Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Lame Ducks and Marching Sheep – November 2, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting

Most eyes are likely fixated on the national election and whatever Presidential stunts and Congressional reactions that may follow. That said, the revolutionaries are still revolving here in the Peoples Republic of Cambridge where truth and fiction are frequently interchangeable. The barricades have been removed from City Hall after the political theater of the last couple of weeks, and one can only wonder what spectacle is coming next.

By the way, the quick summary of last week’s Special Meeting on Things Unrelated to Cambridge is this:

(1) The City Council requested that the Cambridge Retirement Board divest from certain listed investments, but the Retirement Board is under no obligation to do so. The Board represents retired and current Cambridge employees who either receive or will one day receive pensions, and the Board’s principal fiduciary duty is to those people. The Cambridge City Council has ZERO authority over the Retirement Board. The amended Order also requests the City Manager to develop, publish, and maintain its own Divestment List for purposes of the Order.

(2) The more significant matter was the call for the City Administration to boycott Israel-connected companies in its purchasing and contracts, and that policy order was defeated without the proposed ordinance being referred to the Ordinance Committee.

Here are the items on this week’s agenda that drew my attention:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to AR26-66 regarding discussions with MWRA about improvements to water quality and advancement of CSO infrastructure without taking of public parkland or prolonged disruption to Magazine Beach. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Jim Wilcox (DPW), McGovern, Nolan, Deputy City Manager Kathy Watkins, Flaherty, City Manager Yi-An Huang; Siddiqui; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

It’s a rare moment when just about everyone in Cambridge can agree on something.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff to consider an integrated development review process in which demolition and tree removal permits are reviewed with and issued concurrently with the building permits Issuing Demolition and Tree Removal Permits in Conjunction with Building Permits Approval.   Councillor Zusy, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui
Charter Right – Zusy

In a rational world you might believe that all of these things and more would be reviewed as soon as a development plan for a site is proposed. You may as well throw in the curb cut applications and how they plan to manage the rubbish and recycling as well.

Order #4. City Council support of the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA) and urge the conference committee on the economic development bill to adopt the House’s local-option version.   Councillor Al-Zubi, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

I am an example of a tenant who was given the opportunity to purchase my triple-decker by my then-landlord, so you won’t find me railing against the idea of existing tenants getting the opportunity to buy either the apartment in which they currently live or even the entire building. That said, I absolutely don’t agree that this is a right that should be enshrined into law. However, the reason I could never support this TOPA proposal is that it’s not really about tenants purchasing their apartments. That right would be transferable to any “qualified nonprofit housing organization”.

In other words, this legislation would provide a mechanism through which the City’s Affordable Housing Trust or other City-supported nonprofit housing organization would be able to snap up any residential property covered under this proposed law. While the “social housing” supporters may see this as ideal and would happily support dedicating an increasingly large fraction of the City’s Budget to purchase these buildings, the reality is that all such buildings would then have deed restrictions, and the amount of tax revenue they would pay would be de minimis – even though the residents of those buildings would continue to enjoy all City services. In other words, the owners of the remaining residential properties (and commercial properties) would have to pick up the tab in perpetuity.

If you are a socialist, you will likely fully support this legislation. I personally believe that privately-owned residential property is the ideal and that the alternative is ultimately unsustainable.

On The Table #1. That the City Manager is requested to review and reconsider the Harvard Square Kiosk Operating and Stewardship Model. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler (Oct 20, 2026); Tabled Oct 28, 2026]
comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, Elliot Veloso (Law Dept.), Zusy, Nolan, Al-Zubi, Flaherty, Yi-An Huang, Siddiqui, Melissa Peters (CDD); Sobrinho-Wheeler amendments amended and adopted 6-2-1 (McGovern, Simmons – No; Azeem Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Back when suggestions were being solicited for the Kiosk, I made the suggestion that the Kiosk should operate as an affordable hot dog stand (not just hot dogs, of course, but like Sullivan’s at Castle Island) with a projection screen at one end where people could watch things like Red Sox games – like we used to do through the window at Cardullo’s. Some City staff really liked the idea (albeit privately – because, you know, Cambridge), so the idea went absolutely nowhere. The current operation coordinated by CultureHouse, though perhaps well-intentioned, is thoroughly sterile. Perhaps that might improve when the whole plaza is reopened (hopefully before hell freezes over), but I agree with the intent of the City Council order that the whole operation needs to be reevaluated.

Whatever is decided, I hope that the rules imposed on whatever entity manages the Kiosk (and the adjacent plaza) will allow for a far greater degree of energetic activity and spontaneity – devoid of political preachiness. It’s not a library and it shouldn’t feel like one. – RW