Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

November 14, 2012

Cycle track disease is contagious!

It crosses over from Cambridge to hit the slippery slope (literally) in Somerville.

Please see my extended comments here: http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=4862

November 7, 2012

Cambridge Election Results: Nov 6, 2012

Filed under: 2012 election,Cambridge — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 10:43 am

State & Presidential Election Unofficial Results November 6, 2012
(Cambridge Totals Only – from City website)
Unofficial Results do not include Write-In, Auxiliary, Overseas Absentee or Provisional Ballots.

ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT Party Votes %
Johnson and Gray Libertarian 550 1%
Obama and Biden Democratic 41,991 86%
Romney and Ryan Republican 5,340 11%
Stein and Honkala Green-Rainbow 906 2%
SENATOR IN CONGRESS
Scott P. Brown Republican 7,463 15%
Elizabeth A. Warren Democratic 41,127 85%
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
Fifth District
Edward J. Markey Democratic 21,048 90%
Tom Tierney Republican 2,297 10%
Seventh District
Michael E. Capuano Democratic 19,641 88%
Karla Romero Independent 2,690 12%
COUNCILLOR, Sixth District
Terrence W. Kennedy Democratic 38,657 100%
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
Middlesex and Suffolk District
Sal N. DiDomenico Democratic 18,915 100%
First Suffolk and Middlesex District
Anthony W. Petruccelli Democratic 6,775 89%
Thomas J. Dooley, III Republican 801 11%
Second Middlesex District
Patricia D. Jehlen Democratic 12,640 100%
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT
24th Middlesex District (Cambridge Only)
Tommasina Anne Olson Republican 177 7%
David M. Rogers Democratic 2,169 85%
James F. Gammill Open Innovative Government 207 8%
24th Middlesex District (Arlington, Belmont & Cambridge)
Tommasina Anne Olson Republican 4,420 20.5%
David M. Rogers Democratic 12,338 57.1%
James F. Gammill Open Innovative Government 4,857 22.4%
25th Middlesex District
Marjorie C. Decker Democratic 14,997 100%
26th Middlesex District (Cambridge Only)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. Democratic 7,752 69.2%
Thomas Michael Vasconcelos Republican 596 5.3%
Mike Connolly Progressive Independent 2,855 25.5%
26th Middlesex District (Cambridge & Somerville)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. Democratic 10,772 68.3%
Thomas Michael Vasconcelos Republican 1,010 6.4%
Mike Connolly Progressive Independent 3,968 25.2%
Write-in   16 0.1%
29th Middlesex District
Jonathan Hecht Democratic 7,361 100%
8th Suffolk
Martha Marty Walz Democratic 5,053 100%
CLERK OF COURTS, Middlesex County
Michael A. Sullivan Democratic 38,629 100%
REGISTER OF DEEDS, Middlesex Southern District
Maria C. Curtatone Democratic 37,423 100%
SHERIFF, Middlesex County (to fill vacancy)
Peter J. Koutoujian Democratic 34,430 88%
Ernesto M. Petrone Unenrolled 4,596 12%
STATEWIDE BALLOT QUESTIONS (For full text of the statewide ballot questions (questions 1-3), please see http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/message12.htm
Question 1: Availability of Motor Vehicle Repair Information
Yes 35,841 88%
No 4,715 12%
Question 2: Prescribing Medication to End Life
Yes 30,909 68%
No 14,639 32%
Question 3: Medical Use of Marijuana
Yes 36,063 79%
No 9,564 21%
NON-BINDING PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS
Question #4:
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and the President to: (1) prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits, or to housing, food and unemployment assistance; (2) create and protect jobs by investing in manufacturing, schools, housing, renewable energy, transportation and other public services; (3) provide new revenues for these purposes and to reduce the long-term federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes, ending offshore tax havens, and raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and (4) redirect military spending to these domestic needs by reducing the military budget, ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing U.S. troops home safely now?
Yes 32,812 82%
No 7,134 18%
Question #5 (Wd 1, Wd 2 Pct 1, Wd 3, Wd 4 Pct 2, Wd 6, Wd 7, Wd 8, Wd 9, Wd 10, Wd 11)
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?
Yes 25,944 78%
No 7,294 22%
Question #5 (Wd 2 Pcts 2&3, Wd 4 Pcts 1&3, Wd 5)
Question #6 (Wd 1, Wd 2 Pct 1, Wd 3, Wd 4 Pct 2, Wd 6, Wd 7, Wd 8, Wd 9, Wd 10, Wd 11)
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?
Yes 39,206 87%
No 5,872 13%
Question #7 (Wd 9, Wd 10 Pct 3, Wd 11)
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and the President to: (1) prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits, or to housing, food and unemployment assistance; (2) create and protect jobs by investing in manufacturing, schools, housing, renewable energy, transportation and other public services; (3) provide new revenues for these purposes and to reduce the long-term federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes, ending offshore tax havens, and raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and (4) redirect military spending to these domestic needs by reducing the military budget, ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing U.S. troops home safely now?
Yes 7,805 82%
No 1,720 18%

In Somerville, Question 4 (Community Preservation Act) passed on a 76%-24% vote.

November 4, 2012

Meanwhile, outside of Ohio – Nov 5, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

Filed under: 2012 election,Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:24 pm

Meanwhile, outside of Ohio – Nov 5, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

On Election Eve when the focus of one or more members of the City Council is on the next day, the tradition is to have a very short meeting. Colleagues generally respect this, and it’s considered offensive to violate this tradition. Here are a few items that drew my attention for this (hopefully) short meeting:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the results of the bi-annual Citizens Opinion Survey for 2012. [Survey Results]

Short version – everybody’s happy except for a few raised eyebrows about the quality of the public schools. The once ultimate priority among residents on affordable housing is now barely a blip on the radar. People are now more concerned about public safety and quality City services. Nobody is outraged by the tax rates, especially condo owners.

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-115, regarding additional information requested on accessibility and other potential barriers at polling locations.

This is a follow-up report requested by Councillor Decker who spent the last meeting berating good City employees for no good reason. Just because a politician has some skin in the game does not give her license to bully people who are doing their best under circumstances over which they may not have total control. One has to wonder whether elevation to the state legislature will bring a little grace and perspective to this politician. If not, she should expect a lot of pushback from her future colleagues and maybe an actual challenger in the 2014 election.

Charter Right #2. That the Mayor and the Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee are requested to provide updates every other week on the status of the City Manager search process to the City Council and to work with the City’s Information Technology staff to have those updates posted on the City Council website under a separate tab on the City Council’s page on the City’s website. [Charter Right exercised by Mayor Davis on Order Number One of Oct 22, 2012.]

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on Oct 24, 2012 to discuss the visioning process for the City of Cambridge and the City Manager search.

The City Manager selection process carries on – sort of. At the recent committee meeting, the strong suggestion was that the councillors should expect glacial progress with an actual candidate not arriving until possibly 2014 after the current City Council term has passed. Naturally, that suggestion didn’t sit well with some councillors – ironically the same councillors who were most in favor of an elaborate process of self-realization, soul-searching, goal-setting, and kumbaya-singing prior to hiring a successor to Bob Healy. I expect there to now be some movement toward a more abbreviated process, and I would not be at all surprised if the whole process falls apart by next summer and 5 councillors just make a motion from the floor to hire someone they like.

Unfinished Business #10. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Oct 3, 2012 to discuss a zoning petition filed by Susan Yanow, et al to rezone……

Nothing will likely happen with this silly petition to downzone Central Square. The Council voted to "leave to withdraw" at the previous meeting in response to a request of one of the petitioners to withdraw the petition. Expect it to gather dust on Unfinished Business until it expires on New Year’s Day. Meanwhile, the actual planning process with Goody/Clancy and the short-term "Central Square Advisory Committee 20011-12" continues. Their next meeting is Wed, Nov 7 to attempt to formulate final recommendations. Where it all goes from there is an open question.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works on the feasibility of installing recycling bins adjacent to trash bins and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

It should be noted that there has already been a dramatic increase in the number of "Big Belly" recycling bins in Central Square and elsewhere. There is a cost associated with each new installation, but there are also considerations about maintenance of these bins. They can very easily become just another trash bin to careless people, and that does not promote recycling.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Law Department, the Chief Information Officer of the Information Technology Department and any other relevant departments to evaluate the feasibility of ensuring all city-sponsored committee hearing minutes are available online and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

No argument with this Order, but I wonder sometimes what the actual demand really is for this enhanced availability and whether the cost is always worth it. Let’s hope that the response to this Order is just a revision to the protocol for generating and making these documents available – rather than a lot of additional labor with greatly diminishing returns.

One more thing: Life will go on relatively unchanged for most people regardless of Tuesday’s election outcome. You might not believe that based on all the rhetoric generated by the Senate and Presidential election campaigns. – RW

October 22, 2012

Culture, Rats, and Parking: Oct 22, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:02 pm

October 22, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights: Culture, Rats, and Parking

Tonight’s City Council agenda is short but contains a few interesting items:

Resolution #4. Congratulations to the newly state-designated Central Square Cultural District.   Councillor Reeves

This is yet another signal of the ongoing revival of Central Square and the need to maintain the positive momentum. The next steps should involve some additional housing construction and "filling the gaps" where inappropriate one-story buildings now occupy parcels that once had more appropriate scale buildings – on the order of perhaps 4 or 5 stories at the sidewalk. There seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel regarding the eventual report of Goody/Clancy and the associated short-term advisory committee for Central Square. One of the greatest problems over the years is that interest in Central Square is cyclical – a push for some flavor of improvements and then the excitement dies down for another decade or so. It is certainly the case that Central Square is not Kendall Square and that the appropriate densities for these respective areas are not the same, but the right balance has to be created in Central Square so that the residents, businesses, and cultural attractions can all thrive – and we’re not there yet.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Oct 3, 2012 to discuss a zoning petition filed by Susan Yanow, et al to rezone from the existing Business A to Business A-1 the areas bounded by Windsor, Main Streets, Bishop Allen Drive, Columbia, Prospect and Norfolk Streets; rezone from the existing Bus. B and CRDD to a proposed new district Bus. B-3 in the area bounded by Green, Landsdowne, Magazine and Prospect Streets and Mass. Ave. define as a protected neighborhood zone the area zoned Res. C-1 and bounded by Portland, Main and Windsor Streets and a line 120 feet north of and parallel to Main Street; rezone the areas currently identified as Municipal Parking Lots along Bishop Allen Drive to a proposed new Municipal Parking District (MP).

There is word going around today that the petitioners have withdrawn their petition. It’s not really clear that a petition that has been filed with 36 signatures can be "withdrawn" simply on the word of one or several of its proponents. There seems to be a suggestion that this withdrawal is being done strategically with the intent of revising and re-filing the petition. This would be a mistake. Such an absurd petition should be voted and defeated. Zoning petitions should not be filed simply as expressions of unhappiness. That’s what "letters to the editor" and the public comment period during City Council meetings are for.

Order #1. That the Mayor and the Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee are requested to provide updates every other week on the status of the City Manager search process to the City Council and to work with the City’s Information Technology staff to have those updates posted on the City Council website under a separate tab on the City Council’s page on the City’s website.   Councillor Kelley

All sentiments like this are in order. The choice of city manager is the single most important decision to be made by the City Council, and residents and other interested parties have a right to know what’s going on so that they can express themselves to their elected representatives – the only 9 people who will actually make the decision. My main reservation in this matter is that this might turn into some kind of "process carnival" in which every aspect of life in Cambridge is discussed with minimal focus on the only thing that really matters – the capacity to competently manage this city. I also have some concern that with this City Council, the tail might wag the dog and we could end up with a hopelessly wrong choice for the next city manager.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work together with Inspectional Services Department, the Department of Public Works, the Law Department, the Public Information Department, the Public Health Department and a group of concerned residents and property owners to explore action on suggestions for controlling the rodent population.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

This is one area in which her City Council colleagues should definitely heed the advice of Councillor vanBeuzekom. Prior to her election, Minka was an expert member of the Cambridge Rodent Task Force. Rodents quake in fear at the mention of her name.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City officials to explore the possibility of completing an on-street parking census and the impacts of a plan for the gradual reduction of on-street parking spaces over the next decades.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Here’s where I part company with Councillor vanBeuzekom. Though some of my climate change friends may believe otherwise, on-street parking spaces are an essential resource for those who live in this "streetcar suburb" and who do not have access to off-street parking. I cannot respect the desire of an elected official who has off-street parking dictating to the rest of us that we should lose our parking in order to produce a negligible effect on world climate. – Robert Winters

October 1, 2012

Gathering Storm in Central Square – Oct 1, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:11 am

Gathering Storm in Central Square – Oct 1, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Here are a few items of interest on tonight’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek approval from the Mass Dept. of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2013.

Here are some excerpts from the City Manager’s message on this topic:

"I am pleased to inform you that the actual FY13 property tax levy of $316,947,770 reflects a $17,857,132 or 5.97% increase from FY12, which is lower than the estimated increase projected in May 2012. The FY13 Budget adopted by the City Council in May 2012 projected a property tax levy increase of $19.7 million, or 6.6%, to $318,818,195 in order to fund operating and capital expenditures. The FY13 operating budget has increased by 2.87%."

"Based on a property tax levy of $316.9 million, the FY13 residential tax rate will be $8.66 per thousand dollars of value, which is an increase of $0.18, or 2.1% from FY12. The commercial tax rate will be $21.50, which is an increase of $0.74, or 3.6% from FY12. Both increases in the tax rate are less than FY12."

"This recommendation includes the use of $11 million in reserve accounts to lower the property tax levy; $2 million from overlay surplus; and $9 million in Free Cash. It should be noted that the certified Free Cash amount of $115.8 million is the highest amount in the City’s history and represents a $13.6 million increase over last year. Also, $0.6 million from the School Debt Stabilization Fund is used to offset increases in debt service costs that would otherwise have been funded from property taxes."

"Additionally, I am recommending that $10 million from Free Cash, as was stated at the time of the budget, be appropriated to the City’s Debt Stabilization Fund to offset anticipated debt service costs in the future for the City’s major capital projects especially in relation to the Elementary School reconstruction plan. This appropriation will help stabilize tax levy increases related to these projects in future years. This practice of using the Debt Stabilization Fund to offset debt service costs has resulted in a successful capital projects program, while maintaining stable property tax levy growth in past years."

"Approximately 74.9% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase or an increase of less than $100 in their FY13 tax bill. In addition, another 15.8% of residential taxpayers will see an increase between $100 and $250. Therefore, a total of 90.7% of the residential taxpayers will see no increase or an increase of less than $250. This will be the eighth year in a row that a majority of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no change or an increase of less than $100. This accomplishment should not be taken for granted given the national economic uncertainties, while maintaining city and school services that citizens have come to expect and while providing a strong capital improvement program highlighted by major projects such as the Mayor Russell/West Cambridge Youth and Community Center, Healy Public Safety Facility, Main Public Library, War Memorial Recreation Center and CRLS."

This week will see a Planning Board hearing (Tuesday) and an Ordinance Committee hearing (Wednesday) on the Yanow Petition (a.k.a. the Permanant Parking Petition). This petition calls for reductions in allowed height and density in Central Square at a time when all discussions to this point have been about maintaining or marginally increasing the allowed density as an incentive for new housing, repairing some of the current deficits in the Square, plus other community benefits. The petition also seeks to enshrine surface parking lots as the pinnacle of urban design. If ever there was a zoning petition that should be laughed out of the City Council and the Planning Board, this is that petition.

Communication #1. A communication was received from CARU Associates, et al., transmitting written protest to the Susan Yanow, et al. Zoning Petition.

This communication from Central Square property owners suggests sufficient opposition that the Yanow Petition will likely require 7 of 9 City Council votes for adoption, though that calculation has not yet been made. There appears to be near-unanimous opposition from Central Square business owners and commercial property owners.

Save Our City ManagerResolution #4. Resolution on the death of James Leo Sullivan.   Councillor Maher

I don’t know if I ever met the man, but I have always admired James Leo Sullivan from afar. He set the standard for professional city management in Cambridge and mentored his successor Robert W. Healy. His obituary (which appeared in the Lowell Sun) is rich in information. If anyone has any photos of James Leo Sullivan that may be posted here, including photos of him with contemporaries, they would be greatly appreciated. James Leo Sullivan served as City Manager from June 1968 to April 1970 and then again from April 1974 to July 1981. He was succeeded in 1981 by Robert W. Healy.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on Sept 19, 2012 to continue discussions to develop a hiring process for the position of City Manager.

Among other things discussed at this committee meeting was the desire to gather as much community input as possible to advise this most important decision that the City Council can make. Soliciting and receiving input from a representative cross section of Cambridge residents and others with interests in Cambridge is not an easy task. All too often we hear only from the "self-anointed, self-appointed" groups claiming to represent others. The real challenge for the city councillors will be to craft a medium-term and long-term vision for the next decade or more and then choose the right person to implement that vision. That person might now be in the City administration or it could be someone hired from elsewhere. Let’s hope that the elected officials listen to all the people in the city as they make their decisions. – Robert Winters

September 27, 2012

But seriously, folks

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:38 am

But seriously, folks.

Sept 27 – The activism of the group calling itself the "Cambridge Residents Alliance" has reached a new low (if that’s possible) in their campaign of distortion and fear-mongering. This is the group that has a zoning proposal now before the City Council and the Planning Board that would reduce allowed building heights in Central Square and enshrine surface parking lots as the pinnacle of urban design. Not surprising, some people objected to the absurdity of this proposal. Thus was born a new group called "A Better Cambridge" that embraces the radical notions that acres of surburban-style parking lots might not be the be-all-end-all of urban design and that maybe the current height limits in Central Square are acceptable and that a little new construction might be a good thing for Central Square – especially if this can leverage some middle-income housing. A modest petition campaign was begun suggesting that downzoning Central Square is neither necessary nor good policy on many levels.

Apparently, all this common sense was too much for the "Alliance" activists. So the petition received this morning the following two forged signatures of rather obvious "Alliance" origin:

Bob Healy, Cambridge, MA
Speaking on behalf of the developers, this petition will THREATEN our potential profits. Let’s be clear – it we want to make some real money, we have to tear down those cheap houses and get rid of the small businesses in Area 4, and put in high-rise, full market apartment buildings, big biotech tabs, and stores that can pay high rents, like banks. This way, we can charge $3000-$4500/month for a 1BR, like we already do in University Park. Our plan is to tear down everything along Main Street and Bishop Allen Drive, force the people out of Washington Elms, and turn all of lower Area-4 into another "Kendall Square." We’ll make BILLION$. And if the residents don’t like it, they can move. This is progress, and we can’t let a few troublemakers stop progress!

K Reeves, Cambridge, MA
The best part is how we’ve actually convinced most of the City Council that 1960s-style urban renewal is good! (Maybe they’re too young to remember what happened back then?) I guess they’re just looking for the big payoff; these new buildings will make BILLIONS$ for the developers and bring in some hefty tax revenue. Ok… I admit that NOT passing a downzoning petition will allow us to "mahattanize" a large portion of the city that’s currently residential, permanently displace thousands of low- and moderate-income families, and add tens of thousands of cars to the streets. They can take the T (even though it’s over capacity). The proposed petition is BAD for profits!

Is this what civic activism has descended to? – RW

September 24, 2012

A Light Comedy – Sept 24, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:20 am

A Light Comedy – Sept 24 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The Sullivan Chamber will be occupied Monday night, but the business could not be lighter. World-traveling Councillor Leland Cheung would be well-advised not to return for this meeting. Indeed, the most interesting items are the two communications from Peter Valentine, a.k.a. National Officer in Charge:

Communications #1. A communication was received from Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street regarding removing the US Military Flag from the Council Chamber and replace with the National Flag of the United States of America.

Communications #2. A communication was received from Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street regarding a preliminary format for we the people evolving an undefeatable constitution.

The first of these reads as follows:

Communications: To The City Council and Citizenry from Peter Valentine 37 Brookline St. 10/10/2012

Many years ago I explained to The Council that it was a violation of the People’s US Constitutional Rights to have a US Military Flag as the symbol of the Flag of the United States of America in the Council Chamber because where there is a military flag there is only military law not constitutional law.

We were not and are not involved in Cambridge MA in a military circumstance or military subject matter.

I informed the council that the military flag had to be removed and replaced by the standard United States of America Flag.

The Council paid no attention to my request.

It is the act of a hypocrite to sign an oath where one swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and require people to stand and swear allegiance to the United States of America and the Constitution for which it stands but at the same time to deny the people their constitutional rights by the presence in the Council Chamber of a US Military Flag.

Therefore I do order, as the National Officer in Charge, in the Name of the Protection of the Full Spectrum of the Constitutional Rights of the People of the United States of America, that the Council remove the US Military Flag from the Council Chamber and replace it with the National Flag of the United States of America.

The National Officer in Charge
Peter Valentine, 10/10/2012
Unelected but Affective

I’m sure the councillors will all snap to attention. Meanwhile, there’s this:

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to take the necessary measures to ensure that the mitigation money from Novartis be allocated all or in part to the Upward Bound Program, with a view of giving the program an additional year to continue, and the hope that the additional funding will give the program staff, families and supporters an additional year to seek outside funding.   Vice Mayor Simmons

I might be convinced that this would be a good action to take, but it contradicts the whole ongoing discussion about what "mitigation" is appropriate (if any) when the City Council grants zoning relief for major developments, and how that money should be allocated. The general sense of the City Council has been to move away from lobbying to direct these funds toward pet projects of individual councillors – no matter how worthy. – Robert Winters

September 10, 2012

End of Summer – The City Council Returns – Sept 10 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:41 am

End of Summer – The City Council Returns – Sept 10 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The first agenda item is the culmination of the annual faux process of allocation of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds. The outcome is always determined before the CPA Committee even meets. In fact, the outcomes every year were determined ten years ago, but feel free to peruse the details:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, requesting that the City Council formally appropriate/allocate the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds as follows:
1A. 80% of the FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($5,600,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
1B. 10% of FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($700,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
1C. 10% of FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($700,000) allocated to Open Space;
2A. 80% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($1,320,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
2B. 10% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($165,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
2C. 10% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($165,000) allocated to Open Space;
3A. 80% of the Fund Balance ($800,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust;
3B. 10% of the Fund Balance ($100,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
3C. 10% of the Fund Balance ($100,000) allocated to Open Space;
4A. Appropriate ($1,035,000) from the Open Space Reserve to the Public Investment Budget; and
5A. Appropriate ($7,500) from the Fund Balance the cost for the Community Preservation Coalition Membership Dues.

Though it’s hard to discern what progress the Cambridge Police and the District Attorney’s Office have made in the Willow St. murder case, at least there is a report on the agenda (and in the Cambridge Chronicle – thanks).

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 12-76 and 12-77, regarding discussion on violence and the youth perspective in reaction to the Willow Street shooting.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Police Commissioner to determine a format that will accommodate the City Council and the victim’s family for an update on the status of the Willow Street shooting in May.   Councillor Reeves

One of my neighbors was a classmate of murder victim Charlene Moore, and she and many people have been mystified by the seeming lack of progress in this case. We’re all hoping that law enforcement is now "making the case" and not just hoping for clues.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-93, regarding a report on the feasibility of supporting the concept of human-powered bicycle cabs.

I mention this item only to raise the issue of how these wider human-powered vehicles will navigate Western Ave. after the travel lanes are narrowed and cyclists are pushed onto the sidewalk. Same goes for the Metro Pedal vehicles making pickups and deliveries around town.

Manager’s Agenda #17. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-100, regarding a report on whether emails to Councillors either through the City email or to their personal accounts may be shared with the general public.

The city councillors may want to ask for a second opinion on this one. This legal opinion seems to suggest that e-mail messages sent to city councillors’ private e-mail accounts are to be considered public records. Who shall be the first to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for these private e-mail messages?

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to expand enforcement of the prohibition on Cambridge pick-ups by non-Cambridge cabs not specifically called to Cambridge.

I’ll say it again: We’d all be better off if the entire taxicab industry was deregulated and taxi owners and drivers were required only to prove that they meet basic safety standards. It’s a cab cartel now – plain and simple.

Unfinished Business #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $81,500,000 to provide funds for architectural design, construction and other associated costs of the King School project. The question comes on adoption on or after Aug 13, 2012.

This is just the formality of a final vote on the appropriation which will allow the project to proceed.

Resolution #11. Resolution on the death of Charles L. Stead, Sr.   Councillor Maher, Mayor Davis, Vice Mayor Simmons

Resolution #49. Resolution on the death of Henrietta S. Attles, Ed.D.   Councillor Reeves, Vice Mayor Simmons, Mayor Davis

These resolutions mark the passing of two very important players in the Cambridge schools. Many of the city councillors will likely make statements about one or both of these very significant Cantabrigians. Charles Stead was a Cambridge school principal who was hated by some and beloved by many. Henrietta S. Attles first ran and was elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 1979. She was reelected in 1981 but was defeated in the 1983 election. She served from 1980-1983. The meeting room of the Cambridge School Committee is named for her.

Resolution #26. Retirement of David Holland from the Budget Department.   Mayor Davis

Resolution #118. Retirement of Eileen Ginnetty from the Council on Aging.   Councillor Maher

Dave Holland and Eileen Ginnetty are two of the more familiar faces in their respective departments. Best wishes to both of them in their retirement.

Order #6. That the City Ordinance Committee resume discussing the outlines of a formal Community Benefits & Mitigation Plan for projects within the city with the goal of making a recommendation on a policy that the City Council can vote on by year’s end.   Vice Mayor Simmons

Order #8. That the Housing Committee review the City’s inclusionary zoning policy, to explore the possibility and feasibility of increasing the percentage of affordable housing that must be included in any new development.   Vice Mayor Simmons

These interrelated Orders concern the unresolved matter begun several years ago about updating and standardizing the way developers are asked to contribute to the city – either when seeking changes in zoning or when building projects as-of-right. The Inclusionary Zoning law was crafted at the time of its passage to be relatively cost neutral for housing developers, i.e. in exchange for providing affordable units they would be given a density bonus to allow for additional market-rate units. Any proposed update would likely demand even more affordable units and would likely then have to grant even greater density bonuses. This should spur some serious debate, especially in light of the highly divergent views of high density advocates and downzoning advocates spawned by discussions over the last two years about the future of Kendall Square, Central Square, and the transition area between these centers.

Order #11. That the Government Operations and Rules Committee publish a schedule of meetings devoted to the City Manager selection process and issue periodic statements so that the public may be informed as to the chosen selection process and timeline for the upcoming appointment.   Councillor Reeves

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on June 22, 2012 to have an initial discussion with the City Manager to develop a comprehensive short and long term succession plan.

Who could argue with this Order? What’s really striking is the silence surrounding what is arguably the single most important responsibility of the City Council. There is another meeting of the Government Operations & Rules Committee scheduled for Wed, Sept 19 at 9:00am in the Ackermann Room "to continue discussion to develop a hiring process for the position of City Manager."

Order #12. That the City Council suggest that the Cambridge Housing Authority study and consider the feasibility and reasonableness of placing long-term affordable housing deed restrictions on developments such as Newtowne Court and Washington Elms so that these developments will always be dedicated long-term affordability housing areas.   Councillor Reeves

Part of the genesis of this Order is the strategic misstep in the series of meetings on Central Square when Goody/Clancy showed an image indicating some of this public housing being potentially replaced with new housing built at greater density. There was never any actual plan to do this – just a concept – but it has served as an alarm for organizing public housing tenants. It does seem, however, that placing deed restrictions to lock in place what is there now might be a poor policy – unless the flexibility to redevelop with no net loss of housing units is written into any such deed restrictions. It can also be reasonably argued that concentrating this much public housing into one area is a rather outdated and unenlightened public policy.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and report back to the City Council on how the City is facilitating affordable housing opportunities for middle class families.   Councillor Toomey

Despite some of the sentiments expressed in recent years about providing middle-inclome housing in the Central Square area, the question of how this can be done remains largely unanswered. Is the plan to ultimately have the Cambridge Housing Authority become the intake mechanism for all of the lower-income and middle-income housing in Cambridge?

Order #15. That the City Council go on record agreeing that a minimum of 80% of mitigation funds should be distributed within the neighborhoods that are impacted by these projects.   Councillor Toomey

This is really a recurring Order that will likely go nowhere. Most of the new development in Cambridge is concentrated into just a few areas and most of the city councillors ultimately vote for spreading the loot.

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to create an inventory of the vacant lots and derelict buildings throughout Cambridge that the City could potentially purchase to add to the city’s open space inventory for other city uses.   Mayor Davis

This reminds me of an initiative pressed years ago by City Councillor Ed Cyr to set up a "Land Bank" of City-owned parcels that would be used for building affordable housing. It didn’t go over well, but rent control was still in place in those days. This predated the creation of the Affordable Housing Trust (which looks for housing opportunities) and the Open Space Acquisition Fund (which looks for open space opportunities).

Order #17. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with information on the new parking arrangements in the vicinity of the former Longfellow School on Broadway as they relate to the operation at the school building and to work with the School Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to minimize the impact on the neighborhood.   Councillor Toomey

I recently wrote a letter of support to the BZA for a local business to have its parking requirement waived due to the availability of on-street parking, but I also warned that much of this parking would likely disappear with the reactivation of the old Longfellow School building. I also recommended to the BZA that the Traffic & Parking Department should be dissuaded from using the metered spaces that are supposed to be there for patrons of the local businesses. At times like this I become cynically convinced that City departments never talk to each other.

Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department to conduct a preliminary exploration of an east west bike path alongside the commuter rail line or along the old haul route.   Councillor Cheung

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Chair of the Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 6, 2012 to receive an overview from the Community Development Department of the Grand Junction Rail with the Trail (RWT) Feasibility Study of 2006 and to discuss actions the City can make towards its construction.

The possibility of sharing the Grand Junction right-of-way has been under discussion for years, including the recent subcommittee meeting chaired by Councillor Toomey. Those of us who served on the Green Ribbon Open Space Committee were advocating for this goal last century.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to itemize all mitigation commitments throughout the city to be compiled into a single document.   Councillor Cheung

Perhaps a small, sad chapter can reserved at the end of the document on mitigation for the disgraceful privately negotiated and publicly accepted "mitigation" that created "Neighbors for a Better Community" (NBC) in order to receive a parcel land and cash that have been used for no other purpose than the personal enrichment of members of one family.

Order #21. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to report back to the City Council on what strategies other cities have used to dissuade land-banking and what may be applicable in Cambridge.   Councillor Cheung

The problem is not land-banking so much as nonproductive very-long-term land-banking. Assembling parcels as part of a greater plan is normal. Indeed, that was a primary role of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority during its active years. This Order could use a little more detail and refinement. It never makes much sense for a property owner or developer to sink a lot of money into the preservation of properties that are destined to soon be redeveloped.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from … Councillor Minka vanBeuzekom, Chair of the Environment Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 8, 2012 to discuss implementation of a plan for separate trash or recycling curbside pickup for small businesses along existing curbside routes.

I spoke at this meeting against the idea of the City taking on the cost of business recycling. However, based on the discussion at this meeting I have become much more aware of how some businesses in mixed-use buildings in my own neighborhood routinely put all their rubbish and recycling out along with the residential rubbish and recycling – at no cost to the businesses. I still don’t believe the City should be taking on these costs, but there is a fairness issue that needs to be resolved when some businesses are paying for these services and others are getting a free ride. – Robert Winters

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress