Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Out Like A Lion – March 25, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

These are a few of my favorite things….

Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $15,000 to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations (Arts Council) Other Ordinary Maintenance account. The MCC Cultural District Grant provides financial support to state-designated Cultural Districts throughout the Commonwealth.
Order Adopted 9-0

I will simply highlight the last paragraph: “Cambridge’s Central Square Cultural District was one of the 10 inaugural MA Cultural Districts designated by the Legislature in 2012. This funding will support District-based initiatives that drive economic growth and strengthen the distinctive character of the Central Square Cultural District.”

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Parking Study Executive Summary. [text of report]
pulled by Pickett; comments by Pickett, Nolan, McGovern, Toner (on available parking alternatives), Wilson, Siddiqui, Azeem (wants large grocery stores to be replaced by bodegas – based on notion that the City builds these, wants greater prioritization of bus transportation, wants more subsidized e-bikes), Simmons; comments by Iram Farooq on survey sampling, Yi-An Huang; referred to Transportation & Public Utilities Committee 9-0

As near as I can tell, this “study” consists primarily of survey responses and policy proposals from City staff. I’m not really sure how this qualifies as a “study”. Absent are such seemingly important data as how many on-street parking spaces have been lost and how many more are anticipated to be lost due to current policies (such as the Cycling Safety Ordinance). This seems like a deficiency that ought to be corrected in something billed as a “Parking Study”.

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as members of the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years; Melissa Greene and Kevin Grinberg.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Welcome aboard, Kevin. It’s also great to see Melissa continuing her role on the Central Square Advisory Committee.

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order Number 24-09, regarding a report back with any necessary edits to zoning language that would allow unrelated people to live together in the City of Cambridge. [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; Rules Suspended to bring forward Housing Committee Report; Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0; Communication Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number #24-03, regarding a response on potential public renewable energy projects that could receive funding through the IRA Direct Pay provision. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Ellen Katz (DPW), Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan, Susanne Rasmussen (CDD); comments by Nolan; Rasmussen states that Housing Division (CDD) soon to become separate Housing Department; Pickett on 60% subsidy via Direct Pay; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-10, regarding the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Iram Farooq, Jeff Roberts (CDD); Nolan notes that the report shows “asking rent” in tables, but actual median rents are significantly lower; Azeem disputes this claiming that median rents are lower only because they include all subsidized rents [actual truth is somewhere in between]; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department and Community Development Department to study whether the City Council could add maximum lot area per dwelling unit, maximum setback requirements, and minimum floor area ratios in some districts or as part of an overlay in the Zoning Ordinance and whether the City Council could require a special permit for a down conversion in developments that would result in a net loss of housing units. [Charter Right – Pickett, Mar 18, 2024]
Councillor Pickett moves to take up both Charter Right #1 and #2; Farooq says she and staff have been consulting Housing Committee Chairs re: their priorities, feels that more study needed to see how expansive this phenomenon actually is; Toner does not object to “down conversions”; Sobrinho-Wheeler OK with restricting “down conversions” claiming this would not be a ban; McGovern prefers to get legal opinion reported directly to Housing Committee; Pickett wants more information about how common this is; Azeem wants income-restricted housing required with any multi-family housing [which likely would result in only subsidized housing developers doing projects]; JSW emphasizes part of Order about setbacks; JSW amendment to refer to Housing Committee Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Pickett, Toner – No)

I’ll simply repeat what I said last week: I am very leery of this proposal – especially if it is interpreted to apply to existing buildings. During the days of rent control, the requirement that a “removal permit” was required prior to joining units was routinely used to prevent property owners from doing very reasonable things. For example, when I bought my triple-decker, the apartment where I now live had been operated as a rooming house, and the City treated it as 5 housing units. I had to use my tenure dating back to 1978 in the building to be allowed to legally restore the floor back to the apartment it had been for over fifty years. Had I not been able to do this, it would not have been possible for me to continue owning or living in the building. Many years later, I now occasionally consider the possibility of occupying two floors of the building, and I would be outraged if our elected officials took away my flexibility to do that. The devil, as is often said, is in the details. There is a very creepy mindset in the minds of some elected officials that personal freedom should always take a back seat to their political agendas.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with the chairs of the Housing Committee on zoning language that effectively promotes multi-family housing, including inclusionary units, citywide. [Charter Right – Pickett, Mar 18, 2024]
Comments by Pickett, Wilson (with amendment), Toner (will not support Wilson amendment); Sobrinho-Wheeler comments of legalities; Azeem moved to amend Wilson amendment to delete “multiple options for”; comments by Nolan re: middle-income, “workforce” housing; McGovern opposed to conversions to single-family for purpose of sale, suggests that this is only about “having conversations” now; City Manager notes need for prioritization, legal feasibility, questions how many “down conversions” are actually occurring; Toner notes many studies currently underway; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner – No)

Again, I’ll simply repeat what I said last week: While I generally agree with the idea of allowing multi-family housing citywide, I really don’t think that this Order should be quoting a class project by a Harvard freshman in making assertions (some of which are demonstrably false) regarding the history of zoning in Cambridge.

On The Table #3. Policy Order to Edit City Council Rule 21A, 21B and add 21C Requiring Two City Councilors to Sponsor Policy Orders and Resolutions to be Filed and Placed on Council Agenda. [Tabled – Mar 18, 2024]
Taken from Table 9-0; Order #1 taken up as well; Toner comments (in response to idiotic and profane testimony of Robert Bledsoe during Public Comment); City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes legal gray area regarding whether profanity may be prohibited – noting that it is not entirely affected by First Amendment, notes history of Mass. Declaration of Rights, John and Samuel Adams when still under British rule, speech about government at that time could be was crude and pushed the limits and that’s the basis of our government today, a future court could say that profanity could be prohibited, essential phrase is “fighting words”, use of profanity directed at an individual could be interpreted as “fighting words”, use of the “F word” in excitement might not be, difficult to make decision in the moment; Toner notes list of potential infractions; Toner proposes to remove prohibition of profanity (though he will vote against removing it); McGovern suggests that this discussion will lead to some people pushing the envelope re: what they can get away with [note: McGovern and others felt no concerns about slander as recently as several months ago]; JSW, Azeem OK with removing prohibition of profanity; Nolan suggests amending to distinguish “requests” and “prohibitions”; Bayer provides additional guidance on “loud and repetitive”; Simmons’ wise comments on “fighting words” and being welcoming, chilling effect of some words and actions, importance of “the rule of the Chair” in conduct of meetings; Placed on File 9-0

On The Table #4. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Feb 15, 2024, which was recessed, and reconvened on Feb 26, 2024. The Call of the meeting was to review and discuss possible amendments to the City Council Rules. At the meeting on Feb 26, 2024, the Committee voted to send 46 rule changes to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. Please see orders within the report. [Tabled – Mar 18, 2024] [text of report]
Taken from Table 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. City Council Rule Changes.   Councillor Toner
Taken up with On The Table #3; comments by multiple councillors; Councillor Nolan, in particular, notes her intention to allow back-and-forth interaction with public in committee meetings when appropriate (thank you); All Rules Adopted as Amended 9-0

I have no particular issues with the proposed rules changes, but I do find curious the level of vitriol expressed by some people about some of the changes pertaining to Public Comment. In my view, Public Comment has largely devolved into performance by the season ticket holders with the occasional flood of “talking point zombies” generated by organized groups and facilitated by Zoom. My only suggestions are: (a) the Mayor and committee Chairs should have broad discretion in managing public comment and not be bound by overly rigid rules, (b) back-and-forth dialogue between councillors and the public should be encouraged at committee meetings whenever it is helpful, and (c) steps should be taken proactively to address the potential of extraordinary numbers of nonresidents signing up for public comment as part of organized campaigns on controversial issues.

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Khalida Griffin-Sheperd et al. regarding Affordable Housing Trust Zoning. (AP24#10) [text of petition]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

One look at the signers of this petition was enough to convince me that it should be rejected. I also find it curious that the petitioners want to be overly prescriptive in who may serve on their proposed expanded Affordable Housing Trust (AHT). Also, though the idea of using AHT funds to provide rent subsidies seems like a possible alternative to the construction of some of the extraordinarily expensive deed-restricted housing now being funded through the AHT, this proposal seems to simply want to add on this new very high cost for rent vouchers – a potential budget-buster at a time when the City Council really needs to be controlling the Budget much more than they have in recent years. Considering the fact that the AHT is now partially funded out of the City’s Operating Budget, this also raises the question of the legality of such direct rent payments under the Anti-Aid Amendment to the Mass. Constitution.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department, the Community Development Department, and the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to determine whether the City could provide incentives for residents who do not have cars.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Nolan as sponsor; JSW comments on incentives to not own car, some concerns about whether this may violate Anti-Aid Amendment; Toner questions why there is a need to incentivize those who have already decided to not own a car, whether BlueBikes subsidies might be in perpetuity; Pickett questions why this is actually an incentive in that it rewards who have already made choice to not own a car [that is, whether this is just a patronage program for a subset of the population]; Nolan says this is not meant to be just for those who don’t currently own a car; Wilson questions need for incentives for those already w/o car and whether this might penalize or shame those who actually need a car]; Siddiqui says intent is not to shame anyone; Azeem quotes an academic paper claiming that every family contributes $14,000 per year to subsidize car ownership, says transit gets better the more people use it [yeah, right], wants to subsidize transit, e-bikes; Simmons asks if the proposes incentive would apply to those who don’t have cars or those who might get cars; JSW says it’s for both, says this is not about shaming; McGovern suggests amending language; Simmons comments on large families, unreliable MBTA, those who work outside Cambridge, those who shop elsewhere, churchgoers, elderly and those with mobility issues – will vote Present; Amendment to add Nolan Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 5-3-0-1 (BA,MM,PN,SS,JSW – Yes; JP,PT,AW – No; DS – Present)

There seems to be this belief among some councillors (and some City staff) that the only reason people make personal choices (such as whether or not to own a car) are primarily based on government intervention. I disagree.

Order #5. Support of the Regional Heat Pump Accelerator Program.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

I will repeat my point of view from last year when BEUDO (or is it BEUDERO?) amendments were being discussed and ordained. Simply dictating mandates is not nearly as effective (or fair) as providing financial incentives. – Robert Winters