Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

September 27, 2012

But seriously, folks

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:38 am

But seriously, folks.

Sept 27 – The activism of the group calling itself the "Cambridge Residents Alliance" has reached a new low (if that’s possible) in their campaign of distortion and fear-mongering. This is the group that has a zoning proposal now before the City Council and the Planning Board that would reduce allowed building heights in Central Square and enshrine surface parking lots as the pinnacle of urban design. Not surprising, some people objected to the absurdity of this proposal. Thus was born a new group called "A Better Cambridge" that embraces the radical notions that acres of surburban-style parking lots might not be the be-all-end-all of urban design and that maybe the current height limits in Central Square are acceptable and that a little new construction might be a good thing for Central Square – especially if this can leverage some middle-income housing. A modest petition campaign was begun suggesting that downzoning Central Square is neither necessary nor good policy on many levels.

Apparently, all this common sense was too much for the "Alliance" activists. So the petition received this morning the following two forged signatures of rather obvious "Alliance" origin:

Bob Healy, Cambridge, MA
Speaking on behalf of the developers, this petition will THREATEN our potential profits. Let’s be clear – it we want to make some real money, we have to tear down those cheap houses and get rid of the small businesses in Area 4, and put in high-rise, full market apartment buildings, big biotech tabs, and stores that can pay high rents, like banks. This way, we can charge $3000-$4500/month for a 1BR, like we already do in University Park. Our plan is to tear down everything along Main Street and Bishop Allen Drive, force the people out of Washington Elms, and turn all of lower Area-4 into another "Kendall Square." We’ll make BILLION$. And if the residents don’t like it, they can move. This is progress, and we can’t let a few troublemakers stop progress!

K Reeves, Cambridge, MA
The best part is how we’ve actually convinced most of the City Council that 1960s-style urban renewal is good! (Maybe they’re too young to remember what happened back then?) I guess they’re just looking for the big payoff; these new buildings will make BILLIONS$ for the developers and bring in some hefty tax revenue. Ok… I admit that NOT passing a downzoning petition will allow us to "mahattanize" a large portion of the city that’s currently residential, permanently displace thousands of low- and moderate-income families, and add tens of thousands of cars to the streets. They can take the T (even though it’s over capacity). The proposed petition is BAD for profits!

Is this what civic activism has descended to? – RW

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

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,Deaths,MIT,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 12:35 pm

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.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress