Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

July 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 557-558: July 19, 2022

Episode 557 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 19, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on July 19, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Sounding the alarm on BEUDO, perverse incentives, and bad design; Linkage and Incentive Zoning w/o incentives; thinking creatively. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 558 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 19, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on July 19, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: BEUDO, condos, and older buildings; Cambridge is not Ithaca; carrot vs. stick; non-inclusive process – policy-making in isolation; ARPA misspending; Cambridge policies, inequality by design, and market distortion; re-creating Central Square; new city management and departmental restructuring; Charter review update. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 7, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 551-552: June 7, 2022

Episode 551 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 7, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on June 7, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: City Council appoints Yi-An Huang as new City Manager; review of process; public perceptions and misunderstandings; born and raised in Cambridge treated as a liability; role of Deputy City Manager; all 3 appointments completed with commendable results. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 552 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 7, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on June 7, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Graduations, commencements, festivals, students moving out, road closures – perfect storm for Covid and traffic; Bikes Lanes, Memorial Drive closure and subtext of anti-car movement, class distinctions, ageism; Alewife Moratorium ordained without Triangle; fading Envision with shifting politics; trash toter rollout; communication breakdowns; BEUDO proposals unknown to stakeholders. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 16, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 541-542: March 15, 2022

Episode 541 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 15, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Mar 15, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Ides of March; Spring Training Baseball; Covid status; City Manager search & interim possibilities; Council complaints & light workload; Board appointments – “apply at your own risk”; misunderstanding the Charter and roles of councillors vs. manager. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 542 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 15, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Mar 15, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: “Moving Forward Together” w/o most involved councillor; Planning Board discussions re: single-family zoning, evolving roles as planners vs. petition reviewers; building the tax base; some history of Kendall Square, University Park, NorthPoint, Alewife Triangle, Alewife Quadrangle; planning before and after demise of rent control; Blurred Envision; real routes to affordability requires transit and not unilateralism; flexibility in residential uses. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

November 16, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 525-526: November 16, 2021

Episode 525 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Final Election process; reprecincting; Boncore vacancy; non-implementation of planning efforts in Alewife and Central Square; Alewife and Envision chronology; failure of well-paid councillors to show up for work; deep pockets and the means to achieve good results. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 526 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Detailed election results and analysis; the dominance of incumbency; political spin in the absence of mandates; importance of establishing a loyal political base vs. “movement” candidates; winners & feeders; slate voting results; Siddiqui’s margin of victory and dissatisfaction with other candidates; the Cincinnati problem; ballot transfers, #2 votes, alternate measures of popularity; School Committee campaign finance. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

November 7, 2021

Post-Election Mayoral Arm-Twisting Season Begins – November 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Post-Election Mayoral Arm-Twisting Season Begins – November 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Mayor Al VellucciThe Election is over save for the overseas votes, and it’s pretty much a wash. We replaced the retiring Tim Toomey with Paul Toner, and, for the kids, Sobrinho-Wheeler with Burhan Azeem. All of the incumbents were reelected to the School Committee and we added the lavishly well-funded Akriti Bhambi to fill the soon-to-be vacated seat. It’s always interesting to see how people associated with the various slates view these elections entirely through the lens of their respective slates and agendas with barely any acknowledgment of the fact that almost all of the incumbents were reelected based on their individual campaigns.City Hall coin

Now begins the season of phone calls and private meetings during which the various mayoral hopefuls try to make their case to be the next all-powerful weak mayor. Needless to say, Mayor Siddiqui’s 4121 #1 Votes gives her an edge (if she wants it), but I’m sure others will make the case in the name of “equity” and “whose turn it is” to ascend to the hallowed throne. Meanwhile, has anyone heard anything at all about where we stand on the rather important matter of selecting the next City Manager? Oops, I guess they must have forgotten.

As for the business of city councilling, here’s a sampler of what’s up for discussion/action/inaction this week:

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-84 regarding BEUDO (Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance) proposed amendments. [CDD Memo] [current draft] [City Solicitor opinion]
Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0

Covered under the proposed amendments are: (1) municipal property with one or more buildings with 10,000 sq ft or more; (2) one or more non-residential building(s) where such building(s) singly or together contain 25,000 to 49,999 sq ft); and (3) one or more residential building(s) that singly or together contain 50 or more residential dwelling units – rental or condos. So my electric and gas bills can stay safely in my bottom drawer – for now. Some councillors are already looking ahead to the day when they can drop the bar down to cottages or people living in a van down by the river.

Unfinished Business #5. Ordinance #2021-24 (Oct 25, 2021 Order #3) That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate staff to review the language of this proposed ordinance amendment and to report back to the City Council in advance of the next City Council meeting. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Oct 25, 2021; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 8, 2021]
Ordained as Amended 8-0-1 (Carlone – ABSENT)

How Dare You!This will pass 9-0 unless one of the councillors casts a protest vote because the proposal to label gas pumps doesn’t go far enough. Maybe the next step will be stenciling city roads with “How Dare You!” and a little Greta image.

Order #1. That the City Council go on record requesting that the forthcoming new Universal Design Playground located in Danehy Park be named the Louis A. DePasquale Universal Design Playground.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey
Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler (don’t let the door hit you on the way out, councillor)

There are some who choose to protest the naming of public facilities after people who are either still living or still working for the city. Just a reminder that we’re not issuing postage stamps or minting coins (well, except for perhaps Al Vellucci). So here’s to Thomas W. Danehy Park, the Walter J. Sullivan Water Treatment Facility, the Robert W. Healy Public Safety Building, and Timothy J. Toomey Park, and the Louis A. DePasquale Universal Design Playground. My ideal is a bit different, courtesy of the late, great John Prine.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments, as well as the Commission of Persons with Disabilities and the Special Education Parents Advisory Council, to develop a plan to install fully accessible equipment in every playground throughout the city.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This would be great, but presumably it means “in addition to the existing playground equipment” as opposed to “replace all playground equipment”. I doubt if monkey bars and skate parks can be made fully accessible.

Envision AlewifeOrder #4. That Article 20.90- Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance be amended to insert a new section entitled Section 20.94.3 – Temporarily prohibited uses.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
Charter Right – Toomey

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee met on June 2, 2021 to conduct a public hearing to discuss the Alewife Envision Plan.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I’m all for coming up with a grand vision for this area with multiple bridges crossing the tracks and all sorts of fun, new additions. That said, don’t you think all this grand visionary stuff should have been put in place long before parcels were sold with the presumption that they could be built out under existing zoning? Parcels in this area were apparently only very recently sold for a sum in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars. If the City were to now pass either temporary or permanent zoning changes that significantly decrease the development potential, it sure seems like a good case could be made by the new owners that they should be compensated for that loss. I hope that won’t happen, but this says a lot about the consequences of City Council inaction or lack of a coherent vision. By the way, the order contains one of the more interesting maps from the 1979 Alewife Revitalization study, a.k.a. “The Fishbook”.

Order #5. Upper Mass. Ave. Bike Lane Improvements.   Councillor Nolan
Amended 7-2 (DS,TT – NO); Charter Right – Simmons

The latest installment in the ongoing turf wars over roadway allocation where politicians deftly try to please all of the people all of the time. The problem here is, of course, that these things should never have been enshrined into an ordinance with inflexible mandates. But hey, don’t forget to sign The Pledge. Meanwhile, Cambridge roads are starting to feel more like a Habitrail for hamsters – overly prescriptive and thoroughly inflexible.

Committee Report #3. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee and the Housing Committee met on Aug 24, 2021 to conduct a joint follow-up hearing to continue the discussion on the elimination of single and two-family only zoning and restrictions on the type of housing that can be built city-wide.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0An Even Better (Bigger) Cambridge

Now that the election has passed it will be interesting to see how fast The Densifiers try to rush through their Big Plans. I do like the idea of relaxing some of the restrictions to allow more multi-family homes, but I would prefer to see housing growth based more on available opportunities than on wholesale revision and density doubling densification based on a transient and trendy philosophy and historical revisionism. We have been down that road before.

Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 20, 2021 to conduct a hearing on an ordinance amendment to reduce or limit campaign donations.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-0-2 (DS,TT-Present)

Policy Order/Home Rule Petition: That the attached Home Petition titled “Petition For An Act Authorizing The City Of Cambridge To Enact An Ordinance To Limit And Monitor Campaign Donations In Local Elections By Individuals Seeking Financial Reward From The City Of Cambridge” be forwarded to the General Court for adoption.   Councillor Carlone
Order and Home Rule Petition Tabled 7-0-0-2 (DS,TT-Present)

Late Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to provide a legal opinion regarding the effect of the proposed Ordinance to Limit and monitor campaign donations on the petitioners of a Citizens’ Petition and the Owners, Board members and employees of an organization seeking financial assistance from the City of Cambridge; and to draft enforcement language and to draft language exempting labor unions from the Ordinance and to provide an opinion about whether Somerville’s Ordinance regarding campaign donations would survive a legal challenge.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

While I may agree with the general idea of this proposal, the devil may lie in the details. It’s not always so clear which donors to campaigns are seeking or will eventually receive financial reward. For example, if someone contributes either money or labor toward a political campaign and is currently hired or is later hired as a City Council Aide, would that be a violation? Or is political patronage not covered under the proposed ordinance? – Robert Winters

February 16, 2021

A few observations on density

Filed under: Cambridge,planning — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:44 pm

A few observations on density

Feb 16, 2021 (w/Feb 17 addition of S. Normandy Ave.) – Several years ago I was thinking about the past, present, and future of Central Square and decided to simply take a walk through the Square with a camera with as objective an eye as I could manage. The result of that walk was something I called "Completing the Square" – a little math joke tied to the main observation that regardless of any opinions about how tall or dense Central Square may be or should be, there were lots of missing teeth and locations which could be improved by the presence of some new or enhanced buildings. That was before the new Mass & Main complex (now Market Central) was built.

In a similar vein, a couple of days ago I had the notion to do something of a virtual walk (in my head) along some streets with which I am quite familiar just to imagine how they might change under the proposed "Missing Middle Housing" zoning proposal. In my opinion, most of these streets function pretty well as they are and many of them (in particular those now zoned as Res C-1) would be considered pretty dense by any reasonable standard. I downloaded the City’s Assessors Database (thank you Open Data Portal!) and painstakingly reassembled all the living area information from the many condominiums in order to recreate the total living area to go with the total land area for each respective lot. (This was like reassembling puzzle pieces in some cases.) I then calculated the FAR (floor-area-ratio) for all lots on 28 representative streets (somewhat alphabetically biased as I went through them).

Prior to calculating some statistics on each of these streets I decided to exclude a few anomalies such as parks (no housing will be going there under any zoning revisions), municipal parking lots, City buildings (like City Hall, the Annex, DPW, etc.) as well as some lots that are in zoning districts unaffected by the proposed "Missing Middle Housing" zoning proposal, e.g. the Central Square BB district.
[You can view the data for each of these streets here.]

The summary sheet is below. Since there are already some nonconforming lots with FAR even greater than what is proposed in the petition, the increases noted below actually understate the increases under full build-out. On the other hand, it’s not likely that anything close to full build-out would happen any time soon (if the petition were to prevail), so this should be viewed more as a measure of what could eventually happen as opposed to what will happen in the near future.

Note that even a relatively dense C-1 street like Cherry Street in The Port could see a 66% increase in density. Chalk Street (Res C) could see a 72% increase. Cornelius Way could have a 175% increase (that’s 2.75 times the current density). Near me, Antrim Street could go up 47%, Maple Ave. could go up 84%, and Lee Street could go up 50%. In the leafy western "suburbs", a Res B street like Appleton St. could go up 137% (2.37 times the current density) and Lakeview Ave. (a mix of Res A-1 and Res B) would nearly triple in density. In contrast, Berkshire St. in Wellington-Harrington might only rise 2%, so I suppose this is the ideal street by the "Missing Middle" standard.

It’s also worth noting that there’s really nothing in the petition that would in any way ensure that the chief beneficiaries would be middle class residents. The petition is primarily a vehicle for increasing densities and this could just as easily translate into larger homes for those who can afford them or the freedom to add on significant additions to existing homes. In other words, the "middle" part of the "missing middle" petition is missing.- RW

Street zoning on street total
land area
total
living area
gross
FAR
median
FAR
max
FAR
min
FAR
MM
factor
MM
increase
Amory St. C-1 166187 146798 0.88 0.89 2.25 0.00 1.40 40%
Andrew St. C-1 39671 36841 0.93 0.94 1.46 0.44 1.33 33%
Antrim St. C-1 215140 182351 0.85 0.85 1.59 0.45 1.47 47%
Appleton St. B 362349 167623 0.46 0.53 1.11 0.00 2.37 137%
Arlington St. A-2,B,C-2 162551 82694 0.51 0.51 0.94 0.31 2.45 145%
Avon Hill St. A-2,B 159726 86824 0.54 0.64 1.04 0.25 1.95 95%
Bellis Circle B,C-1A 134257 86705 0.65 0.69 1.24 0.36 1.80 80%
Berkeley St. & Pl. A-2 335663 147702 0.44 0.44 1.08 0.18 2.87 187%
Berkshire St. & Pl. C-1 142900 162073 1.13 1.22 2.42 0.00 1.02 2%
Bigelow St. C-1 98544 99178 1.68 0.99 2.48 0.55 1.27 27%
Bristol St. C-1 105743 98448 0.93 0.89 2.09 0.34 1.40 40%
Brookline St. B,C,BA-1,C-1,BB,SD9 462788 420848 0.91 0.88 2.59 0.00 1.41 41%
Buena Vista Pk. C-1 58147 42787 0.74 0.75 1.05 0.46 1.67 67%
Centre St. C-1 112030 118881 1.06 0.86 1.81 0.58 1.46 46%
Chalk St. C-1 59707 40178 0.67 0.73 1.35 0.30 1.72 72%
Chatham St. C-1 45415 43055 0.95 0.87 1.73 0.61 1.44 44%
Cherry St. C-1 140624 83033 0.59 0.75 1.26 0.00 1.66 66%
Columbia St. C1,BA,BB-CSQ 419529 435148 1.04 1.01 3.33 0.00 1.24 24%
Coolidge Hill Rd. A-2,A-1 155629 65633 0.42 0.55 1.85 0.00 2.26 126%
Cornelius Way C-1 67640 31196 0.46 0.45 0.83 0.30 2.75 175%
Dudley St. B 162444 135259 0.83 0.83 1.48 0.24 1.51 51%
Hurley St. C-1 185549 196004 1.06 1.09 2.45 0.42 1.15 15%
Inman St. C-1 386571 347610 0.90 0.88 2.36 0.34 1.41 41%
Lakeview Ave. A-1,B 717287 299854 0.42 0.42 1.07 0.15 2.99 199%
Lee St. C-1 184726 167663 0.91 0.83 2.17 0.48 1.50 50%
Maple Ave. B,C-1 198500 132455 0.67 0.68 1.57 0.36 1.84 84%
Norfolk St. C-1,B,BA 445240 445634 1.00 0.88 3.31 0.00 1.41 41%
Pleasant St. C,C-1,BA-3 387351 425992 1.10 0.93 2.27 0.36 1.34 34%
S. Normandy Ave. B 69538 24909 0.36 0.38 0.51 0.19 3.26 226%
all sample streets   6181446 4753376 0.77          

gross FAR = total living area divided by total land area
median FAR = median FAR of all lots on the street
max FAR = largest FAR for all lots on the street
min FAR = smallest FAR for all lots on the street (note that there may be vacant lots with FAR of 0)
MM factor = ratio of proposed "Missing Middle" FAR of 1.25 to current median FAR for street
MM increase = percent increase in FAR from current median FAR under full build-out

FAR-MMcalculations

November 16, 2020

Choice Bits from the Nov 16, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,covid,planning — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:06 pm

Choice Bits from the Nov 16, 2020 Cambridge City Council Agenda

It’s a bit more substantial this week at the City Council meeting. Here’s my first pass at some of the interesting stuff:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $850,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Department Extraordinary Expenditures account, for a 30-Year Post Closure Evaluation and Report of Danehy Park.
Order Adopted 9-0

It’s hard to believe that it’s been 30 years since the old landfill was transformed into Danehy Park. I remember when we operated a volunteer recycling dropoff on Sherman Street back then (1989-1991) and the capped landfill was like a barren moonscape.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for acceptance of G.L. Chapter 39, Section 23D to allow members of adjudicatory boards and commissions to vote on a matter before the adjudicatory body of which they are a member if the board member has missed one of the sessions regarding the matter at issue.
Charter Right – Zondervan

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-10, regarding renaming the Agassiz neighborhood.
Placed on File 9-0Number 6

I guess there are some advantages to living in the Mid-Cambridge neighborhood, including the likelihood that the name will not be cancelled. Perhaps we should just use the neighborhood numbers. “You are Number 6”… “I am not a number! I am a free man!”

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $310,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used for consultant services to conduct a study that will evaluate resident experiences in affordable housing in Cambridge.
Order Adopted 9-0

Separate but equal?

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request that the City Council extend its prior authorization for the City Manager or his designee to grant street obstruction approvals, along with any other necessary approvals for temporary street obstructions, from this date until sixty (60) days past the end of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State of Emergency.
Order Adopted 9-0

It’s great that we’ll likely be extending the outdoor dining, but it’s hard to imagine this being a viable alternative during most of the winter. Then again, perhaps we can convince Moderna to make the vaccine available early to its home community.

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Green Energy Analysis Zoning Petition Substitute Zoning Text received from the Community Development Department and the Law Department.
Petition removed from Table, Amended with substitute language, and Placed on Table 9-0

This zoning amendment will most likely be ordained next week, and having more energy efficient buildings is unquestionably a good thing. I continue to have concerns about carrots vs. sticks. The inclination of this City Council – whether it has to do with energy efficiency, the management of trees on private property, or other matters – is primarily based on mandates rather than incentives. I hear that a new proposal is coming that would mandate “green roofs” on all new buildings above 20,000 sq. ft. as well as for major renovations. Such a mandate would also require a maintenance plan. I can see the value in green roofs, but I can also understand the desire for ease of maintenance. I doubt whether any of the current city councillors has ever had to make roof repairs.

Order #2. Update on City-Owned Vacant Properties Inventory.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #3. Resolution in Support of Harvard Janitors.   Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #4. Interpreters at Polling Locations.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Is the idea here to have multiple interpreters all day long for 34 different precincts? Considering the fact that the only things needing interpretation are ballot questions, wouldn’t a few brochures and a Hot Line suffice? Oh year, I forgot that Cambridge is a wealthy city, so we should just spend money regardless of actual need – especially if it lets us feel all woke ‘n stuff.

Order #5. That the enclosed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance be adopted to extend the temporary prohibition on tree cutting permits until Feb 28, 2021.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-0-1 (Toomey – NO; Simmons – PRESENT)

This ordinance and temporary moratorium appear to allow some discretion for property owners to manage the trees on their property as long as the plans are beneficial, but my trust for City mandates and micromanagement by city councillors is fading fast.

Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to review the granting of an extension for the 605 Concord Avenue project which appears counter to the City’s zoning code and confer with the relevant departments on how many projects that had a permit prior to these changes could request an extension.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but it seems to me that if a property owner was granted a building permit when certain rules and regulations were in place, then if any construction was delayed due to nondiscretionary circumstances (such as lawsuits, pandemics, etc.) the owner should not be subject to rules enacted after the granting of the permit. This question has come up before, e.g. in the emerging NorthPoint (Cambridge Crossing) area, and in other long-term Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). On the other hand, if someone simply chooses to delay construction beyond the time frame specified in the initial permit, then a reasonable case can be made to require the developer to seek a new permit subject to current rules and regulations. [some background]

Order #7. That the City Council go on record in opposition to the Fiscal Control Management Board plans to replace existing zero-emissions electric bus routes in Cambridge.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #8. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation to explore the feasibility of keeping Riverbend Park open beyond November 29.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Charter Right – Zondervan

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Patricia Nolan, Chair of the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebration Committee, for a public hearing held on Oct 7, 2020 on the reappointment of Christopher Bator to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years and to discuss the Envision Cambridge citywide plan, and review how to set priorities and goals.

Envision Cambridge should be viewed only as a starting point for an ongoing conversation. It’s really more of a staff-dominated laundry list of suggestions. Will city councillors improve on those suggestions and knit together the better ideas into something cohesive or will there just be committee hearings dominated by rhetorical competition? The paradigms were subverted some time ago – and simply replaced by other stale paradigms. – Robert Winters


Postscript – At the end of the meeting there was a Late Order from Vice Mayor Mallon and Mayor Siddiqui asking the City Manager to consult with regional mayors and to impose much stricter coronavirus restrictions on restaurants and other businesses. Councillor Zondervan suggested closing everything down. Councillor Toomey exercised his Charter Right to delay this to the next meeting. Mayor Siddiqui insisted that the closing/restricting of businesses was necessary in order that the public schools could be open for in-person learning but provided no evidence to support this. – RW

O-10     Nov 16, 2020  Charter Right – Toomey
MAYOR SIDDIQUI
VICE MAYOR MALLON
WHEREAS: Citywide, Cambridge businesses, the Cambridge Public Health Department and Cambridge Public Schools have implemented several protective measures and strategies to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 throughout the community; and
WHEREAS: Though these protective measures have kept Cambridge COVID-19 positivity rates lower than neighboring cities, Cambridge’s positive cases do continue to increase daily; and
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Public Health Department reported 44 new cases in Cambridge today, the highest number of new cases since the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS: Epidemiologists recommend closing bars, casinos and gyms, and other non-essential business activities to stop the spread of COVID-19 as a way to keep schools open; and
WHEREAS: Research suggests a strong correlation between indoor activities and the rise of COVID-19 community spread; and
WHEREAS: Indoor activities are contributing to the rise in cases in Cambridge, getting our metrics dangerously close to closing schools and resuming remote only learning again; and
WHEREAS: We must take action to restrict the activities of non-essential businesses and gatherings in order to keep our schools open; and
WHEREAS: We must prioritize our scholars and their education as we navigate through the next phase of the public health crisis; and
WHEREAS: Our efforts must be part of a regional response in order to not unfairly penalize Cambridge restaurants and small businesses; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager confer with the Metro Mayor’s Association to close indoor dining, gyms, casinos and other non-essential indoor activities as soon as possible; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager, Community Development Department, the Economic Development Division, the Assessing Department and other relevant City Departments organize a small business and restaurant relief program that will assist during this second shutdown and our efforts to stop community spread of COVID-19 and keep schools open.

January 8, 2020

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 443-444: Jan 7, 2020

Episode 443 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 7, 2020 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Jan 7, 2020 at 5:30pm. Topics: City Council and School Committee Inaugurations; Election of Mayor, Vice-Chair of City Council; School Committee & Cancel Culture; City Manager Contract on the horizon; Liberalism vs. Radicalism; Freakonomics in affordable housing, small business, and the Achievement Gap; money doesn’t solve everything. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 444 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 7, 2020 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Jan 7, 2020 at 6:00pm. Topics: City Council priorities; return of Subsidized Housing Overlay proposal or alternatives; tenant protections and condo regulation; protection vs. control; zoning & development in Central Square, near Union Sq./Green Line Extension; Alewife possibilities, including multiple bridges. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress