497 27.4% 8-1 1565 283 18.1%
9-3 2187 756 34.6% 6-1 2079 555 26.7% 4-3 1029 182 17.7%
1-3 1757 603 34.3% 5-1 2362 611 25.9% 11-1 1704 274 16.1%
11-2 2178 729 33.5% 6-3 2125 540 25.4% 7-2 1239 169 13.6%
10-2 2236 720 32.2% 7-1 1998 507 25.4% 7-3 800 88 11.0%
5-2 2113 660 31.2% 10-3 1634 399 24.4% 8-3 743 71 9.6%
10-1 2401 716 29.8% 1-1 2265 542 23.9% 2-3 599 37 6.2%
5-3 2264 669 29.5% 3-2 1834 432 23.6% 2-2 762 40 5.2%

Citywide, there were 59,866 registered voters and 16,073 City Council ballots cast for an overall turnout of 26.6%. It should be noted that the registered voters include many “inactive” voters who may no longer live in Cambridge but who remain on the registered voter list due to requirements of the Motor-Voter Law. A more accurate value for the actual turnout may be about 34.4%.

October 19, 2009

October 19, 2009 City Council Agenda highlights

Filed under: City Council — Robert Winters @ 2:01 pm

Oct 19, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s agenda is relatively light, but there are a few notable items. In the weeks immediately preceding a municipal election, you can usually expect to see some effects of the campaign bleeding their way into the City Council agenda. Often this takes the form of a zoning petition carefully timed to come to a final vote immediately prior to the election, though this is not the case this year. Issues at the core of a challenger’s campaign which become topics at candidate forums can also pop up within City Council orders as the incumbents try to steal some thunder. One such example is Order #15 addressing the Council/Manager balance of power that has been beaten to death at candidate forums. Here are a few items that stood out:

Communication #5. A communication was received from Kathy Podgers, transmitting information on how stress makes allergies worse and last longer.

Though clearly irrelevant to the City Council or the business of the City of Cambridge, this letter highlights the ongoing grudge by Ms. Podgers directed toward Councillor Decker growing out of a City Council meeting a few years ago at which the presence of Ms. Podgers guide dog caused a substantial allergic reaction by Councillor Decker (who was pregnant at the time and unable to take anti-allergy medication) forcing her to leave the meeting early. My only comment is that the civic environment can only be diminished when people resort to lawsuits and personal vendettas instead of acceptable compromise. Besides, if a resident/candidate wants to take issue with an incumbent city councillor, there are better, more adult ways of doing so. This letter stinks of passive aggression.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to report back to the City Council with a legal opinion on whether or not listing public notices on the City website could fulfill the obligation of the City to publish legal notices.   Councillor Toomey

See comments entitled “Putting the Paper to Bed.”

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council if any residents are in danger of losing their housing due to the fiscal status of affordable housing providers in Cambridge.   Vice Mayor Seidel

I periodically wonder about questions such as this. The City has now worked collaboratively on many housing projects with companies like Just-A-Start, Homeowner’s Rehab, and CASCAP. As buildings age and the economic and political landscape shifts, how secure can the City’s “housing policy” be when so much of it is in the hands of agencies that are influenced by the City but not really under the control of any City department? Perhaps it’s better this way – almost a privatization of City housing policy. However, a day may come when some of these agencies will have costs that exceed their revenues. What then? Can they sell off some of their buildings to cover the rest?

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to submit to the City Council a request for an appropriation sufficient to enable the City Council to undertake academic or legal counsel to review the Plan E Charter.   Councillor Reeves

O-15     Oct 19, 2009
COUNCILLOR REEVES
ORDERED: That the Mayor and Cambridge City Council shall seek independent academic or legal counsel to review the Plan E Charter for the purpose of a clear and definitive explanation of the role and power of the City Council and the role and power of the City Manager before mid-December; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to submit to the City Council a request for an appropriation to the City Council Office Budget sufficient to enable the City Council to undertake this consultation on this timetable.

I’ve never seen the matter of the Council/Manager balance of power as particularly complicated or difficult to understand. The City Council passes ordinances, approves budgets, and determines overall policies (Orders) for the Manager to implement. The Manager submits an annual budget and oversees all of the operational details necessary to run the City government and implement City Council policies, including the hiring and management of all City personnel. If a majority of the City Council decides that the Manager is not properly doing his job, they can show him the door.

There is, of course, the reality that the long tenure of a Manager will tend to strengthen the hand of the Manager, but this is primarily due to the willingness of the City Council to go along with the wisdom gained by tenure. The flip side of this is that during the early years of a new Manager, the City Council will have the greater “wisdom” and the stronger hand. Such will be the case in just a few short years at the end of Robert Healy’s current contract, or sooner should he choose to retire earlier. Be careful what you wish for! Will this City Council be up to the challenge when the pendulum swings? To some, including this observer, this is a serious factor in sorting out the challengers as well as the incumbents. I’m not so sure that we now have nine who can choose a new Manager let alone manage their new Manager.

Is Reeves’ Order really asking a question or is he merely trying to shift the balance during an election in which some challengers have chosen to make the City Manager an issue? Is this just another page in the ongoing saga of last year’s Monteiro decision and this year’s Great Gates Case that have made their way into Reeves’ statements at candidate forums? Is it really necessary to obtain a budget for legal and academic consultation on this? My understanding is that Mr. Reeves has a Harvard law degree. Surely he can answer his own question as well as anyone. — Robert Winters

October 5, 2009

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:08 pm

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s City Manager’s Agenda is dominated by many responses (16) by the City Manager and staff to Council Orders requesting information. The City Council Orders may prove interesting. They run the gamut from violence in the Congo to tree wells, flagpoles, greyhounds, and the Police Review and Advisory Board. Some that drew my attention are:

Order #10. That the City Council hold a special meeting on the status of the Police Review and Advisory Board [PRAB] and all related topics. Councillor Kelley

Perhaps Councillor Kelley could be more nonspecific, but I doubt it. If the intention of this Order is to clean house on the Unfinished Business item that has been languishing on the agenda for half a decade, then this is good housekeeping at its best.

Unfinished Business #3. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Nov 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 2.74 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Police Review and Advisory Board Ordinance. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Feb 14, 2005. [Four sections of the proposed amendment were passed to be ordained as amended. Ordinance #1284. The remaining proposed amendments to chapter 2.74 remain on Unfinished Business.]

However, the vagueness of Kelley’s Order seems to open the door for a free-for-all during which we may be treated to speeches on a) the ongoing legal challenge to the Monteiro v. City of Cambridge verdict; b) the recent PRAB decision to take up the a case filed by a Boston-based advocacy group on the Great Gates Affair; and c) anything under the sun. I hope there’s at least one city councillor who will force a little more specificity on this.

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of the Cambridge Police Department’s policy on making available to the public information about crimes and suspects and other information not prohibited from public release. Councillor Kelley

This brings to mind a Council meeting a while back when Councillor Kelley asked that the Police Department publish a list of all the places where they regularly look for speeding violations. I’m all for public disclosure of useful information, but is it sensible for the Cambridge Police Department to announce in advance where they will or will not be looking for speeders? Regarding Councillor Kelley’s latest foray into police work, I would like it if complete descriptions of bad guys were made available after every crime, regardless of concerns about political correctness. Public safety is more important than concern for delicate sensibilities. On the other hand, I definitely don’t need to know about details in an ongoing investigation that might possibly compromise the investigation or subsequent prosecution. In some matters, you just have to trust the cops to do their job.

Order #17. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support House Bill No.3643 which would reduce the prevailing speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph in urban districts on local roads. Councillor Davis

This Order is notable only because of how many times we’ve seen it. It must be a dozen or more times that I’ve read essentially the same Order over the last decade.

Order #18. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support H.853 which would prohibit new buildings that cast new shadow on parks except during the first hour of sunrise or before 7:00 a.m. or during the last hour before sunset. Councillor Davis

It’s important to note that the proposed law would apply only to specific parks. There is already a law affecting the Boston Public Garden, the Boston Common, and the Lynn Common. This would expand that list to include Magazine Beach Park, the Esplanade, Christopher Columbus Park, the Rose Kennedy Greenway, the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, and Copley Square Park and would not apply to the long shadows of early morning or late afternoon. I suppose the devil is in the details and I would anticipate a few reasonable exceptions that may have to be made.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to provide a status report to the City Council on traffic safety measures in place at the intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway and Mount Auburn Street. Vice Mayor Seidel

They could start by painting some lanes to guide the traffic on Mt. Auburn as it passes through that intersection. However, all the traffic engineering in the world will likely have minimal effect on those drivers who continue to enter the intersection after the light has turned red. Red light cameras might help a lot. Let’s not forget that vote on March 23: Order #20. The City Council go on record supporting red light camera enforcement. Councillor Kelley and Councillor Toomey. Voting in favor: Davis, Kelley, Maher, Seidel, Toomey; voting against: Decker, Reeves, Simmons, Ward. — Robert Winters

September 21, 2009

Sept 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 3:13 pm

Sept 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s Big Item is the series of votes necessary to seek the Massachusetts Department of Revenue approval for the tax rate for FY2010. As Bob Healy reminds the councillors every year, the City Council does not set the tax rate. They adopt a budget in the spring and then take the required votes on tax classification, allocations from Free Cash and reserves, and on a variety of statutory exemptions. The Mass. Department of Revenue then determines and approves the tax rates based on what was sent by the City, but the end result in usually entirely predicable to the penny. There is a 6:30pm hearing during the meeting to discuss the property tax rate classification.

Every Cambridge resident should read the message submitted by the City Manager for this meeting. There are many lessons contained within. There are other agenda items of note, but everything else pales in comparison. — Robert Winters

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress