Featured on the May 8, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda
On the eve of the annual Budget Hearings, the Regular City Council meeting includes the following somewhat interesting agenda items:
Note: The Party for Socialism and Liberation lynch mob descended on the City Council meeting with their rehearsed talking points, performance art, and chanting and even forced a recess for a while. They continue to demand the release of the names of police officers involved in the January shooting of a young deranged man who ran at the officers with a kulfi knife. To what end do these protesters seek the officers’ names? So that they could do what? Picket the officers’ homes? Harass their families? The petulance and ignorance of these protesters are really quite the spectacle. They also apparently believe they are “the people”. Buy a clue, kids. You are not “the community”. You are not “the people”.
The rest of Public Comment was primarily a mix of the usual AHO advocates from “A Bigger Cambridge” and opponents to the proposed amendments. Monday night at City Council has become just a really bad TV show with even worse consequences. I am reminded of a City Council campaign from some years ago by candidate Ian McKinnon whose campaign catch phrase was “Hire Better Actors.”
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Charles Hicks Saunders House.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (MM Absent)
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a recommendation that the City Council approve an Order to take by “friendly” eminent domain proceeding parcels of land located at 319 Webster Avenue, Cambridge (as shown on Cambridge Assessors Map 81, Parcel 21), 333 Webster Avenue, Cambridge (as shown on Cambridge Assessors Map 81, Parcel 23), and 455 Columbia Street (as shown on Cambridge Assessors Map 81, Parcel 16) (collectively “Cambridge Parcels”), and approve an Order authorizing the purchase of a parcel of land located at 94 Webster Avenue, Somerville (as shown on Somerville Assessors Map 96, Parcel B-7) (“Somerville Parcel”) (collectively, the “Premises”), all of which are owned by Webster Avenue Ventures LLC (“WV”). (CM23#128) [plot plan] [Order of Taking] [Order authorizing purchase]
pulled by Nolan; PN objects to $14.4 million price tag and suggests site better used for housing rather than DPW use; PT, QZ support proposed use as well as future housing; Owen O’Riordan explains the needs of DPW for operations and how this site is badly needed for foreseeable future; QZ would prefer high density subsidized/social housing for the site; DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins notes that site likely has “urban fill” with some contamination; AM would prefer to turn site over for subsidized/social housing, concerned about price tag; O’Riordan notes that parcels were assembled by a 3rd party; Bob Riordan notes that original asking price was 10% higher; QZ identifies site as a “Square” which would permit taller buildings under proposed AHO amendments; MM also would prefer high density subsidized/social housing on site but will support proposal; DC says he’s been advocating City purchase of land for years; BA asks about specific proposed uses; Kathy Watkins notes likely use by Parks Division and/or Buildings Divisions, including vehicle storage and office space; PN wants City to buy any and all properties available but cannot support this purchase; Huang explains costs; PN unhappy about why City did not purchase another lot; Charter Right – Mallon; David Kale notes that this sale is timely and could fall apart if delayed; Bob O’Riordan notes that there have been other offers for the parcels; McGovern Reconsideration Motion Fails 1-8 (PN – Yes)
These parcels include the site where Phil’s Towing was located until very recently and which closed as a consequence of the City Council’s (and City Manager’s) policy change to only tag vehicles for street weeping violations rather than be “tagged and towed”. It also includes the site of E&C Bottle and Can Return – a go-to location for those needing to cash in bulk amounts of deposit containers. It is likely that there is some soil contamination as a result of many years of junkyard operations on these parcels. The most likely use of these parcels in the near future would be as a municipal public works facility.
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Items Numbered 23-2, related to exploring the need for a special permitting process for cannabis dispensaries, special permitting fees and bicycle parking requirements, and Response to Awaiting Report No. 23-4 regarding establishing the framework that will allow for the immediate elimination of the bicycle parking fees imposed on Economic Empowerment and Social Equity applicants and cannabis dispensary operators. (CM23#129) [report and proposed zoning change]
pulled by Nolan; Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee 9-0; Reconsideration prevails (later) due to screw-up, Re-Vote to adopt language of proposed zoning change from CDD and Refer to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 9-0
If only our City government had the same level of concern for businesses other than cannabis businesses.
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with no positive or negative recommendation on the Kelley et. al. Zoning Petition.
pulled by Carlone; DC notes that this increases commercialization; Referred to Petition 9-0
Order #1. That the City Manager is directed to work with all relevant departments to recommend what new City regulations and Council action or changes to existing regulations or ordinances are needed to put in place in order to implement the Craig Kelley et al. Zoning Petition for residential car sharing and renting of EV charging stations and bring those recommendations to the full council by June 12, 2023. Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0
I’m all for allowing flexibility in this, but I’m also mindful of the fact that this effectively turns residential uses into commercial operations with the inevitable phone apps will direct people to residential properties in much the same way that people now seek out gas stations. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but you do have to anticipate unintended consequences. Should homeowners also provide rest rooms? How about windshield washing apparatus? Will fast-charging result in local voltage drops? Will residential homeowners with driveways now park on the street in order to make their driveway available for this use?
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on Afterschool care.
pulled by Nolan; Ellen Semonoff notes staff increases; additional comments by QZ, MM, SS; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the development of the City of Cambridge Community Safety Department (CSD).
pulled by Mallon; Interim Director Liz Speakman notes May 4 meeting with HEART and $300,000 contract changes [remarkable how much this City Council wants to be involved in contract specifics]; QZ wants to refer report to Public Safety Committee, asks about Steering Committee process; Speakman notes that “Future of Public Safety Task Force” involved (which itself raises some questions), all meetings informal and not public; QZ wants meeting notes made public (which hopefully will include names of participants); Michelle Scott (Program Coordinator) adds details; QZ wants more details on integration with HEART; Speakman notes conversations to build “more trust” and possibility of providing other services; MM asks about loitering; Speakman feels that sleeping in ATMs is not “really” trespassing; MM says “you can never have too many services”; PN notes name change from CSD (Community Safety Department) to CARE (Community Assistance, Response and Engagement); BA, DC, SS additional comments; Referred to Public Safety Committee 9-0
This communication includes notification that a contract for $300,000 of ARPA funding was sent to HEART. “The scope of services includes crisis response, conflict resolution, mutual aid, aftercare, and community cohesion. The funding will cover a Licensed Social Worker position, partial funding of several responder salaries, partial funding of one Co-Director salary, and partially covering the fiscal sponsor fee.”
Pardon my cynicism, but I continue to categorize this under “political patronage”.
Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-07, regarding report on providing publicly-accessible traffic stop, arrest, and citation police data on a new Procedural Justice Dashboard.
pulled by Mallon; Police Commissioner Christine Elow responds about type of data and availability; PN questions; Placed on File 9-0
Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to promptly draft a zoning petition to be considered for filing by the City Council, based upon the proposed Affordable Housing Overlay amendments now before the Housing Committee. [Charter Right – Nolan, May 1, 2023] (PO23#75)
Comments by Toner, Nolan in support of Substitute Order; Nolan notes that the ABC proposal for corridors does not align with what was in Envision Report and recommendations; Mallon calls AHO “landmark legislation” – a “huge supporter”, notes that a 5-year review was included in original ordinance, does not want CDD involved “in an unfettered way”, has not yet heard need expressed by subsidized/social housing builders for 25 stories, cannot support Order without these amendments; McGovern trashes Envision in favor of whatever ABC wants, saya subsidized/social housing developers want 9-12 stories and upward (well, of course, since they are effectively writing their own regulations]; QZ will not support Substitute Order because of “crisis” and that action required even if not well-considered, calls this an effort to delay until next Council term; DC explains his beliefs with some historical context that the ABC acolytes will never understand; BA double-talks about collaboration and consensus but won’t support substitute; Siddiqui says Substitute Order can only be voted up or down; Simmons puts no limits on increasing units, heights, densities and will not support Substitute Order, expresses distrust of CDD, wants to rush proposal through; SS suggests that amendments are possible at Ordinance Committee (but this is a joke), won’ support Substitute Order; Vote on Substitute Order Fails 4-4 (DC,AM,PN,PT – Yes; BA,MM,DS,QZ,SS – No); PN notes that “BEUDO must be done by May 31”; QZ asks what is meant by “providing heights in the specified corridors that constitute bonuses”, wants no other limits; Siddiqui waffles; MM continues to express desire that developers should propose their own regulations; AM says request to CDD is too prescriptive, wants to remove first bullet re: maximums of 12 and 15 stories, refers to “beauty and the simplicity of the original AHO”, wants to remove first bullet, the phrase “if it can do so by June 1” and change “may” to “shall”; DC asks what is needed to make AHO work in specific locations – but he’s talking to deaf ABC ears; DS wants first bullet point with 12 and 15 stories to remain, supports SS amendment w/amendment, wants June 1 deadline to remain so that this can be rushed through; BA agrees; SS amendment (with “may” to “shall”) and added “base” approved 8-1 (QZ – No); AM amendment to strike first bullet Fails 4-5 (DC,AM,PN,PT – Yes; BA,MM,DS,QZ,SS – No); AM amendment to strike “if it can do so by June 1” approved 8-1 (QZ – No); AM amendment to add “including” in 2nd bullet approved 8-1 (QZ – No); Order Adopted as Amended 5-3-1 (BA,MM,DS,QZ,SS – Yes; AM,PN,PT – No; DC – Present)
I seriously hope this does not go forward as currently drafted, and if it does I hope there will be political consequences for all of the co-sponsors. If the ultimate goal of these councillors is to gradually replace privately-owned residential property coming onto the market with “social housing” under a socialist model, then they should come right out and say that and stop dancing around the edges.
Order #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to determine the feasibility of purchasing available property from Lesley University to address City goals. Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
pulled by McGovern; add all councillors as sponsors; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
See above.
Order #3. Online Publication of Legal Notices. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem
This is an idea that has been brought up for a long time but which has not up to this point gained much traction at the State House. The Massachusetts General Laws require publication in a “newspaper of general circulation” and these legal notices continue to be an essential means of support for many local publications. There’s a reasonably good chance that a change in the law will drive the last nail into the coffin of some publications.
Order Adopted 9-0
I wrote about this in October 2009: Putting the Paper to Bed
Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee held a public meeting to review and discuss the update on Urban Forest Master Plan and to discuss how to improve tree health and tree canopy across the City. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #2. Ordinance Committee meeting of Wed, Apr 12, 2023, 5:30pm on BEUDO – recessed. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #3. Ordinance Committee meeting of Wed, Apr 26, 2023, 3:00pm on BEUDO – continuation. [text of report] [communications]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Budget Hearings:
Tues, May 9
9:00am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY2024 City Budget. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
General Government & Public Safety:
| Budget Overview Mayor’s Office Executive – Leadership Executive – Diversity Executive – DGVPI Executive – Equity and Inclusion Executive – Public Information Office Executive – Tourism Executive – Housing Liaison |
City Council City Clerk Law Finance – Administration Finance – Budget Finance – Purchasing Finance – Auditing Finance – Assessing Finance – Treasury/Revenue |
Finance – Information Technology Finance – General Services Employee Benefits Human Resources Election Commission Public Celebrations Reserve Animal Commission |
Community Safety Fire Department Police Department PRAB / Peace Commission Traffic, Parking & Transportation Inspectional Services License Commission Emergency Communications |
| Those marked in bold are the ones pulled for discussion. *may appear at May 16 hearing | |||
Wed, May 10
6:00pm The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY2024 School Department Budget. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
Tues, May 16
10:00am The City Council’s Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY2024 City Budget. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
Community Maintenance and Development & Human Resources Development:
| Cambridge Health Alliance Public Works Water Community Development Historical Commission |
Cable TV Debt Service Capital Building Projects Library Human Services |
Women’s Commission Human Rights Commission Veterans’ Services MWRA Cherry Sheet |
City Overview Section Financial Summaries Section Revenue Section Public Investment Section |
| Those marked in bold are the ones pulled for discussion. | |||
Mon, June 5
5:30pm City Council meeting – Anticipated Budget Adoption (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)
There’s a phrase that the Cambridge City Administration has been including in its annual “Dear Residents and Taxpayers of Cambridge” mailing for years that goes something like this: “For FY23, 80% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase, or an increase of less than $250.” This phrase used to end with “or an increase of less than $100”, but I suppose the percentages are much more appealing with the change. One might actually be led to believe that the tax levy is going down based on the initial reading of this annual message. In fact, this year (FY23) the tax levy went up by 7.4%, and the increases in recent years were 4.7%, 7.85%, 6.9%, 5.3%, and 3.8% (reverse chronologically). Much of the tax increases were picked up by commercial properties due to tax classification and City’s tax policy decisions, but the residential tax burden has certainly been on the rise.