Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Feb 7, 2011 City Council Agenda – AAA bond ratings, community benefits, and City boards and commissions

City Manager’s Agenda #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge receiving three Triple A ratings from the nation’s major credit rating agencies.

It’s become almost routine that the City of Cambridge receives the highest possible bond ratings. Expect all the councillors to make the usual flattering speeches, and possibly the usual suspects during public comment suggesting that the City administration has somehow sacrificed quality of life on the altar of municipal bond ratings. It’s worth noting that with so much attention being paid nationally to the matter of unfunded pension liabilities (and other post-employment benefits), Cambridge would not be receiving the bond ratings that it does if it was on particularly shaky ground in these areas.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Police Commissioner regarding the increase of graffiti in the vicinity of Chatham Street, Dana Street, Broadway and Massachusetts Avenue with the view of increasing police patrols in the area and increasing efforts to make residents aware of the graffiti hotline.   Mayor Maher

Making more people aware of the graffiti hotline may not necessarily lead to productive results. Here on Broadway we made such a call and didn’t get a call back until about a month later. The message essentially was that the City can’t do anything regarding private property, and for the tagging on utility poles, mailboxes, etc., nothing would be done until at least next Spring. The City should be applauded for its good intentions, but things do sometimes fall flat in the execution.

Another example is the Rodent Hotline. Several years ago, I called in about an infestation of several foot-long rats in my neighbor’s yard/junkpile. That led to Inspectional Services addressing that problem, but also requiring me to remove my old VW Bus (parts car) from my yard even though this was unrelated to the rodent problem. My tenants and I like that my backyard is a better place now, but the immediacy of the directive meant that I didn’t have time to harvest the parts I would have liked to keep. I no longer recommend calling the Rodent Hotline to anyone due to the possibility of unintended consequences.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant State and City staff about the possibility of retaining the pedestrian light to allow at-grade crossing of Memorial Drive after the completion of the footbridge.   Councillor Kelley, Councillor Cheung and Councillor Seidel

Considering the distance between traffic signals on Memorial Drive west of this location, this would not be a burden on traffic and it would be a good alternative for many people, including cyclists. If the DCR has issues with this, perhaps they might accept relocating the traffic signal from Pleasant Street to Magazine Street.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to inquire into the feasibility of instituting a phone book opt-out program in Cambridge to reduce waste and the costs associated with that waste.   Councillor Decker and Councillor Cheung

Great idea – and essentially identical to the March 17, 2008 Order from Councillor Seidel. Whatever became of that Order? Phone book publishers make their money on how many of these obsolete books they can spread around, so I imagine there will be resistance to cutting back. Yellow Book is famous for its deceptive mailings that fool unwary businesses into spending hundreds of dollars per year for these useless listings.

Order #5. That the Mayor convene a Roundtable meeting with the Planning Board to discuss issues of mutual interest and concern.   Councillor Seidel, Councillor Reeves, Councillor Kelley and Councillor Cheung

Considering the fact that the most controversial matters that come before the City Council are zoning petitions which also come before the Planning Board, you have to wonder why the two bodies don’t meet more often just to better understand the priorities of the respective bodies. That said, city councillors have not shown any particular mastery in zoning matters other than how to shake down an applicant for "community benefits" (see below).

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Department of Public Works to make accessible to the public, either on the city’s website or by constituent request, all un-cleared sidewalk complaints received, and all violations issued either due to those complaints or otherwise.   Councillor Cheung

This clearly is in reference to the requests from Saul Tannenbaum for this data that he put into publicly accessible maps [Jan 14 report], [Jan 29 report][Jan 31 report]. His actions are civics at its best. Not only should Saul (and others) have access to this data at no cost, any previous charges should be refunded. Better yet, the City should post this information and create these maps.

Order #11. The Cambridge City Council should begin as soon as possible to develop principles which will guide future community benefit negotiations for future development projects where large renovations are requested.   Councillor Reeves

This is not the first Order on this topic. However, the more fundamental issue is the erosive effect of this practice of shaking down developers for "community benefits" in exchange for votes for zoning petitions. It’s difficult to imagine the current City Council ever voting down an upzoning petition from a major developer with deep pockets who is in a position to effortlessly donate a few million dollars in exchange for gaining many millions of dollars in value to their project. The sky is literally the limit. Planning goals are often in direct conflict with the promise of a bonanza of "community benefits." Rather than working out policies for guiding future community benefits negotiations, perhaps the City Council should consider eliminating or severely limiting the practice.

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Donna P. Lopez, Deputy City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Leland Cheung, Chair of the Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee for a public meeting held on Jan 6, 2011 to receive a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for a development consultant for Kendall and Central Square and the transition area (Lafayette Square).

This was an interesting committee meeting that tested the limits of the City Charter. Normally, elected councillors have to be very careful about leaning on City departments in matters involving any kind of hiring. The meeting was informative regarding both the scope and limitations of the RFP. It also remains quite clear that the greatest impact (or lack of impact) on Kendall Square and Central Square and all points in between will come from the property owners who make the investments in their properties. Except for zoning restrictions, the City’s role will be limited to supporting these initiatives and trying to influence them to whatever degree they can.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair of the Civic Unity Committee for a public meeting held on Jan 5, 2011 to hold a discussion between the Civic Unity Committee and the Civic Unity Advisory Committee.

Councillor Simmons submitted a document entitled "The Civic Unity Committee" (Attachment A) and provided a brief history of the Civic Unity Committee. It was very interesting to read about the history of this advisory committee during the 1940s and 1950s, and it’s worth considering what role such an advisory committee might play today. However, if City officials really wish to revisit what role, if any, this committee should be playing, the process should not end with this one committee. Though it would require the kind of leadership this City Council most likely does not possess, there is some wisdom in revisiting the missions of the Peace Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and several other City boards whose missions overlap. Indeed, perhaps there should be a process in which ALL of the City’s boards and commissions revise their missions and are consolidated as appropriate for greater effectiveness. – Robert Winters

Dec 20, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights – One Less Chair

This is the last meeting of the year – marking the half-way point for this City Council term. What better way to celebrate this occasion than to stomp and pout and take your bat and ball and go home. To call the legislative tantrum thrown this week by Councillor Toomey adolescent would be generous. Specifically, there was a zoning petition from developer Rich McKinnon and Education First (EF Foundation) that came to a vote at last week’s City Council meeting along with a commitment of $914,000 in "mitigation" (gold, frankincense, myrrh?) to be donated by EF Foundation. Councillor Toomey had preferred to extract benefits specific to East Cambridge residents in exchange for a positive City Council vote. Instead, Mayor Maher and other councillors agreed to an arrangement where a rational process would be established by the City Manager to determine how the donated $914,000 would be distributed – a good idea that should have been the rule for other recent petitions that produced "mitigation" funds. The zoning amendment was approved 8-1 with Toomey emphatically voting NO.

The greater issue is the questionable practice of this City Council (or any other legislative body) using zoning relief essentially as currency to "buy" community benefits, but Toomey’s specific objection was to having an inclusive process established rather than the usual negotiated payouts (kind words for legislative shakedown) to individual councillors’ pet projects. In response, Toomey 1) quit as Co-chair of the Ordinance Committee, 2) filed an Order challenging the legitimacy of the tax-exempt status of Education First, and 3) filed another Order calling for a new Ordinance requiring hiring preferences for Cambridge labor union members on union-built projects within the city (including the EF Foundation project). Certainly one couldn’t blame other cities if they responded by making it much more difficult for those same Cambridge labor union members to work outside of Cambridge.

Order #1. That the City Manager confer with the City Assessor and report back with an opinion on the legitimacy of the tax exempt claim of Education First.   Councillor Toomey

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor to draft a City ordinance which will give a priority to union Cambridge residents on union projects within the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Toomey

Communications and Reports from City Officers #1. A communication was received from City Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., transmitting his formal resignation as Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee. (dated Dec 14, the morning after last week’s meeting)

The best course of action may be for Mayor Maher to leave Councillor Seidel as the sole Chair of the Ordinance Committee and not appoint a new Co-chair. The whole practice of having co-chairs of Council committees is relatively recent and not really justified in terms of either workload or complexity. There may have been some justification during the days of citywide or large-scale rezoning efforts, but it makes little sense now.

There’s not a whole lot more on this Agenda. Perhaps Councillor Kelley will again bring up Tabled Item #2 involving School Department clerical positions. Councillor Kelley has now moved to take it from the table four times without success – on May 10, 2010 (failed 2-7-0), Sept 13, 2010 (failed 4-4-1), Sept 27, 2010 (failed 3-5-1), and Dec 13, 2010 (failed 3-6-0). I suspect the kerfuffle between Councillors Kelley and Toomey over the legality of Councillors meeting privately with School Administration officials will also find its way into the speechmaking. That discussion has drawn other councillors into the fray as well for the last two Council meetings. [See Marc Levy’s write up of the Dec 6 meeting, and Brian Nanos’ article on the Dec 13 meeting in the Cambridge Chronicle. You might also want to read this one about last week’s zoning vote.]

"Peace on Earth, Good will Toward Men" – right? Maybe, maybe not. – Robert Winters

Dec 13, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights – Myriad Resolutions

Among the myriad items on this week’s agenda, the one that stood out was this excerpt from a report from the Government Operations and Rules Committee: "Councillors Toomey and Cheung both voiced concern about making a recommendation assigning specific goals to specific committees without providing an opportunity for committee chairs to be involved in a committee discussion on this issue. All agreed that this matter is an important issue that needed further consideration and should not be overlooked in the face of the myriad time demands faced by members of the City Council."

There are myriad comments that could be made here, though myriad time demands restrict what I might say. Certainly, with myriad personal staff assistance now available to councillors for holding their coats, taking their myriad calls, shining their shoes, etc. one would think that such myriad burdens would be lifted from the aching shoulders of the councillors. Certainly no working Cambridge resident or parent could possibly imagine the myriad responsibilities that a part-time city councillor must bear for a mere $72,000+ per year for their Monday night performances and record few committee meetings rarely attended by a full complement of members. There are also the myriad congratulatory resolutions to be filed each week celebrating restaurant openings and newborns. The myriad burdens of shaking hands and getting myriad face time at myriad community events on the myriad roads to reelection must surely bring myriad stress to our elected representatives. We feel their myriad pain.

There are also these items of note:

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to consult with relevant department staff and report back on the legal limits of the City Council’s involvement in non-budget School Department issues. [Charter Right exercised by Mayor Maher on Order Number Two of Dec 6, 2010.]

This provoked a firestorm at least week’s meeting, especially between Councillors Kelley and Toomey. Perhaps they’ve smoothed things out during the ensuing week. The underlying issue is a significant one. City councillors are not elected to manage or oversee the public schools or to use the City Budget as a vehicle for micromanagement of the School Department. Candidates for public office should be clear about which office they sought in the previous election. Pick one. If you want to influence school policy, run for School Committee or get in line along with every other resident who has something to say. It’s noteworthy that city councillors who have previously served on the School Committee rarely, if ever, engage in meddling in school affairs.

Unfinished Business #6. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Sept 14, 2010 to consider a petition filed by Richard McKinnon, et al. to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map in the North Point PUD-6 District. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 1, 2010. Planning Board hearing held Sept 21, 2010. Petition expires Dec 13, 2010.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Manager for Community Development to provide a report on the state of the law relating to community benefits as mitigation in zoning amendment petitions.   Vice Mayor Davis, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Seidel and Councillor Cheung

These are related. The McKinnon petition will likely receive the necessary votes to pass at this last meeting before the deadline. The only question has been the "mitigation," i.e. what other community benefits can be leveraged in return for the zoning amendment. Though perhaps not specifically tied to this matter, the Order from Councillors Davis, Toomey, Seidel, and Cheung is both timely and well-targeted. Where exactly do you draw the line between leverage and legislative extortion? Where does long-term planning enter into the picture? Or does it? We’ve been rapidly descending in recent years toward a system where zoning amendments have become currency to be exchanged for supposed community benefits. The recent amendment in Kendall Square may be the worst such example in which a laundry list of everybody’s favorite pet projects to be funded was generated en route to delivering the votes.

Applications & Petitions #1. A zoning petition has been received from Michael R. Hegarty et al., requesting the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding after the title of Section 5.28 the sentence: "No use shall be permitted by any provisions of this Section 5.28 except as set forth in Section 4.30 Table of Use Regulations or the sections that define districts not included in Section 4.30."

This sets up a parallel zoning petition to run alongside the Council petition introduced last week that seeks to clarify the section of the Zoning Ordinance. It is clear that Section 5.28 was written to encourage the preservation of institutional and industrial buildings as housing, but it has now become clear that some unintended consequences have resulted – most recently involving the Norris Street proposed development.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chairs of the Government Operations and Rules Committee, for a public meeting held on Dec 7, 2010 to finalize the City Council goals for FY11 and FY12 to present a recommendation on the goals to the City Council.

This report has myriad aspects to it, but the bottom line is that it contains the new biennial Goals & Objectives for FY11 and FY12. To paraphrase the lyrics from The Who: "Meet the New Goals, Same as the Old Goals." – Robert Winters

Dec 6, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Of interest on this week’s relatively light agenda are these items:

City Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-169, regarding a report on Cambridge residents being labeled "inactive" during the most recent election and listed with wrong or misspelled addresses.

Election Commission Executive Director Tanya Ford reports that there were 14,931 "inactive" registered voters (as of Nov 2). There are now 63,153 registered voters with 48,270 listed as "active" and 14,883 listed as "inactive" (as of Dec 2). There are always some errors in the names and addresses – primarily due to transcription errors from voter registration forms, poor handwriting, etc. On a related topic, if there are any prospective candidates for the 2011 municipal election who need registered voter and voter history data, we’re all up-to-date here at CCJ Central and, as always, all data is provided at no cost to actual candidates.

City Manager’s Agenda #10. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-56, regarding a report on prohibiting hotels from subcontracting housekeeping services.

This is a slippery slope if ever there was one. The City Solicitor correctly points out that because hotels are licensed, the City may impose certain conditions on such licenses and that this proposed prohibition may be legal (though this would likely be challenged). However, where do you draw the line? Should the City mandate that only righteously healthy food may be served at the continental breakfast for hotel guests?

On the Table #3. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-32, regarding a report on issues with the development of the former St. John’s property site. [Charter Right exercised on City Manager Agenda Item Number Eighteen of May 24, 2010. Placed on Table June 7, 2010.]

City Manager’s Agenda #9. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-179, regarding a report on a review of Section 5.28.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to determine whether any changes should be made to the current square footage calculation for the purpose of decreasing the density of converted buildings in already dense neighborhoods.

This item brought out many people at the previous City Council meeting. There do seem to be some unintended consequences in the current zoning law regarding the repurposing of buildings such as this one where the height and density of the building is well in excess of current zoning limits. The intent of past zoning amendments was to encourage that such buildings become housing, but this has sometimes been exploited in a manner that is very detrimental to existing neighborhoods. The Hobson’s Choice often given to neighbors is between an empty, derelict building or one that has overwhelming density.

Unfinished Business #5. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Sept 14, 2010 to consider a petition filed by Richard McKinnon, et al. to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map in the North Point PUD-6 District. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Nov 1, 2010. Planning Board hearing held Sept 21, 2010. Petition expires Dec 13, 2010.

It is expected that this will pass either at this meeting or the next meeting. The issue seems not to be whether the zoning amendment is appropriate but what "mitigation" can be extracted from the developer. On this point, I’ll simply repeat my comments on a related Order at the Oct 25 meeting that seeks to regularize how mitigation is to be extracted:

"It’s interesting that we have now reached the point where the appropriateness of a development proposal is now regularly eclipsed by consideration of what kind of mitigation can be squeezed out of the developer or owner of the property. It makes you wonder if "Long Term Planning" plays any role at all any more or if it’s all about using zoning restrictions to determine the price of doing business. This somehow does not seem consistent with the original intent of the legislation (M.G.L. Chapter 40A) that enabled local zoning ordinances."

Unfinished Business #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation for the approval of a loan order in the amount of $14,535,000 as well as a vote relative to Chapter 2.110 ("City-Owned Land and Buildings".) The question comes on adoption on or after Nov 29, 2010. [
9A Loan order passed to a second reading 9-0-0;
9B order adopted 8-1-0 Councillor Kelley recorded in the negative]

This will finalize the loan authorization and disposition of the property for the re-use of the old Police Station on Western Avenue for the Cambridge Housing Authority and for the City’s Community Learning Center.

Order #1. That the Government Operations Committee be and hereby is requested to hold a hearing on department-head level staff changes that are foreseeable in the next five years.   Councillor Kelley

The key statement in Councillor Kelley’s Order is the first: "A number of department heads, to include the City Clerk and both the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, are approaching an age where retirement might be an attractive option…" The expressed concern by this relatively youthful councillor is that there might be some kind of "perfect storm" where much of the City Administration is swept away in a wave of simultaneous retirements. It is unclear what the purpose of such a Government Operations Committee meeting would be, except for the hint that Councillor Kelley would like various City leaders to divulge their future intentions now rather than later. Doing so, as should be obvious, could actually create more of a storm that it claims to want to prevent.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to consult with relevant department staff and report back on the legal limits of the City Council’s involvement in non-budget School Department issues.   Councillor Kelley

This is a good point. Over the last several years there has been a greater focus among some city councillors on school-related matters. One has to wonder whether these councillors ran for the right office or if they just want to grow their authority using the City Budget as a convenient excuse. It’s true that the structure of the schools impacts things like after-school programs run by the Department of Human Services Programs, but when it comes to educational specifics, a city councillor should be no different than you or me when it comes to leaning on School Committee members or School Department officials to take specific actions.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Police Commissioner to create a program of bicycle education and to step up enforcement in order to protect pedestrians.   Vice Mayor Davis, Mayor Maher and Councillor Toomey

Needless to say, such an educational program would also protect cyclists. It’s also a whole lot better than the misguided plans to move cyclists onto the sidewalk on Western Avenue, Concord Avenue, and elsewhere. – Robert Winters

Nov 22, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Here are the items that jumped out this week to this Council-watcher:

City Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-152, regarding a report on language in the Noise Ordinance as it relates to enforcement of loud car radios.

The Order that led to this response was about noise coming from cars with sounds systems so loud that the drivers often choose to wear earplugs as their vehicles pollute the sound environment of others. The report states that "the Cambridge Police Department, if made aware by citizens, will respond and evaluate the noise complaint and enforce any violations" which may lead to a fine of $300. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the problem. These are not stationary objects and the police are already well aware of the problem. The only way to address this problem is for Cambridge Police and the License Commission to continuously monitor selected streets and catch the bad guys as the problem occurs.

City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-120, regarding a report on the feasibility and enforceability of implementing the provisions of House Bill 3371 which increases certain motor vehicle fines to improve driving.

According to this report, the fines for a variety of offenses are about to jump substantially. Specifically, the fine for violation of bicycle laws will jump from $20 to $75. The fine for a moving violation of traffic signs, signals, or devices will jump from $150 to $250. The fine for failing to yield to pedestrians in a cross walk wil go from $200 to $250. There is also a new $75 fine for pedestrians (does this include cyclists?) who provide a false name or refuse to provide a name and address to a police officer upon a violation of roadway regulations.

City Manager’s Agenda #13. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Study Report for St. James’s Episcopal Church at 1991 Massachusetts Avenue.

This has been the center of some controversy in the Porter Square/North Cambridge area. The adjacent car wash and property around the church are slated for a new housing development (Oaktree) and the garden adjacent to the church is part of the leverage being used by neighbors to affect the size and configuraion of the development. The Landmark designation could be approved at this meeting, but there’s a possibility that it could be referred to the Ordinance Committee. The Cambridge Historical Commission voted 7-0 to approve the landmark study report and its findings with a recommendation that the City Council approve the landmark designation. As is always the case, the Historical Commission report is well-researched and filled with interesting facts about this site and the surrounding area.

City Manager’s Agenda #14. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 10-118, regarding a report on issues related to scooters and any changes to ordinances or regulations on scooter use and parking.

Yet another report relating to roads and vehicles. This report details the distinctions between what is allowed for motorized bikes and mopeds (max. speed 25mph) vs. scooters and other limited use vehicles with speeds up to 40mph. For example, the slower motorized bikes can use bike lanes and legally pass on the right (like a bicycle might do), but they may not use off-street bicycle facilities. The faster scooters must adhere to the same laws as automobiles and other motor vehicles. Parking regulations for all scooters are the responsibility of each municipality. The report notes that Cambridge currently allows mopeds (max. speed 25mph) to park on sidewalks. No changes to the current regulations are recommended.

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to set up a process to reach out to experts and the public in order to create a balanced panel to participate in the Sign Ordinance Task Force.

What makes this item noteworthy is the usual tension between the City Council (always mindful of how their actions may affect their reelection chances) and the City Manager (the "appointing authority" under state law). Exactly what constitutes a "balanced panel" is, of course, highly subjective and always in the crosshairs of those whose motivations are primarily political. I don’t envy the City Manager’s position on this one – damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Unfinished Business #7. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Sept 14, 2010 to consider a petition filed by Richard McKinnon, et al. to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map in the North Point PUD-6 District.

To the best of my knowledge, this zoning petition is not controversial. It was passed to a 2nd Reading on Oct 18, has gone through the whole process and is ready to be ordained.

Applications & Petitions #2. A zoning petition has been received from Marc Levin, Director of Development, Chestnut Hill Realty Company, on behalf of Chauncy Court LLC, Wendell Terrace LLC and John Harvard LLC, requesting the City Council to enact new sections of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the creation of workforce housing.

This promises to be very controversial and it should be. The proponents (Chestnut Hill Realty) have a reputation for lavishing some city councillors with extraordinarily large campaign donations by having all members of their extended families write $500 checks to these councillors. With such "generosity," it is inevitable that some residents will look for evidence of a "quid pro quo" among the recipients of this political generosity. Even more than the apparent effort to buy support, this petition contains language that elevates dishonesty to new all-time highs. Specifically, they propose to modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow basements in large (30+ units) multifamily buildings to be converted to 1-bedroom apartments, and they characterize this as "Workforce Housing." This is reminiscent of the recent Kendall Square zoning petition that would allow the construction of a new high-rise building. It referred to the affected area as the "Smart Growth Underutilized Area."

It seems pretty apparent that Chestnut Hill Realty is simply trying to add value to their existing rental properties (within 1200 feet of Mass. Ave. according to the petition). That they would cast this self-enrichment as altruism leaves me (and I’m sure others) speechless.

Communications #5. A communication was received from Peter Valentine, regarding the printed phrase on his fence.

Just in case you think that Cambridge is getting too boring, Peter’s letter to the City Council states simply: "Be it known to this City Council of Cambridge, MA USA that Peter Valentine printed the phrase ‘cat’s cut loose so it ain’t no use’ on the center of his fence on the Franklin St. side on November 18, 2010 at 8:45 AM."

Resolution #9. Resolution on the death of Henry Lewis III.   Councillor Reeves, Councillor Simmons

This shockingly premature death (Henry was not yet 48 years old) still resounds among all who knew him. There will be a memorial "Bike Ride Honoring Henry Lewis" on Saturday, Dec 4 starting at 9:00am at a point yet to be determined. A gathering at the Elks Lodge at 55 Bishop Allen Drive will follow. You can call 617-665-3677 for more details which will be posted here as they become known.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation and report back to the University Relations Committee on all recent changes to parking meters that affect the City’s universities.   Councillor Cheung

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Traffic, Parking and Transportation regarding the feasibility of converting the Inman Square parking meters to two hours along Hampshire Street.   Councillor Cheung

No particular comment on the substance of these orders, but I will again remind everyone that according to state law, Cambridge is required to have an appointed Traffic Board with the power to overrule (upon the petition of 50 residents) regulations promulgated by of Traffic & Parking Czarina Susan Clippinger. There is currently no means of redress other than to beg for mercy from the Czarina.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to confer with Community Development Department and report back to the Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee on the feasibility of instituting a moratorium on particular industries, such as banks, that are already well represented in the city’s squares.   Councillor Simmons and Councillor Cheung

This is a nice sentiment that is guaranteed to be Dead On Arrival. It’s quite true that the major squares have an overrepresentation of banks and cell phone stores, but such is the nature of free enterprise. If the City Council could somehow gain moratorium power over banks, does anyone seriously think it would stop there? Anyone remember the Starbucks Wars of a decade ago in Central Square where protesters supported by the 1369 Coffee House argued that there should be no more coffee places?

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to inform the Economic Development, Training and Employment Committee on its options with regards to the means and the manner by which it may hold a meeting with the Boston City Council at the Museum of Science.   Councillor Cheung

This is a very interesting thought. In feudal New England where every city and town stands alone (with or without a moat), the concept of a joint meeting of the Cambridge City Council and the Boston City Council on a matter of mutual interest borders on revolutionary. Next thing you know the councilors of Boston will be asking the advice of the councillors of Cambridge on what to do with convicted felon/councilor Chuck Turner.

Order #7. That the City Manager and the Mayor of Cambridge meet directly with the presidents of MIT, Harvard, Leslie and Cambridge College and work out a guarantee proposal that these colleges will pay the tuition and fees of students graduating from Cambridge public high schools.   Councillor Reeves

This is also a nice sentiment. I could see a few more scholarships coming from this, but a guarantee that all tuition and fees would be paid for any Cambridge resident gaining entry to these schools? I know we think we’re special in Cambridge, but are we really that special?

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council the progress of search for experimental music venues and spaces in Central Square.   Councillor Reeves

The efforts of Councillor Reeves of late to get Central Square moving are appreciated, but the last gathering of his "Red Ribbon Commission" had far too much of the councillor’s pontification of his personal vision of what should and shouldn’t be. This included a tirade against Forest City (who was hosting the event) because they had not included Cambridge officials in the loop regarding possible plans for the stretch of Mass. Ave. between Blanche St. and Lansdsdowne St. as well as the proposed Novartis expansion across the street from their current facility in the old Necco building. At that same meeting, we also heard a proposal to pack hundreds of new housing units into the block bounded by Mass. Ave., Essex Street, Bishop Allen Drive, and Norfolk Street plus a plaza fronting onto Mass. Ave. on the site owned by the Naggar family. Most of the people at the meeting were polite but unimpressed.

This Red Ribbon Commission may yet produce some good outcomes including, perhaps, some new music venues as suggested in Reeves’ Order. There’s also the very real possibility that the whole process may be little more than Reeves’ own proposals hoisted up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. Councillor Reeves did help in the revitalization of Central Square about 15 years ago (though most of the effort was done later by others). Now, just as then, what is needed is cooperation of the property owners, business owners, and the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. It might also be argued that economic forces may solve most of the problems around Central Square without any need of government intervention. — Robert Winters