Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
![]() |
Not that you could ever tell from the scandalous focus of the local tabloids, but the Big Issue residents are hotly debating now is whether the Garden Street road configuration should stay or go. Beyond the sideshows and the political posturing and opportunism, here are a few things of interest on this week’s agenda:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Cambridge Public Schools’ long-term facilities condition assessment. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang, Interim School Superintendent David Murphy, Councillors Wilson, Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a proposed amendment to the Drought Ordinance. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; Unfinished Business #4 brought forward; Placed on File 9-0
Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to Cambridge Municipal Code 13.08, Water System Regulations and Chapter 13.12, Water Reservoirs. [Passed to 2nd Reading Mar 24, 2025; Eligible To Be Ordained Apr 7, 2025] [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; Ordained as Amended 9-0
Order #1. That the City Council send a formal invitation to Mr. Gerald Chan to come before the Economic Development and University Relations Committee to answer questions and present his plans for the Harvard Square Movie Theater, as well as his other vacant properties in the City. Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by McGovern (paradoxically endorsing nostalgia and preservation while simultaneously endorsing wholesale changes in built environment); comments by Siddiqui re: legal imitations in what Council can do; comments by Wilson, Simmons; Toner proposes amendment to bring in 23 other vacant storefront owners; Zusy supports amendment, wants to extend to other property owners but without shaming; McGovern OK with amendment but expects this will take several meetings, dismisses suggestion that this is “shaming”; Zusy suggests that singling out one property owner not ideal, there are broader considerations; Amendment Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Mar 11, 2025 with the City Solicitor and the Community Development Department, Economic Opportunity Division, to discuss concerns with vacant store fronts and commercial properties in Cambridge, and prior efforts and possible options such as new policies, taxes, and/or fines to reduce the number of vacant store fronts and commercial properties in Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Order #2. Continued funding of the Transitional Wellness Center. Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by McGovern with some history of funding for this facility; Sobrinho-Wheeler advocates for keeping it open beyond ARPA funding; Wilson comments; Yi-An Huang notes current funding is ~$3 million/year which would likely rise, contracts would need to be extended, more information for these and similar services will be forthcoming; Charter Right – Toner
Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-68 re: Garden Street two-way traffic alternatives. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mar 31, 2025] [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler (JSW) along with Charter Right #3; Placed on File 9-0
Charter Right #3. That the City Manager and appropriate staff move forward with Option 4 to reopen Garden Street to two-way traffic while maintaining separated bike lanes. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mar 31, 2025]
pulled by Toner along with Charter Right #1; JSW proposed amendment by substitution calling for more analysis and not moving forward with Option #4; Toner expresses appreciation for JSW amendment but wants to move forward with 2-way preference; Nolan notes that there have already been many changes to other road redesigns, supports bi-directional bike lanes as safest alternative; Siddiqui aligns w/JSW; Azeem agrees w/JSW amendment and focuses on cost of different options; TPT Director Brooke McKenna suggests estimated cost of Option #4 to be $137,000 with timeline of Summer 2026, additional costs associated w/utilities; Azeem uses cost to rationalize making no changes; Zusy suggests that JSW amendment would just be “kicking the can down the road”, need to take a vote on this now and resolve outstanding issues re: loading zones, etc.; Wilson appreciates spirit of JSW amendment, notes that these issues are city-wide pinning neighbors against each other, making movement across the city difficult, insufficient outreach to those affected; McGovern notes dissatisfaction of some neighbors but wants to keep current configuration; JSW Amendment Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,SS,JSW-Yes; PN,PT,AW,CZ,DS-No); Toner notes that some will be unhappy either way, resounding push-back after restricting to 1-way; Nolan notes that many came out in support for Option #1 (keep 1-way) due to organized effort, speaks in support of bi-directional bike lanes, notes $50 million on Mass. Ave. due to provision of bike lanes; Zusy notes that while TPT reports were rational there is also need for safety for drivers and not just cyclists, 42,000 registered vehicles and Garden Street a strongly preferred route for hundreds of years, rollover accidents caused by current configuration, school-related traffic increases anticipated; Siddiqui says safety data supports Option #1, but McKenna says crash analysis has not been done, acknowledges increase in rollover crashes but does not ascribe cause; McKenna notes potential congestion problems (which is interesting in that the TPT position has been in favor of congestion in that it leads to reduced speeds); Yi-An Huang notes that bike lane debates among most contentious in many communities, notes the many trade-offs; Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan notes thought given by TPT in regard to Garden Street and other streets where road configurations are planned, notes that all four options provide safe passage for all users; Wilson comments on difficult and divisive conversation, notes similar shifting points of view in Cambridge and other communities, fact that there have been fatalities last year – all on roads with separated bike lanes; JSW notes that if Option #4 is chosen there are limited means to provide replacement parking or loading zones (which didn’t seem to be a concern for the Mass. Ave. bike lanes); McGovern expresses concerns about the “pendulum” of changing back and forth, acknowledges complaints about Brattle Street bi-directional bike lanes; McKenna notes concerns about people not looking both ways when crossing bi-directional bike lanes; Simmons motion to end debate Prevails 8-1 (SS-No); Order (to move forward w/Option #4 – 2-way operation of Garden Street) Adopted 5-4 (PN,PT,AW,CZ,DS-Yes; BA,MM,SS,JSW-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Note: The notion that the City Council should not be making decisions on road configurations that would revert Garden Street to 2-way traffic is ironic to say the least. The entire (amended) Cycling Safety Ordinance that mandated specific treatments for specific roads was based on this same sort of “political traffic engineering”. It seems pretty clear to many of us that this level of micromanagement is fundamentally problematic, and it is, in fact, the rigidity of the timelines that were established in the Ordinance that have created all of this mess. I will add that this entire topic is mainly about “winning” for the Cambridge Bike Safety group.
656 Communications – almost all of which have to do with Garden Street bike lanes and parking, plus a lesser number having to do with (a) Half-Crown Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District (and ABC’s never-ending quest to bulldoze Cambridge history), and (b) “Our squares and corridors”. There were relatively few about the Councillor Toner situation, and opinions varied widely. Clearly, bike lanes and the built environment (including glass houses) are higher on the list of resident priorities.
Late Order #4. That the City Council formally go on record to urge, in the strongest possible terms, the Harvard Corporation to stand up in defense of the values that are fundamental to both the University and our democracy; and that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to act with urgency and coordinate a response and consult with all relevant city, regional, and state entities to develop a united front and take all action possible to counter this assault on the foundational values of our city as a center of higher learning. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons (PO25#52)
Comments by Nolan; Yi-An Huang remarks noting centuries-old relationship between Harvard and Cambridge, need to stand up to Trump Administration and their unlawful actions; Simmons and all councillors ask to be added as sponsors and that this be also directed to our legislative delegation; Siddiqui notes Globe opinion article by Niko Bowie and Benjamin Edelson entitled “Harvard’s Moment of Truth”; McGovern comments re: “vindictive bullies” (irony noted); Azeem asks about what actions City could take; Yi-An Huang notes that having City Council on record is important, ongoing meetings with the Harvard Corporation, action of taking a $750 million bond to ensure liquidity in the event of shut-off of federal funding, growing set of faculty and alumni speaking up, “there is a voice of truth and integrity that needs to come out”; Nolan amendment Adopted as Amended 9-0