Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Highlight of the Oct 3, 2011 City Council agenda

There is nothing especially significant on this week’s agenda and this should be a short meeting. There is one noteworthy item that could potentially impact quality of life and public safety somewhere down the road:

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-63, regarding the impact of the Batelle Study recommendation on Cambridge and Awaiting Report Item Number 11-110, regarding a report on the impact the proposed alternative route would have on Cambridge Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials traffic.

October 3, 2011

To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-63, regarding the impact of the Batelle Study recommendation on Cambridge and Awaiting Report Item Number 11-110, regarding a report on the impact the proposed alternative route would have on Cambridge Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials traffic, please be advised of the following:

Boston is seeking MassDOT and FHWA permission to ban Hazardous Materials through trucks (the majority are gasoline, diesel and home heating oil carriers) from downtown Boston. They are proposing Rt. 128 as the alternate route. Although the alternative route is a positive, most trucks would use the City of Cambridge as their alternate route rather than Rt. 128. A copy of the City’s response in opposition to the Boston through truck ban is attached.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

---

September 22, 2011

Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
MassDOT
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116
ATTN: BOSTON HAZMAT ROUTE

Re: Boston Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials Routing.

Dear Mr. Broderick,

The City of Cambridge has a long history of working to protect residents in Cambridge from the adverse noise impacts of through trucks. These impacts are most adversely felt at night when residents are trying to sleep.

The City’s location is particularly challenging, situated between exit 18 on the Masspike (I-90) where HAZMAT is restricted east of that location and the fuel farms and depots in Chelsea and Revere; the City currently experiences a lot of through trucks and every street in the City has residents living along it.

In 1998 the City did a cordon count around the City including truck counts and recording the hazardous placards. At that time approximately 14,000 trucks passed through the City or about 2,450/week. This is more than twice the 1200 shipments per week that Batelle estimates are traveling through downtown Boston. This volume is likely to have grown. Of the hazardous materials carriers 90% were gasoline, fuel oil and diesel. Of the 25 locations with the highest number of hazardous carriers – 59% were gasoline predominately in trailer trucks and 32% were fuel oil/diesel predominately in single unit trucks. These are exactly the kinds of through trucks that Boston is trying to restrict. We believe that almost every truck that Boston restricts will end up going through the City of Cambridge unless the Cambridge route is also restricted.

The difficulty with Boston’s proposed restriction is that it is addressing a regional issue with only a local solution. Cambridge also experiences a high volume of cut through trucks which we have always advocated should be using I-93/I-95 rather than cutting through the City. However, unless Boston’s through truck restriction also restricts through trucks on the alternate routes through Cambridge that were studied, we cannot support Boston’s restriction.

We support their recommended alternative route of I-93/I-95. However, we do not believe the trucks will divert that far out of their way. The Batelle study showed that the Cambridge route did not meet the criteria for an acceptable alternate route. The Cambridge routes have more nighttime residents along them than any other route and are no safer than the route through Boston. The alternate route designation has no control over the route the trucks will choose and cannot prevent them from shifting their through route into Cambridge. Boston’s requested truck restriction does not offer a through truck restriction in Cambridge which is required if trucks are truly going to be diverted to I-93/I-95.

Through trucks volumes, especially the gasoline and fuel/diesel carriers are currently using both a routing through downtown Boston and a. routing through Cambridge. A restriction in Boston may improve public safety there but it will dramatically degrade public safety in the City of Cambridge.

Cambridge had the courage to provide a signed truck route through the City. We have tried to be reasonable and also protect residents from the adverse noise impact of nighttime trucks. If the Boston restriction is approved, the safety and quality of life for Cambridge residents would be sacrificed.

The Batelle study shows that alternative routes 2 and 5 through Cambridge do not meet the criteria for an acceptable and safe alternate route. The acceptable alternative route is I-93/I-95. However, nothing is offered that would restrict those trucks from using Cambridge as alternate route instead. The City of Cambridge is strongly opposed to Boston’s currently proposed restriction because a through truck restriction in downtown Boston would not divert trucks to the proposed alternate route (I-93/I-95) but would instead divert them through the City of Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

The letter from Mr. Healy really says all that needs to be said. A hazardous materials truck ban in Boston could easily lead to Cambridge being a preferred cut-through – unless appropriate steps are taken to prevent this. One need only look to the fact that when the Prudential Center was built over the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension, such trucks were banned on that road, and Cambridge has been dealing with the consequences of their exiting at the Allston-Brighton tolls ever since. – RW

A Quick One – Highlights of the Sept 19, 2011 City Council agenda

The Cambridge City Council meeting this week has the lightest of agendas and virtually nothing of any real interest. I’ll highlight only two items and make minimal comments on each.

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation for the City Council to move to Executive Session to discuss Awaiting Report Item Number 11-117.

This relates to the resolution of the unfortunate Monteiro case and (I believe) what can and cannot be publicly discussed regarding the other two shakedowns by one former and one current City employee that have yet to be completely adjudicated. Brookford Street in North Cambridge is certain to have one less person for dinner during public comment while that 20-year-long vendetta continues.

Order #5     Sept 19, 2011
COUNCILLOR CHEUNG
WHEREAS: The Department of Public Works reported a series of procedural changes it would be undertaking this upcoming winter to deal with snow; and
WHEREAS: In response, residents have expressed opinions and raised questions about additional options for handling large amounts of snowfall; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the feasibility of the Department of Public Works using machines such as Bobcats to do a single pass through neighborhoods and retail streets to clear snow from sidewalks after a large snowfall.

This is a great Order from Councillor Cheung – at least the part about retail streets. I’ve been saying for years that this should be done in commercial districts if for no other reason than the fact that commercial property owners pay the majority of taxes. Also, facilitating access to commercial areas, especially when driving is a less attractive option, is a great service for residents and would greatly support local retail. The suggestion of doing this through all neighborhoods is, in my opinion, unrealistic. There’s just too much mileage and everyone in Cambridge knows that our sidewalks are not exactly uniform surfaces. Residential property owners are more than capable of taking care of the sidewalks in front of their homes. – Robert Winters

Back to School – Highlights of the Sept 12, 2011 City Council agenda

The Cambridge City Council returns from summer vacation this week. Among the 32 items on the City Manager’s Agenda, 83 Resolutions, and 42 Orders on the agenda for this Monday’s meeting, a few items stand out:

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative that the City Council formally appropriate/allocate the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds as follows:

1A. 80% of FY2012 CPA Local Fund revenues ($5,400,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
1B. 10% of FY2012 CPA Local Fund revenues ($675,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
1C. 10% of FY2012 CPA Local Fund revenues ($675,000) allocated to Open Space;
2A. 80% of FY2011 State Match revenues ($1,480,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;
2B. 10% of FY2011 State Match revenues ($185,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;
2C. 10% of FY2011 State Match revenues ($185,000) 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; and
4A. Appropriate ($7,500) from the Fund Balance the cost for the Community Preservation Coalition Membership Dues.

http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cityClerk/cmLetter.cfm?item_id=20017

This item is noteworthy every year only because the allocation NEVER changes and will NEVER change. Most people who have in the past advocated for a change in the allocation percentages don’t even bother attending the hearings any more. The die was cast in 2001 and it will NEVER change even if all of the city councillors were not around back then. There may be good reasons for maintaining the 80-10-10% allocation, but there’s nothing democratic about it. By the way, if you read the detailed report you’ll see that a sizable portion of the historic preservation allocation also goes toward "affordable housing".

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back on the feasibility of giving residents the option to "go paperless" with their City bills including water, real estate, excise and any other notice or communication the City regularly sends residents.   Councillor Cheung

Another good initiative from Councillor Cheung. I’d be just as happy with an e-mail alert. Where do I sign up?

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to work with the relevant departments to explore the possibility of placing a city-owned shelter at the bus stop at the corner of Brookline Street and Erie Street, and other bus stops next to senior apartment buildings, which do not currently have shelter.   Councillor Simmons

This one’s notable only in that I believe this request from Councillor Simmons has gone in many, many times before. The street corner mentioned in the Order is across the street from Councillor Simmons’ insurance office. It’s nice to know that at least one of the councillors has a job outside of politics. Oh yeah, there’s that oft-stated myth of the "full time city councillor." Slackers.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to identify expedient and cost-effective ways to inform Cambridge residents, especially Cambridge seniors, of the city’s shift to single stream recycling.   Councillor Simmons

There are a few things worth saying here. First, as a member of the City’s Recycling Advisory Committee and, in particular, its Outreach Subcommittee, I bear some responsibility for this. The greatest difficulty, however, is the same as with educating voters about the upcoming municipal election. How do you reach the majority of Cambridge residents when there’s an important story to tell? The reality is that it’s easier to inform residents in a distant suburb than it is a large city (Cambridge) on the edge of a bigger city (Boston). Out in the suburbs, there’s a good chance that many residents actually read the local news.

Where do Cantabrigians get their news? Once upon a time, it may have been from the Cambridge Chronicle, but today it’s much more likely that if a resident even bothers to read the news, it’s probably from the Boston Globe or the New York Times or from one of the major news networks. It is highly likely that most Cambridge residents don’t know who the current mayor is or what form of municipal government we have. The only reason that they might know the rules about recycling is because they have to take out the garbage once per week and the City was kind enough to deliver a big blue recycling toter last year.

Unless there’s some kind of Lazarus-like uplifting of the local news (either print or online), I guess we’ll all just have to tweet, tweet, tweet about what’s happening locally. Mailings won’t do it. Perhaps one day all of the local neighborhood groups will get their acts together and grow widely subscribed listservs or similar tools and that they’ll carry much of the burden of civic education. Unfortunately, they’re just as likely to turn into shallow forums for what Al Vellucci used to call the self-annointed, self appointed. In the meantime, just go visit your neighbor and show them the ropes about single stream recycling. It’s not rocket science. While you’re there, tell them there’s an election coming up.

Order #20. That the City Council vote to file a Zoning Petition amending Section 20.300 Central Square Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance by deleting Section 20.304.5.3 b.   Councillor Reeves

O-20     Sept 12, 2011
COUNCILLOR REEVES
WHEREAS: Central Square is widely regarded as a thriving entertainment and cultural district; and
WHEREAS: Many successful restaurants and nightclubs contribute to its vibrancy; and
WHEREAS: Opportunities to further enhance the vibrancy of Central Square are limited by a provision in the zoning language for the Central Square Overlay which requires that the principal public entrance be on Massachusetts Avenue; and
WHEREAS: That restriction has the effect of rendering what is a square into a linear strip and preventing active ground floor uses along such principal locations as Prospect Street; and
WHEREAS: In all other areas of the City such uses are permitted in the other Business B Zoning Districts; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Council vote to file a Zoning Petition amending Section 20.300 Central Square Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance by deleting Section 20.304.5.3 b. which reads as follows:

b. Bar or establishment where alcoholic beverages are consumed and where dancing and entertainment is provided, dance hall or similar places of entertainment; Section 4.35 g shall be permitted only if the principal public entrance or entrances are directly from Massachusetts Avenue or Main Street.

I’m sure this is very well-intentioned and may even solve a problem here or there. On the other hand, one should be mindful of unintended consequences, especially when it comes to those areas where commercial activity (and especially alcohol-fueled commercial activity) operates close to residential areas. Does everyone remember what a zoo it was on Brookline Street when the Man Ray club would let out at the end of the night. That was pure torture of the residents in that area. Now imagine opening clubs on Essex Street or Norfolk Street or Pearl Street or Temple Street. Is that really what we want to encourage?

It seems likely that the impetus of this Order was a particular business owner who wanted an exception. If the proposed location was, for example, Prospect Street, then it seems as though a variance would be in order. Would a blanket right to open potentially noisy and rowdy clubs on the side streets of Central Square make for good public policy? That’s debatable.

Order #23. That the School Committee is requested to direct the Superintendent to confer with the City Manager and relevant members of the City and School Department staffs to determine what changes need to be made to playgrounds and playing fields associated with Cambridge Public Schools in order to best support the Innovation Agenda.   Councillor Kelley

Order #30. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and the School Committee to see that the request for a new playground for the Amigos School be placed high on the list for playground renovations.   Councillor Cheung

Order #33. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and the School Committee to look into the budgetary impact of implementing the Intel 1:1 eLearning program and report back to the Council on this matter in advance of the next budgetary cycle.   Councillor Cheung

I’ve grouped these three Orders together because they all involve the City Council apparently intervening in what would appear to be the responsibilities of the elected School Committee. Should the School Committee start advising the City Council on zoning matters? The content of each of these three Orders seems like perfectly good suggestions. Perhaps Citizens Kelley and Cheung should present their ideas at the next School Committee meeting. I’m sure they’d get a fair hearing.

Order #24. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council at its Sept 19th meeting on the status of any cases for which the recently concluded Monteiro case might be relevant. To the extent that public discussion on some aspects of these cases may be detrimental to the City’s legal position, the City Council may go into Executive Session, but Executive Session would be as limited as possible.   Councillor Kelley

Does anyone actually believe that Councillor Kelley has kept the proceedings of these Executive Sessions confidential? Not content to undermine the City’s position via private conversation, this Order seems mainly like a request to do so publicly.

Order #26. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of the Cambridge Public Library to reconsider the protocol of having wireless internet access on only the first floor of the public library.   Councillor Decker

My Ipad seems to work just fine on the 2nd floor of the Main Library. In fact, it seems to work fine for everyone else who was surfing the Internet the last time I was there. In fact, the only annoyance on the 2nd floor was the Libary staff person who could not keep his voice down while on the phone. I felt like going over to him to say, "Sshhh. This is a library."

Order #29. That the City Manager is requested to increase enforcement against bikers that endanger pedestrians and report back to the City Council with a plan of action on these two orders.   Councillor Cheung

Knock yourself out going after the bikers who are fewer and far less dangerous that the motor vehicle drivers. Meanwhile, the City is going full steam ahead with its plan to move bicycles off the street on Western Avenue and onto the sidewalk. Go figure.

Order #36. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads to implement stricter laws and increase police presence on Broadway to decrease the number of abnormally noisy trucks and unmuffled motorcycles during the night hours.   Councillor Cheung

As a resident of Broadway, I can testify to this complaint. The worst is when the high school lets out and the nitwits cruise Broadway in loud cars and mufflerless motorbikes to show off their empty skulls. They’re worse than the trucks. A few well-positioned police officers could solve this problem quickly, but the police are nowhere to be seen. The heavy trucks are most likely a temporary problem associated with the construction at the high school and at the Fogg Museum. Councillor Cheung’s watch must be off because the problem is far greater during the daytime hours than at night.

Order #37. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the racial makeup of the City’s workforce by level and department.   Councillor Cheung

Are we going back to racial quotas? If so, is the goal to have the City’s workforce match the demographics of the most recent US Census? Is there an intent here that every individual department and every level should meet predetermined racial quotas?

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on July 13, 2011 to consider a petition for a zoning amendment filed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to create a new Section 13.80 entitled PUD-5 District and amend the Zoning Map accordingly. The petition would rezone a 26-acre parcel in the Kendall Square area.

This zoning petition remains in committee. The expiration date of this petition is October 11. There are still a lot of unresolved matters about the proposed zoning. There has been compelling testimony questioning whether MIT should be developing commercial frontage or non-student housing in Kendall Square at all. Much of the testimony seems to be asking MIT to dedicate most of its Kendall Square development to non-academic purposes. Neither of these extremes seems likely. Unless some kind of Solomonic wisdom prevails during the next month, there’s a good chance that this petition will end up getting re-filed. – Robert Winters

Attack of the Killer Zoning Petitions – Highlights of the Aug 1, 2011 City Council agenda

There seems to be some kind of campaign afoot to flood the Cambridge City Council with zoning petitions. On the agenda for this coming Monday’s (Aug 1) Midsummer City Council meeting, there is one zoning petition facing a final vote and 7 new zoning petitions. In addition to a resubmittal by Chestnut Hill Realty of its "Workforce Housing" petition to mine their existing properties for additional rent, there are 6 other petitions coming primarily out of North Cambridge with many of the same signers on each of the petitions. They are the Runkel Petition, the Bagedonow Petition, the Bishop Petition, the Teague Petition, the Andrews Petition, and the de Rham Petition. We are definitely going to need scorecards for this.

Since this is the only meeting of the summer (the Council next meets on Sept 12), the agenda features 32 items from the City Manager, 88 Resolutions, 33 City Council Orders, and 8 Committee Reports. Perhaps the most entertaining of the City Council Orders is one from Councillor Cheung calling for a ban on bamboo. Pity the poor pandas. Alas, all this talk about eradicating Black Swallow-wort has now erupted into an all-out campaign against immigrant plants. What kind of Sanctuary City are we?!

Here are the items that drew my attention:

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 10-173, 10-176, 10-180, 10-181 and 10-183, regarding zoning mitigation.

This responds to a string of City Council Orders dealing with the matter of "community benefits", i.e. cash payments contributed by petitioners as part of a deal to get a zoning amendment or a special permit. This is, of course, a very slippery slope that could well ensure that significant increases in density will be permitted as long as the cash payment is sufficiently high. City staff have now drafted guidelines for this practice – necessary perhaps, but still highly questionable.

Manager’s Agenda #31. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the zoning petition regarding the definition and regulation of a Public Bicycle-Sharing Service and Public Bicycle-Sharing Stations. [The Planning Board recommends the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the language presented to the Board on July 26, 2011.]

Still unresolved in the discussions at the Planning Board and at the Ordinance Committee is if there will be any limitation on advertising on these bike stations. Also unresolved is whether nearby property owners will have any say in the placement of these stations on public sidewalks. Speaking personally, I don’t find this service particularly attractive. Owning your own bike is cheaper and you don’t have to worry about the "exponentially increasing" rate that users will have to pay if they keep the shared bike longer than a half-hour. Also, old bikes are cheap and not attractive to thieves. This service will undoubtedly be useful for visitors and for commuters who have insufficient room for a bike or who don’t want to deal with maintenance issues. It’s an overall positive program.

Manager’s Agenda #32. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the City entering into a ten year Cable Television Renewal License with Comcast, from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2021.

No comment here – just a bowing of the head as we passively accept another decade of The Evil Empire.

Unfinished Business #7. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing on May 5, 2011 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments submitted in response to City Council Order No.11 of Jan 24, 2011, in which the Council requested that Community Development Department (CDD) staff engage in a comprehensive review of Section 5.28.2, including the history of the use of the section for special permit applications for conversion of commercial and institutional uses to residential building, and the recent public conversations on this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after June 20, 2011. Planning Board hearing held May 10, 2011. Petition expires Aug 3, 2011.

Committee Report #7. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on July 18, 2011 to continue to consider proposed amendments to Section 5.28.2 Conversion of Nonresidential Structures to Residential Use and Section 4.29 clarifying the allowance of additional uses as permissible under Section 5.28.2.

Marc Levy has a good writeup about this. The conflicting rhetoric surrounding this zoning proposal has run thick over the last several months. The bottom line is that unless this or some comparable amendment is made, the existing zoning will allow developers to significantly increase density as they repurpose old schools, churches, and other buildings into residential use. Then again, I suppose this City Council might gladly say Yes to density as long as the "community benefits package" is sufficiently large.

Then there are the 6 new zoning petitions – probably an all-time high for a single meeting. Click on the links and read the petitions. They are offered here without additional comment.

Appl. & Pet. #3. A zoning petition has been received from Laura Runkel, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Map by rezoning an area on the southern border to North Cambridge from its C1-A designation to residential C.

Appl. & Pet. #4. A zoning petition has been received from Chestnut Hill Realty, requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by creating a new section that would allow for the creation of rental apartment units in the basement levels of existing multifamily residential buildings in Residence C Districts within two tenths of a mile from Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge Street or a Red Line station and must be within 1200 feet of a shared car or rental car location.

Appl. & Pet. #5. A zoning petition has been received from Matthew Bagedonow, et al., requesting the City Council to amend section 5.24 Yards for Zoning District C-1 by adding 5.24.(4).

Appl. & Pet. #7. A zoning petition has been received from Julia Bishop, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by rezoning Special District 2 in North Cambridge to more closely reflect its Residence B base zoning.

Appl. & Pet. #10. A zoning petition has been received from Charles D. Teague, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by enabling enforcement of the already existing lighting restrictions.

Appl. & Pet. #11. A zoning petition has been received from Linda G. Andrews, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by restating the Inclusionary Housing Provisions.

Appl. & Pet. #12. A zoning petition has been received from Elizabeth M. de Rham, et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adjusting the existing ability of the Superintendent of Buildings to issue fines for violations of the Zoning Ordinance.

Also embedded among the Applications & Petitions is a relatively small item of personal interest:

Appl. & Pet. #6. An application was received from Dwelltime, requesting permission for a sign at the premises numbered 364 Broadway. Approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development and abutters.

Communications #5. A communication was received from Robert Winters, 366 Broadway, regarding proposed signage for 364 Broadway over the public way. (Applications and Petitions #6)

I rarely submit communications or make comments at City Council meetings. This item, however, concerns the new café set to open soon next door to my home of the past 33 years. I believe they’ll be a great neighbor and the manager is a very likeable fellow, but they are asking for a sign that would project 4 feet out over the sidewalk on a small mixed residential/commercial block on Broadway that has no such signage. The abutters who gave their approval are the new condo owners behind this property who were given private parking on the lot. Most of my neighbors feel that a standard sign mounted flat on the storefront will serve just as well without the unnecessary visual clutter or other unintended consequences. I invite you to read my communication linked above. The Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association has expressed a similar point of view regarding the proposed signage.

Resolution #40. Congratulations to Brian Corr on his appointment as Executive Secretary of the Police Review and Advisory Board.   Councillor Simmons

Brian Corr is a good man and an excellent person to head this or any number of other City departments. That said, a review of the many City boards & commissions (with an eye toward consolidation) is overdue. A little leadership from the City Council would help in this regard.

There’s also this triplet of technology-related orders from Councillor Decker, plus an additional one from Councillor Kelley:

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council and the Finance Committee on a Technology Plan for the city.   Councillor Decker

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on what would be the advantage of creating a research and development office for technology and to provide a timeline for creation of this office, similar to the Urban Mechanics Department in Boston.   Councillor Decker

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to review Seeclickfix or any other innovative technology that would connect the city to social media and interactive technology that would engage the public in government.   Councillor Decker

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the relevant City agencies and report back to the City Council on the feasibility of the City being able to create a system where all official documents such as building permits, variance applications, License Commission inspection results and other similar information could be tied to a unique property identifier, such as an address, and be available to the general public when searched by that unique identifier.   Councillor Kelley

I personally like to do most transactions online and I definitely appreciate any efforts to make simpler any research needs, especially regarding permits, proposals, and the history of specific properties. Cambridge organizes some things very well on its website (most notable access to documents on the Community Development Department site), but comes up very short in many other ways. I’ve recently learned how easy it can be for a property owner to slip a project almost invisibly through the City’s regulatory and review processes before neighbors even know what’s happening. None of this has to be confrontational. Easy access to clear information can help to prevent conflict and increase cooperation of all parties.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate department heads to look into the need for a bamboo ordinance that either bans the planting of bamboo outright or somehow holds the owner of the bamboo accountable if a bamboo infestation were to occur.   Councillor Cheung

Maybe bamboo is an evil menace, but I doubt it. I have a neighbor with bamboo growing in front of her house. It has never crept up on me nor affected my dreams. It never mocks me. It does not threaten me as I pass by. It occasionally waves to me in a kind gesture. We enjoy our immigrant neighbor. Please, councillor, let our bamboo neighbors live in peace.

Speaking of international relations, Councillor Cheung wants Cambridge to join the UN Global Compact Cities program.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate department heads to look into the feasibility and possible benefits of Cambridge participating in the UN Global Compact Cities program and report back to the City Council with a course of action.   Councillor Cheung

I was a bit curious about this, so I looked it up. This program is founded on "10 principles" – not unlike those of the Green Party. I’m sure we Cantabrigians will be able to adhere to these guiding principles, though I hardly understand the need to take such a catechismal approach to City governance. Here are the 10 Principles to which we must adhere:

1. Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
2. make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
3. Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
4. the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
5. the effective abolition of child labour; and
6. the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
7. Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
8. undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility;
9. encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies.
10. Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

Order #10. That the City Council go on record opposing the selling of naming rights for MBTA Stations.   Councillor Toomey

Who would possibly object to renaming Harvard Square Station as Abercrombie & Fitch Station?

Order #11. That the City Council go on record opposing the MassDOT plans to use the Grand Junction for Commuter Rail traffic.   Councillor Toomey

There seems to be a bit of a split developing between those councillors who clearly oppose the Tim Murray Express and those who choose to take a "wait and see" approach as the train comes barrelling down the tracks. I just can’t wait to hear the nuanced statements at the East Cambridge Candidates Night this fall.

Order #13. That the City Council go on record as urging the Governor, the Cambridge Legislative Delegation and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to establish appropriate administrative procedures to back up police officers who write tickets to bicyclists committing moving violations.   Vice Mayor Davis

I can’t argue with the logic of this Order, but let’s not forget all those motor vehicles blowing through crosswalks, drivers parking their cars 2-3 feet from the curb (which is NEVER ticketed), drivers flinging their doors open into cyclists, and other magnificent practices that endanger those not enclosed in steel cages.

Order #19. That the City Council go on record in opposition to closing the Inman Square Post Office or any other Post Office in the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Toomey

It goes without saying that usage of postal branches has decreased dramatically in recent years along with the rise in e-mail and online transactions. It is inevitable that some branches will have to close. I will not agree with Councillor Toomey until someone can quantitatively show that these branches are really necessary. Contracting with a few local businesses for a postal counter, if necessary, could provide all the convenience people really need. It might even be good for business.

Order #23. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to investigate the lack of a bike lane and the unsafe car traffic on Blanchard Road.   Councillor Cheung

For the thousandth time – a bike lane does not necessarily ensure the safety of cyclists. It may enhance the perception of safety, but it will not in and of itself make for safer cycling.

Order #26. That the City Manager is requested to ask the relevant City departments to examine all street poles on the section of Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Porter Squares and clean and remove flyers, notices, graffiti and other debris from these poles.   Councillor Seidel

Having recently spent several days personally doing this work in the Central Square area, I would suggest that we not focus just on Mass. Ave. between Harvard and Porter Squares. One idea that I would support would be to require abutting property owners to keep their stretch of the street free of graffiti, flyers, and other debris on poles, parking meters, etc. It’s very easy to do if you’re only responsible for your short stretch of the street. We require property owners to shovel their sidewalks. Is it too much to ask that they clear this debris? I already do it and I can testify that it’s not all that hard to do. Perhaps property owners could start by doing this voluntarily.

Order #27. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department and other relevant City staff to examine the relationship between job creation in the City and available housing stock in Cambridge over the past two decades.   Councillor Seidel

If you read this Order, you might see that it’s related to the City Manager’s response concerning mitigation and "community benefits". This seems like a precursor to an effort to require developers to contribute money toward City housing programs.

Order #28. That the City Council requests an update by its relevant members as to the status of a committee hearing on security cameras.   Councillor Kelley

Quick! Call Nancy Murray and the ACLU! As Councillor Toomey has repeatedly pointed out, most people are caught on video cameras multiple times every day. This should be a non-issue and these cameras definitely can enhance the personal safety of residents.

Order #32. That the City Manager is requested to report on the rationale behind why there are so many "No Turn on Red" signs in the city at intersections where residents would otherwise feel safe to turn right on red.   Councillor Cheung

Ask Traffic & Parking Czar Sue Clippinger. If you disagree with all the unnecessary restrictions, you can always file an appeal with the appointed Traffic Board mandated under state law. The Traffic Board could overrule the Czar. Oh, yeah, the Traffic Board has not been appointed for a couple of decades now. If you disagree with the regulations, tough luck!

Order #33. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments to investigate Styrofoam recycling options and report back to the City Council with recommendations.   Councillor Cheung

If you can find a cost-effective way to transport this substance (which is mostly air) to a reprocessing facility, I’m all ears. Until then, the environmental cost of transporting Styrofoam will exceed any environmental benefits. That’s the issue.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Civic Unity Committee for a public meeting held on May 3, 2011 for the purpose of continuing discussion with the Civic Unity Advisory Committee of the recommendations of the Cambridge Review Committee report.

I attended this meeting, but I will refrain from any detailed comments because of the inevitable repercussions of doing so. I will say, however, that rarely does one encounter such a group of meeting participants whose minds are as made up in advance as those I saw at this meeting. Start with the conclusions you want, and then discuss the justification for those conclusions.

The annual Midsummer meeting is always a long one. This one could be especially long if they have to spend a long time hashing out changes to the Section 5.28.2 zoning amendment. It’s also a municipal election year and the incumbents often like to use the City Council meetings to practice their stump speeches. – Robert Winters