Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 24, 2023

2023 Cambridge Municipal Election: Nomination Papers

2023 Municipal Election: Nomination Papers

Vote!June 20, 2023 – Nomination papers for City Council and School Committee will be available beginning Monday, July 3rd at the Election Commission office, 51 Inman Street, Cambridge. The office will be open on Monday, July 3rd from 8:30am until 8:00pm. The deadline to file nomination papers is Monday, July 31, 2023, at 5:00pm. The 2023 Municipal Election Calendar is posted on the Commission’s website: www.cambridgema.gov/election. [Calendar]

The requirements to run for City Council or School Committee are:

1. The person must be a registered voter in Cambridge. To register, one must be 18 years of age by Election Day, a U.S. citizen and a resident in the City of Cambridge.

2. The person must file no fewer than fifty (50) and no more than one hundred (100) certifiable signatures of registered voters in the City of Cambridge.

The Commission has prepared an information kit for candidates containing important dates, Commission policies, services and publications. The kits will be available with the nomination papers on July 3rd.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 7, 2023.

June 11, 2023

BEUDO + AHO = Performance Art

BEUDO + AHO = Performance Art – a message from Patrick Barrett

June 11, 2023

Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,Patrick Barrett

I am asking you to do a couple of things tomorrow night but first and foremost I ask that you attempt to take a look at the current state of our city. We are teetering on breaking into a billion dollar budget where our schools consistently underperform and nearly 8% of families have abandoned the system in just the last couple of years, small and large businesses are still failing at an accelerated rate burdened by excess pandemic debt and an ecosystem that has evaporated, Kendall Square is facing a 30% vacancy rate, drug dealers own Central Square emboldened enough to mug and strip a man naked in broad daylight for failure to pay a drug debt, and the general sense among those who do the work is that we are currently leaderless. Where in all of this is our City Council, Manager, and Department Heads? In truth many of you have little to no substantive connection to the City at all. Most of you do not have young or school aged children. Most of you do not now nor have you ever run a business in Cambridge. Most have not built the home they live in or any structure in Cambridge. Some have lived here generationally and that is terrific but we are talking policy and whether you’ve lived here for a day or seven centuries there are those with “skin in the game” and those that have none. Most, if not all of you, are activists each having their own area of “expertise” where the actual power to drive policy on these issues rests with the State or Federal government not the Cambridge City Council. Thus as stewards of the city you’ve very little that directly impacts you regarding schools, business, development, crime or even the lofty goals of your activism. Do any of you own or live in a BEUDO property? Are any of you currently on the waiting list for affordable housing? Do any of you have a child waiting to take algebra in 8th grade only to find out that has been taken off the table? I could go on for days … this takes me to Monday night:

1) The AHO has always bothered me. It is a set of rules specially designed for a small group of developers with direct access to municipal funds that allows them to ignore anachronistic and obtuse zoning rules everyone else has to obey. If you are a homeowner and want to add additional bedroom or play room for your growing family it likely means a variance or special permit you’re never going to get but for the AHO developer there is no such impediment. It seems an odd result that home owners and property owners should face such steep headwinds for minor quality of life adjustments and that for a small group of developers they can simply do whatever they like. The amendment to the AHO is another reminder to me that when it comes to housing policy and zoning we really are just winging it. Anyone who builds anything (which is none of you currently on the Council) knows very well that 12-15 stories or infinity stories as previously contemplated is highly likely to produce nothing. Your current inclusionary zoning is so horribly broken your director of CDD is doing backflips to hide this fact. When San Francisco reduces from 25% to 12% and says it still doesn’t work you can bet the same rules apply here or worse. Lastly, you received a communication from Susan Connelly last week that is the most coherent salient and informative communication I’ve ever read on the subject and you’d all be wise to read what she says and listen to her. 100% spot on. I hope you hit the pause button on this one and become a serious legislative body again. I do not care about heights, density, or anything else the so called NIMBY folk are accused of (the whole nimby v yimby game is another level of performance art) but I do care about results and like the 99.9% of Cambridge citizens who are not City Councillors it is baffling that we should face so many real immediate issues and yet you’ve chosen to not address any of them but instead have spent a year or more on what is essentially small town theatre.

2) BEUDO is another performative piece of legislation on the docket for Monday night. Will it reduce greenhouse gases in commercial and residential buildings? Of course not. The grid is 80-85% fossil fuel based and likely to stay so well past the 2030’s. CDD identified 20 buildings as the largest producers of GHGs in the city all of which are labs that will be exempt of gas hook up bans and are well capitalized enough to weather this new tax. Why focus on 20 buildings producing more than 50% of our GHGs when you can draft an incoherent set of rules that will devastate the least able to bear it? BUEDO will make residents and business owners rip out perfectly functional HVAC equipment, displace commercial and residential tenants, and further compress our economy during the worst commercial financing conditions of our time. This is obviously the work of people who do not trouble themselves with the details. Further, the amount of resources Eversource will now have to redirect to Cambridge will deny essential resources to other communities on the State’s 2050 timeline and create more havoc when the infrastructure we need rapidly needs to be located within our communities. You still haven’t even addressed the building to building or citywide infrastructure needed for any of this to work; unless of course this was all just about the tax. One billion dollar budget and you need a new tax? Really? Further, our 6.32 square mile billion dollar city will be pushing the remaining 10,559 square miles to the side so we can not only be “first” but the only one out in front of the State. This isn’t “green washing,” it’s “green bullying” and something as a City and as individual residents we should only feel shame in being a part of. To anyone watching, and there weren’t many, the entire “process” was a sham. CDD has ceased to adequately function for at least a decade now but their “work” on BEUDO highlighted a deep and powerful incompetence that I personally found stunning. However I think much like the Council, CDD is also primarily comprised of activists. Thus we have lots of policy and very little substance. In the end this will hurt any individual with a commercial or residential property swept up in a tax scheme they cannot comply with. In effect Cambridge is sending a message through this Council to pack up and leave … only MIT and Harvard need apply. Message heard. In the meantime I ask that you vote Zondervan’s amendment down. CDD did not include it for good reason and what little policy was shaped by a transparent process with actual stakeholders ought to be preserved if for no other reason to not add more drama to the second act.

3) Gas Hook-Up ban. The final act in local theatre production is another light on substance heavy on pain for small businesses and especially those in the restaurant industry. I do not think there is anyone on the City Council who works in or owns a restaurant; yet another example of no skin in the game. We should absolutely NOT sign on the pilot program. We passed the specialized stretch code and we are about to pass BEUDO. We do not need any further constraints on small businesses. The pain of the pandemic which this Council absolutely exacerbated in yet another performative opera of incompetence is still very much with us. Restaurants will be feeling this pain for a generation. In Central Square only 11% of restaurants received any relief and even the ones that did closed. Gas hook-ups are essential to many different types of cuisine and are still industry standard though I do recall Councillor Nolan and Susan Rasmussen both stating the “high end” chefs prefer induction. I asked at the time for a source and am still waiting. It might be worth mentioning that induction stoves cost more, require specialized pots and pans, and are about 4-5 times more costly to fix … I know I know … details right? This type of prohibition was blocked by the Ninth Circuit court fought by a Restaurant lobby only a few short months ago. Lastly, the pilot will not affect medical facilities nor will it affect labs and that is how we know that this is yet another piece of performance art. Gas stoves are used by many Cambridge residents and chefs, and it’s hard to imagine in the home of Julia Childs we could be so neglectful to this industry. Do not approve this policy order and do not join this so called pilot program … you’ve all done enough damage for one Monday.

There is so much more going on in our city besides affordable housing and regurgitated faux environmental policies that are currently failing everywhere they’ve been adopted. No matter what we do we cannot be “The First.” However we do have it within us to be The Model, but only if we pull back and get serious people in the room. We can get to better places on housing, environmental issues, crime/policing, and more but not with activists who only read the CliffsNotes nor a Community Development Department that is at its core broken. In the meantime please vote down Zondervan’s amendment and put the breaks on any AHO amendment to merge this policy with a comprehensive strategy that includes market rate housing and fixes inclusionary; a real housing policy for Cambridge. I would be remiss in not mentioning that this year will be C2’s tenth birthday. Ten years have passed since we had the chance to rezone and create thousands of new housing units in one of the last places in Cambridge to truly redevelop, but instead of working on that we push a bunch of nonsense that will produce nothing but distrust and enmity among residents; why? I’m not really much of a critic of the arts but this is absolutely the worst play I’ve ever seen.

PS: to those who act, perform, sing, and dance in actual theatre I love you and mean no harm.

Respectfully,
Patrick W. Barrett III

May 16, 2023

New Video Series Opens With Focus on Cambridge’s Charter Leading to Plan E

New Video Series Opens With Focus on Cambridge’s Charter Leading to Plan E

Civic View Episode 1The Cambridge City Charter: From Town Meeting to Plan E premiered on Monday, May 15 at 5:30pm on CCTV Channel 9 and is now viewable on YouTube.

Created by a multi-generational team of writer-narrators John Pitkin and Robert Winters, both long-time Cambridge residents, and director Gregorio Leon, a 2016 graduate of CRLS and Emerson College, the video is introduced by WGBH’s Jim Braude. The Cambridge’s City Charter: From Town Meeting to Plan E combines historical documents, images, maps, and statistics to present a provocative half-hour overview of Cambridge’s first 94 years as a city and the origins of the current Plan E charter.

The episode examines our shared history through the lens of the City Charter and local elections. It shows how the Town Meeting style of government became impracticable and led to the consolidation of Old Cambridge, the neighborhood around Harvard College, with the villages of Cambridgeport and East Cambridge to create the city of Cambridge, chartered by the Commonwealth in 1846. The half-hour video presents a provocative and visually engaging review of the expansion of Cambridge as bridges linked Old Cambridge to Boston in the 18th and early 19th century, as migration drove population growth, suffrage expanded, and participation in local elections increased.

The second episode of Cambridge Civic View, now in production, will look at the 83-year history of the current Plan E charter. Since 1940, Plan E has defined our local government, given us the existing system of nine City Councillors with a City Manager as our chief executive, and established the ranked-choice proportional representation voting system used to elect our Councillors and School Committee.

Together, the first two episodes in the series will provide background and perspective on the issues facing Cambridge’s Charter Review Committee as it proposes changes to the Charter and for Cambridge citizens when they vote on whether to adopt proposed changes.

In November, Cambridge will elect a new City Council of nine at-large Councillors and a School Committee of six. Cambridge Civic View strives to engage and inform all residents, whatever their policy priorities and political values, on civic issues and how our municipal government and local democracy are working.

Cambridge’s City Charter: From Town Meeting to Plan E will be also be shown on CCTV Channel 9 (and on the web at https://www.cctvcambridge.org/channel-9/) at the following times: 4:30pm on Wed. May 17, 6:30pm on Fri. May 19, and 12:00pm on Sun. May 21 and is available for streaming from YouTube and for classroom use.

April 30, 2023

Mayday, Mayday! Rabbit, Rabbit! – Curiosities on the May 1, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Mayday, Mayday! Rabbit, Rabbit! – Curiosities on the May 1, 2023 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Budget Season is upon us, and we appear to be in for the largest jump in memorya nearly 10% increase from last year. The total City Budget for FY23 was $787,913,900 and that’s proposed to go up to $866,254,920 – a 9.9% increase (and that doesn’t include the additional $167,150,000 in loan authorizations). The budget for the Executive Department (the City Manager’s Office) is going up a whopping 50.2% from $5,638,040 to $8,467,495. I’m eager to get my hands on the full Budget Book to better understand why the Community Development Department’s budget is going from $14,409,820 to $39,290,300, a 172.7% increase – most likely due to some reshuffling of City departments and budget categories, but this really is bewildering.Coins

Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the FY2024 submitted budget and appropriation orders.
Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

It was explained that the reason the CDD Budget went up by 172.7% was because of an accounting change in which $23,045,750 from the Capital Budget for the Affordable Housing Trust was moved to the Operating Budget under CDD. If this shift were to be excluded, the increase in the overall Operating Budget would be $57,260,265 or 7.1% over the FY23 Adopted Budget (instead of the reported 9.9% increase).

Other changes revealed in the FY2024 Budget Book are that the Electrical Department was moved into the Public Works Department during FY2023, and the Water Department is now listed under the Community Maintenance and Development category rather than as its own separate Budget category. There is now also a new “Capital Building Projects” budget line under Community Maintenance and Development. The Personnel Department has also been taken out of the Finance Department Budget and is now its own “Human Resources” budget line.

It’s worth noting that the City Manager’s Office (Executive) had grown to 16 full-time positions in FY2022 (up from 11 a few years earlier). That grew to 22 in FY2023 and has now leapt to 31 full-time positions in the FY2024 Budget. This partially explains its 50.2% increase from $5,638,040 to $8,467,495.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $50,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of the Mass Avenue between Waterhouse Street and Alewife Parkway.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appropriation and authorization to borrow $35,350,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. Funds will support upgrades to the 689 Mass Avenue Interior; upgrades at the Moses Youth Center; Interior fit-out of Rindge Pre-K building; electric vehicle charging station infrastructure at several municipal buildings; and additional work at Inman and East Cambridge Fire Houses; First Street Garage upgrades to stairs and elevator; and other City building upgrades.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,500,000 to provide funds for the construction of the Peabody School Playground and Corcoran (Raymond Street) park.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,800,000 to provide funds for financing school building upgrades.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $51,500,000 to provide funds for the construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within the Port and River Street areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation and authorization to borrow $26,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets, sidewalks and bike facilities. $15,000,000 of this loan order is attributable to the improvement project related to sewer infrastructure upgrades on River Street, which include full depth roadway reconstruction, new sidewalks, new street trees and various other street improvements.
Passed to 2nd Reading 7-1-1 (QZ – No; AM – Absent); Referred to Finance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

bottomlineFY2024

Budget Summaries – FY2024 Comparisons

The City Manager’s presentation on Monday (and at the upcoming Budget Hearings) should be very interesting. I’m also eager to hear if there are any (misguided) efforts to turn some of the ARPA windfalls into permanent parts of the City’s Operating Budget. Questions worth asking would be about how changes in commercial property use and value in addition to a rapidly growing City Budget will translate into residential property tax rates over the next few years. These are the kinds of questions city councillors should be asking now rather than after the municipal election.


Manager’s Agenda #17. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-74, regarding needs assessment of the Danehy Park and recommendations for improvements; and irrigation updates.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

“Danehy Park opened in 1990 – a 50-acre open space that provides sports fields, walking paths, a dog park, and other open space amenities. Previously, between 1847-1952, clay was extracted to manufacture bricks by the New England Brick Company. The result was a deep clay pit that the City used as its landfill between 1952 and 1971. This was capped and Danehy Park created in 1990. … The City has begun working with MassDEP on a 30-Year Post Closure Evaluation and Report that will include an evaluation of the existing methane trench. … On Mar 21 a contractor working for the City performing soil borings identified a methane pocket beneath the clay cap in Danehy Park. … City staff from DPW, DHSP, Fire, and Public Health are working closely with DEP to install additional venting structures to allow the landfill gases to safely vent and increase monitoring in the park to ensure the effectiveness of the venting modifications. … Other improvements presently underway: Girls Softball Improvements, Irrigation System Improvements.”

Manager’s Agenda #18. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment and reappointment of the following persons as a members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: Members (five-year term) – William Boehm, Fernando Daniel Hidalgo, Virginia Keesler, Steven Ng; Associate Members (two-year term): Carol Agate, Michael LaRosa, Thomas Marshall Miller, Zarya Miranda; Associate Members (two-year term reappointment): Matina Williams, Wendy Leiserson
Appointments Approved 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Let’s see if the City Council’s newfound authority to confirm Board appointments results in any challenges to these BZA appointments – one of the Boards targeted by ABC (a.k.a. “A Bigger Cambridge”) for Just Doing its Job. The role of the BZA has never been to overrule zoning regulations as a policy matter, but rather to manage exceptional and hardship cases and to grant some Special Permits – regardless what some have claimed in regard to some recent major development proposals.


Manager’s Agenda #19. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with no positive or negative recommendation on the Michael Monestime et. al. Zoning Petition. (CM23#123) [Monestime Petition – amended]
Referred to Petition 8-0-1 (AM – Absent); later moved to Suspend Rules for Reconsideration 8-0-1 (AM – Absent); Reconsideration of Referral Fails 0-8-1 (AM – Absent) to allow for immediate ordination

Unfinished Business #1. A Zoning Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge be amended on a Zoning Petition by Michael Monestime, et al., to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by creating new footnotes in the Table of Permitted Uses in Section 4.30 for Outdoor Retail or Consumer Service Establishment, not otherwise defined and Outdoor Entertainment and Recreation Facility”; in the Business B, B-1 and B-2 column which read, “For the Central Square Overlay see section 20.304.5 (5)”; and “For the Central Square Overlay see section 20.304.5 (6)”;; and by amending Section 20.304.5 of the Central Square Overlay District to allow Outdoor Retail or Consumer Service Establishment, not otherwise defined by Special Permit from the Planning Board, with associated approval criteria, and to permit Outdoor Entertainment and Recreation Facility as-of-right within the Business B District of the Central Square Overlay District. [Passed to 2nd Reading Apr 24, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after May 15, 2023; Expires July 12, 2023] (ORD23#1)
Motion to Declare This Matter a “Special Emergency” Prevails 8-0-1 (AM Absent); Ordained 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Though we all expect this will be ordained unanimously and perhaps even fast-tracked as an “emergency”, the issue of concern is amplified music that may annoy close neighbors. There are three abutting 8-family affordable housing structures, and the Planning Board received communications from some of the residents. Under existing zoning it has been up to the BZA to allow this exceptional use – together with regulation of noise levels by the License Commission. The zoning change would make the operation of Starlight Square (and other areas within the Central Square Overlay District) an as-of-right use, but noise levels and days/times of operation would continue to be regulated by the License Commission. The best long-term solution would be to build an enclosed performance space that would be usable year-round and in inclement weather, but that won’t likely be happening any time soon.


Applications & Petitions #2. A Zoning Petition has been received from Ian Ferguson, et al. regarding Pitched Roofs Zoning Petition. (AP23#22) [text of petition]
Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

At first I thought this reminiscent of the Rainwater & Flat Roof Zoning Petition from 2018 that was championed by Councillor Kelley, but it’s actually quite different (and interesting).


Communications #31. A communication was received from Marie Elena Saccoccio, regarding Proposed Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III.

Communications #32. A communication was received from Frank J. Paolitto, regarding Proposed changes in housing policies.

Order #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.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan
Charter Right – Nolan (after numerous speeches by the likes of Zondervan and McGovern who declared that they would prefer even taller heights along all of the declared “Corridors” and Squares, and that anything less that the City obtaining every residential property that goes on the market should be viewed as a failure);
Councillor Toner introduced a Substitute Order that will be reintroduced when this matter comes up at the next regular meeting

I suppose if Major League Baseball can institute pitch clocks then perhaps this is the City Council’s own version of a hurry-up strategy. That said, this entire proposal is outrageously wrongheaded. It would be one thing to propose some height increases along streets where 3-story buildings are typical to perhaps allow an extra few stories – especially along streets where there are already some 4-6 story apartment buildings, but this offensive proposal would more than quadruple the allowed heights for favored housing developers. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this attempt to fast-track this matter is that it has Councillor Simmons as a co-sponsor – someone who up until now I thought actually cared about the concerns of neighbors.

Order #2. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the Community Development Department and neighboring cities and agree to a non-binding framework that Cambridge can use to work towards a more diverse real estate development industry.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (AM – Absent) – Zondervan declares that he would also like to codify requirements for union labor and a laundry list of social goals to do business in Cambridge, Siddiqui concurs

The last “Ordered” states: “That this framework includes an update to the Special Permit process with a request that they report on actions they are taking to increase the diversity of their teams, construction firms, and investors, and share the findings of this update with regional partners.” Regardless of its merits, this is a rather unusual thing to include as part of any Special Permit criteria regardless of whether it is non-binding. It’s one thing to require a range of requirements in City contracts, but I’m not aware of even a requirement for something like union labor anywhere in the Zoning Ordinance. Shall only those owners/developers matching the political/social goals of the City Council be allowed to do business in Cambridge? This is a very slippery slope.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with CDD, Law Department, the Assessor’s Office, and any other relevant departments to produce final draft ordinance language for the BEUDO amendments based on the CDD proposal as amended by the Ordinance Committee at its Apr 26, 2023 hearing; and that the City Manager report back on this matter, including presenting final draft language to the City Council no later than May 31st, 2023.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Order #6. City Council support of letter on strong Clean Heat Standards.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development & University Relations Committee held a public meeting on Apr 4, 2023 to the discuss the practical impact of various city policies, regulations and ordinances on commercial and residential development and construction projects in Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (AM – Absent)

This committee report is very interesting. It gives a nice summary of the multitude of requirements faced by those who seek to build anything in Cambridge. – Robert Winters

March 13, 2023

Municipal Broadband or Municipal Boondoggle

Municipal Broadband or Municipal Boondoggle

March 13, 2023 – There’s a City Council Roundtable tonight that includes a presentation on “Municipal Broadband Feasibility and Business Model Options”. Advocacy for municipal broadband has gained a lot of traction among city councillors over the last few years – perhaps even unanimous support – but the issue has always been about financial cost and exposure, i.e. the notion that a huge amount of money might be invested in a technology that might become obsolete with the next wave of innovation.City Hall

If surveyed, residents would likely be nearly unanimous in the view that having affordable alternatives for fast Internet access is very desirable – hence a winning position for city councillors to support. What is often not said is that municipal broadband would likely not include Cable TV access (unless you subscribe to one of the new streaming options), and if consumers who now bundle their phone, Internet, and TV access wanted municipal broadband there might not even be a financial benefit in doing so. More significantly, the full capital cost of such an investment is estimated to be $194 million with a City contribution estimated to be $150 million.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS

• The full capital cost is estimated at ~$194 million, incorporating a 30% contingency and inflation over a 5-year construction period, assuming a 40% take-rate.

• A City contribution of ~$150 million is required to establish a sustainable FTTP business from scratch, applying reasonable assumptions under a “base case”. This contribution is the investment the City would need to make for which there would likely be no return. The remaining capex can be supported from net revenues after operating costs.

• Entering into a partnership with one or more entities to lease fiber and run the business would reduce the City’s risks and potentially reduce costs. A partner could potentially leverage existing operations and assets, achieving economies of scale.

March 8, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 581-582: March 7, 2023

Episode 581 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 7, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Mar 7, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: David Leslie, Sam Corda, Robert Steck; “Tenant Protection Act” and Rent Control as political decisions; contradictory rhetoric – local control is good or bad depending on whose ox is gored; regulatory taking; pro-YIMBY bill, legality of municipally-funded housing voucher programs; ARPA as political patronage. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 582 – Cambridge InsideOut: Mar 7, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Mar 7, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: The politics of ARPA, patronage, and mayoral fiat; Plan E as answer to patronage; the story of the failed Ombudsman proposal; property valuation, Prop 2½, tax-exempt properties, hunger for programs, and Tax Classification – and why commercial development paid (and still pays) the bills; some truth about rents; beware of averages. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

February 21, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 579-580: February 21, 2023

Episode 579 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 21, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Feb 21, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Charter Review, previous charters based on need and not political fortune, proportional representation and the Plan E Charter, 1972 PR repeal chronology, Belin decision; Cambridge Chronicle as paper of record; Cambridge Candidate Pages as successor to League of Women Voters; informed citizenry. Hosts: Robert Winters, Judy Nathans [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 580 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 21, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Feb 21, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Landmarking studies; atlascope.org; Memorial Drive closures and traffic impacts in Riverside; the promise of DCR plans and Mass Pike realignment; BEUDO revisions, Eversource realities, engineering by wishful thinking; lost initiatives; Cambridge Police alternatives – bodycams, less-than-lethal options; Planning Board and other appointments pending – proving ground for city manager. Hosts: Robert Winters, Judy Nathans [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 26, 2023

An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again – Redress of Grievances

An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again – Redress of Grievances

Jan 26, 2023 (modified June 2) – In this year when charter review is underway and possible charter revision may be on the horizon, it is perhaps valuable to look back at some provisions of previous Cambridge City Charters for some guidance. For example, in the original 1846 (proposed) Cambridge City Charter, there’s this:Petition

Sect. 19. General meetings of the citizens qualified to vote may, from time to time, be held, to consult upon the public good, to instruct their representatives, and to take all lawful measures to obtain redress of any grievances, according to the right secured to the people by the Constitution of this Commonwealth; and such meetings may, and shall be duly warned by the mayor and aldermen, upon the requisition of thirty qualified voters.

Note: This provision did not appear in the adopted 1846 Charter nor its subsequent amendments.

Perhaps “the requisition of thirty qualified voters” may not be the appropriate standard today in a city of 120,000 people, and perhaps the procedure should be modified to be more aligned with the way our City Council and School Committee is constituted under the current charter, but there should be a reasonably attainable standard that would allow for “redress of grievances.” The current situation is that a group of hundreds of citizens could send a petition to the City Council (or, presumably the School Committee) asking for reconsideration or change in some policy or ordinance, or action of the City or School administration, but that petition would likely only appear as a “Communication” on an agenda that could, and generally is, simply “Placed on File.” A better system would be to have the respective elected body or City department be required to respond and vote on any reasonable question or request in a timely manner, e.g. within thirty days.

It is a deficiency in the current Plan E Charter that other than begging a city councillor to file a policy order (which could well end up under “Awaiting Report” for months or years), there is no effective way for citizens to hold their elected officials or the City Administration (or any specific department) or the School Department accountable. Requiring a positive or negative response – on the record – would go a long way toward addressing the problem expressed by so many Cambridge residents that they “are not being heard.” – Robert Winters

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress