While Visions of Number Ones Danced in Their Heads – The City Council returns from a summer of leafleting, door-knocking, and snake oil sales for their first meeting of the Fall. Here are a few things on this week’s agenda that I thought might be somewhat interesting:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a federal update including an update on relevant court cases. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
I always find these updates interesting.
Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $120,000, received from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health’s (DMH) Jail Diversion Program, to the Grant Fund Police Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($120,000). Grant funds will be used to continue the Co-response program with one clinician through June 2026. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Police Commissioner Christine Elow; Order Adopted 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $10,000, to the Grant Fund Police Department Salaries and Wages Account ($5,000) and to the Grant Fund Police Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($5,000). Grant funds will be used to support costs related to providing aftercare support such as supplies that individuals can bring with them to detox such as clothing, supplies (including Narcan) and personal hygiene products and transportation to treatment or clinical care services. A portion of the funding will also be allocated towards providing dedicated POST outreach services. [text of report]
Order Adopted 9-0
Normally, I don’t even comment on sensible appropriation requests like these, but I am aware that there was a brouhaha earlier this year about the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) doing what some councillors and political activists felt should be entirely in the hands of others – in particular the new Community Safety Department (CARE). Rather than celebrate the forward thinking of CPD, I expect several councillors will again pipe up in favor of keeping separate law enforcement and assisting people in crisis. That would indicate a complete misunderstanding of how our police actually operate. Just as one example: Several days ago we had to call CPD about a manic individual howling across the street – apparently just released from a hospital setting. The police came, as did an ambulance and even a fire truck. They talked with the man at length, calmed him down, and provided him with a shirt. When I later asked if all was well, one of the officers (who I knew) told me they were working on getting him some shoes. This is the Cambridge Police Department I know, and I am grateful for all the intervention and aftercare support that they provide.
In an unrelated matter, I see that there’s a Public Safety Committee hearing later this week on the police response relating to an incident at the Close Building at Broadway and Windsor in early August. I have no idea what the optimal way to handle that situation might have been, but I’m not inclined to second-guess the people whose job is to respond to unpredictable situations such as this. Sadly, if I choose to speak in support of CPD at this hearing, I will likely be outnumbered and disparaged by the defunders who will surely be in attendance.
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Sephany Alexis, Sally Benbasset, and Christina Turner and the reappointment of Elizabeth Aguilo, Rowan Murphy, and Michelle Lower as members of the Community Benefits Advisory Committee for a term of three years. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Asst. City Manager Ellen Semonoff (who has announced that she will soon be retiring), Toner, McGovern, Wilson [the gist being that some councillors think that the appointments should be made only after the policies guiding the committee are revised – a rather short-sighted perspective]; Appointments Accepted, Placed on File 8-0 (w/Zusy voting to Abstain)
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to amendments to the Cambridge Tobacco Ordinance. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan, Wilson, Sam Lipson (Director of Environmental Health), Asst. City Solicitor Paul Kawai, and Chief Public Health Officer Derrick Neal (who chose to characterize this in racial terms); Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0
I have always been something of an anti-tobacco crusader myself, but it was interesting to read in this report how the Town of Brookline adopted an ordinance which permanently banned the sale of any tobacco product to anyone born on or after Jan 1, 2000. Though this ban was upheld in the Mass. SJC, I would be very surprised if such a “generational ban” would survive a US Supreme Court challenge. I also found it interesting that prohibition of tobacco sales within a specified distance from schools is being suggested while at the same time there have been discussions of relaxing such restrictions for cannabis outlets. Perhaps one day we’ll be hearing suggestions on banning the sale of meat for persons born after a certain date or within a certain distance from schools.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Transportation, the Commission for Persons with Disabilities, and any other relevant City departments to assess the current accessible parking capacity in the vicinity of Kendall Square and identify potential solutions, which may include adding dedicated accessible parking spaces, creating short-term accessible loading/unloading zones, or implementing other reasonable accommodations. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0
Parking accommodation for tech workers in Kendall Square, but complete dismissal of resident concerns about parking and curb access along Broadway. Why am I not surprised?
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the appropriate City departments, including the City Solicitor’s Office, to establish a formal policy that clearly defines the City’s role and financial responsibilities in supporting large-scale public events hosted by Cambridge-based non-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Wilson to be added as sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
This would be a good move. When Cambridge-based organizations are piecing together larger-scale public events (such as the Cambridge Jazz Festival), they shouldn’t have to go begging for City support as long as they meet some basic, reasonable criteria.
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City staff to ensure that, effective immediately (and for each fiscal year in which the Office for Tourism continues to receive TDMD funding) that the City shall redirect its municipal funding to distribute those funds equally among the Central Square Business Improvement District (BID), the East Cambridge Business Association, the Harvard Square Business Association, and the Kendall Square Association. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Simmons; Charter Right – Toner
My only objection to this is the stipulation that such funds should be equally distributed among four specified groups. There will be times when more support may be needed for one group, and some groups may have the advantage of other funding sources not available to other groups. Perhaps this should instead specify “fairly distributed” rather than “equally distributed”.
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department, the City Assessor, and all other relevant departments to develop a comprehensive policy for future private development projects in the city. Councillor Toner, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan, Siddiqui, Zusy, Wilson, Simmons; Zusy added as sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
This Order is specifically about “contract zoning” and negotiated community benefits contributions – the contentious issue at the heart of the recent Bio-Med rezoning (“Eastern Cambridge Community Enhancements” Zoning Petition). Though I can understand the desire for a policy, I still am disheartened by the whole idea of replacing generosity with bureaucracy, and I have long felt that “contract zoning” is just a more polite way of characterizing “pay to play”. Planning and zoning should be based on principles rather than on cash and prizes.
Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Election Commission, the City Solicitor, and the City Clerk, and report back to the City Council no later than the September 15, 2025 City Council meeting on the Policy Order regarding the deadline for Charter Change. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner
pulled by Toner; comments by Simmons, Toner, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Wilson; Order Adopted 9-0, Reconsideration Fails 0-9 [It was noted that the Charter petition has now been engrossed by the State Senate and was back before the House and is expected to soon by signed by the Governor]
Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting a memorandum re: City Voter Guide for Ballot Questions – Proponent Argument for Proposed City Charter. [text of report]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0; Reconsideration Failed 0-9
Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Lesley Waxman, Assistant Director, Cambridge Election Commission, transmitting a request Letter – In Favor Argument City Charter. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0; Reconsideration Failed 0-9
The clock is ticking and the State Legislature has to act quickly now so that the proposed new Charter will be on the ballot this November. Indications are that this will happen but, regardless, the “pro” and “con” arguments have to be ready to go so that voters will have access to that information prior to Early Voting. Fortunately, essentially all of the proposed charter changes are superficial – more about updating form and language than about fundamentally changing the structure of our local government.
Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant departments to seek input from the community as well as direct outreach to condo owners and short-term rental operators and develop additional recommendations based on the discussion in the Ordinance Committee. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan, McGovern, Zusy; Order Adopted 9-0 [It was noted that only ~150 out of ~600 short-term rentals are currently registered with the City.]
Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Aug 27, 2025 on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 4.000 with the intent to amend Section 4.60 to redefine short-term rental, add definitions for “operator-occupied short-term rental,” “owner-adjacent short-term rental” and “booking agent,” add conditions of authorized uses to comply with the state building code, fire code, sanitary code, and all other state and local habitability requirements, add requirements to provide booking information and other documentation to the City upon request, and add enforcement mechanisms for violation of the ordinance or state regulations. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Sometimes I think we complicate things too much. I would be happy if we just granted any resident property owner the right to one short-term rental as long as they meet any necessary health and building codes and to treat it no differently than any other rental. If a non-resident owner does short-term rentals, then I’d call that a hotel use, and all laws and ordinances for hotels should be applicable – including prohibition if hotel uses are not permitted in that zone. Same goes for a resident owner who does more than one short-term rental, but I really think that should simply be prohibited unless the owner is operating a licensed rooming house.
Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant departments and multi-member bodies to report back to the City Council and inform the community of the work of, and when the recommendations coming from the Micromobility Commission will be available. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan, Zusy, Wilson; Zusy added as sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to consult with relevant departments about the implications of deploying license plate readers and provide recommendations as to whether adjustments in plans for deployment should be made in light of changes since approval in February. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan (with proposed amendment) , Sobrinho-Wheeler (who suggested that license plate readers might be used to track Texas women coming to Massachusetts for abortions), Toner, City Manager Yi-An Huang; Adopted 9-0 as Amended
Methinks this is yet another example of a policy order born from a NextDoor posting. The February 3 approval of license plate readers and cell phones access was adopted 6-3 with Nolan, Siddiqui, and Sobrinho-Wheeler opposed.
Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to coordinate with the Community Safety Department, the Cambridge Police Department, and other relevant parties to ensure that the overnight use of the garden area between St. James Episcopal Church and the Beech Street condos is actively monitored. [Charter Right – Simmons, Aug 4, 2025] (PO25#108)
Comments by Simmons, McGovern, Nolan, Wilson, Zusy; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Resolution #5. Congratulations to Cynthia Shelton Harris for her promotion to Executive Director of Veterans’ Services. Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson
Resolution #6. Condolences on the death of Elizabeth Camacho. Councillor Toner
Resolution #10. Condolences to the family and friends of Mary Leno. Mayor Simmons
I will miss running into Mary Leno and her canine companions.
Late Resolution #13. Congratulations to The Sacramento Community Garden. Councillor Nolan
Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Aug 12, 2025 to discuss the City’s community engagement function, share updates on its structure and direction, and hear from the City Council about their values, priorities, and expectations for engaging with community members. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I spoke at this hearing. The minutes almost never convey the real meaning of the comments. The short version is that I recalled how when I first arrived in Cambridge I was amazed at how responsive City departments were with just a simple phone call. Now we have SeeClickFix and over 40 “community engagement” staff and, in my opinion, responsiveness has often been replaced by public relations and spotty SeeClickFix requests. We might do better with a few phone numbers and some really good Cambridge-born-and-bred phone operators.
Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Aug 14, 2025 to discuss policy options presented by city staff to regulate maximum unit sizes to ensure that the City’s zoning ordinances incentivize the creation of housing. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0
Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant departments on zoning amendments to incentivize multifamily zoning while allowing reasonable development of single and two- family homes, the “balanced incentive approach” which is Option Four outlined in the presentation to the NLTP Committee. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0
There are several things for which every additional “solution” only creates further problems and, ultimately, no solution at all. Except for government housing, essentially every initiative done under the banner of “affordable housing” has resulted in less affordability in housing, and I’m confident that efforts done over this past year will yield similar results. I am also reminded that in all the years our School Committee has been trying to address the “achievement gap”, that gap has only grown wider. The unquenchable desire to control rarely results in sustainable solutions. – RW
Like this:
Like Loading...
Aug 31 – While other candidates are spending their Labor Day weekend handing out campaign literature and promising whatever it takes to win a #1 vote, I was down in the basement yesterday clearing the collected dust and debris out of a dryer vent. In addition to hair clips and mini-Lego pieces from my previous 1st floor tenants (who were great, by the way), I was able to pocket $1.37 in loose change. I guess I’ll use that to supplement the cost of the 3rd floor front porch deck that I will likely be replacing next month. Owning a triple-decker is great – except when it isn’t.
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.
