Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
The previous meeting featured some rather obvious jostling for position in the process of evaluating the recent Charter Review Final Report and deciding any charter change proposal. This week should bring even more of this power struggle when the question of “next steps” is taken up. The report has already been sent to the Law Department, the Election Commission, and perhaps more departments for review, but the question now is whether this should be initially vetted within the Government Operations Committee (chaired by Councillor Toner) or if Councillor Nolan (and perhaps others) will try to bypass that initial review by creating some kind of ad-hoc committee-of-the-whole so that she can gain more control of the process. This, of course, is intertwined with the election of Mayor Simmons who appoints all the City Council committees – and those appointments were done with some care.
I will say right now that some of the proposed Charter recommendations are virtually assured to be dead on arrival at the State House, but I don’t yet know if the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (or whatever committee takes up such matters) can take an à-la-carte approach to proposed city charters or if it’s all-or-nothing. Before any modified Charter can go before Cambridge voters, it must first clear this hurdle.
I will also say that there are some aspects of the structure of Cambridge government that really should be rolled into any new Charter but which the Charter Review Committee never considered, e.g. the Special Acts that established/empowered the License Commission, the Election Commission, the Traffic Board, the Cambridge Health Alliance, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. It is commendable that the Committee chose to consolidate most of the charter specifics that were only referenced in the Plan E sections of M.G.L. Chapter 43 (sections 93-116) – at the suggestion of the Collins Center staff who were advising the Committee – but this was incomplete, probably because of lack of expertise on those specifics within the Collins Center staff. This is especially true of matters involving our proportional representation elections (an essential component of Plan E). There may be good reasons to leave some of these out of the Charter, but since they are part of how we do business, these questions should at least be part of the current discussion. [Needless to say, this should have been discussed within the now-dissolved Charter Review Committee, but that’s another conversation that has much to do with how that committee was formed.]
Here are the agenda items that caught my eye this week:
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Bicycle Committee.
pulled by Nolan; PN wants committees to be “commissions” so that City Council would gain more control over these appointments, asks about whether diversity of opinion is a factor in appointments; Iram Farooq claims there is some diversity, but acknowledges that these committees are primarily advocates rather than representatives; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Pedestrian Committee.
pulled by Nolan; no additional comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, Policy Order Response #24-15 dated Feb 12, 2024 regarding drafting zoning language and related changes to allow for and encourage the continued growth, redevelopment, and evolution of Central Square. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; JSW wants to know when this would go to Planning Board; Farooq says it goes to PB when petition is filed and during the process; Toner asks if this will build upon work already done; Farooq says YES, and that advisory committees need not be consulted (really?); Nolan suggests that better methods of informing community should be considered; Pickett asks if Central Square Lots study will be integrated and how; Farooq says study in its final stages; Wilson agrees re: communication with residents; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)
Charter Right #1. That the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee be referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 12, 2024]
Toner says conversation should start in Gov’t Operations Committee; Nolan OK with starting there, but says it should not stay there – noting that she and Siddiqui are “deeply involved in this” (quite the understatement); Pickett draws parallel with how possible Rules changes are now being considered in committee; Siddiqui OK with starting in committee, but will participate and “brainstorming” with suggestion of a robust process; Toner explains process of culling ideas from councillors, legal questions, timeline; Wilson wants a community conversation around this; Referred to Gov’t Ops. 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)
Resolution #6. Resolution on the death of Charles Fried. Councillor Nolan
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to present recommendations for the refinement and improvement of the housing permitting process to the City Council, with a focus on reducing delays, minimizing costs, and enhancing clarity and accessibility for all stakeholders. Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Toner proposed amendments; JSW wants to keep “affordable” language, wants to add other groups for consultation; Toner motion to change “affordable housing” to “housing” Fails 2-6-1 (MM,PT-YES; PN,JP,SS,JSW,AW,DS-No; BA-Absent); Toner motion on simplifying processes to all housing and not just “affordable” housing, McGovern says middle-income housing should be included; Adopted 8-0-1; JSW motion to amend Toner motion to add two additional groups Adopted 8-0-1; Toner motion as amended Adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (BA Absent)
Order #2. City Council support of H.4138, The Affordable Homes Act, and urge legislators to retain the provisions for a location option transfer fee. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner will vote NO on proposed transfer fee; Nolan says Council has supported transfer fee in the past, delivers a prepared speech, says that this would not enact a tax or fee but only permit that local option (this is unbelievably naive), notes that legislation would set the range of possible fees, says this is about local control (but this begs the question about other proposed “local control” proposal to allow municipalities to create their own rent control laws); Nolan suggests motivation for supporting this is so that other municipalities would enact such a tax (again, very naive); McGovern concurs with Nolan, quotes David Kale in asserting that commercial transactions are lion’s share and that some residential exemptions could be made, expresses desire to take in as much revenue as possible; Pickett asks how this relates to existing Home Rule Petition now before the State Legislature, notes that there is already a $4.56/thousand stamp tax by state and that this would be on top of that; JSW uptalks that Legislature could act on our and Somerville’s and Cambridge’s petitions or pass current legislation, deflects by asserting that revenue raised could be used for other purposes; Pickett wants homeowners to gain maximum value in the sale of their greatest financial asset; Wilson offers generalities and suggestion that this might not lead to a tax; Simmons notes that we do use CPA fund for this but characterizes this as a “shortfall” and that (unlimited) more money is needed, notes Envision report and suggests that what we are doing is not enough; Order Adopted 6-2-1 (JP,PT – No; BA Absent)
Order #5. That the City Manager is hereby directed to confer with the City Manager’s Housing Liaison, Community Development Department, and the Cambridge Housing Authority on the feasibility of municipally-funded housing vouchers. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Pickett (who offers amendments); Nolan supports order and JP amendments; McGovern asks of motion-makers are OK with the amendments; Wilson supports amendments; both JP amendments adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1
Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission. Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 8-0-1