Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

August 19, 2013

Official Candidate List for 2013 Cambridge Municipal Election

Filed under: 2013 Election,Cambridge,City Council,elections,School Committee — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 9:55 am

LIST OF CANDIDATES WHO WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2013 MUNICIPAL ELECTION

CITY COUNCIL

Dennis A. Benzan – 1 Pine Street  
Dennis J. Carlone – 9 Washington Avenue  
Leland Cheung – 157 Garden Street Candidate for Re-Election
Janneke Ann House – 12 Hilliard Street  
Craig A. Kelley – 6 Saint Gerard Terrace Candidate for Re-Election
James Jongsoo Lee – 400 Broadway  
Logan Edward Leslie – 204 Fayerweather Street  
David P. Maher – 120 Appleton Street Candidate for Re-Election
Nadeem A. Mazen – 73 A Magazine Street  
Marc C. McGovern – 15 Pleasant Street  
Gary W. Mello – 324 Franklin Street  
Mushtaque A. Mirza – 843 Massachusetts Avenue      
Gregg J. Moree – 25 Fairfield Street  
Ronald Peden – 25 Aberdeen Avenue  
Lesley Rebecca Phillips – 1643 Cambridge Street  
Kenneth E. Reeves – 340 Harvard Street Candidate for Re-Election
Sam Seidel – 381 Broadway  
E. Denise Simmons – 188 Harvard Street Candidate for Re-Election
Jefferson R. Smith – 134 Tremont Street  
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. – 88 6th Street Candidate for Re-Election
Minka Y. vanBeuzekom – 20 Essex Street Candidate for Re-Election
Luis Vasquez – 23 Market Street  
Kristen Lane Von Hoffmann – 205 Walden Street  
James M. Williamson – 1000 Jackson Place  
Elie Yarden – 143 Pleasant Street  

SCHOOL COMMITTEE

Fran Albin Cronin – 1 Kimball Lane  
Alfred B. Fantini – 4 Canal Park Candidate for Re-Election
Joyce C. Gerber – 10 Fairfield Street  
Richard Harding, Jr. – 189 Windsor Street     Candidate for Re-Election
John J. Holland – 26 Normandy Terrace  
Elechi M. Kadete – 10 Laurel Street  
Kathleen M. Kelly – 17 Marie Avenue  
Patricia M. Nolan – 184 Huron Avenue Candidate for Re-Election
Mervan F. Osborne – 149 Auburn Street Candidate for Re-Election

NOTICE TO CANDIDATES

If the entry for any candidate does not reflect the correct spelling of his/her name, the correct office for which he/she filed, or is in error in any other respect, please immediately contact Tanya L. Ford, Executive Director, Election Commission, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, Telephone (617) 349-4361, since this list will be used as the official proof for printing municipal ballots.

Printable official version (PDF)

[released Aug 19, 2013]

August 18, 2013

A Better Cambridge response to Connolly Net Zero Zoning Petition

Filed under: Cambridge,planning — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 6:09 pm

A Better Cambridge response to Connolly Net Zero Zoning Petition

The members of A Better Cambridge thank the proponents of the Connolly Net Zero Petition for provoking such an important discussion about climate change adaptation in Cambridge. The Connolly Petition has challenged our community to take a serious look at how we will eliminate consumption of fossil fuels and promote alternative energy use across the city of Cambridge.

A better Cambridge is a net zero Cambridge. Eliminating carbon emissions should be a primary goal in Cambridge. We believe that a viable approach to serious energy efficiency in Cambridge relies on a multi-pronged strategy that addresses what we require of new development and how we adapt existing buildings, with a focus on multi-modal transportation throughout. A key achievement will be that carbon emissions are reduced within our city through construction of better and more efficient buildings, without at the same time exporting emissions to communities outside of our borders.

While taking this serious and long-overdue look at building efficiency in Cambridge we can’t also lose sight of important community development challenges facing our city. The cost of rent continues to rise in Cambridge, and condos here are being sold for hugely inflated prices. Promoting the development of more mixed residential and commercial buildings around Cambridge’s existing transportation hubs is a key strategy in our ability to make housing more affordable for all people in Cambridge. We have serious concerns that the Connolly Petition’s narrow focus on large scale new development will hurt our ability to create the new affordable low- and middle-income housing that is now so desperately needed to keep Cambridge a diverse and sustainable community.

When it comes to housing, most research and practice-based evidence into the feasibility of cost-effective net zero housing applies to low-density, single-family homes in moderate climates like California. This is not the type of new housing we should expect or hope for in Cambridge, and there is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions about the feasibility of developing net zero multifamily housing here. This places at risk the viability of important projects like housing at the Sullivan Courthouse, for which residents of East Cambridge have been fighting. If the Cambridge Housing Authority development currently planned for Temple Street were subject to the requirements of the Connolly Petition, it almost certainly would not go forward.

In a 2012 study “Think Bigger: Net-Zero Communities” the authors, who represent the Alliance to Save Energy, the Urban Land Institute, and the U.S. Department of Energy, effectively argue that “achieving net-zero energy across an entire building stock requires looking beyond individual buildings and considering net-zero at a community scale.” They state that:

  1. it might not be feasible to achieve net zero energy in every building – this might be more realistic for buildings evaluated together;
  2. Multi-building systems offer opportunities for lower energy use through heat sharing and load diversity; and
  3. drawing a larger perimeter around multiple buildings and adjacent open space allows us to consider “nearby” renewable energy sources thus keeping buildings and urban densities in the net zero mix.

As the study goes on to explain, we need an approach to net-zero that allows for the diversity of building types, uses, and climates and also one that will not dilute urban density in favor of low-rise sprawl. We believe these points are wholly missed in the Connolly Petition’s approach to net zero.

Focusing only on new development, even of substantial square footage, will seriously limit the impact of the Connolly Petition. New construction is small compared to our existing building stock, and anything built after 2010 must comply with Cambridge’s stretch code — energy efficiency standards that are among the toughest in the nation, which have effectively increased the stock of highly energy efficient commercial, residential and institutional buildings in Cambridge without negatively impacting our progress towards key social goods like affordable, multi-family housing.

It would be important to tackle this in a more robust and holistic fashion: require developers to meet “Architecture 2030” goals for new buildings, a program that phases in fossil fuel reductions while, more importantly, targeting our biggest consumers of energy — our existing building stock. For example, this could be accomplished by specifically allocating community benefit funds awarded under new development to support greater energy efficiency conversion subsidies in Cambridge’s existing building stock. Under the Connolly Petition developers could meet net zero requirements by paying for carbon offsets — while missing the opportunity to direct more funding to key community and economic development opportunities.

From a carbon emissions reduction standpoint, Cambridge is a great place to build. Every hundred thousand square feet we add here is a hundred thousand square feet that’s not going up along Routes 128 or 495. Even a net-zero building in a suburban office park is likely to generate a far more negative impact on the climate and the environment than a building in Cambridge that complies with our currently applicable codes and regulations. Suburban construction often involves leveling greenspace and removing acres of carbon-absorbing vegetation. Storm runoff is unlikely to be carried through a separated system, as in much of Cambridge; instead, it is likely to be mixed with sewage, and treated in an emissions-intensive process. Connecting the new structure to roads and utilities generates additional impacts. Workers are far more likely to commute by car, pumping out carbon emissions, and accommodating their vehicles requires additional construction. Of course, no other local town is proposing to require net-zero construction; few even approach Cambridge’s current sustainability standards. The actual choice facing many developers is between meeting Cambridge’s rigorous standards, or taking advantage of the relatively lax rules imposed by most suburban communities. As we work to reduce carbon emissions, it makes sense to keep this broader picture in mind.

Any comprehensive plan to tackle carbon emissions in the Commonwealth would involve incentivizing developers to site their buildings along public transportation networks and proximate to dense residential areas. The Connolly petition, although clearly well-intentioned, seems likely to raise the cost of new development in Cambridge relative to surrounding communities, having the contrary effect. All carbon emissions, whatever their point of origin, have the same impact on our community and our environment. To the extent that this petition moves new construction away from Cambridge, with its high standards on sustainability, and into surrounding areas, it runs a substantial risk of actually raising the very emissions it proposes to contain. We do not believe that this is the outcome the petition seeks, nor do we think it is an outcome that most residents desire.

Focusing on net zero and energy efficiency only neglects the importance of addressing climate change adaptation holistically: in addition to energy efficiency of new buildings and existing buildings, we need to focus on other key climate mitigation strategies such as addressing water resources, resilience planning and mitigation, and innovative and integrated transportation strategies and policies that will effectively move people from their cars into alternative, low- or no-emissions transportation options.

Again, A Better Cambridge thanks the proponents of the Connolly Petition for challenging our community to take this important look at our carbon footprint in Cambridge. Unfortunately, we believe the proposed zoning takes a far too narrow approach that may effectively stall the very type of development we need to actually reduce emissions while addressing key housing/community development needs here in Cambridge.

August 16, 2013

Suggested Topics for 2013 Cambridge School Committee candidates

Filed under: 2013 Election,Cambridge,elections,School Committee — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 10:50 pm

Suggested topics for 2013 School Committee candidates

1) Background [biographical, etc.]

2) Top Priorities [List about three – then elaborate below]

3) Top Challenges Facing CPS today

4) Evaluation of the Innovation Agenda

5) School Department Administration and Superintendent

6) School Department Budget and Capital Needs

7) Achievement Gaps, Meeting the Needs of All Students

8) Meeting the Needs of Advanced Learners

9) Controlled Choice, Student Assignment Policies

10) Curriculum and Programs
a) Elementary School Grades
b) Middle School Grades
c) High School Grades

Other topics:
MCAS and Measuring Student Achievement
Teacher Evaluations and Performance Measures
School Safety and Student Behavior
World Languages
Parent Involvement and School Councils
Enrollment in Public vs. Charter vs. Private Schools

Priority Question: What are your recommendations for meeting the needs of high-achieving/advanced learners, especially in the middle-school grades?

Candidates: Send your responses/remarks on these topics or any other topics of your choice to —- or by mail to 366 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139. All of the information provided is helpful to voters, journalists, and organizers of candidate forums and similar events. You can add more information or change the content of your Candidate Page any time up to Election Day.

Cambridge Candidate Pages – 2013

2013 Campaign Event Listings and Candidate Forums
[Send event listings to —-]

Suggested Topics for 2013 Cambridge City Council Candidates

Filed under: 2013 Election,Cambridge,City Council,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:44 pm

Suggested topics for 2013 City Council candidates

1) Background [biographical, etc.]

2) Top Priorities [List about three and elaborate below]

3) Land Use, Planning, Zoning, Density

4) Economic Development and Commerce

5) Housing

6) Energy, the Environment, and Public Health

7) Traffic, Parking, and Transportation

8) Open Space, Parks, and Recreation

9) Municipal Finance (budget, assessments, property taxes, etc.)

10) Quality of Life and Public Safety

Other topics:
Civic Participation
Government and Elections, Plan E Charter
City Manager
University Relations
Youth Programs, Senior Programs
Arts and Public Celebrations
Cambridge Public Schools
Future of the Foundry Building

Priority Question: What is your vision for Central Square over the next decade?

Candidates: Send your responses/remarks on these topics or any other topics of your choice to — or by mail to 366 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139. All of the information provided is helpful to voters, journalists, and organizers of candidate forums and similar events. You can add more information or change the content of your Candidate Page any time up to Election Day.

Cambridge Candidate Pages – 2013

2013 Campaign Event Listings and Candidate Forums
[Send event listings to —]

August 8, 2013

Cambridge Candidate 2013 Match Game

Filed under: 2013 Election,Cambridge,City Council,elections,School Committee — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 10:45 am

Cambridge Candidate 2013 Match Game (PDF)

Can you match the candidate names, occupations, and birthdates? The list includes all 34 City Council and School Committee candidates.

July 29, 2013

Midsummer Meeting – Monday, July 29, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:12 am

Midsummer Meeting – Monday, July 29, 2013 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Councillors take a break from their reelection campaigns to take care of a few business items in this first meeting with City Manager Richard Rossi. As is usually the case after 5 weeks without a meeting, there’s a boatload of City Manager Agenda items (27), Council Resolutions (87), Council Orders (25), and Committee Reports (9). There are also 6 Charter Right items left over from June 24, and an imperfect Zoning Petition (Teague) that needs to be voted or re-filed in some form. Here’s a sampler of some of the more notable items (with a few minor comments):

Manager’s Agenda #14. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $375,000 to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used to conduct a feasibility study for a bicycle and pedestrian bridge linking the Alewife Triangle and the Alewife Quadrangle.

This was originally envisioned in "The Fishbook" (a.k.a. the 1979 Alewife Revitalization Study by the CDD) as a bridge for all traffic that would connect the western end of Cambridgepark Drive to Smith Place connecting to Concord Ave. Priorities have changed radically since then and perhaps the most significant changes in the forseeable might be a bike/pedestrian bridge over the RR tracks (could happen) or a new commuter rail station (probably won’t happen).

Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the Phillips et al, Zoning Petition, which proposes new requirements for Special District 2 (SD-2). SD-2 was created in 2000 to regulate predominantly commercial areas abutting Linear Park, which runs through the center of the district.

The recommendation says: "It is the Board’s view that the proposed changes do not serve the City’s planning goal of encouraging the transition of outdated commercial and industrial sites at neighborhood edges into housing. Moreover, the zoning for this district has recently been the subject of significant consideration by the City and the public, culminating in the City Council’s adoption of the Bishop, et al. Zoning Petition in 2012. Development that conforms to the recently adopted zoning was approved by the Planning Board this year. Making such a substantial change to the zoning at this time risks undermining the integrity of that prior public discussion and outcome."

Unfinished Business #16. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public hearing held on May 16, 2013 to discuss a zoning petition from Charles D. Teague, et al, requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinances to clarify the existing law so that said law can be enforced by inserting text after Section 7.20 Illumination, with the existing test to be retained and labeled as Section 7.23 Lighting Restrictions for Residential Districts. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 17, 2013. Planning Board hearing held May 21, 2013. Petition expires Aug 19, 2013.

Manager’s Agenda #21. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the Teague et al, Zoning Petition, which proposes new zoning standards regarding lighting.

Honestly, the whole premise of this petition is questionable. If indeed the problem of light intrusion onto residential properties is such a nuisance (and a case can be made that it is), the right approach would be to yank this out of the Zoning Ordinance and put it on a similar footing as the City’s Noise Ordinance. The Planning Board advises that the City Council direct the creation of a comprehensive lighting ordinance that would be incorporated into the Municipal Code separate from zoning.

Manager’s Agenda #23. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to Council Order #10 of Nov 19, 2012, regarding a draft Polystyrene Food Container Ordinance, and input from the Recycling Advisory Committee (RAC).

Polystyrene here refers to expanded polystyrene (EPS) which is commonly referred to as Styrofoam. Though you might think this a slam dunk in terms of environmental desirability, the Recycling Advisory Committee had a long discussion on the pros and cons of the proposed ban of EPS in food establishments. It is true that there are potential health effects of hot beverages in EPS containers, but alternative containers do not necessarily provide a net environmental benefit. On balance, however, an EPS ban is both workable and likely to be well-received by most consumers.

Manager’s Agenda #25. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a response from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa to Council Orders Number 10, 11 and 12 of June 3, 2013 regarding a legal opinion on the following issues: 1) the expiration date on the Phillips Petition and whether if the petition is re-filed would the extension take the special permit decision of the Planning Board out of jeopardy; 2) how many times a petition can be filed on the same zoning petition (serial filings); and 3) whether it is legal to close Cottage Park Avenue and open Brookford Street.

Manager’s Agenda #26. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a response from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa to Council to Order O-4 of 4/29/13, regarding a report on clarifying the expiration date for Zoning Petitions filed in the City.

I will comment only on the last of these. The ambiguity between zoning petition expiration dates can be simply resolved via a minor change in the Zoning Ordinance. It’s baffling why no city councillor has yet proposed this solution.

Manager’s Agenda #27. Transmitting communication from Richard C. Rossi, City Manager, relative to a response from Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, to City Council Order O-9 from 10/4/10, regarding a review of the status of smoking in public parks and the efforts of the Smoking in Parks working group.

If I’m reading the proposed ordinance changes correctly, it is recommended that smoking be banned in a variety of places that are currently listed as exceptions in Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code. The additional prohibition would apply to any public place, municipal facility, municipal vehicle, public park, hotel, and to any outdoor sidewalk seating areas associated with a restaurant.

Charter Right #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-63, regarding a report on the progress on the non-zoning recommendations submitted by the Central Square Advisory Committee.

Charter Right #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-71, regarding a report on how the structure of boards and commissions can be adjusted.

Charter Right #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Foundry Building "Reuse Study" prepared by HFMH Architects.

See the notes of the previous (June 24, 2013) City Council meeting for these items.

Applications & Petitions #5. A zoning petition has been re-filed by John Walker, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to the Special District 2 (SD-2) zoning district in North Cambridge.

This appears to be a resubmission of the Phillips et al, Zoning Petition. As such the legal response in Manager’s Agenda #25 is relevant.

Resolution #57. Congratulating Patrick Barrett III and Norma Jean Bopp on the birth of their son, Jedidiah Shelby Barrett.   Councillor Cheung

I will add my congratulations to my good friend Patrick and his wife Norma Jean on our new Cambridge resident, Jedidiah – a native Cantabrigian.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works to explore the potential for a community composting initiative.   Councillor Cheung

I really don’t know what Councillor Cheung has in mind here. As a local composting guru, my advice is that any resident who can accommodate backyard composting should do this as their own "community composting initiative." If you want more community, invite your neighbors to contribute and help maintain your compost (and make use of the finished product). A pilot City-operated curbside composting program is also now being developed. What perchance does our good councillor propose in addition? It’s essential that there be people responsible for any composting operation including those in community gardens, and it is often the case that people do not take appropriate responsibility – even in active community gardens.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments as to the feasibility of installing side guards on all City-owned trucks to improve cyclist and pedestrian safety and to the feasibility of utilizing pylons as a means through which to separate cyclists from motor vehicles.   Councillor Cheung

I get worried whenever I see proposals like this. As a daily cyclist who prefers sharing the roadway with other vehicles, my first reaction to this proposal is that obstructions would now be in the roadway that could limit my mobility and lead to greater traffic congestion by constricting the roadway. As I have said repeatedly here and elsewhere, bicycles are vehicles just like motor vehicles, and the roadway is to be shared by all vehicles. Cyclists need to make the same turning movements as motor vehicles and the segregation of bicycles into narrow spaces conflicts with this. It also leads motor vehicle operators to not respect the right of cyclists to share the road. The only exception where separated facilities makes sense is on higher-speed roadways where the differential between typical bicycle speeds and motor vehicle speeds is very significant.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Law Department, the Information Technology Department and any other relevant departments to evaluate the feasibility of ensuring all city-sponsored committee meeting minutes are available online.   Councillor Cheung

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Information Technology Department as to the feasibility of making videos of City Council general and committee meetings downloadable by the general public.   Councillor Cheung

I frankly don’t believe there’s a lot of demand for this public information (except to occasionally create YouTube videos to embarass public officials). That said, if it’s simple and cheap enough to produce this form of public information, there’s no good reason why it shouldn’t be made available.

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Traffic Parking and Transportation and the Police Commissioner and report back to the City Council on the City’s efforts to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of current detours and traffic plans currently in place and our ability to adjust them if problems arise in relation to construction projects.   Councillor Toomey

This must surely be in response to the astonishing amount of bridge and tunnel rehabilitation work that is now occurring primarily in the eastern half of the city – most notably the Western Ave. project, the Longfellow Bridge traffic restrictions, and other planned work on the Charles River bridges. My prediction is that many people will bitch and moan and then find ways to live with it. Many will permanently change the way they commute for the better. All of this work is long overdue and necessary, and we should all be celebrating the fact that this neglect is finally being addressed.

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to set up a $20,000 one-year Build Neighborhoods Fund from Community Benefits funds.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

I recall when you could request up to a $500 grant through the Community Oriented Policing (COP) program. If these funds were to support grafitti-removal, cleanup initiatives, or block parties, I don’t think anybody would object to the proposed program. On the other hand, I could easily see a politically-motivated group asking for support claiming they needed the money for "community purposes". If such a Fund is established, the rules for receiving grants should be made abundantly clear and all money should go to clearly charitable purposes.

Order #17. That the City Manager is requested to develop cost benefit analyses for at least five scenarios related to the Foundry Building.   Mayor Davis

If this interests you, there are upcoming City Council committee meetings on this matter on July 31 [Finance (Decker)], Aug 5 [Neighborhood and Long Term Planning (Cheung), and Economic Development, Training, and Employment (Toomey), and Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations (Reeves)], and on Sept 24 [Finance (Decker)].

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to work together with the City of Cambridge Law Department to explore the establishment of an enforced open door while air condition prohibition for Cambridge, and when this prohibition is put in place, precede it’s installation with an awareness campaign through the Cambridge Energy Alliance and the new Community Compact for a Sustainable Future.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Perhaps we should just have a single Anti-Stupidity Ordinance that includes a prohibition against spending absurd amounts of money on wasted heating and air conditioning. I can think of plenty of other clauses to add to the Anti-Stupidity Ordinance. Perhaps we can all pitch in with the drafting of the ordinance.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the rationale and thought process of the License Commission on the proposed increase of liquor license fees prior to the change taking effect.   Councillor Cheung

This is a good request. I expect there are some significant costs associated with all the new pouring licenses, and it would be good to hear an accounting of the additional staff requirements for the License Commission, Police Dept., and Fire Dept.

Order #21. That the City Manager is requested to set up a committee to work with the MBTA to ensure that the MBTA will continue to use all of the stops along the #1 Route and not eliminate any stops.   Councillor Reeves

The evaluation by the MBTA of the #1 Bus stops has been going on for the last couple of years and includes a number of sensible changes including the removal of some unnecessary bus stops. It’s a bit bewildering to see a City Council order arriving at this late date calling for all proposed efficiencies to be abandoned.

Order #22. That the City Manager is requested to set up a committee including the president of the tenant’s union, the chairperson of the Housing Committee, the chairperson of the University Relations Committee, and a representative of the City Manager to open up truthful communication with Harvard on their intentions of selling this building (2 Mt. Auburn St.).   Councillor Reeves

There has to be a back story behind this. The Order states that "Harvard University has blocked all meaningful communication between the University and the tenants union and blocked all meaningful communication with elected city officials and administrators of the city of Cambridge." That’s quite an accusation and we’re all eager to hear what it’s about and if there’s any truth to it.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Civic Unity Committee for a public meeting held on June 18, 2013 to discuss the Monteiro case only as it pertains to any lessons learned.

Committee Report #9. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, transmitting a report from Vice Mayor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Civic Unity Committee for a public meeting held on July 17, 2013 to continue discussions of lessons learned as it pertains to the Monteiro case.

I attended the latter of these two meetings and, after reading a summary of "lessons learned" stated in the former meeting, I offered a comment on one important "lesson learned" that had not previously been stated – namely that the City has to do whatever it can to protect itself against similar complaints and lawsuits in the future. More robust performance evaluations would be a good start. Though this seemed like a pretty obvious suggestion and one that I don’t believe had been mentioned previously, I was heckled by a well-known Brookford St. resident for speaking at all. So much for civic unity as preached by the "Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods."

Communications & Reports from City Officers #2. A communication was received from Mayor Henrietta Davis transmitting a letter from Jeffrey M. Young, Superintendent of Schools regarding responses to City Council Budget Questions.

Considering the fact that the questions posed to Superintendent Young were far longer than the answers provided, it’s a good bet that the disagreements between the City Council and School Committee during the recent Budget Hearings will continue into the planned Roundtable meetings in September and October and during next year’s budget cycle and beyond. – Robert Winters

June 28, 2013

The Strange Symmetry of Cambridge History

Filed under: Cambridge — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 4:16 pm

June 28, 2013 – A recent controversy over a proposed residential project at 93 Kirkland Street for which a curb cut was sought was recently settled via a June 17 City Council vote. This was followed by a motion to Reconsider the vote at the June 24 City Council meeting. The motion to Reconsider failed and the granting of the curb cut was made final. The proponents seeking the curb cut were Mark Boyes-Watson and Muireann Glenmullen. The primary opposition came from the Dewire Family Trust representing the wishes of James and Thomas Dewire of 2 Holden Street whose families have a very long history in the neighborhood and just across the border in Somerville. There was also a petition campaign to block the curb cut initiated by some nearby residents.

To those of us who have a passion for Cambridge history, there was a magnificent symmetry in this controversy that pitted longstanding residents against what was characterized, perhaps unfairly, as an unwelcome intrusion into this established neighborhood. Indeed, in an historically significant incident 127 years earlier, it was the arrival of a saloon across the street at the site where Savenor’s Market now stands that triggered a firestorm that would help to shape the civic battle lines in Cambridge for the next century. The proprietor of that saloon was a Mr. Dewire who had recently moved his business there from just up the street in Somerville. The story of "the Dewire incident," and much of what it inspired, is told in the book "Ten No-license Years in Cambridge: A Jubilee Volume" published in 1898 by the Citizens’ No-License Committee.

The full story of this period is fascinating, especially when understood in the context of the civic reforms that it inspired which ultimately culminated several decades later in the adoption of the Plan E Charter (1940) and the establishment of the Cambridge Civic Association (1945) that owed its existence, at least in part, to the controversy triggered in 1885-86 when the saloon arrived across the street from Harvard Professor Charles Eliot Norton. The letter from Prof. Norton that sparked the movement follows. – Robert Winters

LETTER OF PROF. CHARLES ELIOT NORTON
Cambridge, 27 April, 1886

Editor Cambridge Tribune:

I desire to call the attention of the citizens of Cambridge to a recent proceeding of the majority of the committee on licenses supported by a majority of the Board of Aldermen which seems to me to deserve the serious consideration of every one interested in the good government and the moral condition of our city and to warrant severe condemnation.

For a considerable number of years a man named Dewire has kept a grocery, and sold liquor in a shop at the corner of Washington and Beacon streets in Somerville, close to the boundary of Cambridge. Washington Street is the continuation of Kirkland Street in Cambridge. In 1884, when Somerville voted that no licenses should be granted for the sale of liquor in that city, Dewire, finding his chance of profit diminished, bought a lot over the line in Cambridge at the corner of Lynde and Kirkland streets, a few hundred feet from his original shop, and proceeded to erect upon it a double house of some pretension, fitting up the lower story in a showy and attractive manner, with large windows and other arrangements suitable for a drinking saloon. His more modest establishment in Somerville had been a nuisance to the neighborhood; his new one in Cambridge promised to be still more objectionable. He applied to the committee on licenses in 1885 for a victualler’s license, and a license to sell liquor. A protest against the granting of the license, numerously signed by residents on Kirkland and the neighboring streets, was laid before the committee; and Dewire’s petition was rejected. He, notwithstanding, proceeded to open his new establishment, and, if evidence which seems trustworthy may be relied upon, to sell liquor without a license and against the law.

Soon after the beginning of the present year, he made a fresh application for a license to the committee. A remonstrance similar to that of last year was handed in. The remonstrance was signed by such well known citizens as Professor Child, Prof. B. A. Gould, Prof. J. P. Ames, ex-Alderman C. H. Munroe, the venerable Eben Francis, Mr. L. E. Jones, three ladies, householders and residents in the immediate vicinity of Dewire’s saloon, myself, and numerous others. The remonstrants asked a hearing of the committee in case there should be any question as to the granting of the license, which they did not expect. To their surprise, they were summoned to a hearing on the 10th inst. Professor Child was prevented by illness from appearing, but ex-Alderman Munroe, the Rev. Eben Francis, Jun., Mr. F. L. Temple (the proprietor of the nursery gardens on the corner of Kirkland and Beacon streets), Professor Ames, Mr. Arthur E. Jones, and myself attended, and presented clearly the reasons against the granting of the license. The main objections we made were, – the lack of any legitimate ground for the existence of a drinking-shop in the neighborhood; the injury done and the nuisance created by it; the difficulty of keeping strict police supervision over the establishment on account of its position on the line of division between Cambridge and Somerville; the want of due regard to the express wish of the majority of voters of Somerville in case a license should be granted for the sale of liquor on its immediate boundary. We urged that the petitioner for a license ought to show cause that the granting of his petition would be for the public advantage, or, at least, would enable him to supply a legitimate public need. We pressed upon the committee the fact that the remonstrance of well-known respectable citizens of the neighborhood against a license ought to be a sufficient ground for rejection of any such application; that the committee were primarily bound to consider the moral interests of the community, and to protect it from the grave injury resulting from a practically indiscriminate granting of applications for licenses. We urged that an excessive number of licenses had been granted in previous years; that intemperance had thereby been promoted in Cambridge; that this was a case plainly of a sort in which no just ground whatever for the granting of the petition could be shown to exist.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. J. J. Kelley, avowed with a cynical frankness that did credit to his honesty, that a majority of the voters of the city of Cambridge having voted for license, and the estimates for the expenditure of the city having been made upon the basis of a receipt from licenses of at least thirty five thousand dollars, the committee proposed to grant licenses in sufficient number to secure that sum; and that they did not regard the moral interest of the community as a matter which deserved their consideration in the administration of the license system. Further, upon being questioned, he with equal frankness admitted that the number of licenses, nearly two hundred and twenty, granted last year, was in excess of any legitimate need of the inhabitants, leaving it to be inferred that, by the granting of a number so excessive, the habits of intemperance and drunkenness in the community were inevitably encouraged.

In spite of the views held by the chairman of the committee, the remonstrants against Dewire’s petition could not believe that their arguments would not, in this case at least, prevail with the committee. They could not believe that the reasonable desires of such a number of the respectable citizens of the neighborhood, most of them old residents, all of them known well as having the real interests of the city at heart, most of them payers of large taxes, would not be heeded as against the petition of a recent inhabitant, one who had taken up his residence in the city for the avowed purpose of carrying on traffic injurious to the morals of the community and condemned by every good citizen.

It was with astonishment, therefore, that they learned a few days after the hearing that the majority of the committee on licenses, consisting of Mr. Kelley and Mr. P. A. Lindsay, had, in spite of the earnest opposition of the third member, Dr. E. R. Cogswell, himself a resident on Kirkland Street, voted to recommend to the Board of Aldermen that the petition of Dewire be granted.

The remonstrants still believed that the Board of Aldermen, upon learning the facts of the case, would refuse to adopt the report of the majority of the committee.

But, on the contrary, the Board of Aldermen, at their meeting on the 21st inst., in spite of Dr. Cogswell’s presentation of the objections to the granting of the license, voted, by six to four, that the license should be granted. The names of the majority ought to be known to the citizens of Cambridge, that their course in the matter may be remembered against them. They were E. W. Hincks, G. Close, J. J. Kelley, J. Cogan, C. W. Henderson, and P. A. Lindsay.

The personal interests involved in this special case may be of small moment; it may be of little matter that the desires and arguments of a weighty body of the best citizens of Cambridge have been unceremoniously disregarded. The interests involved are not local or personal. They are those of the whole community. An outrage to the moral sense of every good citizen has been committed by those to whose guardianship not only the material but the moral interests of the city are committed. A great wrong has been done, not to the residents on Kirkland Street alone, but to every inhabitant of the city. It is a matter in which the fundamental principles of good municipal government have been brutally violated. I trust that the voice of other citizens, who have the interests of the community at heart, will be heard concerning it. I am, sir,

Your obedient servant,

Charles Eliot Norton

June 24, 2013

Happy Trails – Agenda Highlights for Monday, June 24 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:03 am

Happy Trails – Agenda Highlights for Monday, June 24 Cambridge City Council meeting

This will be the last Cambridge City Council meeting with Robert Healy as City Manager.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-63, regarding a report on the progress on the non-zoning recommendations submitted by the Central Square Advisory Committee.

There is much to be said about these generally excellent recommendations. More later. Your homework assignment is to read them. There will be a quiz.

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 13-71, regarding a report on how the structure of boards and commissions can be adjusted.

The key statement: "I will state, as the City Council is aware, that it is my long held belief that there is significant overlap and duplication of effort and expense in the current structure." The real question is whether this group of 9 city councillors or their successors have either the vision or the capacity to correct the status quo. Now is the best opportunity to initiate some changes.

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Foundry Building "Reuse Study" prepared by HFMH Architects.

The key recommendation: "The cost estimate of bringing this building ‘up to code,’ including an elevator for ADA accessibility, and meeting Silver LEEDS status is over $11,250,000. Funds for such a project are nowhere included in the Five Year Capital Investment Plan. It is my strong recommendation that the City Council authorize the sale of this building in accordance with all applicable laws and subject to all the existing zoning conditions. The requirement for 10,000 square feet of community use would be protected in the proposal."

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the current Awaiting Report list.

The Right Thing To Do: "I am hereby recommending that, as one means of allowing the City Manager, effective July 1, 2013, to commence his successful efforts, that all items on the current Awaiting Report list be ‘placed on file.’" A clean slate for incoming City Manager Richard Rossi is exactly the best course of action.

Applications & Petitions #5. A zoning petition has been received from Mike Connolly, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge to ensure that all new construction or changes in use requiring Project Review Special Permits are built to avoid emission of greenhouse gases in daily operation and thereby mitigate the risks of extremely dangerous climate changes. A clear and enforceable definition of "net zero" greenhouse gas emissions is proposed. [HTML version of petition]

This will be surely be controversial, and that may well be the intention of this petition timed to coincide with the calendar of the municipal election. Most will agree that "net zero" is a great goal, but I do not believe it is permissible under state law for a local zoning ordinance to prescribe what vendors a property owner, developer, or tenant must use to purchase goods or services. This includes the purchase of electricity or other forms of energy. The proposed zoning amendment includes not only provisions for extensive reporting of energy use, but also requires that the property owners and all of their tenants must purchase electricity from a restricted list of suppliers OR pay an additional fee indefinitely into the future for "energy credits". This goes well beyond what zoning is legally allowed to do. It would be like requiring that all tenants in a building must buy only environmentally friendly products. We may all wish that they do so, but we cannot use the zoning ordinance to mandate such things.

It should also be noted that this proposed zoning amendment is being filed before MIT has submitted designs for future buildings that will eventually be built under a recently passed zoning amendment relating to the Kendall Square area. An 11th hour attempt to insert a "net zero" requirement in that zoning (or perhaps in the accompanying memorandum of understanding) almost derailed the overall vote. The people who are proposing the current zoning amendment are precisely the same people who were adamantly opposed to the MIT/Kendall zoning. There is good reason to believe that the underlying motivation is to again try to derail the MIT/Kendall proposal.

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Teddy Darling on his retirement from the Middlesex Superior Court.   Councillor Toomey

Best wishes in your retirement, Teddy.

Resolution #17. Congratulations to Owen O’Riordan on being named Acting Commissioner of the Department of Public Works.   Mayor Davis

Another excellent choice of leadership in one of the City’s most essential departments.

Resolution #18. Thanks to City Manager Robert W. Healy, Jr. for over three decades of dedicated service to the City of Cambridge and best wishes on his transition to the Kennedy School of Government.   Mayor Davis

I’m happy that Bob Healy achieved many of the long-term goals he wanted to achieve, including several major replacements in our water infrastructure, the new Library, new Police Station, renovated City Hall Annex, and more. He’s also shepherded the many changes on the environmental front beginning with the establishment of the recycling program through the broad arrange of programs now in place.

I personally have tremendous respect for Bob Healy, and I like him personally even though he sometimes seems gruff and hard to approach. I don’t think there’s another person alive who has cared as much about this city. I also look forward to the next phase of history in Cambridge. With a new city manager there will likely come new initiatives. It’s the perfect time to modify the things that have not worked so well and to build on those things that have worked well, and Richard Rossi is the kind of person who likes to get things done. This bodes well for Cambridge.

Professor Healy – I’d like to make an appointment for office hours when you arrive at the Kennedy School.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to commission a portrait of Robert W. Healy, Jr. to be hung in the newly named Robert W. Healy, Jr. Executive Suite.    Councillor Cheung

That’s a great gesture and appropriate for someone who has given so much of his life to the City of Cambridge. – Robert Winters

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress