Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 4, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 619-620: June 4, 2024

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Cambridge InsideOut,Central Square,Charter,City Council,planning — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:58 pm

Episode 619 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 4, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on June 4, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Recycling updates, zero waste plan 2.0, Hazardous Waste Day; FY2025 Budget Adopted – nearly a billion dollars, significant increases over time and especially this year; potential tax implications for fall; reorganization of some City departments – Executive and CDD; sizable 34.3% increase in Mayor’s Office budget; Charter Review status and Gov’t Operations Committee; Planning Board appointments and voracious appetite of some city councillors for behind-the-scenes control or public inquisition; Ronayne Petition v. Supersize proposals. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 620 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 4, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on June 4, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Ronayne Petition v. Supersize proposals for residential zoning, legalizing multi-family housing; preference for diversity of housing stock rather than supersize everywhere; turning Cambridge into Flushing and rents don’t go down; artificial affordability via subsidy; Central Square zoning discussions and Central Square Lots Study; lunacy of permitting only low-income housing; naive belief that Starlight Square 2.0 would be compatible with high-density housing; Central Square should be more than a social utility – should be a regional draw, need to involve people who currently don’t want to go to Central Square; the perils of onerous Inclusionary Housing requirements; Historical Commission award for our video, the many things we didn’t include in our video; disappearance of the historical role of the wards; need for a history of the Plan E era. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 2, 2024

Blessing of the Big Budget – June 3, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,City Council,planning — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 9:36 pm

Blessing of the Big Budget – June 3, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Unless the government is overthrown before Monday night, this week’s City Council meeting will have as its central feature the series of votes for approving the FY2025 Budget as well as the major loan authorizations that accompany it. Here are the agenda items I thought significant this week:Fat City Hall

The FY2025 Budget and Loan Authorizations

Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee conducted a public hearing on May 7, 2024, regarding the City budget covering the fiscal period July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. [text of report ]
Nolan notes ignorance of some people re: when Budget comes to a vote, anticipation of more difficult financial decisions in future; Pickett notes that Budget vote will be better advertised in future, concerns about coming tax rates and need to curtail spending, desire to take closer look at capital spending; Wilson has procedural questions and possibility of delaying vote (due to uninformed public comment by one individual); Yi-An Huang expresses concerns about re-opening these matters so late in process; Taha Jennings notes that state law requires budget votes within 45 days of budget submission; Comments by Nolan, Pickett on Public Investment budget; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
General Fund Budget of $939,336,875 Adopted 9-0
Water Fund Budget of $16,247,475 Adopted 9-0
Public Investment Budget of $38,432,720 Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee conducted a public hearing on May 8, 2024, regarding the School Department budget covering the fiscal period July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee conducted a public hearing on May 14, 2024, regarding the City budget covering the fiscal period July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the appropriation and authorization to borrow $11,500,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Comments by Nolan; Loan Order Adopted 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,350,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. Funds will support significant building improvements and deferred maintenance projects. Proposed projects include but are not limited to upgrades of Public Works facilities, municipal offices, youth centers, branch libraries and fire stations, renovations to 105 Windsor Street and upgrades of HVAC and electrical systems. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Loan Order Adopted 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $3,000,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of open spaces at the Peabody School Playground, Corcoran (Raymond Street) Park, Rafferty Park, Wilder-Lee Park, and 359 Broadway. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Comments by Nolan, Pickett; Loan Order Adopted 9-0

Unfinished Business #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,560,000 to provide funds for financing school building upgrades. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Comments by Pickett, Simmons; Loan Order Adopted 9-0

Unfinished Business #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of and authorization to borrow $6,550,000 to provide funds for the Ozone Generator Replacement; Water Treatment Plant equipment and systems upgrades and water works construction projects in coordination with DPW street restoration projects, which include Massachusetts Ave 4, Chestnut, Dana, Sciarappa and Winter Streets. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Loan Order Adopted 9-0

Unfinished Business #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $8,500,000 to provide funds for the sewer Capital Repairs Program and projects related to climate change preparedness efforts. [Passed to 2nd Reading and Referred to Finance Committee, Apr 29, 2024]
Loan Order Adopted 9-0

GENERAL GOVERNMENT FY2024 adopted FY2025 proposed 1 yr % change
City Clerk $1,818,560 $2,162,335 18.9%
City Council $2,649,690 $2,817,000 6.3%
Election Commission $2,408,620 $2,447,755 1.6%
Employee Benefits $28,241,740 $27,111,425 -4.0%
Equity and Inclusion   $2,270,380 new
Executive (*) $8,467,495 $6,845,075 -19.2%
Finance $24,714,165 $26,479,690 7.1%
Human Resources (Personnel) $4,160,630 $5,513,370 32.5%
Law $4,152,645 $4,356,320 4.9%
Mayor $973,255 $1,306,905 34.3%
Public Celebrations $1,621,360 $1,793,575 10.6%
Reserve $40,000 $40,000 0.0%
TOTAL $79,248,160 $83,143,830 4.9%
     
PUBLIC SAFETY FY24 adopted FY25 proposed 1 yr % change
Animal Commission $673,010 $706,165 4.9%
Community Safety $3,036,620 $3,090,825 1.8%
Emergency Communications $10,346,540 $10,930,090 5.6%
Fire $70,461,720 $74,755,005 6.1%
Inspectional Services $5,228,140 $5,544,615 6.1%
License Commission $1,706,185 $2,009,740 17.8%
Police $78,367,440 $80,945,830 3.3%
Police Review & Advisory Board $9,900 $9,900 0.0%
Traffic, Parking & Transportation $16,998,910 $18,077,040 6.3%
TOTAL $186,828,465 $196,069,210 4.9%
     
COMMUNITY MAINT/DEVEL. FY24 adopted FY25 proposed 1 yr % change
Cable T.V. $1,813,725 $1,880,965 3.7%
Capital Building Projects $1,574,415 $1,872,660 18.9%
Community Development (**) $40,890,300 $11,257,750 -72.5%
Conservation Commission – – –
Debt Service $89,585,875 $101,890,280 13.7%
Historical Commission $1,040,215 $1,096,310 5.4%
Housing   $27,834,470 new
Office of Sustainability   $3,143,675 new
Peace Commission $228,225 $237,210 3.9%
Public Works $69,094,590 $73,911,430 7.0%
TOTAL $204,227,345 $223,124,750 9.3%
     
HUMAN RESOURCE/DEVEL. FY24 adopted FY25 proposed 1 yr % change
Commission on Women $345,945 $493,220 42.6%
Human Rights Commission $874,840 $878,550 0.4%
Human Services $59,224,695 $73,251,275 23.7%
Library $18,950,730 $19,391,415 2.3%
Veterans $1,067,600 $1,360,950 27.5%
TOTAL $80,463,810 $95,375,410 18.5%
     
CITY TOTAL $550,767,780 $597,713,200 8.5%
     
EDUCATION FY24 adopted FY25 proposed 1 yr % change
Schools Operating (TOTAL) $245,000,000 $268,250,000 9.5%
     
INTERGOVERNMENTAL FY24 adopted FY25 proposed 1 yr % change
Cambridge Health Alliance $8,316,000 $8,671,170 4.3%
Cherry Sheet Assessments $33,586,010 $33,101,520 -1.4%
MWRA $30,601,130 $31,600,985 3.3%
TOTAL $72,503,140 $73,373,675 1.2%
     
GRAND TOTALS $868,270,920 $939,336,875 8.2%
     
FY24 adopted FY25 proposed 1 yr % change
WATER $15,502,965 $16,247,475 4.8%
PUBLIC INVESTMENT $18,056,905 $38,432,720 112.8%
FY24 adopted FY25 proposed  
Loan Authorizations for Capital Budget $50,000,000 $11,500,000  
  $35,350,000 $4,350,000  
$2,500,000 $3,000,000  
$1,800,000 $2,560,000  
$51,500,000 $6,550,000  
$26,000,000 $8,500,000  
Total Loan Authorizations $167,150,000 $36,460,000  

* 7.7% combined increase for Executive/Equity-Inclusion
** 3.3% combined increase for CDD/Housing/Sustainability

All this should breeze through on either unanimous votes or the typical protest vote from any DSA-affiliates who want to continue beating that old “defund the police” horse. I am far more concerned about the residential tax bills we’ll be seeing in late October when all this has to be funded. Single-, two-, and three-family homeowners may be in for quite a shock based on indications so far.

Unfinished Business #8. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization of $15,000,000 to provide additional funds for the construction of improvements at the Fire Station Headquarters Building located at 491 Broadway. [Passed to 2nd Reading May 20, 2024; Eligible for Adoption June 3, 2024]
Appropriation Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Adam Westbrook and Diego Macias as members and Daniel Anderson and Joy Jackson as associate members of the Planning Board for a term of five-years.
pulled by Nolan (on representativeness of appointees); comments by Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; Nolan wants balance on approach to development; Siddiqui wants to know rubric used to select appointees, wants Boston Society of Architects to be involved; Azeem notes charter change, importance of ideology, wants Planning Board to be aligned with City Council; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants data on number of applicants over time and if stipends have affected this, wants to have City Council confirmation process or opportunity to interview applicants prior to appointment; Toner OK with prior process but would prefer to be consulted on applicants prior to appointment; Wilson concerned about diversity of candidates, also wants to be consulted prior to appointments, wants to know how many of the applicants were “persons of color”, when next appointments will occur (three in Aug, Nov 2026); responses by Swathi Joseph re: vetting by Diversity & Inclusion Office; Simmons also wants to know how many of the applicants were “persons of color”; Wilson wants this information in writing; Yi-An Huang describes and defends process, expresses concerns about possible effect of City Council inquisition on willingness of residents to apply; Farooq says 5 of 11 interviewed were “persons of color”; Simmons questions what “persons of color” entails, wants further discussion of Council role in appointments; Appointments Approved 9-0

Making Cambridge More Like Flushing – Or Not

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding the Ronayne, et al., Zoning Petition. (CM24#115) [text of report]
Referred to Petition 9-0

Committee Report #5. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on May 8, 2024, to discuss allowing multifamily housing in all neighborhoods of the city. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #6. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on May 22, 2024, to continue the May 8, 2024, discussion on allowing multifamily housing in all neighborhoods of the city. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I attended a recent Ordinance Committee meeting on this petition. It’s actually a pretty good zoning petition, but apparently Mr. Azeem and the ABC crowd will have none of it because it doesn’t go nearly far enough toward making all of Cambridge more like Flushing, NY. I am a graduate of Flushing High School, by the way, and I watched how entire blocks of mixed-scale housing were wiped clean and uniformly replaced by 6-story boxes with near-zero setbacks. This has not stabilized rents there, and it’s a far more hostile place than what I remember. I almost feel as though Flushing has finally followed me to Cambridge – even though it took a while.

Other than the fact that both the Ronayne Petition and the nascent “Azeem-Siddiqui-Cotter-Farooq” petition both call for legalizing multi-family housing in all residential zones, these are two radically different proposals and visions. The former still maintains good neighborhood-scale heights and densities in many residential areas, but the latter would drop all residential zones into a blender and permit the same significantly greater heights and densities across all residential areas of the city. Say what you will but I actually appreciate the current diversity of residential densities and housing types that can currently be found in Cambridge.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a request – if necessary – to move to Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation known as Dalkia Energy Services v. Cambridge, Kendall Green Energy Holdings LLC v. Cambridge, and Southern Energy Kendall v. Cambridge, (Appellate Tax Board Dockets F325664, F325663, F325665, F328941, and all related Appellate Tax Board Docket Numbers for these cases), which are appeals before the Appellate Tax Board.
pulled by Nolan; relates to prior Mgr #7; Solicitor Megan Bayer explains; Executive Session not needed; Placed on File 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to clarify why the Wage Theft Enforcement Committee has not yet been appointed and to swiftly appoint the committee as called for in the Wage Theft Ordinance.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to explore the feasibility of delaying the Mass Avenue reconstruction project to minimize its impact upon the busy season for restaurants and other affected businesses, and, should this not be found feasible, a method of providing financial assistance to the impacted businesses to cover the costs of removing their outdoor dining structures, designed to mitigate some of the financial impacts upon them, should be established.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Pickett, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Nolan; Wilson add as sponsor 9-0; Charter Right – Simmons

Central Square Table-Setting

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to provide a list of current zoning initiatives along with CDD’s recommendations for a timeline for completing each of the zoning initiatives in order for the Council to confirm zoning priorities.   Councillor Pickett, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Toner; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to work with CDD to provide a written outreach plan for engaging the community related to the processes underway in Central Square.   Councillor Pickett, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Nolan, Simmons; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #7. That the City Manager is hereby requested to provide the draft Request for Information for the 84 & 96 Bishop Allen Drive to the City Council for review and comment.   Councillor Pickett, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett; Order Adopted 9-0

I have been closely following the current discussions about possible Central Square rezoning and the Central Square Lots Study. Perhaps more than anything, I find the whole paradigm of Central Square advocacy to be rather wrong-headed. Too many people think of Central Square as though it’s a utility meant to provide for much of what the rest of the city would never dream of hosting, e.g. low-income housing and social services. Even the “outreach plans” so far adhere to this flawed paradigm. Historically, Central Square was a major draw for all of Cambridge and greater Boston for shopping and recreation. There are now many people who purposely avoid “Central Scare” due to either real or perceived safety concerns. Nowhere on the list of “target groups” for outreach about Central Square planning did I see any mention of the thousands of people who now avoid Central Square because of these concerns or because Central Square simply doesn’t currently have a whole lot to offer them or their families. My vision of the future Central Square would have a lot of families with children, people of all ages, and ample recreation for everybody.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to provide to the City Council a detailed justification for the increased fees for Youth Centers for the 2024-2025 school year.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan (PO24#75)
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Toner, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Simmons, Azeem, Ellen Semonoff, Yi-An Huang; add Wilson, Nolan as sponsors 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #1. City Council support of the Act Establishing Protections and Accountability for TNC and DNC Workers (S.627/H1158), which would allow TNCs to sustain worker benefits and protections that maintain a level playing field across transportation industries. [Charter Right – Toner, May 20, 2024]

I have been seeing advertisements on the TV that make it difficult to take a side on this issue. I have no love for the Uber and Lyft companies and I think they should have to play by rules comparable to taxi companies, but I can really sympathize with drivers who like having some independence and choice and who would rather not see themselves as traditional employees of these companies. When was the last time we heard the phrase “gig economy”?

49 Communications – quite tame in comparison to recent weeks. Based on some of the current zoning proposals, Central Square discussions, and more, I suspect the template emails to pick up again soon. – Robert Winters

May 13, 2024

Betwixt & Between the Budget Hearings – May 13, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:03 am

Betwixt & Between the Budget Hearings – May 13, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

May is the month for money meetings. Last week featured the budget hearings for the departments under the categories of General Government & Public Safety (May 7) as well as the School Department Budget (May 8). This Tuesday (May 14) will cover the departments under the categories of Community Maintenance and Development; Human Resources Development; Intergovernmental; & Public Investment.

General Government & Public Safety: (May 7)

City Clerk
City Council
Election Commission
Employee Benefits
Equity and Inclusion
Equity and Inclusion – Diversity    
Equity and Inclusion – DGVPI
Executive – Leadership ✓
Executive – Communications ✓		 Executive – Housing Liaison ✓
Executive – Tourism ✓
Finance – Administration ✓
Finance – Auditing
Finance – Assessing ✓
Finance – Budget
Finance – General Services
Finance – Information Technology ✓    		 Finance – Purchasing
Finance – Treasury/Revenue    
Human Resources ✓
Law
Mayor’s Office*
Public Celebrations ✓
Reserve
Animal Commission		 Community Safety ✓
Emergency Communications
Fire Department ✓
Inspectional Services ✓
License Commission
Police Department ✓
PRAB / Peace Commission ✓
Traffic, Parking & Transportation ✓
Those marked in bold are the ones pulled for discussion. *to appear at May 14 hearing
Community Maintenance and Development; Human Resources Development; Intergovernmental; & Public Investment: (May 14)

Mayor’s Office* ✓
Cambridge Health Alliance ✓    
Cable TV
Capital Building Projects ✓
Community Development ✓
Debt Service		 Historical Commission
Housing ✓
Office of Sustainability ✓    
Public Works ✓
Water ✓
Women’s Commission		 Human Rights Commission    
Human Services ✓
Library
Veterans’ Services
Cherry Sheet		 MWRA
City Overview Section
Financial Summaries Section
Revenue Section
Public Investment Section ✓
Those marked in bold are the ones pulled for discussion. *postponed from May 7 hearing

Monday night’s featured attractions include these:Money

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of the following persons as members of the Danehy Park Improvement Plan Working Group: Ty Bellitti, Sarina Canelake, Katia Crowley, Anthony Galluccio, Chala Hadimi, Emily Hoffman, Tsion Kebede, Frederico Muchnik, Mike Nakagawa, Natasa Ristivojevic, Antonieta Salguero, Kathleen Riesing, Michael Siegall, Jason Targoff, and David Weylan.
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, McGovern, Toner, Wilson, DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins, City Manager Yi-An Huang; Placed on File 8-1 (Siddiqui Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Raffi Freeman and Krissandra Robinson as well as the reappointments of Susan Schlesinger, James G. Stockard Jr., and Elaine Thorne as members of the Affordable Housing Trust for a term of three years.
Appointments Approved 8-1 (Siddiqui Absent)

Our Affordable Housing Trust reminds me of New York’s Robert Moses. From Wikipedia: “He created and led numerous semi-autonomous public authorities, through which he controlled millions of dollars in revenue and directly issued bonds to fund new ventures with little outside input or oversight.”

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-16, regarding a report on developing ways to fund support of decarbonization and clean energy projects and technical assistance for property owners of all types especially those with limited resources, with an initial focus on work associated with BEUDO emissions reduction requirements.
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Pickett, Sustainability Czarina Susanne Rasmussen; Placed on File 8-1 (Siddiqui Absent)

One of my greatest concerns about BEUDO (which should really be referred to as BEUDERO (Building Energy Use Disclosure and Emissions Reductions Ordinance) since it’s no longer just about “energy use disclosure”) is the unfunded mandate nature of the whole thing. Even my smaller residential building (triple-decker) will eventually be in the cross-hairs of City officials who would require me to tear out my heating system and gas appliances whether I want to or not. It’s one thing to provide incentives for people to make such changes at the time of eventual building renovations, but I will never warm up to the idea that I shouldn’t have any choice in the matter. This communication at least hints at the possibility of funding and other incentives.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a request to move to Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation known as City of Cambridge et al., v. Lexington Planning Board et al. (Docket No. 2381CV01683), which is an appeal before the Land Court. Additionally, to consider the purchase of real property, O Cambridge/Concord Turnpike in Lexington, Massachusetts, adjacent to the Hobbs Brook Reservoir. Discussing this matter in an open session may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the City.
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Executive Session (52 minutes); Placed on File 8-1 (Siddiqui Absent)

I believe this concerns this decision of the Lexington Planning Board.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with the Co-Chairs of the Housing Committee to turn their vision of multifamily housing citywide into zoning language.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by McGovern; comments by Azeem, McGovern, Pickett, Toner, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan (w/amendment), Wilson, Simmons; Order Adopted as Amended on Voice Vote (Siddiqui Absent)

Note: There has not yet been a report from this committee on this topic (though you can watch a recording of the hearing here). Also, in all my years of watching and reporting on City Council meetings have I ever seen an order phrased as “to turn their vision…into…”. There is some pretty serious hubris in having the sponsors of a City Council order refer to their own “vision”. Check your egos at the door please.

By the way, this “vision” is filled with half-truths, falsehoods, and basically comes down to making the standards of height and density associated with the densest parts of eastern Cambridge the standard across all residential districts of the city. This is NOT simply a matter of permitting multi-family housing citywide.

Order #2. That the City Council calls upon the City Manager to take steps to bring support to efforts supporting Overdose Prevention Center legislation currently under consideration in the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern (w/amendment), Nolan, Azeem, Pickett, Wilson, Simmons (in defense of Central Square); Amendments Adopted on Voice Vote; Order Adopted as Amended on Voice Vote (Siddiqui Absent)

It’s one thing to take steps to prevent overdose deaths, but what Mr. McGovern is advocating here will likely help to further define Central Square as a prime destination for substance abusers, and with comes all the additional burdens associated with that degradation (shoplifting, aggressive panhandling, street robberies, drug dealers, people shopping and socializing elsewhere). We should aspire to better things for Central Square and all of Cambridge. – Robert Winters

March 22, 2024

Out Like A Lion – March 25, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:27 pm

Out Like A Lion – March 25, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

These are a few of my favorite things….City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $15,000 to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations (Arts Council) Other Ordinary Maintenance account. The MCC Cultural District Grant provides financial support to state-designated Cultural Districts throughout the Commonwealth.
Order Adopted 9-0

I will simply highlight the last paragraph: “Cambridge’s Central Square Cultural District was one of the 10 inaugural MA Cultural Districts designated by the Legislature in 2012. This funding will support District-based initiatives that drive economic growth and strengthen the distinctive character of the Central Square Cultural District.”

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Parking Study Executive Summary. [text of report]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Nolan, McGovern, Toner (on available parking alternatives), Wilson, Siddiqui, Azeem (wants large grocery stores to be replaced by bodegas – based on notion that the City builds these, wants greater prioritization of bus transportation, wants more subsidized e-bikes), Simmons; comments by Iram Farooq on survey sampling, Yi-An Huang; referred to Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 9-0

As near as I can tell, this “study” consists primarily of survey responses and policy proposals from City staff. I’m not really sure how this qualifies as a “study”. Absent are such seemingly important data as how many on-street parking spaces have been lost and how many more are anticipated to be lost due to current policies (such as the Cycling Safety Ordinance). This seems like a deficiency that ought to be corrected in something billed as a “Parking Study”.

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years; Melissa Greene and Kevin Grinberg.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Welcome aboard, Kevin. It’s also great to see Melissa continuing her role on the Central Square Advisory Committee.

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order Number 24-09, regarding a report back with any necessary edits to zoning language that would allow unrelated people to live together in the City of Cambridge. [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; Rules Suspended to bring forward Housing Committee Report; Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0; Communication Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number #24-03, regarding a response on potential public renewable energy projects that could receive funding through the IRA Direct Pay provision. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Ellen Katz (DPW), Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan, Susanne Rasmussen (CDD); comments by Nolan; Rasmussen states that Housing Division (CDD) soon to become separate Housing Department; Pickett on 60% subsidy via Direct Pay; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-10, regarding the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Iram Farooq, Jeff Roberts (CDD); Nolan notes that the report shows “asking rent” in tables, but actual median rents are significantly lower; Azeem disputes this claiming that median rents are lower only because they include all subsidized rents [actual truth is somewhere in between]; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department and Community Development Department to study whether the City Council could add maximum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum setback requirements, and minimum floor area ratios in some districts or as part of an overlay in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the City Council could require a special permit for a down conversion in developments that would result in a net loss of housing units. [Charter Right – Pickett, Mar 18, 2024]
Councillor Pickett moves to take up both Charter Right #1 and #2; Farooq says she and staff have been consulting Housing Committee Chairs re: their priorities, feels that more study needed to see how expansive this phenomenon actually is; Toner does not object to “down conversions”; Sobrinho-Wheeler OK with restricting “down conversions” claiming this would not be a ban; McGovern prefers to get legal opinion reported directly to Housing Committee; Pickett wants more information about how common this is; Azeem wants income-restricted housing required with any multi-family housing [which likely would result in only subsidized housing developers doing projects]; JSW emphasizes part of Order about setbacks; JSW amendment to refer to Housing Committee Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Pickett, Toner – No)

I’ll simply repeat what I said last week: I am very leery of this proposal – especially if it is interpreted to apply to existing buildings. During the days of rent control, the requirement that a “removal permit” was required prior to joining units was routinely used to prevent property owners from doing very reasonable things. For example, when I bought my triple-decker, the apartment where I now live had been operated as a rooming house, and the City treated it as 5 housing units. I had to use my tenure dating back to 1978 in the building to be allowed to legally restore the floor back to the apartment it had been for over fifty years. Had I not been able to do this, it would not have been possible for me to continue owning or living in the building. Many years later, I now occasionally consider the possibility of occupying two floors of the building, and I would be outraged if our elected officials took away my flexibility to do that. The devil, as is often said, is in the details. There is a very creepy mindset in the minds of some elected officials that personal freedom should always take a back seat to their political agendas.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with the chairs of the Housing Committee on zoning language that effectively promotes multi-family housing, including inclusionary units, citywide. [Charter Right – Pickett, Mar 18, 2024]
Comments by Pickett, Wilson (with amendment), Toner (will not support Wilson amendment); Sobrinho-Wheeler comments of legalities; Azeem moved to amend Wilson amendment to delete “multiple options for”; comments by Nolan re: middle-income, “workforce” housing; McGovern opposed to conversions to single-family for purpose of sale, suggests that this is only about “having conversations” now; City Manager notes need for prioritization, legal feasibility, questions how many “down conversions” are actually occurring; Toner notes many studies currently underway; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner – No)

Again, I’ll simply repeat what I said last week: While I generally agree with the idea of allowing multi-family housing citywide, I really don’t think that this Order should be quoting a class project by a Harvard freshman in making assertions (some of which are demonstrably false) regarding the history of zoning in Cambridge.

On The Table #3. Policy Order to Edit City Council Rule 21A, 21B and add 21C Requiring Two City Councilors to Sponsor Policy Orders and Resolutions to be Filed and Placed on Council Agenda. [Tabled – Mar 18, 2024]
Taken from Table 9-0; Order #1 taken up as well; Toner comments (in response to idiotic and profane testimony of Robert Bledsoe during Public Comment); City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes legal gray area regarding whether profanity may be prohibited – noting that it is not entirely affected by First Amendment, notes history of Mass. Declaration of Rights, John and Samuel Adams when still under British rule, speech about government at that time could be was crude and pushed the limits and that’s the basis of our government today, a future court could say that profanity could be prohibited, essential phrase is “fighting words”, use of profanity directed at an individual could be interpreted as “fighting words”, use of the “F word” in excitement might not be, difficult to make decision in the moment; Toner notes list of potential infractions; Toner proposes to remove prohibition of profanity (though he will vote against removing it); McGovern suggests that this discussion will lead to some people pushing the envelope re: what they can get away with [note: McGovern and others felt no concerns about slander as recently as several months ago]; JSW, Azeem OK with removing prohibition of profanity; Nolan suggests amending to distinguish “requests” and “prohibitions”; Bayer provides additional guidance on “loud and repetitive”; Simmons’ wise comments on “fighting words” and being welcoming, chilling effect of some words and actions, importance of “the rule of the Chair” in conduct of meetings; Placed on File 9-0

On The Table #4. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Feb 15, 2024, which was recessed, and reconvened on Feb 26, 2024. The Call of the meeting was to review and discuss possible amendments to the City Council Rules. At the meeting on Feb 26, 2024, the Committee voted to send 46 rule changes to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. Please see orders within the report. [Tabled – Mar 18, 2024] [text of report]
Taken from Table 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. City Council Rule Changes.   Councillor Toner
Taken up with On The Table #3; comments by multiple councillors; Councillor Nolan, in particular, notes her intention to allow back-and-forth interaction with public in committee meetings when appropriate (thank you); All Rules Adopted as Amended 9-0

I have no particular issues with the proposed rules changes, but I do find curious the level of vitriol expressed by some people about some of the changes pertaining to Public Comment. In my view, Public Comment has largely devolved into performance by the season ticket holders with the occasional flood of “talking point zombies” generated by organized groups and facilitated by Zoom. My only suggestions are: (a) the Mayor and committee Chairs should have broad discretion in managing public comment and not be bound by overly rigid rules, (b) back-and-forth dialogue between councillors and the public should be encouraged at committee meetings whenever it is helpful, and (c) steps should be taken proactively to address the potential of extraordinary numbers of nonresidents signing up for public comment as part of organized campaigns on controversial issues.

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Khalida Griffin-Sheperd et al. regarding Affordable Housing Trust Zoning. (AP24#10) [text of petition]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

One look at the signers of this petition was enough to convince me that it should be rejected. I also find it curious that the petitioners want to be overly prescriptive in who may serve on their proposed expanded Affordable Housing Trust (AHT). Also, though the idea of using AHT funds to provide rent subsidies seems like a possible alternative to the construction of some of the extraordinarily expensive deed-restricted housing now being funded through the AHT, this proposal seems to simply want to add on this new very high cost for rent vouchers – a potential budget-buster at a time when the City Council really needs to be controlling the Budget much more than they have in recent years. Considering the fact that the AHT is now partially funded out of the City’s Operating Budget, this also raises the question of the legality of such direct rent payments under the Anti-Aid Amendment to the Mass. Constitution.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department, the Community Development Department, and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to determine whether the City could provide incentives for residents who do not have cars.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Nolan as sponsor; JSW comments on incentives to not own car, some concerns about whether this may violate Anti-Aid Amendment; Toner questions why there is a need to incentivize those who have already decided to not own a car, whether BlueBikes subsidies might be in perpetuity; Pickett questions why this is actually an incentive in that it rewards who have already made choice to not own a car [that is, whether this is just a patronage program for a subset of the population]; Nolan says this is not meant to be just for those who don’t currently own a car; Wilson questions need for incentives for those already w/o car and whether this might penalize or shame those who actually need a car]; Siddiqui says intent is not to shame anyone; Azeem quotes an academic paper claiming that every family contributes $14,000 per year to subsidize car ownership, says transit gets better the more people use it [yeah, right], wants to subsidize transit, e-bikes; Simmons asks if the proposes incentive would apply to those who don’t have cars or those who might get cars; JSW says it’s for both, says this is not about shaming; McGovern suggests amending language; Simmons comments on large families, unreliable MBTA, those who work outside Cambridge, those who shop elsewhere, churchgoers, elderly and those with mobility issues – will vote Present; Amendment to add Nolan Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 5-3-0-1 (BA,MM,PN,SS,JSW – Yes; JP,PT,AW – No; DS – Present)

There seems to be this belief among some councillors (and some City staff) that the only reason people make personal choices (such as whether or not to own a car) are primarily based on government intervention. I disagree.

Order #5. Support of the Regional Heat Pump Accelerator Program.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

I will repeat my point of view from last year when BEUDO (or is it BEUDERO?) amendments were being discussed and ordained. Simply dictating mandates is not nearly as effective (or fair) as providing financial incentives. – Robert Winters

March 14, 2024

Springing Forward – March 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:23 pm

Springing Forward – March 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are the things I found interesting this week:First Sign of Spring

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge retaining its AAA rating from the nation’s three major credit rating agencies. (CM24#42) [text of reports]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Claire Spinner, Toner on OPEB, Michele Kincaid, Taha Jennings, McGovern, Nolan, Yi-An Huang, JSW [24 triple AAA cities in USA], Azeem, Simmons (notes what happens when ARPA funds no longer available); Placed on File 9-0

This is almost routine at this point. I can’t even remember when we last failed to get a “triple triple”. One thing that struck me in the Moody’s report was: “Cambridge’s assessed value projected to decline by 2% in 2025 before recovering in 2026.” I don’t believe there’s any way that residential assessed values could be falling, so any drop is likely due to lower commercial assessed values. There’s also this: “The city’s assessed value is projected to flatten over the next couple years including a 2% decline in total assessed value that is projected in 2025. The decline in total AV is driven by a projected 7% decline in commercial value in 2025 and projected 2% decline in 2026. The declines are driven primarily by the challenges in the commercial office space sub-sector as a result of work-from-home options that have taken hold in many companies and industries in the city and across the nation. The residential sector is projected to see no change in 2025 values followed by a projected 2% increase annually beginning in 2026 through 2028.” The S&P report has this cautionary note: “We could lower the rating if reserves were to decrease significantly without a plan for restoration or if debt service and retirement costs were to pressure the city’s finances.”

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning April 1, 2024 and ending March 31, 2025. (CM24#43) [text of report]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett on use of ARPA funds for new filter media at Fresh Pond, Owen O’Riordan notes ARPA will again be used next year to keep water rates from rising even more, need for upgrades on our (relatively young) 25-year-old treatment plant, cost of water main replacements; Mark Gallagher (Acting Managing Direct, Water Department) notes increases in labor costs and supply chain cost increases; Pickett asks if any ARPA funds available to be reallocated to these purposes, O’Riordan responds affirmatively; Nolan on PFAS, effects of minerals in water on plumbing fixtures; O’Riordan notes long-term strategy on chlorides, Gallagher concurs re: chlorides, hardness; Toner on problems with plumbing fixtures and remediation, Gallagher reminds that HW heaters should be drained once/year; Order Adopted 9-0

The notable increases in the water rate last year and this year actually exceed the increases in the sewer rate, but it has generally been the reverse for some time. It costs far more to lose water than to supply it.

water-sewer rates FY25

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and meet with the MBTA and City of Boston in advance of the July Red Line shutdown about the implementation of a fare-free 1 bus program.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; uptalking comments by JSW, Siddiqui (notes meet w/JSW and her w/Livable Streets), Toner, Azeem; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department and Community Development Department to study whether the City Council could add maximum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum setback requirements, and minimum floor area ratios in some districts or as part of an overlay in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the City Council could require a special permit for a down conversion in developments that would result in a net loss of housing units.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Pickett; comments by JSW, Nolan, Pickett; Charter Right – Pickett

I am very leery of this proposal – especially if it is interpreted to apply to existing buildings. During the days of rent control, the requirement that a “removal permit” was required prior to joining units was routinely used to prevent property owners from doing very reasonable things. For example, when I bought my triple-decker, the apartment where I now live had been operated as a rooming house, and the City treated it as 5 housing units. I had to use my tenure dating back to 1978 in the building to be allowed to legally restore the floor back to the apartment it had been for over fifty years. Had I not been able to do this, it would not have been possible for me to continue owning or living in the building. Many years later, I now occasionally consider the possibility of occupying two floors of the building, and I would be outraged if our elected officials took away my flexibility to do that. The devil, as is often said, is in the details. There is a very creepy mindset in the minds of some elected officials that personal freedom should always take a back seat to their political agendas.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with the chairs of the Housing Committee on zoning language that effectively promotes multi-family housing, including inclusionary units, citywide.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Pickett; comments by Azeem, McGovern (connecting this to “Missing Middle” zoning petition), Wilson, Pickett; Charter Right – Pickett

While I generally agree with the idea of allowing multi-family housing citywide, I really don’t think that this Order should be quoting a class project by a Harvard freshman in making assertions (some of which are demonstrably false) regarding the history of zoning in Cambridge.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and report back to the City Council with recommendations for adjusting parking permit fees to better align with associated costs.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan (suggesting doubling fee except for low-income residents, charging more for larger vehicles); Toner, Pickett object to suggestion to charge more based on vehicle size; Azeem complains about increasing size of vehicles; Simmons OK with reviewing fees, concerns about charging more for larger vehicles and effect on families who may need a larger vehicle; Nolan additional concerns about larger vehicles; Order Adopted 9-0

Once again, if this is simply a matter of adjusting fees to cover the administrative costs of the resident parking permit program, then fine. On the other hand, if the intention is to use increased fees to carry out yet another social engineering program, then I hope this goes nowhere fast.

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to develop ways to fund support of decarbonization and clean energy projects and technical assistance for property owners of all types especially those with limited resources, with an initial focus on work associated with BEUDO emissions reduction requirements.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Pickett, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

As I have said before, if the City wants to provide incentives to change energy sources or provide greater efficiencies for homeowners, then I’m totally on board with that. I am, however, mindful of the woefully inadequate electrical infrastructure in Cambridge (look up sometime to see how many streetlights are connected to extension cords over the street to get their power) and the potential consequence of increased electrification. I also encourage everyone to read the recent March 14 New York Times article “A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals”. – Robert Winters

Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Feb 15, 2024, which was recessed, and reconvened on Feb 26, 2024. The Call of the meeting was to review and discuss possible amendments to the City Council Rules. At the meeting on Feb 26, 2024, the Committee voted to send 46 rule changes to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. Please see orders within the report. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that there are really about 10 changes – mostly suggested by City Clerk, additional comments on codifying how much time allotted for Public Comment and other rules changes; Simmons notes that process requires this to be Laid on Table; Sobrinho-Wheeler addresses Public Comment time limits; Nolan favors longer time limits during Public Comment; McGovern wants 2 minute limit for all meetings, says Public Comment has changed over time from individuals (notes Roy Bercaw) and how it is now dominated by organized groups with many speakers having little or no knowledge of what they are speaking about, problem of same speakers every week; Azeem comments on time limits and predictability of commentary from organized groups and frequent speakers – would prefer a separate meeting just for public comment; Pickett notes value of Zoom as well as the added commitment associated with actually showing up; Wilson also notes changing nature of Public Comment; JSW clarifies that nobody is suggesting different time limits for different people, potential value of separate meeting for public comment; Toner expresses openness to future changes in Public Comment; Simmons notes that Open Meeting Law does not require public comment, and that we allow it under our rules, notes many other opportunities for offering citizen input, notes past practice of sometimes taking City Council meetings to the neighborhoods, allowance for public comment via interpreters, role of time of meeting in access; Late Policy Order from Toner calling for two sponsors for any policy order; McGovern expresses confusion of “Resolutions” vs. “Policy Orders & Resolutions” – amplified by Toner, Simmons; Toner notes that most Resolutions are non-controversial, but controversial Resolutions appear with Policy Orders; Nolan OK w/requiring two sponsors but wants to exercise Charter Right; Simmons, McGovern explain that if Charter Right exercises cannot be part of Rules Changes to be considered at next meeting; City Clerk Diane LeBlanc concurs that this is necessary under current Rules; Tabled 9-0

Late Order #11. That the City Council Rules be amended to require at least two City Councillors supporting a proposed policy order and/or resolution before filing and including as part of the City Council Agenda.   Councillor Toner
Tabled 9-0

February 24, 2024

Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:12 pm

Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

City HallThe previous meeting featured some rather obvious jostling for position in the process of evaluating the recent Charter Review Final Report and deciding any charter change proposal. This week should bring even more of this power struggle when the question of “next steps” is taken up. The report has already been sent to the Law Department, the Election Commission, and perhaps more departments for review, but the question now is whether this should be initially vetted within the Government Operations Committee (chaired by Councillor Toner) or if Councillor Nolan (and perhaps others) will try to bypass that initial review by creating some kind of ad-hoc committee-of-the-whole so that she can gain more control of the process. This, of course, is intertwined with the election of Mayor Simmons who appoints all the City Council committees – and those appointments were done with some care.

I will say right now that some of the proposed Charter recommendations are virtually assured to be dead on arrival at the State House, but I don’t yet know if the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (or whatever committee takes up such matters) can take an à-la-carte approach to proposed city charters or if it’s all-or-nothing. Before any modified Charter can go before Cambridge voters, it must first clear this hurdle.

I will also say that there are some aspects of the structure of Cambridge government that really should be rolled into any new Charter but which the Charter Review Committee never considered, e.g. the Special Acts that established/empowered the License Commission, the Election Commission, the Traffic Board, the Cambridge Health Alliance, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. It is commendable that the Committee chose to consolidate most of the charter specifics that were only referenced in the Plan E sections of M.G.L. Chapter 43 (sections 93-116) – at the suggestion of the Collins Center staff who were advising the Committee – but this was incomplete, probably because of lack of expertise on those specifics within the Collins Center staff. This is especially true of matters involving our proportional representation elections (an essential component of Plan E). There may be good reasons to leave some of these out of the Charter, but since they are part of how we do business, these questions should at least be part of the current discussion. [Needless to say, this should have been discussed within the now-dissolved Charter Review Committee, but that’s another conversation that has much to do with how that committee was formed.]

Here are the agenda items that caught my eye this week:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Bicycle Committee.
pulled by Nolan; PN wants committees to be “commissions” so that City Council would gain more control over these appointments, asks about whether diversity of opinion is a factor in appointments; Iram Farooq claims there is some diversity, but acknowledges that these committees are primarily advocates rather than representatives; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Pedestrian Committee.
pulled by Nolan; no additional comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, Policy Order Response #24-15 dated Feb 12, 2024 regarding drafting zoning language and related changes to allow for and encourage the continued growth, redevelopment, and evolution of Central Square. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; JSW wants to know when this would go to Planning Board; Farooq says it goes to PB when petition is filed and during the process; Toner asks if this will build upon work already done; Farooq says YES, and that advisory committees need not be consulted (really?); Nolan suggests that better methods of informing community should be considered; Pickett asks if Central Square Lots study will be integrated and how; Farooq says study in its final stages; Wilson agrees re: communication with residents; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Charter Right #1. That the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee be referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 12, 2024]
Toner says conversation should start in Gov’t Operations Committee; Nolan OK with starting there, but says it should not stay there – noting that she and Siddiqui are “deeply involved in this” (quite the understatement); Pickett draws parallel with how possible Rules changes are now being considered in committee; Siddiqui OK with starting in committee, but will participate and “brainstorming” with suggestion of a robust process; Toner explains process of culling ideas from councillors, legal questions, timeline; Wilson wants a community conversation around this; Referred to Gov’t Ops. 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Resolution #6. Resolution on the death of Charles Fried.   Councillor Nolan

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to present recommendations for the refinement and improvement of the housing permitting process to the City Council, with a focus on reducing delays, minimizing costs, and enhancing clarity and accessibility for all stakeholders.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Toner proposed amendments; JSW wants to keep “affordable” language, wants to add other groups for consultation; Toner motion to change “affordable housing” to “housing” Fails 2-6-1 (MM,PT-YES; PN,JP,SS,JSW,AW,DS-No; BA-Absent); Toner motion on simplifying processes to all housing and not just “affordable” housing, McGovern says middle-income housing should be included; Adopted 8-0-1; JSW motion to amend Toner motion to add two additional groups Adopted 8-0-1; Toner motion as amended Adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (BA Absent)

Order #2. City Council support of H.4138, The Affordable Homes Act, and urge legislators to retain the provisions for a location option transfer fee.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner will vote NO on proposed transfer fee; Nolan says Council has supported transfer fee in the past, delivers a prepared speech, says that this would not enact a tax or fee but only permit that local option (this is unbelievably naive), notes that legislation would set the range of possible fees, says this is about local control (but this begs the question about other proposed “local control” proposal to allow municipalities to create their own rent control laws); Nolan suggests motivation for supporting this is so that other municipalities would enact such a tax (again, very naive); McGovern concurs with Nolan, quotes David Kale in asserting that commercial transactions are lion’s share and that some residential exemptions could be made, expresses desire to take in as much revenue as possible; Pickett asks how this relates to existing Home Rule Petition now before the State Legislature, notes that there is already a $4.56/thousand stamp tax by state and that this would be on top of that; JSW uptalks that Legislature could act on our and Somerville’s and Cambridge’s petitions or pass current legislation, deflects by asserting that revenue raised could be used for other purposes; Pickett wants homeowners to gain maximum value in the sale of their greatest financial asset; Wilson offers generalities and suggestion that this might not lead to a tax; Simmons notes that we do use CPA fund for this but characterizes this as a “shortfall” and that (unlimited) more money is needed, notes Envision report and suggests that what we are doing is not enough; Order Adopted 6-2-1 (JP,PT – No; BA Absent)

Order #5. That the City Manager is hereby directed to confer with the City Manager’s Housing Liaison, Community Development Department, and the Cambridge Housing Authority on the feasibility of municipally-funded housing vouchers.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Pickett (who offers amendments); Nolan supports order and JP amendments; McGovern asks of motion-makers are OK with the amendments; Wilson supports amendments; both JP amendments adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 8-0-1

January 17, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 605-606: January 16, 2024

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Cambridge InsideOut,campaign finance,Charter,City Council,cycling,elections,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 9:30 am

Episode 605 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 16, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 16, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Shout out to DPW; OCPF reports due Jan 20; Council committees pending; Clean Slate at Jan 8 Council meeting; Jerry’s Pond; dealing with the nonresident protesters and bad political theater. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 606 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 16, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 16, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Looking back at the 2022-23 City Council term and ahead to the 2024-25 term; single-issue advocacy at the root of the problem, need for cost/benefit analysis – examples with transportation, housing, energy; Charter considerations; phantom Traffic Board; confounded analysis of slate voting; and a Big Wish for better Squares and more fun. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 7, 2023

Cleaning Out the Pantry – December 11, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:48 pm

Cleaning Out the Pantry – December 11, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

The clock is winding down on the 2022-23 City Council and with Festivus approaching this may be the time for not only clearing out all the stuff beyond their expiration dates but also for the airing of grievances and the taking of a few parting shots.Running Down the Clock

Of special note is the opinion from the Acting City Solicitor regarding the forwarding of pending matters (and some really moldy ones) to the new City Council term. My fervent hope is that the current City Council votes to forward only significant pending matters and that the other items on “Awaiting Report” be allowed to fade into history or be re-introduced fresh in the new Council term.

Regarding the Festivus tradition of “airing of grievances”, Mr. Zondervan is back with his withdrawn Order from last week in which he tries to “educate” the Cambridge Police Department. This term can’t end soon enough.

There’s also a request from the Charter Review Committee requesting a one-month extension. This reminds me of the old joke we used to say when I worked (for 14 years) at Wellesley College:
  Q: How many Wellesley students does it take to change a light bulb?
  A: Just one, but she needs an extension.

Anyway, here are the items I found noteworthy in this penultimate City Council agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item 23-57, regarding rodent control measures. (CM23#296) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN, Owen O’Riordan, John Nardone, Dave Powers, QZ, AM, SS; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. (CM23#297) [Cover Letter] [NHMP presentation] [NHMP 2023 Update]
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN, DC, Sam Lipson, Iram Farooq, QZ, Owen O’Riordan, Tom Cahill; Plan Adopted 9-0, Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the City of the Cambridge and Harvard University memorandum of agreement regarding Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT). (CM23#298)
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Cambridge Police Department to fundamentally change how it responds to situations that could lead to violence and death.   Councillor Zondervan (PO23#215)
pulled by Zondervan; Charter Right – Zondervan

Order #2. Transferring Items from the 2022-2023 Legislative Session.   Mayor Siddiqui (PO23#216)
pulled by Nolan w/Comm. & Reports #2; comments by PN, SS, QZ; Order Adopted 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication from City Clerk Diane P. LeBlanc, transmitting legal opinion regarding Carry Over Procedures for City Council Business. (COF23#228)
pulled early by Nolan; Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #4. A communication from the Cambridge Charter Review Committee Chair, Kathleen Leahy Born, transmitting a memorandum with a request for an extension through Jan 31, 2024. (COF23#230)
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by BA (who seems to think the Charter Review Committee was “nonpolitical”), PN (notes general lack of public involvement until very last meeting), DS (concerns about participation by committee members); one-month extension approved 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress