Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Some thoughts on the 2013 municipal election campaign on the eve of Election Day

Now that it’s just a couple of days before Election Day, it’s a good time to reflect a bit on what many have thought would transpire and what has actually transpired as the campaign has played itself out. Some of the factors that were expected to be significant are these:

• Two incumbent women (Davis, Decker) did not seek reelection. This contributed to the emergence of a large field of City Council candidates – 7 incumbents, 4 repeat challengers, and 14 new challengers – a total of 25 candidates for 9 seats.
• In the School Committee race, two incumbents did not seek reelection (McGovern, Turkel). This created a field of 4 incumbents, 2 repeat challengers, and 3 new challengers – a total of 9 candidates for 6 seats.
• Two prominent zoning petitions in the Central Square and Kendall Square areas in addition to the deliberations of the Red Ribbon Commission and the K2C2 process catapulted the issue of real and perceived development plans for these areas into prominence. Indeed, at least one organization (Cambridge Residents Alliance) was spawned by what they perceived as the threat of new development. On the flip side, the K2C2 process focused on the positive possibilities that might grow out of new investment in these areas through zoning and other incentives. A group called "A Better Cambridge" emerged as an advocate for "smart growth" principles and good urban design.
• The choice of Richard Rossi last December to succeed Robert Healy as City Manager was nearly unanimous and not at all unexpected, but it aggravated some activists who vowed to make this an election issue.
• Some activists introduced initiatives to distinguish themselves as agents of change in the interest of the quality of life of residents.
• Anti-development activists teamed up with local climate change activists to introduce a "net-zero" zoning petition that was timed so as to be a defining issue in the City Council election.
• On the School Committee side, the dichotomy of "excellence vs. equity", especially in the context of the "Innovation Agenda", was once again a defining issue. There was even some talk about a move to eliminate AP classes at the high school in the name of "equity".

So how much of this actually panned out as defining issues in the election? We won’t really know until after the election results are determined, and even then it won’t be possible to read the minds of those who voted to know their motivations. We can, however, make a few pre-election observations.

First, the significance of "two women leaving the Council" doesn’t appear to be carrying the day, though it will certainly be a factor. Marjorie Decker has thrown her wholehearted support to Council candidate Marc McGovern (who in turn has been urging his supporters to vote for Kathleen Kelly to succeed him on the School Committee). Some women voters will certainly look to new candidates Kristen von Hoffmann and Janneke House, but it’s just as likely that voters who prefer woman candidates may vote in significant numbers for incumbents Denise Simmons and Minka vanBeuzekom.

On the Kendall and Central fronts, many of us expected the ultra-political Cambridge Residents Alliance (CRA) to do a major mailing filled with their usual frightening misrepresentations as a means of swinging the election in favor of their chosen candidates. It’s possible that such a piece may still arrive in the Monday mail, but this is looking less likely. They appear to have placed all of their political chips on challenger Dennis Carlone to carry their message and claims of the coming "tsunami of development marching down Main Street and Mass. Ave." and wall-to-wall skyscrapers displacing businesses and residents in their wake. It’s not so clear whether many potential voters are drinking the CRA Kool-Aid, but there’s no doubt that some have already drunk their fill.

On the matter of choosing the City Manager with minimal process, opponents have chosen to focus their attention on what appears to have been a minor technical violation of the open meeting law – the only consequence of which was how many names appeared as sponsors of the resolution to hire Richard Rossi. There were going to be 7 votes regardless of the technicalities, and that’s all that really mattered. Nonetheless, the activists have continued to portray this as some kind of betrayal because they were not given maximal opportunity to chime in on the process. In truth, there were only a handful of us who attended the Government Operations Committee hearings on this matter, and anyone who was actually there could clearly see where the outcome was heading. This hasn’t stopped the bloggers from blogging about what they continue to call "a lack of transparency". Apparently, crystal clear is not sufficiently transparent for some activists and their blogger friends. Perhaps they should have come to the public meetings.

Similar claims of lack of transparency and procedural missteps have also been directed at the passage of the MIT-Kendall zoning petition earlier this year. When MIT representatives sent word during City Council deliberations that their "memorandum of understanding" (which was the basis upon which the votes of several city councillors depended) would be null and void if an 11th hour amendment was approved, this led to Mayor Davis’ decision to rescind her vote for that amendment. The zoning petition was then able to pass as expected. Because some activists did not like the outcome, they took issue with the procedures. Do you detect a pattern here?

One entertaining initiative of this past year was the "Teague Petition" – a zoning petition that would have imposed restrictions on some kinds of outdoor lighting. This petition would have had little or no effect on existing problematic intrusive lighting. Some people, myself included, argued that this was a matter better addressed through a separate municipal ordinance than via zoning. The Planning Board and the City Council agreed and there is now a task force coming up with a proposed ordinance. This seems like a far better approach, but it didn’t fit in well with petition supporters who (I believe) had hoped to score big "quality of life" points with their petition in the upcoming election. Sorry, Charlie.

The Net Zero Petition was somewhat more impactful in terms of the election campaign. Though the legality (and certainly the practicality) of this petition was highly questionable, it did lead some City Council candidates (Carlone, Mazen, vanBeuzekom, Seidel, von Hoffmann) to jump fully on the Net Zero bandwagon. Several other prominent challengers (Benzan, McGovern) had serious issues with the proposal, and it’s pretty clear that most of the incumbents were not supporters. The political dynamic has been tricky in that anyone with objections ran the risk of being tarred and feathered by environmental zealots – even if their objections were based on potential threats to new housing construction, including affordable housing. In the end the City Council found a workaround to avoid outright voting down of the petition. They voted to ask the City Manager to form a task force of all stakeholders to navigate a way toward the energy efficiency and other environmental goals upon which there was minimal disagreement. This way the Net Zero crowd was able to claim victory even as their proposal was allowed to quietly expire. It was still a topic at candidate forums, but it became less of a defining issue.

On the School Committee side, there have been a number of prominent issues that have come up at candidate forums and on street corners around the city. What I find most interesting is the way language is being twisted so that candidates can avoid being pinned down as taking a side on the "excellence vs. equity" issue. To be clear, this shouldn’t really be a dichotomy. Everybody agrees with the goals of quality education and fairness to students regardless of background or current ability. The devil is in the details. More specifically, should students be allowed to attend separate classes based on their proven performance and interests? Or should students of all ability remain in the same classroom using such devices as "differentiated instruction" to manage differing abilities? Some people have even gone so far as to recommend that all Advanced Placement (AP) classes be eliminated at the high school. Candidates have generally danced around these issues by using phrases like "quality education for all children" (nobody disagrees) to mean that no provision should be made for advanced students unless the same provisions are made for all students. In short, they’re perfectly happy to deny opportunities to "advanced learners". Personally, I feel that providing opportunities for advanced learners is just as much of a civil right as ensuring that other students be guaranteed a quality education.

There’s more that could be said, but I’ll leave it at that for now. My sense is that we may see a modest increase in turnout in this year’s election – in large part due to all the new candidates. I have a secret list of who I believe will be elected, but I’m not telling. It’s more difficult to make predictions this year for a number of reasons. First, the use of social media tools and other new toys create more possibilities for the younger, more tech-savvy candidates to bring nontraditional voters to the polls. That’s a real wild card in an election. It’s also hard to know how effective candidates really are when they meet voters face-to-face when knocking doors. Some candidates will benefit greatly from that kind of contact and only they know how well they have been received. – Robert Winters

Cambridge Candidate Pages