Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

February 24, 2024

Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:12 pm

Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

City HallThe previous meeting featured some rather obvious jostling for position in the process of evaluating the recent Charter Review Final Report and deciding any charter change proposal. This week should bring even more of this power struggle when the question of “next steps” is taken up. The report has already been sent to the Law Department, the Election Commission, and perhaps more departments for review, but the question now is whether this should be initially vetted within the Government Operations Committee (chaired by Councillor Toner) or if Councillor Nolan (and perhaps others) will try to bypass that initial review by creating some kind of ad-hoc committee-of-the-whole so that she can gain more control of the process. This, of course, is intertwined with the election of Mayor Simmons who appoints all the City Council committees – and those appointments were done with some care.

I will say right now that some of the proposed Charter recommendations are virtually assured to be dead on arrival at the State House, but I don’t yet know if the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (or whatever committee takes up such matters) can take an à-la-carte approach to proposed city charters or if it’s all-or-nothing. Before any modified Charter can go before Cambridge voters, it must first clear this hurdle.

I will also say that there are some aspects of the structure of Cambridge government that really should be rolled into any new Charter but which the Charter Review Committee never considered, e.g. the Special Acts that established/empowered the License Commission, the Election Commission, the Traffic Board, the Cambridge Health Alliance, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. It is commendable that the Committee chose to consolidate most of the charter specifics that were only referenced in the Plan E sections of M.G.L. Chapter 43 (sections 93-116) – at the suggestion of the Collins Center staff who were advising the Committee – but this was incomplete, probably because of lack of expertise on those specifics within the Collins Center staff. This is especially true of matters involving our proportional representation elections (an essential component of Plan E). There may be good reasons to leave some of these out of the Charter, but since they are part of how we do business, these questions should at least be part of the current discussion. [Needless to say, this should have been discussed within the now-dissolved Charter Review Committee, but that’s another conversation that has much to do with how that committee was formed.]

Here are the agenda items that caught my eye this week:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Bicycle Committee.
pulled by Nolan; PN wants committees to be “commissions” so that City Council would gain more control over these appointments, asks about whether diversity of opinion is a factor in appointments; Iram Farooq claims there is some diversity, but acknowledges that these committees are primarily advocates rather than representatives; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Pedestrian Committee.
pulled by Nolan; no additional comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, Policy Order Response #24-15 dated Feb 12, 2024 regarding drafting zoning language and related changes to allow for and encourage the continued growth, redevelopment, and evolution of Central Square. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; JSW wants to know when this would go to Planning Board; Farooq says it goes to PB when petition is filed and during the process; Toner asks if this will build upon work already done; Farooq says YES, and that advisory committees need not be consulted (really?); Nolan suggests that better methods of informing community should be considered; Pickett asks if Central Square Lots study will be integrated and how; Farooq says study in its final stages; Wilson agrees re: communication with residents; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Charter Right #1. That the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee be referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 12, 2024]
Toner says conversation should start in Gov’t Operations Committee; Nolan OK with starting there, but says it should not stay there – noting that she and Siddiqui are “deeply involved in this” (quite the understatement); Pickett draws parallel with how possible Rules changes are now being considered in committee; Siddiqui OK with starting in committee, but will participate and “brainstorming” with suggestion of a robust process; Toner explains process of culling ideas from councillors, legal questions, timeline; Wilson wants a community conversation around this; Referred to Gov’t Ops. 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Resolution #6. Resolution on the death of Charles Fried.   Councillor Nolan

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to present recommendations for the refinement and improvement of the housing permitting process to the City Council, with a focus on reducing delays, minimizing costs, and enhancing clarity and accessibility for all stakeholders.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Toner proposed amendments; JSW wants to keep “affordable” language, wants to add other groups for consultation; Toner motion to change “affordable housing” to “housing” Fails 2-6-1 (MM,PT-YES; PN,JP,SS,JSW,AW,DS-No; BA-Absent); Toner motion on simplifying processes to all housing and not just “affordable” housing, McGovern says middle-income housing should be included; Adopted 8-0-1; JSW motion to amend Toner motion to add two additional groups Adopted 8-0-1; Toner motion as amended Adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (BA Absent)

Order #2. City Council support of H.4138, The Affordable Homes Act, and urge legislators to retain the provisions for a location option transfer fee.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner will vote NO on proposed transfer fee; Nolan says Council has supported transfer fee in the past, delivers a prepared speech, says that this would not enact a tax or fee but only permit that local option (this is unbelievably naive), notes that legislation would set the range of possible fees, says this is about local control (but this begs the question about other proposed “local control” proposal to allow municipalities to create their own rent control laws); Nolan suggests motivation for supporting this is so that other municipalities would enact such a tax (again, very naive); McGovern concurs with Nolan, quotes David Kale in asserting that commercial transactions are lion’s share and that some residential exemptions could be made, expresses desire to take in as much revenue as possible; Pickett asks how this relates to existing Home Rule Petition now before the State Legislature, notes that there is already a $4.56/thousand stamp tax by state and that this would be on top of that; JSW uptalks that Legislature could act on our and Somerville’s and Cambridge’s petitions or pass current legislation, deflects by asserting that revenue raised could be used for other purposes; Pickett wants homeowners to gain maximum value in the sale of their greatest financial asset; Wilson offers generalities and suggestion that this might not lead to a tax; Simmons notes that we do use CPA fund for this but characterizes this as a “shortfall” and that (unlimited) more money is needed, notes Envision report and suggests that what we are doing is not enough; Order Adopted 6-2-1 (JP,PT – No; BA Absent)

Order #5. That the City Manager is hereby directed to confer with the City Manager’s Housing Liaison, Community Development Department, and the Cambridge Housing Authority on the feasibility of municipally-funded housing vouchers.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Pickett (who offers amendments); Nolan supports order and JP amendments; McGovern asks of motion-makers are OK with the amendments; Wilson supports amendments; both JP amendments adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 8-0-1

February 21, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 609-610: February 20, 2024

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 9:41 pm

Episode 609 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 20, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Feb 20, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Local News – Cambridge and beyond; Valentine’s Day – 46 years; City Council Goals & Objectives; the ordeal of facilitation and training; the value of informality and interaction in committee meetings; 311 vs. SeeClickFix vs. an Ombudsman vs. a simple phone call; benefiting from the existence of a problem; pros and cons of a good idea; upside-down priorities – the essential difference between a city manager and a strong mayor system. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 610 – Cambridge InsideOut: Feb 20, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Feb 20, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Ambiguity in affordable housing – buy vs. rent, market vs. subsidized; the DEI lens – one lens in addition to effectiveness, efficient delivery of services, and transparency; Envision – quote it when it suits you, ignore it when it doesn’t; the mythology of Central Square progress; Cycling Safety update – drawing conclusions from the inconclusive; Community Safety update – tiptoeing around the HEART problem; foreign policy or not; Charter Review Report gets political right out of the gate. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

February 14, 2024

Random Thoughts – February 14, 2024

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,Charter,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:23 pm

Random Thoughts – February 14, 2024

In addition to the romanticism of Valentine’s Day, this day also marks the day I moved to the Cambridge/Boston area – 46 years ago. While this means that I can never be a True Cantabrigian, my consolation is that many lifelong Cambridge residents have adopted me as a kind of lost cousin. In fact, my move to Cambridge happened on the first day that buses were running from New York to Boston after the Blizzard of ’78, so it’s always easy for me to remember when I first washed up on the shores of the People’s Republic.RW

I spent a couple of hours yesterday attending a Special City Council meeting called for the purpose of updating the City Council Goals that were most recently updated over 5 years ago in October 2017. It’s likely that the statement of Guiding Principles and City Council Goals will change little, though perhaps they’ll get a bit more specific than the rosy generalities issued in 2017.

I have to say that I have never enjoyed meetings like this where participants stumble about trying to say something relevant that might get the attention of the facilitator. I will add that these exercises often seem more like justifications for keeping “facilitation companies” going than actually producing anything useful. I might say the same thing of most “team building” exercises and virtually all “trainings” – online or in-person. Especially in the context of elected officials who are endlessly competing for credit or attention, the notion that you can train competition into collaboration seems a bit naive. They’ll either do it or they won’t.

That said, there were a few moments of wisdom, reality, and perhaps even redefinition. For example, at least one councillor noted the difference between City Council orders and committee work. This is something I appreciate – over the years I have come to view many policy orders as “drive-by orders” where some random idea is tossed into the public arena or perhaps lifted from some other municipality. Committee work used to be more like a serious detailed discussion that welcomed public participation. That hasn’t really been the case in recent years – unless you are one of the privileged few who function more like “10th councillors” thanks to your affiliation with a lobbying group that also endorses candidates in the municipal election. Everyone else just gets their two or three minutes to make a short statement before being terminated by the Chair. I liked it better when if you actually offered constructive ideas at a committee meeting you might actually be involved in a back-and-forth discussion with the councillors. Nowadays you just perform and exit – unless you are among the politically privileged.

One suggestion made at yesterday’s meeting was that the City Manager and staff should send out weekly general updates of current topics being worked on by City staff. City Manager Yi-An Huang welcomed the idea but also expressed concern about “granularity” as he noted that at any given time there are ~2000 employees working on different things. Was the suggestion to have “weeklies” really be just about getting updates on the usual “hot topics” like bike lanes, BEUDO, and plans for recently-acquired City properties? It was also not made clear if these “weeklies” would be just for councillors or if they would be publicly available. Also unanswered was how such a protocol might mesh with the current daily updates to which many of us are subscribed.

One suggestion was that there should be a 311 system – a single point of contact for resident complaints and inquiries. This brought two things to mind. First, this sounds a lot like SeeClickFix – which is supposed to be the place for residents and elected officials alike to report problems. There seemed to be some sense that this system may not be functioning as well as it should be, and that when there is no response or action the calls go to city councillors. My experience has been that some kinds of SeeClickFix reports get an almost immediate response, and others languish for months or even years. It doesn’t help that some people view SeeClickFix as just another social media outlet on which they can bitch and moan about things that often go well beyond what the City can or should do. The other thing that came to mind was the proposal from over 20 years ago to create an Ombudsman Office that would respond to resident requests. That proposal went down in flames when councillors realized that responding to such complaints was an essential part of their political existence and that transferring that responsibility would only hurt their role in providing “constituent services”. In short, councillors often benefit from the existence of a problem.

Yesterday’s facilitator suggested that city councillors should be asking questions more than making statements. The response from some councillors was that this really doesn’t work in the context of a City Council meeting where you have to wait your turn to be recognized by the Chair and where technically all remarks are made through the Chair. I would note that in committee meetings this kind of questioning and back-and-forth conversation at least used to be common (and useful). It was also pointed out that the Open Meeting Law actually thwarts this kind of questioning and collaboration.

When the facilitators displayed their distillation of apparent City Council priorities (presumably based on some kind of questionnaire), the results were both predictable and misleading. The same can be said of the periodic Resident Surveys conducted on behalf of the City. Affordable housing always tops the list but rarely, if ever, is there any clarification of what that actually means. In one sense, it’s likely that 100% of residents want their housing to be affordable, but does that mean that they want to be able to buy a home on the open market at an affordable price, or does it mean that they want the City to subsidize the purchase? The same goes even more significantly when it comes to renting an apartment. I believe most renters simply want to see more affordable rents, and not necessarily that they want the City to subsidize those rents, but you would never know that from the Resident Survey or from the councillors’ prioritization.

It is worth noting that many, perhaps most, things that residents care about are not directly addressable by city councillors, the City administration, or from any level of government. Kindness, mutual respect, neighborliness, and voluntarism form the glue of society and likely have more to do with the satisfaction of living in a town or city than anything that was ever woven into a City Council policy order.

I was especially impressed when Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan noted that a major portion of City expenditures are in infrastructure, yet there was not even a mention of this in the list of City Council priorities. Perhaps this serves to highlight the difference between the politics of being an elected councillor and the management by City administration. Indeed, one of the greatest problems with a popularly-elected mayor as CEO is that it almost guarantees a greater share of attention and resources toward popular concerns and a corresponding decrease in focus on matters like infrastructure and municipal finance. I hope our current group of councillors keep this in mind as they debate possible Charter changes. It is, in fact, this focus on such matters by City management that allows the elected councillors to focus on more visible populist concerns.

Mayor Simmons bemoaned the fact that DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) was way down on the list of priorities, but stated that “this should be the lens through which we look at things.” It’s certainly one such lens, but fiscal responsibility, effective service delivery, responsiveness, and transparency are also pretty good lenses through which to look at and evaluate what we do as a city.

There was an interesting back-and-forth about the Envision plan and how it is often quoted or ignored depending on what you want or don’t want. There also continues to be a lot of misinterpretation of the goals and metrics in that report – especially in the area of housing.

Regarding Central Square, City Manager Huang stated that many of the goals contained in past studies have already been implemented – noting, in particular, bike lanes and outdoor dining. In fact, there is little mention of bike lanes in these past studies (perhaps due to how long ago the studies were produced), and much of the outdoor dining came about not from past studies but as an emergency response to the Covid epidemic as a means of helping some local businesses to economically survive. Indeed, the only significant new developments in Central Square happened independently of past studies, e.g. the Mass & Main (Normandy/Twining) zoning petition. It is my understanding that some new zoning proposals may be forthcoming based, in part, on some of the considerations of the C2 Study (from over a decade ago), but we’ll have to see where that road leads. – Robert Winters

January 29, 2024

How Can We Miss You When You Won’t Go Away – January 29, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:27 pm

How Can We Miss You When You Won’t Go Away – January 29, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Aug 1974 National LampoonCapitulation is the featured item on this week’s menu, and we’ll see if there are enough votes to send the Gaza stew back to the kitchen for revision. This meeting will take place entirely with Zoom for reasons that require explanation only for the extremely clueless. It will be interesting to see how many people sign up for Public Comment, and I do hope the Mayor asks each of them to state their home address (or at least their city of residence).

Here are the items worth noting for serious analysis and/or comic relief:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO24#4, regarding the possibility of acquiring the property located at 727 Massachusetts Avenue.
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, City Manager Huang, Deputy City Manager O’Riordan; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to review the Across Sidewalk Electric Vehicle Charging (EV) Permit Pilot Program, eliminate the $200 annual permit fee and determine if the process can be simplified. [Charter Right – Simmons, Jan 22, 2024]
comments by Nolan, Azeem, Simmons, O’Riordan, Maura Pensak, Nolan; Referred as Amended to Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 9-0

Resolution #1. Resolution Congratulating Lisa Peterson.   Mayor Simmons

Resolution #2. Resolution Congratulating Sam Corda.   Mayor Simmons

Resolution #3. Condolences to the family of Maureen C. Morris.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Pickett

Order #1. That the Community Development Department report back with any necessary edits to the attached zoning language that would allow unrelated people to live together in the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

This was previously introduced as a citizen petition several years ago by an especially unhinged individual. It was pointed out at that time that restrictions on the number of unrelated persons living in a dwelling unit originally came about as a matter of public safety caused by unscrupulous landlords packing apartments with unrelated persons. That’s quite different than the situation of a reasonable number of unrelated persons choosing to live together as housemates. I do find it creepy that this proposal chooses to redefine the word “family.”

Order #2. Calling for an Immediate Negotiated Ceasefire in Gaza.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui who wants to remove most or all of the “Whereas” clauses as a substitute order (capitulation), opposes other proposed amendments; comments by McGovern who seems to think that the protesting mob is representative of Cambridge residents, claims to not want to make any statements that alienate anyone (doubtful), supports the substitute order; comments by Wilson; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler who says this is just about opposing violence; Siddiqui moves the Substitute Order; comments by Nolan who states that all councillors want peace and to question that is unfair, notes that the loudest voices don’t necessarily represent all residents of the city, agrees that most residents likely do want a negotiated cessation of hostilities, acknowledges shared blame toward Hamas and Netanyahu, notes personal attacks and bullying and need for people to treat each other with respect; Nolan offers amendments acknowledging Hamas as a terrorist organization and more; Azeem would keep original Order and amend that rather than the Substitute Order; Toner ready to vote; Pickett says we’ll never satisfy all those who spoke on this; Siddiqui withdraws substitute fearing it lacks the votes; Nolan moves amendments with Toner; amendments taken up one-by-one (some pass, some fail); eventually Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I encountered some interesting pole decorations Inman Street on Saturday. Perhaps this goes under the category of “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. I took the liberty of redecoration. Heck, it’s not like I was tearing down posters of hostages. I consider Denise Simmons to be a personal friend, and I stick up for my friends. The proposed resolution is relatively benign, but I would still move to amend it to modify the phrase “support for an immediate, negotiated ceasefire by both Hamas and Netanyahu Administration” to something more like “support for a negotiated end to hostilities – conditional on the release of all hostages and the demilitarization of Gaza.” Then again, there’s no rational basis for the Cambridge City Council chiming in on this. On the other hand, there is a long history of the Cambridge City Council ineffectively chiming in on world affairs. See Boston Herald note from Aug 21, 1935, for example.

DefamationNaziResolution1935

Late Order #5. That the topic of discussing foreign policy resolutions by the City Council be referred to the Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee.   Councillor Azeem, Mayor Simmons
Comments by Azeem; Charter Right – Siddiqui

Order #3. Supporting An Act establishing the municipal reforestation program (S.452/H.869).   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Pickett
pulled by Nolan; Nolan wishes to finalize; Order Adopted 9-0, Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Traffic & Parking Department to take immediate action and make safety improvements to the intersection of Cardinal Medeiros Avenue, Binney Street, and Bristol Street as soon as possible.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
pulled early by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by JSW, Huang, O’Riordan; Order Adopted 9-0

This is Zondervan’s corner. It’s worth noting that both sponsors of this Order donated money to the campaign of Boston City Councillor Kendra Lara after she crashed her car into a house in Jamaica Plain (Sobr.-Wheeler $10, Azeem $100). So much for commitment to traffic safety. – RW

January 17, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 605-606: January 16, 2024

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Cambridge InsideOut,campaign finance,Charter,City Council,cycling,elections,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 9:30 am

Episode 605 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 16, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 16, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Shout out to DPW; OCPF reports due Jan 20; Council committees pending; Clean Slate at Jan 8 Council meeting; Jerry’s Pond; dealing with the nonresident protesters and bad political theater. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 606 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 16, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 16, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Looking back at the 2022-23 City Council term and ahead to the 2024-25 term; single-issue advocacy at the root of the problem, need for cost/benefit analysis – examples with transportation, housing, energy; Charter considerations; phantom Traffic Board; confounded analysis of slate voting; and a Big Wish for better Squares and more fun. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 17, 2023

How to turn a flawed AHO2 into a net positive for Cambridge

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,City Council,Harvard Square,planning,transportation — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Hao Wang @ 2:33 pm

How to turn a flawed AHO2 into a net positive for Cambridge

Yesterday, October 16, 2023, the three-year-old Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zoning got a boost in height to 12 stories along Cambridge’s main corridors and 15 stories in Central, Harvard, and Porter squares. However, many expect the impact of this new law to be limited. The limitation for these buildings for 100% AHUs and nonprofit builders are preferred to construct will neither lead to a widespread success as a housing solution nor create these housing units fast enough. Besides, the implementation of it will surely meet neighborhoods’ opposition.

How do we create better outcomes for this flawed ordinance?

First, we must preserve our squares and corridors to the standards and characters that our neighborhoods desire. We can build with the support of our communities. A well-intended policy to house more people in our city must come with our appeals to neighborhoods’ support. More trees and open spaces can only improve the quality of life of our new residents. Building even taller buildings at the easier-to-build places will reduce the cost of the new units than force-building them at our squares and some stretches of our corridors.

Secondly, we should motivate commercial builders and allow these buildings for mixed-use and a good portion for market rates. We have a limited capacity to build. Cambridge is not known for producing large quantities of housing units quickly. If we are mostly limited to nonprofit builders, our ability to build will not fulfill the AHO or Envision Cambridge promises.

Lastly, we need to address the broader issues facing our city. The socioeconomic underpinning has shifted since Envision Cambridge.  Our city is undergoing a likely hollowing out of our middle classes, coupled with a poverty problem.  Gentrification is already happening, though incomplete. Our teachers, scientists, researchers, police, medical staff, and young college graduates all need housing. Many of them are forced to leave Cambridge and live elsewhere. Reducing the percentage of affordable housing units to less than 25% of the new build, coupled with increasing the threshold to apply for housing assistance, can help them to live and work here, to mix with our low-income population, which in turn will generate more jobs and opportunities for our low-income population, ultimately contribute to the eradication of poverty in our city.

The AHO2, however well intended, was created with less operation experience, little impact analysis, and essentially no implementation planning. The new council should work together to turn it into a net positive for our city.

Hao Wang

2023 Cambridge City Council Candidate

https://haoforcambridge.com

October 13, 2023

Another Monday Night of Diminished Expectations – October 16, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:31 am

Another Monday Night of Diminished Expectations – October 16, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Conspicuously absent from this week’s Peoples Republic of Cambridge International Affairs Agenda is a resolution where incumbent city councillors actually have to say out loud their take on what recently transpired in Israel. Bothsidesism gives way to nosidesism as they gauge how voters might respond. Meanwhile, a vote on “AHO 2.0” to further disenfranchise residents is expected to breeze through on the same 6-3 vote (while they still can). Then there’s reparations. Here are a few things:Peoples Republic of Cambridge

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order #23-147, regarding a report on whether change in language to the CSO is necessary to enable installation of permanent, seasonal, and/or temporary outdoor dining and pop-ups alongside separated bicycle lanes consistent with Cycling Safety Ordinance that address concerns about the current situation.
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (QZ-No)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the establishment of an Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund.
Order Adopted; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,903,731.64 from Free Cash to the Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund. The $1,903,731.64 appropriated to the Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund is the only the appropriation from Free Cash attributed to Opioid Settlement funds and will be used to fund specific future projects, per requirements of the settlement agreement, which will require separate individual appropriations by the City Council.
Appropriation Adopted; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-23 which clarifies the state law on zoning petition signature requirements to ensure clarity and lawful deliberation in the future.
Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the License Commission and other relevant departments to prepare recommendations on regulations that would ban or limit the sale of nips in Cambridge. [Charter Right – Toner, Oct 2, 2023]
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to reaffirm the city’s commitment to renovating the schoolhouse at 105 Windsor Street as a top priority following the completion of the Central Square lots study. [Charter Right – Simmons, Oct 2, 2023]
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from City Council, relative to Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) amendments. (Proposed Ordinance #2023-7) [Passed to 2nd Reading, Sept 11, 2023; Amended Sept 18, 2023; Amended Further Sept 18, 2023; Eligible to be Ordained; Expires Oct 29, 2023] (ORD23#7)
Ordained 6-3 (BA,AM,MM,DS,QZ-Yes; DC,PN,PT-No)

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to 2.76.020 enacted is to protect the human rights of all the residents of the City Protect Family Inclusion and Relationship Diversity [Passed to 2nd Reading, Oct 2, 2023] (ORD23#8)

Resolution #12. Resolution on the retirement of Steven A. Cohen from the City of Cambridge Planning Board.   Councillor Carlone

Resolution #13. Resolution of the retirement of Hugh Adams Russell from the City of Cambridge Planning Board.   Councillor Carlone

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to conduct a thorough assessment regarding the feasibility, costs, and benefits of replacing the existing community notice boards on the front lawn of City Hall with one or two digital signs.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department, the Finance Department, and any other relevant departments to investigate potential mechanisms to support Cannabis Business in Cambridge.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to establish an American Freedmen Commission.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted, Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Order #8. That the City Council schedule a roundtable on Mon, Nov 13, 2023, from 3pm-5pm to receive an update from the City Manager and relevant departments on the Central Square City Lots Study.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with DPW to restore Linear Park by re-using the existing award-winning design, to create, publish and implement a climate resilience-based maintenance plan and minimize the embodied carbon of the project by re-using, wherever possible, the existing lamps and lamp posts.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted as Amended, Referred to Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning Committee 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 13, 2023 to continue the discussion of potential amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay district as outline in the Nov 21, 2022 Policy Order adopted by the City Council. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Sept 27, 2023 to discuss the report and update on the City of Cambridge Disparity Study. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. A public meeting of the Cambridge City Council’s Ordinance Committee was held on Wed, Oct 4, 2023, to discuss changes to the Municipal Code of the City of Cambridge relative to Chapter 5.50, Cannabis Business Permitting. The Committee approved a motion that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Law Department, the Finance Department, and any other relevant departments to investigate potential mechanisms to support Cannabis Business in Cambridge, including but not limited to: not collecting the local tax on Cannabis product sales, refunding some of the rent that was paid while awaiting a Special Permit, and limiting the number of stores that are allowed and report back to the City Council by Nov 20, 2023. The related policy order is on this agenda. The Committee voted to send the proposed ordinance language, as amended in Committee to the Full City Council with a favorable recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
Placed on File, Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Committee Report #4. A public meeting of the Cambridge City Council’s Ordinance Committee was held on Tues, Oct 10, 2023. The Committee approved a motion to send the Zoning Ordinance Petition relative to hen keeping to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
Placed on File, Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

October 2, 2023

A Taxing Situation – October 2, 2023 City Council Meeting and Tax Rate Hearing

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 7:28 am

A Taxing Situation – October 2, 2023 City Council Meeting and Tax Rate Hearing

Real Estate TaxesAs expected, the property tax bills for owners of one-, two-, and three-family homes is leaping upward this year, and next year and future years are likely to see even more dramatic increases. Shockingly, the rapid expansion of new programs (and more) actually costs money, and there are limits to just how much revenue you can raise by growing more commercial property to cover those costs.

Including the likely ordination at this meeting of the zoning amendment that will allow stratospheric heights along some streets and squares with no meaningful mechanism for public input, here’s a sampler of what’s on deck this week:

TAX RATE HEARING
The Cambridge City Council will conduct a public hearing related to setting the property tax rate classification. Under the laws of the Commonwealth, the City has the option of taxing residential and commercial/industrial property at different tax rates. At this public meeting, the City Council will review tax rates/classifications proposed by the City Manager and the Board of Assessors. The votes taken will result in property tax rates that reflect the City’s property tax levy for Fiscal Year. [City Manager’s Tax Rate Letter]

The bottom line is that: the FY24 Adopted Operating Budget increased by 10.0% ($82.3 million) over the FY23 Adopted Budget, though $24.6 million of that increase represents a shift of funding for the Affordable Housing Trust from the Capital Budget to the Operating Budget. A better accounting therefore is that the FY24 Operating Budget represents an increase of $57.8 million or 7.2% over the FY23 Adopted Budget. The FY24 Budget adopted by the City Council in June 2023 projected a property tax levy increase of $48.8 million, or 9.2%, to $580.3 million in order to fund operating and capital expenditures. With approval of the recommendations in this memo, the actual FY24 tax levy required to support the FY24 Budget is $575,418,489 which is an increase of $43.9 million or 8.3% from FY23. This increase is lower than the estimated increase of 9.2% projected in June 2023 as part of the Adopted Budget, due in large part from higher than projected investment earnings, hotel motel taxes, and building permit revenue.

The property tax levy increase of 8.3% is above the FY23 increase of 7.45%. The property tax levy increase is also above the five-year (FY20-FY24) annual average increase of 7.03%, and the ten-year (FY15-FY24) annual average increase of 5.77%. The FY24 residential tax rate will be $5.92 per thousand dollars of value, subject to Department of Revenue approval. This is an increase of $0.06, or approximately 1% from FY23. The commercial tax rate will be $10.46, which is an increase of $0.08, or 0.7% from FY23. By property class, an average a single-family home will see a 8.41% tax increase, a condo will see a 6.5% decrease, a two-family will see a 4.7% increase, and a three-family will see a 5.4% increase.

FY2024 Taxes

Residential Property Type FY24 Median Tax (incl. CPA Surcharge) Median $ increase
Condominium $1,555 – $ 7
Single-Family $7,674 $ 743
Two-Family $6,713 $ 494
Three-Family $8,246 $ 598

History of changes in residential property taxes

Median Annual Tax Increases – Cambridge
Tax Year condo single-family two-family three-family
FY2009 $ 18 $ 40 $ 24 $ 72
FY2010 $ 69 $ 119 $ 47 $ 41
FY2011 $ 77 $ 306 $ 132 $ 154
FY2012 $ 60 $ 269 $ 177 $ 215
FY2013 $ 65 $ 159 $ 80 $ 85
FY2014 – $ 38 $ 109 $ 110 $ 201
FY2015 $ 15 $ 11 $ 334 $ 253
FY2016 – $ 18 $ 64 $ 101 $ 217
FY2017 $ 11 $ 324 $ 237 $ 336
FY2018 $ 76 $ 136 $ 33 $ 61
FY2019 $ 21 $ 124 $ 292 $ 469
FY2020 $ 43 $ 449 $ 366 $ 369
FY2021 $ 3 $ 246 $ 131 $ 218
FY2022 $ 33 $ 545 $ 301 $ 335
FY2023 – $ 107 $ 419 $ 269 $ 379
FY2024 – $ 7 $ 743 $ 494 $ 598
5 year average – $ 7 $ 480 $ 312 $ 380
10 year average $ 7 $ 306 $ 256 $ 324
15 year average $ 20 $ 268 $ 207 $ 262
number of properties (FY2023) 14841 3910 2292 1168

As you can see from these figures, it’s the large number of condominiums (nearly 15,000) that enables the City to declare such things as “80% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase, or only a modest increase.” For owners of single-, two-, and three-family homes, the story is quite different – especially during the last 5 years. Indeed, this year continues the sweet deal for condo owners. This year’s median change for condo owners is a reduction of $7, while it’s increases of $743 for a single-family, $494 for a two-family, and $598 for a three-family. Next year promises to see even greater increases.

Required Votes:
• Transfer of Excess Overlay Balances. [Authorize $2,000,000 in overlay surplus/reserves to be used for reducing the FY24 tax rate.]
Order Adopted 9-0
• Classify property into the five classes allowed, and adopt a minimum residential factor of 65%.
Order Adopted 9-0
• Approve the residential exemption factor of 30% for owner occupied homes.
Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to revisions to the Affordable Housing Overlay Petition. [CDD Memo]
Placed on File 9-0Corridors of Destruction

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from City Council, relative to Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) amendments. (Proposed Ordinance #2023-7) [Passed to 2nd Reading Sept 11, 2023; Amended Sept 18, 2023] [text of First Publication] [AHO-Sept12Edit]
Amended 8-1 (BA,AM,MM,PN,DS,PT,QZ,SS-Yes; DC-No) – further details to follow

Communications & Reports #4. A communication from Councillors Nolan, Carlone, and Toner transmitting alternative language to the Affordable Housing Overlay amendments. [text of communication]
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #5. A communication from Councillors Nolan, Carlone, and Toner transmitting alternative language to the Affordable Housing Overlay amendments. [text of communication]
Placed on File 9-0

I have stated from the outset that the entire concept of the original Affordable Housing Overlay as well as this next premature amendment was a flawed concept in a number of ways. First, it is based on unrealistic and unsustainable targets for deed-restricted housing units. The cost is not simply the cost of construction. The amount of real estate taxes coming from every such unit is the bare legal minimum (think ~$100 rather than $1000 or $8000 – see above) while the cost of services for each resident is far greater. In other words, each additional deed-restricted unit represents a permanent sizable cost that must be covered either by shifting that burden onto other residential taxpayers or by permitting new commercial construction or both. As one local expert has stated, “Affordable housing makes housing less affordable.” This, of course, does not mean that “affordable housing” should not be built but rather that the actual costs must be understood – and we never hear any of that discussion among city councillors (or candidates).

The second fundamental principle of the AHO has been and continues to be the prohibition of any meaningful public input from residents, including direct abutters.

The important question that should be asked is what the appropriate percentage of deed-restricted units should be. During the Envision Cambridge process, there was a basic acknowledgment of that percentage being in the neighborhood of ~15% of all housing units and that perhaps that should rise somewhat. However, in a poorly attended meeting late in the game, a target percentage of 25% of all new housing units appeared out of nowhere, and it is from that unrealistic figure that claims of our “not meeting our goals” is derived. This is economically infeasible and unsustainable from the perspective of residential property taxation (see above).

The AHO is based on the principle of restricting housing growth in order to force the sale and development of residential housing only toward the so-called nonprofit developers. Specifically, if you own property along some of the proposed “AHO corridors” (see map above) you may need to seek variances for even modest alterations to your property, but a nonprofit developer can snap up the property next door and build a structure more than three times as tall (up to 12 stories on “AHO corridors” and 15 stories in “AHO squares”) with little or no setbacks and not be subject to any of the other restrictions that have been imposed over time on other property owners. This is bad from a planning perspective. It is an assault on urban design. It is economically unsustainable. Nonetheless, this latest AHO amendment will likely have 5 or 6 votes to be ordained based purely on populist politics and a shallow understanding of urban planning and municipal finance.

Unfinished Business #2. Amendment to Chapter 2.78 of the Cambridge Code of Ordinance, entitled ”Historical Buildings and Landmarks.” (Ordinance #2022-11). [Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended, Aug 7, 2023; further Amended Sept 18, 2023; Eligible to be Ordained – no expiration] [text of proposed amendment]
Ordained 6-3 (BA,AM,MM,DS,QZ,SS-Yes; DC,PN,PT-No)

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition has been received from Allene R. Pierson, regarding Cambridge Lodging House Zoning Change to strengthen Cambridge residential housing efforts, mitigate the disruptive impacts of short-term platform-based market rate rentals. [Signed petition] [Lodging House Petition]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with CDD and the Law Department to review the proposed amendment to BEUDO regarding new buildings, and to propose adjustments, especially with regards to the building permit vs certificate of occupancy question.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct CDD to meet with the Universities, large labs, large property developers and anyone with technical expertise regarding the proposed BEUDO amendment to get their input.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Sept 20, 2023, to discuss potential amendments to the Building Energy Use Ordinance. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant departments to change the hours of off leash usage at Joan Lorentz Park to 6:00 to 10:00am to allow usage prior to typical work hours.   Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #7. Appointment of Lauren Reznick to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a five-year term.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #8. Housing contributions from the City’s major institutions.   Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #9. That the City Council schedule a roundtable on Mon, Oct 23, 2023, from 3:00pm-5pm to receive an update from the City Manager, relevant departments, and community partners on Central Square.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to work with the License Commission and other relevant departments to prepare recommendations on regulations that would ban or limit the sale of nips in Cambridge.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Carlone
Charter Right – Toner

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to reaffirm the City’s commitment to renovating the schoolhouse at 105 Windsor Street as a top priority following the completion of the Central Square lots study.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan
Charter Right – SimmonsPeoples Republic of Cambridge

Committee Report #1. The Civic Unity Committee held a public hearing on Aug 21, 2023 to discuss a proposed ”Cambridge Truth and Reconciliation Taskforce” from local reparations activists. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Sept 12, 2023, to hold a public hearing on potential amendments to the Municipal Code for the City of Cambridge to Protect Family Inclusion and Relationship Diversity, POR 2023 #97. The Committee voted favorably to send the proposed Ordinance language as amended to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation to Pass to a 2nd Reading. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Ordinance Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Committee Report #3. A public meeting of the Cambridge City Council’s Health and Environment Committee was held on Tues, Sept 13, 2023. The call of the meeting was to discuss PO23#73. The Committee voted favorably that the City Manager direct relevant departments to work with the Health and Environment and Ordinance Chairs and report back to the City Council no later than the end of October 2023. The Committee also directed the City Manager to work with relevant departments on funding sources to incentivize the transition to electrification of lawn equipment. Note: PO23#163 and PO23#164 were adopted in City Council on Sept 11, 2023. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress