A Peek at the April 12, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting agenda
Here are a few things coming up:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File
Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the COVID-19 Update.
Placed on File
The beat goes on. Things will get better but right now the variants are temporarlity making things worse. That said, I have seen good statistical models that suggest that the latest wave may peak by early May and drop substantially as we head into June and July. For the moment, however, we still have to take precautions, get vaccinated, and curb our enthusiasm.
Charter Right #1. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $130,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Electrical Extraordinary Expenditures account which will fund the purchase of a new aerial bucket truck. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR NOLAN IN COUNCIL APR 5, 2021]
Order Adopted 8-1
Regardless of Councillor Nolan’s enthusiasm to obliterate fossel fuels, motor vehicle, and anything that might create emissions (like cows?), there is more than a touch of micromanagement when a city councillor second-guesses a vehicle purchase that had already been vetted for its environmental worthiness (it’s bio-diesel, but not electric).
Resolution #2. That the City Council go on the record in support of this session’s proposed TOPA bills, SD.1672 and HD.2984, and in urging the Cambridge State Legislative Delegation to advance this legislation to swift passage. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
Resolution Adopted 8-1 (Toomey – NO)
My guess is that this resolution will pass without any substantial questions – and there should be questions raised about these bills. For example, should it be the rule that the "right of first refusal" can be assigned to a third-party entity so that existing tenants are not the ones getting an advantage in possible home-ownership opportunities? As one friend with first-hand knowledge of the Washington, DC law noted: “It is largely a mistake and hasn’t really done much for DC real estate values or tenant protections. The right in DC is transferable which has created a sub-market that has really only harmed small owners who need to sell in a pinch or in estate succession.”
My personal take on the proposal is that it is yet another attempt to move residential property from private ownership to “social ownership” with no real intention of empowering existing tenants to own their own housing. If you think this is about the admirable goal of forming tenant-owned coops, think again.
Order #1. Policy Order re: Making Remote Participation Permanent. Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – ABSENT)
Order #2. Policy Order Re: Making Remote Public Participation Easier. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – ABSENT)
I spoke at a Government Operations Committee meeting on this topic last week. While I think it is clearly a good idea to continue to provide an opportunity for people to chime in remotely, this will never be a substitute for in-person participation. Getting 120 seconds to hastily read a statement with no opportunity for any back-and-forth interaction is more political theater than actual democracy. More importantly, remote participation should not just be about public comment.
On several occasions in the past I testified at Government Operations Committee meetings that there should be a separate website for every City Council committee that clearly shows what the current activity of the committee is, what actions have been taken or are pending, all supporting documents, and a mechanism for public input with a mechanism for ongoing feedback. I also believe that aides should assigned to committees rather than to individual councillors. Say what you will about remote participation during the pandemic, but the dark side is that much of the City Council business now takes place entirely out of view, and springing late orders at Council meetings or recruiting a parade of Zoom commenters is a poor substitute for deliberative public process.
Order #4. That the City and CPD create laminated, information cards detailing how an individual can file complaints and concerns regarding their interactions with CPD. Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0
I remember a day when the Cambridge Police Department produced a series of trading cards (same size as baseball cards) for most and possibly all members of the Police Department. They even had a card for City Manager Bob Healy (I have it in my collection). Making informational business cards available may be useful, but I preferred the trading cards.
Order #5. That the Chair of Civic Unity schedule a meeting to discuss survey results, progress made to date, and recommendations to diversify City’s Boards and Commissions. Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0
With all that has gone down over the last year it’s worth noting that the last time the City Council’s Civic Unity Committee held a meeting was in May 2019 during the previous City Council term. Perhaps we should just trade it in for a Civic Disunity Committee and call it a day. Regarding the boards and commissions, the real difficulty has generally been in getting enough people to apply.
Order #6. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to consult with the Water Department and report back to the City Council by the end of the month on plans for monitoring the situation, for early communication on conserving water and for instituting water savings measures, and to inform the Water Board of this request. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0
Information is good. I will, however, point out that anyone (including city councillors) can go to the Water Department site to learn most of this information. In particular, there’s a Drought Status page.
Order #7. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Community Development Department, the Law Department, and the City Manager’s Housing Liaison to discuss and advise on ways to increase equity in the initial application process for tenants looking to rent in Cambridge that does not violate fair housing laws. Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Some of us don’t do credit checks at all, but I certainly wouldn’t want to deny a property owner the right or choice to do a credit check of potential tenants. On the other hand, if the sponsors of this Order want to personally contribute to a fund to underwrite any losses due to nonpayment of rent, that would be a very generous thing for them to do.
Order #8. That the City Council shall have its own budget for outside legal research to be utilized at the discretion of the Council when designated by a majority of members in pursuance of the Council’s authority to exercise the legislative powers of the City as specified in the City charter. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan
Charter Right – Simmons
If this were to happen there is no doubt whatsoever that we would soon see five councillors hand-picking their own lawyer who would then be pitted against the City Solicitor – a recipe for chaos. Furthermore, the City Council is under no obligation to abide by the legal advice of the City Solicitor – though that would generally be a rather poor choice.
Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee met on Feb 4, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on the Green Roofs zoning petition.
Report Accepted as Amended 9-0
Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Mar 31, 2021 to continue a public hearing on the Green Roofs zoning petition.
Report Accepted; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended 9-0
[Note: Two late policy orders were passed – (1) requesting information about possible impacts of removing the rooftop parking exemption, and (2) where to insert the phrase "That all affordable housing projects, including those that fall under the Affordable Housing Overlay, will be exempt from this section."]
I expect this will pass to a 2nd Reading and may even be ordained in a few weeks in its amended form. It is worth noting, however, that the Planning Board recommended against adoption and I would hope that all of the Planning Board’s concerns are fully addressed before ordaining this. – Robert Winters
And don’t forget about these:
Wed, Apr 14
10:00am The City Council’s Health and Environment Committee will meet to conduct a public hearing regarding the City’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Sullivan Chamber – Televised)
5:30pm The City Council’s Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the Retail Uses Zoning Recommendations – Refiled (Ordinance #2021-3) and the Home Occupations Zoning Recommendations – Refiled (Ordinance #2021-4). (Sullivan Chamber – Televised)
Thurs, Apr 29
5:30pm The City Council’s Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on the Broad Canal Zoning Petition. (Sullivan Chamber – Televised)
“Say what you will about remote participation during the pandemic, but the dark side is that much of the City Council business now takes place entirely out of view, and springing late orders at Council meetings or recruiting a parade of Zoom commenters is a poor substitute for deliberative public process.”
I’m curious how you felt the pre-pandemic Council proceedings managed to facilitate a real deliberative public process. I agree with your criticism of the current setup, but to me the old setup felt basically the same.
Comment by Allan Sadun — April 12, 2021 @ 2:30 pm
Attending City Council meetings in person provided endless opportunities for “sidebar” conversations with elected officials, City officials, and fellow citizens. City councillors would often modify their positions based on actual conversations with actual people. I especially miss having the opportunity to talk with City staff. None of that is possible in a 120 second soliloquy.
Comment by Robert Winters — April 12, 2021 @ 2:49 pm
That makes sense. But that’s still not a very public process though, is it? You got to take advantage of that process because you knew who to talk to and people know who you are; someone entering City Hall for the first time certainly wouldn’t know who the right person to engage with at what time to be listened to on an issue is. The great thing about remote participation is that it has brought more people into the process, if nothing else.
You won’t find me disagreeing with you about soliloquys – we desperately need more space for back and forths, and that’s why I’m here in this comments section, and that’s why your website is a good public service! It’s agonizing how much of Cambridge politics involves people talking past each other. But I would like to find ways we can have /public/ back and forths, not just more backchannels. I like your idea for having committee-specific websites with something like a comments section on committee business. Right now, theoretically you can ask the clerk to put your comments on the agenda for a committee meeting, and they will theoretically appear ahead of time, but in practice that doesn’t work in the slightest, and it certainly has no transparency or reliable timing.
Comment by Allan Sadun — April 12, 2021 @ 3:27 pm