Episode 671 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 21, 2026 (Part 1)
This episode was broadcast on July 21, 2026 at 6:00pm. Topics: 29 years and counting with CCJ; “Hire Better Actors”; murder of Xavier Bautista; anti-ShotSpotter activism; misplaced priorities of our elected officials; July 8 community meeting; misrepresentation by political actors; Community Safety Department – a department in search of a purpose; the bad consequences of mayoral selection and the appointment of City Council committees; overtly anti-police councillors repeated appointed as Chair of Public Safety; the vote to remove ShotSpotter; Special Meeting coming; Cambridge Day opinion piece masquerading as journalism. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]
Episode 672 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 21, 2026 (Part 2)
This episode was broadcast on July 21, 2026 at 6:30pm. Topics: June 22 City Council meeting; ShotSpotter follow-up vote; revision of Boards & Commissions and the ordinances that created them, sunsetting; Resident Permit Parking fee; legally questionable proposal to deny a resident sticker to new residents; proposed changes to Short-Term Rental Ordinance; passing ordinances without thinking things through; long overdue Nexus studies and lack of political will; history of civic involvement and civic people; death of Vince Dixon; local contested elections; the World Cup lifts Central Square businesses; rents dropping in Greater Boston – and possible causes; Cambridge Jazz Festival. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]
Don’t worry about the nexus study putting councillors in an awkward position about reducing the 20% inclusionary requirement. The conclusion of the study is clearly preordained, and there’s no way it will recommend less than 20%.
How do your friends advertise their short-term rentals that aren’t on AirBnB?
I would hope summer sublets are still not restricted by the ordinance since they’re for more than 30 days.
Comment by Margaret Hines — July 27, 2026 @ 12:40 pm
I also expect that the upcoming Nexus study (studies) will yield predetermined conclusions that are in line with the personal beliefs of the head of our new Housing Department. I used to generally trust the professionalism of those working in City departments, but the last few years have really eroded that trust.
All you have to do is look around at what other cities are doing. They seem to uniformly be coming to the conclusion that when the Inclusionary requirement is set too high, the result is that this stifles housing production – “affordable” and in general. A rational decision is now often made to build below the threshold over which the Inclusionary requirement kicks in – unless, of course, your project was on a very large lot and you were going to be over the threshold anyway.
My sense is that the Inclusionary requirement should probably be between 5% and maybe 12% for housing developments to be economically viable, but acknowledging this fact will require elected officials to lower their current unrealistic requirement. This will require honesty, integrity, and some measure of political courage – and my sense is that there’s not a whole lot of any of those qualities going around.
Comment by Robert Winters — July 27, 2026 @ 1:40 pm