Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

November 19, 2012

Nov 19, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,cycling,elections,planning — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:42 am

Nov 19, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

Here are some items that jump out as worthy of comment:

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Council Order Number 10, dated 5/23/2011, regarding Biogen return to Cambridge.

Biogen Idec Inc. intends to soon relocate its headquarters to Cambridge where it now has a substantial presence. As the Manager’s letter states, "The remaining outstanding barrier is the zoning requirement that a cafeteria be located on the ground floor of the building and open to the public at least 20 hours per week." This seems like a completely reasonable accommodation, especially if the local business association makes a parallel effort to create affordable food options in the immediate area. Most people would likely choose to eat in a restaurant than in the cafeteria of a life sciences building anyway. Perhaps that existing provision in the zoning code is a vestige of the days when Kendall Square had vanishing dining options. That’s no longer the case, though the provision of affordable dining options could still use some attention.

Resolution #15. Resolution on the death of William M. Hogan, Jr.   Councillor Maher

William Hogan was a former Cambridge City Councillor and first Vice Mayor under the Plan E Charter. He was the last surviving councillor elected in 1941 in Cambridge’s first PR election under the Plan E Charter adopted the previous year. He died at the age of 100. He would have been about 27 when he was elected (in 1939) and 31 when he left office. He ran unsuccessfully for reelection in 1943. He was among the last elected councillors-at-large in 1939 under the previous charter and the first under the new Plan E charter.

Resolution #25. Thanks to City staff for their work on Election Day.   Mayor Davis

Order #16. That the City Manager confer with the Election Commission to make information publicly available on wait times throughout Election Day and the number of booths at each precinct.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

Though I had to wait over 40 minutes in line to vote this year, when I got to the front of the line I saw only efficiency and courtesy from the the poll workers at the City Hall Annex. Though things may have run faster with more booths, the real slowdown was caused by the presence of several additional nonbinding ballot questions that most people did not have an opportunity to read prior to voting. If it were my call, I would allow voters the option to vote outside of the booths if they don’t mind doing so. The checking in, checking out, and inserting of ballots into the scanner go very quickly. The limiting factor is the number of booths. One of the great advantages of scannable paper ballots is that there is no strict limit on how many voters can simultaneously if there is some flexibility in where you can fill out your ballot. Mayor Davis’ appreciation of election workers stands in marked contrast to the recent bellyaching of one of her colleagues.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to investigate creating a pilot program for installing mini exercise stations on major walking routes throughout the city, perhaps at bus stops, subway stations and public parks.   Mayor Davis

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to look into the installation of public drinking fountains at additional locations in the city – possibly working with the Cambridge Arts Council on interesting designs.   Mayor Davis

These are interesting and creative suggestions. Every such installation, however, will have to be maintained and that could be problematic. I’m inclined to believe that public parks and plazas would be a lot more appropriate than bus stops and subway stations.

Order #4. That the Cambridge City Council go on record urging the members of the Senate Ways and Means Committee to pass MA Senate Bill 2314, "An Act Relative to Plastic Bag Reduction."   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Law Department to prepare language for an amendment to the Municipal Code to ban the use of polystyrene-based disposable food containers and to provide a waiver provision similar to the by-law of the Town of Brookline.   Councillor Cheung and Mayor Davis

I’m glad that there is attention being given to some of these more annoying aspects of waste management, especially the reduction of materials for which there are limited recycling options. It should be noted that consumers have always been able to avoid plastic bags simply by providing their own reusable bags when shopping. Regarding the banning of polystyrene food containers, don’t be surprised if some food vendors replace them by even more wasteful containers made of other plastics that rarely make it into the recycling stream.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate city officials to explore the possibility of completing and submitting the Bicycle Friendly Community application by Feb 26, 2013 so that the City of Cambridge may be included in the next review cycle and join together with other communities in participating in the Bicycle Friendly Community program.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

As a daily cyclist, I continue to scrutinize the City’s decisions regarding safe accommodation for cyclists and transportation policies that often seem more rooted in hostility toward motor vehicle operators than in the promotion of good alternatives. The City does seem to be doing a better job in their design of on-street bike lanes, though they routinely err in their treatment of these lanes at intersections. State law requires that right-turning vehicles move as far right as possible before making their turn, yet the City often stripes bike lanes with a solid line right up to intersections. Unless a motor vehicle operator drives in the bike lane immediately before turning, there will be a greater risk of turning into a cyclist passing on the right – and many cyclists are oblivious to this danger. The City is also installing "cycle tracks" on some streets that will create significant conflicts at driveways and intersections and will most likely narrow travel lanes to the point where on-street cyclists wishing to maintain more than casual recreational speeds are endangered. I don’t expect these realities to be reflected in the City’s application, and City planners have been unresponsive in their cycle track juggernaut.

Order #9. Special Permit process pursuant to MGL 40A as it relates to the impact of re-filing a zoning petition on pending special permits or special permits that have been granted.   Councillor Kelley

Though I won’t speak to the merits of this Order, the confusion by city councillors over the recent "move to withdraw" the Yanow Petition indicated that a little more schooling on zoning regulations and procedures may be in order.

Order #11. That the Cambridge City Council go on record urging the members of the Massachusetts Committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling to pass MA House Bill 4165, "An Act Relative to Speed Limits."   Councillor vanBeuzekom

This legislation would reduce the speed limit within "thickly settled areas" and business districts from the current level of 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour. As a "thickly settled area", all of Cambridge would likely be covered by this reduced speed limit. While this would make sense in many Cambridge locations, especially on narrow streets with many parked cars, there are plenty of other streets where the existing 30mph speed limit makes more sense. This proposal is introduced every few years and is usually not supported by transportation engineers who argue that, in the absence of other factors, speed limits should be set according to prevailing speeds in order to minimize conflicts.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate city officials to explore the possibility of communicating appropriate storm preparedness through the website and text messages sent by the city.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

This is a good suggestion and consistent with the City’s long-standing practice of encouraging residents to help keep storm drains clear during and after winter storms. Having braved Sandy’s wrath on several occasions to clear the storm drains in my neighborhood, I think it would be very helpful if people were more aware of keeping these drains unobstructed. That means not only parking clear of the drains, but also picking up a rake and getting out there to help keep the drains clear.

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 Oct 19, 2012 to discuss Community Benefits.

The report suggests that the City Council has a long way to go before really coming to terms with this issue. In simple terms, a community benefit is the money paid or benefit provided by a developer for up-zoning property. However, when city councillors are closely involved in deciding how these funds should be spent, the funds often go toward pet projects or priorities of individual councillors. The default option is often affordable housing. One of the more refreshing aspects of the Goody Clancy process for Kendall Square and Central Square has been the expanded definition of community benefits to include things like the exclusion of ground floor retail in the calculation of building densities, financial support for retail in the form of either reduced rent or outfitting the space, and the creation of public spaces for markets and other purposes. These and other ideas are welcome additions to the discussion of what community benefits might flow from permitting additional density in appropriate locations. This committee report only refers to housing and human services, and that’s far too limiting. The Government Operations Committee and Ordinance Committee would be well-advised to absorb the forthcoming recommendations regarding Kendall Square and Central Square before redefining what constitute community benefits and how any related funds should be disbursed. It should also be stated that when community benefits are tied to up-zoning proposals, there is the very real possibility that every such proposal will be granted as long as enough cash is put on the table – regardless if the proposal makes good planning sense. – Robert Winters

November 14, 2012

Cycle track disease is contagious!

It crosses over from Cambridge to hit the slippery slope (literally) in Somerville.

Please see my extended comments here: http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=4862

November 7, 2012

Cambridge Election Results: Nov 6, 2012

Filed under: 2012 election,Cambridge — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 10:43 am

State & Presidential Election Unofficial Results November 6, 2012
(Cambridge Totals Only – from City website)
Unofficial Results do not include Write-In, Auxiliary, Overseas Absentee or Provisional Ballots.

ELECTORS OF PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT Party Votes %
Johnson and Gray Libertarian 550 1%
Obama and Biden Democratic 41,991 86%
Romney and Ryan Republican 5,340 11%
Stein and Honkala Green-Rainbow 906 2%
SENATOR IN CONGRESS
Scott P. Brown Republican 7,463 15%
Elizabeth A. Warren Democratic 41,127 85%
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
Fifth District
Edward J. Markey Democratic 21,048 90%
Tom Tierney Republican 2,297 10%
Seventh District
Michael E. Capuano Democratic 19,641 88%
Karla Romero Independent 2,690 12%
COUNCILLOR, Sixth District
Terrence W. Kennedy Democratic 38,657 100%
SENATOR IN GENERAL COURT
Middlesex and Suffolk District
Sal N. DiDomenico Democratic 18,915 100%
First Suffolk and Middlesex District
Anthony W. Petruccelli Democratic 6,775 89%
Thomas J. Dooley, III Republican 801 11%
Second Middlesex District
Patricia D. Jehlen Democratic 12,640 100%
REPRESENTATIVE IN GENERAL COURT
24th Middlesex District (Cambridge Only)
Tommasina Anne Olson Republican 177 7%
David M. Rogers Democratic 2,169 85%
James F. Gammill Open Innovative Government 207 8%
24th Middlesex District (Arlington, Belmont & Cambridge)
Tommasina Anne Olson Republican 4,420 20.5%
David M. Rogers Democratic 12,338 57.1%
James F. Gammill Open Innovative Government 4,857 22.4%
25th Middlesex District
Marjorie C. Decker Democratic 14,997 100%
26th Middlesex District (Cambridge Only)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. Democratic 7,752 69.2%
Thomas Michael Vasconcelos Republican 596 5.3%
Mike Connolly Progressive Independent 2,855 25.5%
26th Middlesex District (Cambridge & Somerville)
Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. Democratic 10,772 68.3%
Thomas Michael Vasconcelos Republican 1,010 6.4%
Mike Connolly Progressive Independent 3,968 25.2%
Write-in   16 0.1%
29th Middlesex District
Jonathan Hecht Democratic 7,361 100%
8th Suffolk
Martha Marty Walz Democratic 5,053 100%
CLERK OF COURTS, Middlesex County
Michael A. Sullivan Democratic 38,629 100%
REGISTER OF DEEDS, Middlesex Southern District
Maria C. Curtatone Democratic 37,423 100%
SHERIFF, Middlesex County (to fill vacancy)
Peter J. Koutoujian Democratic 34,430 88%
Ernesto M. Petrone Unenrolled 4,596 12%
STATEWIDE BALLOT QUESTIONS (For full text of the statewide ballot questions (questions 1-3), please see http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/message12.htm
Question 1: Availability of Motor Vehicle Repair Information
Yes 35,841 88%
No 4,715 12%
Question 2: Prescribing Medication to End Life
Yes 30,909 68%
No 14,639 32%
Question 3: Medical Use of Marijuana
Yes 36,063 79%
No 9,564 21%
NON-BINDING PUBLIC POLICY QUESTIONS
Question #4:
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and the President to: (1) prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits, or to housing, food and unemployment assistance; (2) create and protect jobs by investing in manufacturing, schools, housing, renewable energy, transportation and other public services; (3) provide new revenues for these purposes and to reduce the long-term federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes, ending offshore tax havens, and raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and (4) redirect military spending to these domestic needs by reducing the military budget, ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing U.S. troops home safely now?
Yes 32,812 82%
No 7,134 18%
Question #5 (Wd 1, Wd 2 Pct 1, Wd 3, Wd 4 Pct 2, Wd 6, Wd 7, Wd 8, Wd 9, Wd 10, Wd 11)
Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?
Yes 25,944 78%
No 7,294 22%
Question #5 (Wd 2 Pcts 2&3, Wd 4 Pcts 1&3, Wd 5)
Question #6 (Wd 1, Wd 2 Pct 1, Wd 3, Wd 4 Pct 2, Wd 6, Wd 7, Wd 8, Wd 9, Wd 10, Wd 11)
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?
Yes 39,206 87%
No 5,872 13%
Question #7 (Wd 9, Wd 10 Pct 3, Wd 11)
Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress and the President to: (1) prevent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits, or to housing, food and unemployment assistance; (2) create and protect jobs by investing in manufacturing, schools, housing, renewable energy, transportation and other public services; (3) provide new revenues for these purposes and to reduce the long-term federal deficit by closing corporate tax loopholes, ending offshore tax havens, and raising taxes on incomes over $250,000; and (4) redirect military spending to these domestic needs by reducing the military budget, ending the war in Afghanistan and bringing U.S. troops home safely now?
Yes 7,805 82%
No 1,720 18%

In Somerville, Question 4 (Community Preservation Act) passed on a 76%-24% vote.

November 6, 2012

The Choice

Filed under: elections — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 8:17 am

Betty Boop for President


Olive Oyl for President

November 4, 2012

Meanwhile, outside of Ohio – Nov 5, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

Filed under: 2012 election,Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:24 pm

Meanwhile, outside of Ohio – Nov 5, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda highlights

On Election Eve when the focus of one or more members of the City Council is on the next day, the tradition is to have a very short meeting. Colleagues generally respect this, and it’s considered offensive to violate this tradition. Here are a few items that drew my attention for this (hopefully) short meeting:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the results of the bi-annual Citizens Opinion Survey for 2012. [Survey Results]

Short version – everybody’s happy except for a few raised eyebrows about the quality of the public schools. The once ultimate priority among residents on affordable housing is now barely a blip on the radar. People are now more concerned about public safety and quality City services. Nobody is outraged by the tax rates, especially condo owners.

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 12-115, regarding additional information requested on accessibility and other potential barriers at polling locations.

This is a follow-up report requested by Councillor Decker who spent the last meeting berating good City employees for no good reason. Just because a politician has some skin in the game does not give her license to bully people who are doing their best under circumstances over which they may not have total control. One has to wonder whether elevation to the state legislature will bring a little grace and perspective to this politician. If not, she should expect a lot of pushback from her future colleagues and maybe an actual challenger in the 2014 election.

Charter Right #2. That the Mayor and the Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee are requested to provide updates every other week on the status of the City Manager search process to the City Council and to work with the City’s Information Technology staff to have those updates posted on the City Council website under a separate tab on the City Council’s page on the City’s website. [Charter Right exercised by Mayor Davis on Order Number One of Oct 22, 2012.]

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 Oct 24, 2012 to discuss the visioning process for the City of Cambridge and the City Manager search.

The City Manager selection process carries on – sort of. At the recent committee meeting, the strong suggestion was that the councillors should expect glacial progress with an actual candidate not arriving until possibly 2014 after the current City Council term has passed. Naturally, that suggestion didn’t sit well with some councillors – ironically the same councillors who were most in favor of an elaborate process of self-realization, soul-searching, goal-setting, and kumbaya-singing prior to hiring a successor to Bob Healy. I expect there to now be some movement toward a more abbreviated process, and I would not be at all surprised if the whole process falls apart by next summer and 5 councillors just make a motion from the floor to hire someone they like.

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 meeting held on Oct 3, 2012 to discuss a zoning petition filed by Susan Yanow, et al to rezone……

Nothing will likely happen with this silly petition to downzone Central Square. The Council voted to "leave to withdraw" at the previous meeting in response to a request of one of the petitioners to withdraw the petition. Expect it to gather dust on Unfinished Business until it expires on New Year’s Day. Meanwhile, the actual planning process with Goody/Clancy and the short-term "Central Square Advisory Committee 20011-12" continues. Their next meeting is Wed, Nov 7 to attempt to formulate final recommendations. Where it all goes from there is an open question.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Public Works on the feasibility of installing recycling bins adjacent to trash bins and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

It should be noted that there has already been a dramatic increase in the number of "Big Belly" recycling bins in Central Square and elsewhere. There is a cost associated with each new installation, but there are also considerations about maintenance of these bins. They can very easily become just another trash bin to careless people, and that does not promote recycling.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Law Department, the Chief Information Officer of the Information Technology Department and any other relevant departments to evaluate the feasibility of ensuring all city-sponsored committee hearing minutes are available online and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor vanBeuzekom

No argument with this Order, but I wonder sometimes what the actual demand really is for this enhanced availability and whether the cost is always worth it. Let’s hope that the response to this Order is just a revision to the protocol for generating and making these documents available – rather than a lot of additional labor with greatly diminishing returns.

One more thing: Life will go on relatively unchanged for most people regardless of Tuesday’s election outcome. You might not believe that based on all the rhetoric generated by the Senate and Presidential election campaigns. – RW

October 22, 2012

Culture, Rats, and Parking: Oct 22, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:02 pm

October 22, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights: Culture, Rats, and Parking

Tonight’s City Council agenda is short but contains a few interesting items:

Resolution #4. Congratulations to the newly state-designated Central Square Cultural District.   Councillor Reeves

This is yet another signal of the ongoing revival of Central Square and the need to maintain the positive momentum. The next steps should involve some additional housing construction and "filling the gaps" where inappropriate one-story buildings now occupy parcels that once had more appropriate scale buildings – on the order of perhaps 4 or 5 stories at the sidewalk. There seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel regarding the eventual report of Goody/Clancy and the associated short-term advisory committee for Central Square. One of the greatest problems over the years is that interest in Central Square is cyclical – a push for some flavor of improvements and then the excitement dies down for another decade or so. It is certainly the case that Central Square is not Kendall Square and that the appropriate densities for these respective areas are not the same, but the right balance has to be created in Central Square so that the residents, businesses, and cultural attractions can all thrive – and we’re not there yet.

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 Ordinance Committee, for a public meeting held on Oct 3, 2012 to discuss a zoning petition filed by Susan Yanow, et al to rezone from the existing Business A to Business A-1 the areas bounded by Windsor, Main Streets, Bishop Allen Drive, Columbia, Prospect and Norfolk Streets; rezone from the existing Bus. B and CRDD to a proposed new district Bus. B-3 in the area bounded by Green, Landsdowne, Magazine and Prospect Streets and Mass. Ave. define as a protected neighborhood zone the area zoned Res. C-1 and bounded by Portland, Main and Windsor Streets and a line 120 feet north of and parallel to Main Street; rezone the areas currently identified as Municipal Parking Lots along Bishop Allen Drive to a proposed new Municipal Parking District (MP).

There is word going around today that the petitioners have withdrawn their petition. It’s not really clear that a petition that has been filed with 36 signatures can be "withdrawn" simply on the word of one or several of its proponents. There seems to be a suggestion that this withdrawal is being done strategically with the intent of revising and re-filing the petition. This would be a mistake. Such an absurd petition should be voted and defeated. Zoning petitions should not be filed simply as expressions of unhappiness. That’s what "letters to the editor" and the public comment period during City Council meetings are for.

Order #1. That the Mayor and the Chair of the Government Operations and Rules Committee are requested to provide updates every other week on the status of the City Manager search process to the City Council and to work with the City’s Information Technology staff to have those updates posted on the City Council website under a separate tab on the City Council’s page on the City’s website.   Councillor Kelley

All sentiments like this are in order. The choice of city manager is the single most important decision to be made by the City Council, and residents and other interested parties have a right to know what’s going on so that they can express themselves to their elected representatives – the only 9 people who will actually make the decision. My main reservation in this matter is that this might turn into some kind of "process carnival" in which every aspect of life in Cambridge is discussed with minimal focus on the only thing that really matters – the capacity to competently manage this city. I also have some concern that with this City Council, the tail might wag the dog and we could end up with a hopelessly wrong choice for the next city manager.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work together with Inspectional Services Department, the Department of Public Works, the Law Department, the Public Information Department, the Public Health Department and a group of concerned residents and property owners to explore action on suggestions for controlling the rodent population.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

This is one area in which her City Council colleagues should definitely heed the advice of Councillor vanBeuzekom. Prior to her election, Minka was an expert member of the Cambridge Rodent Task Force. Rodents quake in fear at the mention of her name.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City officials to explore the possibility of completing an on-street parking census and the impacts of a plan for the gradual reduction of on-street parking spaces over the next decades.   Councillor vanBeuzekom

Here’s where I part company with Councillor vanBeuzekom. Though some of my climate change friends may believe otherwise, on-street parking spaces are an essential resource for those who live in this "streetcar suburb" and who do not have access to off-street parking. I cannot respect the desire of an elected official who has off-street parking dictating to the rest of us that we should lose our parking in order to produce a negligible effect on world climate. – Robert Winters

October 1, 2012

Gathering Storm in Central Square – Oct 1, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 9:11 am

Gathering Storm in Central Square – Oct 1, 2012 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Here are a few items of interest on tonight’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek approval from the Mass Dept. of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2013.

Here are some excerpts from the City Manager’s message on this topic:

"I am pleased to inform you that the actual FY13 property tax levy of $316,947,770 reflects a $17,857,132 or 5.97% increase from FY12, which is lower than the estimated increase projected in May 2012. The FY13 Budget adopted by the City Council in May 2012 projected a property tax levy increase of $19.7 million, or 6.6%, to $318,818,195 in order to fund operating and capital expenditures. The FY13 operating budget has increased by 2.87%."

"Based on a property tax levy of $316.9 million, the FY13 residential tax rate will be $8.66 per thousand dollars of value, which is an increase of $0.18, or 2.1% from FY12. The commercial tax rate will be $21.50, which is an increase of $0.74, or 3.6% from FY12. Both increases in the tax rate are less than FY12."

"This recommendation includes the use of $11 million in reserve accounts to lower the property tax levy; $2 million from overlay surplus; and $9 million in Free Cash. It should be noted that the certified Free Cash amount of $115.8 million is the highest amount in the City’s history and represents a $13.6 million increase over last year. Also, $0.6 million from the School Debt Stabilization Fund is used to offset increases in debt service costs that would otherwise have been funded from property taxes."

"Additionally, I am recommending that $10 million from Free Cash, as was stated at the time of the budget, be appropriated to the City’s Debt Stabilization Fund to offset anticipated debt service costs in the future for the City’s major capital projects especially in relation to the Elementary School reconstruction plan. This appropriation will help stabilize tax levy increases related to these projects in future years. This practice of using the Debt Stabilization Fund to offset debt service costs has resulted in a successful capital projects program, while maintaining stable property tax levy growth in past years."

"Approximately 74.9% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase or an increase of less than $100 in their FY13 tax bill. In addition, another 15.8% of residential taxpayers will see an increase between $100 and $250. Therefore, a total of 90.7% of the residential taxpayers will see no increase or an increase of less than $250. This will be the eighth year in a row that a majority of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no change or an increase of less than $100. This accomplishment should not be taken for granted given the national economic uncertainties, while maintaining city and school services that citizens have come to expect and while providing a strong capital improvement program highlighted by major projects such as the Mayor Russell/West Cambridge Youth and Community Center, Healy Public Safety Facility, Main Public Library, War Memorial Recreation Center and CRLS."

This week will see a Planning Board hearing (Tuesday) and an Ordinance Committee hearing (Wednesday) on the Yanow Petition (a.k.a. the Permanant Parking Petition). This petition calls for reductions in allowed height and density in Central Square at a time when all discussions to this point have been about maintaining or marginally increasing the allowed density as an incentive for new housing, repairing some of the current deficits in the Square, plus other community benefits. The petition also seeks to enshrine surface parking lots as the pinnacle of urban design. If ever there was a zoning petition that should be laughed out of the City Council and the Planning Board, this is that petition.

Communication #1. A communication was received from CARU Associates, et al., transmitting written protest to the Susan Yanow, et al. Zoning Petition.

This communication from Central Square property owners suggests sufficient opposition that the Yanow Petition will likely require 7 of 9 City Council votes for adoption, though that calculation has not yet been made. There appears to be near-unanimous opposition from Central Square business owners and commercial property owners.

Save Our City ManagerResolution #4. Resolution on the death of James Leo Sullivan.   Councillor Maher

I don’t know if I ever met the man, but I have always admired James Leo Sullivan from afar. He set the standard for professional city management in Cambridge and mentored his successor Robert W. Healy. His obituary (which appeared in the Lowell Sun) is rich in information. If anyone has any photos of James Leo Sullivan that may be posted here, including photos of him with contemporaries, they would be greatly appreciated. James Leo Sullivan served as City Manager from June 1968 to April 1970 and then again from April 1974 to July 1981. He was succeeded in 1981 by Robert W. Healy.

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 Sept 19, 2012 to continue discussions to develop a hiring process for the position of City Manager.

Among other things discussed at this committee meeting was the desire to gather as much community input as possible to advise this most important decision that the City Council can make. Soliciting and receiving input from a representative cross section of Cambridge residents and others with interests in Cambridge is not an easy task. All too often we hear only from the "self-anointed, self-appointed" groups claiming to represent others. The real challenge for the city councillors will be to craft a medium-term and long-term vision for the next decade or more and then choose the right person to implement that vision. That person might now be in the City administration or it could be someone hired from elsewhere. Let’s hope that the elected officials listen to all the people in the city as they make their decisions. – Robert Winters

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

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress