Episode 466 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 23, 2020
This episode was broadcast on June 23, 2020 at 6:30pm. Topics: News updates; Lechmere Square changing; June 22 and June 15 City Council meeting highlights; some recycling history; reinventing roads during the pandemic. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]
These are the items that drew my interest:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update.
Though this item seems to have become a semi-permanent fixture on the City Manager’s Agenda, I continue to appreciate all the information that it brings forward. It helps to arrest my fears. (I can still use the word "arrest," right?)
Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,641,000 from Free Cash, to the Public Investment Fund Public Works Extraordinary Expenditures Account for the first year of a two-year lease of operating and office space for the Department of Public Works on Mooney Street.
Here’s a little historical tidbit for you: The impetus for starting recycling in Cambridge was the plan from the Commonwealth to locate approximately 13 materials recovery facilities (MRFs) throughout Massachusetts with one of them at "the Mabardy site" on Mooney Street which back in 1989 was a waste transfer facility. The idea was to get an all-volunteer "interim recycling drop-off" system up and running. The first planning meeting was in April 1989 and we had two sites up and running in June 1989. Only one state-operated MRF was ever built (in Springfield). The plans were eventually dropped to 5 MRFS, but as curbside recycling programs were established the waste industry responded by establishing their own MRFs. For the time being at least, Cambridge appears to be keeping its Recycling Drop-off Center (which supplements the curbside collection) at the DPW Yard on Norfolk St., but some of the Public Works operations will relocate to Mooney Street where 31 years earlier our regional MRF was once slated to be built.
Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5,300,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Human Services Extraordinary Expenditures Account to construct a new Universal Design Playground.
This is kind of a big deal, especially if you live anywhere within marching distance of Danehy Park. We clearly intend to continue with capital projects like this even with the uncertainties visited on us by that godawful virus.
Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a recommendation of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for an allocation of $1,000,000 from the CPA Fund Balance to the Community Preservation Act Fund COVID-19 Housing Stabilization Program.
While this is a perfectly great expenditure, it does show how the Community Preservation Act (CPA) has morphed into yet another add-on to the general fund with fewer restrictions than what was approved by voters nearly two decades ago.
Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of Federal CARES Act funds in the amount of $1,529,834 to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used to assist residents and small business owners who are impacted by the virus.
Manager’s Agenda #12. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $120,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Executive (Cambridge Office of Tourism) Other Ordinary Maintenance account which will directly support a city-wide campaign, “Hello Again” in collaboration with the City and the business community – to welcome businesses, customers, and the surrounding neighborhoods back by promoting health safety and positivity following the COVID-19 shut down.
Charter Right #1. Policy Order (June 10) Re Addressing Systemic Racism in Cambridge. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS]
Pardon me while I shift paradigms. The Babson Boulders of Dogtown are my source of inspiration.
Communications #2. A communication was received from Kevin P. Crane, 27 Norris Street, regarding Shared Streets.
Short, sweet, and to the point. I will, however, observe the fundamentally militaristic inclinations of today’s Cambridge activists. It’s all about establishing a beachhead and defending it even as the circumstances change. I personally like the idea of "shared streets" and I feel that a two-way, low-speed, shared-street approach would have been the better way to accommodate cyclists on Brattle Street from Brattle Square to Mason Street. Unfortunately, that beachhead has already been established and its defenders will never give an inch. At this point, my presumption is that Harvard, Garden, and Magazine Streets will forevermore be shared streets even after the virus subsides, and my only concern is that our two-wheeled soldiers will eventually want to stop sharing.
Order #1. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the appropriate city departments to place all collective bargaining agreements between the City and unions on the city website, in an easily accessible location, to increase transparency for the public. Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to provide a report by the end of summer for discussion at a September Council meeting on the advantages and disadvantages of continuing with Civil Service, and the process by which Cambridge could exit Civil Service. Councillor Nolan
I’m curious what the motivation of Councillor Nolan is in forwarding this Order right now.
No longer under civil service: Acton, Adams, Burlington, Easthampton, Franklin, Grafton, Lee, Lexington, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Marlborough, Maynard, Milford, Millis, North Adams, North Attleboro, North Reading, Norwood, Orange, Provincetown, Reading, Sharon, Sudbury, Uxbridge, Walpole, Wayland, Wellesley, Westwood, Williamstown.
From a Town of Wellesley document (2018): "The primary purpose of civil service when the Massachusetts legislature enacted the civil service, ‘Merit System’, in 1884 was to protect hiring and discipline from patronage and political interference. … Today we have comprehensive policies and collective bargaining that afford these protections.” … “The civil service system in Massachusetts is no longer up to the important task of helping government recruit and hire the most talented Personnel.”
It’s interesting that one of the arguments in support of leaving Civil Service is the existence of collective bargaining agreements and a police union. Meanwhile, others are arguing for the prohibition of unions for police and other public safety employees.
I’m of the school that says that all options should be on the table – including the staffing of construction and other details by civilians rather than exclusively by uniformed officers. I’m also of the school that says that free speech should be nearly absolute (except for the usual "yelling fire in a crowded theater" type of prohibitions). I’m not so sure how many people would agree with me these days on either of these counts.
So where is all this headed? I listened to a primarily millennial-and-younger throng ("hundreds" – NBC-Boston, "over a thousand" – Boston Globe, or "some 2000" on a local politics/news/advocacy blog) on Saturday chant “No Justice, No Peace. Abolish the Police” as they strolled through Central Square. I also noted how they had the crowd do a prolonged "repeat after me" session in front of City Hall reminiscent of the "Occupy" days of yore (hard to call this "free" speech when you being asked to repeat somebody else’s speech). In any case, they were not debating whether police unions were OK or whether the Civil Service system is advantageous. I took note of the fact that the Cambridge Police Department provided public safety protection for the throng, especially extensive traffic control, in order to protect the speech of those who would choose to abolish them.
Order #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to work with the Central Square Business Association in developing a pilot program that will allow Central Square to close to vehicular traffic on Sundays and allow restaurants to fully embrace the concept of outdoor dining for the summer months of 2020, and to report back to the City Council on this matter in a timely manner. Councillor Simmons
Great idea – really. Bring your masks. Don’t forget to remove while eating.
Order #3. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to identify an air-conditioned space for a Cambridge Day Services Center for unhoused people. Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons
Even without the air conditioning, there really is a need for some of the "street residents" to have some safe place to go that has some constructive things to do during daytime hours, especially with the libraries still closed. That said, there are a lot of people who will still prefer to be outdoors.
Order #4. Anti-Racist Free Little Libraries. Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon
Education is good. I guess what concerns me here is the notion that our local government wants to dictate which books are to be permitted in a "little free library." It’s one thing for a property owner to exercise discretion in curating what’s on the shelves of the little library on their own property, but think for a minute where this road leads when the local legislature does the curation. Will I be fined for placing a few of my old Calculus books on the shelf? Will DPW be contacted via SeeClickFix to yank out any books that fail the litmus test? Will Zondervan/Nolan have an Order next week for "Little Free Climate Change Libraries"? By the way, I’m really overdue in building a Not-So-Little Free Math Library in front of my house to pass along some of my stash.
Order #7. That the Cambridge City Council go on record in support of including a two-track Grand Junction railway crossing in MassDOT’s Allston Multimodal Improvement Project plans, and urges the FMCB to vote in favor of this inclusion. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
This volleyball seems to be going back and forth right now among some people on the Cambridgeport listserv (in addition to the proposal that all people posting on the listserv racially identify themselves prior to expressing themselves – I kid you not). I believe that the current position of the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association is that they support a two-track RR bridge for the Grand Junction corridor in the belief that a light rail option (i.e. trolleys) will one day operate along that corridor in addition to the always popular bicycle and pedestrian amenities (which would require additional accommodation on the bridge). It was not so long ago that Lt. Gov. Tim "100mph Rollover Crash" Murray was strongly advocating heavy rail along the Grand Junction corridor. I personally like the idea of a ped/bike/trolley corridor, but I think heavy rail would be a horrorshow of grade crossings, traffic congestion, or – at best – extremely expensive elimination of the grade crossings.
This City Council Order states: "One opportunity is to expand the Grand Junction Railway bridge from a one-track to a two-track crossing, which would realize the potential to connect the commercial hub of Kendall Square to Boston and MetroWest municipalities such as Framingham and Worcester via high-speed regional rail." Be careful what you wish for.
Order #9. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to obtain an itemized statement of all materials, tools, and property owned by the Cambridge Police Department. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
I suppose these intrepid councillors are trying to get at the question of whether or not Cambridge Police have any equipment that might be characterized as "military" in nature, e.g. an armored vehicle. We should ask Brinks the same question as they patrol our streets picking up and dropping off sacks of money from various banking institutions. Personally, I just want to know if the CPD still has a supply of "billy clubs" and "nightsticks" and, of course, keys to open those vanishingly few police callboxes.
By the way, since both of these councillors were at the Saturday rally, did they join in the chants and in the "repeat after me" robotic chants? Inquiring minds want to know. You know… in the spirit of transparency.
Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting information from the School Committee’s Special Meeting and Regular Meeting.
I continue to appreciate these reports but I remain very concerned that public education is not being equitably distributed in this virtual environment and that it will remain very difficult to correct this regardless what steps are taken.
Here’s my take on this week’s agenda:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on COVID-19.
Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the FY2021 submitted budget appropriation orders.
I like to track how the budgets of the various City departments change from year to year and in the long term. Here’s a chart showing the one-year and two-year changes as well as the 16-year changes.
The big jumps upward this year are for Public Celebrations (up 31.8% in one year and 45.7% for two years), Public Investment (up 38% in one year and 114% for two years), and the Library (up 26.3% and 38.9%). Curiously, Employee Benefits dropped 16.4% from the FY20 Budget, but the change from the Adopted Budget or actual expenditures could possibly be different.
I am trying to read between the lines about how the Covid-19 pandemic will express itself in the FY21 Budget, but perhaps those effects may primarily be felt in terms of a long string of supplemental expenditures and dipping into "free cash".
The City Council apparently continues to treat itself with its political appointees (a.k.a. aides) with an 11% one-year jump. The City Manager’s Office (Executive) also increased its budget by nearly 13% in one year and 24.4% over two years. The overall FY21 Proposed Budget is 5.5% more than last year’s Proposed Budget.
Charter Right #1. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to review the order and align it with guidelines promulgated by the CDC, WHO, Dr. Fauci, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to make clear face coverings are required in public settings only when physical distancing is not possible. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED IN COUNCIL MAY 4, 2020]
Everyone has opinions. Everyone has agendas. Some people say they have God on their side. Others claim they have Science on their side or that Climate Change is their Righteous Cause and that everyone should comply with their agenda or else. Everyone has opinions, and bullshit is currency in Cambridge. The streets and sidewalks are not crowded – not even Memorial Drive, so they vote to close down streets to curry favor with their preferred constituents. Walking, coughing, maskless disease vectors congregate on benches and in doorways in Central Square, but the City Council will debate for hours whether it’s OK for someone to doff their mask in the park without penalty. I am often reminded of the secret of performing magic – distraction.
Order #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to order the Department of Public Works and any other relevant departments to consider implementing Simple Recycling’s curbside textile recycling program and report back to the Council on this matter in a timely manner. Councillor Toomey
Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Department of Public Works and any other relevant City departments to reopen the Recycling Center for a limited time and to place recycling bins strategically across the City for residents who are unable to access the Recycling Center to allow for residents to recycle plastic items such as bags. Councillor Toomey
One thing I have known for 30 years is that Councillor Toomey has been one of the most stalwart supporters of recycling in Cambridge, so it’s no surprise that these Orders are coming from Councillor Toomey. Regarding the Recycling Center, many of us are clearing out and organizing our living spaces while staying at home, and it sure would be great if we could recycle some of our scrap metal and more. I have a defunct old TV taking up space that won’t be picked up with the rubbish and the City has suspended all other alternatives. We have brought tons of stuff to various Red Cross donation bins and elsewhere, but there’s a lot more where that came from. Remember the old "Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance?" Well, they won’t even let you in the store with that now and you will likely exit with a bunch more plastic bags, and it might be good if there was a place to lose them.
Order #2. That the City Manager report to the Council with an update on recommendations being discussed by the Small Business Advisory Group so the Council may be prepared for quick action on items that may properly come before the body. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
I have no doubt that this will soon become one of the hottest topics at City Council meetings.
Order #4. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Police Department to provide information to the City Council about social media protocols and what disciplinary action has been taken as result of the Department’s social media use incident. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
The "Shoe On The Other Foot Test" should be applied here. Imagine that someone in the Police Department inadvertently used the wrong account to tweet something like “More insane crap from that f— (expletive redacted) Orange Menace in the White House. Sad for us.” Do you think there would even be a story let alone demands for disciplinary action? By the way, the person who erred here has been one of the most solid, courteous, and well-respected members of the Police Department for a very long time, and most of the present and former city councillors know it. I will be interested to see which councillors want to throw him under the bus for not complying with Cambridge political orthodoxy.
Order #5. That the City Council go on record in solidarity with all Lesley University workers and in support of the demands of the community petition. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
I am in general agreement with all of the intentions of this Order, but I would like to inform those who don’t understand the concept of infinity that not even our local elite universities have infinite financial resources. Even Harvard and MIT are having to make some difficult choices. – Robert Winters
This episode was broadcast on Feb 18, 2020 at 5:30pm. Topics: Nevada caucuses, brokered convention, Presidential prognostication; Local State Rep. & State Senate contests; Charlie Cards; cannabis litigation; Harvard Square Zoning Petition. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters. [On YouTube] [audio]
This episode was broadcast on Feb 18, 2020 at 6:00pm. Topics: Zoning updates; broader look at zoning; Neon!; Waste reduction milestone, history and future goals; River St. reconstruction; Carl Barron Plaza, perpetual substance abuse, and lowered expectations; nonnegotiables, inflexibility, and bad outcomes in public ways. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]
Perhaps we should call this the Lame Turkey Session and give the ducks a break. Here are a few agenda items that caught my eye:
Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,924,594.18, associated with Education First’s EF 3 Building, SP#328) from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Public Works Extraordinary Expenditure account which will be used to support utility work associated with the Port Project and were paid by Education First to fulfill their Inflow and Infiltration requirement.
This is what "mitigation money" is supposed to be all about – actual mitigation and infrastructure improvement. Contrast this with the current practice of granting upzoning not for the sake of good planning but for cash and prizes – and, of course, subsidized housing units. At least the proposal to glue subsidized housing units onto a self-storage facility didn’t fly. Mark my words – this is only going to get weirder in the next City Council term.
Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-140, regarding Harvard Square plaza area safety improvements.
During my four decades in Cambridge I have seen the Harvard Square pedestrian environment reconfigured several times – each time under the belief that nirvana had been achieved. The last iteration was the "Super Crosswalk" that apparently was never all that super. The next iteration is coming. No matter the outcome, we will be assured that congestion and delay is not a negative consequence but is instead good for us and we should shut up and be grateful – and all parties involved will continue to bend the traffic laws as they see fit.
Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $107,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Finance Other Ordinary Maintenance account as initial support of the recommendations of the Mayor’s Arts Task Force regarding the Central Square Cultural District.
Yippee! Money for Central Square! Now if we could only categorize sidewalk repair and improvements to the T station as "art" we’ll be all set.
Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 19-122, which requested a legal opinion on the License Commissions authority.
This is by far the most important item on this agenda. Though this legal opinion merely states what many of us have known and understood all along, it should put to rest some of the outrageous misunderstandings that have been circulating. That said, I read an opinion today that it was somehow problematic that a quasi-judicial body like the Cambridge License Commission can act without micromanagement by the City Manager – even though any decision of the License Commission can be appealed. Imagine how outraged people would feel if it was suggested that the Planning Board should not issue or deny a Special Permit without the approval of the City Manager. Ultimately the City Manager is "the appointing authority" and could appoint only yes-men (and yes-women) to all the City’s Boards and Commissions as well as the Police Commissioner and Fire Chief, but that practice would likely head south pretty quickly. City Solicitor Glowa’s legal opinion is both impressive and timely, and I hope it puts to rest some of the falsehoods from the Lower Port to the Upper West.
Committee Report #1 & Committee Report #2. A report from Councillor Dennis J. Carlone and Councillor Craig A. Kelley, Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Sept 26, 2019 and Nov 14, 2019 to discuss the petition by Stephen R. Karp, Trustee of Cambridgeside Galleria Associates Trust, to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by adding a Section 13.100 that creates a new PUD-8 District and to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge by adding the new PUD-8 District, which District would include the property located at 100 Cambridgeside Place (currently zoned in the Business A and PUD-4 Districts).
I do hope that the City Council passes some version of this zoning amendment solely because I think we could a lot do better in that corner of the city than what exists now, and some reconfiguration of the Cambridgeside Galleria should be part of that. However, I find aspects of the committee report to be problematic, e.g. "the Petitioner will pay the City $50 million dollars in mitigation funding" and "what would happen to the proposed community benefits if the Petitioner decided to proceed under their current zoning" and "she felt that the height and massing could be appropriate depending on the community benefits." In short, approving changes in zoning should be primarily about good planning and not about any "quid pro quo". Unfortunately, this brand of zoning negotiation as commodity trading is not exceptional in Cambridge these days – and it may only grow worse. – Robert Winters
Powered by WordPress