Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 31, 2025

Playing Politics – March 31, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Playing Politics – March 31, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

While there are some featured attractions at the circus, it’s the side shows that get the most attention. After the “vigils”, the selective outrage, and competing efforts to pack Public Comment have passed, here are some of the more significant things on the agenda this week:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.

This will likely be a regular agenda item for the foreseeable future as the repercussions of current federal policies affect local programs – and sometimes wreak havoc. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of the City’s FY2026 Budget, program cuts, subsidized housing eligibility, reallocation of resources, and the potential for local tax increases to offset discontinued federal funding. This is somewhat reminiscent of the weekly COVID updates of a few years ago.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-53, regarding assisting companies, institutions, and other organizations in adopting truck safety requirements. [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-66 regarding an automated parking enforcement draft home rule petition. [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-68 regarding Garden Street two-way traffic alternatives. [text of report]

I expect plenty of two-way competing testimony on this during Public Comment.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Floodplain Zoning Amendments. [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a memo regarding 84 and 96 Bishop Allen RFI submission responses and next steps. [text of report]

“All but one respondent envisioned a mixed-income housing approach to 84 Bishop Allen Drive. 84 Bishop Allen Drive was seen as large enough to create a meaningful number of affordable units within a mixed income, mixed-use residential building. In contrast, the smaller 96 Bishop Allen Drive site was seen as manageable as an affordable housing only project.” My take is that as more and more required criteria are added the less viable everything becomes. I also expect some Public Comment insisting that the least economically viable options should be the only ones considered.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-17 which requested that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint the members of a working committee tasked with integrating the objectives of both the Task Force to Examine the Status and Wellbeing of the City’s African American/Black Population and the Commission on the Status of Black Men and Boys into a unified, actionable framework. [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on Harvard PILOT negotiations. [text of report]

Interim one-year agreement to increase their annual payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) from $4.7 million to $6 million per year – with the hope of a much longer term agreement after that. Those who actually think about the many important roles our local universities play will also understand how many Cambridge residents are employed by those universities and of the enormous value that provides to Cambridge residents. It is worth emphasizing that our local universities are facing many of the same threats to funding as the City is – likely moreso.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Department of Public Works to work together with the Chair of the Health and Environment Committee to make appropriate changes to the draft of the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0 and forward a final draft to the full City Council for approval as the City’s policy document on zero waste.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson

As with the BEUDO Ordinance, I have some concerns about granting carte-Blanche to the Chair of the Health and Environment Committee to forward a final draft to the City Council that they may not scrutinize prior to approving it. This has become a growing problem in how the City Council has conducted itself over that last several years – especially in our first COVID year when several consequential actions were waved through with minimal scrutiny of possible unintended (and sometimes intended) consequences.

I served on the Recycling Advisory Committee for 22 years and always tried my best to view all proposed changes through the eyes of the residents of the city. We had the enormous benefit of having some very knowledgeable members (I’m thinking of you Rob Gogan) who understood the practical aspects of recycling and not just the idealism and advocacy. The current ZWMP draft includes “Evaluate a hybrid Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program” among its strategies. Exactly how this might work in a city dominated by multi-family buildings is unclear, and I’m not really sure how people would feel about having to purchase stickers or follow some other protocol to pay for any excess trash above some permitted limit. What works in the suburbs doesn’t necessarily work in a more urban environment.

All that said, I was pleased to see that we appear to be reasonably on target with our previously established waste reduction goals. The last point I will make is one that my friend Sumner Martinson (DEP) emphasized many years ago: We are fundamentally just materials collectors when we put out our recyclable and compostable materials out at the curb for pickup. Recycling is what is done (or not done) at the next step down the road. Waste reduction is important, but recycling is actually carried out by industrial partners when they take the feedstock we produce and remanufacture new products from that feedstock. People love to pat themselves on the back for recycling when they fill their toters, but that’s actually not recycling at all – and the recycling industry continues to suffer out of public view. Glass may be in the worst place at all – it’s more likely to end up as gravel substitute for drainage applications at landfills than be remade into new containers. The economics of recycling is far more important than the idealism of recycling.

Order #2. Appointment of Paula M. Crane as Interim City Clerk effective June 1, 2025.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern

I am grateful for Diane LeBlanc’s time with us as Cambridge City Clerk. Her background as an archivist in our very historic city has been a blessing. That said, Paula Crane is an unsung hero in the Office of the City Clerk and she’ll be great in the short- or long-term.


Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to prioritize Cambridge Street and Northern Massachusetts Avenue first and to introduce the necessary zoning language and to continue working on Central Square as soon as practicable.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee and Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on Mar 4, 2025 to discuss zoning priorities focusing on major squares and corridors. The Committee voted favorably to recommend that the City Manager be requested to direct the Community Development Department to prioritize Cambridge Street and Northern Massachusetts Avenue first and to introduce the necessary zoning language and to continue working on Central Square as soon as practicable. See PO25#43. [text of report]

Though there is obviously room for new development in these places, I get the strong feeling that the chief proponents of new development – either residential or commercial – pay very little attention to long-term goals or consequences.


Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Cambridge Police Department, and Human Rights Commission, and local immigrant rights and immigrant-serving organizations to develop and implement policies and protocols to prevent illegal detainment, hold Know Your Rights trainings, and ensure that the City of Cambridge is adequately prepared to respond to and mitigate violations of this nature.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to do more outreach to residents, businesses, and property owners to communicate the drought status and take all measures to reduce nonessential water use citywide, and provide a report on citywide water usage and water supply.   Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui

Water conservation is good, but we are in a far better position now than we were just a few months ago. In fact, our Stony Brook Reservoir is now overflowing, and the level of the Hobbs Basin (a.k.a. Cambridge Reservoir) is much higher now.

Stony Brook Reservoir - March 12, 2025
Stony Brook Reservoir overflowing into the Charles River – March 12, 2025

Order #6. That the Human Services and Veterans Committee hold a meeting to discuss Sex Work and Sex Trafficking.   Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui

Regardless of any positive aspects of such a discussion, this is quite clearly a move by some councillors – most notably Sobrinho-Wheeler and Siddiqui – to capitalize politically on the current misdemeanor charge involving Councillor Toner. Indeed, many of the people writing letters and jumping on this bandwagon have affiliations with the local Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and/or the Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) – though, quite frankly, it’s getting difficult to tell the difference between the two. The “outrage” is clearly well-coordinated.

For the handful of people who actually are interested in my opinion, I will simply say that I understand the difference between what city councillors do as part of their jobs and what they do outside of their jobs. I am primarily interested in the former, and I’ll leave the latter to the local tabloids and anonymous commenters. I count myself among the many people who feel that Councillor Toner has been one of our effective and collaborative city councillors. He’s also a human being.

By the way, whatever happened with this little kerfuffle of a couple of years ago? I don’t recall there being a subsequent policy order regarding the “toxic work environment” next door to the Sullivan Chamber at that time. Just imagine what that environment might have been in a “strong mayor” system. How do we feel about the fact that City-salaried City Council aides routinely work in the political campaigns of their bosses? I can recall a time when one incumbent councillor was granted nearly-free campaign headquarters space in a prominent location in obvious violation of campaign finance laws. No whistle, no foul.

It is indeed ironic that the most recent Best Motion Picture Academy Award went to the film “Anora” – while here in Cambridge some are reacting in a manner analogous to Claude Rains in “Casablanca”, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” We even have a local state legislator supporting the legalization of sex work while simultaneously calling for Councillor Toner’s resignation. Let’s not forget that not so long ago a person selling marijuana might have been written off as a dope dealer, and now we have a City Council resolution congratulating a sitting member of the Cambridge School Committee on his grand opening of a cannabis dealership. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Times change. You don’t have to love all the changes, but sometimes you just have to roll with them.

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to renewal of the Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District. [Charter Right – Azeem, Mar 24, 2025] (CM25#66) [text of report]

As I said last week, I fear that the ABC juggernaut to bulldoze the historic fabric of Cambridge may involve objecting to any and all efforts to preserve the many historic features of our city in favor of maximum development. Councillor Azeem’s exercise of his Charter Right last week seems to confirm this. There are several communications from ABC adherents indicating their preference to discard most or all of such preservation efforts. If all you really want is A Bigger Cambridge, why let a long and rich history get in your way?


On The Table #3. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $570,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Police Extraordinary Expenditures account for the procurement of replacement firearms for the Police Department. These funds would support the purchase of replacement firearms for the Department. Police Department firearms are typically replaced on approximately a ten-year cycle. The manufacturer has ceased production of the model currently used and replacements are almost impossible to source. It is important that department personnel are all trained on the same firearm to ensure safety and interoperability. [Tabled – Mar 17, 2025]

On The Table #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $160,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Police Extraordinary Expenditures account for the procurement of a new fully electric accessible transport wagon. This funding will allow the purchase of a fully electric, American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant transport wagon to replace one of the aging F350s. The new vehicle will ensure the safe and comfortable transport of community members to court, shelters, and other service providers. [Tabled – Mar 17, 2025]

Though these will likely be approved after the recent delay and corresponding Finance Committee hearing last week, I allow myself to be entertained by the many ways Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (DSA) tap-dances his way through the many ways to say “Defund The Police” without explicitly saying “defund the police”. He apparently also believes in disarming the police – as evidenced by his remarks at the recent hearing. The Ghost of Zondervan lives on.

162 Communications – mainly on (a) Garden Street, (b) “Our squares and corridors”, and (c) support for Councillor Toner.

March 7, 2025

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 643-644: March 4, 2025

Episode 643 – Cambridge InsideOut: March 4, 2025 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on March 4, 2025 at 6:00pm. Topics: Grace – Black Churches in Cambridge, Cambridge Museum of History and Culture; Multi-Family Upzoning, unintended consequences, housing for upwardly mobile young professionals, real estate vultures descending, AHO 3.0 anticipated; Rezoning for Squares and “Corridors”, the noblesse oblige of ABC; Bike Lanes and loss of access to homes; City Manager contract extension; public safety and CPD use of drones, ACLU elitism. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 644 – Cambridge InsideOut: March 4, 2025 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on March 4, 2025 at 6:30pm. Topics: Politics of zoning petitions and ballot questions in municipal elections; Sanctuary Cities, virtue-signalling, choosing what is a “marginalized community”; potential loss of federal funding and ripple effects, tax implications; broker fees, junk fees, fueling hostility between landlords and tenants, illegality of limiting housing unit size; DSA nutcases and control freaks; City Hall and Frederick Hastings Rindge inscription; Cambridge Charter – process and particulars. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

February 10, 2025

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

It should be noted that this Regular City Council meeting will be preceded by a 3:00pm Special Meeting relating to negotiations to extend the contract of City Manager Yi-An Huang. Public comment will permitted at that meeting prior to going into Executive Session.

The Big Items (other than any developments on the City Manager’s contract) are the inevitable ordination of the ill-begotten Multi-Family Housing zoning (better characterized as the Gargantuan Upzoning Amendment) and an Order to move ahead on Municipal Broadband – regardless of cost.

Here are the items on the Regular Meeting that drew my attention this week:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan final adoption. (CM25#26) [text of report and Order]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to create a plan with a schedule and milestones to move forward with the creation of a Municipal Broadband Network and present it for consideration by the Council at a Finance Committee meeting in the context of capital projects for coming years.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by JSW dismissing concerns about feasibility claiming much consultation with City officials; Nolan notes that service would not be free, says this Order in not a mandate to move forward, notes importance of net neutrality, says this is a necessary utility, calls it a manageable investment; Toner notes opposition due to range of “Whereas” statements, $150-250 million cost and changing technologies, other ways to address Internet equity; McGovern says he has been supportive of this, but notes different financial circumstances now, refers to “Trump-Musk administration” and federal cuts, proposes amendment to strike to “to move forward to the creation…” clause; Zusy concurs re: current financial circumstances, notes other ways digital equity is being addressed; Siddiqui OK with amendment; Wilson says conversation is important; Simmons says affordable Internet now not a luxury but a necessity, need for greater digital equity, notes that proposal doesn’t assure lower cost; McGovern amendment to remove “to move forward” Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner-No)

Though I have no strong feelings on Municipal Broadband, I am aware of the significant costs associated with it as well as the risks and uncertainty of moving forward on an infrastructure proposal in an environment where emerging technologies may make this obsolete. I am also reminded of the various meetings and presentations on the tax levy over the last year and the repeated advice that the City needs to be more fiscally prudent in the near term. Perhaps Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, Nolan, and Wilson didn’t get the memo. Or maybe this is being introduced strategically right now as the City Manager’s contract extension is being negotiated. Or maybe it’s just another municipal election year bauble to be dangled in front of the electorate even though there is little or no indication that this will yield any cost savings for consumers. For the record, I deeply dislike Comcast/Xfinity – but mainly because of the crappy Cable TV options which, by the way, never enter into the discussions about Municipal Broadband.


Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Amended Feb 3, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#1) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Azeem amendment to footnote as suggested by CDD staff Adopted 9-0; McGovern amendment re: required abutters meeting that would have required notification to Planning Boards in adjacent towns (not viewable in recording of meeting); Nolan comments on electronic notification; McGovern amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Zusy comments on this proposal producing most luxury units, raised real estate values, displacement, and other negative outcomes, suggests delaying this or reconsidering “3+3” alternative and establish funding mechanisms, community land trust; Azeem praises himself and Siddiqui; Siddiqui calls this her “birthday present”, suggests even more aggressive changes and “being intentional”, dismisses concerns of others as “fear of change”; McGovern addresses concern about “luxury units” and that target population is people who make too much money to be eligible for Inclusionary Housing units, calls this “good government”; Toner concurs and acknowledges that many people will be upset with his vote in favor, dismisses concerns about over-building on small lots, wants to now move forward on Squares and Corridors; Wilson emphasizes “crisis”, says she preferred “3+3” alternative; Nolan credits herself for initializing process for eliminating single-family zoning, says she preferred “3+3” alternative claiming it would have yielded more units and more affordability; Sobrinho-Wheeler notes that all current single-family housing sell for at least $1.5 million, says this change will yield 60% of all new buildings having affordable units; Simmons notes long process and suggests this will yield affordability for generations, says “leadership means making difficult choices”, says Squares and Corridors, housing vouchers next targets, says “we are a role model”; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to ORDINANCE 2025 #2 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 2. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#2) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Late Order #6. That the City Manager direct the Community Development Department and Law Department to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would make the provisions of Section 11.207.5.2.1, Paragraph (e), which allow qualified increases in building height under the Affordable Housing Overlay, not applicable in the Residence C-1 district.   Councillor Toner (PO25#16)
Late Order Adopted 9-0

Other than the allowance of multi-family housing in all residential districts (which is not controversial), I think this gargantuan zoning change is a huge mistake. The existence of varying heights and densities in different parts of Cambridge is a feature – not a bug. I am also acutely aware of the value of setbacks and access – especially in regard to fire safety. Sometimes I think some of our city councillors are just robots created as part of an MIT project – programmed to solve some maximum packing problem set with no sense of aesthetics, liveability, or community. Meanwhile, the activists promise benefits like cheaper rents and lower costs that will most likely never be realized – at least not as a result of these zoning changes. Sometimes the call of “crisis” is just a tool to ram things through – both nationally and locally.

Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Jan 28, 2025 to discuss inter-jurisdictional projects that are in play that may impact mobility in Cambridge. The discussion was focused on the Community Development Department’s report of Nov 14, 2024 to the City Council, Awaiting Report 24-36. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I attended this meeting primarily to alert the councillors (at least those who actually listen) to some alternative approaches to pedestrian and bicycle-friendly crossings of the Charles River.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with appropriate departments to prepare a communication to DCR Commissioner Arrigo, urging that a study of traffic conditions at the intersections of Western Avenue and River Street at Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road (commonly referred to as “the box”), be included in their FY26 Capital Plan.   Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

This was one of the priorities discussed at the above meeting. Many of the current crop of activists only see merit in lane reductions and obstructions that make automobile use as difficult as possible. Reality sometimes has to intervene. – RW

February 5, 2025

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 641-642: February 4, 2025

Episode 641 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 4, 2025 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Feb 4, 2025 at 6:00pm. Topics: Broadway fire, importance of setbacks for fire safety and access; Multi-family Housing Zoning (a.k.a. Bigger Cambridge Zoning), concerns about heights, density, setbacks, stairwells, elevators; bad planning in crisis mentality; Broadway bike lane controversy, restrictions on emergency vehicles, misinformation about bike safety, importance of visibility; bulldozing Cambridge history; misguided leftist opposition to surveillance for police work, unsolved murders; Alewife MBTA excavation; $65K appropriation for Bisesquicentennial; appointments to “Broadway Safety Improvement Project” Working Group. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 642 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 4, 2025 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Feb 4, 2025 at 6:30pm. Topics: Hostility of some city councillors; advocate says only people with driveways should own cars; rumors of DSA strong mayor ballot question; history on nonpartisan municipal elections, drifting back to the dark ages; Sanctuary City or Welcoming City concerns, inability of federal government to address immigration; PILOT agreements, political hunger to fund pet programs; delegating curb cut authority to staff; Neville Center refinancing; notable passings; City Charter proposals re: budget control, appointing City Solicitor, direct election of mayor, 4-year City Council terms, Council approval of department heads, diminishing citizen redress and prohibitions against interference, need for better mechanism for accountability within City departments. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 4, 2025

Meet the New Year, Same as the Old Year – January 6, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Meet the New Year, Same as the Old Year – January 6, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Eye of ProvidenceThere is a theme that has run through recent years in Cambridge City government, namely the belief that public input is a problem and that legislation and even proposed changes to the City Charter should reflect this point of view. Any disagreement is dismissed as NIMBYism. Public involvement in matters such as development proposals or roadway reconfigurations is inherently contrary to what the elite in City government see as the public good. We saw this in the various iterations of the Affordable Housing Overlay where not only is public feedback unwelcome, but even the Planning Board’s role has been reduced to that of spectators. It’s also baked into the latest “multi-family zoning” proposals where concerns about radical changes to existing neighborhoods have been either dismissed or at best marginally tolerated. I found it quite telling that in the current discussion about changes to the City Charter, all votes to consider ideas such as “resident assemblies” or “citizen initiative petitions” or “group petitions” were voted down either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The prevailing point of view seems to be that, once elected, our city councillors become all-knowing and all-seeing arbiters of the public good. Democracy is for suckers.

This is, of course, hogwash. For what it’s worth, I think there is great merit in having some form of “resident assemblies” or “ward committees” – even though I think that what was proposed by the Charter Review Committee was not only terrible but disempowering. Anyway, that’s a discussion for another day. I will also note that some councillors are still considering proposing a change in the Charter to extend their terms from two years to four years (staggered terms) – even though they haven’t given even a moment of thought to what this means in terms of our PR elections or the need for a recall provision. Less accountability has some support because apparently having to seek reelection every two years (like every member of the United States House of Representatives and every member of the Massachusetts House and Senate) is just so inconvenient.

Here are a few things that stand out on this week’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $29,388,181.96 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund. During FY24, the City received mitigation revenues from various developers as a result of commitments related to zoning ordinance amendments and special permit conditions. By law, all mitigation revenues must be deposited into the General Fund and can only be appropriated after the Free Cash Certification is complete.
pulled by Siddiqui re: Free Cash balance and source of mitigation revenues; comments by Yi-An Huang, Taha Jennings; Siddiqui wants names of developers; Nolan comments; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc.
pulled by Siddiqui w/questions about meetings related to this; Yi-An Huang notes difficulties in funding health care institutions, some history leading up to this point, changing loan terms w/Rockland Trust; Claire Spinner (Finance) additional comments and explanation; Andy Fuqua (Neville Board) on reducing monthly debt service and preservation of physical building; Siddiqui inquires about role of State Legislature delegation; Fuqua notes recent Act adjusting Medicaid reimbursements; Nolan notes concerns about use of public funds to pay down loan to a private bank, wants to know terms of original loan; Spinner notes that original term was 10 years at a high interest rate, term extended, now to be extended to a 30-year term, current debt service is ~$120,000/month to be reduced to ~$75,000/month; Charter Right – Nolan [Azeem asks if City Manager’s Agenda items are subject to Charter Right (of course they are, as are any New Business items)]

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-65, regarding the creation of a jobs training trust through Home Rule Petition. [text of report]
pulled by Toner noting reasons he will be voting No; Sobrinho-Wheeler takes opposite view, naively noting that the Trust need not be funded and that this exists in Somerville and in Boston; Zusy supports intention of this but says cart is before the horse and that existing programs have not been evaluated and that additional funds and increased (already high) Linkage Fee may not be needed, petition is premature; Nolan supports motion w/explanation re: Nexus Study, agrees that existing programs should also be evaluated; JSW offers to have an additional committee meeting on this topic; Toner notes that such a meeting already pending; Home Rule Petition Adopted 7-2 (Toner, Zusy – No)


Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions.
pulled by Toner re: insinuations that councillors have not paid attention to Planning Board, explains proposed revisions in line with Planning Board suggestions, notes impasse re: development review and relation to AHO; Toner notes that he would prefer to focus first on Squares and Corridors (still undefined) but that other councillors disagree; Azeem notes feedback from both sides of the advocates, prefers version prior to proposed amendments, suggests plenty of time and process to go [not really]; McGovern claims that he and other councillors are listening, disputes suggestion that Council is “eliminating zoning” [which is, of course, an intentional misreading of what people are actually saying]; Nolan notes that exclusive single-family zoning is proposed to be eliminated, wants Planning Board feedback on “4+2” vs. “3+3+3” options, previous Planning Board meetings were specifically about original proposal; Jeff Roberts notes that there is no precedent for back-and-forth w/Planning Board, but that expiration and re-filing would allow for this [It is worth noting that the Planning Board could voluntarily choose to do this. – RW; Simmons notes that Planning Board generally in favor (but with what?), does not want to slow this process down; Nolan notes that Planning Board is advisory to the City Council and has not opined on these specifics even though they have been requested to do so [seems like the CDD staff is the real roadblock here]; Zusy notes that many feel that this process has been rushed, Planning Board report doesn’t really reflect sentiments of Planning Board members and that they gave no recommendation because of their expressed concerns – some of which have not been addressed, possible escalation of property values that will make housing less affordable, notes thousands of letters expressing concerns, wants additional Planning Board meeting on this topic and CDD response to questions raised by councillors; Simmons objects to suggestion that process has been rushed [and not acknowledging that the scale of this proposal is unprecedented]; Jeff Roberts says CDD staff and Law Dept. have been working on this and plan to have responses for Jan 16 Ordinance Committee meeting; Zusy notes some developers are already amassing properties for redevelopment, not much time for evaluation of proposal; Siddiqui notes that Planning Board is only advisory and that City Council’s word is only thing that really matters noting past actions ignoring Planning Board’s advice; Referred to Petition 8-1 (Zusy – No)

Order #1. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the relevant City departments to report back on additional multi-family zoning considerations, along with the other amendments put forward by the City Council on Dec 23, 2024.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Siddiqui as co-sponsor (Approved 9-0); Nolan asks clarification of “below current threshold of the inclusionary zoning ordinance”; Toner disagrees with the “average maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet per lot area” requirement; Zusy concurs on this; JSW notes desire to prevent a large single-family (“McMansion”) from being built under proposal; Zusy would prefer language to allow density increase only if increased housing units on the lot; JSW notes that proposal consistent with current zoning language; McGovern dismissively notes that “all we’re doing is asking a question”; Azeem concurs with JSW, says California concept (conditional upzoning based on adding units) noted by Zusy not consistent with existing enabling legislation (Chapters 40A or 40B); Simmons asks if Zusy has a specific proposal); Zusy notes that Azeem answered her question; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Toner, Zusy – No)

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on two Multifamily Zoning Petitions on Nov 19, 2024. This public hearing was recessed and reconvened on Dec 4, 2024. It was again recessed. It reconvened and adjourned on Dec 19, 2024. [Nov 19, 2024 report] [Dec 4, 2024 report] [Dec 19, 2024 report] [communications]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

These reports actually represent three separate meetings, though they are being lumped together because the first two meetings are technically recessed rather than adjourned. This is an unnecessary confusion.

162 Communications – overwhelming with the message “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.


Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance 2023 #8B has been received from City Clerk, relative to Amend Chapter 14.04 – Fair Housing. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 2, 2023; Amended Nov 6, 2023; to remain on Unfinished Business pending legislative approval of Special Act needed prior to ordination] (ORD23-8B)
Siddiqui notes that legislative approval has been obtained, nod to Rep. Marjorie Decker shepherding it through process; Ordained 9-0

According to State Representative Marjorie Decker (who I wish was my representative), legislative approval has now been completed and signed by the Governor, so this matter is now ready for ordination.

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to proposed amendments to the Cycling Safety Ordinance to extend the deadline associated with the completion of those sections of the ordinance that are required to be completed by May 1, 2026. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Dec 16, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained on or after Jan 6, 2025] (ORD24#8)
McGovern comments, Toner amendment to seek status of Grand Junction Multi-Use Path Adopted 9-0; Nolan says the current timelines are aggressive and that she looks forward to completion of currently planned lanes and additional expansion of the network; Ordained as Amended 9-0

This item is apparently also ready for ordination – though it could really use one important change.


Resolution #8. Condolence Resolution for Dr. Robert S. Peterkin.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner


Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Dec 11, 2024 for an update and discussion on Public Investment Planning. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I suppose money used to grow on trees in Cambridge. Now we have fewer trees and more fiscal constraints. – RW

November 28, 2024

And So It Goes – December 2, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Central Square,City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:27 pm

And So It Goes – December 2, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

I skipped last week’s LoveFest, but the memories will last forever. This week features relatively little, but here goes:Be True - Dogtown

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update regarding Community Engagement. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to review with a robust and inclusive community process the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, most recently updated in 2020, and identify potential improvements and consider next steps for a network of Separated Bicycle Facilities, and Separated Bicycle Facilities on streets across the city in order to facilitate safer travel and ways to coordinate routes with neighboring communities including Arlington, Somerville, Watertown, Belmont, Boston, and others.   Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

On The Table #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and encourage the state Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the MBTA to adhere to Cambridge local ordinances, including the Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance, during Alewife Construction. [Tabled – Nov 25, 2024]

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on November 21, 2024 to discuss the City Council’s Flexible Parking Corridor Zoning Petition, the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Municipal Ordinance, and the Commercial Parking Space Permits Municipal Ordinance. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; 3 Items Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Communications & Reports from City Officers #2. A communication from Mayor Simmons transmitting a Report on the Recent Senior Citizens Town Hall. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Powered by WordPress