Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 2, 2023

Now It’s My Turn To Speak – by Robert Winters

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:47 pm

It has been an interesting week – to say the least. What began as a coordinated ambush at a candidate event at Harvard has now turned into a full-fledged campaign of harassment and intimidation by an otherwise forgettable political candidate seeking attention. I have been accused of being just about every “ism” that there is – and then some. I suppose that the old adage applies here that if you throw enough mud at a wall surely some of it will stick.Robert Winters, 2022

I have never shied away from expressing myself either publicly or privately and I don’t intend to censor myself in the future. I usually pause before making comments, but not always – especially in a supercharged atmosphere such as when people are falsely accused or physically attacked or intimidated. I also maintain a very iconoclastic sense of humor – no doubt influenced by the National Lampoon Magazine and its successor Saturday Night Live as well as its predecessor the Harvard Lampoon. Unfortunately, Lenny Bruce died a long time ago and “The Left” couldn’t recognize humor, irony, or satire today if they were hit over the head with a wet fish or graced with a pie in their faces. They also fully subscribe to the politics of personal destruction – which is even more troubling and even potentially dangerous.

I now have legitimate concerns about my personal safety and the safety of those who choose to support me, and I worry that this harassment may cross over into areas having nothing whatsoever to do with my roles as either a political candidate or as the editor of the online Cambridge Civic Journal.

That said, now that I have been labeled a racist, a transphobe, a bigot, an Islamophobe, a right-winger, an anti-abortion crusader, and even an anti-vaxxer by these humorless and clueless petulant individuals (and other candidates more concerned about their electability than the truth), I suppose I have to say a few words in response – and let the chips fall where they may.

I have not viewed the tweets and accusations that have been hurled at me, but others have alerted me to some of it, and for that I am grateful. I do not follow any individuals on social media who engage in attacking me personally, and I “unfriend” or “unfollow” anyone who misbehaves in this way. I will add that when I watch TV I’ll sometimes toggle between CNN and FoxNews because I want to see what people on both sides of our current political chasm have to say, but we actually watch BBC more than both of them combined because they’re one of the few outlets that at least tries to be objective in their reporting.

Now, on to the good stuff:

I apparently have commented with words to the effect of “Islam and government don’t mix well” – and for this I have been called an Islamophobe.
Fact: Islam and government do not mix well – at least for those of us who grew up in a country that believes in democracy and freedom of religion. Islamic governments actually believe that all laws are derived from God, and that democracy is blasphemy because it maintains the belief of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” You may feel free to disagree with me about this, but my point of view aligns pretty well with most Americans – even if some Cambridge residents of the Far Left see things differently.

I once expressed outrage on social media in response to a Sudanese woman who was to be executed soon after she gave birth because she had converted to Christianity – and for this I was called both an Islamophobe and a racist. This was especially memorable because the individual shouting this at me was then-City Councillor Nadeem Mazen, and he did so in the Sullivan Chamber in City Hall. I have not spoken with him since.
Fact: Any government or judicial system that would sentence a woman to death for choosing to leave a religion is barbaric. I make no excuses for the fact that I believe in freedom of religion. This is what most Americans believe – even though I have my doubts these days about some on the Far Right. Fortunately, the condemned woman was eventually allowed to leave the country.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/sudanese-woman-sentenced-death-be-freed-government-official-n119361

I was surprised to learn that in some public libraries there were “drag time story hour” events taking place that were publicly funded. On that same day I saw that one was taking place in Cambridge and simply made a note of this fact – and for this I was called a transphobe.
Fact: I really had never heard of such a thing – even though people apparently argue about this all the time now. In case you actually care what I think, I don’t believe it is age appropriate to subject young children to things that are either sexually provocative or overtly political. I understand that some people in Cambridge have a different point of view on such matters, but I daresay that my point of view is quite mainstream and I don’t even see it as either conservative or controversial. I don’t care what adults or even adolescents choose to see or do, but I do think that young children should be shielded from most of this. I have been especially attacked on this by Dan Totten (city council candidate) as well as a rather egotistical fellow named Loren Crowe who has chosen to malign me endlessly. This is the same Loren Crowe, by the way, who once expressed the point of view that Mount Auburn Cemetery was a waste of good real estate. For the record, I fully embrace the American ideal of “pursuit of happiness” – and that means that if a person old enough to make responsible decisions wants to declare a different gender and take whatever steps they feel are necessary to achieve that, this is their inalienable right as an American to do so.
[Addendum: Though the initial example of the above referenced events was quite alarming, several friends whose opinions I trust and respect have assured me that these events are generally quite benign, kid-friendly, and that their children really like them. Live and learn.]

I am not sure where anyone got this one from, but I have apparently been called an anti-vaxxer.
Fact: This one is downright comical in its distortion of reality, but I suppose that when innuendo is your thing then all facts go right out your window. I am fully vaccinated and I am planning to get the latest Covid vaccine in the next week or so, and I may even get the flu shot at the same time. That said, I feel no animus whatsoever toward people who have chosen to not be vaccinated – though I do worry about them sometimes. Both of my living brothers and some of my dearest friends have chosen to not be vaccinated, and I have friends who have died from Covid. I continue to post Covid-related information on the Cambridge Civic Journal – at this point mainly to reassure people that there are far fewer reasons to be fearful now than when we were all neurotic with fear in early 2020 – including me. I actually find statistics reassuring because it takes away a lot of the mystery and replaces it with facts.

As for the accusation that I am anti-abortion, the truth is that I have always been pro-choice. I hope that my more conservative friends won’t hold that against me.

I have expressed disdain for some Far Left political figures – and for this I have been labeled a racist and a right-wing conservative.
Fact: I have little use for the so-called “Justice Democrats” – and that includes people like Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and their whole “Squad”. I voted for Hillary Clinton and not Bernie Sanders. I voted for Mike Capuano and not Ayanna Pressley. This makes me a Moderate Democrat – not a conservative and certain not “right-wing” or racist. In the 2020 election I was an enthusiastic supporter of Joe Biden because he was the closest thing to a centrist in the Democratic field of candidates. My point of view was and is aligned with most Democrats across America. I would never vote for an amoral narcissist and insurrectionist like Donald Trump.

I will add that I generally dislike socialists – except for those friends of mine who are socialists, and there are a few. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and their various chapters, in particular, strike me more like fascists than anything else, and they rarely disappoint when they go out of their way to shout down others and actively work to suppress free speech – which they clearly feel only applies to them. The various “Our Revolution” chapters are indistinguishable from their DSA counterparts – and I suspect that their shared membership would make for a very darkened Venn diagram.

I also am an unapologetic defender of free speech and the right to conduct peaceful protests. This apparently offended at least one person when I expressed the point of view that even a white-supremacist and/or straight-pride group that wants to have a parade on the Boston Common or elsewhere has every right to do so (as long as they are not inciting violence) – even though I have nothing but disdain for the people who feel the need to make such statements. You either believe in free speech or you don’t, and if you think it doesn’t apply to those with abhorrent opinions then you don’t understand the whole idea of free speech, and the U.S. Supreme Court has fully confirmed this interpretation for many decades.

Someone apparently took great exception to the fact that I have a positive view of Charlie Baker, a Republican.
Fact: There are good reasons why there are now more unenrolled voters in Massachusetts than Democrats – even if many of them vote generally for Democrats. I am a registered Democrat, but I have on more than a few occasions voted for Republicans in Massachusetts elections. One reason is that I think we need to move away from being effectively a one-party state, and I wish Massachusetts Republicans would shed some of their association with religious themes and rediscover their “good government” roots from the days when they had a dominant presence in Massachusetts and all of New England. We would all be better for this, including life-long Democrats. I do have a positive view of Charlie Baker. I would even consider voting for him for President if he were one day to choose to run – though that seems impossible with the current horrorshow that is the national Republican Party – and national politics in general.

I believe someone was offended by my being offended about protesters who chain themselves to barrels and/or epoxy themselves to the asphalt in order to obstruct roadways in the name of “climate justice”.
Fact: Guilty as charged. I have never seen any merit in this brand of narcissistic protest. If somebody needs to get to work or if an emergency vehicle needs to get to a destination, there is no way on earth I will ever take the side of some protester who is trying to make some (incredibly ineffective) political statement. The right to peaceful protest ends where you deny the rights of others.

I don’t know if anyone has yet lashed out me for this, but I am generally supportive of the Cambridge Police Department as one of the best-trained and most empathetic departments in the entire country. That, of course, is not a statement that every single Cambridge Police Officer is auditioning for sainthood, but pretty much all whom I have met in recent years impress me as the kind of people who I would like to know as personal friends. I believe the Cambridge Police as well as the City Administration have acted very responsibly in all that they have done after the unfortunate tragedy that took place early this year. This won’t make me any friends among the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) nitwits who continued to shout down City Council meetings this year, but I don’t really like any of those people anyway and I always thought they were more interested in building their brand than actually pursuing justice. Vigilante justice, by the way, is not justice.

Speaking of police and public safety, I think the City made a great move in creating the new Community Safety Department. On the other hand, I have never supported the so-called H.E.A.R.T proposal and I have generally viewed it as a political patronage scheme from people who have never disguised their overt hostility toward police in general and their ultimate goal of abolishing police entirely. For this I am quite sure that the proponents view me as an evil racist for speaking against their quest for funding with little or no accountability. I still cannot fathom why the City Administration continues to entertain their proposals – except as a purely political concession to some city councillors. In contrast, the Community Safety Department seems to be making all the right moves recently as they try to get established.

Have I missed anything? I’m sure I have, and I’m sorry if anyone failed to appreciate my sense of humor (actually, I’m not really sorry) or failed to see either the irony or the absurdity of something I said over the last quarter-century.

Finally…..
To all those candidates who have chosen political ass-covering and association with the Orwellian tactics of one angry candidate (who I happen to know that few, if any, of you actually like), rest assured that I won’t be ranking any of you on my ballot this year or ever again, and I will encourage others who value actual leadership in candidates (as opposed to the BS in your campaign literature and on your yard signs) to do the same. Shall I name names? That sounds so McCarthyesque, but you know who you are.

And to those who think it’s perfectly OK to disparage other candidates through guilt by association simply because they have some affiliation with me or who choose to remain friendly with me despite all the libel and slander that you are are directing at me, have a nice life. These are the tactics of Joseph McCarthy who I am sure is now looking down upon you and holding you in full embrace.

And One Last Note – to “The Press” and anyone either aspiring to be journalists or “social media influencers” or, for that matter, claiming to be actual journalists: Try doing your homework first and learn to stop jumping on opportunities to get more “hits” by stoking the flames of manufactured controversy. You are probably better than that – if you actually make an effort.

Robert Winters

Learn about all the candidates at the Cambridge Candidate Pages: http://vote.cambridgecivic.com

Robert Winters Candidate Website: http://vote.rwinters.com

Cambridge Civic Journal:  http://rwinters.com     CCJ Forum:  http://cambridgecivic.com

September 20, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 599-600: September 19, 2023

Episode 599 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 19, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Sept 19, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Candidate’s Eye View of municipal election, candidate forums; national focus ? local competence; some observations on endorsing organizations; AHO restricting housing growth; “100% affordable” vs. mixed-income housing; Special Permit alternative with good criteria; false dichotomy of affordable housing vs. commercial/lab; actual cost of deed-restricted units. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 600 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 19, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Sept 19, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: The Never-Ending Study of Central Square and City Council Policy Order; Zoning Reform; C2 Study recommendations now ready for prime time; Arts & Entertainment + Housing; the short-sightedness of only “100% affordable”, deed-restricted housing; infeasible housing policies; let planners actually plan; in support of big audacious plans and reimagination; getting past anti-capitalism and decommodification; quoting Envision while ignoring it. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

September 6, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 597-598: September 5, 2023

Episode 597 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 5, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Aug 1, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Municipal election updates; changing hats; Candidate Pages – many good new candidates; endorsing organizations; the problematic “Bike Pledge” and the fallacy of perfection of the Cycling Safety Ordinance; misinterpretation of election results and slates; feeders vs. preferred candidates; the purpose of proportional representation – and the need for a strong executive; bringing ideas rather than beliefs; representation vs. advocacy; perverse candidate questionnaires; deviation from party line may lead to job loss or non-appointment – a problem in democracy; tax troubles on the horizon. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 598 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 5, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Sept 5, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Taxes, tax classification, and Prop 2½; fiction and promise of candidate handcards; taking wrong roads toward housing affordability; the problem of earmarking housing for specific groups; driving vs. “The T” and delusional thinking; looking at housing and transportation holistically, unilateral “solutions” are not solutions; Cambridge is better because of its diversity of housing styles and densities; solving problems or just taking down “the aristocracy”; the need to walk and observe; CDD undoing decades of better planning; lefties need to find more joy in life. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

August 1, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 595-596: August 1, 2023

Episode 595 – Cambridge InsideOut: Aug 1, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Aug 1, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Municipal election updates – final list of candidates; proposed 2030 gas ban amendment – de minimus benefit, detrimental effect on commercial kitchens, cultural discrimination; the problem of elected officials who don’t care what you think, exerting control and accomplishing litte; half truths sold as whole cloth. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 596 – Cambridge InsideOut: Aug 1, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Aug 1, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Interesting candidates and not just radicals; civic resources and appreciation; the positive aspects of candidacy; Candidate Pages – individuals, not organizations; tail wagging the dog – bike lanes and AHO, narrow interests attempting to define the election issues; AHO – violating planning and zoning principles, the big lie of addressing affordability; the “other issues” that may be far more important; Is proportional representation really proportional? Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 20, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 591-592: June 20, 2023

Episode 591 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 20, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on June 20, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Charter history; municipal election updates; activists are not representatives; problem of single-issue candidates and organizations; recollections of Independents vs. Cambridge Civic Association (CCA); current inability to evaluate and modify; the problem with pledges; questionable effectiveness of BEUDO and other climate-related ordinances; voluntary actions vs. City Council mandates. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 592 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 20, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on June 20, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Grading the 2022-23 City Council on a curve; local initiatives written by national players; ideology vs. effectiveness; theory vs. reality in residential development; cumulative effect of regulations; few prospects for evaluation and revision; working with economics vs. fighting it; fallacy of command and control; idiocy of conjugating the Charter Right; citizen outrage as a barometer of policy failure; responsiveness vs. unresponsiveness of elected officials; municipal election mode – all goodness and light. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 7, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 589-590: June 6, 2023

Episode 589 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 6, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on June 6, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Central Square updates – Starlight Square and a shoutout to Matt Boyes-Watson, Nina Berg, and especially Brian Wright; Cambridge Police doing the work; politicizing the moment and jumping on board the latest ideological train; looking back at the craziness of Covid, getting back to living; “saving capitalism one screw at a time”; retail spaces as amenities rather than as profit centers; Popportunists coming to Columbia Street. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 590 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 6, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on June 6, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Municipal Election Calendar; time to declare intentions for City Council or School Committee; dumbing down in the name of social justice; education and lifting people up; candidacy takes courage – putting yourself out there – service, not a career; need for a broad range of candidates and a lot of voter education; small “d” democrats vs. performative progressives; Sullivan Chamber as community theater; BEUDO – incentives and support vs. mandates; CDD as an activist organization; upzoning petitions on parade. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

May 22, 2023

Just when you thought things couldn’t get nuttier – May 22, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Just when you thought things couldn’t get nuttier – May 22, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

This week brings a few more pearls of ignorance from Mr. Zondervan. Specifically, in spite of the ongoing Charter Review process, he wants to cut the line and put a ballot question on the November municipal ballot to change the charter specifically to make the Police Review and Advisory Board a popularly elected board. I suppose the Party for Socialism and Liberation kids may be interested in the jobs. I understand that he’s not pleased that his colleagues thought so little of his controversial Order last week that they proposed a more sensible substitute, so this week he’s decided to double down. Let’s not overlook that little QZ pearl from last week’s meeting when he said: “The institution of policing itself is fundamentally broken and we must move away from it as quickly as possible.” Does anyone actually take this guy seriously? Oh yeah, he also has an Order asking for a legal opinion on whether Cambridge could permanently switch to the MWRA water supply, i.e. abandon our state-of-the art water treatment plant at Fresh Pond. The wackiness doesn’t stop there.

Here’s this week’s Whitman Sampler:

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the third annual Cycling Safety Ordinance (CSO) Progress Report.
pulled by Toner; comments by PT,DS,QZ,DC,PN,AM; Placed on File 9-0

Cambridge political discourse these days seems to boil down to bike lanes, subsidized housing, and BEUDO. I’m confident that Public Comment will draw the usual suspects suspects eager to take sides on the bike lane issue, and the councillors will surely follow suit in their typically unyielding fashion. I pledge allegiance to the [FILL IN THE BLANK].

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Community Connections Grant, in the amount of $230,070.35, to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account. Funds will contribute to the purchase and installation of Bluebikes bikeshare equipment.
pulled by Zondervan; comments by QZ,BA (who would apparently rather use an e-bike to get to South Station rather than the Red Line); Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant in the amount of $100,000 received from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to the Grant Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account. Funds will support the cost of two 19 dock Bluebikes stations and bicycles that were placed at the Kennedy/Longfellow School and Twin City Plaza.
pulled by Carlone (who questioned by gambling $ is being allocated for bikes rather than gambling addiction prevention); Order Adopted 9-0

Even though there is already a BlueBike station across the street from me at the old Longfellow School, the City apparently wants to install another at the Lee Street park around the corner from me even though the two stations will only be a few hundred feet from each other. Gotta spend that grant money. Now I’ll get to hear the crashing sound of unsuccessful attempts to lock up the bikes in “surround sound”.


Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the proposed Alewife Overlay District: Quadrangle (AOD-Q) Zoning Petition and Design Guidelines. (CM23#147) [Council Memo_Alewife Quad_20230517] [AODQ Height Subdistricts] [CLEAN AOD-Q Zoning Petition – 20230517] [Description of Quadrangle Overlay Boundaries] [New Street Centerlines] [Alewife Design Guidelines_2023.05.15]
pulled by Toner; comments by PT,MM,PN,QZ,DC,BA; Zoning language Adopted as a City Council Zoning Petition, Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board 9-0

Alewife Overlay Proposed Zoning

I’m glad to see this getting started again, and I hope that one day a couple of new crossings of the RR tracks will grow out of whatever happens in the Quadrangle – The Final Frontier (queue up Star Trek intro). A pedestrian bridge over the Little River connecting the wetland/stormwater retention ponds area in the Alewife Triangle to the Science Park area adjacent to Acorn Park Drive would also be a welcome addition (though it’s north of the current study area). If it’s a choice between connectivity and cul-de-sacs, I’ll choose connectivity.


Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the relevant departments to establish a policy of releasing the names of officers involved in any use of force incident, up to and including those incidents resulting in injury or death. [Charter Right – Zondervan, May 15, 2023]
It is worth noting that the chronic several dozen protesters from the Party for Socialism and Liberation again dominated Public Comment with comments directed at individual councillors (thanks to recent rules changes); Mayor Siddiqui violated City Council Rules three times by allowing speakers to speak a 2nd time;
Zondervan began with prepared speech quoting Angela Davis and others, referring to Toner substitution as “whitewashing amendments”, and referring to all who disagree with him as showing “cowardice” and “hiding behind ideology” (which is so opposite to reality as to be amusing);
Councillor Nolan exhibited resolve by saying that she would not be changing her support for the Toner amendment and that contrary to the statements of protesters there was no consensus on this issue among city residents (correct), that it was fiction to say that the City Council has not taken any action in response to the Jan 4 incident, that all involved police officer names will be released when the investigation is complete, and that releasing the names today will do nothing for justice (all true);
City Manager Huang provided a limited update on where we now stand in the investigation and related processes, that per court order no information in the inquest is to be shared until complete, and provided a chronology of the wealth of City actions that have taken place since January in response to the incident;
Commissioner Elow provided updates on the cooperation of CPD with PERF;
Mallon aligned with Zondervan and stated that she won’t be supporting the Substitute Order and that she wants officer names released now (“it’s what progressive cities do” – as opposed to enlightened cities);
Simmons agreed that a policy is needed and that she would not align with Zondervan noting that the specific circumstances of the January incident are not yet known and that releasing the names now does not buy justice, closure, or anything else and that she supports a full, fair and thorough investigation;
McGovern suggested that the original two “WHEREAS” clauses were simply factual and should be included, and asked whether if a City Council policy was approved prior to the investigative report would the names of the officers be released (City Manager Huang seemed to indicate that if the policy was established he would follow policy while acknowledging need to work cooperatively with Police Department – noting that they are involved in complex and dangerous work – “What you want is a change in the culture.”);
Carlone offered comments including cryptic references to “rumors”;
Siddiqui double-talked about her comments in the Boston Globe and that she would align with Mallon and Zondervan and oppose the Substitute Order;
Toner made clear that he does not want officer names released until after DA report is released and noted that references to the releasing of names in other cities was done in the context of bodycams being instituted;
Zondervan referred to Toner Substitute as “sloppy and misleading”;
Azeem offered a broader perspective on how he arrived at his current understanding and position – especially the range of changes and initiatives that have been arrived at working cooperatively with the Cambridge Police Department and the City Administration;
McGovern referred to last two weeks of public comment as “powerful” (though manipulative, coercive, and short on facts may be better descriptors);
Simmons motion to amend Toner Substitute by adding first two “WHEREAS” clauses Passes 8-1 (QZ – No);
QZ motion to added phrases “including retroactively” Passes 6-3 (PN,DS,PT – No);
QZ amendment to add at end the phrase “with such a policy and the names of the offers involved in Faisal’s killing” Fails 3-6 (AM,QZ,SS – Yes);
Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 5-4 (BA,DC,MM,PN,DS – Yes; AM,PT,QZ,SS – No)

Order #6. That the City Council go on record favoring the filing of the attached home rule petition, entitled: “AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO INCLUDE A BALLOT QUESTION ON THE NOVEMBER 7, 2023 MUNICIPAL BALLOT RELATIVE TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER” regarding electing the Police Review and Advisory Board.   Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Zondervan (who was soundly excoriated by his colleagues); comments by QZ,AM,DS; Order Fails of Adoption 1-8 (QZ – Yes)

Another day in Zondervan’s sandbox. The only questions are whether petulance will result in a recess and/or Zoom alternative, and if any of the other councillors sign on to either of these Orders. Perhaps the best strategy going forward might be to simply move a substitute order completely replacing every word and intention of QZ whenever things like these are introduced.


Resolution #4. Congratulations on the birth of Sabrina Reid Roberts.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons

Congratulations, Jeff and Sylvia!

Order #1. New Green Park at Third And Binney Streets.   Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0

This Order concerns the possibility of MIT purchasing a 6,000 square-foot lot at the corner of Third and Binney Streets that could be joined with an adjacent 8,000 square foot lot to create open space in the area of the redeveloping Volpe site in Kendall Square. There is a notion that some or all of the 131 mature trees that are to be removed from the Volpe site could be relocated to this area. This is a very appealing idea, but it’s questionable whether such expensive tree relocations will actually be successful. I would personally like to see a miniature golf course integrated into the Volpe site. Maybe even a batting cage where tech workers can work out their frustrations with a few line drives.

Order #2. Removing Cuba From The State Sponsors Of Terrorism List.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Azeem; comments by BA,DC; Order Adopted 7-0-1-1 (MM – Absent; PT – Present)

I’m so glad to see the Council back doing what it does best – foreign policy. Hey, the Council spoke and Muammar Gaddafi got his comeuppance.

Order #3. Law Department to provide a legal opinion on whether Cambridge could permanently switch to the MWRA water supply.   Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Toner; QZ explains that this is only asking for a legal opinion on the legality of abandoning the Cambridge water system; other comments by PT,BA,PN,DS,DC; Order Adopted 5-3-1 (BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS – Yes; AM,DS,PT – No; MM – Absent)

Send Mr. Zondervan some bottled water in glass bottles. The rest of us would prefer to keep our Cambridge water system.

Order #7. That the “Amendments to Protect Family Inclusion and Relationship Diversity” be forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for discussion and recommendation.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Zondervan; QZ Motion to Refer to Ordinance Committee; Charter Right – Simmons

Order #8. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Law Department to provide a legal opinion on whether the City could fund affordable housing construction through a ($500 Million, at least) bond issue.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Zondervan; comments by QZ,PN,BA,DC; Amended to add Azeem as co-sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This was an idea floated by Councillor Simmons back in May 2021. This is just another facet of the quest of some councillors to replace as much privately-own housing with “social housing” as possible and to use tax revenue from private-property owners to fund that replacement. – Robert Winters

April 4, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 585-586: April 4, 2023

Episode 585 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 4, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Apr 4, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Development standards and costs; cumulative effect of ordinances, regulations, and other requirements; Inclusionary housing, Linkage and nexus studies; economies of scale benefitting major players; memories of rent control driving properties from small-scale to large-scale owners; more diverse ownership preferable. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 586 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 4, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Apr 4, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Charter Review; ideas of charter changes; proportional representation; elected office as service and not as a career; redress of grievances in previous charters; charter provisions as guardrails; history of revised ordinances after charter change. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress