Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 3, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 573-574: January 3, 2023

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,Charter,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:38 pm

Episode 573 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 3, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 3, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Sheila Doyle Russell – fond memories and good friends, Senior Center, modernization of elections; 2022 highlights; chronology of actions, reactions, and inactions of City and City Council – especially bike lanes, golf course controversy. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 574 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 3, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 3, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: 2022 chronology of actions, reactions, and inactions of City and City Council; choosing Auditor, Clerk, and City Manager; FY2023 Budget; charter review; expectations for the coming municipal election year. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 26, 2022

On Love and Elections

Filed under: Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , , — David Goode @ 3:05 pm

City of Cambridge Mayor Emeritus, Sheila Doyle Russell recently passed away peacefully in her home. She was my friend, but like most things I expect to write here, that seems an inadequate summation. I served as her Campaign Manager for the 7 elections she won for Cambridge City Council and as her Chief of Staff during her tenure as Mayor. These roles set me on my own path in public service, but ultimately were just functions I performed which don’t do much to define our friendship. Notwithstanding, since I did write most of the narrative media used to both request and justify support from the thousands of constituents she served so well in her public service career, these functions provide me a unique, although certainly not definitive, perspective on her life. I never wrote anything for her audience of many without first writing it for the review and approval of Sheila.

I preferred watching Sheila review those materials in person, as I valued her initial expressions while she read as a means to dissect what would always be her more measured assessments in conclusion. As both audience and subject of those narratives, her feedback, positive or negative, was part of an extended ongoing conversation we had about who she was, and how she viewed herself as a public servant. Always insightful, often argumentative, and sometimes unequivocally final in her rejection, I learned about her while she also taught me about myself. I’m acutely aware that this writing is my first on Sheila as the subject that will not receive her corresponding critique and approval. I find that circumstance daunting, but whenever I’d get reluctant to write something, Sheila would say “just give it a go.”

Sheila knew me since childhood as one of many Cambridge kids from a close group of mid-century working-class families helping each other stake a claim to the American dream. Amid stories of JFK and Tip O’Neil, they created their own Cambridge version of what is often referred to as the Irish immigrant political machine. I think Sheila would prefer the Gaelic term “Clann” to describe her constituency, not just for its Irish origins, but because the original meaning is flexible and inclusive depending on how it’s used. Perhaps this ambiguity is part of the reason its original meaning has been so corrupted in modern terminology. It’s root, literally and figuratively, is to plant and grown extensions that are connected. It embodies the family you are born into, the family you choose, and/or the family that welcomes you without prejudice. To care for your Clann means to grow beyond yourself.

Sheila’s Clann was planted in the Catholic Irish working class, but like the neighborhoods she knew so well, it grew extensions with each wave of change. The Irish, Italian, French, and Haitian families that shared the same faith in the same parishes as well other African American, Armenian, and Jewish families who shared similar dreams and challenges found representation in Sheila’s Clann. As a working class widowed woman and mother, Sheila’s own journey reflected the challenges and frustrations other Cambridge women of her generation experienced as the simple American dream of their youth evolved to be both more inviting and more elusive. She won over more than the occasional academic atheist as well with her genuine wit, wisdom, and humor.

Conversely, I would often use the more accessible, albeit banal words such as “community” and “constituency” to describe the people of this common good. Yet after nearly 15 years of watching Sheila read the words I wrote for the purpose of telling people who she was, I know she found terms like these, with their presumptive emphasis on simple demographic attributes, insufficient and unsatisfying. As a politician Sheila was a romantic. Not in the sloppy sentimental mockery of the term, but in the purest philosophical definition of the word. She possessed an awesome natural ability to connect with people as individuals through her genuine empathy and her capacity to validate the importance of anyone that approached her. In a word, she loved them.

As her campaign manager, I was typically more utilitarian in grouping these people by their attributes. In my mind, democratic elections were about candidates marshaling limited resources to optimize public support for a set of positions and ideas to be represented within the institutional bodies of government. I thought in terms of wards, precincts, and probabilities. I constructed the scaffolding and trellis around Sheila’s Clann, but she tended its growth. I targeted voters, but Sheila knew them and loved them.

Even to her last days, she maintained a deep encyclopedic knowledge of the people in her Clann. Not only in the academic attributes of my comfortable utilitarian domain, but in the meaningful romantic connections of the living Clann. When her personal recollections didn’t register with me, Sheila would usually begin a seemingly boundless recitation of associations; “she lived across the street from” or “you played hockey with his brother” or “she was married to Jimmy who worked with Leo at the gas company”. Sometimes she would throw me a more utilitarian bone such as “always voted absentee because she couldn’t do the stairs”. I never reached the limits of her depth on the people she cared about. After several failing attempts to jog my utilitarian memory, she would usually look at me silently for a moment, perplexed at my incomprehension. At first, I wondered if she was judging me, but I realized later that she always had another option to offer but was assessing if continuing on the current path would just freak me out. Sheila could always dive deeper, but I think she worried that it would give me the bends.

Sheila lived her entire 87 years as a native, lifelong Cantabrigian. However, where she existed was that inexpressible space in between the romantic and the utilitarian. Sheila’s Clann was not a collection of individuals that shared some things in common. It was a beating, breathing life of its own, defined as much by the connections and interactions between as by the individuals themselves. As social media platforms increasingly promote the vain promises of their connection algorithms, it has often occurred to me that these are nothing more than pale mutations of how Sheila’s mind worked organically. We are increasingly living in that mutated world of algorithms that is all utility and no romance. John Stuart Mill, the great English philosopher once wrote that whoever could master both romanticism and utilitarianism would possess the entire English philosophy of their age. I suspect that Sheila would smile and quip that the Irish easily find what the English are still looking for.

True also for the proportional representation election system used in Cambridge, which Sheila would reference in shorthand to the uninitiated as the “Irish System”. She had a deep intuitive understanding of how rank voting improved how people expressed their representative preferences, but more importantly, how it incentivized candidates like her to emphasize our connections rather than our differences. In the days of paper ballots, Sheila relished attending “The Count” where full consideration of voter’s choices recorded in penciled preferences took almost a week to fully tabulate. For Sheila, “The Count” wasn’t just about the suspense and drama of the protracted process. It was about the time spent with the friends and supporters of her Clann gathered in the designated watch area. Together we watched and learned how she achieved the requisite proportion of votes (quota) from her primary supporters woven together with additional support cultivated among the secondary preferences of voters that initially made other choices. Each PR count was a lesson in the importance of cultivating connections rather than forcing voters into hard choices. Often it was a hard lesson to learn for many first-time ego-driven candidates more suited to the traditional yet inferior winner-take-Sheila Russell Clann at The Countall elections. In other words, it was a lesson in growth.

It’s why I chose the photos included here to represent the Sheila I want to remember. As someone who made a personal practice of reading the expressions of Sheila as they pertain to her public persona, I think these photos capture her at one of her most cherished moments, one vote away from achieving the election quota and removing her name card identifying her as a candidate in the running. No ballrooms or podiums. No canned speeches in opposite pockets, depending on the outcome. Just friends, and friends of friends and associates and colleagues and fellow citizens gathered together in the same space to congratulate the elected and to console and thank the defeated for their best efforts in representing the public interest. This is Sheila as her best public self, caught on camera in the inexplicable space between the romantic and utilitarian sides of political life, perfectly balanced and at ease. To me, this is her true self, and will remain my lasting image of Sheila.

People often ask me why, with my years of campaign experience and ardent interest in election reform, I haven’t offered my services to other candidates. My standard answer is that every election campaign I managed took place before social media was invented, and I haven’t been able to identify, let alone adapt, to the utility of that new order. That’s true enough, but the more pertinent answer is simply that I’ve never met another Sheila. I’m still just the apprentice to the master, learning how to be part of something that can grow beyond myself.

I visited Sheila at her home shortly before her death. Her body was frail and failing, but the Clann algorithms were still processing like they always did. She told me how much she missed reading the newspapers. She could still see them if held close, but her arms could not keep steady enough to read them the way she enjoyed, usually cover to cover. She didn’t say this as a lament for her present infirmity. She said it as a problem to be solved, as if she was contemplating some combination of prosthetics and contraptions that would allow her to continue learning about the people in the places she cared for. I didn’t say goodbye to Sheila the last time a saw her, only because she didn’t give any indication she was going somewhere. I don’t regret that at all. It was pretty much on brand for Sheila.

I patiently await the long anticipated new birth of freedom when we have an election system for representative governance that allows Sheila’s approach to public service to be more rule than exception. There are positive signs. The good people at FairVote.org who are advocating for this exceptionally important right, and the existence and hopefully eventual adoption of The Fair Representation Act; and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences creation of the “Our Common Purpose” plan for sustaining the American experiment. Right smack in the middle of Cambridge is Harvard Professor Danielle Allen, who for me is the closest contender for the title of next-gen Sheila 2.0 with the academic chops to document and teach what Sheila demonstrated so naturally.

Increasingly, there are more people who understand and can reconcile our shared cultural history with our changing world without sacrificing the romantic ideals of personal and civic connection on the altar of expedient political utility. I remain hopeful that we’ll recognize and preserve the value in what Sheila demonstrated for us during her life of public service. If we succeed, we may take some comfort in knowing that government of the romantics, by the romantics, for the romantics, shall not perish from the earth.

Sincerely and Hopefully,
David R. Goode

November 21, 2022

Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC – November 21, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Filed under: 2023 election,Cambridge,Central Square,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:20 pm

Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC – November 21, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Perhaps it’s a good time to burn some bridges and take sides. The 2023 Municipal Election Season has now begun and there is some detritus that needs to be disposed.Corridors of Destruction

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Orders 2022 number 290 & 291 [Awaiting Report 22-82], regarding continuing the outdoor dining season and considering the extension of the reduced fee schedule.
pulled by Zondervan; Placed on File 9-0

Though this may not be the response some councillors wanted, but it makes total sense – especially in regard to how much of the space taken in the public way for cold weather outdoor dining went unused most of the time last winter.

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-90, regarding a request for various City departments in coordination with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to identify spaces in Central Square that would support the creation and protection of cultural and human services.
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File 9-0

Another great response from the City Manager and staff. One extra note I will make is that venues that support music and the arts should be viewed as “community benefits” in much the same way as open space and ground-floor retail and housing that is affordable to people whose incomes might otherwise leave them priced out.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Reports Items Numbered 16-111, 18-38, and 20-61, regarding Municipal Property Inventory. [Report]
Pulled by Nolan; Charter Right – Zondervan

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $200,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to be used for professional services related to a Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study.
pulled by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0

Excellent reports that make clear the range of priorities that need to be considered – especially in the proposed Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study. All too often the City Council simply throws ideas out onto the floor based on what they see as popular. This is how Boston ended up with zillions of MDC skating rinks while the water and sewer infrastructure crumbled – until the courts created the MWRA to properly manage these resources. In the Cambridge context, this illustrates very well the value of a city manager form of government over some populist alternative.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge resuming the use of the city-owned water supply on Nov 19, 2022.
pulled by Nolan; Placed on File 9-0

Speaking of infrastructure, it’s great to have you back again, Cambridge Water.

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-77, regarding a review of the proposed language for Ordinance #2022-18, the Incentive Zoning Rate Study Petition, as amended in Committee and report of findings back to the City Council.
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Petition 9-0

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received, relative to Reevaluation of Housing Contribution Rate, Incentive Zoning Petition, Section 11.202 (d) of Article 11.000 entitled SPECIAL REGULATIONS, Ordinance #2022-18, as amended. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 31, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 21, 2022] (ORD22#18)
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained as Amended 9-0

This is really just a minor alteration in the timeline for the next nexus study, but I still believe that the whole basis for Incentive Zoning needs to be reviewed rather than to exist only as a cash cow for “social housing.”

Unfinished Business #3. The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee met on Oct 25, 2022, to discuss potential changes to the City Council Rules. The Committee voted favorable to recommend several amendments to the Rules of the City Council related to Rule 15, Rule 21(resulting in Rule 21, 21A and 21B), Rule 22, Rule 24B, Rule 24C.1b, Rule 27-Economic Development and University Relations Committee, Rule 27-Housing Committee, Rule 27-Civic Unity Committee, Rule 32 (adding new Rule 32D), Rule 38.8, and adding a new Rule 40.1. The Committee also voted favorably to replace “he” and “she” with gender neutral language. Rule 36B. No amendments or additions to the rules may be enacted until at least seven days have elapsed from the date of the submission of the proposed changes or additions and require a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council. [Order #1] [Order #2] [Order #3] [Order #4] [Order #5] [Order #6] [Order #7] [Order #8] [Order #9] [Order #10] [Order #11] [Order #12] [Order #13] [Order #14]
pulled by Mallon; Orders #1-6, #8-14 Adopted 9-0; Order #7 Adopted 8-1 (Zondervan – NO)

This is mainly routine “hey kids, let’s re-write the student organization constitution” stuff. I will note only two specific things. First, amending the Rules should not be viewed as an opportunity to enshrine specific policies. City Council Orders and Resolutions are the more appropriate places for that. Second, there are better ways to achieve gender-neutral language than nonsense phrases like “A member that has recused themselves shall not participate in the discussion…” Try something more like, “A member, after recusal, shall not participate in the discussion…” Just a friendly suggestion.

Order #15. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Toner; Azeem amendment Fails (BA,MM,DS,QZ – YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS – NO)
QZ amendment to Require Committee Reports by Jan 31, 2022 Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,DS,QZ – YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS – NO)
Toner Amendment to send to Housing Committee and NLTP Committee (rather than to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board) Adopted 8-1 (QZ – NO)
Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (QZ – NO)

This may well be the most outrageous proposal I have ever seen from this or any other Cambridge City Council. Please read the full text of this Order and the accompanying maps. It simply blows past decades of thoughtful, deliberative planning and public participation in favor of dramatic upzoning without any meaningful opportunity for public response or input. I will add that we may now be at the point where proposals such as this will have to be viewed through a “regulatory taking” lens in the sense that what is allowed and what is proposed to be allowed for government-sponsored developers is dramatically more than what is allowed for ordinary property owners. It seems as though the policy of this City Council has become completely skewed toward moving privately-owned property toward “social housing” – and they apparently are willing to keep skewing the rules to benefit their chosen developers (who are likely also the ones drafting the regulations) until they achieve this shift.

I feel some obligation to now talk about proportional representation elections. In the absence of any true civic and political infrastructure in Cambridge, our municipal elections have become dominated by single-issue advocacy groups. In the absence of a true local newspaper willing to listen to community concerns and provide objective journalism, political propaganda has become the rule, and that includes partisans embedded in neighborhood listservs eager to attack anyone who might stand in the way of their respective agendas. So here is my first bit of advice when it comes time to vote in the next municipal election – in addition to considering which candidates you find acceptable and ranking them by preference, think even more about which candidates you should exclude from your ballot. We are now in a period where voting for candidate slates is being strongly encouraged, and in an environment where most residents remain unaware of the actions and proposals of councillors and candidates, propaganda can dominate. The truth is that some candidates win regardless of endorsements and it’s demonstrably false to claim that a majority of voters support policies of your organization simply because they are included on your candidate slate. We have never actually polled Cambridge voters about specific issues, and the range of criteria used by most voters in their candidate preferences is as wide as an ocean.

The ABC group (more properly called “A Bigger Cambridge”) has never made a secret of its long-term mission – namely to dramatically increase heights and densities everywhere in Cambridge, to eliminate all neighborhood conservation districts and historic preservation regulations, and to “streamline” permitting in the sense that most or all rights to object to development proposals should be eliminated. One of their principal officers even suggested a target population of at least 300,000 for Cambridge a few years ago (that’s about triple the current population). This is like the reincarnation of Robert Moses as Jane Jacobs rolls over in her grave. I actually ranked 3 of the 9 candidates ABC endorsed in the 2021 municipal election. I will not rank any of their endorsees again even if I like them personally, and I encourage others to do the same. This, by the way, should not be viewed in any way as an endorsement of any other candidates or candidate slates – despite what some activists may choose to think (or tweet).

Here’s a letter sent by Patrick Barrett to the City Council that captures many of my sentiments and makes some very important points:

Honorable Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,

I have to admit that following this Council lately is a lot like drinking from a fire hose. It has been difficult to keep up with all of the proposed changes. This latest amendment request has a lot of stuff in it but instead of getting tangled in the binary weeds of yes or no I think what I am seeing here is a moment in time where we ought to clearly state or get comfortable with where this city is headed. In about a month it will be C2’s 9th birthday … a failed planning initiative that was ultimately rejected by CDD, some current councillors, and the Planning Board. I compare that five year process to this petition and I can only think about how massively this conversation about development has changed in such a short time. Back in those days (2013) 14 stories was declared too tall, would block out the sun, and force MBTA personnel to use brooms to push passengers into overcrowded T stops. Dark times to be sure. However, now the pendulum has swung wildly in another direction where proponents of any change now state that an “emergency” dictates that we must act immediately on everything … all the time … no matter what. Even worse, proponents of everything from BEUDO to the AHO state that to not be 100% onboard is akin to doing nothing, being a climate denier, being anti-housing, or being a racist. It is hard to take them seriously especially in a city like Cambridge where it is unlikely and rare to find another city that does more within 6.2 sq miles on either subject. Maybe we ought to start thinking about what we do instead of berating ourselves over the false perception that we do nothing?

I am supportive of “tall” buildings in Central Square in part because we already have them and because Central Square, more than most areas of the City, has yet to come close to realizing its potential. However I think this has to do more with a lack of vision than archaic zoning, though to be clear Central Square zoning is the absolute worst in the city. I must admit, and please do not faint, that I have an issue with 100% affordable development schemes; especially when they preclude market rate developments that match. For instance, Central Square has a base height of 55′ whereas this proposal would allow for 280′ and potentially unlimited height depending on how you interpret the section on open space subparagraph (f). I’m not sure I care that much about height and I cannot tell the difference between an 18 story building or a 24 story building especially from the ground floor but such a wildly disproportionate development scheme for one type of housing is a mistake anywhere and especially in an area that already exceeds 30% affordable for total housing stock. I say this in light of the fact that proponents of the AHO often cited lack of affordable housing in other parts of the city, currently below even 40b standards, and that the AHO was designed to fix that. This has not been the case so far and maybe it makes sense to put the lion share of affordable housing in one section of the city … but I’ve yet to hear anyone in planning or the City explain why. I also believe that market rate housing IS the “affordable housing” for the vast majority of people coming to Cambridge who do not qualify for affordable housing. Without a substantive plan to address that population aren’t we just kicking the can and further exacerbating values? Have we decided collectively that supply and demand is a myth? If so that might help explain this strategy though I’ve not heard that openly expressed by CDD or City Staff.

My questions about this policy change are more about bigger picture issues:

1) Are we no longer going to permit market rate development?

2) Do we have a goal with regard to affordable housing?

3) Have we thought about what happens once people are housed or are we merely counting units?

4) What happens in the commercial districts or more importantly a cultural district when the developer is no longer bound to zoning in any way?

5) Is home ownership no longer a goal?

6) If the council feels that 280′ is an appropriate height for buildings, why limit that to affordable only?

7) Has anyone audited the impact of the AHO on market costs?

8) Have we assessed the impact of changing inclusionary zoning since it was increased in 2015?

9) Is there a conflict of interest with the affordable housing trust where the Manager, affordable developers, and a few interested parties are solely responsible for doling out taxpayer money to each other for their own projects and also now draft zoning changes with City staff to remove their need to comply while everyone else has to? I cannot imagine we’d accept this arrangement for market rate development. Why is it OK here?

10) I would love to hear someone articulate a clear vision for the City. In Central Square we have been pushing our own vision in the absence of a clear direction from the City. I am happy to share that vision; would you kindly share yours?

Lastly, our ordinance is a book about us and our values and it seems at this moment in time it is making assumptions that are incorrect. Maybe this is the moment where we take a pause and try to piece together the dozens of studies, reams of data collected over four decades, and actually reform our zoning code to reflect the values everyone seems to claim they have? It doesn’t have to take another decade or even more than a few months, but if we are planning for the next 150 years like our university friends do we should be looking at this top down not through the narrow lens of one subject.

CC: Hatfields
CC: McCoys

Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Patrick W. Barrett III

Order #16. The City Manager is requested to work with the Finance and Assessing Departments to determine how the City could adopt G.L. c. 40, sec. 60B, created under the Municipal Modernization Act, which allows cities and towns, through their respective legislative bodies, to provide for Workforce Housing Special Tax Assessments Zones (WH–STA) as an incentive to create middle-income housing.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

This Order quotes the “Envision Cambridge Housing recommendations” that supposedly came out of the Housing Working Group of Envision Cambridge (of which I was a member). I consider that entire exercise to be a failed process due to the manner in which that committee was formed primarily of inside “affordable housing” developers, funders, and advocates with virtually no focus on housing in general. That said, this is an interesting proposal. It does, however, need some clarification. In particular, does the statement “The WH-STA Zone is an area in which the City identifies opportunities for increased development of middle-income housing and provides property tax relief to developers during construction and for up to five years, in exchange for all units being rented at a pre-established rate targeting middle-income renters…” mean to imply that rent levels would be maintained for up to 5 years or be subject to regulation in perpetuity (which would seem to violate state law)?

Order #17. Roundtable on Open Space Planning and Programming including the Public Space Lab.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #18. That the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding Comments on Citizen’s Petition to Amend Ch. 2.78, Article III, Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Landmarks and the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding the Proposed Friendly Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III be forwarded to the full City Council with the recommendation to refer said memos to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 25, 2022 to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition: Historical Commission Proposed Response. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Suffice to say that the “Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition” is one of ABC’s policy goals to minimize or eliminate public review of development proposals. As for Neighborhood Conservation Districts in general, while I absolutely would not want them to dictate what paint I can use on my house or the requirement of materials that are dramatically more expensive, I absolutely support their underlying purpose. In spite of the Robert Moses view of things, I believe there are many things in Cambridge worthy of preservation.

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 12, 2022 to discuss the issue of water quality from the Cambridge water supply including PFAS levels, and comparison with the MWRA system, the long-term strategy for ensuring water quality standards for all users and all other water quality related issues and concerns. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I didn’t attend this meeting and I don’t really buy into the alarmism espoused by some of the councillors. I do, however, agree that some businesses (coffee shops are the one that come to mind) and some residents have expressed concerns about hardness and possibly other qualities of Cambridge water that can affect appliance life span. I have heard this many times from plumbers. The Water Department recommends that we “Flush/Drain/Clean Hot Water Heater at least Annually (per manufacturers recommendation)” but the truth is that many of us still go with the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” philosophy.

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa, transmitting a response of City of Cambridge to Open Meeting Law Complaint of John Hawkinson dated Nov 7, 2022.
Response to Office of Atty. General Approved 9-0

I suppose we all have the discretion to choose which hill to die on. This isn’t my hill. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a training is just a training.

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Deputy Superintendent Rick Riley on his retirement from the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Toner

Best of luck and happy trails, my friend. – Robert Winters

November 16, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 569-570: November 15, 2022

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,elections — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:06 am

Episode 569 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 15, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 15, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: The Replacements – esp. for departing School Committee member Akriti Bhambi, how vacancy recounts are conducted in Cambridge; Covid optimism; positive and negatives from the Covid experience – outdoor patios, virtual meetings; Charter Review dominated by uninformed gripes. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 570 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 15, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 15, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Climate Resiliency zoning, flood-prone areas, building elevations, “green score”, ADA compliance, intended and unintended consequences; learning from history – a Muddy River illustration; the value of “the 80% solution”, economic slowdown, especially labs; floating Linkage; reasonable outcomes in federal elections; listening vs. telling, pushing back on the ideologues; City Boards & Commissions – professionalism vs. politics. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 27, 2022

Cambridge City Charter Review – Resources

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Charter — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:40 am

Cambridge City Charter Review

Resources for those who wish to objectively view the history and evolution of the charter
of the City of Cambridge from 1846 to the present and possible modifications for the future.

http://rwinters.com/CharterReview/

Cambridge City Charter Study Group

I would like to informally gather a group of concerned Cambridge residents to form a Study Group to better understand the Cambridge City Charter – past, present, and future – in detail. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current Charter? How did we come to have the current (Plan E) Charter? What improvements to the governmental form and election methods might be advisable? [References]

This Study Group would be separate from the “official” Cambridge Charter Review Committee that was recently appointed by several city councillors. Among other things, this group can monitor the official review committee, discuss and critique any proposals coming from that committee, and independently propose alternatives. If you are interested, please let me know. – Robert Winters

original proposed 1846 Charter
(this is not the same as what was
passed and sent to Cambridge voters!)		 1846 Charter w/amendments through 1890 appended
(as approved by Legislature and Cambridge Town Meeting)		 1891 Charter 1915 (Plan B) Charter 1940 (Plan E) Charter
(as amended)
M.G.L. Chapter 43: CITY CHARTERS
M.G.L. Chapter 43B: HOME RULE PROCEDURES
M.G.L. Chapter 43C: OPTIONAL FORMS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

City SealThe official Charter Review Committee now has a website: https://www.cambridgema.gov/charterreview
This page has links to the recordings of all of the meetings held so far.

How best to distribute political power in Portland? Fault lines erupt over charter ballot proposal (The Oregonian, Sept 18, 2022)
Yeah – I’m quoted in the article. – RW

Additional Resources

House No. 13 – An Act to establish the city of Cambridge – 1846 (HTML – this is not the same as what was passed and sent to Cambridge voters! House No. 13 – An Act to establish the city of Cambridge – 1846 (PDF – scan retrieved via Google) – not the same as final version adopted by voters March 30, 1846
Original 1846 Charter w/amendments through 1890 appended (HTML) – See Note below Original 1846 Charter w/amendments through 1890 appended (PDF) – scan from Revised Ordinances 1892, published by City of Cambridge – adopted by voters March 30, 1846 – See Note below
Note: with Amendments of 1853 (adopted Dec 5, 1853); Amendments of 1857 (adopted May 1, 1857); Amendments of 1867 (adopted Nov 5, 1967); Amendments of 1869 (adopted Nov 2, 1869); Amendments of 1870 (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1873-A (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1873-B (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1877 (adopted by City Council March 14, 1877); Amendments of 1878 (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1890 (adopted by City Council May 3, 1890)
1891 Charter of the City of Cambridge (HTML)
– adopted by voters Dec 8, 1891		 1891 Charter of the City of Cambridge (PDF) – scan from Revised Ordinances 1892, published by City of Cambridge) – adopted by voters Dec 8, 1891
1911 Proposed Charter (scan from original pamphlet of Cambridge Charter Association) – not approved by voters – 5272 For, 6073 Against
Chart from 1911 Charter Proposal     Inside front cover of 1911 Charter Proposal pamphlet     Insert from 1911 Charter Proposal pamphlet
1915 Charter (Plan B) from Mass. General Laws, Chapter 43 – adopted by voters Nov 2, 1915
1938 Mass. House Report of the Special Commission on Taxation and Public Expenditures – Part X (City Manager Government and Proportional Representation), Feb 25, 1938 – scanned from original
Plan E Charter (as amended through 2021)
defeated in Nov 8, 1938 municipal election: 19955 For, 21722 Against (47.9%-52.1%), 4615 Blanks
approved in Nov 5, 1940 municipal election: Nov 7 Cambridge Chronicle reports 25875 For, 18323 Against (58.5%-41.5%), 7513 Blanks
Spreadsheet of votes in 1938 and 1940 elections to adopt Plan E
M.G.L. Chapter 43: CITY CHARTERS
M.G.L. Chapter 43B: HOME RULE PROCEDURES
M.G.L. Chapter 43C: OPTIONAL FORMS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mass. General Laws Chapter 54A (Proportional Representation)     PDF version Rules for Counting Ballots (1941 pamphlet from Cambridge Election Commission)
Political History of Cambridge in the 20th Century – by Glenn Koocher (Nov 2004); edited by Robert Winters (July 2006)
[An alternate edit of this essay appeared, along with many other valuable essays, in a centennial volume published by the Cambridge Historical Society in 2007.]
The Advent of PR in Cambridge – originally published in the Cambridge Civic Journal on Feb 12, 1998
HOW TO BREAK A POLITICAL MACHINE – Collier’s Magazine, Jan 31, 1948 (posted Sept 24, 2020, updated Mar 27, 2021)

In case you were wondering about how to make Cambridge’s PR elections independent of how the ballots are counted…

Election Method Comparison – STV/Cincinnati vs. Fractional Transfer – 2021 Cambridge City Council Election (posted Jan 15, 2022)

Plan E Cambridge City Councils – At A Glance (Mayor in bold) — Comments?

Plan E Cambridge School Committees (and Mayors) At A Glance — Comments?
Cambridge PR Election Archive
Sept 21, 2020 City Council meeting notes – CCJ Forum (see comment at end)

Sept 23, 2020 Special City Council meeting w/Collins Center:   Agenda/Materials    meeting video (includes links to documents/presentation)

Mar 22, 2021 City Council meeting notes – CCJ Forum (see Communications & Reports #2)  Communication from Mayor Siddiqui re: Collins Center
[Siddiqui memo] [Collins Center 1st memo (Mar 11, 2021)] [Appendices]

May 3, 2021 City Council meeting notes – CCJ Forum (see Communication & Reports #2 at end – memo provided only after meeting was held)
[Collins Center 2nd memo (Apr 28, 2021)]

May 26, 2021 Special City Council meeting w/Collins Center – Agenda (there was no advance notice of this meeting, and it was canceled)

June 2, 2021 Special City Council meeting on Charter Review w/Collins Center:    meeting video

Ad Hoc Selection Committee Announces 15 Charter Review Committee Members (July 1, 2022)

15-member review team to take first look at the Cambridge town charter (July 13, 2022, Cambridge Chronicle)
May 25, 1907 Cambridge Chronicle – “The ‘new charter’ has been abandoned”
 
May 25, 1907 Cambridge Chronicle - part 1		  
May 25, 1907 Cambridge Chronicle - part 2

September 7, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 561-562: September 6, 2022

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,elections — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:48 am

Episode 561 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 6, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Sept 6, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Primary Election Day; 1st day of work for City Manager Yi-An Huang; Council returns next week; Covid updates; Central Square revives – amidst challenges; Linkage, Incentive Zoning, and perverse incentives. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 562 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 6, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Sept 6, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Charter review and charter reform, history of Cambridge charters 1846-present, causes for change, influence of councillors by proxy; legislators nibbling at executive role; strong mayor = less democracy, less access; upcoming events. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

July 6, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 555-556: July 5, 2022

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge government,Cambridge InsideOut,elections,history,School Committee — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 8:36 am

Episode 555 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 5, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on July 5, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: July 4 weekend wrap; benefiting from the existence of a problem, tales from the death of rent control; Charter revision history, ideas and concerns. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 556 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 5, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on July 5, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Charter Review Committee; election methods – corrections and pitfalls; School Committee as forgotten stepchild of charter revision; Cambridge Jazz Festival; retirements of Louis DePasquale, Jim Monagle, Arthur Goldberg, Jim Maloney. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

April 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 545-546: April 19, 2022

Filed under: Cambridge,Cambridge InsideOut,City Council,covid,history — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:35 pm

Episode 545 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 19, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Apr 19, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Board appointments; Charter Review details in process – “activist” vs. neutral review?; roles of regulatory boards; power, politics, agendas & who gets to appoint. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

Episode 546 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 19, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Apr 19, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Mass. Ave. bike lane and roadway alternatives; pushing back against the “Pledge”; bureaucratic simplification; anti-idling bounty hunters; tweeting in your political silo, and the dark side of proportional representation; ageism and ignorance; wandering through history in Concord and Cambridge. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress