Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

December 12, 2011

Now Featured on the Dec 12, 2011 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: campaign finance,City Council — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:02 pm

Now Featured on the Dec 12, 2011 Cambridge City Council Agenda

The agenda is short but potentially interesting. Here are a few items worthy of a comment or two:

Manager’s Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $100,000 to the Community Development Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures account which will be used to pay for design consultant services for a proposed bicycle & pedestrian path along the former NECCO railroad spur in Cambridgeport.

This is personal highlight in that I recall making the initial suggestion for this at a meeting of the Central Square Advisory Committee when Novartis first presented its plans to occupy the old NECCO candy factory. The old RR line once brought in trainloads of sugar to the NECCO plant.

Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to four appropriations totaling $1,204,701 to the Community Development Public Investment Fund Extraordinary Expenditures account. These appropriations will be used to pay for the purchase of and a three year maintenance contract for Hubway bike share stations, holding 220 bikes at 22 stations located in the densest areas of the City. [The total of this appropriation is derived from the following sources: Metropolitan Area Planning Council through funds received by a Federal Transit Administration Grant ($630,640); Massachusetts Department of Transportation through funds received by a Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Grant ($274,061); Harvard University ($200,000) and; Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($100,000). The Hubway Bike Share system is expected to be launched in the spring of 2012 and will operate approximately nine months per year and be removed during winter months.]

On balance, the availability of the Hubway bikes in Cambridge is a nice added convenience for those who choose not to use their own bicycles for short-trip transportation. One potential advantage I see is less worry about bicycle theft (presumably most of that liability will fall to Hubway). There are still some awkward details to be worked out about the location of the Hubway stations. For example, there have been some concerns expressed by people who work at the City Hall Annex (344 Broadway) that some of the landscaping would be removed to accommodate the bikes. Alternately, on-street parking spaces could be removed. In any case, convenience does have its costs.

Unfinished Business #10. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Sept 14, 2011 and a follow-up public meeting on Oct 25, 2011 to consider a re-filed petition to amend the zoning ordinance filed by Chestnut Hill Realty. The petition would allow creation by special permit of rental apartment units in basement units of existing multifamily residential buildings in Residence C Districts which meet the special permit criteria. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 28, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 6, 2011. Petition expires Dec 13, 2011.

Communications #3. A communication was received from Heather Maguire Hoffman, Co-President, Association of Cambridge Neighborhoods, regarding the Chestnut Hill Realty petition.

As has been stated repeatedly here, this is The Petition That Will Not Die – twice disapproved by the Planning Board with numerous questions raised by the City Engineer, and accompanied by gobs of cash directed to the campaign accounts of several city councillors. It’s actually quite telling that there is such activity to approve some variant of this petition before its Dec 13 expiration. Squeezing in basement apartments (legal or otherwise) to make some extra cash has been going on for a long time, and stories of mold and flooding problems have often accompanied these units. This is not to say that they are always a bad idea – as long as the hydrology works. Basement apartments on hilltops should be fine. In low-lying areas like Area 4, the Agassiz neighborhood, or much of Cambridgeport or Riverside, or on streets that become watercourses during heavy rains, it seems like a dreadful idea. Whether or not the properties that are the subject of this petition are appropriate for packing in more cash-producing units is a question best left to the engineers. The bigger issue here is the role of mammoth campaign contributions in the approval of this or any other zoning petition.

The letter from Heather Hoffman on this is interesting. The Chestnut Hill Realty petition has been accompanied by mendacity from its inception. It was first billed as "workforce housing" as if to suggest that kitchen workers and housekeepers might be the principal residents of the new units. The re-filed petition asserts that "reasonably priced, affordable studio and one bedroom units" is the basis for their wish for permitting greater density. Ms. Hoffman’s letter calls their bluff by proposing an amendment:

20.650 Affordability. The addition of dwelling units under Section 20.600 shall not result in an increase in the number of market-rate units in the building. A number of units equal to the number of new dwelling units shall become affordable units and comply with all of the affordability, distribution and unit type requirements of Section 11.200. However, only the unit types of the new dwelling units need be considered for this purpose.

Considering past public statements (on the record) by some councillors regarding locating "affordable units" in some of the more high-rent areas of the city, coupled with the fact that said councillors have received significant funds from the petitioners, it should be interesting to hear the ensuing discussion should Ms. Hoffman’s suggested amendment be introduced. Ahh… the sweet smell of mendacity!

Order #2. That all items pending before the City Council and not acted upon by the end of the 2010-2011 Legislative Session be placed in the files of the City Clerk, without prejudice provided that those proposed ordinances which have been passed to a second reading, advertised and listed on the Calendar under "Unfinished Business" during the 2010-2011 City Council term, along with any other pending matters on the Calendar listed as "Unfinished Business," shall be forwarded to the next City Council and further provided that any items pending in committee may, at the discretion of the committee, be forwarded to the next City Council.   Mayor Maher

This is standard procedure at the end of every Council term. Individual councillors can forward items to the new term only in their roles as committee Chairs and members, though the truth is that most Council committees have become primarily one-person affairs where the Chair determines virtually every action undertaken by the committee.

7:00pm   Special Presentation – Mayor’s Red Ribbon Commission on Central Square.  (Sullivan Chamber)

It is perhaps true that every initiative like this one will produce some good results. However, the proliferation of studies and committees on Central Square has been so common that one might suggest that there be created an "Office of Central Square Studies" to house all the reports. The process leading up to this report has not exactly been an open public process, though no one who showed up was ever turned away. From the beginning there were presentations of very specific proposals for the Naggar property at Norfolk St. and Mass. Ave. that seem very much to be the fulfillment of something listed on the Mayor’s Office website during the 2006-2007 term and in the "Office of the Mayor" section of both the FY2007 ("An initiative envisioning a new square in Central Square") and FY2008 ("Envision a new square in Central Square") Budget Books. Will this be the centerpiece of this latest report? – Robert Winters

December 5, 2011

Winding Down – Dec 5, 2011 Cambridge City Council Meeting

Filed under: campaign finance,City Council,East Cambridge,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:27 am

Winding Down – Dec 5, 2011 Cambridge City Council Meeting

This is the home stretch of the 2010-2011 City Council term – a time to finish up tasks and jockey for position in the never-pleasant business of choosing the next mayor. Here are a few notable items on the agenda:

5:30pm   Special Presentation by the Oral History Project of the Longfellow Neighborhood Council to receive their new publication "From the Heart of Cambridge".

The idea for this book was conceived in 2004 by Penelope Kleespies and the Longfellow Neighborhood Council and Community School. The book was edited by Paula Lovejoy with the assistance of a constellation of others including Sarah Boyer of the Cambridge Historical Commission who has edited numerous other Cambridge oral history projects. The book tells the stories of 90 Mid-Cambridge people and their families and friends. It is available for sale at Porter Square Books, the Harvard Book Store, The Coop, Rodney’s Bookstore, and directly from the Longfellow Neighborhood Council. All profits go to support the Longfellow Neighborhood Council and Community School.

City Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Home Rule Petition providing the City of Cambridge with the authority to impose and increase certain motor vehicle fines in the City of Cambridge in order to improve driving.

Time will tell whether the increased fines actually improve driving in a world where texting and other distractions routinely focus the brains of drivers on everything other than their surroundings. This is just the text for a Home Rule Petition to the state legislature to allow the increased penalties. It does not yet raise any of these fines.

City Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to language prepared by staff in anticipation of the process of reconstruction or renovation of K-8 school buildings in City.

As near as I can tell, this proposed zoning change is primarily intended to ensure that once an existing school building or part of a school building is demolished, any new building may be built to the same height and density. The proposed regulation would, however, allow the Planning Board, by Special Permit, to waive any dimensional or other zoning requirements as long as the Floor/Area Ratio (FAR) does not exceed 1.25 and the height does not exceed 55 feet, plus several other restrictions. It is expected that a number of school buildings will be reconstructed over the next decade most likely starting with the King School on Putnam Ave. The plan is to use the old Longfellow School as "swing space" for each school during reconstruction.

City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-170, regarding a report on an opinion on the issue of spot zoning on the Runkel petition.

Unfinished Business #10. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Oct 13, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Laura Runkel et al. to rezone 41 Bellis Circle, an area abutting the northern block of Bellis Circle, bordered on the north by the commuter rail tracks, on the south by Bellis Circle and on the east side by Sherman Street, from Residence C-1A to Residence C. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 14, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 13, 2011. Petition expires Dec 13, 2011.

These two related items concern the Runkel et al. Zoning Petition that would affect a single large parcel at Sherman St. and the RR tracks. The Planning Board report did not recommend approval of the petition arguing that it "does not find it appropriate to consider only this single site for potential rezoning when there are adjacent sites that remain zoned Residence C-1A". The possibility that this might be "spot zoning" or "reverse spot zoning" was discussed at the Nov 21 City Council meeting and an Order was passed asking for a legal opinion on the matter. City Solicitor Don Drisdell’s report indicates that it is unlikely that a court would rule against this proposed zoning change.

Unfinished Business #11. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Sept 14, 2011 and a follow-up public meeting on Oct 25, 2011 to consider a re-filed petition to amend the zoning ordinance filed by Chestnut Hill Realty. The petition would allow creation by special permit of rental apartment units in basement units of existing multifamily residential buildings in Residence C Districts which meet the special permit criteria. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 28, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 6, 2011. Petition expires Dec 13, 2011.

As has been stated here before, this is The Petition That Will Not Die – twice disapproved by the Planning Board with numerous questions raised by the City Engineer. The fact that the petitioners, Chestnut Hill Realty, have contributed mightily to the campaign accounts of several city councillors raises questions of conflict of interest and whether zoning relief can be purchased via campaign contributions. This perception, of course, is not limited to this petition. In fact, the scale of political contributions by parties with business before the City Council has skyrocketed in recent years.

It may be time for the Cambridge City Council to consider an Ordinance prohibiting campaign contributions by any party with business before the City Council (or the representatives of any such party) for a period of one or two years before and after the matter is voted by the City Council. In these days of Citizens United, it is unclear what such limits may legally be imposed, but it would be a welcome initiative by any city councillor willing to propose such an ordinance.

Unfinished Business #12. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Sept 14, 2011 to consider a petition by Matthew Bagedonow et al. to amend Section 5.24.4 Paragraph(4) of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "For Residence Zoning District C-1, in no case shall side yards be less than 7′-6". This shall apply to any plane or projection from the plane of the building." The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 28, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 13, 2011. Petition expires Dec 13, 2011.

The Bagedonow et al. petition received a positive report from the Planning Board with a minor revision. This will likely be ordained as amended.

Resolution #10. Resolution on the death of Paul Kurt Ackermann.   Vice Mayor Davis, Mayor Maher

Paul Ackermann was the husband of former City Councillor and former Mayor Barbara Ackermann. Paul was 92 years old.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to provide monetary information regarding the Monteiro and related cases.   Councillor Reeves, Councillor Cheung, Councillor Seidel and Councillor Simmons

Though I agree in principle that a general idea of the scale of these settlements should be made public, the politicizing of this matter remains disturbing. Having witnessed the same people celebrating the financial hit taken by the City and then bemoaning its effect of taxpayers makes one wonder about the motivations of these citizen activists.

Order #5. That the City Clerk is requested to list mayoral commission meetings on the City Council Hearing Schedule in addition to the City Calendar in order to reach as many interested members of the public as possible.   Vice Mayor Davis

It seems odd that there should even have to be a City Council Order asking that these public meetings be included in the City Calendar. Unfortunately, the truth is that none of the "Red Ribbon" meetings on Central Square over the last year or so were ever advertised. Though no one who showed up was ever turned away, the meetings were by invitation only and this calls into question whether the whole enterprise may be properly characterized as a public process. The same criticism applies to the "Silver Ribbon" commission on housing options for older people, and the "Blue Ribbon" commission on early childhood education.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department to ascertain data previously requested regarding the Andrews Petition.   Councillor Cheung

The Andrews et al. Petition received a negative report from the Planning Board. The proposal would have amended the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance to eliminate the density bonus that forms the economic basis of the ordinance.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Personnel Department to look into the disability makeup of the City’s workforce by level and department and report back to the City Council on this matter.   Councillor Cheung

This Order comes in the wake of a previous Order and report on the racial/ethnic composition of City employees. While almost everyone agrees that nondiscrimination should be the general rule for City employment, these Orders do suggest that employment quotas for various racial/ethnic/gender/disability criteria may still be the mindset of some elected officials.

Order #11. That this City Council urge the United States Government to sign and ratify the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families and to similarly recognize Dec 18, 2011, and annually thereafter, as International Migrants Day.   Councillor Decker

The following Wikipedia excerpts may be relevant: "So far, countries that have ratified the Convention are primarily countries of origin of migrants (such as Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines). For these countries, the Convention is an important vehicle to protect their citizens living abroad."… "No migrant-receiving State in Western Europe or North America has ratified the Convention. Other important receiving countries, such as Australia, Arab states of the Persian Gulf, India and South Africa have not ratified the Convention either." [Full text of the convention]

Cambridge just wouldn’t be Cambridge without the occasional excursion into foreign affairs.

Order #12. That the City Manager report back to the City Council with the required changes to city council rules, city zoning code and/or municipal ordinance to achieve the Community Benefits Mitigation Fee.   Councillor Seidel

This Order is the culmination of a process that has been going on for the past year having to do with extracting "community benefits" in exchange for granting significant upzoning to developers. While it would be hard to find anyone opposed to financial benefits (in addition to new real estate taxes) growing out of new development, there remains a significant question regarding whether this may amount to a de facto "upzoning for sale" situation. Would a City Council ever vote against a major development if it meant turning down millions of dollars for nonprofit agencies, affordable housing ,etc.?

Messages circulated over the weekend by members of the East Cambridge Planning Team point out another problematic aspect of the proposed "Community Benefits Mitigation Fee" structure. Specifically: "The successful negotiation with Alexandria whereby the City and East Cambridge will receive: a 2.5 acre park; a triangle park; $9.5 million to design and build the parks; an approximately 30,000 square foot building, and up to $6,000,000 for the East Cambridge Open Space Fund, would not be possible under the approach contained in this Order as the 1.7 million square foot project would have been limited to a total of $17 million in community benefits. So we have an Order covering mitigation potentially implementing a process whereby a very successful mitigation effort, Alexandria, could not be achieved under the Order’s proposed methodology."

Charles Marquardt’s estimates are that the total mitigation value received from the Alexandria zoning relief was $43 million; and that under the proposal the value would have been only $17.5 million. That’s a difference of $25.5 million. Of course, there’s nothing in the proposal that says that Alexandria could not have voluntarily contributed the difference, but this seems an unlikely outcome if the financial arrangements were so explicitly codified in advance of granting the zoning relief. – Robert Winters

November 21, 2011

Reports, Reports, and a Retirement – Nov 21, 2011 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 11:07 am

Reports, Reports, and a Retirement – Nov 21, 2011 Cambridge City Council meeting

There is much to say about this meeting, including numerous Planning Board reports on recently filed zoning petitions. One noteworthy item is the announcement from City Manager Robert Healy that City Solicitor Don Drisdell will be retiring in January. Don has been with the City for a long time, including many years as Deputy City Solicitor before he was appointed City Solicitor in Dec 2002. Nancy Glowa will succeed Don as Acting City Solicitor, effective Jan 20, 2012.

One of the most striking aspects of the upcoming City Manager’s Agenda is that of the 68 matters listing as "Awaiting Report", there are responses for 29 of them – a huge clearing of the backlog. This points to the possibility of a very long meeting. Topics include: a proposed Farmers Market, the merger of the Longy School and Bard College, trimming tree branches, the McCrehan pool, job training programs, a gun shot incident, courteous driving, a Landmark Designation Study Report for the Ellis School, language for a proposed zoning amendment, cable service contract options, a Yellow Pages ban, a bamboo ordinance, bike corrals, bus shelters, upkeep of the Cambridge Common, bicycle safety, the BIO 2012 Convention, the traffic light at Magazine St. and Memorial Drive, restaurant valet parking, hazardous metal pieces of street signs, Bobcats to clear snow, Household Hazardous Waste Days, Citizen Observer alerts, a technology plan for the City, paying for city services on-line, paperless City bills, a unique identifier for official documents (actually a great idea), Code for America, a service similar to SeeClickFix, and the sidewalks on Boardman Street.

And you want to just watch the Patriots game? Just think of all the good stuff you’ll be missing!

Reports from the avalance of zoning petitions filed in August are now filtering in from the Planing Board. There is a negative report on the Andrews Petition (#15), a positive report on the Bagedenow Petition (#16), a negative report on the Bishop Petition (#17), a negative report on the Runkel Petition (#18), and a positive report on the de Rham Petition (#45).

Manager’s Agenda #37. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Number Item Number 11-83, regarding a report on technology plan for the City, the use of social media tools, and identifying projects that would benefit from using Gov 2.0, as well as a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-84, regarding the creation of a research and development office for technology.

This is an interesting read. Though the devil is in the details and the City has not always made the best decisions in terms of public communication and web-based interactions with the public (such as the search function of the City website and delays in posting timely information), it seems clear that the City is in the process of making some necessary improvements.

Manager’s Agenda #40. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-92, regarding the feasibility of creating a system that the general public could use to search by a unique identifier for official documents such as building permits, variance applications, License Commission inspections, and the like.

This is based on a very good Order from Councillor Kelley that would make it possible for a resident to easily research the status of a property across multiple categories – zoning, building permits, inspectional services, variances, etc. This would be a huge improvement for both residents and City administration.

Unfinished Business items include several zoning petitions that have been passed to a 2nd Reading and could potentially be voted. These include the de Rham (#9), Bishop (#10), Runkle (#11), and Bagedonow (#13) Petitions. The Chestnut Hill Realty Petition (#12), the gift that keeps on giving to the campaign accounts of several city councillors, could also be voted. There was some comic relief on the Chestnut Hill Realty Petition at the last City Council meeting when one city councillor who lives at the top of a hill and who rents basement apartments in his building questioned concerns about basement flooding based on personal experience. Perhaps some basic knowledge of physics should be mandatory for city councillors, e.g. the fact that water flows downhill and not uphill.

Resolution #19. Congratulations to Department of Public Works Commissioner Lisa Peterson and Recycling Director Randi Mail for their innovative recycling initiatives that merited the MassRecycle 2011 Board of Director’s Outstanding Achievement Award.   Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Simmons

It’s worth noting that one of Lisa Peterson’s first responsibilities when she began working for the City 20 years ago was to manage the implementation of the City’s new curbside recycling program. Recycling Director Randi Mail and Commissioner Peterson are always seeking ways to expand and improve recycling programs in Cambridge and they always do so with a clear view of the cost-effectiveness of any initiative. We are fortunate to have both of these people in the City’s employ.

Resolution #24. Congratulations to the members of the Mid-Cambridge Oral History Project and the Longfellow Neighborhood Council and Community School on the publication of "From the Heart of Cambridge: A Neighborhood Portrait."   Vice Mayor Davis

These are the stories of people from my own neighborhood within the larger Mid-Cambridge neighborhood. The best stories are from those who have been here far longer than I have, especially my dear friend Floyd Freeman who now lives in Michigan after his house burned down several years ago and who is still going strong at the age of 96. The book tells the stories of 90 people and their families and friends. It is available for sale at Porter Square Books, the Harvard Book Store, The Coop, Rodney’s Bookstore, and directly from the Longfellow Neighborhood Council. All profits go to support the Longfellow Neighborhood Council and Community School.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council at the earliest possible City Council meeting on the possible uses, and the extent of such uses, per the current table of uses in the Zoning Ordinance, and associated language for building conversions, of the Sullivan Courthouse at 40 Thorndike Street.   Councillor Kelley

The Roundtable meeting last week on this topic struck me more as a marketing presentation than anything else. In the long view, it should be noted that this building was originally permitted because it served an essential government function. It is extremely unlikely that it would have ever been permitted at that site if it had been proposed as a private development such as an office building or residential tower. Nonetheless, the presentation seemed to suggest that the most likely future uses would be as an office building or residential tower. The State has a financial interest in this building, but a good case can be made for cutting this building down to a scale more in keeping with the adjacent neighborhood.

Order #3. That the City Council hereby sets 7:00pm at the Dec 12, 2011 City Council meeting as the time to receive the Red Ribbon Commission Report on Central Square.   Councillor Reeves

Another delay. The real question is whether this eventual report will be anything more than a dressed-up proposal to substantially develop the Naggar property at Mass. Ave. and Norfolk St. in partnership with the City. The more substantial planning effort is, at least in principle, the concurrent one with Goody Clancy focusing on both Kendall Square and Central Square (K2C2). The Central Square part of that study could also become just a plan to redevelop the current Central Square parking lots and add height and density to buildings in the area. Residents of Central Square should follow this closely. There are many good opportunities but also some tangible threats and it is not at all clear whether the residential neighborhoods of Central Square are adequately represented in any of these planning efforts. Time will tell.

Order #10. That the City Council hereby goes on record re-filing as of Dec 7, 2011 the Julia Bishop et al. petition to amend the zoning in Special District 2 in North Cambridge.   Mayor Maher

This Order seems to indicate that the highly contentious Bishop Petition will be allowed to expire and the negotiations among neighbors, City officials, and the developer will intensify with the re-filed petition. Councillors made some clear promises before the election in regard to this petition, and they will certainly have their feet held to the fire on this one.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public hearing held on Oct 13, 2011 to consider a petition submitted by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 20.200 et seq., the Central Square Overlay District, by deleting Section 20.304.5.6, which currently requires all establishments where liquor is served to have their principal public entrance on Massachusetts Avenue or Main Street.

There are good, simple alternatives to the petition that was filed – alternatives that will allow new uses where they make sense but not open the door to substantial unintended consequences that could severely impact residential neighbors. – Robert Winters

October 31, 2011

Fright Night – Halloween at the Cambridge City Council – Oct 31, 2011

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 3:53 pm

Fright Night – Halloween at the Cambridge City Council – Oct 31, 2011

This is the next to last meeting before next week’s municipal election. If you understand politics, you know that you get more votes by distributing candy to the children of voters than by chatting away at a Council meeting. Let’s hope this is a short one. Here are a few items that caught my attention this week.

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-124, regarding a report on the racial makeup of the City’s workforce.

Oct 31, 2011
To the Honorable, the City Council:

Please find attached a response to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-124, regarding a report on the racial makeup of the City’s workforce.

Below is a summary of the attached reports:
Total Employees 2,424
Total People of Color 788 (32.51%) more than double the US Census PMSA goal of 15%. (PMSA Preliminary Metropolitan Statistical Area defined by U.S. Census as our applicant recruiting area. This is taken from the U.S. Census EEO-4 data tool for affirmative action planning purposes. The next release of this tool is scheduled for fall of 2012.)
Women 1,056 (43.56%)

Below is additional information on new hires from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011:
59% of all hires were people of color
46% of all hires were women
86% of all hires were Cambridge residents

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

If you listened to all the misleading information that’s been thrown around lately, you might find this information surprising. Perhaps you should question some of the drivel emanating from Brookford St. and Hilliard St. One of the worst aspects of municipal election campaigns is the tendency for activists with long grudges to manipulate the facts to suit their agendas.

Unfinished Business #9. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Julia Bishop et al., to amend Section 17.20 of the Zoning Ordinance – Regulations for Special District 2, located in North Cambridge along Linear Park. [Order #26 adopted on Oct 17, 2011 to discharge from committee. Report placed on Unfinished Business on Oct 17, 2011.] The question comes on passing to a Second Reading. Planning Board hearing held Sept 13, 2011. Petition expires Dec 6, 2011.

Indications are that the City Council will not take final action on this petition before the municipal election, but I’ve seen votes taken on the eve of an election that nobody would have expected. Fear really is a great motivator.

Unfinished Business #10. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance filed by Elizabeth deRham et al. The petition proposes an amendment to Section 9.16 of the Zoning which currently provides for a $100 per violation per day fine upon conviction of said violation. The amendment would provide for a fine not to exceed the maximum specified in M.G.L. Ch 40A sec.7, currently $300 per violation per day and would allow the fine to be levied at the discretion of the Superintendent of Buildings. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Oct 31, 2011. Planning Board hearing held Sept 13, 2011. Petition expires Dec 6, 2011.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Oct 13, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Laura Runkel et al. to rezone 41 Bellis Circle, an area abutting the northern block of Bellis Circle, bordered on the north by the commuter rail tracks, on the south by Bellis Circle and on the east side by Sherman Street, from Residence C-1A to Residence C.

I have this theory that because so many zoning petitions were introduced recently it may be a good political move to pass one or two of the less problematic ones as kind of a "peace offering" on the eve of the municipal election. These two seem like good candidates.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested confer with the Police Commissioner and report back to the City Council with the details of the recent string of street robberies and the police action being taken to maintain the safety of residents and report back to the City Council.   Councillor Toomey

I believe I actually saw the two perpetrators who were robbing people at gunpoint the recent night they robbed a guy on Harvard Street in Mid-Cambridge. Something at the time told me that these guys were up to no good. There have been quite a few of these robberies lately. We had a motorbike and several bicycles stolen from my block over the last few weeks. As a voter, public safety is my personal bottom line. If city councillors cannot address this most basic concern, then everything else they say and do is irrelevant. There will be a Community Meeting hosted by City Councillor Tim Toomey and the Cambridge Police Department on Wed, Nov 2 at 6:00pm in the First Floor Community Room of the Police Station (125 Sixth Street) to address the recent armed robberies in the East Cambridge and Wellington-Harrington area.

Order #3. That the City Manager hereby is requested to provide information responding to questions raised in the Ordinance Committee hearing on a proposed zoning amendment to allow the construction of basement units.   Councillor Seidel, Mayor Maher and Vice Mayor Davis

This concerns the Petition That Will Not Die from Chestnut Hill Realty, financiers of several City Council reelection campaigns. My view is that these basements should be used for storage, bicycle parking, laundry, and utilities. The only purpose of this petition is to create money. It has nothing to do with good planning or quality of life.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to look into the feasibility of instituting a policy that, after ascertainment, if the City of Cambridge takes more than 90 days to negotiate a contract with a potential cable service provider, the potentially new service provider can operate under the same terms as the existing incumbent service provider, with the option to continue negotiation with the City of Cambridge while operating under those terms, and report back to the City Council on this matter.   Councillor Cheung

Who knows whether anything will come of this, but anything that offers even a glimmer of hope for competition with the Evil Empire Comcast is worth pursuing. Good move, Leland.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager for Community Development to develop a plan for obtaining regular updates from state officials and for keeping the City Council and the surrounding neighborhoods informed on the status of the future use of the courthouse in East Cambridge.   Mayor Maher

Note that on Monday, Nov 14 there will be a City Council Roundtable Meeting with Commissioner Carole Cornelison, Massachusetts Department of Capital Asset Management, and her staff, to discuss plans for the East Cambridge Courthouse site.

Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to advise the City Council as to the prudence of taking the former NBC Harvard Street lot by eminent domain.   Councillor Reeves

This is long overdue. Take note, however, that this Order does not call for the taking of this property. It merely asks the City Manager to advise the City Council as to the prudence of taking the former NBC Harvard Street lot by eminent domain. – Robert Winters

October 24, 2011

Oct 24, 2011 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights – Pre-Election Posturing

Filed under: 2011 Election,City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 1:00 am

Oct 24, 2011 Cambridge City Council Agenda Highlights – Pre-Election Posturing

Anyone who has attended a recent Cambridge City Council meeting (or any candidate forums) will have noticed the pre-election posturing and efforts to capitalize on controversy. This meeting will most likely bring more of the same. One topic that was at the heart of last week’s posturing is the Bishop Petition that aims to amend the zoning in the vicinity of the Fawcett properties adjacent to the former rail line where the Linear Park now runs in North Cambridge.

Unfinished Business #9. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Julia Bishop et al., to amend Section 17.20 of the Zoning Ordinance – Regulations for Special District 2, located in North Cambridge along Linear Park. Proposed amendments include: deletion of allowed non-residential uses; reduction in allowed Floor Area Ratio; increase in required lot area per dwelling unit; reduction in allowed height; new regulations for fences abutting Linear Park.

The Planning Board deliberated on the Bishop Petition on Tuesday, Oct 18. Though there is not yet a Planning Board report before the City Council, it was clear at that meeting that the Planning Board felt that the current zoning was not broken and that the existing tools were sufficient to shape whatever projects are proposed in that area. At last week’s City Council meeting, the Council did vote to discharge the petition from the Ordinance Committee to bring it before the City Council, but Councillor Kelley’s attempt to also move the petition to a 2nd Reading (a necessary step before advertising it and bringing it to a final vote) were soundly rebuffed 8-1. Though in this pre-election setting many councillors voiced their support of the petition, the rhetoric was much closer to that of the Planning Board in its expression that the best solution should go beyond merely changing the zoning.

Unfinished Business #10. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition to amend the Zoning Ordinance filed by Elizabeth deRham et al. The petition proposes an amendment to Section 9.16 of the Zoning which currently provides for a $100 per violation per day fine upon conviction of said violation. The amendment would provide for a fine not to exceed the maximum specified in M.G.L. Ch 40A sec.7, currently $300 per violation per day and would allow the fine to be levied at the discretion of the Superintendent of Buildings. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Oct 31, 2011.

My suspicion is that this petition may ultimately pass – possibly before Election Day. Though the Bishop Petition has drawn the most attention, the deRham Petition was filed at the same time by essentially the same people. Politically, there may be some wisdom in passing this less controversial one before Election Day if indeed the intention is to invest the necessary time to get a better resolution of the underlying issues that motivated the Bishop Petition.

Order #4. That the City of Cambridge hereby joins other communities across the country and calls upon the United States Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification, a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.   Mayor Maher

This may be the first example I’ve witnessed of the Cambridge City Council explicitly endorsing an amendment to the United States Constitution. The merits of the proposal notwithstanding, the suggestion that this will "restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people" is woefully naive. While many people correctly complain about the corrosive influence of money in politics, where is the civic education that’s necessary for a well-functioning democracy? The national political media features the nitwits on Fox News propagandizing from the Right, and the nitwits on MSNBC propagandizing from the Left. These and talk radio are what passes today as civic education. Meanwhile the average voter is busy watching American Idol while their national elected representatives spend the majority of their time fundraising for their reelection. Focusing on the Citizens United court decision is a distraction from much more significant problems in sustaining democracy both nationally and locally.

Order #5. Amendment to Zoning Ordinances by deleting Section 6.22.2   Councillor Kelley

It’s unfortunate that the text of Councillor Kelley’s Order provides no clue at all as to why this amendment is being proposed other than its claim "to mitigate development and parking pressures in Cambridge neighborhoods." Perhaps Kelley will explain the motivation. A few additional "whereases" in the Order would have helped.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back on legal expenses incurred by the City for the Monteiro case and related cases.   Councillor Kelley

A handful of activists and sympathizers have been pushing this as though it is the be-all-end-all issue in the upcoming municipal election. It is not. This Order calls for an accounting of the outside legal expenses for the Monteiro case, etc.; the cost of the appeals; the cost of the settlements related to each of the parties in the original ZuckerNaut of lawsuits; the amount of money paid to Malvina Monteiro; and a report on what issues are still considered confidential and why. Ultimately it will be good to have this full story told. However, the full story should also include the background information on the functioning (or lack of functioning) of the City departments and boards over whom some of the litigants presided. The deluxe edition of the book might also include some of the political motivations as well.

This meeting will also feature a presentation from the Reeves committee (excuse me, the Red Ribbon Commission, etc.) on Central Square – well timed to occur two weeks before the election. Time will tell what the next few years will bring to Central Square. There are some who would choose to turn it into a 24-hour entertainment zone. Others want to build densely on every available parcel. It is doubtful whether the report from the Reeves committee will reveal anything particularly world-shaking. In the end, the good health of Central Square will still be determined by the individuals – residents, business owners, and property owners – who have a personal stake in the Central Square area. – Robert Winters

I received an inquiry over the weekend about incumbent city councillors who were not reelected. Since the beginning of the Plan E era (since 1941), here is the chronology of these unfortunate incumbents:

Candidate 1st elected defeated Notes Candidate 1st elected defeated Notes
Thomas McNamara 1941 1943 after 1st term Daniel Hayes 1957 1969  
William Hogan 1941 1943 after 1st term Henry Owens 1971 1973 after 1st term
James Cassidy 1941 1945   David Wylie 1967 1975  
Thomas McNamara 1941 1947   Daniel Clinton 1967 1977  
James Casey 1945 1947 after 1st term Barbara Ackermann 1967 1977  
Francis L. Sennott 1941 1949   Leonard Russell 1973 1977  
Thomas McNamara 1941 1951 later replaced
Francis Sennott		 David Clem 1975 1977 after 1st term
W. Donnison Swan 1945 1953   Mary Ellen Preusser 1977 1979 after 1st term
Chester Higley 1949 1953   Lawrence Frisoli 1977 1979 after 1st term
Marcus Morton, Jr. 1953 1955 also elected
1941, 1943		 David Wylie 1967 1983  
Charles Watson 1953 1959   Daniel Clinton 1967 1985  
John D. Lynch 1941 1961   Alfred LaRosa 1985 1985 had replaced
Leonard Russell
Thomas McNamara 1941 1961   Thomas Danehy 1967 1989  
Cornelia Wheeler 1957 1961 later replaced
Guy Belin		 Edward Cyr 1989 1993  
Andrew Trodden 1959 1965   Katherine Triantifillou 1993 1999  
Thomas Coates 1963 1967   David Maher 1999 2005 later replaced
Michael Sullivan
William Maher 1965 1967 after 1st term Larry Ward 2009 2009 had replaced
Brian Murphy

October 17, 2011

Highlights of the Oct 17, 2011 Cambridge City Council agenda

Filed under: City Council,cycling — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:32 am

Highlights of the Oct 17, 2011 Cambridge City Council agenda

First of all, take note that due to an elevator malfunction at City Hall, the City Council will meet this week at the Fitzgerald Auditorium at CRLS, 459 Broadway. There are a few items this week that should bring out the public. City Manager’s Agenda #7 and City Manager’s Agenda #8 are appropriations of $500,000 and $1,190,000 received by Comcast as part of their 2011 Renewal License. I suppose cash is good even when it comes from the continued domination by the Evil Empire.

Resolution #1. Urge residents to participate in Food Day which will take place on Oct 24, 2011.   Vice Mayor Davis

It’s hard to say what exactly Food Day is and this resolution provides scant advice on how residents should participate other than to eat. Seems like I celebrate Food Day every day.

Resolution #23. Happy 80th Birthday wishes to a special Cantabrigian.   Councillor Decker

I’m guessing that this must be Robert Wolf, husband of Alice Wolf, but there are 30 other registered Cambridge voters who turn 80 this month. Happy birthday to all of you.

Order #3. That the Mayor is hereby requested to work with the City Council to schedule a date for a Roundtable meeting to review the census.   Councillor Reeves

In Cambridge, like anywhere else, there is Inside Baseball – the stuff that serious politicos talk about but which rarely makes it to the local press or into the conversations of most residents. When the census occurred a decade ago and was followed by legislative redistricting, Cambridge ended up being carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey. My recollection is that in order to prevent two popular incumbents in Newton from having to face off against each other, several of the principally Cambridge State Rep. districts were sacrificed and made part of districts that were mainly in neighboring towns. We ended up with 6 districts – most of which were nearly impossible for a Cambridge candidate to win. Only the districts of Representatives Toomey and Wolf were held harmless.

Most consequential was the way that the district formerly held by Saundra Graham, Alvin Thompson, and then Jarrett Barrios was scattered. The Inside Baseball story has it that when it became known that Barrios was going to vacate the seat in order to run for State Senate, it was considered OK to not protect that district and that Barrios did nothing to prevent this. At some level, who cares? We end up with 6 state reps. who we can talk to about relevant Cambridge issues instead of, perhaps, 3 all-Cambridge districts. The bitter issue was that aspiring Cambridge political people who might have sought those state seats found their options limited. There are many insiders who are still angry 10 years later at Jarrett Barrios who they blame for the current configuration.

So now it’s census time again. Word has it that the proposed new districts will be revealed this Tuesday, Oct 18. Will the map be redrawn in a manner that benefits some councillors and others who might consider a career move? Stay tuned….

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to appoint a committee to explore the feasibility of establishing a Cambridge Museum that will serve as repository of Cambridge history.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Cheung and Mayor Maher

There is no doubt that the need exists and will always exist to have secure locations for the wealth of historical documents and artifacts of our very old and historic city. In addition to the Cambridge Historical Commission and the Cambridge Historical Society, we now also have a Cambridge Room at the new library and a staff archivist. This Order proposes to explore the possibility of creating a new Cambridge Museum in which the public may commune with the city’s history. This is unquestionably a good idea in the long term, but can we sustain all of these historical venues? Where would you locate such a new venue and who would be the target audience? In any case, the idea deserves a complete and critical evaluation – even if the end result is better support and enhancement of the existing venues.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to prepare language for an ordinance to ban the use of brakeless bikes in Cambridge.   Vice Mayor Davis

See http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter85/Section11b. In particular:

"Every person operating a bicycle upon a way…shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: …(3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance." and "Every bicycle operated upon a way shall be equipped with a braking system."

Councillor Davis’ Order is already part of state law and is therefore moot. Whether or not it’s enforced and by whom it is enforced are open questions. Thanks to John Allen for the references.

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and the Community Development Department to investigate how to make the Follen Street/Little Concord Avenue intersection safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.   Councillor Cheung

Here we go again. The City has made some good decisions regarding bicycle infrastructure and some horrible decisions. The Little Concord Avenue design is poor (see John Allen’s May 16, 2011 critique and his May 20 followup remarks), but not nearly as dreadful as the "cycle track" installed on Vassar Street. The City is now going full speed ahead to implement this same absurd design on Western Avenue (see John Allen’s Oct 27, 2010 remarks and Paul Schimek’s Aug 10, 2010 letter). Pedestrians and cyclists beware.

Order #23. City Council opposition to cuts to Medicare and Medicaid benefits and support of the American Jobs Act.   Councillor Decker

My guess is that two items will bring people out for Public Comment at this meeting. This one will likely bring a few visitors to talk about national politics. The following item (the Bishop Zoning Petition) will likely bring the lion’s share of comment even though it remains in committee and is not before the City Council for action at this meeting.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel, Chair of the Ordinance Committee for a public meeting held on Sept 7, 2011 to consider a petition filed by Julia Bishop et al., to amend Section 17.20 of the Zoning Ordinance – Regulations for Special District 2, located in North Cambridge along Linear Park. Proposed amendments include: deletion of allowed non-residential uses; reduction in allowed Floor Area Ratio; increase in required lot area per dwelling unit; reduction in allowed height; new regulations for fences abutting Linear Park.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this petition is that the affected area was already rezoned within the past decade (actually Feb 14, 2000) from an industrial zone (due to it being adjacent to a former railroad line) to create Special District SD-2 primarily for the purpose of encouraging the transition toward residential use. Now that this residential use is part of an active proposal, this petition seeks to significantly reduce its density and the owner claims this will destroy its financial viability. Those advocating for this petition are trying very hard to convince the City Council to act on this petition before the November 8 municipal election. The agenda includes 18 Communications in support of the Bishop Petition.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Craig Kelley, Chair of the Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee for a public meeting held on Oct 6, 2011 to discuss the Austin, Texas "Parking Benefit District Pilot Program" and any other city parking issues.

Contained within this report is a proposal that should infuriate Cambridge residents who own cars and who do not have private driveways or garages. A letter from Chris Summerfield (153 Lexington Ave., but he’s not listed in either the voter database or the 2011 street listing) requests a change to the Traffic, Parking and Transportation regulations that would strictly prohibit parking within 15 feet of the center line of any public or private driveway. This is currently only enforced where necessary and where the vicinity of the driveway is appropriately signed. Councillor Kelley commented that no one is supposed to park ten feet from either side of any driveway – something that may be the practice in Wellesley but one which would eliminate hundreds of parking spaces if enforced in Cambridge.

Though Traffic Director Susan Clippinger stated that you can park 3 feet from the edge of a driveway, everyone knows that this is only enforced where it makes sense to do so. Miraculously, we all seem to get along as long as people can navigate their way in and out of their driveways. Nonetheless Councillor Kelley proposes an Order that would wipe out hundreds of on-street parking opportunities by being overly and unnecessarily restrictive. It’s worth noting that the only people present at this hearing were Councillor Kelley, Sue Clippinger, Deputy City Clerk Donna Lopez, and Chris Summerfield. There were no other elected officials present. – Robert Winters, resident and on-street parker

October 3, 2011

Trucks! – Highlight of the Oct 3, 2011 Cambridge City Council agenda

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:05 am

Highlight of the Oct 3, 2011 City Council agenda

There is nothing especially significant on this week’s agenda and this should be a short meeting. There is one noteworthy item that could potentially impact quality of life and public safety somewhere down the road:

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-63, regarding the impact of the Batelle Study recommendation on Cambridge and Awaiting Report Item Number 11-110, regarding a report on the impact the proposed alternative route would have on Cambridge Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials traffic.

October 3, 2011

To the Honorable, the City Council:

In response to Awaiting Report Item Number 11-63, regarding the impact of the Batelle Study recommendation on Cambridge and Awaiting Report Item Number 11-110, regarding a report on the impact the proposed alternative route would have on Cambridge Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials traffic, please be advised of the following:

Boston is seeking MassDOT and FHWA permission to ban Hazardous Materials through trucks (the majority are gasoline, diesel and home heating oil carriers) from downtown Boston. They are proposing Rt. 128 as the alternate route. Although the alternative route is a positive, most trucks would use the City of Cambridge as their alternate route rather than Rt. 128. A copy of the City’s response in opposition to the Boston through truck ban is attached.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

September 22, 2011

Thomas F. Broderick, P.E.
Acting Chief Engineer
MassDOT
10 Park Plaza, Suite 4160
Boston, MA 02116
ATTN: BOSTON HAZMAT ROUTE

Re: Boston Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials Routing.

Dear Mr. Broderick,

The City of Cambridge has a long history of working to protect residents in Cambridge from the adverse noise impacts of through trucks. These impacts are most adversely felt at night when residents are trying to sleep.

The City’s location is particularly challenging, situated between exit 18 on the Masspike (I-90) where HAZMAT is restricted east of that location and the fuel farms and depots in Chelsea and Revere; the City currently experiences a lot of through trucks and every street in the City has residents living along it.

In 1998 the City did a cordon count around the City including truck counts and recording the hazardous placards. At that time approximately 14,000 trucks passed through the City or about 2,450/week. This is more than twice the 1200 shipments per week that Batelle estimates are traveling through downtown Boston. This volume is likely to have grown. Of the hazardous materials carriers 90% were gasoline, fuel oil and diesel. Of the 25 locations with the highest number of hazardous carriers – 59% were gasoline predominately in trailer trucks and 32% were fuel oil/diesel predominately in single unit trucks. These are exactly the kinds of through trucks that Boston is trying to restrict. We believe that almost every truck that Boston restricts will end up going through the City of Cambridge unless the Cambridge route is also restricted.

The difficulty with Boston’s proposed restriction is that it is addressing a regional issue with only a local solution. Cambridge also experiences a high volume of cut through trucks which we have always advocated should be using I-93/I-95 rather than cutting through the City. However, unless Boston’s through truck restriction also restricts through trucks on the alternate routes through Cambridge that were studied, we cannot support Boston’s restriction.

We support their recommended alternative route of I-93/I-95. However, we do not believe the trucks will divert that far out of their way. The Batelle study showed that the Cambridge route did not meet the criteria for an acceptable alternate route. The Cambridge routes have more nighttime residents along them than any other route and are no safer than the route through Boston. The alternate route designation has no control over the route the trucks will choose and cannot prevent them from shifting their through route into Cambridge. Boston’s requested truck restriction does not offer a through truck restriction in Cambridge which is required if trucks are truly going to be diverted to I-93/I-95.

Through trucks volumes, especially the gasoline and fuel/diesel carriers are currently using both a routing through downtown Boston and a. routing through Cambridge. A restriction in Boston may improve public safety there but it will dramatically degrade public safety in the City of Cambridge.

Cambridge had the courage to provide a signed truck route through the City. We have tried to be reasonable and also protect residents from the adverse noise impact of nighttime trucks. If the Boston restriction is approved, the safety and quality of life for Cambridge residents would be sacrificed.

The Batelle study shows that alternative routes 2 and 5 through Cambridge do not meet the criteria for an acceptable and safe alternate route. The acceptable alternative route is I-93/I-95. However, nothing is offered that would restrict those trucks from using Cambridge as alternate route instead. The City of Cambridge is strongly opposed to Boston’s currently proposed restriction because a through truck restriction in downtown Boston would not divert trucks to the proposed alternate route (I-93/I-95) but would instead divert them through the City of Cambridge.

Very truly yours, Robert W. Healy, City Manager

The letter from Mr. Healy really says all that needs to be said. A hazardous materials truck ban in Boston could easily lead to Cambridge being a preferred cut-through – unless appropriate steps are taken to prevent this. One need only look to the fact that when the Prudential Center was built over the Massachusetts Turnpike Extension, such trucks were banned on that road, and Cambridge has been dealing with the consequences of their exiting at the Allston-Brighton tolls ever since. – RW

September 26, 2011

The Taxman Cometh – Highlights of the Sept 26, 2011 City Council agenda

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 12:43 am

The Taxman Cometh – Highlights of the Sept 26, 2011 City Council agenda

In addition to the Executive Session delayed from last week by the Charter Right of Councillor Seidel, the top item tonight is the public hearing and the usual series of City Council votes that will ultimately lead to the setting of the residential and commercial tax rates for the current fiscal year, FY11-12. As Mr. Healy likes to remind the Council in his remarks, the City does not technically set these tax rates. They merely take the votes that ultimately lead to the state Department of Revenue setting the rates.

It’s unclear whether the Executive Session (relating to the now-settled Monteiro case and two other pending milkings of Mother Cambridge) will take place early in the meeting or after all other business is dispensed with. Ultimately, the primary purpose of the session is to help Councillor Kelley determine what particular negatives should appear in his campaign literature. Anyway, the important item is this one:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek the Massachusetts Department of Revenue approval for the tax rate for FY2012:

A. Authorize the use of Free Cash of $11,300,000 to reduce the FY12 tax rate;

B. Authorize $2,000,000 in overlay surplus/revenues to be used for reducing the FY12 tax levy;

C. Authorize $5,150,000 from the Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

D. Authorize $632,470 from the School Debt Stabilization Fund to be used as a revenue source to the General Fund Budget;

E. Classify property into five classes;

F. Adopt the minimum residential factor of 56.2602%;

G. Approve the maximum residential exemption factor of 30% for owner-occupied homes;

H. Vote to double the normal value of the statutory exemptions;

I. Vote the FY12 exemption of $285.00 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17D;

J. Vote the FY12 asset limits of $56,695 allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 17E;

K. Vote the FY12 income and asset limits allowed under MGL Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D as follows: Income limits of $23,442 for single and $35,163 for married; and asset limits of $46,883 for single and $64,464for married;

L. Vote the income limit for deferral of real estate taxes by elderly persons as determined by the Commissioner of Revenue for the purposes of MGL Chapter 62, Section 6, subsection (k) for a single person ($51,000) and for married ($77,000);

M. Vote to accept Clause 56 of G.L. c. 59, Section 5, which allows members of the Massachusetts National Guard or military reservists who are on active duty to obtain a reduction of all or part of their real and personal property taxes for any fiscal year they are serving in a foreign country.

Text of the City Manager’s message. The tax districts are shown below.

FY12 Tax Districts

Key Facts:

1) The final property tax levy for FY12 will be $299,090,641, an increase of 5.33%.

2) Based on a property tax levy of $299.1 million, the FY12 residential tax rate will be $8.48 per thousand dollars of value, which is an increase of $0.32, or 3.9% from FY11. The commercial tax rate will be $20.76, which is an increase of $0.86, or 4.3% from FY11. [These are upon final approval by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.] Both increases in the tax rate are less than FY11.

3) In FY12, commercial property owners will pay 65.4% of the property tax levy, the same share as in FY11. Consequently, residential property owners’ share of the FY12 tax levy is 34.6%, also the same as in FY11.

4) Approximately 63.9% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase or an increase of less than $100 in their FY12 tax bill. In addition, another 22.8% of residential taxpayers will see an increase between $100-$250. Therefore, a total of 86.7% of the residential taxpayers will see no increase or an increase of less than $250.

5) The Residential Exemption for the fiscal year will be $198,085 with a resulting tax savings of $1,679.76.

6) The changes in median assessed value and tax bill by property class are shown in the following table:

Change in the Median Value and Tax Bill by Property Class (includes Residential Exemption)
  FY11 Value FY11 Tax Bill FY12 Value FY12 Tax Bill Dollar Change Percent Change
Single Family $670,450 $3,870 $686,200 $4,139  $269  6.95%
Condominium $364,100 $1,370 $366,700 $1,430 $60  4.38% 
Two Family

$638,550

 $3,609 $644,600 $3,786  $177  4.90%
Three Family $721,500 $4,286 $728,900 $4,501 $215 5.02%

These figures are not uniform throughout the city. Values and taxes vary greatly by neighborhood.

  • The median value of a single-family home ranges from a high of $2,448,500 in Tax District R10 (Brattle St. area) to a low of $403,500 in District R1 (everything east of Windsor St.).
  • The median value of a condo ranges from a high of $1,269,700 in District R10 to a low of $318,750 in District R4 (Harvard edge of Mid-Cambridge).
  • The median value of a two-family home ranges from a high of $1,915,800 in District R10 to a low of $449,600 in District R1.
  • The median value of a three-family home ranges from a high of $2,940,300 in District R10 to a low of $530,000 in District R9 (Fresh Pond south toward Mt. Auburn Cemetery).

Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board not to adopt the Chestnut Hill Realty Zoning Petition.

This is the beast that refuses to die. The Planning Board panned it once, and now twice. The petition is all about shoehorning more apartments into below-grade, basement apartments so that the property owners (Chestnut Hill Realty) can make even more money. They first tried to call these "workforce housing" as if to suggest they were planning to house cooks and housekeepers in their overpriced new units. What makes the petition interesting is the fact that Chestnut Hill Realty has contributed handsomely to the political campaigns of several incumbent city councillors – typically giving maximum $500 donations from many principal players in the company and several members of their extended families. It’s always entertaining to watch the votes on these things.

Resolution #3. Resolution on the death of Noel Johnson.   Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Simmons

I salute a fellow member of the Central Square Advisory Committee from Pine Street in the Area 4 neighborhood. Rest in peace, Noel.

Resolution #5. Encourage residents to attend Cambridgeport History Day on Oct 1, 2011.   Vice Mayor Davis

This is something everyone should attend if in town that day. I’m scheduled to co-lead a history-themed bicycle ride that day from Charlestown to Lowell. October 1 must be a Big Day for historical explorations.

Resolution #12. Congratulations to The Dance Complex on its 20th anniversary.   Councillor Simmons

And especially to my good friend Rozann Kraus who has helped to guide the Dance Complex from its inception 20 years ago to today.

Order #5. Seeking intervention from Federal officials in keeping the Inman Square and MIT Post Offices open.   Mayor Maher

This Order is co-sponsored by all 9 city councillors, yet I have yet to see any analysis that suggests that either of these post office branches is necessary or even well-utilized.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chairs of the Government Operations and Rules Committee for a public meeting held on Aug 29, 2011 to discuss policy development on community benefits as mitigation for zoning amendments and dedication of street corners.

Suffice to say that "community benefits" not directly related to burdens caused by new development (as a result of zoning changes) should never be characterized as "mitigation". A better term might be "extortion" or "pay to play". As I have said repeatedly (and apparently to the deaf ears of councillors determined to say yes to any and all new development resulting in more money to spread around to their favorite charities), this is a dangerous road to go down. The clear message is that if you are willing to pay to play, zoning for higher density is for sale. It is difficult to see what, if any, connection this has to rational planning for a better city. – RW

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress