Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 22, 2024

Out Like A Lion – March 25, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Out Like A Lion – March 25, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

These are a few of my favorite things….City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $15,000 to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations (Arts Council) Other Ordinary Maintenance account. The MCC Cultural District Grant provides financial support to state-designated Cultural Districts throughout the Commonwealth.
Order Adopted 9-0

I will simply highlight the last paragraph: “Cambridge’s Central Square Cultural District was one of the 10 inaugural MA Cultural Districts designated by the Legislature in 2012. This funding will support District-based initiatives that drive economic growth and strengthen the distinctive character of the Central Square Cultural District.”

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Parking Study Executive Summary. [text of report]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Nolan, McGovern, Toner (on available parking alternatives), Wilson, Siddiqui, Azeem (wants large grocery stores to be replaced by bodegas – based on notion that the City builds these, wants greater prioritization of bus transportation, wants more subsidized e-bikes), Simmons; comments by Iram Farooq on survey sampling, Yi-An Huang; referred to Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 9-0

As near as I can tell, this “study” consists primarily of survey responses and policy proposals from City staff. I’m not really sure how this qualifies as a “study”. Absent are such seemingly important data as how many on-street parking spaces have been lost and how many more are anticipated to be lost due to current policies (such as the Cycling Safety Ordinance). This seems like a deficiency that ought to be corrected in something billed as a “Parking Study”.

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years; Melissa Greene and Kevin Grinberg.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Welcome aboard, Kevin. It’s also great to see Melissa continuing her role on the Central Square Advisory Committee.

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order Number 24-09, regarding a report back with any necessary edits to zoning language that would allow unrelated people to live together in the City of Cambridge. [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; Rules Suspended to bring forward Housing Committee Report; Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0; Communication Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number #24-03, regarding a response on potential public renewable energy projects that could receive funding through the IRA Direct Pay provision. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Ellen Katz (DPW), Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan, Susanne Rasmussen (CDD); comments by Nolan; Rasmussen states that Housing Division (CDD) soon to become separate Housing Department; Pickett on 60% subsidy via Direct Pay; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-10, regarding the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Iram Farooq, Jeff Roberts (CDD); Nolan notes that the report shows “asking rent” in tables, but actual median rents are significantly lower; Azeem disputes this claiming that median rents are lower only because they include all subsidized rents [actual truth is somewhere in between]; Placed on File 9-0


Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department and Community Development Department to study whether the City Council could add maximum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum setback requirements, and minimum floor area ratios in some districts or as part of an overlay in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the City Council could require a special permit for a down conversion in developments that would result in a net loss of housing units. [Charter Right – Pickett, Mar 18, 2024]
Councillor Pickett moves to take up both Charter Right #1 and #2; Farooq says she and staff have been consulting Housing Committee Chairs re: their priorities, feels that more study needed to see how expansive this phenomenon actually is; Toner does not object to “down conversions”; Sobrinho-Wheeler OK with restricting “down conversions” claiming this would not be a ban; McGovern prefers to get legal opinion reported directly to Housing Committee; Pickett wants more information about how common this is; Azeem wants income-restricted housing required with any multi-family housing [which likely would result in only subsidized housing developers doing projects]; JSW emphasizes part of Order about setbacks; JSW amendment to refer to Housing Committee Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Pickett, Toner – No)

I’ll simply repeat what I said last week: I am very leery of this proposal – especially if it is interpreted to apply to existing buildings. During the days of rent control, the requirement that a “removal permit” was required prior to joining units was routinely used to prevent property owners from doing very reasonable things. For example, when I bought my triple-decker, the apartment where I now live had been operated as a rooming house, and the City treated it as 5 housing units. I had to use my tenure dating back to 1978 in the building to be allowed to legally restore the floor back to the apartment it had been for over fifty years. Had I not been able to do this, it would not have been possible for me to continue owning or living in the building. Many years later, I now occasionally consider the possibility of occupying two floors of the building, and I would be outraged if our elected officials took away my flexibility to do that. The devil, as is often said, is in the details. There is a very creepy mindset in the minds of some elected officials that personal freedom should always take a back seat to their political agendas.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with the chairs of the Housing Committee on zoning language that effectively promotes multi-family housing, including inclusionary units, citywide. [Charter Right – Pickett, Mar 18, 2024]
Comments by Pickett, Wilson (with amendment), Toner (will not support Wilson amendment); Sobrinho-Wheeler comments of legalities; Azeem moved to amend Wilson amendment to delete “multiple options for”; comments by Nolan re: middle-income, “workforce” housing; McGovern opposed to conversions to single-family for purpose of sale, suggests that this is only about “having conversations” now; City Manager notes need for prioritization, legal feasibility, questions how many “down conversions” are actually occurring; Toner notes many studies currently underway; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner – No)

Again, I’ll simply repeat what I said last week: While I generally agree with the idea of allowing multi-family housing citywide, I really don’t think that this Order should be quoting a class project by a Harvard freshman in making assertions (some of which are demonstrably false) regarding the history of zoning in Cambridge.


On The Table #3. Policy Order to Edit City Council Rule 21A, 21B and add 21C Requiring Two City Councilors to Sponsor Policy Orders and Resolutions to be Filed and Placed on Council Agenda. [Tabled – Mar 18, 2024]
Taken from Table 9-0; Order #1 taken up as well; Toner comments (in response to idiotic and profane testimony of Robert Bledsoe during Public Comment); City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes legal gray area regarding whether profanity may be prohibited – noting that it is not entirely affected by First Amendment, notes history of Mass. Declaration of Rights, John and Samuel Adams when still under British rule, speech about government at that time could be was crude and pushed the limits and that’s the basis of our government today, a future court could say that profanity could be prohibited, essential phrase is “fighting words”, use of profanity directed at an individual could be interpreted as “fighting words”, use of the “F word” in excitement might not be, difficult to make decision in the moment; Toner notes list of potential infractions; Toner proposes to remove prohibition of profanity (though he will vote against removing it); McGovern suggests that this discussion will lead to some people pushing the envelope re: what they can get away with [note: McGovern and others felt no concerns about slander as recently as several months ago]; JSW, Azeem OK with removing prohibition of profanity; Nolan suggests amending to distinguish “requests” and “prohibitions”; Bayer provides additional guidance on “loud and repetitive”; Simmons’ wise comments on “fighting words” and being welcoming, chilling effect of some words and actions, importance of “the rule of the Chair” in conduct of meetings; Placed on File 9-0

On The Table #4. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Feb 15, 2024, which was recessed, and reconvened on Feb 26, 2024. The Call of the meeting was to review and discuss possible amendments to the City Council Rules. At the meeting on Feb 26, 2024, the Committee voted to send 46 rule changes to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. Please see orders within the report. [Tabled – Mar 18, 2024] [text of report]
Taken from Table 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. City Council Rule Changes.   Councillor Toner
Taken up with On The Table #3; comments by multiple councillors; Councillor Nolan, in particular, notes her intention to allow back-and-forth interaction with public in committee meetings when appropriate (thank you); All Rules Adopted as Amended 9-0

I have no particular issues with the proposed rules changes, but I do find curious the level of vitriol expressed by some people about some of the changes pertaining to Public Comment. In my view, Public Comment has largely devolved into performance by the season ticket holders with the occasional flood of “talking point zombies” generated by organized groups and facilitated by Zoom. My only suggestions are: (a) the Mayor and committee Chairs should have broad discretion in managing public comment and not be bound by overly rigid rules, (b) back-and-forth dialogue between councillors and the public should be encouraged at committee meetings whenever it is helpful, and (c) steps should be taken proactively to address the potential of extraordinary numbers of nonresidents signing up for public comment as part of organized campaigns on controversial issues.


Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Khalida Griffin-Sheperd et al. regarding Affordable Housing Trust Zoning. (AP24#10) [text of petition]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

One look at the signers of this petition was enough to convince me that it should be rejected. I also find it curious that the petitioners want to be overly prescriptive in who may serve on their proposed expanded Affordable Housing Trust (AHT). Also, though the idea of using AHT funds to provide rent subsidies seems like a possible alternative to the construction of some of the extraordinarily expensive deed-restricted housing now being funded through the AHT, this proposal seems to simply want to add on this new very high cost for rent vouchers – a potential budget-buster at a time when the City Council really needs to be controlling the Budget much more than they have in recent years. Considering the fact that the AHT is now partially funded out of the City’s Operating Budget, this also raises the question of the legality of such direct rent payments under the Anti-Aid Amendment to the Mass. Constitution.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department, the Community Development Department, and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to determine whether the City could provide incentives for residents who do not have cars.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Nolan as sponsor; JSW comments on incentives to not own car, some concerns about whether this may violate Anti-Aid Amendment; Toner questions why there is a need to incentivize those who have already decided to not own a car, whether BlueBikes subsidies might be in perpetuity; Pickett questions why this is actually an incentive in that it rewards who have already made choice to not own a car [that is, whether this is just a patronage program for a subset of the population]; Nolan says this is not meant to be just for those who don’t currently own a car; Wilson questions need for incentives for those already w/o car and whether this might penalize or shame those who actually need a car]; Siddiqui says intent is not to shame anyone; Azeem quotes an academic paper claiming that every family contributes $14,000 per year to subsidize car ownership, says transit gets better the more people use it [yeah, right], wants to subsidize transit, e-bikes; Simmons asks if the proposes incentive would apply to those who don’t have cars or those who might get cars; JSW says it’s for both, says this is not about shaming; McGovern suggests amending language; Simmons comments on large families, unreliable MBTA, those who work outside Cambridge, those who shop elsewhere, churchgoers, elderly and those with mobility issues – will vote Present; Amendment to add Nolan Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 5-3-0-1 (BA,MM,PN,SS,JSW – Yes; JP,PT,AW – No; DS – Present)

There seems to be this belief among some councillors (and some City staff) that the only reason people make personal choices (such as whether or not to own a car) are primarily based on government intervention. I disagree.

Order #5. Support of the Regional Heat Pump Accelerator Program.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

I will repeat my point of view from last year when BEUDO (or is it BEUDERO?) amendments were being discussed and ordained. Simply dictating mandates is not nearly as effective (or fair) as providing financial incentives. – Robert Winters

March 20, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 613-614: March 19, 2024

Episode 613 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 19, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Mar 19, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Middlesex Canal – history, Sullivan Square to Middlesex Village, Brooks Bridge, Medford, gypsy moth infestation, Pomp’s Wall, extensions from Concord NH to Haymarket Square; knowing where you live – Cambridge and elsewhere; Flushing Remonstrance (1657) and religious freedom in USA; Adopt-A-Drain, volunteerism; Little Things – just be a good citizen; School Committee campaign finance update; Linear Park plans – bikeway or park? Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 614 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 19, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Mar 19, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Linear Park, lack of public process; paradoxical negative climate effects of electrification – increased electrical demand outpacing new energy sources; Reinventing the Wards, organizing in the wards, party ward committees, potential charter changes to create issue-specific “citizen assemblies” – a partisan, biased proposal; creation of nonpartisan ward committees; triple AAA bond ratings for 25th straight year; water & sewer rates; Red Line shutdowns and proposal for fare-free #1 Bus – better than expecting everyone to move to bikes; proposal to restrict conversions to fewer units and unintended consequences; proposal to allow multi-family homes citywide – rationale in Order based on fiction. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 14, 2024

Springing Forward – March 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:23 pm

Springing Forward – March 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are the things I found interesting this week:First Sign of Spring

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge retaining its AAA rating from the nation’s three major credit rating agencies. (CM24#42) [text of reports]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Claire Spinner, Toner on OPEB, Michele Kincaid, Taha Jennings, McGovern, Nolan, Yi-An Huang, JSW [24 triple AAA cities in USA], Azeem, Simmons (notes what happens when ARPA funds no longer available); Placed on File 9-0

This is almost routine at this point. I can’t even remember when we last failed to get a “triple triple”. One thing that struck me in the Moody’s report was: “Cambridge’s assessed value projected to decline by 2% in 2025 before recovering in 2026.” I don’t believe there’s any way that residential assessed values could be falling, so any drop is likely due to lower commercial assessed values. There’s also this: “The city’s assessed value is projected to flatten over the next couple years including a 2% decline in total assessed value that is projected in 2025. The decline in total AV is driven by a projected 7% decline in commercial value in 2025 and projected 2% decline in 2026. The declines are driven primarily by the challenges in the commercial office space sub-sector as a result of work-from-home options that have taken hold in many companies and industries in the city and across the nation. The residential sector is projected to see no change in 2025 values followed by a projected 2% increase annually beginning in 2026 through 2028.” The S&P report has this cautionary note: “We could lower the rating if reserves were to decrease significantly without a plan for restoration or if debt service and retirement costs were to pressure the city’s finances.”

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning April 1, 2024 and ending March 31, 2025. (CM24#43) [text of report]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett on use of ARPA funds for new filter media at Fresh Pond, Owen O’Riordan notes ARPA will again be used next year to keep water rates from rising even more, need for upgrades on our (relatively young) 25-year-old treatment plant, cost of water main replacements; Mark Gallagher (Acting Managing Direct, Water Department) notes increases in labor costs and supply chain cost increases; Pickett asks if any ARPA funds available to be reallocated to these purposes, O’Riordan responds affirmatively; Nolan on PFAS, effects of minerals in water on plumbing fixtures; O’Riordan notes long-term strategy on chlorides, Gallagher concurs re: chlorides, hardness; Toner on problems with plumbing fixtures and remediation, Gallagher reminds that HW heaters should be drained once/year; Order Adopted 9-0

The notable increases in the water rate last year and this year actually exceed the increases in the sewer rate, but it has generally been the reverse for some time. It costs far more to lose water than to supply it.

water-sewer rates FY25

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and meet with the MBTA and City of Boston in advance of the July Red Line shutdown about the implementation of a fare-free 1 bus program.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; uptalking comments by JSW, Siddiqui (notes meet w/JSW and her w/Livable Streets), Toner, Azeem; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department and Community Development Department to study whether the City Council could add maximum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum setback requirements, and minimum floor area ratios in some districts or as part of an overlay in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the City Council could require a special permit for a down conversion in developments that would result in a net loss of housing units.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Pickett; comments by JSW, Nolan, Pickett; Charter Right – Pickett

I am very leery of this proposal – especially if it is interpreted to apply to existing buildings. During the days of rent control, the requirement that a “removal permit” was required prior to joining units was routinely used to prevent property owners from doing very reasonable things. For example, when I bought my triple-decker, the apartment where I now live had been operated as a rooming house, and the City treated it as 5 housing units. I had to use my tenure dating back to 1978 in the building to be allowed to legally restore the floor back to the apartment it had been for over fifty years. Had I not been able to do this, it would not have been possible for me to continue owning or living in the building. Many years later, I now occasionally consider the possibility of occupying two floors of the building, and I would be outraged if our elected officials took away my flexibility to do that. The devil, as is often said, is in the details. There is a very creepy mindset in the minds of some elected officials that personal freedom should always take a back seat to their political agendas.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with the chairs of the Housing Committee on zoning language that effectively promotes multi-family housing, including inclusionary units, citywide.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Pickett; comments by Azeem, McGovern (connecting this to “Missing Middle” zoning petition), Wilson, Pickett; Charter Right – Pickett

While I generally agree with the idea of allowing multi-family housing citywide, I really don’t think that this Order should be quoting a class project by a Harvard freshman in making assertions (some of which are demonstrably false) regarding the history of zoning in Cambridge.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and report back to the City Council with recommendations for adjusting parking permit fees to better align with associated costs.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan (suggesting doubling fee except for low-income residents, charging more for larger vehicles); Toner, Pickett object to suggestion to charge more based on vehicle size; Azeem complains about increasing size of vehicles; Simmons OK with reviewing fees, concerns about charging more for larger vehicles and effect on families who may need a larger vehicle; Nolan additional concerns about larger vehicles; Order Adopted 9-0

Once again, if this is simply a matter of adjusting fees to cover the administrative costs of the resident parking permit program, then fine. On the other hand, if the intention is to use increased fees to carry out yet another social engineering program, then I hope this goes nowhere fast.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to develop ways to fund support of decarbonization and clean energy projects and technical assistance for property owners of all types especially those with limited resources, with an initial focus on work associated with BEUDO emissions reduction requirements.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Pickett, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

As I have said before, if the City wants to provide incentives to change energy sources or provide greater efficiencies for homeowners, then I’m totally on board with that. I am, however, mindful of the woefully inadequate electrical infrastructure in Cambridge (look up sometime to see how many streetlights are connected to extension cords over the street to get their power) and the potential consequence of increased electrification. I also encourage everyone to read the recent March 14 New York Times article “A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals”. – Robert Winters

Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Feb 15, 2024, which was recessed, and reconvened on Feb 26, 2024. The Call of the meeting was to review and discuss possible amendments to the City Council Rules. At the meeting on Feb 26, 2024, the Committee voted to send 46 rule changes to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. Please see orders within the report. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that there are really about 10 changes – mostly suggested by City Clerk, additional comments on codifying how much time allotted for Public Comment and other rules changes; Simmons notes that process requires this to be Laid on Table; Sobrinho-Wheeler addresses Public Comment time limits; Nolan favors longer time limits during Public Comment; McGovern wants 2 minute limit for all meetings, says Public Comment has changed over time from individuals (notes Roy Bercaw) and how it is now dominated by organized groups with many speakers having little or no knowledge of what they are speaking about, problem of same speakers every week; Azeem comments on time limits and predictability of commentary from organized groups and frequent speakers – would prefer a separate meeting just for public comment; Pickett notes value of Zoom as well as the added commitment associated with actually showing up; Wilson also notes changing nature of Public Comment; JSW clarifies that nobody is suggesting different time limits for different people, potential value of separate meeting for public comment; Toner expresses openness to future changes in Public Comment; Simmons notes that Open Meeting Law does not require public comment, and that we allow it under our rules, notes many other opportunities for offering citizen input, notes past practice of sometimes taking City Council meetings to the neighborhoods, allowance for public comment via interpreters, role of time of meeting in access; Late Policy Order from Toner calling for two sponsors for any policy order; McGovern expresses confusion of “Resolutions” vs. “Policy Orders & Resolutions” – amplified by Toner, Simmons; Toner notes that most Resolutions are non-controversial, but controversial Resolutions appear with Policy Orders; Nolan OK w/requiring two sponsors but wants to exercise Charter Right; Simmons, McGovern explain that if Charter Right exercises cannot be part of Rules Changes to be considered at next meeting; City Clerk Diane LeBlanc concurs that this is necessary under current Rules; Tabled 9-0

Late Order #11. That the City Council Rules be amended to require at least two City Councillors supporting a proposed policy order and/or resolution before filing and including as part of the City Council Agenda.   Councillor Toner
Tabled 9-0

March 5, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 611-612: March 5, 2024

Episode 611 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 5, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Mar 5, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Super Tuesday; Iran voting boycott vs. campaign for “No Preference”; Trump vs. Biden; ward committees; City Council less dysfunctional, more collaborative w/City Manager; Finance Committee – levy projections, call for restraint, need to maintain excess levy capacity; use of operating budget for affordable housing has consequences; anticipated 10%+ annual increases in levy coming; fewer building permits – revenue not subject to Prop 2½ limits; commercial values relatively flat – shift of levy from commercial to residential; within residential, condos get sweetest deal after residential exemption and most of the increases borne by single-, two-, and three-family properties; need for intervention now to avoid future need for overrides; councillors had luxury for years in not having to think about limitations; FY24 consolidated spending categories; note that every stick of affordable housing (deed restrictions) has de minimis tax revenue – receive far more value in services that tax generated. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 612 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 5, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Mar 5, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Mar 4 City Council meeting; PERF report – police-involved shooting, good recommendations, positive evaluation of CPD practices, less-lethal options, CPD to be first in Mass. with policy on releasing names of involved officers; Central Square Lots Study in parallel with zoning changes; other assets, adjacent properties; everyone loves Central Square until they don’t; demise of current Starlight Square, need for replacement; contradictory signals on whether to gather more information or take action; exclusive focus on “affordable housing” creates net financial negative in perpetuity – math doesn’t work; plan in concert with privately-owned adjacent lots, e.g. Bishop Allen/Prospect, Green/Pleasant lot and Needle Exchange building; 44 years and 24 studies – the never-ending study of Central Square; not just about making everything bigger – need to make things better, more creative and more interesting; death of Paul Ryder; Charter Review update – next steps, desire to control process, facets of City government via Special Acts that should be part of Charter or at least be referenced – License Commission, Election Commission, Traffic Board, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge Housing Authority, Cambridge Redevelopment Authority; housing-related orders re: real estate transfer tax and municipally-funded vouchers (a real budget buster); the more we fund affordable housing the wider the gap in affordability. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 4, 2024

Marching Fourth – March 4, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Marching Fourth – March 4, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Lion and the LambPerhaps this is the year we’ll march in like a lamb and out like a lion. There are some interesting things circling around – notably the recent Feb 28 Finance Committee meeting where City staff made it abundantly clear that the City Council might want to be just a bit less ambitious and expansive in their requests to fund everything under the sun. They are anticipating tax levy increases for the next few fiscal years in excess of 10%, and this may translate into very large jumps in property taxes – especially for single-, two-, and three-family homes. [Don’t worry, condo owners, you will likely continue to get the sweetest deal in town. The main message was “The City is at a critical inflection point and will need to take action to preserve future financial stability.”

Perhaps the two most substantive items on the week’s agenda are the final report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Central Square Lots Study Report.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the final report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). [text of report]
pulled by Wilson to announce that there will be a Public Safety Committee meeting on this on Apr 2, 3-5pm; Referred to Public Safety Committee 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Central Square Lots Study Report. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson – a says outreach was unsatisfactory, loss of Starlight Square; Yi-An Huang responds to questions about representation, nature of process of the study, role of councillors in facilitating community feedback; McGovern questions about Request for Information (RFI), Melissa Peters responds about RFI and planning for Central Square rezoning, trade-offs, housing options; Yi-An Huang refers to Lots Study as a “test fit”, desire for housing, including “affordable”, need to bring Cambridge Redevelopment Authority into process, possibility of joining with adjacent (privately-owned) properties [Note: this was exactly the point I made in the Central Square Advisory Committee (CSAC) meeting on this – especially in regard to the privately-owned lots at Prospect/Bishop Allen and building on Green Street adjacent to parking lot at Pleasant (currently hosting Needle Exchange)]; McGovern on Starlight (Lot 5) and how its loss would be upsetting to many; Yi-An Huang notes that he has discussed with with CSBID, City financial support for Starlight/Popportunity – uses phrase “square within the square”, possibility of housing, performance space, and parking at this location; Siddiqui expresses disappointment that there will be a limited Starlight season this year with an early end, notes ARPA award to support it, says there is community support to extend it; Pickett wants to reconcile Lots Study and planning for zoning changes; Melissa Peters says Lots Study and zoning planning are parallel processes, RFP will come after the zoning is completed; Pickett asks about continuing community engagement; Nolan concerns about long-term planning [Hey, isn’t there a committee with that name?], suggests citywide survey, impacts on City budget – both capital and operating budgets, quantifying value of Starlight Square; Azeem bemoans loss of Starlight, need for alternatives, offers comments on various lots and properties; Sobrinho-Wheeler uptalks; Simmons wants to refer to NLTP Committee, expresses hope for Starlight, notes decades of studies on Central Square – brings up slide (from CCJ site), Central Square as a cultural district, how this fits in with ongoing MAPC study, shallow referencing of “people of color”, dissatisfaction with degree of outreach, 44 years with 24 studies – “hurry up and wait”; Yi-An Huang notes that this “test fit” utilized past studies; disagreement about whether there is a call for action or additional feedback and study; Yi-An Huang (correctly) notes that Starlight was built as a temporary structure during Covid and that focus now should be on future alternatives; Wilson references long gap between ideas/suggestions and actions; Pickett speaks to how NLTP will take this on; McGovern expresses a “blitz” of meetings on this; Referred to NLTP 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-4, regarding recommendations and legal opinions for adjusting transportation related fees and other considered changes based on the conversations in committee on Dec 6, 2023. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan – wants to raise resident parking permit fees w/low-income discounts, fees based on vehicle size; City Solicitor Megan Bayer responds; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a communication regarding the American Rescue Plan Act’s (“ARPA”) definition of “Obligation.” [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler – what happens to unspent ARPA funds; Magan Bayer says these go back to U.S. Treasury if unspent; Matt Nelson provides additional information; Nolan asks if this has been communicated to nonprofit organizations; Yi-An Huang responds in the affirmative; Pickett wants to know what unallocated funds remain; Wilson comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-7, regarding a review of the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee. [text of report]
pulled by Pickett – reminder (from Toner) to councillors to forward their questions to Councillor Toner; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Resolution #4. Condolences on the death of Paul Ryder.   Councillor Toner

Order #1. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider a request for a dedication in a suitable location in honor of Paul Ryder.   Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Order #5. Tenant Protection Resources.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan, Wilson, Simmons; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Feb 15, 2024 to discuss the current lab, office, and retail vacancies in Cambridge and their expected impact on City revenues in the near and long term. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Powered by WordPress