Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

September 24, 2012

A Light Comedy – Sept 24, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:20 am

A Light Comedy – Sept 24 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The Sullivan Chamber will be occupied Monday night, but the business could not be lighter. World-traveling Councillor Leland Cheung would be well-advised not to return for this meeting. Indeed, the most interesting items are the two communications from Peter Valentine, a.k.a. National Officer in Charge:

Communications #1. A communication was received from Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street regarding removing the US Military Flag from the Council Chamber and replace with the National Flag of the United States of America.

Communications #2. A communication was received from Peter Valentine, 37 Brookline Street regarding a preliminary format for we the people evolving an undefeatable constitution.

The first of these reads as follows:

Communications: To The City Council and Citizenry from Peter Valentine 37 Brookline St. 10/10/2012

Many years ago I explained to The Council that it was a violation of the People’s US Constitutional Rights to have a US Military Flag as the symbol of the Flag of the United States of America in the Council Chamber because where there is a military flag there is only military law not constitutional law.

We were not and are not involved in Cambridge MA in a military circumstance or military subject matter.

I informed the council that the military flag had to be removed and replaced by the standard United States of America Flag.

The Council paid no attention to my request.

It is the act of a hypocrite to sign an oath where one swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and require people to stand and swear allegiance to the United States of America and the Constitution for which it stands but at the same time to deny the people their constitutional rights by the presence in the Council Chamber of a US Military Flag.

Therefore I do order, as the National Officer in Charge, in the Name of the Protection of the Full Spectrum of the Constitutional Rights of the People of the United States of America, that the Council remove the US Military Flag from the Council Chamber and replace it with the National Flag of the United States of America.

The National Officer in Charge
Peter Valentine, 10/10/2012
Unelected but Affective

I’m sure the councillors will all snap to attention. Meanwhile, there’s this:

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to take the necessary measures to ensure that the mitigation money from Novartis be allocated all or in part to the Upward Bound Program, with a view of giving the program an additional year to continue, and the hope that the additional funding will give the program staff, families and supporters an additional year to seek outside funding.   Vice Mayor Simmons

I might be convinced that this would be a good action to take, but it contradicts the whole ongoing discussion about what "mitigation" is appropriate (if any) when the City Council grants zoning relief for major developments, and how that money should be allocated. The general sense of the City Council has been to move away from lobbying to direct these funds toward pet projects of individual councillors – no matter how worthy. – Robert Winters

September 10, 2012

End of Summer – The City Council Returns – Sept 10 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:41 am

End of Summer – The City Council Returns – Sept 10 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

The first agenda item is the culmination of the annual faux process of allocation of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds. The outcome is always determined before the CPA Committee even meets. In fact, the outcomes every year were determined ten years ago, but feel free to peruse the details:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, requesting that the City Council formally appropriate/allocate the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds as follows:
1A. 80% of the FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($5,600,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
1B. 10% of FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($700,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
1C. 10% of FY2013 CPA Local Fund revenues ($700,000) allocated to Open Space;
2A. 80% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($1,320,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
2B. 10% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($165,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
2C. 10% of FY2012 State Match revenues ($165,000) allocated to Open Space;
3A. 80% of the Fund Balance ($800,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Affordable Housing Trust;
3B. 10% of the Fund Balance ($100,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
3C. 10% of the Fund Balance ($100,000) allocated to Open Space;
4A. Appropriate ($1,035,000) from the Open Space Reserve to the Public Investment Budget; and
5A. Appropriate ($7,500) from the Fund Balance the cost for the Community Preservation Coalition Membership Dues.

Though it’s hard to discern what progress the Cambridge Police and the District Attorney’s Office have made in the Willow St. murder case, at least there is a report on the agenda (and in the Cambridge Chronicle – thanks).

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 12-76 and 12-77, regarding discussion on violence and the youth perspective in reaction to the Willow Street shooting.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Police Commissioner to determine a format that will accommodate the City Council and the victim’s family for an update on the status of the Willow Street shooting in May.   Councillor Reeves

One of my neighbors was a classmate of murder victim Charlene Moore, and she and many people have been mystified by the seeming lack of progress in this case. We’re all hoping that law enforcement is now "making the case" and not just hoping for clues.

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-93, regarding a report on the feasibility of supporting the concept of human-powered bicycle cabs.

I mention this item only to raise the issue of how these wider human-powered vehicles will navigate Western Ave. after the travel lanes are narrowed and cyclists are pushed onto the sidewalk. Same goes for the Metro Pedal vehicles making pickups and deliveries around town.

Manager’s Agenda #17. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-100, regarding a report on whether emails to Councillors either through the City email or to their personal accounts may be shared with the general public.

The city councillors may want to ask for a second opinion on this one. This legal opinion seems to suggest that e-mail messages sent to city councillors’ private e-mail accounts are to be considered public records. Who shall be the first to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for these private e-mail messages?

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to expand enforcement of the prohibition on Cambridge pick-ups by non-Cambridge cabs not specifically called to Cambridge.

I’ll say it again: We’d all be better off if the entire taxicab industry was deregulated and taxi owners and drivers were required only to prove that they meet basic safety standards. It’s a cab cartel now – plain and simple.

Unfinished Business #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $81,500,000 to provide funds for architectural design, construction and other associated costs of the King School project. The question comes on adoption on or after Aug 13, 2012.

This is just the formality of a final vote on the appropriation which will allow the project to proceed.

Resolution #11. Resolution on the death of Charles L. Stead, Sr.   Councillor Maher, Mayor Davis, Vice Mayor Simmons

Resolution #49. Resolution on the death of Henrietta S. Attles, Ed.D.   Councillor Reeves, Vice Mayor Simmons, Mayor Davis

These resolutions mark the passing of two very important players in the Cambridge schools. Many of the city councillors will likely make statements about one or both of these very significant Cantabrigians. Charles Stead was a Cambridge school principal who was hated by some and beloved by many. Henrietta S. Attles first ran and was elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 1979. She was reelected in 1981 but was defeated in the 1983 election. She served from 1980-1983. The meeting room of the Cambridge School Committee is named for her.

Resolution #26. Retirement of David Holland from the Budget Department.   Mayor Davis

Resolution #118. Retirement of Eileen Ginnetty from the Council on Aging.   Councillor Maher

Dave Holland and Eileen Ginnetty are two of the more familiar faces in their respective departments. Best wishes to both of them in their retirement.

Order #6. That the City Ordinance Committee resume discussing the outlines of a formal Community Benefits & Mitigation Plan for projects within the city with the goal of making a recommendation on a policy that the City Council can vote on by year’s end.   Vice Mayor Simmons

Order #8. That the Housing Committee review the City’s inclusionary zoning policy, to explore the possibility and feasibility of increasing the percentage of affordable housing that must be included in any new development.   Vice Mayor Simmons

These interrelated Orders concern the unresolved matter begun several years ago about updating and standardizing the way developers are asked to contribute to the city – either when seeking changes in zoning or when building projects as-of-right. The Inclusionary Zoning law was crafted at the time of its passage to be relatively cost neutral for housing developers, i.e. in exchange for providing affordable units they would be given a density bonus to allow for additional market-rate units. Any proposed update would likely demand even more affordable units and would likely then have to grant even greater density bonuses. This should spur some serious debate, especially in light of the highly divergent views of high density advocates and downzoning advocates spawned by discussions over the last two years about the future of Kendall Square, Central Square, and the transition area between these centers.

Order #11. That the Government Operations and Rules Committee publish a schedule of meetings devoted to the City Manager selection process and issue periodic statements so that the public may be informed as to the chosen selection process and timeline for the upcoming appointment.   Councillor Reeves

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on June 22, 2012 to have an initial discussion with the City Manager to develop a comprehensive short and long term succession plan.

Who could argue with this Order? What’s really striking is the silence surrounding what is arguably the single most important responsibility of the City Council. There is another meeting of the Government Operations & Rules Committee scheduled for Wed, Sept 19 at 9:00am in the Ackermann Room "to continue discussion to develop a hiring process for the position of City Manager."

Order #12. That the City Council suggest that the Cambridge Housing Authority study and consider the feasibility and reasonableness of placing long-term affordable housing deed restrictions on developments such as Newtowne Court and Washington Elms so that these developments will always be dedicated long-term affordability housing areas.   Councillor Reeves

Part of the genesis of this Order is the strategic misstep in the series of meetings on Central Square when Goody/Clancy showed an image indicating some of this public housing being potentially replaced with new housing built at greater density. There was never any actual plan to do this – just a concept – but it has served as an alarm for organizing public housing tenants. It does seem, however, that placing deed restrictions to lock in place what is there now might be a poor policy – unless the flexibility to redevelop with no net loss of housing units is written into any such deed restrictions. It can also be reasonably argued that concentrating this much public housing into one area is a rather outdated and unenlightened public policy.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development and report back to the City Council on how the City is facilitating affordable housing opportunities for middle class families.   Councillor Toomey

Despite some of the sentiments expressed in recent years about providing middle-inclome housing in the Central Square area, the question of how this can be done remains largely unanswered. Is the plan to ultimately have the Cambridge Housing Authority become the intake mechanism for all of the lower-income and middle-income housing in Cambridge?

Order #15. That the City Council go on record agreeing that a minimum of 80% of mitigation funds should be distributed within the neighborhoods that are impacted by these projects.   Councillor Toomey

This is really a recurring Order that will likely go nowhere. Most of the new development in Cambridge is concentrated into just a few areas and most of the city councillors ultimately vote for spreading the loot.

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to create an inventory of the vacant lots and derelict buildings throughout Cambridge that the City could potentially purchase to add to the city’s open space inventory for other city uses.   Mayor Davis

This reminds me of an initiative pressed years ago by City Councillor Ed Cyr to set up a "Land Bank" of City-owned parcels that would be used for building affordable housing. It didn’t go over well, but rent control was still in place in those days. This predated the creation of the Affordable Housing Trust (which looks for housing opportunities) and the Open Space Acquisition Fund (which looks for open space opportunities).

Order #17. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with information on the new parking arrangements in the vicinity of the former Longfellow School on Broadway as they relate to the operation at the school building and to work with the School Department and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to minimize the impact on the neighborhood.   Councillor Toomey

I recently wrote a letter of support to the BZA for a local business to have its parking requirement waived due to the availability of on-street parking, but I also warned that much of this parking would likely disappear with the reactivation of the old Longfellow School building. I also recommended to the BZA that the Traffic & Parking Department should be dissuaded from using the metered spaces that are supposed to be there for patrons of the local businesses. At times like this I become cynically convinced that City departments never talk to each other.

Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department to conduct a preliminary exploration of an east west bike path alongside the commuter rail line or along the old haul route.   Councillor Cheung

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Interim City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Chair of the Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 6, 2012 to receive an overview from the Community Development Department of the Grand Junction Rail with the Trail (RWT) Feasibility Study of 2006 and to discuss actions the City can make towards its construction.

The possibility of sharing the Grand Junction right-of-way has been under discussion for years, including the recent subcommittee meeting chaired by Councillor Toomey. Those of us who served on the Green Ribbon Open Space Committee were advocating for this goal last century.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to itemize all mitigation commitments throughout the city to be compiled into a single document.   Councillor Cheung

Perhaps a small, sad chapter can reserved at the end of the document on mitigation for the disgraceful privately negotiated and publicly accepted "mitigation" that created "Neighbors for a Better Community" (NBC) in order to receive a parcel land and cash that have been used for no other purpose than the personal enrichment of members of one family.

Order #21. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to report back to the City Council on what strategies other cities have used to dissuade land-banking and what may be applicable in Cambridge.   Councillor Cheung

The problem is not land-banking so much as nonproductive very-long-term land-banking. Assembling parcels as part of a greater plan is normal. Indeed, that was a primary role of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority during its active years. This Order could use a little more detail and refinement. It never makes much sense for a property owner or developer to sink a lot of money into the preservation of properties that are destined to soon be redeveloped.

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from … Councillor Minka vanBeuzekom, Chair of the Environment Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 8, 2012 to discuss implementation of a plan for separate trash or recycling curbside pickup for small businesses along existing curbside routes.

I spoke at this meeting against the idea of the City taking on the cost of business recycling. However, based on the discussion at this meeting I have become much more aware of how some businesses in mixed-use buildings in my own neighborhood routinely put all their rubbish and recycling out along with the residential rubbish and recycling – at no cost to the businesses. I still don’t believe the City should be taking on these costs, but there is a fairness issue that needs to be resolved when some businesses are paying for these services and others are getting a free ride. – Robert Winters

August 30, 2012

A word or two on the September 6 Primary Election

Filed under: 2012 election,elections — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:29 pm

A word or two on the September 6 Primary Election:
First, if you are registered to vote, then you should vote – even if there is nothing meaningful on the ballot.

Second, there is almost nothing meaningful on the ballot.

[Where do I vote? Who’s on MY ballot? – Enter your address and Zip Code.
When you get the result, choose your Primary ballot (the colored bands near the top.]

I received a phone call earlier today telling me how important this coming week’s election was. I almost burst out laughing before hanging up. Meaningless elections have unfortunately become the norm in Massachusetts. It’s probably the fact that this is effectively a one-party state that makes most of our elections so meaningless. Contested primaries are virtually forbidden within the Democratic party with candidates sometimes being convinced to withdraw from contested primaries "for the good of the party." Ten years ago Marjorie Decker challenged incumbent Paul Demakis in the Democratic Primary and was roundly criticized by the party establishment. Marjorie won 66.5% of the Cambridge vote, but Demakis easily won the primary based on the majority of votes cast in Boston. Demakis was elected in November and later vacated his seat without finishing the term.

This year’s primary has a few interesting local contests – depending on which precinct you live in. Three credible Democrats (Robert Reardon, Jr., David Rogers, and Margaret Hegarty) are spending real money in the 24th Middlesex State Representative race. That district only includes two Cambridge precincts (11-1 and 11-3).

The 25th Middlesex State Representative Democratic Primary [includes Wards 4, 7, and 8; and Precincts 6-2, 6-3, 10-1, and 10-2] features Marjorie Decker, Gayle Johnson, and Lesley Rebecca Phillips. This is barely a contest with Marjorie Decker almost certain to win, but at least it’s contested. The general election is effectively uncontested. Who would have dreamed ten years ago that Alice Wolf’s coveted all-Cambridge House seat would be simply passed on in a no-contest election? Apparently, being an elected State Representative is about as attractive a job these days as flipping burgers at McDonalds.

The 26th Middlesex State Representative seat has no contested primary, but the novel "No Money" campaign of Mike Connolly (independent) against incumbent Timothy J. Toomey (Democrat) has drawn attention to the November election. Republican Thomas Vasconcelos will also be on the November ballot for that seat.

The Governor’s Council Sixth District Democratic primary has two candidates – incumbent Terrence W. Kennedy and Francis X. Flaherty. Frankly, I don’t know why the Governor’s Council still exists.

Roll of the dieThere are only two other contested primaries. The first is for Register of Deeds, Southern Middlesex District. I have no idea about the chances of any of the six Democrats seeking this seat (Thomas Concannon, Frank J. Ciano, Robert Antonelli, Maryann Heuston, Maria Curtatone, and Tiziano Doto). This will be an absurd winner-take-all contest without a runoff between six candidates in what will likely be a low turnout primary – followed by an uncontested general election in November. If the Massachusetts political establishment was one-tenth as progressive as they seem to think they are, they would abolish party primaries and replace them with an open primary followed by a November general election between the top two finishers in the primary (regardless of party). This, of course, will never happen. [Note: Campaign finance figures indicate that this is really more like a four-way race between Ciano, Heuston, Curtatone, and Doto. See figures at http://rwinters.com/politics.]

The other contested primary is among Republicans for the U.S. Congress 5th District (Ed Markey’s seat). Though Markey will likely trounce the Republican opposition in November, there is actually a contested Republican primary between candidates Frank Addinivola, Jeffrey Semon, and Tom Tierney.

There’s a complete roster of all candidates in the primary and general election at http://rwinters.com/politics that includes some of the campaign finance totals for those candidates for which this information could be readily found. – Robert Winters


Polling Places for Thurs, Sept 6 Primary Election (updated for 2012)

August 16, 2012

More Fun with Ballots

Filed under: 2011 Election,Cambridge,Central Square,elections — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:45 am

More Fun with Ballots (June 23, 2012, updated Aug 16, 2012 with additional Central Sq. results)

I recently installed Cambridge’s municipal (PR) election tabulation software (ChoicePlusPro) on a new Windows 7 computer and thought I might run a few tests tonight during the Red Sox game just to see if everything was OK. Everything checked out, but you have to understand that when I get to playing around with ballot data, there’s no way I’m going to just run a standard test and shut down for the night. So…..

I decided to chop Cambridge up into neighborhood districts (imperfectly, along precinct lines) just to see who would be elected "mayor" in each of these districts using only the ballots from precincts within these artificial districts. I didn’t try to balance out the population, so the populations vary significantly. Here are the results:

East Cambridge (1-1, 1-2, 1-3): Toomey wins an absolute majority in the First Round, 880 out of 1638 ballots – no contest.

Area 4 Plus (2-1, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3): Simmons (714) over Toomey (630) out of 1763 ballots.

Cambridgeport (2-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3): Davis (835) over Simmons (585) out of 1811 ballots.

Riverside (4-1, 4-3, 8-3): Reeves (333) over Cheung (271) out of 808 ballots (a very small district).

Mid-Cambridge (4-2, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 7-3): Cheung (897) over Seidel (695) out of 2165 ballots.

Avon Hill & Agassiz (7-1, 7-2, 8-1, 10-2): Cheung (813) over Davis (609) out of 1697 ballots.

West Cambridge (8-2, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3): Maher (1258) over Cheung (1132) out of 2839 ballots.

North Cambridge (10-1, 10-3, 11-1, 11-2, 11-3): Cheung (1411) over Maher (990) out of 3124 ballots.

That takes care of all 33 precincts in the city. You can also look at various other "districts" to determine who might prevail as "mayor" using the 2011 ballots from those precincts. For example:

Greater Central Square (2-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-2, 6-1): Simmons (1618) over Cheung (1498) out of 4083 ballots.

Narrower Central Square (3-3, 4-2, 5-1): Cheung (562) over Simmons (523) out of 1420 ballots.
Note: The top five in the 1st Round were (in order): Cheung, vanBeuzekom, Simmons, Davis, and Reeves.

It should also be mentioned that if the 2011 City Council ballots from all 33 precincts (citywide) were used to elect a "mayor", the result would be:

Citywide (all 33 precincts): Cheung (6827) over Simmons (4586) out of 15,845 valid ballots (15,971 total).

If anyone would like me to investigate any other "districts", just let me know. I can also provide the full transfer reports for each of these artificial contests. – Robert Winters

There was a request to run the ballots for the 25th Middlesex House District (Alice Wolf’s seat), so here are the last few rounds of those results (5,342 valid ballots, 5,374 total):

Candidate Round 13 Round 14 Round 15 Round 16
Cheung, Leland 117 1445 268 1713 336 2049 318 2367 ELECTED
Davis, Henrietta 107 1020 134 1154 234 1388 369 1757 DEFEATED
Decker, Marjorie 117 838 55 893 116 1009 0
Seidel, Sam 93 779 105 884 0 0
vanBeuzekom, Minka 29 705 0 0 0

Of these, only Marjorie Decker lives in the district. – RW

August 5, 2012

Town and City (Forest City, that is) – Aug 6, 2012 Cambridge City Council Special Meeting Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:25 pm

Town and City (Forest City, that is) – Aug 6, 2012 Cambridge City Council Special Meeting Agenda Highlights

Last week’s annual Midsummer meeting unanimously resolved most of the pending zoning petitions before the City Council, but deliberation and a possible vote on the Forest City/MIT petition was delayed one week as late negotiations continued toward a possible resolution. Public comment at the July 30 meeting was remarkable in its alarmism, disregard for protocol, and distortion of facts. The bottom line is that Forest City could build a functional building right now within the constraints of existing zoning, but that building would contain no retail frontage on Mass. Ave. and provide no "community benefits" whatsoever other than expanding the number of jobs for biotech workers. The question to be answered by the City Council is whether they want to allow a relatively small increase in height (from 80 ft to 95 ft not including rooftop mechanicals that would be added either way) and additional floor area in exchange for a much improved retail corridor and guarantees of long-term affordability of existing housing at University Park and the promise of additional affordable units.

The greatest difficulty of this petition (and a related "Permanent Parking Petition" as well as another petition yet to come calling for no additional density increases anywhere in the city) is that it has been caught in the crosshairs of a political campaign. This was perhaps best captured by one July 30 commenter who matter-of-factly said to the city councillors that the real purpose of their petition was to buy time so that they could replace the City Council. Perhaps it is not such a wise move to instruct city councillors to support a petition that is supposedly designed to defeat them in the next municipal election.

In addition to some priceless communications from naysayers, the agenda for the Aug 6 Special Meeting really consists of just four items – three committee reports on the Forest City/MIT petition on Unfinished Business and a communication from Mayor Davis containing additional information on the University Park housing and a FAQ from the Community Development Department.
Full text of these documents (HTML)    Original (scanned PDF)

The Monday, Aug 6 meeting at City Hall starts at 7:30pm. – Robert Winters

Aug 6, 9:30pm update – The petition was allowed to expire without coming to a vote.


Mayor Henrietta Davis released the following statement (July 31, 2012):

I’m writing to update you on the status of the Forest City Zoning Petition.

Right now, without needing City Council permission, Forest City can build up to 80 feet and just under 139,000 square feet of space. They would not be required to provide ground floor retail or other benefits for the community. They are asking for an additional 15 feet in height and an additional 107,000 square feet to be used for lab space and ground floor retail.

Originally Forest City also proposed a high rise residential structure. I’m pleased to report that Forest City has removed this portion of the proposal, a residential tower at the corner of Sidney Street and Green Street that would have abutted the Mass Ave park and cast some shadows on Jill Brown-Rhone Park.

The most important news is that the Mayor’s Office is now working with representatives of Forest City and the Chair of the Ordinance Committee to address housing needs in other ways:

1. We are hoping Forest City will extend affordability on approximately over 150 units of housing in University Park by 50 years. The units are now set to lose their affordable status starting in the next decade.

2. It is also proposed the Forest City provide 20 new units of affordable housing, possibly in connection with a new housing development.

I appreciate that this had been a difficult and complex process for the community. In order to continue and possibly complete negotiations with Forest City, I have scheduled a special City Council meeting at City Hall for next Monday August 6 at 7:30 PM. The public is welcome to attend.


COMMUNICATIONS AND REPORTS FROM CITY OFFICERS
1. A communication was received from Mayor Henrietta Davis transmitting the following documents:
   • Communication from Assistant City Manager Brian Murphy transmitting the original Forest City housing commitment letter from 1988;
   • The Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District (CRDD) Affordable Housing FAQ; and
   • The Cambridge Revitalization Development District Affordability Requirements.
Full text of these documents (HTML)    Original (scanned PDF)

July 29, 2012

Midsummer at the Council – July 30 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:39 pm

Update: Here are the main things that happened at the marathon July 30 City Council meeting:

1) Action on the Forest City/MIT Zoning Petition was delayed until a Special City Council meeting scheduled for Mon, Aug 6 at 7:30pm with this as the sole agenda item. Mayor Davis and Councillor Maher indicated that there may be additional provisions included in the agreement that would protect 168 expiring-use affordable housing units that are part of University Park.
[Cambridge Chronicle report by Erin Baldassari]

2) The appropriation and authorization to borrow $81,500,000 to provide funds for architectural design, construction and other associated costs of the King School project was passed unanimously to a 2nd Reading.

3) The City Council Zoning Petition for School Site Zoning was ordained unanimously.

4) The NorthPoint Zoning Petition was ordained unanimously.

5) The North Mass. Ave. Rezoning Petition was ordained unanimously, and the related zoning petition for the Trolley Sq. area is to be re-filed on Sept 5.

6) The Area Four Neighborhood Preservation Petition (a.k.a. the Permanant Parking Petition) was received and referred to the Planning Board and Ordinance Committee (where it will be received with great laughter and derision). – RW


Midsummer at the Council – July 30 City Council Agenda Highlights

The annual Midsummer meeting of the Cambridge City Council always sports one of the longest agendas of the year (being the only meeting between June and September). This year is light compared to other years with "only" 26 items on the City Manager’s Agenda, 10 on the Calendar, 5 Applications & Petitions, 43 Communications (mainly from an orchestrated effort opposing the Forest City/MIT zoning petition as a proxy for Central Square zoning recommendations yet to come), 71 Resolutions, 34 Orders, and 7 Committee Reports. Most of the items are the usual drivel, but a few stand out or are guaranteed to generate comment. Here are the items that caught my attention:

King School/Putnam Ave. Upper School Reconstruction:
Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $81,500,000 to provide funds for architectural design, construction and other associated costs of the King School project.

The list of new features associated with this school is impressive. Some residents have argued that a complete teardown is not necessary and that may be a part of the discussion at this meeting.


Manager’s Agenda #26. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-57, regarding the City Council’s request for a report regarding the question of appropriate regulation of satellite dishes.

The report includes proposed language for a possible ordinance regulating how satellite dishes could be located on buildings. Federal law does not allow these devices to be too harshly regulated nor fees to be charged, but there is some flexibility to allow regulation of placement on building unless there are no feasible alternatives.


Forest City/MIT Zoning Petition:
Unfinished Business #7. 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 15, 2012 to discuss the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 25, 2012. Planning Board hearing held May 1, 2012. Petition expires Aug 13, 2012.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on June 27, 2012 to continue discussion on the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street.

Committee Report #5. 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 meeting held on July 25, 2012 to continue discussion on the petition of Forest City/MIT to amend the Zoning Ordinances by extending the Cambridgeport Revitalization Development District from Green Street out to Massachusetts Avenue in the area adjacent to Blanche Street and further to provide for the potential development of a residential building on Sidney Street between Massachusetts Avenue and Green Street.

The twisted rhetoric and misinformation that has grown around this matter is beyond incredible. Here are a few truths to consider:

  1. A previous petition, the Novartis Petition to create a new Special District 15 along a portion of Massachusetts Avenue between Albany Street and Windsor Street, passed 9-0 on June 20, 2011. There was no request from "the community" to build any housing whatsoever. There was no requirement that they provide retail space. The sole tenant is a pharmaceutical company. The Forest City/MIT proposal includes 13-15,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail. Its sole tenant for the rest of the building is Millennium, a pharmaceutical company that is already a tenant of University Park.
  2. In the new Special District 15 created as a result of the Novartis Petition, the maximum FAR is 3.5 and the maximum height as-of-right is 120 ft. (plus mechanicals) which can be increased to 140 ft. via Special Permit. In contrast, the Forest City/MIT proposal is to build a 95 ft. building (plus mechanicals). The height associated with the Novartis proposal was never opposed by "the community".
  3. The original Forest City/MIT proposal did not include housing, but the revised petition did include housing in response to suggestions from the City Council and the Community Development Department. That proposed housing was controversial and was subsequently removed in response to pressure from "the community". There is simply no way to rationally make the case that Forest City has been anything other than responsive to feedback from elected officials and "the community".
  4. The original zoning for University Park required 400 units of housing of which 150 were to be "affordable". There are now 674 units of housing in University Park of which 26% are classified as "affordable" – well in excess of City goals.
  5. The block at the heart of this petition currently contains a boarded-up former bar, the Thailand Cafe, an MIT garage for service vehicles, an auto glass replacement shop, the former Salvation Army Thrift Store, and the All-Asia bar (which is relocating to Prospect Street under a new name). This block has been an eyesore for many years. It generates about $55,000 in real estate taxes per year. If the petition passes, there will be retail opportunities for local companies and it is estimated that the City will receive about $2.4 million in real estate taxes every year. In addition, an Incentive Zoning payment and a Community Benefit Mitigation payment will total about $2,163,000.

Much of the public comment associated with the Forest City/MIT petition has centered on matters unrelated to this site or the petition. It is being used a proxy for possible future Central Square zoning recommendations yet to come. It is likely that there will be future recommendations for strategic increases in density in Central Square – largely driven by the desire to create more housing opportunities in the area and to provide other community benefits. Opponents have stated that the Forest City/MIT petition should be delayed pending the final report of the Goody Clancy study and its associated advisory committee, yet all indications are that the current proposal is consistent with that process. This makes this assertion little more than a red herring or a transparent delay tactic.

Ultimately, the fate of any zoning petition comes down to how the nine city councillors will vote, and six votes are needed for ordination in this case. It will be a shame if this matter is decided not by the merits of the proposal but by entirely political considerations. One councillor has a long-term friendship with one of the opponents. Another pro-density councillor lives on Essex Street where some of her neighbors are at the core of the opposition – based on an unrelated concern that parking lots on Bishop Allen Drive may one day become sites for future housing. These and other councillors have been seeking rationale for voting against this petition even though those who were on the Council in 2011 voted unanimously in favor of the Novartis Petition that provided fewer "community benefits" and more height than the current proposal. If this petition fails, it will be a victory for hypocrisy.


City Council Zoning Petition for School Site Zoning:
Unfinished Business #8. 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 23, 2012 to discuss a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by adding to Section 5.50 entitled "Special Dimensional Regulations" a section 5.54 entitled "Special Regulations for Municipal Elementary and Middle (K-8) Schools. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 25, 2012. Planning Board hearing held June 5, 2012. Petition expires Aug 21, 2012.

Committee Report #4. 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 meeting held on July 19, 2012 to conduct a follow-up meeting on the petition to amend the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Cambridge by adding to Section 5.50 entitled "Special Dimensional Regulations" a section 5.54 entitled "Special Regulations for Municipal Elementary and Middle (K-8) Schools.

This petition is primarily crafted to allow sufficient flexibility in the reconstruction or renovation of the proposed middle/upper schools that are at the heart of the so-called "Innovation Agenda." This should be relatively noncontroversial.


North Mass. Ave. Rezoning Petition:

Manager’s Agenda #24. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board’s recommendation with regard to the North Massachusetts Avenue Rezoning Petition.

Unfinished Business #10. 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 June 6, 2012 to discuss the petition from the Planning Board to rezone the North Massachusetts Avenue area. A hearing was also scheduled at 4:15pm to discuss a petition of the Planning Board to amend the Zoning Map for an area along North Massachusetts Avenue in the vicinity of Trolley Square and Linear Park from Business A-2 to Residence C-2B. The petitions were discussed together. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after July 2, 2012. Planning Board hearing held May 15, 2012. Petition expires Sept 4, 2012.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from Paula Crane, Administrative Assistant, City Clerk’s Office, transmitting a report from Councillor David P. Maher, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on June 28, 2012 to continue discussion on the petitions from the Planning Board to rezone the North Massachusetts Avenue area and to amend the Zoning Map for an area along Massachusetts Avenue in the vicinity of Trolley Square and Linear Park from Business A-2 to Residence C-2B.

Order #20. That the petition to amend the zoning map along Massachusetts Avenue in the vicinity of Trolley Square and Linear Park from Business A-2 to Residence C-2B be re-filed on Sept 5, 2012.   Councillor Maher

There are two petitions in play here. The Planning Board petition to incentivize retail in this stretch of Mass. Ave. has plenty of neighborhood support and the blessing of the Planning Board. It will likely be voted at this meeting. The other petition that is more specific to the Trolley Sq. area has not yet been passed to a 2nd Reading and expires before the next City Council meeting, hence the Order that it be re-filed.


Northpoint Zoning Revision:
Unfinished Business #9. 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 23, 2012 to discuss an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on a petition filed by CJUF III Northpoint LLC to amend Article 13.700 – Planned Unit Development in the North Point Residence District. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 25, 2012. Planning Board hearing held June 5, 2012. Petition expires Aug 21, 2012.

This is a relatively minor revision to previously approved zoning for this area (2003). It has the blessing of the Planning Board.


The "Permanent Parking Petition":
Applications & Petitions #1. A zoning petition has been received from Susan Yanow, et al. transmitting a zoning petition entitled "Area Four Neighborhood Preservation" requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map in Area Four and the Central Square area.

There was an unsuccessful effort at the June 18 City Council meeting to introduce this petition as a late order. The petition proposes to do the opposite of every anticipated recommendation of the ongoing Goody/Clancy process relating to the Central Square area. Ironically, these same petitioners endorse waiting until the final Goody/Clancy report before any action is taken on the Forest City/MIT petition. This is just civic comedy – proposing the opposite while at the same time arguing that Goody/Clancy should be used as a guide. This petition would also sanctify the permanent existence of surface parking lots around Central Square.

There is a need for a robust discussion on the pros and cons of additional density in Central Square to take place. We should all look forward to such a discussion. This petition contributes nothing to that discussion.


Resolution #21. Resolution on the death of Anne F. Williamson.   Councillor Maher, Mayor Davis

Anne Williamson was a long-time friend and one of the most reasonable and rational people I have known in civic affairs in Cambridge.

Resolution #48. Resolution on the retirement of Gordon Gottsche.   Councillor Toomey, Mayor Davis, Vice Mayor Simmons

Gordon Gottsche, the Executive Director of the non-profit Just-A-Start, is practically a Cambridge institution. We should all wish him well in his retirement.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council in Executive Session the nature of the possibility of six lawsuits, their status, and any others that might have been filed.   Councillor Reeves

This seems like the next step in what will likely be a miserable effort by this councillor to leverage the upcoming process of hiring the next city manager. Let’s hope that there are at least five city councillors who will not allow themselves to be led around.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Conservation and Recreation to create the placement of appropriate signage or indication of entry into the City of Cambridge on or around the North Bank Pedestrian Bridge.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

This is a nice sentiment, but there’s a small problem of geography. A significant part of North Point Park on the Cambridge side of the new bridge is actually in Boston. The city boundary is determined by the historic channel of the Charles River, and many iterations of filling and redefining the boundary of the river have led to this oddity. Perhaps there should be a legislative fix putting the park entirely in Cambridge, but this really is a metropolitan park and the municipal boundaries should not be overly emphasized.

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff and report back to the City Council on whether a tagging program could be implemented to notify owners of bicycles that have been removed from sign posts by the Department of Public Works and contact information for retrieval of said bicycle.   Councillor Kelley

As we like to say, "Same Roads, Same Rules." When an automobile is tagged and towed on street cleaning day, the cops and tow truck drivers never leave a note. Cyclists are obligated to know the rules, and that includes rules regarding the use of sign posts for long-term personal parking.

Order #16. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council statistical information regarding enforcement citations for loud motorcycle mufflers, car radios and the City’s plan to address these issues.   Councillor Kelley

I am completely in support of this Order and for action to be taken to crack down on this aural abuse, but this matter has been brought up time and time again and it never goes anywhere.

Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant City staff on whether, and under what conditions, emails to both Council@Cambridgema.gov and to individual Councillors, at both their personal and City emails, may be shared with the general public and what, if any, redaction of personal information should be done prior to such sharing, whether the sharing of an email is by forwarding it to others or by posting it to a website.   Councillor Kelley

This is an intriguing Order. Some of the hate mail originating from nitwits on the right and left might provide for entertaining reading. My personal belief is that anyone who sends inflammatory e-mail does so in full recognition that it may come back to embarrass the writer. On the other hand, if there was an expectation that ordinary messages to public officials would be thrown into the public arena, this would likely lead to fewer people contacting elected officials. Perhaps simply asking elected officials to use reasonable discretion is answer enough to this Order.

Order #30. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to report back to the City Council with an estimate of how sequestration would affect municipal finances and the finances of human services organizations that partner with the City.   Councillor Cheung

I have to confess that I have no idea what this Order is asking. I know what carbon sequestration is and I know what it means to sequester a jury, but beyond that I have no idea.

Order #32. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments on the feasibility of providing bike regulations to a wider audience including through media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, public service announcements and newspaper ads, increased enforcement and installation of signs informing bikers that they must obey the rules of the road.   Councillor Cheung

Though this is certainly a good idea, I believe it can be fairly said that almost all cyclists are completely aware of the Rules of the Road. Some of them just choose to ignore those rules. Will a few "tweets" change their scofflaw behavior? Probably not. In contrast, it’s likely true that periodic aggressive ticketing of cyclists does have the desired effect.

Order #33. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments to expand enforcement of the prohibition on Cambridge pick-ups by non-Cambridge cabs not specifically called to Cambridge.   Councillor Cheung

There is another point of view that questions the whole idea of granting exclusive rights to certain cab operators and perhaps even the very idea of hackney licensing. Does this licensing really serve the public good? Or does it merely inflate the value of hackney licenses and drive up consumer costs? Though it would have to be done across all city and town boundaries, perhaps we’d all be better off if hackney licenses were eliminated. This, of course, won’t put any "Elect Candidate X" bumper stickers on any Cambridge cabs. – Robert Winters

July 27, 2012

City Council to discuss last December’s fatal bicycle crash

On Monday, July 30, 2012, the Cambridge City Council is to discuss a City Manager’s report on the December, 2011 fatal truck/bicycle crash at Vassar Street and Massachusetts Avenue. (I commented on that crash in an earlier post in this Forum).

The city has posted the agenda of the meeting. The City Manager’s report on the crash is on that agenda.

I’ve posted that report here — indented, with my comments unindented:

July 30, 2012

To the [City Council]:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-63 relative to a report on safety issues at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and Vasser [sic] Street, Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation Susan E. Clippinger reports the following:

In response to the fatal bicycle crash on December 27, 2011, the Traffic, Parking + Transportation Department conducted a review of the intersection that included the operation of the traffic signal, signs and pavement markings of the intersection, and a review of the crash history of the location.

Using both the Massachusetts Department of Transportation and Cambridge Police Department crash information, TP+T reviewed 19 incidents involving bicycles which occurred in the 5 years between 2007 and 2011 (excluding the fatality which was under investigation). The purpose of the review was to determine if a common type of crash was frequently occurring and if engineering measures could be implemented to prevent future crashes.

A Policy Order Resolution from the May 14 City Council meeting (third page here) describes Vassar Street and Massachusetts Avenue as the second-worst intersection for crashes in the city, and reports 55 crashes, with 24 involving “cars” (which I take to mean all motor vehicles). Clippinger reported on 19 bicycle-motor vehicle crashes over a 5-year period — however, single-bicycle, bicycle-bicycle and bicycle-pedestrian crashes are just as real. Perhaps Clippinger did not report on 5 of the bicycle-motor vehicle crashes because evidence was too sparse, but on the other hand, what about the remaining 31? All 55 crashes were serious enough that police reports were filed. Also, bicycle crashes of all kinds, especially those not involving motor vehicles, are greatly under-reported to police.

A couple years ago in a national Webinar, the City’s bicycle coordinator, Cara Seiderman, said that there had been no crashes on the Vassar Street sidepaths. Evidently, she excluded intersections, and even so, her statement was incorrect. There had been at least two bicycle-pedestrian crashes on the sidepaths in which someone was taken away in an ambulance. Following each of these crashes, one of the parties e-mailed me, having read my online comments about the sidepaths. There have almost certainly been additional crashes.

Clippinger’s report continues:

We found that in 17 of the 19 crashes, the bicycle was proceeding through the intersection and was not turning left or right. In eight of the 19 crashes, the vehicle was turning right. A common cause of this type of crash is that either the driver fails to yield upon turning or the bicycle is traveling too fast to stop in time for a vehicle that is in the process of turning.

Clippinger places the responsibility on the motorist to look to the right rear to yield to bicyclists who are foolishly overtaking on the right. Bike lanes to the right of right-turning traffic at intersections, as here, encourage bicyclists to make this mistake.

It also appears that most of these crashes were minor; only two crashes resulted in the cyclist’s being transported to the hospital.

17 of the 19 cyclists described in the report evidently were lucky. Such “coffin corner” crashes are often fatal when the right-turning vehicle is a large truck or bus. However, Clippinger doesn’t report how serious any of the injuries were, whether or not the cyclists were transported to the hospital. To be fair, she may not have had access to this information. It’s hard to get.

Based on the limited information we have on the location and direction of the cyclist involved in the December 27 crash, TP+T determined that this crash is not consistent with the crashes experienced previously at this location. Further, we determined that the traffic signal operation, signs, pavement markings, and layout of the intersection did not contribute to this crash.

I agree that this was a different type of crash. However, features of the intersection almost certainly contributed to the crash. As I noted in my review of the Tech article — and as reported by eyewitnesses — the right turn was difficult for the trucker because of a bulbout and street furniture on the corner. It is likely that the driver was looking into his right side-view mirror to make sure that the truck cleared the street furniture, and so failed to see the bcyclist. To clear the street furniture, the truck crossed the centerline on Vassar Street, placing it in head-on conflict with traffic in the oncoming left-turn lane, one of the possible locations of the cyclist. The layout of the intersection had nothing to do with this?

However, I think that the cyclist most likely was crossing in front of the truck from right to left. In that case, he had been riding wrong-way on the Vassar Street sidepath, and then turned to his right across the street. The sidepath and connecting bike lane enable this conduct. He could have been looking to the right for traffic, and failed to notice the truck on his left. Also, his brakes may have functioned poorly in the wet.

Clippinger concludes:

TP+T remains fully committed to improving the safety of our roads for all users, particularly for pedestrians and bicycles. We continue to research causes of crashes citywide, and each year we use that information to make engineering improvements we feel will reduce the number and severity of crashes.

“We feel”. I’d prefer a stronger report, examining all types of crashes, and a bicycle program guided by careful research rather than feelings.

July 12, 2012

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project: Initial Years, 1963 to 1982

Filed under: Cambridge Redevelopment Authority,East Cambridge,Kendall Square,planning — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 6:16 pm

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project: Initial Years, 1963 to 1982

By Thad Tercyak


This narrative was submitted in response to the following invitation:
The November 28, 2011 edition of the Cambridge Civic Journal reported (a) that several informative documents regarding the history and background of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority were made available and entered into the record and (b) “Any additional information on the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority or the history of urban renewal in Cambridge are also welcome…. – Robert Winters, Editor.”


The following narrative provides additional background information on the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) and pertains to the history of urban renewal in the City of Cambridge during the initial 19 years of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project, from 1963 to 1981. It was during this period of time that the CRA initiated the Kendall Square Project, acquired, cleared and improved 43-acres of land which was an urban eyesore of underutilized and obsolete industrial and warehouse buildings and made the land available for construction of public improvements and private development in accordance with the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan. As a result of these activities, the CRA was in a position to undertake completion of the remaining pieces of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project, also known as Cambridge Center. The subsequent efforts of the CRA and its developer culminated in the development of the Cambridge Center Project.

This period of time coincides with the tenure of Mr. Robert F. Rowland as the CRA Executive Director who, among the many people and organizations involved in the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project, provided leadership during the Project’s difficult and, at times, painful periods.

In 1968, as an economist-urban planner specializing in urban redevelopment projects and completing seven years as a director of two major urban renewal projects with the Boston Redevelopment Authority, I was hired by the CRA as an Associate Director. I left the CRA in 1990. I participated in virtually all of the events described in this narrative which occurred during my 22 years with the CRA, 1968 to 1990. Descriptions of the events which occurred between 1963 and 1968 before I joined the CRA and descriptions of the events after I left the CRA in 1990 are based on CRA records and reports, and conversations with CRA staff.

Initiation of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project

Before joining the CRA, Robert F. Rowland was a city planner with extensive urban redevelopment experience, and at various times served as Director of Community Development with the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), Deputy Director of the Providence Redevelopment Authority, and as a partner in a consultant firm specializing in city planning and urban redevelopment projects.

In 1963, Rowland commuted to his job with the BRA, parking his car in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Kendall Square rapid transit station parking lot. He noticed that the area north of the rapid transition station was severely underdeveloped with underutilized, largely vacant, obsolete industrial and warehouse buildings, a blighting influence on the surrounding area. As a city planner, he visualized the land as an ideal site for urban redevelopment because of its unique locational advantages, including the rapid transit station, proximity to MIT, direct subway connections to Harvard University and downtown Boston, and easy connection to Logan Airport.

Rowland was also aware that there was competition in the Boston area to provide a site for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to develop a technologically sophisticated Electronic Research Center.

On their own time, Rowland and two associates sketched out a redevelopment plan for the Kendall Square area which would accommodate NASA and provide land for NASA-related private development. He presented his concept plan to the CRA Board which asked him to work with the CRA to move the plan through the redevelopment process. Rowland agreed, left his job with the BRA, was hired by the CRA and subsequently appointed CRA Executive Director.

In 1964 the CRA presented the concept plan to Cambridge City Council. The Council reacted favorably and voted to have the CRA prepare a redevelopment plan for the Kendall Square area with two general objectives:

  1. to provide land for both NASA and private development which would generate needed tax revenues and employment opportunities for the City of Cambridge; and
  2. to secure maximum federal funds to finance implementation of the redevelopment plan.

With respect to the first general objective, the City of Cambridge, with support for the project from local and congressional representatives, convinced NASA officials of the advantages of a Kendall Square location. After discussions and consultations among the CRA, NASA, Cambridge representatives and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), it was ascertained that development could be expedited through the use of the urban renewal process because of its unique advantages, including:

  1. Preparation of a redevelopment plan sponsored and approved by the City of Cambridge.
  2. Land assembly through the use of local “quick-taking” eminent domain powers.
  3. Financing of most of the project costs by the Federal government.
  4. CRA control over developer selection and approval of developers’ plans.

With respect to the second general objective, the CRA advised the City of Cambridge to take advantage of a complex urban renewal financing formula which could be used “to secure maximum federal funds to finance implementation of the redevelopment plan”. The formula, based on Section 112 of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended in 1954 and 1955, provided that expenditures by educational institutions and hospitals located within a mile of an urban renewal project and conducting activities that contribute to the objectives of the urban renewal project can be used as credits (“Section 112 credits”) to cover the local share of the cost to carry out the project. The CRA took the lead in contacting MIT officials and congressional representatives in working out the details required to secure federal approval of the Section 112 credits financing plan. Consequently, the City and MIT entered into an agreement which provided that MIT submit to the City for its approval a Development Plan which included MIT property located within a mile of the redevelopment area to be used exclusively for educational purposes. Then the expenditures incurred by MIT to acquire land and buildings in accordance with the Agreement could be used as Section 112 credits. Subsequently, when the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project was approved, MIT provided $6.5 million dollars in Section 112 credits to cover the City of Cambridge’s entire share of the net project cost.

In 1965, the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project prepared by the CRA was approved by the City of Cambridge, Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Federal government. The project covered a 43-acre site in and around Kendall Square, comprised of four parcels: Parcel 1
(19 acres) and Parcel 2, (10 acres), both designated for use by NASA; Parcels 3 and 4 (14 acres combined) designated for private development.

In 1966, NASA signed a Land Disposition Contract with the CRA which provided that the CRA transfer, as soon as possible, ownership to NASA of 19 acres of land (Parcel 1) ready for construction of improvements by NASA. The CRA immediately started land preparation activities, delivered the land on schedule and NASA constructed a 14-story office tower and five low rise buildings. A particularly difficult task for the CRA was securing permission to fill the Broad Canal, which ran through the middle of the project area. The CRA had to deal with the nightmare of resolving the bureaucratic requirements of a multitude of agencies involved in relocating the Canal to an underground pipe system.

NASA Quits; DOT Releases Land

Then in 1969, without warning, NASA announced the closing of its facility in Cambridge and its intent to withdraw from the project, in spite of bitter objections and protests by the City of Cambridge. Subsequently, NASA’s interest in the site was transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). In 1970, the DOT established on Parcel 1 the National Transportation System Center, later named after John A. Volpe, Secretary of DOT and former governor of Massachusetts.

Since Parcel 2, the 10-acre site originally designated for NASA’s use under the terms of the original Kendall square Urban Renewal Plan was still undeveloped and in CRA possession, the CRA recognized an opportunity to expand the area of land which could be developed for private uses which would be likely to benefit Cambridge more than if the land were to be developed by the federal government. The CRA met with DOT Secretary Volpe, and made the case that DOT should relinquish its rights to Parcel 2 because NASA’s withdrawal from the project was a breach of its contractual obligation with the CRA, a flagrant disregard of its commitment to the community and it undermined the City’s program to effectively market the rest of the project area for private development.

On November 23, 1971, almost 2 years after NASA announced it was quitting its obligations to the City of Cambridge regarding development in the Kendall Square Project and after prolonged negotiations among the CRA, DOT, U.S. General Services Administration, and HUD, DOT Secretary Volpe released DOT’s rights to Parcel 2 to the CRA.

Amending the Redevelopment Plan

Retrieving the rights to Parcel 2’s 10 undeveloped acres required that the CRA amend the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan in order to designate new reuses for the land. The 10 acres plus the 14 acres originally designated for development by NASA became a 24-acre site for private development and had a tremendous impact on the development potential of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project. Unfortunately, the atmosphere for carrying out a new planning effort came at a particularly inopportune time.

The Boston Area real estate market was in the doldrums for a good part of the 1970’s and new development was at virtual standstill. Turmoil created by the Vietnam War protests made for difficult conditions for rational land use planning as some protesters attended planning meetings for the main purpose of expressing their objections to the war. Locally, community groups proposed contradictory project objectives, including “quick-fix” land uses, such as a beer distribution warehouse, a soccer field, open space, even restoring the Broad Canal. Cambridge City Council created a task force comprised of representatives from a cross-section of Cambridge organizations to work with the CRA in a new planning effort. A number different
land use plans were developed, but the City could not arrive at a consensus on land uses for the project.

Over time, a cloud descended over the project’s development potential as efforts to resolve planning problems were frustrated and grumbles concerning the apparent lack of progress in redeveloping the site began to be heard.

During the time Cambridge City Council was struggling to settle on an acceptable Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan, the CRA was busy completing land preparation activities and creating vacant land ready for new construction once the planning deadlock was resolved.

Land Preparation Activities

Land preparation activities executed by the CRA included roughly the acquisition of 100 parcels of land, relocation of 100 businesses, demolition of 50 buildings, clearance of 43 acres of land, construction of public improvements and creation of new traffic patterns.

Relocation is among the most difficult land preparation activity because the redevelopment authority must interface with the people who are disrupted by the project. Practically all of the relocation in the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project involved businesses, as only a handful of families were affected. Some businesses did not object to being acquired or relocated because they were already planning to leave the area. However, most of the Kendall Square businesses endured various degrees of hardship by being required to move. There were understandable feelings of shock, anger, bewilderment, and vows to resist moving. Consequently, the CRA carefully selected staff for the relocation operation, making sure they had the sensitivity to patiently work with people who had to move, treating them with dignity, respect and courtesy. There were no forced legal evictions and the Kendall Square relocation operation required years to accomplish as some businesses took that long before they moved.

It is during the land preparation stage that a redevelopment agency experiences its most difficult time because of the problems associated with relocation operations and some of the other activities, such as demolition of buildings, site preparations, discontinuances of existing streets, and construction of new streets and utilities, are messy, noisy, dirty, unsightly, and often a public nuisance.

The land preparation activities phase is the nitty-gritty, heavy lifting period of the redevelopment process. Its purpose is to transform land containing outmoded, derelict buildings and blighting uses into vacant land ready for construction of improvements designated by the renewal plan. But if the real estate market is not receptive to the reuses designated by the renewal plan, the land remains vacant until market conditions favorable to the renewal plan’s reuses come into existence. The longer the time land remains vacant, the more complaints are heard about the lack of progress and the amount of time that has gone by since the start of the redevelopment project.

ULI Panel Helps To Break Deadlock

To help break the planning deadlock, the CRA retained the advisory panel services of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to review the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project and suggest ways to move the project in the right direction. ULI’s advisory panel services program approaches a project from all perspectives by assembling experts in the fields of market potential, land use and design, financing and development strategies, and organizing for implementation.

In carrying out the assignment for the CRA, panel members first spent two days reviewing comprehensive briefing materials prepared by the CRA staff; touring the project and surrounding area; and individually and in teams talking with nearly 100 community
spokespersons, citizens, business persons, government officials, members of the local real estate community, and others interested and concerned with the future revitalization of the Kendall Square area. Then the panel spent the next two days framing their recommendations and drafting a report which was presented to the public.

The ULI panel concluded that only a few properties in the country had a broader array of locational advantages as the Kendall Square area and the opportunities associated with the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project suggested a sophisticated large, planned-unit development approach. The panel stated there were two approaches to redevelopment to consider:

  1. Dispose of the land for an optimal type of development that will reflect the highest and best use of the land, thereby bringing the greatest long-range benefit to the Cambridge community.
  2. Dispose of the land to take advantage of its short term marketability, enabling the CRA and Cambridge City Council to respond promptly to concerns being expressed respecting development delays.

The ULI panel’s preference was for the first approach: “Cambridge Center is a unique opportunity area, one that should be reserved to maximize its locational advantages”. The CRA adopted the ULI panel recommendations respecting an optimal type of development. The ULI panel’s professionalism and diligence in carrying out its mission impressed and gained the confidence of the Cambridge City Council. The Council sent a message to the real estate development community that it was ready to change the development climate in Cambridge by approving zoning for a mixed-use plan amendment to the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Area and urging the CRA to move forward with development.

Attracting Developers

The ULI panel also warned that attracting developers would not be easy: “Citizen concerns, political pressures, economic uncertainty, and the absence of a united and strong development process have combined to create a credibility problem with the real estate development community”. The Panel advised that the CRA could overcome developer skepticism concerning the development climate in Cambridge by establishing a track record for getting things done.

The CRA responded by removing all legal and technical impediments to development; completing an Environmental Impact Statement; securing plan and zoning amendments; and carrying out a $7 million public improvements program, such as infrastructure construction and improving the appearance of vacant land through dust control measures, fencing, etc.

The CRA, working closely with Cambridge representatives and the local congressional delegation, intensified local efforts to secure federal funds needed to complete the project. As a result, in 1974 HUD agreed to reserve an additional $15-million for the project. Then in 1975 Congress passed and President Ford signed legislation limiting Cambridge’s share of the project cost to the initial $6.4 million, contributed in 1965, in the form of Section 112 credits. Consequently, Cambridge’s share of the project costs was negligible.

Selecting a Developer

In 1976, for marketing purposes the name Cambridge Center was adopted to refer to the 24 acres in the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project outside of the land occupied by the DOT. The CRA established a Development Advisory Group comprised of experts in large-scale project financing and real estate negotiations to provide counsel in its negotiations with developers; and
a Design Advisory Group consisting of local independent architects to help evaluate large-scale design proposals.

In 1978, an invitation for proposals to develop 14 of the 24 acres comprising Cambridge Center based on the theme that “The Best Site to Develop in Boston is Not in Boston”, met with encouraging response from developers. Four well qualified finalists were selected from among the developers who submitted proposals. The CRA interviewed in depth each of the four finalists. The Development Advisory Group examined each developers finished projects, financial soundness and marketing performance. The Design Advisory Group evaluated each developers design team. After exhaustive interviews and analysis, it was determined that Boston Properties had two important advantages over its competition:

  1. Boston Properties’ two principals had worked as a team for many years producing a number of successful real estate developments nationwide. In contrast, the other finalists had undergone changes or formed new teams, making evaluations of future performance difficult.
  2. Boston Properties’ financial capabilities were impressive. It had demonstrated a net worth adequate to sustain a large and complex development such as Cambridge Center, including current assets sufficient to fund first-rate development planning; a willingness to invest those funds in Cambridge Center; a cash flow arising from a broad, geographically diverse base of real estate investments that could support start-up costs and sustain development during tough economic times; and a proven ability to manage investment property effectively while adjusting to economic changes.

Selecting Boston Properties as the developer of Cambridge Center was a difficult decision by the CRA because of pressure from supporters of the other finalists.

Building Construction Begins

In 1979 a development agreement between the CRA and Boston properties was executed, including conditions that the developer commence initial development activities by constructing a major building within seven months, and depositing $250,000 as security for the developer’s performance. Boston Properties met its obligation by starting construction of a 13-story office building as required by the agreement.

In 1981 Boston Properties commenced construction of a 12-story office building with ground floor retail and a 5-story, 863-space garage with an open space park built on the roof of the garage.

Subsequently, the CRA revised its development agreement with Boston Properties to include Parcel 2’s 10 acres, so that the area comprising Cambridge Center totaled 24 acres.

Summary

In 1963 Cambridge City Council designated the CRA as the lead agency with major responsibility for carrying out the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project. In 1964 the CRA Board appointed Robert F, Rowland as its Executive Director. During Rowland’s tenure from 1964 to 1982, the CRA accomplished the following objectives:

  1. Initiated the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project after NASA chose Cambridge as the location for its Electronics Research Center;
  2. Secured financing for the project;
  3. Completed land preparation activities;
  4. Persuaded U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to release its hold on ten acres of, land designated for development by NASA;
  5. Prepared and secured approval of a revised Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan;
  6. Prepared development sites for new construction;
  7. Selected Boston Properties as project developer and collaborated with Boston Properties to initiate development of Cambridge Center.

During Rowland’s 18-year tenure as the CRA Executive Director, what had once been a 43-acre urban eyesore was cleared and improved with infrastructure making the land immediately available for development of the reuses designated by the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Plan. The CRA guided the Kendall square Urban Renewal Project through difficult periods fulfilling Cambridge City Council’s original objectives: (1) to provide land for private development which would generate tax revenues and employment opportunities for the City of Cambridge and (2) to secure maximum federal funds to finance implementation of the redevelopment plan.

In 1982 Rowland left the CRA and Joseph F, Tulimieri was appointed the CRA Executive Director.

A Blessing in Disguise

When NASA decided to withdraw from the Kendall Square area, the feeling in the City of Cambridge was that the project had been delivered a tremendous setback because it had lost
its major developer. As it turned out, despite the development delays caused by the withdrawal, it was a blessing in disguise because an additional 10 acres of land could be disposed of as recommended by the ULI panel “for an optimal type of development that will reflect the highest and best use of the land, thereby bringing the greatest long-range benefit to the Cambridge community”. The 10 acres plus the 14 acres already designated for private development became a 24 acre site large enough to create a critical mass for high-tech development which would attract additional high tech development in the rest of the Kendall Square area and the eastern sector of Cambridge.

The combination of (a) the presence of MIT ; (b) Technology Square, which included Rogers Block, a CRA urban renewal project containing 4.5 acres of land located west of the Kendall Square Project, started in the 1960’s and developed by Cabot, Cabot and Forbes in partnership with MIT and (c) decisions by the Whitehead Institute and Biogen in 1982 to locate in Cambridge Center were key elements leading to the emergence of high-tech development in the Kendall Square area, and providing the impetus for major technology and biotechnology development in the eastern sector of Cambridge. From the 1980’s Cambridge Center experienced an acceleration of biotech development until the City of Cambridge declared a building moratorium in 2000. After the moratorium additional development consumed virtually all of the land designated for development in the original boundaries of Cambridge Center.

As a result, within a 1 mile radius of the Kendall Square Project, there are over 80 biotechnology firms. One observer noted that “officials at the world’s top research institutions (came to) view Kendall Square as a neighborhood with its own peculiar identity, a place where scientists can meet to discuss angiogenesis or algorithms over a beer or dine next to a Noble laureate”. (Woolhouse, “Making a High Tech Mecca”, Boston Sunday Globe, June 26, 2011).

To date, virtually all of the original 24 acres of the Cambridge Center project have been developed. The project initially anticipated development of 1.4 million sq. ft. of gross floor area with a valuation of $250 million. As of late, the project achieved development of around 3 million sq. ft. of gross floor area with a valuation of $650,000 million, generating $13 million in real estate property taxes and 6,000 jobs.

In 2001, market conditions and local public policy directed the CRA to focus on housing involving further development of Parcel 1 of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project.


POSTSCRIPT

Rowland’s contributions to the success of the Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project and Cambridge Center were substantial, but scarcely recognized. For example, in the Nowiszewski Plaza located next to the Marriott Hotel are two plaques. One plaque entitled “A Tribute to the Members of the Cambridge City Council” contains the names of Cambridge City Council members who served during the development period of Cambridge Center. The other plaque entitled “In Recognition of the Efforts of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority in the Development of Cambridge Center” contains the names of all the people who served as members of the CRA Board starting with Paul R. Corcoran, Chairman, 1957-1960, 1967-1970, and going through to Charles C. Nowiszewski, 1976-1985. The only name on the plaque associated with the CRA outside of CRA Board members is that of the present Executive Director and Secretary who succeeded Rowland, the CRA Executive Director from 1964-1981. This is an omission that deserves to be corrected. The plaque should read:

Robert F. Rowland
Executive Director and Secretary 1964-1982
Joseph F. Tulimieri
Executive Director and Secretary 1982-present

Footnote:

During Rowland’s tenure as the CRA Executive Director, the CRA carried out redevelopment operations which helped to improve and stabilize the Wellington-Harrington Urban Renewal Area by (a) working with property owners to rehabilitate their properties by providing construction advise, arranging financing, and enlisting support from Just-A-Start; (b) carrying out spot clearance of blighted properties, such as junk yards; and (c) providing cleared land for construction of housing, and public and private improvements.

The CRA has informative reports pertaining to its activities in the Wellington-Harrington Urban Renewal Area.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress