Summer is coming and pretty soon candidates will be pulling papers at the Election Commission to run for City Council or School Committee (or both). In the meantime, the tables are being set for “the issues” by the various single-issue and narrow-focus political advocacy groups around town. Heck, without ghost writers we wouldn’t have half the City Council orders that we see in any given week. Here’s what’s on tap this week:
Reconsideration #1. First floor retail policy order. [Reconsideration filed by Councillor Toner]
Motion to Reconsider (Azeem) Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Toner amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Nolan; Yi-An Huang on federal funding impacts and how we are processing the potential for interactions between federal ICE operations and local police. Harvard now up to $3 billion in federal grants frozen or cancelled, over 100 terminations issued last Thursday along, impacts of faculty staff, students, layoffs ongoing – especially at School of Public Health, MIT in similar position – cuts, layoffs, etc.; both Harvard and MIT issues bonds to raise cash to replace funds lost; Massachusetts school districts affected, etc. – some in litigation, hiring freezes pending; some FY26 Budget adjustments may be necessary; account of Worcester arrest; note that Cambridge also has a “welcoming city” status – what this potentially means; system of checks and balances under severe strain; Councillor Nolan asks about when a warrant is required; City Solicitor Megan Bayer explains what is legally required; McGovern comments on informing people on what we will and will not due in similar situations; Police Commissioner Christine Elow clarifies that the role of CPD is to maintain order and not assisting ICE in arrests; Wilson comments on advice for residents; Azeem asks if a warrant is needed for ICE to break into a car; Megan Bayer notes that CPD does not have the authority to interfere with a federal action; Azeem asks about Governor’s announced hiring freeze; Sobrinho-Wheeler asks if ICE informed Worcester officials in advance of their actions, notes that there is a reporting requirement as part of our Welcoming City Ordinance; Elow notes that there have been 4 federal detainer requests and Cambridge has not honored any of them; Zusy recommends that everyone watch the “Know Your Rights” video; Wilson suggests having a Roundtable Meeting with immigration attorneys and others; Mayor Simmons asks Ellen Semonoff (Human Services) about how school staff should handle summer programs in this regard; Megan Bayer notes trainings for staff should ICE conduct an action within a City building; Nolan asks about local shelters; Placed on File (voice vote)
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Cambridge Out of School Time (OST) Expansion Study Report. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson for comments; Ellen Semonoff notes space constraints, need to access space in school buildings, challenges in staffing and pay/benefits, etc.; Zusy if anything in the report was surprising; Siddiqui, McGovern, Nolan comments; Referred to Human Services & Veterans Committee (voice vote)
Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Executive Summary of the City’s Community Benefits Advisory Committee’s work over the past several years. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern for details and concerns expressed by former City Councillor Carlone during Public Comment; Ellen Semonoff concurs that current ordinance does not allow Community Benefits money to be used for infrastructure, explains why this was decided when adopted; Semonoff notes composition of the committee and some history; Siddiqui would like to change the ordinance – perhaps as a funding source for her pet Rise Up local welfare program; Zusy asks for source of funds; Wilson expresses desire to alter Ordinance to divert funding toward other projects, impatience in how long it takes to realize funding; Referred to Human Services & Veterans Committee (voice vote)
Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board Report regarding the Cannabis Repackaging Petition.
Referred to Petition 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent)
Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on May 7, 2025 on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 11.000 with the intent to amend a subsection of the Cannabis Uses standards, Section 11.800 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, with the intent to remove the provision that prohibits the packaging or repackaging of cannabis products on the premises of a Cannabis Retail Store. The Committee will also review and discuss proposed amendments to the Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 5.50, Cannabis Business Permitting. The Committee voted favorably to forward the proposed amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and Cambridge Municipal Code to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
Zoning Amendment Passed to 2nd Reading 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Amendment to Municipal Code 5.50 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Report Accepted, Placed on File (vv)
Cannabis Sales seem at times to enjoy having the local equivalent of Favored Nation Status. Has any other local business had this level of City Council advocacy and intervention?
Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report on the BioMed Realty, L.P. petition to amend the Zoning Map.
pulled by McGovern; Referred to Petition (voice vote); McGovern moves Reconsideration (hoping the same will not prevail); Reconsideration Fails 0-8-1 (Toner-Absent)
Order #1. That this City Council hereby declares June 19, 2025 as a Day of Reflection on Mass Incarceration in the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, go on record in support, and gives its endorsement of, the Juneteenth Festival at Cambridge Common as a vital community event celebrating freedom and resilience, and go on record in support and commending the work of The Black Response Cambridge in creating the film “Where Do Black Men Live?”, which powerfully highlights the lived experiences, struggles, and stories of Black male populations in Cambridge, bringing greater awareness to critical issues of housing, justice, and belonging. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Zusy; comments by McGovern, Zusy, Nolan, Wilson; Order Adopted 9-0
Pardon my not jumping on the support bandwagon, but here are a few nuggets of what this organization espouses:
- Mission: The Black Response is an abolitionist research and advocacy organization that envisions and works toward building a world free of carceral and harmful responses. We seek to uplift the Black, brown, and otherwise marginalized communities in Cambridge and everywhere by working to unbundle and abolish policing, defund the police to invest in communities, and support the building of alternatives to public safety and the development of community care initiatives.
- Here we are, Black Cambridge residents. We are actively calling on the Cambridge City Council to #DefundThePolice!
- Anti-Capitalism – We recognize the interlocking and mutually reinforcing character of racism, patriarchy, and class oppression, as well as the deep and toxic interconnections between the prison industrial complex, capitalism and racism. We believe capitalism and class war are fundamental contradictions at the heart of the global order we live in today. We therefore seek to build equity, cooperation, and self-determination by replacing capitalist practices with racial and economic justice; and centering those most deeply affected by racism.
- Abolition Internationalism – We believe that the pervasive violence of capitalism, policing and prisons do not stop at our borders. These systems are crucial tools for maintaining imperialism and the subjugation of African-descended people around the world from Atlanta to Haiti to Sudan. We therefore organize in a way which “thinks global and acts local”. In other words, we seek, wherever possible, to align our efforts with decolonial and revolutionary movements in the Global South and around the world.
- We call on the City Council to end police patrol in the Black communities in Cambridge. … We want community workers instead.
Some advocacy organizations do more harm than good – even in The Peoples Republic of Cambridge.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to explore with the Government Operations Committee whether the functions of the Peace Commission may be improved and enhanced by bringing them within another City Commission or Department, such as the Human Rights Commission, and report back in a timely manner. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; JSW says this is not intended to eliminate functions of the Peace Commission, need for review of this and other boards; Nolan notes that it would be prudent to review of other boards and commissions, wants to also consider changing function of Police Review and Advisory Board; Simmons notes roles of committees but concerns that this Order involves personnel matters, inappropriateness of intervening in this way at this time; Charter Right – Simmons
This Order is Out Of Order. Though the City Council was responsible for establishing some of these boards and commissions many, many years ago, it’s really a case of jumping the Plan E fence to start directing the City Manager on how these boards should be staffed or if and how the management of the city government should best be organized. I would also speculate that the lead sponsor of this Order would like nothing more than to redefine the Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) in a manner more aligned with his own personal agenda and that of his DSA affiliates.
The Right Order – something that is decades overdue – would be a call for a periodic review of ALL discretionary boards and commissions. The “Cambridge Commission on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Education” was established in 1982 for one purpose but now describes itself as: “The Cambridge Peace Commission promotes peace and social justice within Cambridge and in the wider world by working with other municipal agencies, communities of faith, nonprofit organizations, and the community as a whole to build connections, strengthen relationships, and promote positive dialogue.” The mission has clearly changed even though the ordinance has not.
There are many priorities the citizens of a city like Cambridge should be addressing, and perhaps a few priorities that deserve reevaluation. Did you know that an “Oil Recycling Committee” was established but never disestablished? It just disappeared. The Recycling Advisory Committee and the Committee for Environmentally Desirable Practices were once distinct entities established by Ordinance, but they eventually began meeting jointly and exist now only as the Recycling Advisory Committee.
The Cambridge Traffic Board was established by a Special Act of the Legislature in 1961, but it was allowed to die on the vine until a few of us pointed out that state law mandates that it be appointed. The City Manager and the Law Department eventually agreed and three members were appointed (all bike lane advocates, by the way), a couple of years ago – but I have been told that they have yet to meet (please correct me if I have this wrong!). We have a Bicycle Committee and a Pedestrian Committee, yet operators of motor vehicle operators have almost no recourse – and some might argue that the newly-renamed Transportation Department might more aptly be renamed the Department of Traffic Congestion and Obstruction (DTCO).
I have appreciated some of the historical research of the Cambridge Women’s Commission, but I do occasionally wonder whether that board and several other boards are really extracting the highest and best use of the volunteer efforts of the people of Cambridge. Maybe all discretionary boards should have a sunset provision and a thoughtful reauthorization process every decade or so.
There is also the nagging question of whether the agendas of City boards and commissions as well as their membership should be primarily determined by City staff – some of whom are quietly carrying out their own agendas behind the wall of the Plan E Charter.
Order #3. That the City Council go on record in support of H1811/S1114 and H1693/S1124 and the Clean Slate Massachusetts campaign. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Siddiqui for comments in support; Nolan added as cosponsor (vv); Order Adopted as Amended (vv)
Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to meet with the leadership of the Harvard Square Business Association to discuss the proposal and to take the necessary steps to facilitate the release of $72,000 to fund the RFP development for the tunnel engineering study. [Charter Right – Azeem. May 12, 2025]
Azeem proposes amendment (with Toner); Azeem, Zusy, Nolan comments; Amendment Adopted (vv); Order Adopted as Amended (vv)
Communications #50. Patrick W Barrett III, re: Support for PO25#68 (Inclusionary Housing Study).
This issue isn’t going away – and our newly established Housing Department can no longer wish it away.
Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on April 14, 2025 to review and discuss regulations to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems. (PO25#7). [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File (vv)
Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on April 16, 2025 to review and discuss capital and large-scale programs and projects currently underway and in the funding plan, and potential future programming and projects that would need to be planned and incorporated into medium- and long-term capital and operating budgets. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File (vv)
My take on this meeting and other recent meetings has been that perhaps this isn’t the time for city councillors to be advocating forcefully for their personal pet projects that might be real budget busters. I would also like to draw everyone’s attention to the very informative memo from Finance Director Claire Spinner that was presented at the May 8, 2025 Budget Hearing. That golden goose seems a little less golden these days. I will add that the shift of the tax levy onto the residential sector won’t fall evenly on all housing types. The condo owners will be the least affected, but the owners of single-, two-, and three-family homes may soon experience some serious sticker shock.
Its Conclusion: “Cambridge faces a critical fiscal juncture that requires disciplined financial stewardship and strategic planning. The FY26 budget reflects a concerted effort to maintain essential services, support community priorities, and meet the budget and tax levy targets set last fall – all while navigating mounting economic uncertainty, shifting property valuations, and increasing dependence on property tax revenue. The potential shift in tax burden from commercial to residential properties and the erosion of excess levy capacity highlight the need for careful moderation in budget growth. By implementing a multi-year fiscal framework, preserving financial flexibility, and preparing for federal funding risks through targeted reserves, the City is taking proactive steps to ensure long-term stability. As we move forward, continued collaboration between the City Council, staff, and the broader community will be essential to making informed choices that sustain Cambridge’s financial health and its capacity to invest in a resilient and equitable future.”
Among other things, this week brings a City Council order calling for a process to commence to change 
In Cambridge we like to tout our Proportional Representation (PR) election system as superior to other systems, and in many ways this is true. There is one question, however, that has been nagging at me for some time: “Proportional to what?” During the heyday of Cambridge rent control, it was pretty clearly the case that the City Council was in a similar proportion to the tenant-dominated electorate and that many, perhaps most, voters at that time were guided by that one dominant issue before considering any other issues or candidate traits. After the demise of rent control after Question 9 in 1994, the dominance of the rent control issue faded quickly and we entered a prolonged period where individual personalities and legacy affiliations guided local electoral choices. The notion of proportionality became more of a relic than anything else. In recent years, we have seen the rise of single-issue politics (density, subsidized housing, bike lanes, preservation), but identity politics is as much of a factor as any polarized issue. The question of “Proportional to what?” could not be muddier. What I find most aggravating is how single-issue advocates quote municipal election results to argue why their single issue is somehow reflective of the will of the electorate. There are so many confounding factors involved in voter choice that it is simply never valid to draw conclusions on issues that were not explicitly on the ballot.