Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 24, 2011

Oct 24, 2011 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights – Pre-Election Posturing

Filed under: 2011 Election,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 1:00 am

Oct 24, 2011 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights – Pre-Election Posturing

Anyone who has attended a recent Cambridge City Council meeting (or any candidate forums) will have noticed the pre-election posturing and efforts to capitalize on controversy. This meeting will most likely bring more of the same. One topic that was at the heart of last week’s posturing is the Bishop Petition that aims to amend the zoning in the vicinity of the Fawcett properties adjacent to the former rail line where the Linear Park now runs in North Cambridge.

Unfinished Business #9. 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 Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Julia Bishop et al., to amend Section 17.20 of the Zoning Ordinance – Regulations for Special District 2, located in North Cambridge along Linear Park. Proposed amendments include: deletion of allowed non-residential uses; reduction in allowed Floor Area Ratio; increase in required lot area per dwelling unit; reduction in allowed height; new regulations for fences abutting Linear Park.

The Planning Board deliberated on the Bishop Petition on Tuesday, Oct 18. Though there is not yet a Planning Board report before the City Council, it was clear at that meeting that the Planning Board felt that the current zoning was not broken and that the existing tools were sufficient to shape whatever projects are proposed in that area. At last week’s City Council meeting, the Council did vote to discharge the petition from the Ordinance Committee to bring it before the City Council, but Councillor Kelley’s attempt to also move the petition to a 2nd Reading (a necessary step before advertising it and bringing it to a final vote) were soundly rebuffed 8-1. Though in this pre-election setting many councillors voiced their support of the petition, the rhetoric was much closer to that of the Planning Board in its expression that the best solution should go beyond merely changing the zoning.

Unfinished Business #10. 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 Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance filed by Elizabeth deRham et al. The petition proposes an amendment to Section 9.16 of the Zoning which currently provides for a $100 per violation per day fine upon conviction of said violation. The amendment would provide for a fine not to exceed the maximum specified in M.G.L. Ch 40A sec.7, currently $300 per violation per day and would allow the fine to be levied at the discretion of the Superintendent of Buildings. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Oct 31, 2011.

My suspicion is that this petition may ultimately pass – possibly before Election Day. Though the Bishop Petition has drawn the most attention, the deRham Petition was filed at the same time by essentially the same people. Politically, there may be some wisdom in passing this less controversial one before Election Day if indeed the intention is to invest the necessary time to get a better resolution of the underlying issues that motivated the Bishop Petition.

Order #4. That the City of Cambridge hereby joins other communities across the country and calls upon the United States Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification, a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.   Mayor Maher

This may be the first example I’ve witnessed of the Cambridge City Council explicitly endorsing an amendment to the United States Constitution. The merits of the proposal notwithstanding, the suggestion that this will "restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people" is woefully naive. While many people correctly complain about the corrosive influence of money in politics, where is the civic education that’s necessary for a well-functioning democracy? The national political media features the nitwits on Fox News propagandizing from the Right, and the nitwits on MSNBC propagandizing from the Left. These and talk radio are what passes today as civic education. Meanwhile the average voter is busy watching American Idol while their national elected representatives spend the majority of their time fundraising for their reelection. Focusing on the Citizens United court decision is a distraction from much more significant problems in sustaining democracy both nationally and locally.

Order #5. Amendment to Zoning Ordinances by deleting Section 6.22.2   Councillor Kelley

It’s unfortunate that the text of Councillor Kelley’s Order provides no clue at all as to why this amendment is being proposed other than its claim "to mitigate development and parking pressures in Cambridge neighborhoods." Perhaps Kelley will explain the motivation. A few additional "whereases" in the Order would have helped.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back on legal expenses incurred by the City for the Monteiro case and related cases.   Councillor Kelley

A handful of activists and sympathizers have been pushing this as though it is the be-all-end-all issue in the upcoming municipal election. It is not. This Order calls for an accounting of the outside legal expenses for the Monteiro case, etc.; the cost of the appeals; the cost of the settlements related to each of the parties in the original ZuckerNaut of lawsuits; the amount of money paid to Malvina Monteiro; and a report on what issues are still considered confidential and why. Ultimately it will be good to have this full story told. However, the full story should also include the background information on the functioning (or lack of functioning) of the City departments and boards over whom some of the litigants presided. The deluxe edition of the book might also include some of the political motivations as well.

This meeting will also feature a presentation from the Reeves committee (excuse me, the Red Ribbon Commission, etc.) on Central Square – well timed to occur two weeks before the election. Time will tell what the next few years will bring to Central Square. There are some who would choose to turn it into a 24-hour entertainment zone. Others want to build densely on every available parcel. It is doubtful whether the report from the Reeves committee will reveal anything particularly world-shaking. In the end, the good health of Central Square will still be determined by the individuals – residents, business owners, and property owners – who have a personal stake in the Central Square area. – Robert Winters

I received an inquiry over the weekend about incumbent city councillors who were not reelected. Since the beginning of the Plan E era (since 1941), here is the chronology of these unfortunate incumbents:

Candidate 1st elected defeated Notes Candidate 1st elected defeated Notes
Thomas McNamara 1941 1943 after 1st term Daniel Hayes 1957 1969  
William Hogan 1941 1943 after 1st term Henry Owens 1971 1973 after 1st term
James Cassidy 1941 1945   David Wylie 1967 1975  
Thomas McNamara 1941 1947   Daniel Clinton 1967 1977  
James Casey 1945 1947 after 1st term Barbara Ackermann 1967 1977  
Francis L. Sennott 1941 1949   Leonard Russell 1973 1977  
Thomas McNamara 1941 1951 later replaced
Francis Sennott		 David Clem 1975 1977 after 1st term
W. Donnison Swan 1945 1953   Mary Ellen Preusser 1977 1979 after 1st term
Chester Higley 1949 1953   Lawrence Frisoli 1977 1979 after 1st term
Marcus Morton, Jr. 1953 1955 also elected
1941, 1943		 David Wylie 1967 1983  
Charles Watson 1953 1959   Daniel Clinton 1967 1985  
John D. Lynch 1941 1961   Alfred LaRosa 1985 1985 had replaced
Leonard Russell
Thomas McNamara 1941 1961   Thomas Danehy 1967 1989  
Cornelia Wheeler 1957 1961 later replaced
Guy Belin		 Edward Cyr 1989 1993  
Andrew Trodden 1959 1965   Katherine Triantifillou 1993 1999  
Thomas Coates 1963 1967   David Maher 1999 2005 later replaced
Michael Sullivan
William Maher 1965 1967 after 1st term Larry Ward 2009 2009 had replaced
Brian Murphy

October 20, 2011

Proposed State Senate and House Districts for Cambridge

Filed under: elections — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 11:21 am

Proposed State Senate Districts
Proposed State Senate Districts for Cambridge

Proposed State Representative Districts
Proposed State Representative Districts for Cambridge

October 17, 2011

Highlights of the Oct 17, 2011 Cambridge City Council agenda

Filed under: City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:32 am

Highlights of the Oct 17, 2011 Cambridge City Council agenda

First of all, take note that due to an elevator malfunction at City Hall, the City Council will meet this week at the Fitzgerald Auditorium at CRLS, 459 Broadway. There are a few items this week that should bring out the public. City Manager’s Agenda #7 and City Manager’s Agenda #8 are appropriations of $500,000 and $1,190,000 received by Comcast as part of their 2011 Renewal License. I suppose cash is good even when it comes from the continued domination by the Evil Empire.

Resolution #1. Urge residents to participate in Food Day which will take place on Oct 24, 2011.   Vice Mayor Davis

It’s hard to say what exactly Food Day is and this resolution provides scant advice on how residents should participate other than to eat. Seems like I celebrate Food Day every day.

Resolution #23. Happy 80th Birthday wishes to a special Cantabrigian.   Councillor Decker

I’m guessing that this must be Robert Wolf, husband of Alice Wolf, but there are 30 other registered Cambridge voters who turn 80 this month. Happy birthday to all of you.

Order #3. That the Mayor is hereby requested to work with the City Council to schedule a date for a Roundtable meeting to review the census.   Councillor Reeves

In Cambridge, like anywhere else, there is Inside Baseball – the stuff that serious politicos talk about but which rarely makes it to the local press or into the conversations of most residents. When the census occurred a decade ago and was followed by legislative redistricting, Cambridge ended up being carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey. My recollection is that in order to prevent two popular incumbents in Newton from having to face off against each other, several of the principally Cambridge State Rep. districts were sacrificed and made part of districts that were mainly in neighboring towns. We ended up with 6 districts – most of which were nearly impossible for a Cambridge candidate to win. Only the districts of Representatives Toomey and Wolf were held harmless.

Most consequential was the way that the district formerly held by Saundra Graham, Alvin Thompson, and then Jarrett Barrios was scattered. The Inside Baseball story has it that when it became known that Barrios was going to vacate the seat in order to run for State Senate, it was considered OK to not protect that district and that Barrios did nothing to prevent this. At some level, who cares? We end up with 6 state reps. who we can talk to about relevant Cambridge issues instead of, perhaps, 3 all-Cambridge districts. The bitter issue was that aspiring Cambridge political people who might have sought those state seats found their options limited. There are many insiders who are still angry 10 years later at Jarrett Barrios who they blame for the current configuration.

So now it’s census time again. Word has it that the proposed new districts will be revealed this Tuesday, Oct 18. Will the map be redrawn in a manner that benefits some councillors and others who might consider a career move? Stay tuned….

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to appoint a committee to explore the feasibility of establishing a Cambridge Museum that will serve as repository of Cambridge history.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Cheung and Mayor Maher

There is no doubt that the need exists and will always exist to have secure locations for the wealth of historical documents and artifacts of our very old and historic city. In addition to the Cambridge Historical Commission and the Cambridge Historical Society, we now also have a Cambridge Room at the new library and a staff archivist. This Order proposes to explore the possibility of creating a new Cambridge Museum in which the public may commune with the city’s history. This is unquestionably a good idea in the long term, but can we sustain all of these historical venues? Where would you locate such a new venue and who would be the target audience? In any case, the idea deserves a complete and critical evaluation – even if the end result is better support and enhancement of the existing venues.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare language for an ordinance to ban the use of brakeless bikes in Cambridge.   Vice Mayor Davis

See http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11b. In particular:

"Every person operating a bicycle upon a way…shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: …(3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance." and "Every bicycle operated upon a way shall be equipped with a braking system."

Councillor Davis’ Order is already part of state law and is therefore moot. Whether or not it’s enforced and by whom it is enforced are open questions. Thanks to John Allen for the references.

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and the Community Development Department to investigate how to make the Follen Street/Little Concord Avenue intersection safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.   Councillor Cheung

Here we go again. The City has made some good decisions regarding bicycle infrastructure and some horrible decisions. The Little Concord Avenue design is poor (see John Allen’s May 16, 2011 critique and his May 20 followup remarks), but not nearly as dreadful as the "cycle track" installed on Vassar Street. The City is now going full speed ahead to implement this same absurd design on Western Avenue (see John Allen’s Oct 27, 2010 remarks and Paul Schimek’s Aug 10, 2010 letter). Pedestrians and cyclists beware.

Order #23. City Council opposition to cuts to Medicare and Medicaid benefits and support of the American Jobs Act.   Councillor Decker

My guess is that two items will bring people out for Public Comment at this meeting. This one will likely bring a few visitors to talk about national politics. The following item (the Bishop Zoning Petition) will likely bring the lion’s share of comment even though it remains in committee and is not before the City Council for action at this meeting.

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 Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Julia Bishop et al., to amend Section 17.20 of the Zoning Ordinance – Regulations for Special District 2, located in North Cambridge along Linear Park. Proposed amendments include: deletion of allowed non-residential uses; reduction in allowed Floor Area Ratio; increase in required lot area per dwelling unit; reduction in allowed height; new regulations for fences abutting Linear Park.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this petition is that the affected area was already rezoned within the past decade (actually Feb 14, 2000) from an industrial zone (due to it being adjacent to a former railroad line) to create Special District SD-2 primarily for the purpose of encouraging the transition toward residential use. Now that this residential use is part of an active proposal, this petition seeks to significantly reduce its density and the owner claims this will destroy its financial viability. Those advocating for this petition are trying very hard to convince the City Council to act on this petition before the November 8 municipal election. The agenda includes 18 Communications in support of the Bishop Petition.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee for a public meeting held on Oct 6, 2011 to discuss the Austin, Texas "Parking Benefit District Pilot Program" and any other city parking issues.

Contained within this report is a proposal that should infuriate Cambridge residents who own cars and who do not have private driveways or garages. A letter from Chris Summerfield (153 Lexington Ave., but he’s not listed in either the voter database or the 2011 street listing) requests a change to the Traffic, Parking and Transportation regulations that would strictly prohibit parking within 15 feet of the center line of any public or private driveway. This is currently only enforced where necessary and where the vicinity of the driveway is appropriately signed. Councillor Kelley commented that no one is supposed to park ten feet from either side of any driveway – something that may be the practice in Wellesley but one which would eliminate hundreds of parking spaces if enforced in Cambridge.

Though Traffic Director Susan Clippinger stated that you can park 3 feet from the edge of a driveway, everyone knows that this is only enforced where it makes sense to do so. Miraculously, we all seem to get along as long as people can navigate their way in and out of their driveways. Nonetheless Councillor Kelley proposes an Order that would wipe out hundreds of on-street parking opportunities by being overly and unnecessarily restrictive. It’s worth noting that the only people present at this hearing were Councillor Kelley, Sue Clippinger, Deputy City Clerk Donna Lopez, and Chris Summerfield. There were no other elected officials present. – Robert Winters, resident and on-street parker

October 3, 2011

Trucks! – Highlight of the Oct 3, 2011 Cambridge City Council agenda

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:05 am

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

September 27, 2011

Calendar of Cambridge Candidate Forums and Events – 2011

Filed under: 2011 Election,elections — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 10:30 am

Calendar of Cambridge Candidate Forums and Events – 2011

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
July 31 Aug 1
Deadline for submitting
nominating signatures		 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 Aug 23
Davis Kickoff, 6pm		 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 Aug 31
Ward 6 City Council Candidates Forum at Senior Center, 7pm		 Sept 1 2 3
Sept 4
Tauber kickoff, 3pm		 5 Sept 6
Minka vanBeuzekom kickoff		 7 Sept 8
Seidel kickoff, 6:30pm		 9 10
11 12 13 14 Sept 15
Cheung kickoff		 16 17
Sept 18
Turkel kickoff		 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 Sept 27
East Cambridge City Council Candidates Forum, 7:00-9:30pm, Multicultural Arts Center, Second St.). The Forum will be facilitated by a trained moderator from the League of Women Voters		 28 29 30 Oct 1
2 3 4 Oct 5
School Committee Candidates Forum at East End House (Spring St.), 7:30pm, moderated by Nancy Stiening of East Cambridge Planning Team		 Oct 6
School Committee Candidates Forum sponsored by Ward 6 Dems, YMCA, 820 Mass. Ave., 7-9pm		 7 8
Oct 9 10 11 Oct 12
City Council Candidates’ Forum, sponsored by MCNA (Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association), 7-9pm, Cambridge College, 1000 Mass. Ave.
School Committee Candidate Forum, 6:30-8:30pm, hosted by Cambridge Parent Advisory Council on Special Education, Cambridge Citywide Senior Center. Info: www.cambridgepacse.org		 Oct 13
School Committee Candidates’ Forum, sponsored by CFIN (Cambridge Family Information Network), 6:00pm, Cambridge Public Library Lecture Hall (moderated by Monica Brady-Myerov, Senior Reporter and Assistant Managing Editor at WBUR)		 14 15
Oct 16 17 18 Oct 19
West Cambridge City Council Candidates Forum, 7:00pm, Russell Youth Center, 680 Huron Avenue		 20 21 22
23 24 Oct 25
City Council Candidates Forum co-sponsored by CEOC, ACT (Association of Cambridge Tenants), MAPS (Mass. Alliance of Portuguese Speakers, and CCC (Cambridge Community Center), 6:00-8:30pm, Citywide Senior Center (806 Mass. Ave.)		 Oct 26
West Cambridge School Committee Candidates Forum sponsored Ward 9 Dem. Committee, 7:00pm, Russell Youth Center, 680 Huron Avenue		 Oct 27
Area IV (City Council) Candidates Forum, 6:30-9:00pm, Pisani Community Center, 131 Washington St. This forum is hosted by: Area IV Coalition, MFNH, Area IV for Peace, Port Action Group, and the Washington Elms/Newtowne Court Tenants Council.		 28 29
30 31 Nov 1 Nov 2
City Council Candidates’ Night on Environmental and Energy Issues, sponsored by Green Cambridge, at the YMCA Theatre, in Central Square, 6:30pm to 9pm, with 3 different time slots available for candidates.		 3 4 5
6 7 Nov 8
ELECTION DAY

List any events (or corrections or additional details) as comments below and they will be added to the Calendar.

Find out about all the candidates at the Cambridge Candidate Pages.

September 26, 2011

The Taxman Cometh – Highlights of the Sept 26, 2011 City Council agenda

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 12:43 am

The Taxman Cometh – Highlights of the Sept 26, 2011 City Council agenda

In addition to the Executive Session delayed from last week by the Charter Right of Councillor Seidel, the top item tonight is the public hearing and the usual series of City Council votes that will ultimately lead to the setting of the residential and commercial tax rates for the current fiscal year, FY11-12. As Mr. Healy likes to remind the Council in his remarks, the City does not technically set these tax rates. They merely take the votes that ultimately lead to the state Department of Revenue setting the rates.

It’s unclear whether the Executive Session (relating to the now-settled Monteiro case and two other pending milkings of Mother Cambridge) will take place early in the meeting or after all other business is dispensed with. Ultimately, the primary purpose of the session is to help Councillor Kelley determine what particular negatives should appear in his campaign literature. Anyway, the important item is this one:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek the Massachusetts Department of Revenue approval for the tax rate for FY2012:

A. Authorize the use of Free Cash of $11,300,000 to reduce the FY12 tax rate;

B. Authorize $2,000,000 in overlay surplus/revenues to be used for reducing the FY12 tax levy;

C. Authorize $5,150,000 from the Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

D. Authorize $632,470 from the School Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

E. Classify property into five classes;

F. Adopt the minimum residential factor of 56.2602%;

G. Approve the maximum residential exemption factor of 30% for owner-occupied homes;

H. Vote to double the normal value of the statutory exemptions;

I. Vote the FY12 exemption of $285.00 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D;

J. Vote the FY12 asset limits of $56,695 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17E;

K. Vote the FY12 income and asset limits allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D as follows: Income limits of $23,442 for single and $35,163 for married; and asset limits of $46,883 for single and $64,464for married;

L. Vote the income limit for deferral of real estate taxes by elderly persons as determined by the Commissioner of Revenue for the purposes of MGL Chapter 62, Section 6, subsection (k) for a single person ($51,000) and for married ($77,000);

M. Vote to accept Clause 56 of G.L. c. 59, Section 5, which allows members of the Massachusetts National Guard or military reservists who are on active duty to obtain a reduction of all or part of their real and personal property taxes for any fiscal year they are serving in a foreign country.

Text of the City Manager’s message. The tax districts are shown below.

FY12 Tax Districts

Key Facts:

1) The final property tax levy for FY12 will be $299,090,641, an increase of 5.33%.

2) Based on a property tax levy of $299.1 million, the FY12 residential tax rate will be $8.48 per thousand dollars of value, which is an increase of $0.32, or 3.9% from FY11. The commercial tax rate will be $20.76, which is an increase of $0.86, or 4.3% from FY11. [These are upon final approval by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.] Both increases in the tax rate are less than FY11.

3) In FY12, commercial property owners will pay 65.4% of the property tax levy, the same share as in FY11. Consequently, residential property owners’ share of the FY12 tax levy is 34.6%, also the same as in FY11.

4) Approximately 63.9% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase or an increase of less than $100 in their FY12 tax bill. In addition, another 22.8% of residential taxpayers will see an increase between $100-$250. Therefore, a total of 86.7% of the residential taxpayers will see no increase or an increase of less than $250.

5) The Residential Exemption for the fiscal year will be $198,085 with a resulting tax savings of $1,679.76.

6) The changes in median assessed value and tax bill by property class are shown in the following table:

Change in the Median Value and Tax Bill by Property Class (includes Residential Exemption)
  FY11 Value FY11 Tax Bill FY12 Value FY12 Tax Bill Dollar Change Percent Change
Single Family $670,450 $3,870 $686,200 $4,139  $269  6.95%
Condominium $364,100 $1,370 $366,700 $1,430 $60  4.38% 
Two Family

$638,550

 $3,609 $644,600 $3,786  $177  4.90%
Three Family $721,500 $4,286 $728,900 $4,501 $215 5.02%

These figures are not uniform throughout the city. Values and taxes vary greatly by neighborhood.

  • The median value of a single-family home ranges from a high of $2,448,500 in Tax District R10 (Brattle St. area) to a low of $403,500 in District R1 (everything east of Windsor St.).
  • The median value of a condo ranges from a high of $1,269,700 in District R10 to a low of $318,750 in District R4 (Harvard edge of Mid-Cambridge).
  • The median value of a two-family home ranges from a high of $1,915,800 in District R10 to a low of $449,600 in District R1.
  • The median value of a three-family home ranges from a high of $2,940,300 in District R10 to a low of $530,000 in District R9 (Fresh Pond south toward Mt. Auburn Cemetery).

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board not to adopt the Chestnut Hill Realty Zoning Petition.

This is the beast that refuses to die. The Planning Board panned it once, and now twice. The petition is all about shoehorning more apartments into below-grade, basement apartments so that the property owners (Chestnut Hill Realty) can make even more money. They first tried to call these "workforce housing" as if to suggest they were planning to house cooks and housekeepers in their overpriced new units. What makes the petition interesting is the fact that Chestnut Hill Realty has contributed handsomely to the political campaigns of several incumbent city councillors – typically giving maximum $500 donations from many principal players in the company and several members of their extended families. It’s always entertaining to watch the votes on these things.

Resolution #3. Resolution on the death of Noel Johnson.   Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Simmons

I salute a fellow member of the Central Square Advisory Committee from Pine Street in the Area 4 neighborhood. Rest in peace, Noel.

Resolution #5. Encourage residents to attend Cambridgeport History Day on Oct 1, 2011.   Vice Mayor Davis

This is something everyone should attend if in town that day. I’m scheduled to co-lead a history-themed bicycle ride that day from Charlestown to Lowell. October 1 must be a Big Day for historical explorations.

Resolution #12. Congratulations to The Dance Complex on its 20th anniversary.   Councillor Simmons

And especially to my good friend Rozann Kraus who has helped to guide the Dance Complex from its inception 20 years ago to today.

Order #5. Seeking intervention from Federal officials in keeping the Inman Square and MIT Post Offices open.   Mayor Maher

This Order is co-sponsored by all 9 city councillors, yet I have yet to see any analysis that suggests that either of these post office branches is necessary or even well-utilized.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chairs of the Government Operations and Rules Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 29, 2011 to discuss policy development on community benefits as mitigation for zoning amendments and dedication of street corners.

Suffice to say that "community benefits" not directly related to burdens caused by new development (as a result of zoning changes) should never be characterized as "mitigation". A better term might be "extortion" or "pay to play". As I have said repeatedly (and apparently to the deaf ears of councillors determined to say yes to any and all new development resulting in more money to spread around to their favorite charities), this is a dangerous road to go down. The clear message is that if you are willing to pay to play, zoning for higher density is for sale. It is difficult to see what, if any, connection this has to rational planning for a better city. – RW

September 19, 2011

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

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:49 am

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

September 15, 2011

Concord Avenue, Under Construction

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,Fresh Pond,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 1:33 pm

I just rode Concord Avenue last Sunday to see what was happening there.

I had thought that the construction project would have been completed by now, but it isn’t.

The image below is of the east end of the section under construction. I find a bit of irony here in that the “Bikes May Use Full Lane” sign is placed at the start of a project which intends to get bicycles off the road, and also it is nonstandard — diamond-shaped like a warning sign which is supposed to be yellow, but white like a regulatory sign, which is supposed to be rectangular (as with speed-limit and no parking signs). The message is a regulatory message: it is law.

Looking west at the east end of the Concord Avenue section under construction

Looking west at the east end of the Concord Avenue section under construction

Construction barrels divide the narrowed roadway into two lanes, rather than the three planned for when construction is complete. As the westbound bikeway is incomplete, I rode west on the roadway. Motorists still were able to overtake me without leaving their lane, as they were when the roadway was wider, with three travel lanes and a bike lane on either side. I was passed by a number of cars, no problem. I had one conflict with a driver who moved out of a side street into my path. Such conflicts will be much more common when bicyclists are riding in sidewalk space.

The road surface was very bumpy because the street has not yet been repaved. The effort is going into construction of the bicycle sidepaths at this time.

I shot video of my rides. It’s HD video and you will want to view it full screen to get all the details. This is the link to the video of my westbound ride. And here is my eastbound ride.

One other thing I hadn’t expected is that the south-side (eastbound) path was almost completely empty, except for me, though it was nearly finished, and unobstructed — on a warm, sunny Sunday afternoon when there was heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic in Fresh Pond Park and on the Minuteman path.

I can say that if much traffic does appear on the south-side path, the situation will be very confused. There is no buffer between the 5′ wide bikeway (closer to the curb) and the wider walkway away from the curb. There was supposed to be a 2-foot-wide buffer, as I recall. Also, the concrete pavement of the pedestrian section, farther from the curb, is smoother. The bumpier asphalt pavement adjacent to the curb is supposed to be for eastbound bicyclists, in defiance of AASHTO guidelines, which require a 5′ spacing or a barrier, and also in defiance of normal path and road rules, which require riding on the right side. The City’s scheme would have eastbound bicyclists riding on the left side of the combined bikeway and walkway. Meanwhile, there also will be westbound bicyclists using this path to avoid the much worse path on the other side of the street, and probably keeping to the right as is usual.

As the path is behind a high curb, bicyclists who want to cross Concord Avenue will have to wait at the crosswalks rather than to merge into the roadway. At the few crosswalks, there is no waiting area (for example, at 1:24 in the eastbound video). Because the bikeway is between the walkway and the street, bicyclists and pedestrians who are waiting to cross the street will block the bikeway, and other bicyclists will have to divert onto the walkway.

As the concrete pavers of the pedestrian section and the asphalt of the bicycle section age and settle, a step could develop between them, just as on the parts of the Charles River paths, widened with asphalt next to the old stone retaining wall along the riverfront. Many bicyclists have gone down as a result.

Many aspects of the Cambridge bicycle program can be described as ideologically driven, and defying national and state design standards. Placing a longitudinal seam along a bikeway, and directing traffic to keep left, are merely incompetent.

Other than what I have described in this post, the project looks as though it will turn out as I expected, with the foreseeable problems I’ve already described in my earlier post; the right hook and left cross conflicts, inability to cross to the south side at most locations without dismounting in the street to lift the bicycle over a curb; resulting wrong-way riding on the north side, etc.

The party line about the Concord Avenue project, which I have in writing from two City employees (here and here) and verbally from a member of the Cambridge Bicycle Committee, is that “bicyclists will be riding in exactly the same place as they are now.” This statement turns a blind eye to the encouragement of wrong-way riding, and the keep right/keep left confusion. It ignores bicyclists’ crossing and turning maneuvers, and motorists’ being trapped by the curbs and forced to turn across the path of bicyclists; it denies that motorists block sidepaths so they can see approaching traffic in the street. Saying that “bicyclists will be riding in exactly the same place as they are now” is like saying that a bird in a cage, hanging in a tree, is in exactly in the same place as a bird sitting in that tree and free to fly off.

What really burns me up is that the City employees designing bicycle facilities appear to have no concept of how bicyclists actually are going to use them, or of the potential hazards. It’s all about “build it and they will come” and that means, build just anything they think will attract novice cyclists and children, and to hell with design standards and safety research. I see shoddy and incompetent mimicry of European designs, and astonishing hubris. So far, the Concord Avenue bikeway is half built with one side completely open, and very few bicyclists have come, except for me, and I was there on a discovery tour.

Save

Save

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress