Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 13, 2018

On the Agenda – May 14, 2018 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:32 pm

On the Agenda – May 14, 2018 Cambridge City Council meeting

First… what’s still Not On the Agenda (even though letters continue to pour in to the City Council commenting on this Non-Order): The HP Divest matter. Wherefore art thou? Perhaps it’s with all the other missing Orders highlighting Bad Behavior (real or perceived) by governments around the world.

On the domestic front, there are these:

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-13, regarding electric vehicles.

It’s an interesting report and it seems like the City is using good sense in knowing when and under what circumstances vehicles should be changed over to all-electric or hybrid-electric. Nobody wants to see a fire engine or police car crap out in an emergency situation because its battery ran down. This report also brings to mind two competing philosophies when it comes to making changes to meet environmental or other goals – the Carrot or the Stick. Some (like me) prefer the carrot to encourage people to make changes, i.e. to provide incentives or offer a convincing argument to make a switch, e.g. to participate in curbside organics collection or to buy efficient vehicles or appliances. Others are all about the stick, e.g. changing the Zoning Ordinance to TELL people what they have to do to be righteous – or else. I have long felt that mandates are what people make when they fail to make a convincing case on the merits.

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to develop a small business parking pilot that would allow temporary on-street employee parking during typical daytime operating hours. [Charter Right Exercised By Mayor McGovern.]   Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons

I’m interested to see where this goes. People seem to have forgotten that there used to be a lot more unregulated spaces around the city, i.e. neither Resident Only nor sporting a parking meter. In fact, it has often been said by the folks at Traffic & Parking that parking meters are installed not for the revenue but rather to ensure sufficient turnover adjacent to businesses. I don’t know that I believe them anymore. What I do remember is that an enormous number of unregulated spaces were changed to regulated spaces during the days of the Interim Parking Freeze because that was one way to get spaces in the Commercial Parking Bank that could be used in the permitting of new commercial development. The deal was that for every two spaces you regulated you could put one in The Bank. Prior to that there were unregulated spaces that were available to people who worked at local businesses or who taught in Cambridge schools. I’m sure some of the anti-vehicle zealots in the Community Development Department would set themselves on fire rather than agree to ease up on any parking restrictions, but simple deregulation of some spaces in some areas (while keeping some time restriction for nonresidents) might actually be a good way to resolve this dilemma.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council by June 11 with an updated schedule for resubmitting a revised draft of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance that incorporates suggestions from the Light Cambridge Committee.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone

I was wondering when this would again be brought back into the spotlight. The original idea to tone down lights glaring through bedroom windows was worthwhile (even though it originally – and wrongly – appeared as a proposed zoning amendment rather as a municipal ordinance) before it got clogged up and bogged down by its own details. That and the desire of some people to clamp down on lighting in places where they have no business calling the shots. Indeed, there are some places, e.g. Central Square, that would benefit by the return of some pretty spectacular lighting.

Tree HouseApplications & Petitions #1. A petition was received from Sue Butler, et al, regarding concerns of excessive speed on Clinton Street in mid-Cambridge, requesting the City install three speed bumps or speed platforms along the length of Clinton Street.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to explore the possibility of improving road safety conditions on Clinton Street.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor McGovern, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Carlone

As near as I can tell, it took just one car getting clipped when backing out of a Clinton Street driveway to get this response. There must be some Very Special People living on Clinton Street. To borrow from the statement in this petition, I just want to point out that "there are small children and pets and elderly people" living on probably every street in Cambridge. Perhaps we all deserve to have "three speed bumps or speed platforms" installed along the lengths of all our streets.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to complete a tree canopy study based on the April 2018 LiDAR data before the end of 2018, and to complete future LiDAR based studies as frequently as possible, but no more often than once a year.   Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Kelley

I do like seeing the data generated by these studies, but I also find it curious how trees have become the defining Cambridge political topic for 2018. From one bandwagon to another, I suppose. I am once again reminded that there are Carrot Councillors and Stick Councillors. Some will prefer to give you encouragement and incentives to preserve trees on your property, while the others will make you hire a lawyer and file a string of permit applications before taking action against your resident Ents. – Robert Winters

4 Comments »

  1. What are these LiDAR studies they mention?

    Comment by FRED BAKER — May 14, 2018 @ 10:46 am

  2. Why isn’t the bicycle project review committee on the agenda?

    Comment by Beverly Mire — May 14, 2018 @ 2:08 pm

  3. I’m not sure what aspect of the bike project review committee’s business would be on the agenda. It’s not a City Council action item, so the only place it might appear would be on the City Manager’s Agenda as an update of some sort. I suppose the Manager could just make a statement at the meeting, but that would clearly not permit any public comment because you can only speak on matters that are actually on the agenda.

    This whole business is a real stain on the current City administration. This City used to welcome public input, but in matters of bicycle infrastructure nobody is listening. All decisions were made some time ago in the “Bicycle Plan” that was never seriously examined before being waved through by a former City Council and is now quoted like scripture.

    Vision Zero = Listen Zero.

    Comment by Robert Winters — May 14, 2018 @ 4:54 pm

  4. This came in as an announcement the city made last week on their website and other channels rather than a city manager report that appeared on tonight’s agenda. The info is here: http://www.cambridgema.gov/news/2018/05/bicyclesafetyprojectreviewcommitteeupdate

    Comment by Alanna Mallon — May 14, 2018 @ 9:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress

%d bloggers like this: