Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 18, 2010

Sign of the Times

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

Sign of the Times

Another marquee item on the civic landscape is the curious petition campaign to revoke recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to signage on commercial buildings. Most people didn’t even know there was a provision in state law to challenge a local ordinance via a petition campaign. The relevant part of the Mass. General Laws is Chapter 43, Section 42:

Section 42. If, within twenty days after the final passage of any measure, except a revenue loan order, by the city council or by the school committee, a petition signed by registered voters of the city, equal in number to at least twelve percent of the total number of registered voters, and addressed to the city council or to the school committee, as the case may be, protesting against such measure or any part thereof taking effect, is filed with the city clerk, the same shall thereupon and thereby be suspended from taking effect; and the city council or the school committee, as the case may be, shall immediately reconsider such measure or part thereof; and if such measure or part thereof is not entirely rescinded within twenty days after the date of the certificate of the registrars, the city clerk shall submit the same, by the method herein provided, to a vote of the registered voters of the city, either at the next regular city election not less than thirty days after said twentieth day, or at a special election which the city council may, in its discretion, call for the purpose, and such measure or part thereof shall forthwith become null and void unless a majority of the registered voters voting on the same at such election vote in favor thereof.

The petition described in this section shall be termed a referendum petition and section thirty-eight shall apply to the procedure in respect thereto, except that the words "measure or part thereof protested against" shall for this purpose be understood to replace "measure" in said section wherever it may occur, and "referendum" shall be understood to replace the word "initiative" in said section.

To the best of my knowledge, this provision has never been invoked in Cambridge. As a fan of democracy, it’s interesting to see it being put to use. On the other hand, most indications are that this has been little more than a bitter, well-funded campaign of retribution by one man – Philip "Terry" Ragon of Intersystems, a company which rents space in One Memorial Drive – a building that now also leases space to Microsoft. Cambridge voters would likely be out in front opposing the recent "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" decision of the United States Supreme Court that supposedly now facilitates the funding by corporate interests of major political campaigns. Yet this well-funded propaganda campaign by Intersystems and its agents brings barely a peep out of the Cambridge liberals. The inflammatory literature suggests that "Cambridge politicians are giving away our skyline to Wall Street." The literature refers to the amendment as "The Microsoft Amendment" and claims that it will bring "windfalls to wealthy landlords and out-of-state multinational corporations." I haven’t seen BS propaganda like this since the days of rent control.

The petition campaign appears to have successfully scaled the first hurdle of submitting sufficient signatures. With approximately 60,000 registered voters, 12 percent translates into about 7200 required signatures. The campaign reportedly has submitted in the neighborhood of 16,000 signatures. Many will likely be deemed invalid, but it seems probable that the threshold will be met. So what happens next?

Let’s be clear that the Cambridge City Council as a body was hardly deserving of a badge of courage in their 6-3 vote approving the amendments to the Zoning Code relating to signage. Councillor Davis did all she could to punt the matter before voting NO. Her rationale hardly came across as a matter of principle. Councillor Seidel gave every indication that he would be voting in favor of the amendment before doing a quick about-face and voting NO under the threat of political abandonment in next year’s municipal election. Councillor Kelley can always be counted on to vote NO in matters such as this, so his vote surprised no one. Among the six councillors who voted YES to approve the measure, there was a refreshing air of deliberateness – regardless how one might feel about the merits of the amendment. Councillors Cheung and Decker, in particular, were forthright in their statements and expressed great clarity in their view that the amendment was nothing like what the propagandists would have people believe.

It will be interesting, perhaps even entertaining, to see what happens next. The City Council could rescind their approval and, by doing so, look like spineless and incompetent political jellyfish. That may be their best option. On the other hand, they could let the storm pass and allow the measure to be placed on the municipal ballot in 2011 coincident with their reelection campaigns. Gone are the good old days of rent control trench warfare. We’ll have a municipal election dominated by propaganda about signs. There may be a $500 annual individual contribution limit for local candidates, but it will be sky’s-the-limit for a "Citizens United" type of campaign in Cambridge indirectly instructing misinformed voters who they should vote for based on one hopelessly overstated and relatively unimportant issue. Perhaps the safest option for the City Council would be to dip into the public trough and fund a special election on this single item safely segregated from next fall’s municipal election. In recent years, the Cambridge City Council has shown over and over again that incumbency protection is Job #1, so perhaps this is the most likely next step. — Robert Winters

Bill Walsh

Filed under: Cambridge government — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:39 am

Oct 17, 2010 – Bill Walsh

There’s a lot going on right now in the civic landscape of Cambridge. Anyone who has been around for a couple of decades will surely note the sudden death several days ago of former Cambridge City Councillor Bill Walsh, a man who made more than his share of friends and enemies over the years. Indeed, some of his best friends became his most bitter enemies, and some of his greatest adversaries became his closest friends. I am certainly not the person to write any definitive story of the man. Like many others at the time, Walsh was the lawyer in 1985 for the person from whom I bought my house, and I was able to witness up close the wild frenzy that was the offices of Ferraro & Walsh during those crazy days of real estate wheeling and dealing, condo conversion, and speculative deals that promised big profits on quick turnarounds. I was even invited to invest money in some of those deals, but I never did. Not only did I not have the money, I also understood that something that sounds too good to be true generally isn’t true.

My enduring sense of the man is as the janitor’s son who grew up on Hurlbut Street and who was less than welcome among the "lace curtain" crowd of the local Irish. He was even less welcome among the genteel Brattle Street crowd whom he disdained. Like many Irish-Americans in Cambridge, Bill Walsh saw his hometown of Cambridge as a place not so far removed from the days when "Irish Need Not Apply" was the rule, even though it’s unlikely that this was ever his own personal experience. Around 1990, he responded to a petition campaign to prevent the Commonwealth Day School, a very un-Yankee elementary school, from relocating to Brattle Street by making it into a personal campaign against the local upper crust. Bill, like many Irish-Americans, also saw politics as an essential tool for doing business and, perhaps, to even the score.

Though he ran successfully for a Cambridge City Council seat in 1985 and served until his sentencing for bank fraud in 1994, Bill Walsh’s first attempt at political office was when he ran for City Council in 1971 at the young age of 26. He finished 12th in #1 votes and was the next to last candidate counted out. His ballots primarily transferred to fellow Independent candidates Dan Clinton (who was elected) and Lenny Russell (who was the next and last candidate to be defeated that year). After his 1985 election, it could be said that Bill Walsh saw himself as the central figure among local Independents, political opposites of the now defunct but at the time very powerful Cambridge Civic Association (CCA). Of course, since the 1940s the central figure among Independents was Edward Sullivan, Middlesex County Clerk of Courts, former City Councillor, former Mayor, and the brother of City Councillor Walter Sullivan. Walsh was something of an upstart, but he did manage to galvanize the forces opposed to rent control like no one before him. The thing that defined Bill Walsh’s political role more than anything was his opposition to the rent control laws of the time.

Political players with the pro-rent control CCA hounded Walsh from the day he was elected to the day he went to jail in 1994. Some have suggested that these same political players dropped more than a dime or two to facilitate the prosecution. They were there most days at his trial. Ironically, the statewide passage of Question 9 in 1994 that ended rent control occurred soon after Walsh’s conviction and just before his sentencing when he was forced to vacate his Council seat. The CCA then began it’s own rapid descent into oblivion. Walsh’s political career may have gone down in flames, but his efforts helped bring the CCA to the edge of ruin and, without rent control as their defining issue, they came unglued. Bill Walsh may now be gone, but the CCA preceded him in death.

It is widely acknowledged that Bill Walsh resumed his real estate wheeling and dealing after his release from prison, though he largely acted through other agents and remained out of the public eye. Some current city councillors clearly benefited from their ties to Walsh in recent years, though no one has definitively proven anything illegal in these deals. Nonetheless, association with Bill Walsh in recent years has always raised a few eyebrows and suspicions. It was only during the last few years that his presence would be acknowledged at public events along with other former elected officials.

I still think of Bill Walsh as the janitor’s son who built his political and financial network by providing the means for working people to obtain property and wealth, but who was both reckless and somewhat unscrupulous in delivering those benefits. Perhaps his greatest violation was not any specific violation of law, but rather the fact that he left his friends in financial ruin when the speculative housing market soured in the early 1990s. Of course, anyone who chose not to see the Ponzi-like quality of some of Walsh’s schemes must bear much of the responsibility for their own financial losses. Some choose to blame Walsh for the changing demographics of Cambridge after rent control, but there’s more than enough evidence to suggest that this shift was already occurring and that the transition of Cambridge into the condo-dominated city it is today was inevitable. In any case, the passing of Bill Walsh is the passing of an era in Cambridge. — Robert Winters

Obituary: William Holland Walsh of Cambridge and Ogunquit, Maine suddenly October 15, 2010. Beloved husband of Mary Hayes Walsh. Visiting hours in St. Peter’s Church, 100 Concord Ave., Cambridge Wednesday 4-8pm. Funeral mass on Thursday at 10am.

William Holland Walsh of Cambridge and Ogunquit, Maine, Suddenly Oct. 15, 2010. Beloved husband of Mary Hayes Walsh. Son of the late William J. and Catherine A. (Holland) Walsh. Nephew of Donal Holland of Ballineen, Cty. Cork, Ireland. Funeral mass in St. Peter’s Church, 100 Concord Ave., Cambridge on Thursday at 10am. Relatives and friends kindly invited. Visiting hours will be held in the church on Wednesday from 4-8pm. Interment Cambridge Cemetery. In lieu of flowers please send donations in Bill’s memory to St. Peter’s School, 96 Concord Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138. In addition to serving as a Cambridge City Councilor for five terms, and serving the City he loved and his widespread constituency with tireless energy and enthusiasm; Bill had a very active law practice for many years. Although the firm, Ferraro and Walsh, was highly regarded for its work in the real estate field; there was no problem, big or small, that Bill did not take on, on behalf of his clients. His clients, many of whom became his friends over the years, were from all walks of life. Bill had great success both as an attorney and a real estate developer, but the true measure of his success was the degree to which he could help other people. Their success was his success. His good counsel, kindness, and caring touched the lives of countless people. He will be sorely missed but never forgotten.

October 4, 2010

Oct 4, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:24 pm

Oct 4, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Today we’ll be having two City Council meetings. At 3:00pm there will be a Special City Council meeting to discuss the costly Cambridge Review Committee Report that grew out of the absurd Gates-Crowley kerfuffle of Summer 2009. There are indications of efforts to pack this meeting with partisans on one side of this dated conflict so, as is usually the case, attendance at this meeting will be indicative of nothing. Frankly, we’d be better served if we all went out for a few beers. I hear Obama’s buying.

Far more significant is the Regular City Council meeting that will follow at 5:30pm. There will be a 6:30pm hearing on the City’s recommendations to the Department of Revenue that will determine the property tax rates for FY11. According to the City Manager’s communication, a 5.69% increase in the property tax levy is anticipated for a total levy of $283,961,699. The residential tax rate is expected to be $8.16 per thousand dollars of assessed value and the commercial tax rate is expected to be $19.90 per thousand.

The median tax bills are expected to rise 8.59% for single-family homes, 5.96% for condominiums, 3.80% for two-family homes, and 3.73% for three-family homes. (These figures include the residential exemption.) The overall valuation of the City’s residential property decreased 0.47% during Calendar Year 2009 while commercial property decreased 0.41%. As is always the case, changes in property values were not the same throughout Cambridge. Single family homes saw the greatest increase (+5.5%) along Grove Street at the western edge of Cambridge and the greatest decrease (-9.06%) in the Shady Hill neighborhood. Condominiums saw the greatest increase (+0.96% – barely noticeable) in Area 4 and the greatest decrease (-5.62%) in East Cambridge. Two-families increased in only one district (+2.87%) around Huron Village and saw the greatest decrease (-9.98%) in Neighborhood 10 (Brattle Street area). Three-families saw the greatest increase (+5.23%) in Shady Hill and the greatest decrease (-8.60%) in the vicinity of Fresh Pond.

The required roll call votes are as follows:

A. Authorize the use of Free Cash of $11,400,000 to reduce the FY11 tax rate;

B. Authorize $2,000,000 in overlay surplus/revenues to be used for reducing the FY11 tax levy;

C. Authorize $8,300,000 from the Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

D. Authorize $1,198,615 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 56.3344%;

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 FY11 exemption of $280.00 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D;

J. Vote the FY11 asset limits of $55,775 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17E;

K. Vote the FY11 income and asset limits allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D as follows: Income limits of $23,061 for single and $34,592 for married; and asset limits of $46,122 for single and $63,418 for 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 lower the interest rate by 4% to 14% for overdue water and sewer bills in FY11; and

N. Vote to accept MGL Chapter 200A, Section 9A, which allows for an alternative procedure for disposing of abandoned funds held in custody by the City as provided for in the recently enacted municipal relief legislation.

Otherwise, the meeting agenda is very light with no controversial items. The interesting Orders are as follows:

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department on how the transition of the Grand Junction Rail Road to Commuter Rail traffic could impede the implementation of the Grand Junction Rail Trail and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Toomey

This evolving issue promises to be a source of controversy as the Tim Murray Express rolls on through Cambridge. Councillor Toomey’s latest Order on this matter focuses on other uses that have been proposed for this rail corridor – most notably the idea of a Grand Junction Rail Trail. It’s hard to imagine commuter rail trains whizzing through the eastern part of Cambridge with six at-grade street crossings – some in pedestrian intensive areas.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to report back on the language in the noise ordinance as it relates specifically to the noise of car radios and what steps the police can take and what steps residents can take to combat and end this disturbance.   Councillor Decker

O-8     Oct 4, 2010
COUNCILLOR DECKER
WHEREAS: The decibel level of the bass of some car radios is at such a level that it causes an enormous disturbance and distress when said cars are in motion, stopped at traffic lights, and idling; now therefore be it
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back on the language in the noise ordinance as it relates specifically to the noise of car radios and what steps the police can take and what steps residents can take to combat and end this disturbance.

Some of us have been bringing up this matter for years only to have it fall on deaf City Council ears. Maybe Marjorie will be the one to finally convince her colleagues that the scourge of these vehicles is far more annoying and ever-present than signs on commercial buildings or the occasional leaf-blower. As a resident who lives on a street (Broadway) close to a traffic light, I would be happy to have the traffic light removed just to eliminate the annoyance of loud sound systems in cars driven by people with tiny brains. My recollection is that when Councillor Davis tried to bring up this issue of "boom cars" several years ago, she was stonewalled by Councillor Reeves. Let’s hope everyone has learned a thing or two since then. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is that most of the city councillors live on relatively quiet streets and don’t appreciate just how invasive these idiot cars can be. As a Walden Street resident, my guess is that Councillor Decker is treated to a front row seat just like those of us who live on Broadway, or Cambridge Street, or Mass. Ave., etc. Indeed, I believe Marjorie is the only one of the nine who is regularly treated to this abuse.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Public Health Department and ask for a report back on the feasibility of Cambridge following suit with banning smoking in public parks, beaches and other public places.   Councillor Decker

I believe the City Council already voted to ban smoking in public parks, but it’s doubtful that it was ever enforced. [Section 8.28.090 of the Municipal Code – Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places: A. Smoking Prohibited: No person shall smoke nor shall any person be permitted to smoke in any public place or municipal facility.]

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on Sept 23, 2010 to continue to consider a proposed amendment to Chapter 10.17 of the Municipal Code entitled Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance to increase the residential permit parking fee from $8 to $20 effective in 2011 and $25 effective in 2013, and to clarify that the fee revenue can be expended on "other actions addressing climate change."

This matter awaits a vote at the next regular City Council meeting (October 18). The fee is not excessive, but the earmarking toward "other actions addressing climate change" deserves some discussion. — Robert Winters

September 27, 2010

Sept 27, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:01 pm

Sept 27, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Perhaps the hottest item on tonight’s agenda is one that has received far more attention than it deserves. Earlier this year, staff at the Community Development Department suggested that changes might be in order for the current practice of seeking variances to the part of the Zoning Code relating to signage on buildings. This led to a City Council Petition that would regularize this process and shift things from seeking a zoning variance from the BZA to seeking a special permit from the Planning Board. Part of the logic was that the Planning Board and related staff were more attuned to design issues and that the mechanism might in this way be made more fair and consistent with citywide planning goals and standards. Then the excrement hit the blades.

This proposed zoning amendment should never have been a big deal, but this changed when inflammatory material showing the Charles River’s Cambridge shoreline lit up like Las Vegas with major corporate logos was circulated by opponents to the amendment. There were deficiencies in the original draft that could have led to unintended consequences around the city, and these were best illustrated by a spoken “virtual trip” through Cambridge by Kevin Crane (legal counsel for a major opponent of the proposed change) before the Planning Board during one of two summer meetings on this topic. However, the inflammatory rhetoric and graphics were never a realistic depiction of even the worst-case scenario of what could have happened as a result of the proposed changes. A series of amendments were proposed, the matter had its hearings before the Ordinance Committee, and it’s now ready for a City Council vote.

Whenever zoning controversies loom over the Cambridge City Council, they will often simply punt. That is, they will either re-file the petition under the hope that a settlement can be reached or that the controversy will die down. Either that or they will seek some kind of Solomonic compromise that averages the interests of both sides not necessarily to find the best solution but to get past the controversy. In the case of zoning petitions strategically filed so to come to a vote immediately before a municipal election, populism will often prevail. In the case of the sign ordinance changes, there is no municipal election in sight and it would seem that recent modifications to the original proposal should help grease its way to ordination. However, anything could happen. The relevant agenda items follow:

Unfinished Business #5. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Sept 7, 2010 to consider a petition filed by the City Council to modify the Zoning Ordinance regulation of signs. the question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Sept 27, 2010. Planning Board hearing held July 6, 2010. Petition expires Oct 5, 2010.

City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Zoning Petition to Revise the Sign Ordinance – Article 7.000. [The Planning Board recommends that the original Petition be approved with amendments. The changes recommended by the Board to the original Petition language of the Building ID Signs section are summarized below.]

  • Establishment of a special permit process before the Planning Board.
  • A narrowing of the zoning districts where such signs may be permitted, to areas of concentrated office development at the eastern and western ends of the city.
  • Restriction of the signs to non-residential buildings only that are at least 100,000 square feet in size.
  • Limiting the signs to identifying the whole building or an office tenant occupying a significant portion of the building. The Planning Board recommends that at least 25% of the leasable area of the building be presumed to be significant.
  • Prohibition of such signs in local conservation and historic districts.
  • Enumeration of the criteria for approval of the Building ID Signs, including: how the sign would be viewed from nearby residential districts, open space, historic districts, and the Charles River; light pollution.
  • An articulation of the purpose of the provision.
  • A relaxation of one standard in the current Sign Ordinance to allow the placement of an ID sign on the screening wall of mechanical equipment located above the building’s roof where that placement would better integrate the sign into the architecture of the building.

If this were the only item on the agenda, we might be treated to a hefty dose of public comment by those who choose to remain only partially informed, followed by a quick vote and the dismissal of otherwise routine matters. But, alas, there are a couple of other juicy items on tonight’s menu – specifically on the Reconsideration portion of the agenda.

Reconsideration #1. Reconsideration filed by Councillor Toomey on the affirmative vote taken on September 13, 2010 to refer to the Ordinance Committee and to pass to a second reading a proposed amendment to the Municipal code that would increase the residential parking sticker fee. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey on City Manager Agenda Item Number Thirty-Six of August 2, 2010. On September 13, 2010 motion of Vice Mayor Davis to refer to Ordinance Committee and Passage to a second reading on roll call 7-1-1.]

After a summer committee meeting on this topic, I was inclined to believe that this would actually pass with only token opposition. After all, the current fee of $8 has been in place for nearly 20 years and it was stuck at $5 for long before that. There is an obvious logic to some kind of fee increase. However, besides the argument that these fees were never meant to be anything more than nominal fees, the matter is complicated by the fact that these fees are now embedded into an ordinance (the Vehicle Trip Reduction Ordinance) which restricts the uses for this revenue. Perhaps more significantly, the collection of fees for resident permit parking was established in a 1965 Special Act of the Legislature that specifies that this revenue may only be used for traffic & parking related matters.

Normally this would be fine, but it has been publicly stated now by the City Manager and others that one use of this proposed fee increase would be to “get the message out” about climate change in conjunction with the agenda of the recent “Climate Congress” of activists that took place in a series of City Hall meetings this past year. It is clear that some members of the public and some city councillors take issue with this earmarking of revenues for the benefit of one interest group. Some have argued that, despite the virtue of the proposed purpose, use of this revenue should be subject to the same budget processes as all other matters while remaining consistent with the uses specified under state law. Of course, the real bottom line is that there are political advantages to saying that you stood in opposition to a fee increase, and that inclination could prevail if the rhetoric starts to thicken. This could come to a vote as late as October 18 and still be viable for the 2011 calendar year.

Reconsideration #2. Reconsideration filed by Vice Mayor Davis on the vote taken failing to refer to the Ordinance Committee a response relative to Awaiting Report Item #10-116, regarding a report on the impact of decriminalization of marijuana possession. [Motion of Councillor Cheung to refer to Public Safety Committee failed 4-4-1. Motion of Vice Mayor Davis to refer to Ordinance Committee failed 4-4-1.]

Regrettably, I was gone by the time this vote was taken on Sept 13 (as was Councillor Decker – hence the tie vote). I believe the sole purpose of the Ordinance suggested by Police Commissioner Robert Haas in this report was to give Cambridge Police more tools for controlling public consumption of pot, including the ability of police to confiscate the dope. I would be curious to know who stood on either side of this issue as well as their reasons, but for that I may have to watch the video.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the planning process for the  Concord Avenue redesign, the outreach efforts to inform the public of the project and how the planned changes in bike facilities in the project area were advertised in the outreach efforts.   Councillor Kelley

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee, for a meeting held on Aug 10, 2010 to discuss bike facilities including bike lanes, bike tracks and bike parking.

I was not a bystander in this matter. There does seem to be a growing trend within some City departments to treat cyclists as children and to move them onto the sidewalk along Concord Avenue and in some other locations. While it’s good to create this sidepath option for children along some roads with higher speeds and for most cyclists along highway-like throughfares such as Memorial Drive, it is a dreadful precedent to require most cyclists not to use the road along with all other vehicles. Besides the multiple inconveniences of these sidepaths, they often provide only a perception of enhanced safety when, in truth, they may actually be less safe. [Related article]

At issue in Councillor Kelley’s Order #2 is the especially annoying and very un-Cambridge recent practice of whisking some of these projects through with little opportunity for the public to respond until after the project is either under construction or out to bid.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to investigate the feasibility of adding historical sub-signs to street signs and replacing those sub-signs that were installed for the Bicentennial and commemorating the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 in 2012 with street sub-signs or some other method.   Vice Mayor Davis

Though an excellent idea, one has to wonder how it can be that we are still permitted to have celebrations of any war in this ultra-politically-correct enclave. I’m sure there are those in Cambridge who would rename Hamilton Street as Karl Marx Avenue, Erie Street as Lenin Street, Perry Street as Fidel Castro Boulevard, Lawrence Street as Sisterhood Avenue, and Decatur Street as Obama Way. – Robert Winters

September 13, 2010

Final Results – Sept 2010 State Senate Primary (Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex)

Filed under: 2010 Election,2010 State Senate election — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:46 pm

Until we get separate results, the totals for Charlestown and Allston-Brighton will be reported together under Charlestown.

CandidateAllston-
Brighton		CambridgeCharlestownChelseaEverettRevereSaugusSomervilleTotalPercent
DiDomenico, Sal09939577213249423440227701050.6
Flaherty, Tim0259314997011028448323237682949.2
Write-In/Other056128200330.2
Total03591
(11 complete)		2462
(13 complete)		1434
(16 complete)		4285
(18 complete)		873
(3 complete)		763
(3 complete)		464
(2 complete)		13872
(66 complete)		100.0

These are now official vote totals.
Sal DiDomenico won this election by a margin of 181 votes.
The Somerville Journal reported that candidate Flaherty filed for a recount of the ballots cast in Everett. This recount was expected to commence on Saturday, Sept 25, but Tim Flaherty has now rescinded his request for a recount.
For comparisons, the results of the April 2010 Special Primary Election may be found at: http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=616.

Sept 13, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:38 am

Sept 13, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The summer is over for the Monday Night Nine. The City Council returns to 31 items on the City Manager’s Agenda (including the perfunctory vote on the Community Preservation Act entitlements for Just-A-Start and Homeowner’s Rehab) plus 119 Resolutions, 15 City Council Orders, and 5 Committee Reports. There will also likely be some discussion of the proposed changes to the Sign Ordinance that have been distorted by both sides of that controversy. As if that isn’t enough, the Council will also likely take up the two items “charter righted” from the previous meeting – backyard chickens and a proposed increase in the resident parking permit fee. So, let’s get started with the items that stand out.

Mgr #19. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, requesting that the City Council formally appropriate/allocate the Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds as follows:

1A. 80% of FY2011 CPA Local Fund revenues ($5,200,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;

1B. 10% of FY2011 CPA Local Fund revenues ($650,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;

1C. 10% of FY2011 CPA Local Fund revenues ($650,000) allocated to Open Space;

2A. 10% of FY2010 State Match revenues ($1,640,000) allocated to Affordable Housing and appropriated to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust;

2B. 10% of FY2010 State Match revenues ($205,000) allocated to Historic Preservation;

2C. 10% of FY2010 State Match revenues ($205,000) 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.

Having spoken at the hearings leading up to this vote, there is little left for me to say. The nine-member CPA committee was appointed after the 2001 election with the understanding that the maximum (80%) would always be given to subsidized housing and the minimum (10% each) would always be given to Open Space Acquisition and Historic Preservation. The City Council never reviews this prioritization, and they will never deviate from it regardless of any vacuous “debate” that might take place this Monday. If you have anything to say on this topic, you are advised to stay home and watch football.

Mgr #21-25: Five appropriations totaling $2,565,802 to the School Department from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.

There’s not much to say other than to note that this is a considerable amount of money. A March 31, 2010 report noted that: “The City of Cambridge has been awarded (up to that time) approximately $6.5 million in ARRA funding through both entitlement and competitive grants. Some of the departments receiving ARRA funding include the School Department, Community Development, Police Department and Public Works.” These new appropriations are in addition to the previous sum and there may have been other ARRA funds awarded in the interim.

Mgr #31. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-116, regarding a report on the impact of decriminalization of marijuana possession.

Police Commissioner Robert Haas proposes in this report that an ordinance be passed prohibiting the smoking of marijuana or hashish in public places, on City property, and while riding the bus. The penalty would be a $300 fine for each offense and confiscation of the drugs.

Charter Right #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 09-147, report on what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers. [Charter Right exercised by Vice Mayor Davis on City Manager Agenda Item Number
Twenty-Seven of Aug 2, 2010.]

It was interesting to read a Sept 8 Boston Globe article about people raising chickens in Brookline, Belmont, Lexington, and Newton. It’s anyone’s guess whether City officials will take steps to draft regulations that might permit this in Cambridge. It is, however, apparently perfectly OK to keep and feed non-native geese down at the river’s edge, so why not chickens and ducks?

Charter Right #2. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation to increase the residential parking sticker fee. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey on City Manager Agenda Item Number Thirty-Six of Aug 2, 2010.]

Committee Report #3. 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 meeting held on July 13, 2010 to discuss the parking fee structure.

It’s not clear what will happen with this, but Councillor Decker promised to schedule a Finance Committee hearing on this in addition to the expected Ordinance Committee hearing. Neither has been scheduled and the change would have to be made by the end of September in order to be implemented for 2011.

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, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on July 8, 2010 to consider a petition filed by the City Council to modify the Zoning Ordinance regulation of signs.

Committee Report #5. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Sept 7, 2010 to consider a petition filed by the City Council to modify the Zoning Ordinance regulation of signs.

My understanding is that this whole controversy grew out of concerns by the Board of Zoning Appeals about frequent requests for variances to this part of the Zoning Ordinance (which were often granted). There was some feeling that this should be handled not by the variance process but instead via a review process by the Planning Board. Significant proponents are backing the proposed changes (as amended), and opponents have lined up on their side of the issue with inflamatory photoshopped images suggesting worst-case scenarios. I suspect the City Council will pass some kind of amendment eventually, and I’ll leave it to others to speculate on the effect of all those $500 checks directed to political campaign accounts.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a meeting held on Aug 16, 2010 to discuss the process for the City Council to use in setting the City Council goals FY11and FY12.

This is the biennial goal-setting process and what is proposed is a pretty good process. The finished product always looks terribly generic to this observer – lots of rosy language about diversity and fostering community and the usual stuff, but the process does have the potential to motivate some of the councillors to take on some initiatives. [current FY2010-FY2011 goals]

Resolution #26. Congratulations to Colleen Johnston on her appointment as Acting Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission.   Mayor Maher

Resolution #27. Congratulations to Brian Corr on his appointment as Acting Executive Secretary of the Police Review & Advisory Board.   Mayor Maher

Something is going on here, but I don’t know what. Marlissa Briggett was appointed on Jan 19, 2010 to be the Executive Director of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission and Executive Secretary of the Police Review & Advisory Board. It appears that she is no longer serving in that role. Colleen Johnston has been on the staff of the Human Rights Commission, and Brian Corr is the Director of the Peace Commission.

Order #5. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the nature of MBTA improvements to the Grand Junction Railroad.   Councillor Toomey

It appears that Worcester Mayor Tim Murray (oh yeah, now he’s Lt. Governor) is on the verge of getting his Worcester-North Station commuter line in spite of the absurd amount of grade crossings this will produce in a well-traveled part of Cambridge. The diesel fumes should also delight the Cambridge Climate Congress and all those who were so concerned about a few buses that might have followed this route as part of the now apparently defunct Urban Ring proposal.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments and report back to the City Council with the explanation of how the project on Broadway near the Marriott Hotel which reduces traffic to one lane came about and what it hopes to accomplish.   Councillor Toomey

This is noteworthy primarily because of the way changes like this happen seemingly without any input from the public or from elected officials. If Councillor Toomey gets to argue this out at a subsequent meeting with Traffic Czar Susan Clippinger, I’ll bring popcorn to the meeting.

Order #8. That the City Council go on record in opposition of the Mass Department of Transportation traffic management plan which will disproportionately affect the East Cambridge neighborhood comparative to other abutting communities.   Councillor Toomey

Apparently the Craigie Bridge (the one you may know as the Museum of Science Bridge) will be restricted during reconstruction work from Nov 2010 to April 2011 to two lanes from Boston to Cambridge and zero lanes from Cambridge to Boston. When are they supposed to start restricting the Longfellow? This could get interesting!

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the recent developments and sale of the Northpoint Project.   Councillor Toomey

The ever-evolving NorthPoint development takes yet another twist. Apparently Magic Johnson is part of the new team. It’s unclear what previous agreements about the development of this area and the Green Line extension through it will remain intact. Zoning amendments were made for this area, but any related understandings could get washed away. The state has apparently agreed to fund the construction of the relocated Lechmere/NorthPoint Green Line station, but everything else is in flux.

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the Director of Information Technology Department to address issues of energy consumption and emissions used by the City of Cambridge to include distribution of and dissemination of information to city employees and residents about ways to reduce energy consumption by way of deleting and/or limiting email storage.   Councillor Decker

My favorite quote in this Order is that “Sending large picture or video attachments can use the energy equivalent of boiling seventeen kettles of water”. Sure, maybe if you’re spamming them across the globe. In any case, people who send excessively large e-mail attachments are nitwits – even if their carbon footprints are the size of hamster feet.

Maybe we should come up with an estimate of how many boiling kettles of water are associated with robocalls and mass mailings in a typical political campaign. It warms my heart just thinking about it. – Robert Winters

September 6, 2010

2010 Pre-Primary Campaign Finance Reports (Cambridge Candidates)

Filed under: 2010 Election,2010 State Senate election,campaign finance — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 5:26 pm

Here are the summaries for all candidates seeking office in districts which are wholly or partially in Cambridge. The table is sortable in each field by clicking on the top row. You can also click on the candidate’s name to go to his or her OCPF page (Office of Campaign & Political Finance).

2010 Pre-Primary Campaign Finance Reports (Cambridge candidates)

CandidateOffice soughtStartEndOpenReceiptsExpendBalanceLiabilitiesNotes
DiDomenico, SalSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex6/1/20108/27/2010$3528.83$84880.00$62547.18$25861.65$28250.00$1500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included. Total receipts for primary is $86,380. Grand total for year is $195,335. Candidate loan to campaign is $28,250.
DiDomenico, SalSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex1/1/20105/31/2010$19201.42$108955.00$124627.59$3528.83$1550.00Previous report.
Flaherty, TimSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex6/1/20108/27/2010$292.47$60550.00$28080.09$32762.38$16000.00$11,500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included. Total receipts for primary is $72,050. Grand total for year is $226,339. Candidate loan to campaign is $16,000.
Flaherty, TimSenate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex1/1/20105/31/2010$756.91$154289.00$154753.44$292.47$0.00Previous report.
Bush, Barbara T.
Senate: Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex1/1/20108/27/2010$0.00$10590.90$4261.90$6329.00$8718.01
Tolman, StevenSenate: 2nd Suffolk & Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$149758.53$60098.00$77044.91$132811.62$0.00$500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included.
Petruccelli, AnthonySenate: 1st Suffolk & Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$10693.69$56675.00$66000.04$1368.65$0.00$2,000 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included.
Brownsberger, WilliamHouse: 24th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$12584.99$47961.00$11712.79$48833.20$6806.62
Wolf, AliceHouse: 25th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$80752.40$24916.98$6578.33$99091.05$0.00
Toomey Jr., Timothy J.House: 26th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$9202.29$27442.14$23014.43$13630.00$26345.00
Hecht, JonathanHouse: 29th Middlesex1/1/20108/27/2010$136.45$3000.00$0.00$3136.45$0.00$1,500 in late contributions after Aug 27 are not included.
Walz, MartyHouse: 8th Suffolk1/1/20108/27/2010$83153.07$46237.00$41040.34$88349.73$0.00
Rushing, ByronHouse: 9th Suffolk1/1/20108/27/2010$13915.89$500.00$140.00$14275.89$0.00

This table will be updated as reports come in. The filing deadline was Tues, Sept 7.

August 30, 2010

Sept 14, 2010 State Primary Candidates (for Cambridge voters)

Filed under: 2010 Election — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:05 pm

Sept 14, 2010 State Primary Candidates (for Cambridge voters)

Governor/Lt. Governor
Democrat: DEVAL L. PATRICK / TIMOTHY P. MURRAY (incumbent) Republican: CHARLES D. BAKER / RICHARD R. TISEI
Green Party: JILL STEIN / RICK PURCELL
(will appear only on the November ballot)		 Independent: TIM CAHILL
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Treasurer
Democrat: STEVEN GROSSMAN
Democrat: STEPHEN J. MURPHY		 Republican: KARYN E. POLITO
Auditor
Democrat: SUZANNE M. BUMP
Democrat: GUY WILLIAM GLODIS
Democrat: MIKE LAKE		 Republican: MARY Z. CONNAUGHTON
Republican: KAMAL JAIN
Green Party: NAT FORTUNE
(will appear only on the November ballot)
Attorney General
Democrat: MARTHA COAKLEY (incumbent)
Secretary of State
Democrat: WILLIAM FRANCIS GALVIN (incumbent) Republican: WILLIAM C. CAMPBELL
Representative in Congress (8th District)
Democrat: MICHAEL E. CAPUANO (incumbent)
Governor’s Council (3rd District) [Pcts. 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: MARILYN M. PETITTO DEVANEY (incumbent)
Democrat: COREY A. BELANGER
Governor’s Council (6th District) [Wards 1 through 8 (all precincts); Pcts. 9-1, 10-2]
Democrat: SUZANNE R. ENGLISH-MERULLO
Democrat: TERRENCE W. KENNEDY		 Republican: PAUL A. CARUCCIO
State Senate
First Suffolk and Middlesex District [Ward 1 (all); Ward 2 (all); Pcts. 3-1, 3-3;
Ward 4 (all); Ward 5 (all); Pct. 8-3]
Democrat: ANTHONY W. PETRUCCELLI (incumbent) Republican: FRANK JOHN ADDIVINOLA, JR.
Second Suffolk and Middlesex District [Pcts. 9-2, 9-3, 10-1, 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: STEVEN A. TOLMAN (incumbent)
Democrat: WILLIAM B. FEEGBEH
Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex District [Pct. 3-2; Ward 6 (all); Ward 7 (all): Pcts. 8-1, 8-2, 9-1, 10-2]
Democrat: SAL N. DiDOMENICO (incumbent)
Democrat: TIMOTHY R. FLAHERTY		 Republican: BARBARA T. BUSH
State Representative
Eighth Suffolk District [Pcts. 2-3, 3-3; Ward 5 (all)]
Democrat: MARTHA MARTY WALZ (incumbent) Republican: BRAD MARSTON
Ninth Suffolk District [Pct. 2-2]
Democrat: BYRON RUSHING (incumbent)
24th Middlesex District [Pct. 10-3; Ward 11 (all)]
Democrat: WILLIAM N. BROWNSBERGER (incumbent)
25th Middlesex District [Ward 4 (all); Pcts. 6-2, 6-3; Ward 7 (all); Ward 8 (all); Pcts. 10-1, 10-2]
Democrat: ALICE K. WOLF (incumbent)
26th Middlesex District [Ward 1 (all); Pcts. 2-1, 3-1, 3-2, 6-1]
Democrat: TIMOTHY J. TOOMEY, JR. (incumbent)
29th Middlesex District [Ward 9 (all)]
Democrat: JONATHAN HECHT (incumbent)
District Attorney (Northern District)
Democrat: GERARD T. LEONE, JR. (incumbent)
Sheriff (Middlesex County)
Democrat: JAMES V. DiPAOLA (incumbent)
Coming up in the November 2, 2010 State Election: BALLOT QUESTIONS (Laws Proposed by Initiative Petition)

Question 1: Sales Tax on Alcoholic Beverages

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would remove the Massachusetts sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol, where the sale of such beverages and alcohol or their importation into the state is already subject to a separate excise tax under state law. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2011.

A YES VOTE would remove the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol where their sale or importation into the state is subject to an excise tax under state law.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales tax on alcoholic beverages and alcohol.

Question 2: Comprehensive Permits for Low- or Moderate- Income Housing

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would repeal an existing state law that allows a qualified organization wishing to build government-subsidized housing that includes low- or moderate-income units to apply for a single comprehensive permit from a city or town’s zoning board of appeals (ZBA), instead of separate permits from each local agency or official having jurisdiction over any aspect of the proposed housing. The repeal would take effect on January 1, 2011, but would not stop or otherwise affect any proposed housing that had already received both a comprehensive permit and a building permit for at least one unit.

Under the existing law, the ZBA holds a public hearing on the application and considers the recommendations of local agencies and officials. The ZBA may grant a comprehensive permit that may include conditions or requirements concerning the height, site plan, size, shape, or building materials of the housing. Persons aggrieved by the ZBA’s decision to grant a permit may appeal it to a court. If the ZBA denies the permit or grants it with conditions or requirements that make the housing uneconomic to build or to operate, the applicant may appeal to the state Housing Appeals Committee (HAC).

After a hearing, if the HAC rules that the ZBA’s denial of a comprehensive permit was unreasonable and not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to issue the permit. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s decision issuing a comprehensive permit with conditions or requirements made the housing uneconomic to build or operate and was not consistent with local needs, the HAC orders the ZBA to modify or remove any such condition or requirement so as to make the proposal no longer uneconomic. The HAC cannot order the ZBA to issue any permit that would allow the housing to fall below minimum safety standards or site plan requirements. If the HAC rules that the ZBA’s action was consistent with local needs, the HAC must uphold it even if it made the housing uneconomic. The HAC’s decision is subject to review in the courts.

A condition or requirement makes housing “uneconomic” if it would prevent a public agency or non-profit organization from building or operating the housing except at a financial loss, or it would prevent a limited dividend organization from building or operating the housing without a reasonable return on its investment.

A ZBA’s decision is “consistent with local needs” if it applies requirements that are reasonable in view of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing and the number of low-income persons in the city or town, as well as the need to protect health and safety, promote better site and building design, and preserve open space, if those requirements are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing. Requirements are considered “consistent with local needs” if more than 10% of the city or town’s housing units are low- or moderate-income units or if such units are on sites making up at least 1.5% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town. Requirements are also considered “consistent with local needs” if the application would result, in any one calendar year, in beginning construction of low- or moderate-income housing on sites making up more than 0.3% of the total private land zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use in the city or town, or on ten acres, whichever is larger.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would repeal the state law allowing the issuance of a single comprehensive permit to build housing that includes low- or moderate-income units.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state law allowing issuance of such a comprehensive permit.

Question 3: Sales and Use Tax Rates

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 4, 2010?

SUMMARY: This proposed law would reduce the state sales and use tax rates (which were 6.25% as of September 2009) to 3% as of January 1, 2011. It would make the same reduction in the rate used to determine the amount to be deposited with the state Commissioner of Revenue by non-resident building contractors as security for the payment of sales and use tax on tangible personal property used in carrying out their contracts.

The proposed law provides that if the 3% rates would not produce enough revenues to satisfy any lawful pledge of sales and use tax revenues in connection with any bond, note, or other contractual obligation, then the rates would instead be reduced to the lowest level allowed by law. The proposed law would not affect the collection of moneys due the Commonwealth for sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property or services occurring before January 1, 2011.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would reduce the state sales and use tax rates to 3%.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the state sales and use tax rates.

Where do I vote?

Comment: My general practice is to leave blank any uncontested race. If you are given no choice, why pretend that you have one? – RW

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress