Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC – November 21, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda
Perhaps it’s a good time to burn some bridges and take sides. The 2023 Municipal Election Season has now begun and there is some detritus that needs to be disposed.
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Orders 2022 number 290 & 291 [Awaiting Report 22-82], regarding continuing the outdoor dining season and considering the extension of the reduced fee schedule.
pulled by Zondervan; Placed on File 9-0
Though this may not be the response some councillors wanted, but it makes total sense – especially in regard to how much of the space taken in the public way for cold weather outdoor dining went unused most of the time last winter.
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-90, regarding a request for various City departments in coordination with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to identify spaces in Central Square that would support the creation and protection of cultural and human services.
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File 9-0
Another great response from the City Manager and staff. One extra note I will make is that venues that support music and the arts should be viewed as “community benefits” in much the same way as open space and ground-floor retail and housing that is affordable to people whose incomes might otherwise leave them priced out.
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Reports Items Numbered 16-111, 18-38, and 20-61, regarding Municipal Property Inventory. [Report]
Pulled by Nolan; Charter Right – Zondervan
Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $200,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to be used for professional services related to a Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study.
pulled by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0
Excellent reports that make clear the range of priorities that need to be considered – especially in the proposed Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study. All too often the City Council simply throws ideas out onto the floor based on what they see as popular. This is how Boston ended up with zillions of MDC skating rinks while the water and sewer infrastructure crumbled – until the courts created the MWRA to properly manage these resources. In the Cambridge context, this illustrates very well the value of a city manager form of government over some populist alternative.
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge resuming the use of the city-owned water supply on Nov 19, 2022.
pulled by Nolan; Placed on File 9-0
Speaking of infrastructure, it’s great to have you back again, Cambridge Water.
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-77, regarding a review of the proposed language for Ordinance #2022-18, the Incentive Zoning Rate Study Petition, as amended in Committee and report of findings back to the City Council.
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Petition 9-0
Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received, relative to Reevaluation of Housing Contribution Rate, Incentive Zoning Petition, Section 11.202 (d) of Article 11.000 entitled SPECIAL REGULATIONS, Ordinance #2022-18, as amended. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 31, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 21, 2022] (ORD22#18)
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained as Amended 9-0
This is really just a minor alteration in the timeline for the next nexus study, but I still believe that the whole basis for Incentive Zoning needs to be reviewed rather than to exist only as a cash cow for “social housing.”
Unfinished Business #3. The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee met on Oct 25, 2022, to discuss potential changes to the City Council Rules. The Committee voted favorable to recommend several amendments to the Rules of the City Council related to Rule 15, Rule 21(resulting in Rule 21, 21A and 21B), Rule 22, Rule 24B, Rule 24C.1b, Rule 27-Economic Development and University Relations Committee, Rule 27-Housing Committee, Rule 27-Civic Unity Committee, Rule 32 (adding new Rule 32D), Rule 38.8, and adding a new Rule 40.1. The Committee also voted favorably to replace “he” and “she” with gender neutral language. Rule 36B. No amendments or additions to the rules may be enacted until at least seven days have elapsed from the date of the submission of the proposed changes or additions and require a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council. [Order #1] [Order #2] [Order #3] [Order #4] [Order #5] [Order #6] [Order #7] [Order #8] [Order #9] [Order #10] [Order #11] [Order #12] [Order #13] [Order #14]
pulled by Mallon; Orders #1-6, #8-14 Adopted 9-0; Order #7 Adopted 8-1 (Zondervan – NO)
This is mainly routine “hey kids, let’s re-write the student organization constitution” stuff. I will note only two specific things. First, amending the Rules should not be viewed as an opportunity to enshrine specific policies. City Council Orders and Resolutions are the more appropriate places for that. Second, there are better ways to achieve gender-neutral language than nonsense phrases like “A member that has recused themselves shall not participate in the discussion…” Try something more like, “A member, after recusal, shall not participate in the discussion…” Just a friendly suggestion.
Order #15. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay. Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Toner; Azeem amendment Fails (BA,MM,DS,QZ – YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS – NO)
QZ amendment to Require Committee Reports by Jan 31, 2022 Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,DS,QZ – YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS – NO)
Toner Amendment to send to Housing Committee and NLTP Committee (rather than to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board) Adopted 8-1 (QZ – NO)
Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (QZ – NO)
This may well be the most outrageous proposal I have ever seen from this or any other Cambridge City Council. Please read the full text of this Order and the accompanying maps. It simply blows past decades of thoughtful, deliberative planning and public participation in favor of dramatic upzoning without any meaningful opportunity for public response or input. I will add that we may now be at the point where proposals such as this will have to be viewed through a “regulatory taking” lens in the sense that what is allowed and what is proposed to be allowed for government-sponsored developers is dramatically more than what is allowed for ordinary property owners. It seems as though the policy of this City Council has become completely skewed toward moving privately-owned property toward “social housing” – and they apparently are willing to keep skewing the rules to benefit their chosen developers (who are likely also the ones drafting the regulations) until they achieve this shift.
I feel some obligation to now talk about proportional representation elections. In the absence of any true civic and political infrastructure in Cambridge, our municipal elections have become dominated by single-issue advocacy groups. In the absence of a true local newspaper willing to listen to community concerns and provide objective journalism, political propaganda has become the rule, and that includes partisans embedded in neighborhood listservs eager to attack anyone who might stand in the way of their respective agendas. So here is my first bit of advice when it comes time to vote in the next municipal election – in addition to considering which candidates you find acceptable and ranking them by preference, think even more about which candidates you should exclude from your ballot. We are now in a period where voting for candidate slates is being strongly encouraged, and in an environment where most residents remain unaware of the actions and proposals of councillors and candidates, propaganda can dominate. The truth is that some candidates win regardless of endorsements and it’s demonstrably false to claim that a majority of voters support policies of your organization simply because they are included on your candidate slate. We have never actually polled Cambridge voters about specific issues, and the range of criteria used by most voters in their candidate preferences is as wide as an ocean.
The ABC group (more properly called “A Bigger Cambridge”) has never made a secret of its long-term mission – namely to dramatically increase heights and densities everywhere in Cambridge, to eliminate all neighborhood conservation districts and historic preservation regulations, and to “streamline” permitting in the sense that most or all rights to object to development proposals should be eliminated. One of their principal officers even suggested a target population of at least 300,000 for Cambridge a few years ago (that’s about triple the current population). This is like the reincarnation of Robert Moses as Jane Jacobs rolls over in her grave. I actually ranked 3 of the 9 candidates ABC endorsed in the 2021 municipal election. I will not rank any of their endorsees again even if I like them personally, and I encourage others to do the same. This, by the way, should not be viewed in any way as an endorsement of any other candidates or candidate slates – despite what some activists may choose to think (or tweet).
Here’s a letter sent by Patrick Barrett to the City Council that captures many of my sentiments and makes some very important points:
Honorable Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,
I have to admit that following this Council lately is a lot like drinking from a fire hose. It has been difficult to keep up with all of the proposed changes. This latest amendment request has a lot of stuff in it but instead of getting tangled in the binary weeds of yes or no I think what I am seeing here is a moment in time where we ought to clearly state or get comfortable with where this city is headed. In about a month it will be C2’s 9th birthday … a failed planning initiative that was ultimately rejected by CDD, some current councillors, and the Planning Board. I compare that five year process to this petition and I can only think about how massively this conversation about development has changed in such a short time. Back in those days (2013) 14 stories was declared too tall, would block out the sun, and force MBTA personnel to use brooms to push passengers into overcrowded T stops. Dark times to be sure. However, now the pendulum has swung wildly in another direction where proponents of any change now state that an “emergency” dictates that we must act immediately on everything … all the time … no matter what. Even worse, proponents of everything from BEUDO to the AHO state that to not be 100% onboard is akin to doing nothing, being a climate denier, being anti-housing, or being a racist. It is hard to take them seriously especially in a city like Cambridge where it is unlikely and rare to find another city that does more within 6.2 sq miles on either subject. Maybe we ought to start thinking about what we do instead of berating ourselves over the false perception that we do nothing?
I am supportive of “tall” buildings in Central Square in part because we already have them and because Central Square, more than most areas of the City, has yet to come close to realizing its potential. However I think this has to do more with a lack of vision than archaic zoning, though to be clear Central Square zoning is the absolute worst in the city. I must admit, and please do not faint, that I have an issue with 100% affordable development schemes; especially when they preclude market rate developments that match. For instance, Central Square has a base height of 55′ whereas this proposal would allow for 280′ and potentially unlimited height depending on how you interpret the section on open space subparagraph (f). I’m not sure I care that much about height and I cannot tell the difference between an 18 story building or a 24 story building especially from the ground floor but such a wildly disproportionate development scheme for one type of housing is a mistake anywhere and especially in an area that already exceeds 30% affordable for total housing stock. I say this in light of the fact that proponents of the AHO often cited lack of affordable housing in other parts of the city, currently below even 40b standards, and that the AHO was designed to fix that. This has not been the case so far and maybe it makes sense to put the lion share of affordable housing in one section of the city … but I’ve yet to hear anyone in planning or the City explain why. I also believe that market rate housing IS the “affordable housing” for the vast majority of people coming to Cambridge who do not qualify for affordable housing. Without a substantive plan to address that population aren’t we just kicking the can and further exacerbating values? Have we decided collectively that supply and demand is a myth? If so that might help explain this strategy though I’ve not heard that openly expressed by CDD or City Staff.
My questions about this policy change are more about bigger picture issues:
1) Are we no longer going to permit market rate development?
2) Do we have a goal with regard to affordable housing?
3) Have we thought about what happens once people are housed or are we merely counting units?
4) What happens in the commercial districts or more importantly a cultural district when the developer is no longer bound to zoning in any way?
5) Is home ownership no longer a goal?
6) If the council feels that 280′ is an appropriate height for buildings, why limit that to affordable only?
7) Has anyone audited the impact of the AHO on market costs?
8) Have we assessed the impact of changing inclusionary zoning since it was increased in 2015?
9) Is there a conflict of interest with the affordable housing trust where the Manager, affordable developers, and a few interested parties are solely responsible for doling out taxpayer money to each other for their own projects and also now draft zoning changes with City staff to remove their need to comply while everyone else has to? I cannot imagine we’d accept this arrangement for market rate development. Why is it OK here?
10) I would love to hear someone articulate a clear vision for the City. In Central Square we have been pushing our own vision in the absence of a clear direction from the City. I am happy to share that vision; would you kindly share yours?
Lastly, our ordinance is a book about us and our values and it seems at this moment in time it is making assumptions that are incorrect. Maybe this is the moment where we take a pause and try to piece together the dozens of studies, reams of data collected over four decades, and actually reform our zoning code to reflect the values everyone seems to claim they have? It doesn’t have to take another decade or even more than a few months, but if we are planning for the next 150 years like our university friends do we should be looking at this top down not through the narrow lens of one subject.
CC: Hatfields
CC: McCoys
Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Patrick W. Barrett III
Order #16. The City Manager is requested to work with the Finance and Assessing Departments to determine how the City could adopt G.L. c. 40, sec. 60B, created under the Municipal Modernization Act, which allows cities and towns, through their respective legislative bodies, to provide for Workforce Housing Special Tax Assessments Zones (WH–STA) as an incentive to create middle-income housing. Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0
This Order quotes the “Envision Cambridge Housing recommendations” that supposedly came out of the Housing Working Group of Envision Cambridge (of which I was a member). I consider that entire exercise to be a failed process due to the manner in which that committee was formed primarily of inside “affordable housing” developers, funders, and advocates with virtually no focus on housing in general. That said, this is an interesting proposal. It does, however, need some clarification. In particular, does the statement “The WH-STA Zone is an area in which the City identifies opportunities for increased development of middle-income housing and provides property tax relief to developers during construction and for up to five years, in exchange for all units being rented at a pre-established rate targeting middle-income renters…” mean to imply that rent levels would be maintained for up to 5 years or be subject to regulation in perpetuity (which would seem to violate state law)?
Order #17. Roundtable on Open Space Planning and Programming including the Public Space Lab. Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #18. That the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding Comments on Citizen’s Petition to Amend Ch. 2.78, Article III, Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Landmarks and the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding the Proposed Friendly Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III be forwarded to the full City Council with the recommendation to refer said memos to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion. Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0
Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 25, 2022 to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition: Historical Commission Proposed Response. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Suffice to say that the “Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition” is one of ABC’s policy goals to minimize or eliminate public review of development proposals. As for Neighborhood Conservation Districts in general, while I absolutely would not want them to dictate what paint I can use on my house or the requirement of materials that are dramatically more expensive, I absolutely support their underlying purpose. In spite of the Robert Moses view of things, I believe there are many things in Cambridge worthy of preservation.
Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 12, 2022 to discuss the issue of water quality from the Cambridge water supply including PFAS levels, and comparison with the MWRA system, the long-term strategy for ensuring water quality standards for all users and all other water quality related issues and concerns. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I didn’t attend this meeting and I don’t really buy into the alarmism espoused by some of the councillors. I do, however, agree that some businesses (coffee shops are the one that come to mind) and some residents have expressed concerns about hardness and possibly other qualities of Cambridge water that can affect appliance life span. I have heard this many times from plumbers. The Water Department recommends that we “Flush/Drain/Clean Hot Water Heater at least Annually (per manufacturers recommendation)” but the truth is that many of us still go with the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” philosophy.
Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa, transmitting a response of City of Cambridge to Open Meeting Law Complaint of John Hawkinson dated Nov 7, 2022.
Response to Office of Atty. General Approved 9-0
I suppose we all have the discretion to choose which hill to die on. This isn’t my hill. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a training is just a training.
Resolution #1. Congratulations to Deputy Superintendent Rick Riley on his retirement from the Cambridge Police Department. Councillor Toner
Best of luck and happy trails, my friend. – Robert Winters
Nov 2, 2022 – Under the Plan E Charter, Bhambi’s replacement will be determined from among eligible candidates who ran unsuccessfully in the 2021 School Committee election using a PR Count to elect one person from the quota of ballots that were used to elect Bhambi in 2021. The Election Commission will now have to officially contact all potential candidates (Caroline Hunter, Daria Johnson, and Christopher Lim) to determine if they wish to be considered and remain eligible for this vacancy recount. A date for this vacancy recount has not yet been scheduled.
There’s a phrase that the Cambridge City Administration has been including in its annual “Dear Residents and Taxpayers of Cambridge” mailing for years that goes something like this: “For FY23, 80% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase, or an increase of less than $250.” This phrase used to end with “or an increase of less than $100”, but I suppose the percentages are much more appealing with the change. One might actually be led to believe that the tax levy is going down based on the initial reading of this annual message. In fact, this year (FY23) the tax levy went up by 7.4%, and the increases in recent years were 4.7%, 7.85%, 6.9%, 5.3%, and 3.8% (reverse chronologically). Much of the tax increases were picked up by commercial properties due to tax classification and City’s tax policy decisions, but the residential tax burden has certainly been on the rise.
