Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Noteworthy Agenda Items from the May 8, 2017 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are the agenda items this week that I found interesting:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the recommended appointment of Kathleen L. Born as a member of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a term of five years.

The appointment of Kathy Born to the CRA by Bob Healy in 2012 was an inspired choice, and City Manager Louis DePasquale continues the inspiration. One correction to the manager’s message is that Kathy actually served four terms on the Cambridge City Council. She was first elected in 1993 and served from 1994 through 2001 including one term as Vice Mayor.

There are only two Boards which the City Manager appoints that are subject to City Council approval – the Cambridge Housing Authority and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, so this appointment must formally be passed to the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Etcetera Committee before going to the City Council for confirmation (which as assured).

Applications & Petitions #1. A communication was received from Richard Harding, et al., 189 Windsor Street, transmitting notification to withdraw their zoning petition.

Contrary to the statement in this petition, there were actually 17 registered Cambridge voters who signed the original petition. If 5 of them submit a letter to withdraw the petition, even if these are the authors of the petition, that still leaves 12 registered voters who have not written to ask that the petition be withdrawn – 2 more than the minimum requirement. I believe this means that the original petition remains intact. It’s a moot point, however. The petitioners have extracted their desired pound of flesh out of the developer and that’s really what this petition was all about.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City’s transportation planning staff to reach out to Bridj’s Founder and Chief Executive Matthew George to discuss whether there are opportunities for collaboration in meeting the needs of Cambridge residents for more flexible transit.   Councillor Devereux, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Mazen

This would make for an interesting way to navigate around the municipal procurement regulations. Though I’m sure this company may have something to offer, the City would have to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) or similar device to ALL possible bidders. Those who call the shots at Bridj could then submit a proposal and possibly sign a contract. The real question is whether the City has an identified need around which an RFP could be written. It’s not the role of the City to approach private companies asking if there’s anything the City can do to keep them afloat.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to create a permanent office or public-private initiative for the purpose of fostering charitable giving in Cambridge and to work with non-profits to study the local charitable giving landscape, measuring the estimated maximum charitable carrying capacity of the city.   Councillor Mazen

This is a good intention, but perhaps the more important goal should be to promote existing charitable giving organizations like the Cambridge Community Foundation rather than creating new City administrative positions.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Leland Cheung, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Apr 19, 2017 to discuss a zoning petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by creating a new Section 11.900 Maintenance and Security of Vacant or Abandoned Buildings. The proposed zoning would require that any building that is deemed to be vacant or abandoned for longer than 90 days shall be registered with the Inspectional Services Department, shall be secured and maintained so that it does not exhibit any evidence of vacancy, and shall pay an annual registration fee.

The basic premise of this initiative seems to be to come down hard on any property owner who leaves a property vacant for too long – either due to land-banking, wanting to flip a property for a tidy profit, or because of a dysfunctional property owner. I have serious concerns about the confiscatory nature of the original proposal that actually sought to extract the entire assessed value of a vacant property by means of fees in only two years. That is clearly a regulatory taking and it would never stand up to a court challenge. It’s also an obnoxious example of government overreach. I assume the language will be modified to make this merely combative and confrontational rather than confiscatory.

Nobody likes having important properties (such as the Harvard Square Cinema) sitting vacant for years, but the best way to get good results is still to open up a conversation with the property owner. It would be better if parties other than City officials or elected councillors had those conversations.

Communications & Reports from City Officers #1. A communication was received from Councillor Craig A. Kelley, apologizing to his Colleagues, City Manager and City Staff for not attending tonight’s meeting in order to attend a conference on climate change adaptation and expressing his thoughts and apology for the events at the Budget Hearing.

I greatly appreciate Councillor Kelley’s calling out the unforgivable misbehavior of one obnoxious soon-to-be-former city councillor at last week’s Budget Hearings. – Robert Winters

The Budget Hearings continue this week on Tues, May 9 at 6:00pm (School Department Budget) and on Wed, May 10 at 9:00am (City Budget). The budget is available online at: www.cambridgema.gov.   [Complete schedule with Budget Book references]   [multi-year comparisons]

Wednesday’s departments are as follows (the underlined ones are the ones that have been pulled (so far) by councillors for discussion).