Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 27, 2021

HOW TO BREAK A POLITICAL MACHINE – Collier’s Magazine, Jan 31, 1948

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,history — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:10 pm

The following article was referenced at the Sept 23, 2020 City Council meeting on possible Charter review.

HOW TO BREAK A POLITICAL MACHINE
[Collier’s Magazine, January 31, 1948]

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948
Cambridge’s Board of Directors, which replaced the old City Council after the professors finished their reform wave, has reduced the city debt from twelve to three million, built the highest-paid group of employees in any city of comparable size, reduced taxes and increased and streamlined all the city services

BY JOSEPH F. DINNEEN

The taxpayers of Cambridge, Massachusetts, were paying far too much for far too little until a group of college professors and plain citizens got together and took on the local political machine. It was a tough and glorious scrap, but today Cambridge is one of the best-run cities in the land

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948WE WANT you, Dean Landis, to become the active, working head of a committee to change the charter of the City of Cambridge." The dean of the Harvard Law School was sympathetic, but not interested. He looked at Attorney George McLaughlin and the committee sent to persuade him. "You want me to become a Cambridge city politician," he said, "and I have neither the time nor the inclination to do that. Why pick on me?"

"Because we need a big name. And we need somebody with your kind of ability to head up the fight."

Dean Landis shook his head. "Count me out. I have enough to do without trying to reform the City of Cambridge. Harvard and the city have been fighting for years."

"That’s no reason why Harvard and the city should keep on fighting," McLaughlin persisted. "It’s time they got together. If they don’t, the city will go bankrupt and the professors who live here will find that just as tough as the rest of us. We have a plan to save it, but we want you to help us put it across."

"Why me? And what’s the plan?" The plan which McLaughlin outlined on that day in July, 1938, was simple. But putting it into operation started one of the fanciest political slugging matches the old city across the Charles River had ever seen.

The reason McLaughlin had helped organize forty-nine professors, industrialists, merchants, legionnaires, white-collar workers and laborers into a Committee of Fifty to back the plan, was that they well knew the sad state into which the City of Cambridge had fallen: They had seen the firemen in discarded letter carriers’ uniforms answering alarms with equipment so old it often broke down before it reached the fire; they had driven over the rutted and littered streets and had been stopped cold when unremoved snow made them impassable in winter; they had’ smelled the city when garbage and refuse lay for days without being collected. And they had felt it in their pocketbooks as the taxes inched higher and higher.

The Committee of Fifty had been organized after the first move to correct these abuses had been taken by a team of Harvard experts in government and progressive Massachusetts legislators. This step had been to get the state legislature to pass an act allowing any city to adopt Plan E, the city-manager form of charter, if it voted to do so.

Previously this form of government, which had been pioneered in Cincinnati, Ohio, and had been replacing corrupt municipal machines with streamlined, efficient administration in various other cities throughout the country ever since, had been unavailable to Massachusetts cities. Now that Plan E was available, the Committee of Fifty proposed to arouse the citizens of Cambridge to the point where they’d toss out the city administration and charter and vote in a new order. They well knew that they had a fight ahead of them.

"Mayor John W. Lyons doesn’t know yet that Plan E is poison to him and to all other political bosses," McLaughlin told Landis. "But as soon as we start working to get the people to vote for it, he will. His political machine will start rolling to kill it and he’ll fight as he never fought before because Plan E means his finish."

Dean Landis accepted the job of heading the Committee of Fifty.

McLaughlin was right. Mayor Lyons, Paul Mannos, his chief contractor, who was being investigated by the district attorney and the members of the city council woke up screaming.

The first moves of the opposition made them laugh. James McCauley Landis was going around Cambridge, dropping in at taverns and saloons, chatting with truck drivers and bartenders, talking to them about Plan E, explaining it, discussing it, sounding them out. James Michael Landis, they called him, a comparison to James Michael Curley that they knew he would not like.

A Machine of Nonpoliticians

Nevertheless the new kind of machine that was growing in Cambridge bewildered Mayor Lyons. Its leaders were not politicians. None of them had ever been elected to public office; they were a collection of educators and businessmen swelled by an assortment of nobodies from all wards. They sponsored no candidate, but he knew they were out to defeat him. They didn’t say so. They held political rallies, advocating the adoption of a new and fantastic form of city charter. Dean Landis, the three lawyer McLaughlins, George, Walter and Charles, were a flying squadron buzzing around to clubrooms, the Y.M.C.A. and church groups explaining it in detail, while speakers from the League of Women Voters were missionaries among the women.

Mayor Lyons examined the proposed city-charter and was astonished. It deprived a mayor of all power and made him merely the ceremonial head of the city. It would end a system of contract awards and city contractors. It would make the city council a board of directors of the city corporation and pay each one of them an unheard-of $4,000 a year. It did away with the system of marking a cross on a ballot and permitted every voter to vote for every candidate in a system known as proportional representation. The voter simply put a number one after his first choice, number two after the second and so on down the list.

It was election year and the proponents were trying to get the charter on the ballot. That required the signatures of 10 per cent of the voters —5,000 persons. The mayor and the city contractors were determined to keep it off the ballot at any cost.

"This is a bold and barefaced attempt to overturn our form of government," the mayor shouted from platforms and street-corner rostrums. "This is Communism. This system was designed in Moscow and approved by Stalin. This is a pernicious attempt by the Harvard Reds to destroy the American way."

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948
The brothers McLaughlin, Charles, George and Walter (left to right), were ringleaders in the fight to organize a group which could oust the political machine. All lawyers, they handled their forces like generals

"There’s nothing Communistic  about it," the McLaughlins, Dean Landis and a growing corps of speakers answered from the same and other platforms. "It was adapted from democratic systems in Ireland and England by Charles P. Taft to cure corruption and mismanagement in Cincinnati 15 years ago. He added American improvements and refinements and it put Cincinnati back on its feet." As Election Day came nearer, the fight became hot and bitter. Public speakers for Plan E making whirlwind campaign tours around the city came out of meeting places to find the air let out of their tires. A paving block was hurled through the window of the home of one of the speakers. But the Civic Association, which had grown out of the Committee of Fifty, kept on growing.

Already there were more than enough signatures to put on the ballot the question: "Shall Cambridge accept Plan E?" The signatures were filed as required with the State Ballot Law Commission, and verified. There was a deadline established by law —Saturday, October 8th, midnight— when all legal election forms must be completed in time to have ballots printed and distributed. Time was running out and suddenly the Committee of Fifty spotted an unintended booby trap in the state law covering referendums. This was a provision that "the city clerk upon the vote of the council" must transmit a petition for a referendum to the Secretary of State.

"How do we lick this one?" George McLaughlin asked the dean of the Law School. "How can we compel a hostile council to vote a proposal to wipe itself out?"

"A writ of mandamus?" the dean suggested.

"A writ of mandamus is an instrument to compel an official to do a purely administrative act, like making a police chief appoint a cop from a civil service list. Has a writ of mandamus ever been issued to compel a legislative body to pass a yes or no vote?" McLaughlin asked. "I doubt it."

"The courts never interfere with the legislative branch of the government, I’ll agree," Landis said, "but in this case it can be argued. Is this particular vote a legislative or administrative act? You’ll have to reason your way through that one."

On the Tuesday before deadline, the city council met and adjourned without taking any action on the petition. Its next regular meeting would not be held until the Tuesday after the deadline had passed; but Boston and Cambridge newspapers were so scornful and there was now such an impressive number of Plan E supporters throughout the city that the council became uneasy. The president of the council announced that he would call a special meeting to act on the petition on Friday, 24 hours before deadline.

On Friday the strategy of the opposition became clear. Groups of citizens appeared at the Ballot Law Commission to question the validity of signatures on the Plan E petition, alleging wholesale forgeries. The commission protested the lateness of the hour and inquired indignantly why the objections had not been made earlier; but the charges had to be investigated. The commission set ID o’clock next morning for a hearing.

That night the council met again and refused to vote to send the petition along to the Secretary of State.

"We couldn’t," members said. "The petition is now in litigation. It may turn out to be invalid."

Writ of Mandamus Sought

There was a council of war in the cellar of George McLaughlin’s house. "What do you suggest now?" McLaughlin asked Dean Landis. "You’re the chairman of this committee."

"We’ll go after the writ of mandamus."

"Good!" McLaughlin agreed. "I’ve been canvassing that possibility all week. I can’t find a single important legal mind in Boston or Cambridge who thinks it can be done. They all say you can’t get a writ of mandamus for that purpose and they all say there isn’t time. The courts move too slow."

Landis nodded. "Let’s speed them up."

Collier's Magazine - Jan 31, 1948
Harvard Law School’s Dean Landis was a hard man to convince, but finally he got mad

Organization began right away. Judges were consulted and lawyers enlisted that night. At five o’clock the following morning, the three McLaughlins were in their office facing Suffolk County Courthouse in Boston typing out subpoenas for every person who filed an objection to signatures and for all thirteen members of the city council. There were two jurisdictions involved, Suffolk, which is Boston, and Middlesex, Cambridge. Fifteen lawyers with 15 constables attached were deployed in strategic places around the city, at the Statehouse, the two courthouses, in a district attorney’s office, in drugstores by pay stations and in police stations.

It was their job to channel and chart the case through the Ballot Law Commission and all of the courts to the Supreme Court before the stroke of midnight. In the early morning hours, constables and lawyers were combing Cambridge picking up the objectors and city councilors, and by 10 o’clock that morning they had all been herded before the commission—all except those objectors who apparently lived on vacant lots or were unknown at the addresses given. Some who were awakened in their beds or were disturbed at breakfast didn’t know what their objections were nor how to sustain them.

Justice on the Move

Three lawyers had been assigned to the Ballot Law Commission, and as they called witnesses, one by one their objections dissipated. By 11 o’clock in the morning, the petition was cleared and made legal. The wheels of justice had been speeded up as they never had been in local judicial history. While the ballot law hearing was going on, three more lawyers were piloting the petition for a writ of mandamus through to the courts.

According to the timetable, the court orders directing the councilors to appear should have been in Boston in time to serve them upon the city councilors as the Ballot Law Commission hearing broke up; but the orders were late, or the hearing ended too soon, and the councilors got away. Not far, though. The legal squadron knew where to pick them up from hour to hour.

By 1 o’clock the preliminary hearing on the writ of mandamus before a single justice was over, and he agreed to convene the full bench of the Supreme Court by 3 o’clock. Once again the three lawyers opposite the Boston courthouse began typing—this time turning out writs for the other 12 lawyers to serve on the councilors.

Harvard was playing Princeton that afternoon. Each Cambridge city councilor is entitled to two seats for every Harvard stadium game. As each councilor walked over the Larz Anderson Bridge that afternoon, a lawyer spotted him, pointed him out to his constable. The constable stepped up, saluted the councilor with "Greetings!" and slapped the writ in his hand.

At 3 o’clock a disappointed, dejected and bewildered city council was standing before Supreme Court Justice Dolan. The full bench had already reviewed the petition and Justice Dolan had been assigned to hear the arguments and dispose of the case. City Solicitor Richard C. Evarts, a good lawyer, represented the council, but he had had no time to prepare his case. Justice Dolan issued the writ directing the council to meet before midnight.

There was still one loophole. The councilors might refuse to hold a meeting because they had not been served legal notice of the court’s order. Once again the typewriter battery of lawyers went to work, and that evening, while the councilors were home for dinner, notice was served upon each of them.

The council met at 7:30 that night, and although there was nothing the members could do but pass the order, they debated it for two and a half hours. The deadline was then two hours away and the order still had to be written and signed. The city clerk was a trustworthy and efficient official, but the eyes of a company of lawyers were upon him from the moment he received the document until he left the building. When he came out of City Hall to drive to the Statehouse, he found himself boxed on all sides by accompanying cars. The Plan E committee was taking no chances that something untoward might befall him. He arrived to deposit the document with the Secretary of State exactly 15 minutes before deadline.

Early in the morning after election, when the last vote had been counted. Dean Landis was sitting on a table in Plan E campaign headquarters, swinging his legs idly, drinking a cup of stale coffee from a near-by urn, looking down at the floor thoughtfully, surrounded by a group of disconsolate campaign workers. Plan E had lost.

"What do we do now?" one of them asked.

The dean got down from the table. "Now we start working to put this over two years from now. Get out the cards. Organize the mailing list. Announce the next meeting and arrange it. We lost fairly. We weren’t counted out. We didn’t have enough voles. Next time we’ll have enough votes."

Before the next campaign had arrived, District Attorney Robert Bradford had closed in on Mayor Lyons and Contractor Mannos and sent them to jail for soliciting bribes, a conviction that helped make him governor. The Cambridge Civic Association had swelled to overwhelming proportions, and the campaign was even more bitter. On a night in late October, Dean Landis and George McLaughlin were sitting in an automobile on the fringe of an opposition rally, listening to a councilor plead and fight for votes. The councilor espied Landis and pointed him out to the crowd.

“There’s Dean Landis in an automobile over there with Georgie McLaughlin," he said. "James Michael Landis. He came to me the other day and he said to me: ‘If you’ll support Plan E, I’ll deliver to you the support of the Cambridge Civic Association,’ and I said to him, ‘No, Dean. You can’t bribe me.’ "

Accusation Stirs Landis

The dean was reaching for the door and at the same time shucking off his coat. "He can’t get away with that," he said.

McLaughlin pulled him back. "Wait a minute! Cool off."

"He’s a bar," the dean struggled to get loose.

"The people he’s talking to know that. What are you going to do? Mix it up with him? Clip him on the chin? That’ll give you a lot of personal satisfaction tonight, and tomorrow you’ll be all over front pages for having a brawl with a candidate." The dean subsided and McLaughlin drove away.

Plan E won that year, and the following year the Civic Association put the plan into operation. The first board of directors, which took the place of the city council, hired as city manager John B. Atkinson, World War I veteran, Boston College graduate and an experienced executive in the shoe business. He had never been in politics and had never managed a city. The first thing he did was to throw all of the city contractors and hangers-on out of City Hall. Then he called all city employees before him.

"The city," he told them, "is now under new management. No city employee is going to be fired. From now on, you don’t need any political influence to hold your job and political influence won’t get you advancement or more money. What you’re going to be paid depends upon what you do and how you do it. Everybody working for this city is getting a raise in pay right now. The cost of living is going up—and you need it—but you’re going to earn it.

"From now on you’re going to do all the work that has to be done in this city – including the work that has been done in the past by city contractors and subcontractors and their employees. From now on, you’ll get a raise every year until you’re the best-paid city employees in the country. From there on, the size of your salary is up to yourself."

The employees liked that. The local unions did not; but they couldn’t do much about it. Atkinson needed a number of specialists in city administration and picked them among city employees, even sending them to colleges for special training. The new city road builders got their fundamental training in techniques in road building and surfacing at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose professors and instructors had a stake in Cambridge city government. He appointed college professors, specialists and instructors to nonpaying advisory posts. The city’s postwar plan, advanced and ambitious, was designed by Professor Frederick J. Adams of MIT, who became the head of the Cambridge Planning Board.

During the past seven years every job done in Cambridge has been done by its own hired hands with this result: Since 1941 the city reduced its debt from $12,000,000 to $3,000,000, and at the same time raised the salaries of all of its city employees $1,300,000, actually making them the best paid in any city of comparable size in the world. It reduced its tax rate from $48 to $35.50 without raising the values of its taxable properties. While cutting the city’s debt 75 per cent and reducing its tax rate—unheard of and considered to be impossible during war and postwar years when all costs were climbing—the city also did this:

Built eleven playgrounds and a new bathing beach; junked all of its obsolete fire-fighting and police equipment, replacing it with the latest and best apparatus obtainable, including the last word in two-way radio transmitters and receivers; modernized, re-equipped and enlarged its City Hospital, including the latest and most elaborate X ray; bought a fleet of sanitation trucks that are washed down daily and repainted white frequently; hired architects for G.I.s and built 1,200 modern housing units for them (not obsolete barracks, jerry-built shacks or Quonset huts); resurfaced more yards of streets in five years than all other cities of comparable size in 15 years.

Cambridge has its own printing plant, manned and operated by city employees. It prints everything for the city from stationery to books. It has its own photostat plant, which turns out copies of documents, plans and blueprints for city departments. The city incinerator was always an expensive loss, as was the garbage-disposal plant. The incinerator now pays the city a profit of $36,000 a year, while the garbage-disposal plant turns in a profit of $8,500. By businesslike methods, it increased the income of its City Hospital from $121,000 to $360,000 a year.

City employees do everything: painting, paper hanging, plumbing, repairing and building. The city furnishes the materials; the employees do the rest. Cambridge employs a staff of buyers who roam and scour the country picking up supplies in competition with contractors and private business. For $200,000 recently these roving purchasing agents picked up from Army and Navy surplus stores supplies that would otherwise cost $2,000,000.

The Cambridge City Corporation is hardboiled and tough with its debtors. Its crack law department collects every penny owed the city by the State of Massachusetts and by surrounding cities and towns in water, electric, transit and other tax adjustments. The law department fights rather than settles all doubtful claims against the city. For example, claims from people tripping over sidewalks have dropped from $48,000 a year to $15,000 a year because the city lawyers will fight the full distance to the Supreme Court if necessary. The city is just as tough with its own delinquent taxpayers and collects 99 per cent of its taxes from them. On last August 1st, it had less than one per cent miscellaneous taxes outstanding, and a phenomenal zero outstanding real-estate and personal taxes.

Speculators and Rent Gougers Hit

Valuations of homes, industrial and business establishments were left severely alone, except when speculators and rent gougers were involved. When a man sold for $12,000 a place that was worth $2,500 on the city’s tax books, they looked into it right away. If it was worth $12,000 to the new buyer it was worth almost that to the tax collector and the speculator was promptly slugged with the new tax bill. If a property owner raised rents, he was treated the same way. New businesses and new industries have been crowding Cambridge so fast that it’s a problem to find quartet’s for them.

The city doesn’t borrow any long-term money. It saves the interest. Its credit is probably better than that of any other city in the country.

Cambridge has become a phenomenal experiment in city government. The resources and laboratories of MIT test all of its building and road materials, equipment and machinery. Problems in physical improvement are for MIT students to solve. The Littauer School of Government, with Professor Morris Lambie as adviser, helps on problems of government and city betterment.

Hand in glove with the Civic Association is the Cambridge Research Association to examine all aspects of city government. Dr. Karl T. Compton, president of MIT, his administrative assistant, Robert Kimball, and Bernice Cronkhite, former dean of Radcliffe College, are members of the board of directors of the Research Association while President James Bryant Conant of Harvard is an ordinary, dues-paying member of the Civic Association.

Meetings of the Civic Association are almost unbelievable. A federal judge sits between a truck driver, and a housemaid, and a professor of archaeology drapes himself over a radiator next to a cop.

The old system dies hard, but in Plan E, according to Professor Lambie, the entrenched politician skilled in yesteryear’s technique can see the curtain falling on the city-boss type of government. "A political machine can’t operate under Plan E," says Lambie. "Good or bad government originates with the people of any community, but the fact that the people of a community want good government doesn’t mean that they’ll get it. They’ll get good government only if there is a charter and an election system in power through which they can function."

THE END

March 18, 2021

Rites and Rongs of Spring – March 22, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

Rites and Rongs of Spring – March 22, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here’s my vernal-eyed view of this week’s proceedings:First Sign of Spring

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update on vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #4. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the City Manager’s COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

Still searching for that vaccination. Preregistered for Covid vaccine. Got a call telling me to call 211 to book an appointment. Called 211 and was told there are no appointments available. So what was the call about? This is typical Massachusetts. Who can I bribe to get a vaccination appointment? (I’m age-eligible.)


Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant received from MAPC in the amount of $52,250 which will be used for technical assistance for 1) planning and permitting the expansion of the floating wetland pilot in the Charles; 2) outlining and disseminating a permitting road map and lessons learned that can enable similar capital, resiliency projects; and 3) engagement with the wider community to support understanding of water quality and to inform the expansion process.
Order Adopted 9-0

I really do like projects like this, but as long as it’s now OK to put things in the river, how about a floating boardwalk on the back side of the Museum of Science garage to create a quiet pedestrian connection on the river away from the traffic on the Craigie Bridge? Decades have now passed since this idea was “floated.”


Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance. [DPR letter] [proposed ordinance changes]
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (Toomey – NO)

On the Table #5. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (Toomey – NO)

On the Table #6. The Health & Environment Committee met on Nov 10, 2020 to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (Toomey – NO)

Among the shortcomings in the proposed revised Tree Protection Ordinance is that it only considers single lots in isolation. The removal of a "significant tree" on one lot would trigger significant cost or tree replacements on that lot even if the removal might be greatly beneficial to trees on an adjacent lot. There are also no guidelines regarding what might be considered dangerous, e.g. very close proximity to a building. Prior to ordination there should also be provided a list of some examples with actual costs so that people can get a sense of the potential burdens that may be imposed on homeowners.


Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2021 and ending Mar 31, 2022. [City Manager letter]
Order Adopted 9-0

Water rates are proposed to go up 1% and sewer rates are proposed to go up 8% for a combined increase of 6.5%. For the lowest block, it’ll cost you $3.05 to buy 750 gallons of water and $13.51 to get rid of it.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to suggested zoning text amendments as well as amendments to Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code regarding cannabis delivery businesses. [Law Department memo] [Zoning text] [Municipal Code]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

The proposed zoning and ordinance changes replace the recently expired zoning proposal. Though I don’t oppose any of the individual proposed cannabis business locations I often think about what the cumulative effect of all of this might be. Cambridge doesn’t generally do a very good job of considering The Big Picture when pushing their favored few things, and cannabis has definitely been a favored thing over the last few years among councillors.

Resolution #6. Standing in Solidarity with Asian Community and Condemning White Supremacy.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey
Adopted as Amended 9-0

I don’t suppose you’ll find anyone around here who supports any of the things that this Order condemns, but both "Resolved" statements in the resolution draw conclusions that may not necessarily be true.

Order #1. Opposing wood-burning biomass plants.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. In Support of the FARE Act.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted 9-0

This proposal would make public transit free on the days of all statewide primary and general elections. The idea of making it free every day is not actually insane.

Order #3. Making Remote Participation in City Council Meetings Permanent.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Adopted as Amended 9-0

I’m pretty sure that remote participation is here to stay in some form or another regardless of this City Council order. There are a few observations I might make about the whole experience. First, it does provide more equitable access to public meetings, so I guess that’s a positive from a democracy point of view. On the other hand, it has facilitated what I sometimes call “democracy by the pound” where tech-savvy organizers can marshal their troops to read scripted comments from the comfort of home. Like the much-maligned-of-late and far-to-easy-to-invoke filibuster rule, I generally leans toward having at least minor hurdles to increase the fraction of serious democratic participants and ideas. Perhaps showing up in person to a meeting isn’t the only way to do this and we have seen ill-informed parades of actual people at public meetings in recent years carrying the flag of their various noble causes. The depth of the pond just seems more shallow of late. On balance, I’d say that ensuring some remote participation is still a good thing – especially for those who may be physically less able to make their way to the Sullivan Chamber or other civic venue. I still prefer to do things in person.

There’s another aspect of this virtual zoom-government that I consider to be a Big Problem. Citizens may get to tune in to watch the political equivalent of Hollywood Squares and maybe even give their 120 seconds of public comment before being muted with no opportunity for rebuttal (which you could always do in person outside the Sullivan Chamber). They may even be able to watch the recorded meetings in their leisure time. However, Open Meeting Law or not, there’s a lot of deliberation and decision-making that now takes place out of public view. Significant proposals often simply rise out of the virtual firmament and the public gets to react far more than it gets a chance to act and often too late to make any real difference. Neighborhood listservs have become the dreadful forum of action and reaction in which the loudest voices take up a lot more space than rational discussion. Social media campaigns have become the norm, and much of it is indistinguishable from propaganda.

Order #5. Opposing The MBTA Service Cuts.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Adopted as Amended 9-0

This is one of those cases where both sides are right. It sucks to cut back on public transportation while there’s still a pandemic, but because of the pandemic the ridership is a fraction of what it used to be and it’s crazy to be operating empty and near-empty trains and buses. Perhaps a Reality Compromise can be found. It’s not all about “winning.”

Committee Report #1. The Public Safety Committee met on Oct 14, 2020 to discuss traffic enforcement and Order #14 of July 27, 2020.
Accept Report, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 28, 2020 to discuss the Real Estate Transfer Home Rule Petition.
Accept Report, Placed on File 9-0

The more I think about this the less I like it – even though it would likely not affect me personally (unless the redistributionists really go wild). In truth, I don’t like any revenue proposal that dedicates all the revenue to a single purpose, e.g. subsidized housing. It takes decisions about financial priorities out of the hands of the local legislature. I’m even having second thoughts about the Community Preservation Act for similar reasons. The rumor is that this Home Rule Petition doesn’t stand a chance in the State Legislature, though some believe that it could lead to enabling legislation that might allow any city or town to sock it to the seller. I hope not. Local control does not necessarily translate into fairness.

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Feb 11. 2021 to conduct a public hearing a petition to amend Article 8.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.
Accept Report, Placed on File 9-0; Passed to 2nd Reading

This is more of a technical correction based on recent court opinions and will like be passed to a 2nd Reading and ordained in a few weeks.

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui and Vice Mayor Mallon transmitting information about a Commercial Composting Pilot Program in Cambridge. [Cambridge Table to Farm Commercial Composting Report] [Cambridge Table to Farm Composting Fact Sheet]
Placed on File 9-0

I generally find this to be a good proposal, but there is a part of me who wonders whether this is more about cost avoidance for small businesses than it is about environmental salvation.

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting an update on the Charter Assessment Review. [Siddiqui memo] [Collins Center memo] [Appendices]
Placed on File 9-0

I piped up about this at last week’s Government Operations Committee meeting about the initial steps of the city manager search process. It seems a bit awkward to be talking about hiring the next city manager at the same time that some councillors are privately (and publicly) talking about shifting more power to themselves by possibly moving away from a city manager form of government. That would be a dreadful outcome, but once again that problem of invisibility behind the Zoom screen rears its ugly head. Overturning a system that has worked well for 80 years is not something that should be considered lightly.

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

With all this talk about searching for an interim school superintendent and then a "permanent" school superintendent in addition to the initial steps to search for the next city manager, all I can think of is John Wayne, Natalie Wood, and Jeffrey Hunter. – Robert Winters

March 16, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 495-496: March 16, 2021

Episode 495 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 16, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Mar 16, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Heros of Central Square through the pandemic; flexibility w/City agencies as a philosphy; Arts & Music, busk stops, and what is to come. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 496 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 16, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Mar 16, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Popportunity and its progeny; Starlight Square; city manager search; charter change and the lust for power; Covid-19 updates and the misreading of data; real human services; Cambridge schools during Covid; School Superintendent search. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

March 8, 2021

Getting to know your job (or not) – Preview of the March 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:08 pm

Getting to know your job (or not) – Preview of the March 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

When you have watched the Cambridge City Council for over three decades (as I have) you develop certain expectations. For example, when there are no City Council orders calling for the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi, you start to worry if everyone is feeling OK or if they are in need of some intervention. You also come to expect a fair number of poorly-researched "drive-by orders" asking the City Manager and staff to dedicate many hours to explore some barely-formed notion that someone heard about in Santa Monica or elsewhere. I’m reasonably OK with the latter (mainly because I don’t have to follow up on the requests for information), but I have always found the former (foreign intervention) to be just a bit out of the range of the role of the City Council. This week we’ll hear about farmers in India.City Hall

Another common situation is the failure of some city councillors to understand what they can and cannot do under our Plan E Charter. In recent months we have seen efforts to micromanage City departments – most notably the License Commission and the Police Department (CPD), but also the Public Health Department. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, in particular, has repeatedly expressed his frustration when five councillors expressing a point of view fails to result in all hands on deck carrying it out. In other words, his notion of a city manager is to not actually be a manager but rather a messenger incapable of making managerial decisions regarding logistics, financing, approving contracts, labor negotiation or much of anything else – as if doing so is somehow a breakdown in “democracy”.

One case in point this week is seen in the responses from the City Solicitor regarding whether the Cambridge City Council can forbid the use of tear gas by CPD (which it hasn’t actually used for nearly half a century). It’s now essentially a moot point thanks to recent state legislation and CPD policies restricting its use, but the Solicitor does take the councillors to school regarding the limits of Council authority in matters such as this. I generally find the expressed dichotomies of some councillors to be willfully ignorant. They may see this as a choice between peaceful negotiation and tear gas, but the significant choice really only comes up in a full-scale riot or insurrection when it’s a choice between lethal and non-lethal force – and it’s good to have non-lethal options in that case.

Some councillors a few weeks ago expressed frustration regarding the role of the License Commission in managing potential conflicts regarding live entertainment and enforcement of the Noise Ordinance in allowing acoustic music without a license. It’s great that the City Council wants to recommend some changes, but they also have the luxury of never having to adjudicate the conflicts. That said, the License Commission seems to have understood the desired goals and they are now proposing ways to realize those goals while still being able to adjudicate conflicts – something that is definitely not the job of a city councillor.

It is entirely proper for a city councillor to second-guess the decisions of the City Manager and his staff. It would also be proper for a councillor or even a majority of councillors to tell the Manager that they think one of his departments is dysfunctional. If the Manager remains unresponsive, a simple majority of the City Council can even exercise its nuclear option and send the Manager packing. On the other hand, if a city councillor chooses to bypass the Manager and directly browbeat a department head or other employee, that might actually cross the line into felony territory. Councillors need to know their limitations. That goes for their aides as well.

Here are the visible highlights this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting COVID-19 Update Questions.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. Mobile Vaccines Policy Order.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #2. Waiving Business Fees.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. Honoring the Cambridge Lives Lost to COVID-19.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

The City’s many responses to the pandemic continue. Vaccinations are increasing and there is light at the end of the tunnel, but the 7-day averages of new cases are no longer decreasing – and this is a cause for some concern. It may be the presence of virus variants, and I’m sure the count will soon be decreasing again. In the meantime, we remain vigilant – and hopeful.

And soon there will be baseball.


Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the Green Roofs Ordinance (Oliver, et al.) Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

The Planning Board recommends against adoption of this petition in its present form. While the intentions of the petitioners are to be respected, the petition is highly deficient in terms of definitions, practical considerations regarding maintenance and cost, and how the proposed requirements would interact with code requirements related to safety, accessibility, and building mechanical systems. It’s also unclear how this proposal dovetails with existing zoning regulations and other proposals now under consideration.


Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Calendar Item Number 2 dated Nov 2, 2020, which requested draft ordinance language to prohibit the use of tear gas in Cambridge.
Placed on File 9-0

“I am of the opinion that the authority to dictate what weapons are used by Cambridge police officers when carrying out their official duties, under the City’s Plan E Charter and its Home Rule powers, rests with the City Manager and not the City Council; that future changes in weapons and equipment already in use by the Police Department would likely be subject to collective bargaining as to the impact of such changes; and that an ordinance restricting police officers from carrying assault weapons would thus be invalid as inconsistent with or frustrating the purposes of State law.” — That sums it up pretty well. Both responses from the City Solicitor are worth reading.

Charter Right #2. Task Force Transparency. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 (Order #2 of Mar 1, 2021)]
Adopted as Amended by Simmons Substitution 9-0
[after QZ amendment to have joint meeting w/Public Safety Committee failed 3-6 (DC,JSW,QZ – YES)]

Regarding the Task Force, I’ll repeat what I said last week: “Apparently Councillor Zondervan and I have the same wish but likely for diametrically opposite reasons. I have been asking to get access to these meetings (or at least the recordings) of the new Task Force on the Future of Public Safety, and apparently now so is he. My concern is that I don’t want to see problematic people dominating the conversation, and I suspect Councillor Zondervan may desire to ensure the exact opposite. Public Safety, in my view, translates into an improved police force sharing specific responsibilities with others as appropriate. Others openly express a desire to abolish police entirely. That’s a non-starter for me and not a plausible outcome of this process, but I would like to at least sample the dialogue.”


Charter Right #3. Shelter Wages. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 (Order #4 of Mar 1, 2021)]
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Again, repeating what I said last week: “I have no idea what constitutes an appropriate wage for people who work at the 240 Albany Street wet shelter, but it’s not a City-owned facility and it serves the region and not just Cambridge residents. My understanding is that the City’s Living Wage Ordinance applies to people working for the City and to companies bidding on City contracts. Does this describe how the Bay Cove (formerly CASPAR) shelter operates? This is not the only facility they operate. [“Each year, Bay Cove provides services to more than 25,000 individuals and families who face the challenges of developmental and intellectual disabilities, mental illness, substance use disorder, homelessness and/or aging, at more than 170 program sites in Metro Boston and southeastern Massachusetts.”] There are waiver provisions in the ordinance. I’m curious to see how this plays out. After all, there are other shelter facilities in Cambridge that are not funded via City contracts. Would they all then be obliged to raise wages even if their funding sources cannot support it?”


On the Table #7. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. [TABLED IN COUNCIL MAR 1, 2021 BY COUNCILLOR ZONDERVAN]

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee met on Nov 10, 2020 to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Tabled 9-0 (Zondervan)

Once again, I hope that this City Council will somehow see the wisdom in not overly restricting reasonable choices of homeowners or burdening them with unreasonable costs.


Unfinished Business #9. The City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the City of Cambridge Law Department to review the above changes to the language of the Domestic Partnerships Ordinance and report back to the Council. [PASSED TO A SECOND READING IN COUNCIL JULY 27, 2020. TO BE ORDAINED ON OR AFTER SEPT 14, 2020]
Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 20, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on amendments to the Domestic Partnership Ordinance.
Placed on File 9-0; Ordained as Amended 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

It looks like this may be ordained after many months of discussion. I’ll withhold my opinion regarding the need for such detailed revision.


Order #4. That the Cambridge City Council goes on record in support of the farmer protests in India.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

See my remarks above.


Order #5. That the City Manager consult relevant staff to implement universal Pre-K in Cambridge.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This has been in the works for some time, and I look forward to seeing what the detailed implementation of this goal will actually looks like as we eventually emerge from this Covid nightmare. I suspect there will be plenty of nuance – in part informed by having a pre-K Montessori School on one side of me and a Rock & Roll Daycare on the other side of me and an elementary school building across the street. Any comprehensive plan will have to integrate new options with existing options in a way that parents and taxpayers can afford. – Robert Winters

November 17, 2020

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 479-480: November 17, 2020

Episode 479 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 17, 2020 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:00pm. Topics: Presidential Election Results and Reflections; coming to terms with those who voted for the other guy; mandates and conflict; Blue vs. Grey or Red vs. Blue; social media and the importance of journalism you can trust – both nationally and locally; The Grifter as Anti-President. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 480 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 17, 2020 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Nov 17, 2020 at 6:30pm. Topics: RCV fails; COVID – more than just an “uptick”, causes, COVID fatigue, MIT & Harvard, controversy over Late Order calling for shutdown; City Council Aides discussion – history, suggestions, political patronage, and pushing limits of Plan E. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 6, 2020

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 473-474: October 6, 2020

Episode 473 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 6, 2020 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:10pm. Topics: Topics from Oct 5 City Council meeting; AHO; Cycling Safety Ordinance; Cambridge Bicycle Plan; Bus-Only Lanes; Shared Streets; Blowfish; Coronagendas; bar/restaurant closures. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 474 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 6, 2020 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on Oct 6, 2020 at 6:30pm. Topics: Topics from Oct 5 City Council meeting; police alternatives; “Defund Police” vs. promote best practices; Charter Review; 80-year track record for Plan E; City Councillor job description. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

September 21, 2020

All Things Reconsidered… at the Sept 21, 2020 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:27 am

All Things Reconsidered… at the Sept 21, 2020 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are a few items of note up for consideration (or reconsideration) at this week’s meeting:City Hall

Reconsideration #1. That the city council extend the current contract with city manager Louis DePasquale for a period of 18 months.
Reconsideration Failed 3-6 (Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan – YES)

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Councillor Nolan, transmitting a memorandum on Filing for Reconsideration.
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a communication from the City Solicitor with a red-lined corrected version and a clean corrected version of the proposed contract that was before the City Council at its meeting of Monday, September 14, 2020.
Contract Approved 6-3 (Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zondervan – NO); Reconsideration Fails 9-0

Reconsideration of a hasty vote is entirely proper. However, regarding taking a raise during a pandemic, there’s this (as of July 1, 2020 – during pandemic – according to Open Data Portal):

Councillor salary increased by $2,253 to $85,844 (2.7% increase)
Mayor’s salary increased by $3,365 to $128,194 (2.7% increase)
Council Aide increased by $14,890 to $67,831 (28.1% increase) – partially deferred due to COVID
plus benefits for all.

The rhetoric from Councillor Nolan and some activists suggests that there was great confusion associated with the final contract proposal introduced only very late and approved during last Monday’s meeting. It’s true that those details should have been available long before that – maybe even weeks before – but almost all of the proposed contract is the same as the previous contract, including the annual 2.5% raises on July 1 of each year – the same as other City employees, including city councillors (see above). The only deviations are (a) that there should be a 2.5% increase at the signing of the contract; (b) the end date of the contract is July 5, 2022 (just 5 days after the final 2.5% raise); and (c) the removal of the provision for annual evaluations – which is not surprising given the fact that all indications are that this is a terminal contract extension.

My sense, and I have not spoken with anyone about this, is that the additional increases are more like consolation for an incredibly qualified city manager who is receiving a terminal contract extension for the most superficial of political reasons. There will be another municipal election a year from now and we can only hope that (a) some better candidates emerge who are more than just single-issue revolutionaries; and (b) that Cambridge voters somehow come to realize that City government is about more than just a few predictable hot-button issues. Maybe a big jump in residential property taxes will wake some voters from their slumber, but that likely won’t raise even an eyebrow among other voters not actually writing the check to the City – even if the increases are factored into their rent.


Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 20-39 and 20-40, regarding contacting the new owners of Jerry’s Pond and discussing next steps in the potential restoration and improvements to Jerry’s Pond and its surrounding areas. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY MAYOR SIDDIQUI IN COUNCIL SEPT 14, 2020]
Referred to NLTP Committee 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Economic Development Department, the Harvard Square Business Association, the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association and Harvard University on the implementation of closing several blocks of streets in Harvard Square as soon as possible to vehicular traffic, with the exception of deliveries, using the attached map as one possible vision. [CHARTER RIGHT EXERCISED BY COUNCILLOR SIMMONS IN COUNCIL SEPT 14, 2020]
Adopted as Amended 8-0-0-1 (Toomey – PRESENT)

By the time any such changes might be implemented it will be late Fall or early Winter and any advantages for Harvard Square businesses will be moot. Maybe these might make sense in the Spring, but hopefully things will be better by then on the COVID front. Also, the particular plan proposed leaves a lot to be desired.

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Cambridge Redevelopment Authority regarding a Zoning Ordinance to reflect the proposed changes to the KSURP.
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

The proposed changes are related to the alternate site within the MXD District for the electrical substation that was the subject of much controversy over the last couple of years. In addition to the siting of the substation, the proposal also adjusts the timing for when previously planned housing will be delivered, increases permissible heights to 250 feet throughout the MXD District with the allowance of up to 400 feet for one residential building, plus other changes.

Order #2. Support for Extended Outdoor Dining PO.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

This Order is about easing the permitting process for the use of outdoor heat lamps in order to allow restaurants to maintain their outdoor operations later into the season.

Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with Claude Jacob, Chief Public Health Officer, as to the feasibility of creating such a program [antibody testing for COVID-19] and report back to the City Council on this matter by Oct 12, 2020.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

I’m not so sure what the added value of extensive COVID-related antibody testing will be at this point, but I look forward to the response from Claude Jacob. Information is great, but primarily if it can be used for a good purpose.

Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to notify all tenants of abutting properties whenever property owners are notified, addressing them by name if known or as “RESIDENT” if not.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I’m sure my tenants will be absolutely captivated by this information judging from all those copies of glossy City publications that go sight unseen into the recycling bin.

Order #7. That the City Council go on record in support for requiring large sources of stormwater pollution to obtain permits under the Clean Water Act.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Good idea, but I think the main sources of pollutants that lead to cyanobacteria blooms are most likely upstream from Cambridge.

And then there’s this:

A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for this Wednesday, September 23 at 5:30pm "to discuss a charter review with representatives of the Collins Center." A number of Cambridge listservs are now actively commenting on the notion of possibly changing the city’s Plan E Charter. I have no idea if there are five votes on the City Council to pursue such a thing, but it does strike me as a strange pursuit based primarily on some city councillors simply not getting their way on every little thing.

I have some questions currently about whether our Proportional Representation election system is actually now producing a representative City Council and School Committee, but I lay the blame for that primarily on the laziness of voters rather than on the election system itself. It’s also a big problem that we typically get candidates for City Council and School committee who are more interested in inflammatory single issues or ideology than they are in helping to effectively guide city government or the public schools. This, of course, has become a problem here and elsewhere regardless of the election system.

Regarding the matter of having professionally managed government with the City Council setting general policies versus a "strong mayor" system, I will simply suggest that you should be careful what you wish for. Strong mayor systems, like Boston, inevitably mean even weaker city councils and if a mayor owes his or her election to a slim majority in a popular election it’s not at all uncommon that those who didn’t vote for the mayor may be entirely shut out. It’s also quite common that once elected, a mayor becomes "mayor for life" – in contrast with our tradition of having the Chair of the City Council and the School Committee turn over with some frequency.

In short, I think it’s good to have an occasional review of the pros and cons of our Plan E Charter, but I wouldn’t trust this current City Council, or the advocacy groups to whom some of them seem to be accountable, to decide on what, if anything, might preferably be changed. – Robert Winters

September 15, 2020

Cambridge InsideOut Episode 472: Sept 15, 2020

Episode 472 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 15, 2020

This episode was broadcast on Sept 15, 2020 at 6:00pm. Topics: Sept 14 Cambridge City Council meeting; Disaster funding for arts organizations?; Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) – passed to 2nd Reading; Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding for FY2021; Charter Review?; Cycling Safety Ordinance amendments; City Manager’s contract extension; Sept 1, 2020 Primary Election Results. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in this episode]

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress