transportation « Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 20, 2025

When Representation Fails to be Representative – June 23, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,City Council,elections — Tags: boards and commissions, Cambridge, Cambridge government, City Council, City Manager, cycling, elections, gunrunning, Plan E, proportional representation, traffic, transportation — Robert Winters @ 7:58 pm

When Representation Fails to be Representative – June 23, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Pie Chart - Proportional to what? 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.

Last week’s meeting featured 4 Orders that either directly or indirectly addressed the question of installing separated cycle tracks on Broadway and the loss of on-street parking and curb access. It was an interesting mix of political theater, dismissal of the concerns of many petitioners (mainly older and working class voters), and some degree of betrayal and political favoritism. Costumes and props were plentiful, and facts were in short supply as assertions of treacherous conditions on Broadway were made that bore very little resemblance to the actual reality that residents on and around Broadway see every day. Perhaps those who question the plans for Broadway should have shown up with walkers and work clothes. We are now living in a version of Cambridge where unicorns are real and nobody has any need for a car or for parking. City policies are based on wishful thinking and capitulation to advocacy groups flush with cash and social media savvy. Our City Manager seems unable or unwilling to question the advocates embedded in his own City departments. Reason and compromise have no place in this new Cambridge, and older people and working class people should just suck it up. They clearly don’t count in the political calculus of people named Azeem, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, and Siddiqui, and they are at best dangled along by others named Nolan and Zusy. Our City Council, and probably our School Committee, is now proportional in name only.

Enough of last week’s political theater. This week should see less costumery and fewer props. Here are some items that I found interesting in this week’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $540,000 from Free Cash to the General Fund Law Travel and Training (Judgment and Damages) account for the settlement payment relating to Lubavitch of Cambridge, Inc. v. Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal and City of Cambridge (United States District Court District of Massachusetts, Docket No. 1:24-cv-12403).
Order Adopted 9-0

This relates to the recent Executive Session on the above topic and about the status of the long-standing legal challenge to the City’s eminent domain taking of the Vail Court property on Bishop Allen Drive in September 2016. Many of us would like very much to know about the Vail Court status – especially in light of the June 23 committee meeting regarding vacant commercial properties. If we are going to be concerned about vacant properties, then perhaps we should first get our own house in order.

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,800,000, received from the U.S. Department of Transportation Reconnecting Communities Grant Program ($2,400,000) and from the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Transportation Improvement Program ($400,000), to the Grant Fund Transportation Department Extraordinary Expenditures account, for the design of the Fitchburg Crossing bicycle/pedestrian bridge project. Funds will be used to support the design costs of a new off-road bridge over the Fitchburg Rail Line that will connect Danehy Park to the Rindge Avenue neighborhood and create greater access to recreations facilities, retail and jobs for people walking and biking.
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (Dept. of Congestion & Obstruction, a.k.a. Transportation Department), Bill Deignan, Toner (on funding source), Owen O’Riordan (bridge will cost ~$30 million), Zusy, Simmons; Order Adopted 9-0

Such a pedestrian crossing has been batted around for probably three decades now. Cost concerns and ADA requirements were always an issue, but I suppose now that bicycles are being named in the plans the money will simply fall like manna from heaven.

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Kwame Dance and Yemi Kibret and the reappointments of M. Amaris Kinne, Duane Brown, Frederick Cabral, Collin Fedor, Christopher Fischer, and Bran Shim to the Human Services Commission for a term of three years.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of members to the of the American Freedmen Commission (“AFC”); Xenia Bhembe, Jeff Davis, Paula Paris, Cheyenne Wyzzard-Jones, Kashish Bastola, Melissa Jackson Collins, George Greenidge, Gassendina Lubintus, Sukia Akiba, Thabiti Brown, Kwame Dance, Natassa Mason.
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy re: hiring of Exec. Director, report, recommendations; DEI Director Diedre Travis Brown on background; Simmons comments re: Saskia van James, background, claiming unanimous support; Zusy calls this a “noble goal”, not about reparations (really?); Wilson comments on need to move quickly; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang; Nolan comments re: “Color of Law”; Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #15. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $250,000 from the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Extraordinary Expenditures account.
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Brooke McKenna, Nolan, Wilson; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #16. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order 2024-33, regarding a request to amend Cambridge Code of Ordinances 6.08.010 (“Regulation of vicious dogs”) to bring into compliance with State law; and to create a “Kennel License” that complies with Massachusetts General Laws Section 137A. (CM25#175) [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; comments by McGovern; Christine Carreira (Animal Commission), Nolan, Zusy; Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #17. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Short-Term Rental Ordinance Amendments. (CM25#176) [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; comments by Nolan, Peter McLaughlin (Inspectional Services), Peter DeAngelo (Housing Inspector), Elliott Veloso (Law Dept.), Toner, Zusy, Wilson, Owen O’Riordan, Azeem, McGovern; Adopted as a Zoning Petition, Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor, in consultation with relevant City departments and the Community Benefits Advisory Committee, to draft amendments to the Community Benefits Ordinance that allow for the use of funds for capital expenses, provided that such expenses clearly advance the goals of the Community Benefits program. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui w/minor amendment; add Zusy, Simmons as sponsors 9-0; Amendment Adopted 9-0; questions from Toner re: whether this might affect pending BioMed benefits for East End House; McGovern comments noting recent Carlone comments on this topic; Zusy, Wilson, Nolan comments; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

On The Table #3. 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. [Charter Right – Simmons, May 19, 2025; Tabled June 2, 2025]

292 Communications – most in opposition to the plans to remove most of the parking and curb access along Broadway.

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on May 6, 2025 to discuss all Workforce Development/Job Training programs provided for and/or funded by the City, School Department, and non-profits, and discuss a possible future “Jobs Trust” may do differently, or in addition to, current programming funded and/or operated by the City. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on May 21, 2025 to discuss whether the City Council can be removed from the process of approving/denying curb cuts, whether abutters should continue to be part of the process of approving/denying curb cuts and if abutters remain part of the process including renters in definition of “abutters” and to prepare draft Ordinance language. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Our City Council has been focusing a lot on how to handle requests from people with driveways who want curb cuts. Now if only there was just a tiny bit of care for those residents who don’t have driveways and off-street parking. Keep dreaming. – RW

Late Order #5. That the City Council go on record in support of H2343/S3653 “An Act Expanding Truck Safety Requirements”. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan (PO25#98)
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Order #6. On Tuesday, June 24, 2025 the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government is discussing H.4156, which reforms the Cambridge City Charter. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson (PO25#99)
comments by Simmons, Nolan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Comments (0)

June 13, 2025

Will Reason Prevail? – June 16, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2023 election,2025 election,Cambridge,campaign finance,City Council,cycling,transportation — Tags: bicycling, boards and commissions, Broadway, budget, Cambridge, City Council, cycling, elections, housing, parking, proportional representation, traffic, transportation, zoning — Robert Winters @ 2:12 pm

Will Reason Prevail? – June 16, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Penny Farthing This week’s agenda is dominated by several City Council Orders meant to address (or navigate around) the contentious issue of whether the proposed separated bicycle lanes, removal of most of the existing parking, and loss of curb access should proceed on Broadway as currently mandated by the Cycling Safety Ordinance. This is not really a matter of safety so much as political clout. Some straightforward analysis using the current registered voter list indicates that those who want the street reconfiguration to proceed as planned are approximately 25 years younger than those who have signed the petition opposing the reconfiguration. It is also anecdotally clear that there is also a large gap in socioeconomic status. Basically, young professionals are well-represented among those wanting to remove the parking, and those in opposition include far more seniors, people with mobility issues, and people who need their motor vehicles for work and chores.

Those objecting to the loss of parking and curb access tend to be less tech-savvy and more working-class than those who insist that there be no modifications to the current language of the Cycling Safety Ordinance. These are not just people who live on Broadway. Many people on the streets near Broadway also want a change to the current plan. Many people in The Port neighborhood have signed the petition opposing the current plan. Very few people were aware of the plans when the Cycling Safety Ordinance was amended in 2020.

The underlying question right now for city councillors is basically: “Who do you actually represent?”

According to the most recently available campaign finance reports, the Cambridge Bike Safety Independent Expenditure PAC had $15,426.53 (end of 2024), and they have been actively fundraising since then. They even advertised that donations would be matched by an unnamed source. During the 2023 Municipal Election cycle, they raised $36,501.13 and spent $29,519.41. I expect similar receipts and expenditures this year. In comparison, those opposing the current plans for Broadway have no formal organization and no bank account.

Here are the items I found interesting on this week’s agenda:

Federal Updates and Budget Impacts

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
Placed on File 9-0

Bicycles, Parking, Curb Access

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the 5th Annual Cycling Safety Ordinance Report and Awaiting Report Item Number 25-3, regarding update on the status and timeline for the completion of the Grand Junction Multiuse Path. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the submission of the Parking Impact Report. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to require the Department of Transportation to study parking utilization of the broader neighborhood & provide parking alternatives before building Broadway bike lanes. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Toner
Amended Order Failed of Adoption 4-5 (Toner, Wilson, Zusy, Simmons – Yes; Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler – No)

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to suspend implementation of Broadway bike lanes. Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons
Amended Order Failed of Adoption 3-6 (Toner, Wilson, Simmons – Yes; Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy – No)

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Department of Transportation to evaluate adjustments to meter enforcement hours on Broadway Segment A, designating 25 spaces as residential permit parking overnight to increase overnight parking access for residents. Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Cambridge Department of Transportation to study the feasibility of modifying non-resident parking permit fees for households in within the Broadway Segment A project area, including offering a discounted rate structure for permits that are requested by residents with low- income residents. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem
Order Adopted 9-0

177 Communications – most in opposition to the plans to remove most of the parking and curb access along Broadway.

I will simply note that Orders #5 and #6 seem like pure evasion of the real issues raised by residents in The Port neighborhood.

Zoning, Housing

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO25#25 regarding a zoning petition on maximum unit size. [text of report]
Referred to NLTP Committee, Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,000,000, from the Federal Grant Stabilization Fund to the Grant Fund Housing Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account to support a municipal housing voucher grant program which will fund rental housing vouchers to be offered by the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA). This appropriation will allow for City staff to work with CHA in FY26 to transition these households to a City-funded voucher as soon as possible. The program is anticipated to cost approximately $1,000,000 annually. [text of report]
Order Adopted 9-0

Boards, Commissions, Control Freaks

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Sarah Holt, Emily Oldshue, and Ruth Webb and the reappointments of Marie-Pierre Dillenseger, Donna Marcantonio, and Peter Schur to the Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. [Charter Right – Nolan, June 9, 2025] (CM25#146)
Referred to Gov’t. Ops. Committee 9-0

Charter Right #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Nondita Mehrotra, and the reappointments of Constantin von Wentzel, Heli Meltsner, McKelden Smith, Theresa Hamacher, and Freweyni Gebrehiwet to the Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. [Charter Right – Nolan, June 9, 2025] (CM25#147)
Referred to Gov’t. Ops. Committee 9-0

Charter Right #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Florrie Darwin, Scott Kyle, and Michael Rogove and the reappointments of Chandra Harrington, Joseph Ferrara, Elizabeth Lyster, Yuting Zhang, Gavin Kleespies, Paula Paris, and Kyle Sheffield to the Cambridge Historical Commission. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, June 9, 2025] (CM25#145)
Referred to Gov’t. Ops. Committee 9-0

On the Table #6. 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. [Charter Right – Simmons, May 19, 2025; Tabled June 2, 2025]
No Action Taken, Nolan Amendment Proposed

It will be interesting to hear the basis for the objections by Councillors Nolan and Sobrinho-Wheeler to these otherwise routine City Board appointments and reappointments.

Infrastructure – Doing what you can within the bounds of what is physically possible

Charter Right #4. Policy Order urging Governor Healey, the MBTA Board of Directors and General Manager Phillip Eng to amend the MBTA Alewife Station Complex redevelopment RFP to include as a priority eliminating untreated Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) sewage in our neighborhoods by incorporating green and gray infrastructure as central components of the project. The order further calls on the MBTA to collaborate with the MWRA, DCR, DPH, the City of Cambridge, and the community to address this public health threat. [Charter Right – Simmons, June 9, 2025]
Order Adopted as Amended 6-3 (MM,PN,SS,JSW,AW,CZ – Yes; BA,PT,DS – No)

Comments (2)

May 20, 2025

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 645-646: May 20, 2025

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Charter,City Council,cycling,elections,Harvard Square,MBTA,MIT,recycling — Tags: boards and commissions, budget, Cambridge, Cambridge Police, cannabis, City Council, City Manager, cycling, elections, Harvard Square, history, housing, municipal broadband, parking, Patrick Barrett, Plan E, proportional representation, recycling, Robert Winters, traffic, transportation, zoning — Robert Winters @ 11:22 pm

Episode 645 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 20, 2025 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on May 20, 2025 at 6:00pm. Topics: Reflections on 70 years on Earth – 47 years in Cambridge, Mayoral Proclamation; Ranked Choice Voting and limited PR elections for Boston – how it came to be; Review of recent City Council actions and discussions; Cambridge Charter Home Rule pending – relatively few changes from current Plan E Charter; dilemma of when to report a controversy; 2025 municipal candidates emerging – Candidate Pages; opportunities to serve of Boards and Commissions; sunsetting/redefining discretionary Boards, e.g. Peace Commission (Cambridge Commission on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Education); civic unity; the problem of single-issue advocacy; controversy of firearm replacement, activist payback, DSA organizing; ARPA funding expiration, RiseUp successor. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 646 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 20, 2025 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on May 20, 2025 at 6:30pm. Topics: Cambridge Charter Home Rule Petition – big assist by Law Department, restoring citizen petitions, leaving out poison pills – just like Somerville; AAA bond ratings; Nexus studies for Incentive Zoning and for Inclusionary Zoning; reconsidering Linkage, Inclusionary requirements; Barrett letter; deaths Pebble Gifford, Robert Campbell, Doane Perry; thankless job of being head of a neighborhood association; bicycle lane controversies, reckless plans and policies, bullying by Cambridge Bike Safety group, Broadway as route for emergency vehicles; Harvard Square – Gerald Chan properties, MBTA tunnel innovative ideas; retirement of Diane LeBlanc, Owen O’Riordan; Kathy Watkins to be Deputy City Manager; Budget Hearings, new reality of limitations, shifting of tax burden from commercial to residential, extra heavy burden on single-, two-. and three-family homeowners – Claire Spinner memo; TWC, vouchers, RiseUp, municipal broadband not so fundable; federal updates and clarity of City Manager Yi-An Huang, City Solicitor Megan Bayer, Police Commissioner Christine Elow; federal targeting of Harvard, MIT and downstream repercussions. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

Comments (0)

May 19, 2025

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Charter,City Council — Tags: Black Response, boards and commissions, budget, Cambridge, Cambridge government, Cambridge Police, cannabis, City Council, housing, Inclusionary Housing, Patrick Barrett, Peace Commission, Plan E, recycling, transportation — Robert Winters @ 1:30 am

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

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: Peoples Republic of Cambridge

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.”

Comments (0)

May 5, 2025

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,City Council,cycling,history,transportation — Tags: boards and commissions, budget, Cambridge, City Council, cycling, elections, housing, Patrick Barrett, transportation, Urban design, zoning — Robert Winters @ 12:54 pm

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are the featured items this week. I’ll offer minimal comments for now – summaries to follow after the meeting. Cinco de Mayo

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang on executive order re: sanctuary cities, federal grant agreements (esp. HUD grants), federal budget w/significant cuts to programs; creation of federal funding stabilization fund, executive actions outpacing legal/court responses, expected steep cuts, proposed elimination of entire CDBG program, housing eligibility; JSL asks about how these interact with Cambridge budget process; Nolan notes loss of coastal resiliency funding; Zusy asks why are waiting to reduce budget until FY27, Manager notes that City is making some adjustments now, Zusy suggests making some judicious cuts now; Manager notes that City has contingency plans, won’t sign on to Trump mandates, expected legal challenges, possible funding losses; Zusy asks about Free Cash status and prognosis, concerns about depleting cash reserves in order to fund various requests; Azeem – suspend rules to take up Order #6; City Manager says he understands intention behind Order #6 but we cannot do everything and must remain fiscally responsible, will provide more detailed responses during Budget Hearings, TWC response already provided, Rise Up successor planning to follow for FY27 and not FY26, prioritization of major proposals now underway; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-14, regarding a home rule petition allowing Cambridge to end the practice of property owners passing on broker’s fees to tenants. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-22, regarding a request to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to open the publicly owned parking at the King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School Complex for either residential free parking or commercial parking opportunities during “off” hours.
pulled by Nolan; Nolan comments; Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan notes that this is still before the Buildings & Grounds Subcommittee of the School Committee; Wilson, McGovern, Zusy, Azeem comments; Yi-An Huang notes that current garage not designed for public use, possibility of converting it while preserving school safety; Simmons explains status as Chair of School Committee; Tabled 8-0-1 (Zusy Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Subandha Karmacharya as a member of the Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship for a term of three years.
Appointment Confirmed 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Carolyn Zern as a member of the Planning Board for a term of five years.
pulled by Zusy (asking about term lengths of boards); explanations by Melissa Peters (CDD), Mayor Simmons; Appointment Confirmed 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board recommendation on the AHO Heights Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the prioritization of zoning priorities. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Zusy; responses by Melissa Peters (CDD); Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. City Council support of the completion of the Mass Central Rail Trail. Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Nolan to be added as sponsor; comments by Zusy; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I go back a long way on this one and on other rails-to-trails projects. Back in the 1980s I rode/walked along the route of what would eventually become the Minuteman Bikeway with a lead person from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). [Andy and I also played on the same Boston Junior Park League baseball team.] I was also tasked along with two other bicycle advocates to chart out the markings and intersections along the entire route of the Minuteman Bikeway, and I witnessed all stages of its construction. In the early 1990s, my friend David Goode was tasked by the Mass. Department of Environmental Management (now folded into the DCR) to research the available right-of-way of the Mass Central Railroad west of Route 495, especially around Berlin, MA west to the Wachusetts Reservoir in Clinton, MA. I purchased a hybrid bike for this purpose – the same bike that I use today – so that David and I could explore the route. So we loaded the bikes into my old VW Bus and we headed west. We not only explored the section of the RR right-of-way built after the Wachusett Dam forced a change in the route, but also the original right-of-way that had gone back to nature. That was an adventure. The culmination of our exploration was at the reservoir where we scrambled up a hillside and found the long-abandoned Clinton Tunnel through which westbound trains once passed before immediately finding themselves on the highest wooden trestle in New England as they passed over the South Nashua River below the dam. It was great fun going through the Clinton Tunnel on our bikes, and I have returned on several occasions.

Many sections of what is now the Mass Central Rail Trail, including most of the section through Weston which originally faced strong local opposition, have now been built. I attended some of those meetings in Weston 30 years ago. There are trade-offs between having a more primitive, unimproved right-of-way vs. a paved bikeway, and I could understand and appreciate the differing points of view. On balance, the Mass Central Rail Trail continues to be a great long-term project as it wends its way toward a greater degree of completion.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant staff to investigate bike pod storage options to be placed in suitable areas in the City to provide residents and visitors safe storage options. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; comments by JSW; Toner, Zusy, Nolan comments – issues of how to add these w/o negative impacts, nontrivial cost; Simmons amendment to analyze cost adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to prepare an update with details on the status of potential civilian flagger operations in the Cambridge police union contract and work with relevant city staff to explore a civilian traffic flagger program and update the current police union contract on the City’s website. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Toner; comments by JSW, Toner (noting that active police officers, retired officers, officers from other communities, and only then civilian flaggers; City gets 10% of the fee), Zusy ($64.50/hour and a 4 hour minimum), Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0

This order is just an echo of similar orders from years past. I saw primarily civilian flaggers during my various cross-country trips. In Massachusetts, every time the idea is suggested it has been met with anecdotes about how a uniformed police flagger foiled a crime and why this “proves” the need to have only uniformed officers doing this job. This is total nonsense. It’s the same sort of protectionism that has kept requirements for lucrative police details in many situations where any competent person could do the job.

Order #5. The City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Inclusionary Housing Study, explore remedies to address the lack of housing starts and provide for consideration draft amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and explore other incentives to encourage developers to include affordable units beyond the requirement voluntarily. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan; City Manager acknowledges the economics; Melissa Peters (CDD) notes that IZ has been main driver of affordable units; Azeem comments – notes that an 8% inclusionary requirement might pencil out, higher percentages currently infeasible; McGovern asks how long the analysis would take, Melissa reports from Chris Cotter an estimate of 9 months; McGovern recounts history of how current requirement would come to be and the 5-year review has not been done, still believes that AHO will surpass production of IZ, notes political perceptions of making any changes; JSW opposes lowering of 20% requirement as well as quick implementation of any changes, suggests tiered requirements; Siddiqui comments; Zusy supports intention of this Order, agrees with adopting a temporary reduction in mandate pending detailed study, notes dearth of new Inclusionary units over last 3 years – though contradicted by numbers in Budget Book and elsewhere; Melissa Peters notes distinction between issuance of building permits and actual construction; Toner reiterates that 5-year study now overdue; Zusy asks to be added as co-sponsor of original Order; Substitute Order by Azeem, JSW, Siddiqui, McGovern; Wilson comments (wants to use Affordable Housing Trust to subsidize IZ), Manager responds that it may be possible; Nolan comments, including whether a seeking a variance is a possibility, Melissa Peters suggests this would not qualify as a hardship; McGovern suggests changing reporting date on substitute amendment from January 2026 to October 2025; Charter Right – Azeem

Please read the letter from Patrick Barrett on this topic. City Council initiatives are often more performative than practical.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to include in the FY26 Operating Budget a continued commitment to Emergency Housing Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing and Mixed Status Families, and the Transition Wellness Center, as well as allocate the necessary resources to establish a municipal successor to Rise Up Cambridge that builds on its mission of providing direct, dignified economic support to families. Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Voted along with City Manager #1; Simmons substitute language for Order #6; McGovern wants to spend down Free Cash and raises property taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list of additional programs and extension of existing programs set to expire; Wilson also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list; JSW also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list; Siddiqui also wants to spend down Free Cash and raise taxes to fund the DSA-recommended wish list – especially the Rise Up local welfare program; Toner objects to references to “the unelected City Manager” who is hired by the elected City Council, notes that Council voted 8-1 to maintain city manager form of government, 9-0 to extend City Manager’s contract, recalls discussions over this past year in Finance Committee re: fiscal restraint, notes that Rise Up was funded by ARPA and not from property taxes, City Manager has been clear along about the greater wisdom in closing the ARPA-funded Transition Wellness Center in favor of better alternatives, will support substitute Order, need more time to structure any possible Rise Up successor, not the right time to be funding new programs; Nolan notes that City Council and City Administration has pushed back hard on federal actions, City Manager has stood firmly in support of community values, would prefer to find efficiencies in existing budget to fund emergency measures, notes large residential property tax increases in recent years and that this also affects rents; Zusy calls programs commendable but we don’t have the funds to continue them all, willing to seek efficiencies in order to free up some funding; Simmons notes that leadership requires difficult choices, asks Council to support substitute amendment to Order #6; Azeem notes that he initially voted to find more $ to support TWC but that this has led to additional demands to fund many other things, and we don’t have unlimited capacity to fund all these things, do support municipal voucher initiative, calls Rise Up program very effective, wants City Council orders to be respected and feels that current City Manager follows City Council orders more than his predecessors; McGovern reiterates that we have enough money from Free Cash to fund everything; Simmons Substitution Adopted 5-4 (BA,PN,PT,CZ,DS-Yes; MM,SS,JSW,AW-No); Wilson Charter Right on Substitute Order

Committee Report #2. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on April 17, 2025 to discuss the feasibility of a successor program to Rise Up. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

While I cannot say for sure, this policy order has a distinct quality of a municipal election year rallying device. All of its sponsors have attended Finance Committee meetings regarding the questionable feasibility and advisability of these programs, and it seems like a combination of ignorance and arrogance to continue to insist that these all be funded. ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) was a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus bill passed by Congress to aid in recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. It was never intended to be a permanent addition to the operating budgets of cities and states that accepted ARPA funding. The key word in “Transition Wellness Center” is “Transition” – indicative of a short-term accommodation to reduce shelter occupancies during the worst period of the COVID epidemic. The “Rise Up Cambridge” local welfare program was also principally funded by ARPA, and any successor program would have to be more limited and with stricter eligibility requirements. [Needless to say, welfare programs are best funded through the state and federal government rather than as individual municipal programs.] Emergency housing vouchers in response to major changes in federal housing policies and funding seem like an appropriate conversation in the moment, but any notion that the City can simply take on all of these costs and burdens is woefully naive.

It is noteworthy that the Cambridge Democratic City Committee (CDCC) has signed on as a sponsor of a rally scheduled to coincide with the City Council meeting. I am a member of the CDCC (Ward 6) and I don’t recall there being any mention of this anywhere or any vote to endorse these proposed measures. Then again, the CDCC – much like so many political organizations – is prone to acting as an extension of a small number of activists who have inserted themselves as principal decision-makers who feel little or no need to consult their membership.

Order #7. First floor retail policy order. Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; amendments proposed by Toner, Nolan; comments by Azeem, McGovern, Zusy, Siddiqui; Melissa Peters responds; Nolan amendment Fails 4-4-1 (PN,SS,JSW,DS-Yes; MM,PT,AW,CZ-No; Present-BA]; Melissa Peters explains options for amendment to zoning; Zusy concerns re: “other appropriate areas of the city”; Toner explains the intention of the Order; JSW says he would welcome retail or restaurant next door without any qualifications; Zusy notes what was done in Somerville; Charter Right – Zusy

Neighborhood-scale retail is a great amenity, but I don’t think it would make sense or be welcome at all locations in all residential districts. This is why zones such as the BA-1 and BA-2 zones were created – to permit these uses in locations where they already existed and where they can coexist with neighbors. I know – I live in a BA-1 zone.

Resolution #14. Resolution on the death of Doane Perry. Councillor Nolan

Doane was a jewel of a human being. Doane also served for a time as President of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association (MCNA). I have enduring respect for all of the people who have assumed the burden of heading up a neighborhood association and taken on the often-difficult task of developing consensus from a broad range of differing opinions.

Committee Report #1. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on April 10, 2025 to discuss services being provided to the unhoused community and an update on the opioid settlement. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy for minor amendment (pg 3); Report Accepted as Amended, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on April 29, 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 certain subsections of the Affordable Housing Overlay, Section 11.207 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, with the intent of limiting allowable height increases in Residence C-1 districts, removing references to provisions in the base zoning that are no longer applicable, and clarifying references to departments responsible for enforcement. The Ordinance Committee voted favorably to accept the amendments and forward them to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Zoning Petition Amended 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Note: The FY2026 Budget Hearings start this week.

Comments (1)

April 14, 2025

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Charter,City Council — Tags: budget, Cambridge, Cambridge Charter, Cambridge government, City Council, Plan E, proportional representation, transportation — Robert Winters @ 2:42 pm

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

My taxes are almost done (yeah, I never get an early start), and the City Council meets on the eve of Tax Day. Here are the agenda items that distracted me this week: Peoples Republic of Cambridge

Money Talks

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Nolan; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang re: Harvard President Alan Garber’s announcement to not cooperate w/threats from Trump Administration, courage of students and others in standing up to administration; cancellation of federal grants, breach of order by federal government, positions terminated, programs cut or eliminated (such as LIHEAP), danger of the coming years, confronting the federal government; comments by Nolan, Siddiqui (asks about Volpe, no word yet); Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge FY2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Claire Spinner (Finance), Joseph McCann (Auditor), Robert Mahoney (independent audit consultant), Zusy, Simmons; Placed on File 9-0

Talking about Transportation

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-67 regarding Cambridge Bicycle Plan Update and Consideration of Network Connections. (CM25#82) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (TPT), Stephanie Groll (Transportation Planning – now part of Transportation Department), Toner (on how CSO might be modified), Owen O’Riordan (looking at all modes of traffic, achieving a high degree of consensus), Zusy, Wilson (wants more details in spelling out the “network”, EW routes vs. NS routes; McKenna talks about the 2015 process and “vision”, calls NS routes “low speed, low volume” vs. EW routes “requiring” separation; Wilson asks how Broadway became included in current plan, McKenna says it was added in the 2020 plan; Nick Schmidt (new pedestrian and bicycle program manager) introduced; McKenna says development of the Network Vision independent of the Cycling Safety Ordinance, claims there was a public process [Is that really true? – I don’t recall there be any such process.]; Wilson addresses broader concerns re: CSO and needs of actual people; McGovern says Main Street was not part of the Ordinance, McKenna says the Ordinance calls for 25 miles, some streets (the “special four”) specified, says Brattle Street and Main Street “essential” to be added to network; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-23 regarding a Citywide Shuttle Bus Pilot program. (CM25#84) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Toner, Zusy, Siddiqui, Brooke McKenna; Referred to both Neighborhood & Long-Range Planning Committee and Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Mon, Mar 17, 2025 with MIT transportation experts and City staff to brainstorm ways to better accommodate mobility for all users as we continue to promote the use of sustainable modes. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)

This and That

Order #1. City Council opposition to Federal efforts to defund or censor museums. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Nolan; comments by Simmons, Nolan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. That the City Council go on record declaring Earth Day, April 22 in the year 2025 “Sustainable Cambridge Day” and that the City Manager is requested to communicate to all City departments the City’s commitment to our climate goals and the need to support the efforts of the Sustainable Cambridge initiative. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Nolan for comments; Order Adopted 9-0

Charter Right #1. Continued funding of the Transitional Wellness Center. [Charter Right – Toner, Apr 7, 2025]
McGovern proposed amendment Adopted 7-0-0-2 (Azeem, Zusy – Present); Toner notes Human Services Committee meeting on this topic, Manager was clear about lack of funding for continued operation; City Manager Huang comments on Cambridge many investments for unhoused communities, fact that this proposed expenditure would add considerable expense and City is already opening permanent supporting housing; Toner, Zusy to vote No while acknowledging good services provided by the TWC; McGovern challenges Zusy unnecessarily, gets agitated suggesting he’ll just bring this up again, suggests false choices between this and trees and other matters, calls his colleagues statements “shameful”; Sobrinho-Wheeler supports the Order and suggests lack of prioritization process, wants the City Council to take more control of the Budget process (bad idea); Nolan notes that there is a lot of desire to fund everything, but it’s unfair to shame each other on financial and other decisions, does not agree with referring this to Finance Committee; Simmons expresses concerns about promoting a program that is not well run; Wilson will vote Yes on the proposal; McGovern comments; Yi-An Huang notes that if we had no resources there would be no hard choices, and some (limited) funding creates environment where priorities must be set and choices must be made, and further notes that federal cuts can affect local choices, each year’s budget feeds into the next year’s budget; McGovern again suggests that this should be a priority in addition to other pet projects like municipal broadband; Siddiqui suggests rethinking the Wednesday’s Finance Committee meeting agenda, continues to promote her own “Rise Up” local welfare program; Azeem notes simultaneous expiration of ARPA funding and losses in federal funding, asks when any decisions re: Spaulding program must be made; Ellen Semonoff says a date is difficult to determine – there are 22 people still at TWC, and the longer people stay based on possibility of extension the more likely they may find themselves with no next step, notes that if TWC does not close now it will be more difficult to do so in the future; City Manager notes that funding TWC will make it more difficult to fund a successor program to the “Rise Up” local welfare program; Nolan additional comments re: many proposed projects; McGovern objects to suggestion of vouchers vs. TWC; Order Adopted as Amended 5-4; Reconsideration Fails 0-9
[My own personal opinion is that this entire conversation is proof positive why it would be a terrible idea to have legislators wrest more control over city management with the goal of promoting specific (often politically motivated) projects – the essential definition of political patronage – which can sometimes produce good benefits, but often not. I will add that if some of the current councillors could have their way, property taxes would soar, especially in light of recent news regarding Kendall Square commercial property challenges and their tax levy implications.]

Only 279 Communications this week. One, in particular, stood out above all the others:

Communication #208. Patrick W Barrett III, re: PO25#49. [text of communication]

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Mar 5, 2025 to receive an update on the state of the arts in Cambridge and discuss how the City is currently supporting artists and art organizations through grant programs and funding, with a focus on the Central Square Cultural district. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)

The Cambridge Charter

Committee Report #3. The Cambridge City Council’s Special Committee of the Whole/Charter Review was held on Fri, Mar 28, 2025 to review the communication from the City Solicitor with updates in the Charter review process that was referred from the Mar 17, 2025 City Council meeting. [text of report]
Rules Suspended to take up early along with Comm & Reports #2 and #3; Siddiqui thanks all involved; Toner comments; March 28, 2025 revisions voted Adopted 9-0; Committee Report Placed on File 9-0; Comm. & Reports #2 Placed on File 9-0 (superseded by ; City Solicitor Megan Bayer walks through changes in latest Draft; Siddiqui motion to accept latest changes Adopted 9-0; comments by Nolan re: Charter Review Committee; Sobrinho-Wheeler addresses removal procedures, McKenna notes state law regarding conviction of felony and removal upon sentencing (as was the case with former Councillor William Walsh in 1994); Zusy on review of ordinances every decade, Mayer responds [Note: They used to be not only reviewed but frequently published as a bound volume], McKenna notes that existing ordinances would be a 6 inch wide bound volume; Simmons speaks on half of School Committee member Caroline Hunter re: role of the Mayor on the School Committee; McGovern remarks on review of ordinances suggesting that the period of review be baked into the ordinance language itself; Wilson expresses gratitude to Law Department and Charter Review Committee, how to put into practice the review of ordinances, Bayer notes this would be a significant undertaking; Megan Bayer notes that many City departments are affected by ordinances and that they should be involved in their review; Siddiqui acknowledges Clerk’s Office, notes many CRC recommendation that have been referred to Government Operations for future consideration; McGovern says Gov’t Operations meetings will be scheduled; Toner asks if charter review must be done every 10 years or does clock start w/adoption of any revision, Bayer notes that it would be every 10 years (in a year ending in a ”2”); Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting an update regarding Revised Charter Draft including Home Rule Draft.
Placed on File 9-0 (superseded by late communication below)

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting – Updated City Charter Revised Charter Draft.
Placed on File 9-0; Home Rule Petition Adopted 9-0

Late Order #3. That the City Council approve the motions that passed favorably in the Special Committee of the Whole/Charter Review on March 28, 2025. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#55)
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Order #4. That the Council accept the new additional changes as detailed that the Law Department has made that the Special Committee did not vote on. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#56)
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Order #5. That the City Council petition the General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to enact the attached home rule petition entitled, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE; provided, that the Legislature may make such incidental changes necessary to effectuate passage of this petition. Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui (PO25#57)
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Order #6. That the City Council request that State Rep. Marjorie Decker sponsor the home rule petition entitled AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE. Councillor Siddiqui
Nolan amends to have rest of delegation invited, Siddiqui very truculent in response; Amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (McGovern – Absent)

This has been a long haul, and not such a pleasant one. On the bright side, there won’t be any major changes to the general framework of Cambridge municipal government. We’ll still have a city manager form of government with all at-large elections conducted via proportional representation with some added flexibility for the Election Commission to slightly modify the tabulation methods (the one thing I wanted to see for many years). The City Council will continue to choose their own Chair (the Mayor), but the Mayor will serve as an ordinary member of the School Committee with its Chair being elected by the School Committee (something I suggested over 20 years ago). Also, I was finally heard regarding the matter of keeping intact the current mechanisms for Resident Initiative Petitions and Referenda (which the City Council had originally eliminated). The updating of the language and overall structure of the proposed Charter is also a worthwhile change.

On the negative side (for starters): (a) the selection of the original Charter Review Committee was tainted and driven by the whims of the Mayor at that time; (b) the current penalties under the Plan E Charter for City Council interference (not acting through the City Manager) were eliminated (a very bad thing); and (c) at every step the City Council insisted on greater control of budgetary matters, board appointments, and more. I can only speculate how the whole procedure may have been different (and probably better) had there been an actual Charter Commission – as opposed to having only incumbent city councillors having any say regarding any changes in the structure our municipal government.

Assuming the posted draft of the new Charter is approved by the City Council, it will then have to be reviewed by the Attorney General and the Home Rule Petition will have to be approved by the State Legislature. If all that takes place, it will then come back to the voters of Cambridge – optimistically in time for the November 2025 election, but it could potentially be further delayed. – Robert Winters

Comments (0)

April 4, 2025

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,City Council,cycling,Fresh Pond,transportation — Tags: A Bigger Cambridge, Cambridge, City Council, Garden Street, Gerald Chan, neighborhood conservation districts, opportunism, tabloid journalism, traffic, transportation, Urban design, vacancies, water — Robert Winters @ 1:51 pm

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Light Blue

Not that you could ever tell from the scandalous focus of the local tabloids, but the Big Issue residents are hotly debating now is whether the Garden Street road configuration should stay or go. Beyond the sideshows and the political posturing and opportunism, here are a few things of interest on this week’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Cambridge Public Schools’ long-term facilities condition assessment. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang, Interim School Superintendent David Murphy, Councillors Wilson, Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a proposed amendment to the Drought Ordinance. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; Unfinished Business #4 brought forward; Placed on File 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to Cambridge Municipal Code 13.08, Water System Regulations and Chapter 13.12, Water Reservoirs. [Passed to 2nd Reading Mar 24, 2025; Eligible To Be Ordained Apr 7, 2025] [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; Ordained as Amended 9-0

Order #1. That the City Council send a formal invitation to Mr. Gerald Chan to come before the Economic Development and University Relations Committee to answer questions and present his plans for the Harvard Square Movie Theater, as well as his other vacant properties in the City. Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by McGovern (paradoxically endorsing nostalgia and preservation while simultaneously endorsing wholesale changes in built environment); comments by Siddiqui re: legal imitations in what Council can do; comments by Wilson, Simmons; Toner proposes amendment to bring in 23 other vacant storefront owners; Zusy supports amendment, wants to extend to other property owners but without shaming; McGovern OK with amendment but expects this will take several meetings, dismisses suggestion that this is “shaming”; Zusy suggests that singling out one property owner not ideal, there are broader considerations; Amendment Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Mar 11, 2025 with the City Solicitor and the Community Development Department, Economic Opportunity Division, to discuss concerns with vacant store fronts and commercial properties in Cambridge, and prior efforts and possible options such as new policies, taxes, and/or fines to reduce the number of vacant store fronts and commercial properties in Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #2. Continued funding of the Transitional Wellness Center. Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by McGovern with some history of funding for this facility; Sobrinho-Wheeler advocates for keeping it open beyond ARPA funding; Wilson comments; Yi-An Huang notes current funding is ~$3 million/year which would likely rise, contracts would need to be extended, more information for these and similar services will be forthcoming; Charter Right – Toner

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-68 re: Garden Street two-way traffic alternatives. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mar 31, 2025] [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler (JSW) along with Charter Right #3; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #3. That the City Manager and appropriate staff move forward with Option 4 to reopen Garden Street to two-way traffic while maintaining separated bike lanes. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mar 31, 2025]
pulled by Toner along with Charter Right #1; JSW proposed amendment by substitution calling for more analysis and not moving forward with Option #4; Toner expresses appreciation for JSW amendment but wants to move forward with 2-way preference; Nolan notes that there have already been many changes to other road redesigns, supports bi-directional bike lanes as safest alternative; Siddiqui aligns w/JSW; Azeem agrees w/JSW amendment and focuses on cost of different options; TPT Director Brooke McKenna suggests estimated cost of Option #4 to be $137,000 with timeline of Summer 2026, additional costs associated w/utilities; Azeem uses cost to rationalize making no changes; Zusy suggests that JSW amendment would just be “kicking the can down the road”, need to take a vote on this now and resolve outstanding issues re: loading zones, etc.; Wilson appreciates spirit of JSW amendment, notes that these issues are city-wide pinning neighbors against each other, making movement across the city difficult, insufficient outreach to those affected; McGovern notes dissatisfaction of some neighbors but wants to keep current configuration; JSW Amendment Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,SS,JSW-Yes; PN,PT,AW,CZ,DS-No); Toner notes that some will be unhappy either way, resounding push-back after restricting to 1-way; Nolan notes that many came out in support for Option #1 (keep 1-way) due to organized effort, speaks in support of bi-directional bike lanes, notes $50 million on Mass. Ave. due to provision of bike lanes; Zusy notes that while TPT reports were rational there is also need for safety for drivers and not just cyclists, 42,000 registered vehicles and Garden Street a strongly preferred route for hundreds of years, rollover accidents caused by current configuration, school-related traffic increases anticipated; Siddiqui says safety data supports Option #1, but McKenna says crash analysis has not been done, acknowledges increase in rollover crashes but does not ascribe cause; McKenna notes potential congestion problems (which is interesting in that the TPT position has been in favor of congestion in that it leads to reduced speeds); Yi-An Huang notes that bike lane debates among most contentious in many communities, notes the many trade-offs; Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan notes thought given by TPT in regard to Garden Street and other streets where road configurations are planned, notes that all four options provide safe passage for all users; Wilson comments on difficult and divisive conversation, notes similar shifting points of view in Cambridge and other communities, fact that there have been fatalities last year – all on roads with separated bike lanes; JSW notes that if Option #4 is chosen there are limited means to provide replacement parking or loading zones (which didn’t seem to be a concern for the Mass. Ave. bike lanes); McGovern expresses concerns about the “pendulum” of changing back and forth, acknowledges complaints about Brattle Street bi-directional bike lanes; McKenna notes concerns about people not looking both ways when crossing bi-directional bike lanes; Simmons motion to end debate Prevails 8-1 (SS-No); Order (to move forward w/Option #4 – 2-way operation of Garden Street) Adopted 5-4 (PN,PT,AW,CZ,DS-Yes; BA,MM,SS,JSW-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Note: The notion that the City Council should not be making decisions on road configurations that would revert Garden Street to 2-way traffic is ironic to say the least. The entire (amended) Cycling Safety Ordinance that mandated specific treatments for specific roads was based on this same sort of “political traffic engineering”. It seems pretty clear to many of us that this level of micromanagement is fundamentally problematic, and it is, in fact, the rigidity of the timelines that were established in the Ordinance that have created all of this mess. I will add that this entire topic is mainly about “winning” for the Cambridge Bike Safety group.

656 Communications – almost all of which have to do with Garden Street bike lanes and parking, plus a lesser number having to do with (a) Half-Crown Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District (and ABC’s never-ending quest to bulldoze Cambridge history), and (b) “Our squares and corridors”. There were relatively few about the Councillor Toner situation, and opinions varied widely. Clearly, bike lanes and the built environment (including glass houses) are higher on the list of resident priorities.

Late Order #4. That the City Council formally go on record to urge, in the strongest possible terms, the Harvard Corporation to stand up in defense of the values that are fundamental to both the University and our democracy; and that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to act with urgency and coordinate a response and consult with all relevant city, regional, and state entities to develop a united front and take all action possible to counter this assault on the foundational values of our city as a center of higher learning. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons (PO25#52)
Comments by Nolan; Yi-An Huang remarks noting centuries-old relationship between Harvard and Cambridge, need to stand up to Trump Administration and their unlawful actions; Simmons and all councillors ask to be added as sponsors and that this be also directed to our legislative delegation; Siddiqui notes Globe opinion article by Niko Bowie and Benjamin Edelson entitled “Harvard’s Moment of Truth”; McGovern comments re: “vindictive bullies” (irony noted); Azeem asks about what actions City could take; Yi-An Huang notes that having City Council on record is important, ongoing meetings with the Harvard Corporation, action of taking a $750 million bond to ensure liquidity in the event of shut-off of federal funding, growing set of faculty and alumni speaking up, “there is a voice of truth and integrity that needs to come out”; Nolan amendment Adopted as Amended 9-0

Comments (0)

February 10, 2025

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,City Council,Comcast,transportation — Tags: budget, Cambridge, City Council, City Manager, housing, municipal broadband, traffic, transportation, zoning — Robert Winters @ 11:50 am

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

It should be noted that this Regular City Council meeting will be preceded by a 3:00pm Special Meeting relating to negotiations to extend the contract of City Manager Yi-An Huang. Public comment will permitted at that meeting prior to going into Executive Session.

The Big Items (other than any developments on the City Manager’s contract) are the inevitable ordination of the ill-begotten Multi-Family Housing zoning (better characterized as the Gargantuan Upzoning Amendment) and an Order to move ahead on Municipal Broadband – regardless of cost.

Here are the items on the Regular Meeting that drew my attention this week: City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan final adoption. (CM25#26) [text of report and Order]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to create a plan with a schedule and milestones to move forward with the creation of a Municipal Broadband Network and present it for consideration by the Council at a Finance Committee meeting in the context of capital projects for coming years. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by JSW dismissing concerns about feasibility claiming much consultation with City officials; Nolan notes that service would not be free, says this Order in not a mandate to move forward, notes importance of net neutrality, says this is a necessary utility, calls it a manageable investment; Toner notes opposition due to range of “Whereas” statements, $150-250 million cost and changing technologies, other ways to address Internet equity; McGovern says he has been supportive of this, but notes different financial circumstances now, refers to “Trump-Musk administration” and federal cuts, proposes amendment to strike to “to move forward to the creation…” clause; Zusy concurs re: current financial circumstances, notes other ways digital equity is being addressed; Siddiqui OK with amendment; Wilson says conversation is important; Simmons says affordable Internet now not a luxury but a necessity, need for greater digital equity, notes that proposal doesn’t assure lower cost; McGovern amendment to remove “to move forward” Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner-No)

Though I have no strong feelings on Municipal Broadband, I am aware of the significant costs associated with it as well as the risks and uncertainty of moving forward on an infrastructure proposal in an environment where emerging technologies may make this obsolete. I am also reminded of the various meetings and presentations on the tax levy over the last year and the repeated advice that the City needs to be more fiscally prudent in the near term. Perhaps Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, Nolan, and Wilson didn’t get the memo. Or maybe this is being introduced strategically right now as the City Manager’s contract extension is being negotiated. Or maybe it’s just another municipal election year bauble to be dangled in front of the electorate even though there is little or no indication that this will yield any cost savings for consumers. For the record, I deeply dislike Comcast/Xfinity – but mainly because of the crappy Cable TV options which, by the way, never enter into the discussions about Municipal Broadband.

Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Amended Feb 3, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#1) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Azeem amendment to footnote as suggested by CDD staff Adopted 9-0; McGovern amendment re: required abutters meeting that would have required notification to Planning Boards in adjacent towns (not viewable in recording of meeting); Nolan comments on electronic notification; McGovern amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Zusy comments on this proposal producing most luxury units, raised real estate values, displacement, and other negative outcomes, suggests delaying this or reconsidering “3+3” alternative and establish funding mechanisms, community land trust; Azeem praises himself and Siddiqui; Siddiqui calls this her “birthday present”, suggests even more aggressive changes and “being intentional”, dismisses concerns of others as “fear of change”; McGovern addresses concern about “luxury units” and that target population is people who make too much money to be eligible for Inclusionary Housing units, calls this “good government”; Toner concurs and acknowledges that many people will be upset with his vote in favor, dismisses concerns about over-building on small lots, wants to now move forward on Squares and Corridors; Wilson emphasizes “crisis”, says she preferred “3+3” alternative; Nolan credits herself for initializing process for eliminating single-family zoning, says she preferred “3+3” alternative claiming it would have yielded more units and more affordability; Sobrinho-Wheeler notes that all current single-family housing sell for at least $1.5 million, says this change will yield 60% of all new buildings having affordable units; Simmons notes long process and suggests this will yield affordability for generations, says “leadership means making difficult choices”, says Squares and Corridors, housing vouchers next targets, says “we are a role model”; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to ORDINANCE 2025 #2 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 2. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#2) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Late Order #6. That the City Manager direct the Community Development Department and Law Department to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would make the provisions of Section 11.207.5.2.1, Paragraph (e), which allow qualified increases in building height under the Affordable Housing Overlay, not applicable in the Residence C-1 district. Councillor Toner (PO25#16)
Late Order Adopted 9-0

Other than the allowance of multi-family housing in all residential districts (which is not controversial), I think this gargantuan zoning change is a huge mistake. The existence of varying heights and densities in different parts of Cambridge is a feature – not a bug. I am also acutely aware of the value of setbacks and access – especially in regard to fire safety. Sometimes I think some of our city councillors are just robots created as part of an MIT project – programmed to solve some maximum packing problem set with no sense of aesthetics, liveability, or community. Meanwhile, the activists promise benefits like cheaper rents and lower costs that will most likely never be realized – at least not as a result of these zoning changes. Sometimes the call of “crisis” is just a tool to ram things through – both nationally and locally.

Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Jan 28, 2025 to discuss inter-jurisdictional projects that are in play that may impact mobility in Cambridge. The discussion was focused on the Community Development Department’s report of Nov 14, 2024 to the City Council, Awaiting Report 24-36. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I attended this meeting primarily to alert the councillors (at least those who actually listen) to some alternative approaches to pedestrian and bicycle-friendly crossings of the Charles River.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with appropriate departments to prepare a communication to DCR Commissioner Arrigo, urging that a study of traffic conditions at the intersections of Western Avenue and River Street at Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road (commonly referred to as “the box”), be included in their FY26 Capital Plan. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

This was one of the priorities discussed at the above meeting. Many of the current crop of activists only see merit in lane reductions and obstructions that make automobile use as difficult as possible. Reality sometimes has to intervene. – RW

Comments (2)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 20, 2025

When Representation Fails to be Representative – June 23, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

When Representation Fails to be Representative – June 23, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

June 13, 2025

Will Reason Prevail? – June 16, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Will Reason Prevail? – June 16, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

May 20, 2025

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 645-646: May 20, 2025

Episode 645 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 20, 2025 (Part 1)

Episode 646 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 20, 2025 (Part 2)

Like this:

May 19, 2025

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

May 5, 2025

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

April 14, 2025

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

April 4, 2025

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

February 10, 2025

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Like this:

We take civility very seriously here. Any threats or abusive behavior of any kind will get you banned for life.

June 20, 2025

When Representation Fails to be Representative – June 23, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

June 13, 2025

Will Reason Prevail? – June 16, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

May 20, 2025

Episode 645 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 20, 2025 (Part 1)

Episode 646 – Cambridge InsideOut: May 20, 2025 (Part 2)

Share this:

Like this:

May 19, 2025

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

May 5, 2025

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

April 14, 2025

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

April 4, 2025

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

February 10, 2025

The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Share this:

Like this:

We take civility very seriously here. Any threats or abusive behavior of any kind will get you banned for life.