Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 13, 2025

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

Filed under: 2023 election,2025 election,Cambridge,campaign finance,City Council,cycling,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:12 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Updates and Budget Impacts

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

Bicycles, Parking, Curb Access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zoning, Housing

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

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

Boards, Commissions, Control Freaks

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

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

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

On the Table #6. That the City Manager is requested to explore with the Government Operations Committee whether the functions of the Peace Commission may be improved and enhanced by bringing them within another City Commission or Department, such as the Human Rights Commission, and report back in a timely manner. [Charter Right – Simmons, May 19, 2025; Tabled June 2, 2025]
No Action Taken, Nolan Amendment Proposed

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

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

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

June 4, 2025

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 647-648: June 3, 2025

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,City Council,cycling,elections,history — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:03 pm

Episode 647 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 3, 2025 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on June 3, 2025 at 6:00pm. Topics: 2025 Municipal Election Updates, nomination papers available July 1; Random Observations and Alphabet Soup – some history of Cambridge political dichotomies and more; “defining the issues” in the most self-serving ways; Cambridge Reasonable People Organization?; Taking a long, hard look at City Boards & Commissions. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 648 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 3, 2025 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on June 3, 2025 at 6:30pm. Topics: Review of City Boards & Commissions, sunset provisions for all non-regulatory boards; Technical Working Committee for the Computerization of Cambridge Elections (TWCC); Adoption of the Amended FY2026 City Budget and Loan Authorizations; anticipating fallout from reckless federal policies; candidates readying their campaigns; the problem of City-funded campaign aides for incumbents; addressing vacant storefronts; carrots vs. sticks; turning dysfunctional properties into functional properties; Dover Amendment and City Council miscues – break it and maybe fix it later; Broadway bike lane controversy – dirty, mean tactics of Cambridge Bike Safety. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 3, 2025

Random Observations (June 3, 2025)

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:04 pm

Random Observations (June 3, 2025):

For many decades the Cambridge political dichotomy was defined as the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) vs. the Independents. At various times this was aligned with the Town vs. Gown divide, and (except for councillors from East Cambridge) also associated with the division between those who favored rent control vs. those who were opposed. During the 1990s, the CCA was largely associated with downzoning and limiting commercial development, while the Independents were generally in favor of new development and growing the tax base (which also kept residential property tax rates low). Everything changed after the demise of rent control (1994) though the political labels and voting patterns persisted for another decade or so.Alphabet Soup

Over the last decade we have seen the rise of new political associations and their associated candidate slates. The Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) arose largely in opposition to residential development proposals in and around Central Square. This led to the formation of an opposition group that later came to be known as “A Better Cambridge” (ABC) – initially in support of transit-oriented development, especially in and around Central Square. Some principal leaders in the ABC group were also affiliated with non-profit subsidized housing developers and, with the emergence of the national “YIMBY” movement, ABC shifted its focus toward such local initiatives as the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) which, for the most part, has further concentrated subsidized housing within existing properties owned by the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) and other nonprofit housing developers. ABC has shifted more recently toward a general “densification” philosophy – promoting dense housing development (market-rate and otherwise) anywhere and everywhere rather than just transit-oriented development. “Smart Growth” has yielded to just “Growth and Density” – even at the cost of so-called “naturally occurring affordable housing” and any notions of historic preservation. [This is why I generally refer top ABC as “A Bigger Cambridge”.] The ABC attitude toward such things as “neighborhood conservation districts” (NCDs) can only be described as hostility.

Somewhere along the line, a counter-organization, the Cambridge Citizens Coalition (CCC), came into existence – largely centered around themes of limited growth, especially in existing, relatively established neighborhoods. They have also been solidly in favor of historic preservation where appropriate. In many respects, the new political dichotomy has become CCC vs. ABC, but it’s more complicated than just that. Reflecting current national trends, there has also been a relatively small but nontrivial growth in hard-left political identifications – primarily Sunrise Boston (not sure if they’re still around), Our Revolution Cambridge (ORC – an offshoot of the Bernie Sanders campaigns), and the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). These groups appear to draw support primarily among college-age and recent graduates of our local universities, and the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel crowd largely aligns with the DSA (as well as other national entities like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) – an offshoot of the “Answer Coalition”. I don’t know that there’s much value added to local government with affiliation to what are effectively fringe national political parties – and hate-filled ones to boot. The Cambridge Residents Alliance, comprised mainly of much older people, has effectively become the aged wing of the local DSA (though Our Revolution has a few aging Marxists as well).

Then there’s the bicycle crowd, primarily the well-funded Cambridge Bike Safety group. They really are the ultimate single-issue group – even more than ABC and its density-above-all focus. There are also counter-efforts such as Cambridge Streets for All (CSA) that has pushed back against the rather hostile revised Bicycle Safety Ordinance (2020) that mandates separated bike lanes that are sometimes reasonable but often arbitrary and problematic. Just as is the case currently in Washington, DC, some matters come down to just raw political power and influence – regardless of sense or effectiveness.

In an interesting twist, people who would have at one time been associated with the CCA and many “townies” who at one time been associated with the Independents, now find themselves (whether or not they realize it) on the same side of the current political dichotomy. They are all what the ABC affiliates would dismiss (with great hostility) as “Neighborhood Defenders” – a term taken from the title of what has essentially become the ABC bible. Preserving quality of life (“liveability”), maintaining adequate parking, tree protection, etc. are viewed in the ABC world much the same way that Robert Moses dismissed the views of Jane Jacobs.

Things line up (more or less) these days as (1) long-time residents (townies) and the CCC, (2) pro-development supporters (ABC), and (3) Leftists and anti-capitalists (who dislike group (1) as the local aristocrats and entitled “boomers” and remain uncomfortable with group (2) because development is associated with capitalists. The bicycle obsessives are less easy to categorize. There are also several small groups emerging (and likely centered on a candidate or two) such as the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizers (CHAO – seemingly mostly Harvard affiliates) and the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition (CHJC – very fringy and anti-capitalist) which align with the hard-left and rent control advocacy.

I just wish there was a clear “reasonable” political tent under which some of us could comfortably camp out. – Robert Winters

May 20, 2025

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 645-646: May 20, 2025

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Charter,City Council,cycling,elections,Harvard Square,MBTA,MIT,recycling — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:22 pm

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

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

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

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

[Materials used in these episodes]

May 5, 2025

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

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,City Council,cycling,history,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:54 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clinton Tunnel - west portal Clinton Trestle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on April 29, 2025 on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 11.000 with the intent to amend certain subsections of the Affordable Housing Overlay, Section 11.207 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, with the intent of limiting allowable height increases in Residence C-1 districts, removing references to provisions in the base zoning that are no longer applicable, and clarifying references to departments responsible for enforcement. The Ordinance Committee voted favorably to accept the amendments and forward them to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Zoning Petition Amended 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Note: The FY2026 Budget Hearings start this week.

February 5, 2025

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 641-642: February 4, 2025

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Cambridge InsideOut,Charter,City Council,cycling,history — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:53 pm

Episode 641 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 4, 2025 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Feb 4, 2025 at 6:00pm. Topics: Broadway fire, importance of setbacks for fire safety and access; Multi-family Housing Zoning (a.k.a. Bigger Cambridge Zoning), concerns about heights, density, setbacks, stairwells, elevators; bad planning in crisis mentality; Broadway bike lane controversy, restrictions on emergency vehicles, misinformation about bike safety, importance of visibility; bulldozing Cambridge history; misguided leftist opposition to surveillance for police work, unsolved murders; Alewife MBTA excavation; $65K appropriation for Bisesquicentennial; appointments to “Broadway Safety Improvement Project” Working Group. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 642 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 4, 2025 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Feb 4, 2025 at 6:30pm. Topics: Hostility of some city councillors; advocate says only people with driveways should own cars; rumors of DSA strong mayor ballot question; history on nonpartisan municipal elections, drifting back to the dark ages; Sanctuary City or Welcoming City concerns, inability of federal government to address immigration; PILOT agreements, political hunger to fund pet programs; delegating curb cut authority to staff; Neville Center refinancing; notable passings; City Charter proposals re: budget control, appointing City Solicitor, direct election of mayor, 4-year City Council terms, Council approval of department heads, diminishing citizen redress and prohibitions against interference, need for better mechanism for accountability within City departments. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 4, 2025

Meet the New Year, Same as the Old Year – January 6, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2025 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Charter,City Council,Deaths — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:29 pm

Meet the New Year, Same as the Old Year – January 6, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Eye of ProvidenceThere is a theme that has run through recent years in Cambridge City government, namely the belief that public input is a problem and that legislation and even proposed changes to the City Charter should reflect this point of view. Any disagreement is dismissed as NIMBYism. Public involvement in matters such as development proposals or roadway reconfigurations is inherently contrary to what the elite in City government see as the public good. We saw this in the various iterations of the Affordable Housing Overlay where not only is public feedback unwelcome, but even the Planning Board’s role has been reduced to that of spectators. It’s also baked into the latest “multi-family zoning” proposals where concerns about radical changes to existing neighborhoods have been either dismissed or at best marginally tolerated. I found it quite telling that in the current discussion about changes to the City Charter, all votes to consider ideas such as “resident assemblies” or “citizen initiative petitions” or “group petitions” were voted down either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The prevailing point of view seems to be that, once elected, our city councillors become all-knowing and all-seeing arbiters of the public good. Democracy is for suckers.

This is, of course, hogwash. For what it’s worth, I think there is great merit in having some form of “resident assemblies” or “ward committees” – even though I think that what was proposed by the Charter Review Committee was not only terrible but disempowering. Anyway, that’s a discussion for another day. I will also note that some councillors are still considering proposing a change in the Charter to extend their terms from two years to four years (staggered terms) – even though they haven’t given even a moment of thought to what this means in terms of our PR elections or the need for a recall provision. Less accountability has some support because apparently having to seek reelection every two years (like every member of the United States House of Representatives and every member of the Massachusetts House and Senate) is just so inconvenient.

Here are a few things that stand out on this week’s agenda:

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $29,388,181.96 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund. During FY24, the City received mitigation revenues from various developers as a result of commitments related to zoning ordinance amendments and special permit conditions. By law, all mitigation revenues must be deposited into the General Fund and can only be appropriated after the Free Cash Certification is complete.
pulled by Siddiqui re: Free Cash balance and source of mitigation revenues; comments by Yi-An Huang, Taha Jennings; Siddiqui wants names of developers; Nolan comments; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc.
pulled by Siddiqui w/questions about meetings related to this; Yi-An Huang notes difficulties in funding health care institutions, some history leading up to this point, changing loan terms w/Rockland Trust; Claire Spinner (Finance) additional comments and explanation; Andy Fuqua (Neville Board) on reducing monthly debt service and preservation of physical building; Siddiqui inquires about role of State Legislature delegation; Fuqua notes recent Act adjusting Medicaid reimbursements; Nolan notes concerns about use of public funds to pay down loan to a private bank, wants to know terms of original loan; Spinner notes that original term was 10 years at a high interest rate, term extended, now to be extended to a 30-year term, current debt service is ~$120,000/month to be reduced to ~$75,000/month; Charter Right – Nolan [Azeem asks if City Manager’s Agenda items are subject to Charter Right (of course they are, as are any New Business items)]

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-65, regarding the creation of a jobs training trust through Home Rule Petition. [text of report]
pulled by Toner noting reasons he will be voting No; Sobrinho-Wheeler takes opposite view, naively noting that the Trust need not be funded and that this exists in Somerville and in Boston; Zusy supports intention of this but says cart is before the horse and that existing programs have not been evaluated and that additional funds and increased (already high) Linkage Fee may not be needed, petition is premature; Nolan supports motion w/explanation re: Nexus Study, agrees that existing programs should also be evaluated; JSW offers to have an additional committee meeting on this topic; Toner notes that such a meeting already pending; Home Rule Petition Adopted 7-2 (Toner, Zusy – No)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions.
pulled by Toner re: insinuations that councillors have not paid attention to Planning Board, explains proposed revisions in line with Planning Board suggestions, notes impasse re: development review and relation to AHO; Toner notes that he would prefer to focus first on Squares and Corridors (still undefined) but that other councillors disagree; Azeem notes feedback from both sides of the advocates, prefers version prior to proposed amendments, suggests plenty of time and process to go [not really]; McGovern claims that he and other councillors are listening, disputes suggestion that Council is “eliminating zoning” [which is, of course, an intentional misreading of what people are actually saying]; Nolan notes that exclusive single-family zoning is proposed to be eliminated, wants Planning Board feedback on “4+2” vs. “3+3+3” options, previous Planning Board meetings were specifically about original proposal; Jeff Roberts notes that there is no precedent for back-and-forth w/Planning Board, but that expiration and re-filing would allow for this [It is worth noting that the Planning Board could voluntarily choose to do this. – RW; Simmons notes that Planning Board generally in favor (but with what?), does not want to slow this process down; Nolan notes that Planning Board is advisory to the City Council and has not opined on these specifics even though they have been requested to do so [seems like the CDD staff is the real roadblock here]; Zusy notes that many feel that this process has been rushed, Planning Board report doesn’t really reflect sentiments of Planning Board members and that they gave no recommendation because of their expressed concerns – some of which have not been addressed, possible escalation of property values that will make housing less affordable, notes thousands of letters expressing concerns, wants additional Planning Board meeting on this topic and CDD response to questions raised by councillors; Simmons objects to suggestion that process has been rushed [and not acknowledging that the scale of this proposal is unprecedented]; Jeff Roberts says CDD staff and Law Dept. have been working on this and plan to have responses for Jan 16 Ordinance Committee meeting; Zusy notes some developers are already amassing properties for redevelopment, not much time for evaluation of proposal; Siddiqui notes that Planning Board is only advisory and that City Council’s word is only thing that really matters noting past actions ignoring Planning Board’s advice; Referred to Petition 8-1 (Zusy – No)

Order #1. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the relevant City departments to report back on additional multi-family zoning considerations, along with the other amendments put forward by the City Council on Dec 23, 2024.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Siddiqui as co-sponsor (Approved 9-0); Nolan asks clarification of “below current threshold of the inclusionary zoning ordinance”; Toner disagrees with the “average maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet per lot area” requirement; Zusy concurs on this; JSW notes desire to prevent a large single-family (“McMansion”) from being built under proposal; Zusy would prefer language to allow density increase only if increased housing units on the lot; JSW notes that proposal consistent with current zoning language; McGovern dismissively notes that “all we’re doing is asking a question”; Azeem concurs with JSW, says California concept (conditional upzoning based on adding units) noted by Zusy not consistent with existing enabling legislation (Chapters 40A or 40B); Simmons asks if Zusy has a specific proposal); Zusy notes that Azeem answered her question; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Toner, Zusy – No)

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on two Multifamily Zoning Petitions on Nov 19, 2024. This public hearing was recessed and reconvened on Dec 4, 2024. It was again recessed. It reconvened and adjourned on Dec 19, 2024. [Nov 19, 2024 report] [Dec 4, 2024 report] [Dec 19, 2024 report] [communications]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

These reports actually represent three separate meetings, though they are being lumped together because the first two meetings are technically recessed rather than adjourned. This is an unnecessary confusion.

162 Communications – overwhelming with the message “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.

Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance 2023 #8B has been received from City Clerk, relative to Amend Chapter 14.04 – Fair Housing. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 2, 2023; Amended Nov 6, 2023; to remain on Unfinished Business pending legislative approval of Special Act needed prior to ordination] (ORD23-8B)
Siddiqui notes that legislative approval has been obtained, nod to Rep. Marjorie Decker shepherding it through process; Ordained 9-0

According to State Representative Marjorie Decker (who I wish was my representative), legislative approval has now been completed and signed by the Governor, so this matter is now ready for ordination.

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to proposed amendments to the Cycling Safety Ordinance to extend the deadline associated with the completion of those sections of the ordinance that are required to be completed by May 1, 2026. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Dec 16, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained on or after Jan 6, 2025] (ORD24#8)
McGovern comments, Toner amendment to seek status of Grand Junction Multi-Use Path Adopted 9-0; Nolan says the current timelines are aggressive and that she looks forward to completion of currently planned lanes and additional expansion of the network; Ordained as Amended 9-0

This item is apparently also ready for ordination – though it could really use one important change.

Resolution #8. Condolence Resolution for Dr. Robert S. Peterkin.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Dec 11, 2024 for an update and discussion on Public Investment Planning. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I suppose money used to grow on trees in Cambridge. Now we have fewer trees and more fiscal constraints. – RW

November 19, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 635-636: November 19, 2024

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Central Square,Charter,City Council,cycling,elections,Harvard Square,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:26 pm

Episode 635 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 19, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 19, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Post-election recap, insane campaign spending, strange Cabinet choices; possible ramifications for sanctuary cities”, possible effects on federal funds, housing eligibility, transportation projects, effect on property tax levy to compensate; misunderstanding democracy, people staying in their respective silos; the Moulton reaction and refusal to moderate; Resident Satisfaction Survey – what it says and doesn’t say; traffic obstruction as City policy; things the City can fix vs. things they cannot; non-solutions to housing affordability; massive upzoning proposed; misrepresentation of the electorate; Advisory Committee appointments; non-negotiable mandates; growing problem of City departments choosing citizen advisory committees based on the outcomes that they want, irony of nonrepresentative appointments in a city with proportional representation elections, need for better outreach and recruitment; drought and fire hazards continue. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 636 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 19, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 19, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Many opportunities for City boards and commissions; City Council diminution of authority of the Planning Board, growing City Council opposition to public input; process underway to ruin Broadway for the Cycling Safety Ordinance, removal of 75% of parking – all a done deal to rubber-stamp plans of City staff, possible political backlash, Traffic and Parking Department and other City departments don’t care; Linkage fee increases, Nexus studies, and proposal for Job Training Trust – how much is too much?; Dramatic upzoning proposal disguised as “ending exclusionary zoning” – potential for major political backlash, dumping all the negative effects onto the “corridors” for political expedience; status of possible City Charter changes – things that could use revision and things that should remain. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress