Preview of a Consequential Meeting – September 23, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
Cathie Zusy will be sworn is as a city councillor to replace Joan Pickett at the start of this meeting. There are also some very consequential items and another flood of communications related to the controversial proposals to allow large apartment buildings to be built anywhere and everywhere in Cambridge – effectively ending the Resident A and Resident B zones in favor of something similar to Resident C-1 zones – only with substantially higher allowable heights and densities. Here are the featured items:
Swearing-In of Cathie Zusy to fill vacancy created due to passing of Councillor Joan Pickett
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2024. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson; comments by Wilson, Sobrinho-Wheeler (who disagrees with use of CPA $ for golf course clubhouse renovations), Zusy (noting important role of CPA funding for Magazine Beach), Siddiqui; All six votes Adopted 9-0
This is the annual ritual – guaranteed 80%+ to the Affordable Housing Trust without any consideration of alternatives.
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the Temporary Respite Center at the Registry of Deeds.
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Maura Pensak, Wilson; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, re: draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed at the Housing Committee to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts. (CM24#207) [text of report]
Charter Right on Manager’s Communication and twin zoning petitions – Nolan
I will repeat what I said last week — “The synopsis here is that most individuals and interest groups are perfectly OK with allowing multifamily housing in all zones (though I wish we could put an end to the “exclusionary zoning” terminology and its associated mythology). The matter of allowing up to six stories (or more) everywhere is far more controversial and highly questionable. I don’t think there are many people who question the need for more housing in Cambridge and elsewhere, but there are better and worse places (economically, architecturally,aesthetically, etc.) for such structures to be allowed and encouraged. Failure to make such distinctions is basically equivalent to dismissing the better intentions of zoning to create a mosaic of neighborhoods with varying features appealing to varying needs and desires. Choice is not a bad thing. I really hope the current Housing Committee is not successful in ramming through such a partisan proposal. It would be far better if our elected officials and CDD staff could be more nuanced in their analysis and perspective.”
Alternative language introduced independently last week by Councillor Toner and Councillor Wilson is a mixed bag. The notion that dramatically greater heights and densities should be concentrated only in the Squares and “major corridors” – and exempting other streets – is a bit of a punch in the face to those of us who live on streets such as Broadway, though what exactly constitutes a “major corridor” was not spelled out in the amendment. In contrast, I can fully agree that places like Central Square can support more residential development – especially on sites such as the underutilized parking lots at Prospect and Bishop Allen (and, of course, the adjacent Vail Court). Councillor Wilson’s amendment suggests that only “projects that either contain more than 9 units or that are larger than 10,000 square feet” should get the zoning bonus, i.e. housing developments that would be subject to the current Inclusionary Zoning requirements.
I would also like to remind everybody that Cambridge is not the problem when it comes to allowing apartment buildings, greater densities, and publicly subsidized housing. This is a problem associated with many of the cities and towns in the Greater Boston area – but not Cambridge. This was made clear by the fact that in order for Cambridge to meet the standards of the recent MBTA Communities Act, Cambridge did not need to change a single thing in its zoning code.
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the MBTA to prioritize addressing housing affordability in the redevelopment of the Alewife garage. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Nolan; Nolan amendment adopted 9-0; Order Adopted 9-0
There should, of course, be more residential and commercial development at this important transit node. However, as I have often said, there’s a big difference between addressing housing affordability and simply building more “affordable housing,” a.k.a. public housing. If this is primarily about building several more Rindge Towers at Alewife (as referenced in this Order), then I am less than enthusiastic.
Order #4. City Council support for the construction of the North-South Rail Link. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Nolan; Amended to add Nolan, Zusy as sponsors; Order Adopted 9-0
Cost is an issue – a big issue. Will the suggested benefits really outweigh the exorbitant cost?
Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Finance Department, Law Department, and other relevant departments to explore the feasibility of a successor program to Rise Up Cambridge. Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Zusy, Nolan, Simmons; Amended to add Simmons as sponsor 9-0; Order Adopted 9-0
I have been expecting this since the day the City re-directed $22 million in Covid relief funds toward this new municipal welfare program. Currently the Anti-Aid Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution prevents the use of local property taxes from being used for direct payments to individuals and organizations except as fees for services rendered. Personally, if this kind of expanded welfare program is desired, it should be a statewide program with far better eligibility standards than the temporary federally-funded program currently in place. Better yet, state- and federally-funded public assistance programs should be restructured if this really is a desirable goal.
Resolution #2. Wishing Marvin Gilmore a Happy 100th Birthday. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Toner
I attended a 100th birthday bash for Marvin (as well as honoring several other prominent Cantabrigians) entitled Cambridge Mosaic at the Brattle Theatre this past Friday. It was a wonderful reunion of many great friends.
Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Mon, Sept 9, 2024 to discuss truck safety in Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-0-1 (Zusy – Present)
Advocacy for better truck safety is not controversial. The difficulty is that Cambridge cannot impose vehicle standards unilaterally – only the state and really the federal government can do that. As for designing intersections for greater safety, especially in regard to turning vehicles, it’s nice to see the cycling advocates finally coming around to what the rest of us have been saying all along, i.e. separated bike lanes may provide greater “comfort” but the provision of greater safety is primarily about the intersections. – Robert Winters