Post-Election Mayoral Arm-Twisting Season Begins – November 8, 2021 Cambridge City Council Agenda
The Election is over save for the overseas votes, and it’s pretty much a wash. We replaced the retiring Tim Toomey with Paul Toner, and, for the kids, Sobrinho-Wheeler with Burhan Azeem. All of the incumbents were reelected to the School Committee and we added the lavishly well-funded Akriti Bhambi to fill the soon-to-be vacated seat. It’s always interesting to see how people associated with the various slates view these elections entirely through the lens of their respective slates and agendas with barely any acknowledgment of the fact that almost all of the incumbents were reelected based on their individual campaigns.
Now begins the season of phone calls and private meetings during which the various mayoral hopefuls try to make their case to be the next all-powerful weak mayor. Needless to say, Mayor Siddiqui’s 4121 #1 Votes gives her an edge (if she wants it), but I’m sure others will make the case in the name of “equity” and “whose turn it is” to ascend to the hallowed throne. Meanwhile, has anyone heard anything at all about where we stand on the rather important matter of selecting the next City Manager? Oops, I guess they must have forgotten.
As for the business of city councilling, here’s a sampler of what’s up for discussion/action/inaction this week:
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-84 regarding BEUDO (Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance) proposed amendments. [CDD Memo] [current draft] [City Solicitor opinion]
Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0
Covered under the proposed amendments are: (1) municipal property with one or more buildings with 10,000 sq ft or more; (2) one or more non-residential building(s) where such building(s) singly or together contain 25,000 to 49,999 sq ft); and (3) one or more residential building(s) that singly or together contain 50 or more residential dwelling units – rental or condos. So my electric and gas bills can stay safely in my bottom drawer – for now. Some councillors are already looking ahead to the day when they can drop the bar down to cottages or people living in a van down by the river.
Unfinished Business #5. Ordinance #2021-24 (Oct 25, 2021 Order #3) That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the City Solicitor and the appropriate staff to review the language of this proposed ordinance amendment and to report back to the City Council in advance of the next City Council meeting. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Oct 25, 2021; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 8, 2021]
Ordained as Amended 8-0-1 (Carlone – ABSENT)
This will pass 9-0 unless one of the councillors casts a protest vote because the proposal to label gas pumps doesn’t go far enough. Maybe the next step will be stenciling city roads with “How Dare You!” and a little Greta image.
Order #1. That the City Council go on record requesting that the forthcoming new Universal Design Playground located in Danehy Park be named the Louis A. DePasquale Universal Design Playground. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toomey
Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler (don’t let the door hit you on the way out, councillor)
There are some who choose to protest the naming of public facilities after people who are either still living or still working for the city. Just a reminder that we’re not issuing postage stamps or minting coins (well, except for perhaps Al Vellucci). So here’s to Thomas W. Danehy Park, the Walter J. Sullivan Water Treatment Facility, the Robert W. Healy Public Safety Building, and Timothy J. Toomey Park, and the Louis A. DePasquale Universal Design Playground. My ideal is a bit different, courtesy of the late, great John Prine.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City departments, as well as the Commission of Persons with Disabilities and the Special Education Parents Advisory Council, to develop a plan to install fully accessible equipment in every playground throughout the city. Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
This would be great, but presumably it means “in addition to the existing playground equipment” as opposed to “replace all playground equipment”. I doubt if monkey bars and skate parks can be made fully accessible.
Order #4. That Article 20.90- Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance be amended to insert a new section entitled Section 20.94.3 – Temporarily prohibited uses. Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui
Charter Right – Toomey
Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee met on June 2, 2021 to conduct a public hearing to discuss the Alewife Envision Plan.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I’m all for coming up with a grand vision for this area with multiple bridges crossing the tracks and all sorts of fun, new additions. That said, don’t you think all this grand visionary stuff should have been put in place long before parcels were sold with the presumption that they could be built out under existing zoning? Parcels in this area were apparently only very recently sold for a sum in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars. If the City were to now pass either temporary or permanent zoning changes that significantly decrease the development potential, it sure seems like a good case could be made by the new owners that they should be compensated for that loss. I hope that won’t happen, but this says a lot about the consequences of City Council inaction or lack of a coherent vision. By the way, the order contains one of the more interesting maps from the 1979 Alewife Revitalization study, a.k.a. “The Fishbook”.
Order #5. Upper Mass. Ave. Bike Lane Improvements. Councillor Nolan
Amended 7-2 (DS,TT – NO); Charter Right – Simmons
The latest installment in the ongoing turf wars over roadway allocation where politicians deftly try to please all of the people all of the time. The problem here is, of course, that these things should never have been enshrined into an ordinance with inflexible mandates. But hey, don’t forget to sign The Pledge. Meanwhile, Cambridge roads are starting to feel more like a Habitrail for hamsters – overly prescriptive and thoroughly inflexible.
Committee Report #3. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee and the Housing Committee met on Aug 24, 2021 to conduct a joint follow-up hearing to continue the discussion on the elimination of single and two-family only zoning and restrictions on the type of housing that can be built city-wide.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Now that the election has passed it will be interesting to see how fast The Densifiers try to rush through their Big Plans. I do like the idea of relaxing some of the restrictions to allow more multi-family homes, but I would prefer to see housing growth based more on available opportunities than on wholesale revision and density doubling densification based on a transient and trendy philosophy and historical revisionism. We have been down that road before.
Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 20, 2021 to conduct a hearing on an ordinance amendment to reduce or limit campaign donations.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-0-2 (DS,TT-Present)
Policy Order/Home Rule Petition: That the attached Home Petition titled “Petition For An Act Authorizing The City Of Cambridge To Enact An Ordinance To Limit And Monitor Campaign Donations In Local Elections By Individuals Seeking Financial Reward From The City Of Cambridge” be forwarded to the General Court for adoption. Councillor Carlone
Order and Home Rule Petition Tabled 7-0-0-2 (DS,TT-Present)
Late Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to provide a legal opinion regarding the effect of the proposed Ordinance to Limit and monitor campaign donations on the petitioners of a Citizens’ Petition and the Owners, Board members and employees of an organization seeking financial assistance from the City of Cambridge; and to draft enforcement language and to draft language exempting labor unions from the Ordinance and to provide an opinion about whether Somerville’s Ordinance regarding campaign donations would survive a legal challenge. Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0
While I may agree with the general idea of this proposal, the devil may lie in the details. It’s not always so clear which donors to campaigns are seeking or will eventually receive financial reward. For example, if someone contributes either money or labor toward a political campaign and is currently hired or is later hired as a City Council Aide, would that be a violation? Or is political patronage not covered under the proposed ordinance? – Robert Winters
