Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 13, 2014

Setting the Table – January 13, 2014 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:30 am

Setting the Table – January 13, 2014 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Council successfully elected David Maher as Mayor at its January 6 Inaugural meeting, but now the business of representation begins. The appointment of City Council subcommittees and their Chairs will likely be announced in two weeks, but there’s little doubt that some of the new councillors will try to assert themselves right away. Hopefully the twists and turns of the recent mayoral vote will fade quickly leaving only the spin of the blogosphere.

One observation I’ve recently made is that the current City Council committees don’t really match the skill sets of the elected councillors. The City Council and the Mayor should take a serious look at the committee structure and possible merge some of them and invent others to better take advantage of what these 9 councillors may have to offer.

Here are a few specific Agenda items worthy of attention:

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to an update on the new Nexus Study for Incentive Zoning Ordinance.

This communication simply informs the Council that the process is underway and that a consultant will soon be hired to conduct the study "to assess the impact of non-residential development on the City’s housing market." … "A nexus study establishes the basis for requiring contributions from commercial developments as set forth in the Incentive Zoning Provisions. The new study will quantify the current impact of new commercial development on housing affordability. Study recommendations could form the basis for changes to the Incentive Zoning Provisions."

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $16,100,824 in funds received from the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) Grant to the Public Works Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures account for the Alewife Sewer Separation Program.

Mr. Rossi states: "This grant will fund the Concord Avenue construction costs, engineering services and final costs associated with the other Alewife area contracts…. The City has been working with the MWRA for over sixteen years executing projects in the Alewife watershed to reduce combined sewer overflows to the Alewife Brook. These improvements are part of the court-ordered cleanup of the Boston Harbor."

This is the real measure of a well-managed city – maintaining all of the things that allow a city to smoothly function, especially those things that would not otherwise receive any attention from those who see things only in political terms.

Applications & Petitions #3. An application was received from Whittemore Realty Trust requesting permission for three curb cuts at the premises numbered 12A-12B-12C Whittemore Avenue; said petition has received approval from Inspectional Services, Traffic, Parking and Transportation, Historical Commission and Public Works. Chair of neighborhood association disapproves the curb cuts and vice chair of the neighborhood association approves the curb cuts.

The entertaining part of this is that the Chair and Vice-Chair are husband and wife, so why wouldn’t they disagree? The ridiculous part is that the response states that "I know of no opposition to the curb cuts. The opposition relates to non curb cut matters."

Note to councillors, especially the new guys: The matter before you is a curb cut application. Anything not relating to the curb cut application should affect your vote about as much as your preference in music or beer.

Resolution #19. Resolution on the death of Beatrice L. (Levy) Davis.   Mayor Maher

Beatrice Davis was the mother of our recent Mayor Henrietta Davis.

Order #2. That the City Council go on record expressing support for fair wages and benefits for Cambridge’s adjunct professors, the right of Cambridge’s adjunct professors to form a union, and the adoption of free and fair union election principles, similar to those that have been adopted by many higher education institutions in other U.S. cities, which establish the commitment that workers are "free" to make up their own mind under "fair" voting conditions.   Councillor Cheung

This is a matter that affects quite a few people who live or work in and around Cambridge. Standards vary widely among the various institutions, departments, and programs. Whether or not the formation of a union is the right approach, there really should be some reasonable minimum standards. If our local universities can sign on to a "sustainability compact" they should also be more than willing to ensure a little economic sustainability among their part-time and adjunct faculty. What exactly is the best way to achieve this is not so obvious, but the sentiment expressed in Council Cheung’s Order is a good one.

The next three items share a common thread:

Communication #7. A communication was received from Tom Stohlman, 19 Channing Street transmitting suggested changes to the Council rules.

Order #5. That the Mayor is requested to schedule a City Council/School Committee retreat in the near future to allow all of Cambridge’s municipal elected officials the opportunity to converse with each other and discuss shared priorities for this term.   Councillor Simmons

Communications & Reports from City Officers #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk transmitting the action taken by the Cambridge City Council on an Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Ilan Levy dated Dec 10, 2013.

First, I really don’t understand why Tom Stohlman has chosen to appoint himself "hall monitor" for the Cambridge City Council. The Council rules work reasonably well and I believe there are some adults among our newly elected representatives who can decide how best to conduct their meetings. I actually agree with Mr. Stohlman’s first suggestion that the School Committee and the Mayor might consider a new custom of having the Mayor not necessarily act as Chair of the School Committee (just as the Vice President of the USA does not customarily act as President of the Senate even though this is what the Constitution states).

Mr. Stohlman’s second suggestion (that the City Council should discuss who should be Mayor) is now a moot point, though I’m sure that many such discussions took place prior to last week’s mayoral vote. The matter of what the Mayor of Cambridge actually does has been discussed forever by both elected and unelected people. I seriously doubt whether any new revelations will be forthcoming. I’ll not comment on the remaining laundry list of suggestions from Mr. Stohlman. It’s a mixed bag, but I especially don’t care for his later suggestions that would turn every public hearing into a marathon.

I’m curious what Mr. Stohlman and his fellow complaint-filing pals might have to say about Order #5. If there were a combined City Council/School Committee Retreat, would it have to be streamed live and a stenographic record kept of all that is said?

Finally, I take note of the latest response from the City Council and City Clerk to yet another tiresome complaint. There were, I believe, three such complaints filed during the last term. The first was from Tom Stohlman who disagreed with the City Council’s actions in the choice of City Manager. The only real error there was in the long-standing practice allowing councillors to sign on as co-sponsors on City Council Orders circulated independently by the City Clerk (without discussion). That protocol has now been modified. The second complaint was from Charles Teague who objected to the MIT/Kendall zoning vote long after that matter had been put to bed. The latest (from Ilan Levy) is based only on speculation by the complainant regarding the disposition of the Foundry Building in East Cambridge.

I really hope that civic participation during the next few years is characterized more by discussion, cooperation, and understanding than by threats of legal filings with the Commonwealth whenever an action is taken with which one disagrees. A little more respect for the elected officials, the City administration, and the many people who work for the City is in order. In the end, most of our goals are the same. – Robert Winters

January 1, 2014

Snow Emergency in Effect: Thurs, Jan 2 at Noon through Fri, Jan 3 at 5:00pm

Filed under: Cambridge — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 7:07 pm

Snow Emergency in Effect starting Thursday at Noon

Snow EmergencyA snow emergency parking ban will go into effect on Thursday, January 2nd at noon. For more information, please visit the City’s website, http://www.cambridgema.gov or call 617-349-4700 or 4800. Beginning at noon, streets that are signed "No Parking during a Snow Emergency" will be ticketed and towed until the ban is lifted. Please check to ensure that your vehicle is not parked on a restricted street. Any power outages should be reported directly to NSTAR at 800-592-2000.

Also, please keep your sidewalks passable for people of all abilities. – RW

The snow emergency parking ban currently in effect
will end on Friday, January 3rd at 5pm.

Snow on Broadway

December 16, 2013

Update on the Copenhagen Wheel

In a post in this blog from 2011, I reported on a product under development at the MIT Senseable Cities Laboratory, the Copenhagen Wheel. It provides an electrical power assist to a bicyclist.

The motor and batteries are contained entirely in the rear wheel. The Wheel can be controlled through a Bluetooth connection from a smartphone on the handlebar, so there is no need for wiring. Various smartphone apps can report on speed, distance, state of battery charge, exposure to air pollution etc.

Copenhagen Wwheel promotional video shows bicyclists riding in the door zone

Clip from Copenhagen Wheel promotional video shows bicyclists riding in the door zone

I had a serious concern  in 2011, that the Wheel was designed to switch from motor mode to generator mode at 12 mph. In other words, if you tried to go faster, you couldn’t: it would feel as if you were pulling a huge trailer. 12 mph is slower than many bicyclists would usually ride and could be hazardous if there is a need to sprint across an intersection before the traffic signal changes, to outrun a chasing dog, etc.

Development of the Wheel has continued, and readers deserve an update. The Wheel is now going into a production, licensed to a company called Superpedestrian. Maximum power is now 250 watts, top speed 15 mph in Europe; power 350 watts, top speed 20 mph in the USA — reflecting legal limits. (15 mph, though, is still much lower than a desirable sprinting speed, and many bicyclists can easily sprint at more than 25 mph.) Pedal power is proportional to torque (whether cadence-sensing, I don’t know — torque sensing alone would favor slow cadence and hard pushing. There is a derailleur option which alters the relationship between pedaling torque and torque at the wheel, so this becomes a more serious issue.) Some technical specs are online on the manufacturer’ site.

Placing the entire power unit in the wheel makes retrofitting to an existing bicycle easy, but my friend Osman Isvan, who studies electrically assisted bicycle technology, questions the Wheel concept, or any electric motor in the wheel. He says that a mid-drive system with a small, high-speed motor powering through a reduction drive to the crankset is better, because then the motor can be lighter and more efficient. In case you would like to get technical, Osman has an article, “Power Optimization for the Propulsion of Lightweight Vehicles,” where he addresses this issue, among others. The Wheel’s motor may in fact use a gear reduction drive, unlike most in-wheel motors, though it almost certainly doesn’t benefit from the ability to maintain nearly constant motor speed with the motor (like the cyclist’s feet) ahead of derailleur gearing or an internal-gear rear hub.

One thing that really caught my eye was the disconnect from safe bicycling practice in the company’s promotional video.

The first photo (above) in this article is from the video and shows bicyclists riding in the door zone of parked cars, at speed. That occurs in the video at 0:45 and 1:45.

At at 0:21 and again at 1:39, the Wheel is demonstrated by a bicyclist riding the wrong way on a one-way street, and where a parked car could pull out, but the next parked vehicle hides the bicyclist from the driver, who is on the curb side.

Bicyclist riding wrong way in copenhagen Wheel promotional video

Bicyclist riding wrong way in Copenhagen Wheel promotional video

There’s this shot of unsecured baggage including a (virtual?) electric guitar which hangs way out past the end of the handlebar — a large virtual amplifier is on the rear rack.

Unsecured baggage..

Unsecured baggage..

And then there’s this shot of a man illegally carrying a (fortunately virtual) small child on his shoulders, and another child sitting facing backwards sitting crosslegged on some kind of platform. The law more or less everywhere in the USA says that children are to be carried only in seats designed for the purpose. Massachusetts law says that the children must wear helmets. Anyone familiar with Our Fair City will know that this clip, like many in the video, was shot on our own Paul Dudley White Bicycle Path.

Illegal if the kids weren't virtual...

Illegal if the kids weren’t virtual…

This carelessness in promotion sets me to musing about what we have ahead of us as the increased speed potential (even if only 20 mph) of electrically-assisted bicycles collides with the kind of underdesigned bicycle facilities — essentially sidewalks — which Cambridge is building — a trend now spreading to Somerville and Boston. We’re not talking superpedestrians here, we’re talking bionically enhanced — but not skills-enhanced — bicyclists on bikeways which could only be safe at pedestrian speeds.

Allow me to predict that over the next decade, the products of bikeway visionaries and bicycle technology visionaries are going to come together in some rather interesting but also disturbing ways!

Save

The Final Curtain: Last Meeting of the 2012-13 Term – Dec 16, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 5:30 pm

The Final Curtain: Last Meeting of the 2012-13 Term – Dec 16, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Tonight’s City Council meeting will be the last for City Councillors Ken Reeves, Henrietta Davis, Marjorie Decker, and Minka vanBeuzekom. It should be a time for reflection on their combined 66 years in elected office in the City of Cambridge. It will also be a time to wonder who will take up some of the important roles played by these councillors. I suspect the new guys will manage to carry on some of the passionate advocacy associated with Marjorie Decker. However, the loss of the collective wisdom of Councillors Reeves and Davis will not be so easy to replace – and that goes especially for Councillor Reeves who could always be counted on to put things into perspective.

Ken Reeves
Ken Reeves
Henrietta Davis
Henrietta Davis
Marjorie Decker
Marjorie Decker
Minka vanBeuzekom
Minka vanBeuzekom

Manager’s Agenda #18. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to possible revisions to the Medical Marijuana Zoning Petition text in response to issues and questions raised at the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee hearings.

Unfinished Business #13. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on Nov 20, 2013 to discuss a petition by the City Manager to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge to define and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary, delete Section 11.700 and create a new Section 20.700 entitled Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Dec 16, 2013. Planning Board hearing held Oct 22, 2013. Petition expires Feb 18, 2014.

Manager’s Agenda #19. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to appointments to the Net Zero Task Force which is charged with advancing the goal of setting Cambridge on the trajectory to becoming a "net zero community".

Resolution #3. Appreciation and best wishes to City Councillor Marjorie Decker.   Councillor Cheung

Resolution #17. Expressing appreciation and thanks to Henrietta Davis for her years of dedicated service to the city of Cambridge and extending best wishes in all her future endeavors.   Councillor Cheung

Order #1. That all items pending before the City Council and not acted upon by the end of the 2012-2013 Legislative Session be placed in the files of the City Clerk, without prejudice provided that those proposed ordinances which have been passed to a second reading, advertised and listed on the Calendar under "Unfinished Business" during the 2012-2013 City Council term, along with any other pending matters on the Calendar listed as "Unfinished Business," shall be forwarded to the next City Council and further provided that any items pending in committee may, at the discretion of the committee, be forwarded to the next City Council.   Mayor Davis

Order #3. That the City Clerk is requested to schedule a meeting early in the new year with all nine newly elected City Councillors in order to discuss and review Roberts Rules.   Vice Mayor Simmons

Committee Reports #1-6. Communications were received from Paula Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, transmitting six separate report from Councillor Kenneth E. Reeves, Chair of the Public Facilities, Art and Celebrations Committee for public meetings held on Apr 19, 2012 and May 17, 2012 and Oct 25, 2012 and Nov 28, 2012 and Jan 10, 2013 and Oct 17, 2013.

These come on the heels of last week’s reports from the University Relations Committee, also chaired by Councillor Reeves, from Apr 26, 2012 and May 24, 2012 and July 16, 2012 and Mar 20, 2013. Suffice to say that City Council subcommittees should ideally be discussing relevant matters and reporting back to the City Council in a timely fashion. Let’s hope that the new councillors for the 2014-2015 term get the message that turning in reports 20 months late is not the best way to conduct business.

Communications and Reports from City Officers #2. A communication was received from Councillor Minka vanBeuzekom regarding the Ames Street District rezoning.

Communications and Reports from City Officers #3. A communication was received from Councillor Marjorie C. Decker regarding the Final Report of the 21/365 Domestic Violence Campaign.

Perhaps a few more comments will appear after the meeting. – Robert Winters

December 12, 2013

2013 City Council Recount Completed – Same Winners, Similar Margins

Filed under: 2013 Election,Cambridge,City Council,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:56 pm

Recount Completed – Same Winners, Similar Margins

Dec 12, 2013 – The 2013 City Council Election Recount is now complete: Recount Results (PDF, 2 pages)

FinalRecount

Note: This chart was modified from an earlier version to reflect a correction in Count 15.

RECOUNT UPDATE – 16th Count Complete: Deciding round up next (Dec 12)

Filed under: 2013 Election,Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:18 pm

RECOUNT UPDATE – 16th Count Complete: Deciding round up next

Day 9 (today) will likely be the last day of the City Council Election Recount. They have no counted out Sam Seidel and Ken Reeves is next. At the end of that rount (Count 17) the winners will be determined (and it’s pretty much certain that they will be the same as the original winners with a margin between Carlone and vanBeuzekom in the 16-22 ballot range, though there are about 17 other ballots in play during the Reeves transfer that could narrow the margin a bit.

Here’s the latest: Results at the end of the 16th Count (PDF)

UPDATE (5:40pm) – The 17th Count has been completed except for the totals and any last verification of ballots. The results will be announced shortly and the remaining winners declared. The winners will be the same as in the original election results. The margin between 9th Place (Carlone) and 10th Place (vanBeuzekom) will also be approximately the same as in the original results – anywhere between 14 and 22 votes (by my estimate). I’ll post all the details as soon as its been made official and I get the remaining numbers. – Robert Winters

December 11, 2013

RECOUNT UPDATE (Dec 11, 3:00pm)

Filed under: 2013 Election,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 3:05 pm

Cambridge City Council Election Recount – 13th Count Complete
Right now the margin between 9th and 10th place in the deciding round projects to about 14 votes, but candidates Seidel and Reeves each have 11 more ballots than they previously did and, when Seidel (16th Count) and Reeves (17th Count) are defeated, vanBeuzekom and Kelley could gain a few to narrow the margin. Though an upset is very unlikely, this ain’t over yet.
Count13

UPDATE – 14th Count Complete (3:24pm)
The projected margin between Carlone and van Beuzekom is now down to 12. Seidel (16th Count) has an additional 10 ballots and Reeves (17th Count) has an additional 11 ballots compared to the original count. When defeated, vanBeuzekom and Kelley could gain a few more ballots than Mazen and Carlone to narrow the margin. Again, this ain’t over.
Count14

The remaining rounds with transferred ballot numbers from the original count look like this (updated Dec 12, 9am):
Count14a-projection
After trimming out some excess caused by earlier rounds, there are really only about 18 ballots in play and the margin between Carlone and vanBeuzekom projects to about 18 in the deciding round. This is starting to look pretty settled now.

December 9, 2013

FaTeague – Dec 9, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,Kendall Square — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:21 pm

FaTeague – Dec 9, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda

There are basically two noteworthy items on this week’s agenda and both of them relate to Kendall Square. The first is the Ames Street Land Disposition. There’s a public hearing at 6:30pm on the proposal by the City of Cambridge to sell a 20-foot wide strip of public land along the eastern edge of Ames Street between Main Street and Broadway in Kendall Square. The land would be sold to a private owner with the condition that it would be combined with adjacent land to enable the construction of a residential building with ground floor retail. The public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of Section 2.110.010 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, regarding Disposition of City Property. [text from the call of the meeting]

The Cambridge Revelopment Authority (CRA) supports the plan as does the Planning Board as indicated in:

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation supporting the proposed Ames Street Land Disposition.

Date: Dec 3, 2013
Subject: Ames Street Land Disposition
Recommendation: The Planning Board supports the proposed disposition.

To the Honorable, the City Council,

The Planning Board recommends that the land disposition proceed in accordance with the terms outlined in the City Manager’s Nov 18, 2013 report, the attached Request for Proposals and the winning proposal submitted by Boston Properties Limited Partnership.

The Board finds that the report adequately and correctly summarizes all of the considerations with regard to the land disposition. The proposal has many significant benefits to the City, including the addition of new housing to Kendall Square and the activation of the streetscape with ground-floor retail and small open spaces on Ames Street. The financial arrangements will also benefit the City, as the report indicates that the price offered for the Property is within the range of the City’s independent appraisals, that the buyer will also assume responsibility for public roadway improvements associated with the project, and that the project will generate ongoing tax revenue for the City. The report also indicates some potential drawbacks of the proposed project, such as shadow impacts, which will be assessed by the Planning Board as part of its project review requirements.

Taking into account all considerations with regard to this disposition, the Planning Board finds that it is an appropriate action to be taken by the City.

Respectfully submitted for the Planning Board,
Hugh Russell, Chair

Most reasonable people, including most or all of the city councillors, will likely agree with the assessment of the Planning Board. Nonetheless, the hearing is likely to bring out those who continue to object to last year’s approval of the downsizing of a rooftop garden in exchange for a greatly extended time during which it will be maintained for public access (an additional 28 years). Some will likely testify that this is some kind of scandalous giveaway to big, bad corporations. Others will argue that the City should somehow try to leverage the delivery of All That Is Good in exchange for this unimportant strip of the public way. This is nothing but bad political theater.

Communication #3. A communication was received from Charles Teague, 23 Edmunds Street transmitting his reply to Cambridge City Council response on Open Meeting Law Complaint dated Nov 5, 2013.

Carlone AccusesSpeaking of bad political theater, the meaningless saga continues of the unhappy activist filing Open Meeting Law complaints when votes don’t go his way. This week’s agenda brings a tedious 76 page communication from Charles Teague, the new right-hand-man of Councillor-Elect Dennis "Pearl Harbor" Carlone. The thought that this kind of pointless harassment may become the norm for the new City Council is enough to drive away even long-term Council-watchers like me. Is this what civic activism has degenerated into? Will every significant City Council vote now be subject to complaints filed with state agencies?

In baseball, when the 3rd out is registered in the bottom of the 9th, you accept your loss and head for the locker room. You don’t file a protest with the Baseball Commissioner. The antics of Teague and company are the civic equivalent of bad sportsmanship, and this may soon become the norm.

You can never predict how an idiotic complaint like this will ultimately turn out, but the incident that was the subject of the complaint is simple to describe:

(a) MIT filed several iterations of a zoning petition for an area in and around Kendall Square where MIT owns a significant amount of property. The petition went through many public hearings before finally coming to a vote on Apr 8, 2013.

(b) During the weeks and months leading up to ordination, MIT representatives met with all of the city councillors and developed a memorandum of understanding that included substantial commitments.

(c) Prior to final ordination on the night of the vote, a series of amendments were proposed by several councillors. Councillor Kelley objected strenuously to the late arrival of the proposed amendments. There were so many opportunities to propose amendments during the months, weeks, and days leading to this vote, that there was no excuse for trying to rush these amendments through.

  One such proposed amendment by Councillor vanBeuzekom would have required "net zero" energy standards on any new buildings. This enjoyed a temporary victory on a 5-3-1 vote with Councillors Cheung, Decker, Simmons, vanBeuzekom, and Mayor Davis voting YES; Councillors Kelley, Maher, and Toomey voting NO; and Councillor Reeves voting PRESENT. This led to very clear expressions from MIT representatives that such a requirement would invalidate the commitments to which they had previously agreed. This was communicated to Councillor Maher and through him to Mayor Davis. When informed that this burden could threaten MIT’s other commitments, Mayor Davis reluctantly asked to change her vote from YES to PRESENT which defeated the amendment 4-3-2. This was a vote change that Mayor Davis clearly did not relish, but she did it for the greater goal of passing the entire package. All of this took place in full view of the public.

(d) The MIT/Kendall zoning petition was then ordained on a 7-1-1 vote with Councillor vanBeuzekom voting NO (as expected) and Vice Mayor Simmons voting PRESENT. The revised Letter of Commitment from MIT was approved unanimously.

There was NOTHING unusual in what transpired that evening. However, a photograph of MIT representatives explaining their position to Councillor Maher was used to claim that some sort of shenanigans had taken place. This led to a complaint being filed long after the period for such complaints had expired. The City Clerk and City Solicitor drafted a response that was approved by the City Council, and we now get this 76 page followup from the disgruntled political activist.

Many people have noted that the current City Council has at times engaged in pointless interpersonal bickering, and this is fair criticism. However, unless some of the newly elected councillors and the incumbent councillors take some affirmative action early in the 2014-15 term to set a good tone, we may find ourselves looking back longingly toward the relative peace and harmony of the 2012-13 City Council. – Robert Winters

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress