Solicited and Unsolicited Advice – June 7, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting
There are a number of interesting items on this week’s agenda – especially the legal analysis of City Solicitor Nancy Glowa on a number of topics.
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an update on the COVID-19 vaccination rollout.
Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-39, regarding the status of the Gold Star Mothers Pool opening plans for the June through September summer season of 2021.
Placed on File 9-0
Communications & Reports #4. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the COVID-19 Update.
Placed on File 9-0
Resolution #9. Thank You Claude A. Jacob. Mayor Siddiqui
Tabled 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-23, regarding a report on permanently extending remote participation in City Council and board and commission meetings.
Placed on File 9-0
I’m really looking forward to the day when Covid updates are relegated to history rather than daily updates. I’m also eagerly looking forward to the day when City Hall, the City Hall Annex, the libraries, and all other City buildings are fully reopened. The justification for keeping them closed is rapidly fading, and when the Governor’s emergency declaration expires on June 15 (or another date if the state legislature approves an extension) there will be no legal basis for denying public access.
As for the matter of the continuation of remote access to public meetings, please read the opinion of the City Solicitor in Mgr’s Agenda #11. In my opinion, we should return forthwith to in-person meetings with the option of remote access for Cambridge residents and invited guests. Elected officials and City staff should no longer be "phoning it in" unless they are physically unable to attend in person.
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a summary of a Planning Board Meeting on the 2020 Town-Gown Reports and Presentations.
Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to new appointments and reappointment of members of the Harvard Square Advisory Committee.
Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation not to adopt the Missing Middle Housing (Fuller, et al.) Zoning Petition.
Refer to Petition 9-0
Order #6. That City Manager be and is hereby requested work with the Law Department to provide an analysis of what impact the recently enacted state Housing Choices law has on the Missing Middle Housing Zoning petition. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon
Refer to Petition 9-0
I stand by my well-considered opinion that this is a terrible petition that has only grown worse as amendments to the proposal have been introduced in order to garner political support. At this point its passage has more to do with the fealty of some elected officials to the “A Better Cambridge” group than in doing what is best for the city and its residents. There is certainly a reasonable case to be made for allowing multi-family housing to be built in all residential zones and relaxing some parking requirements (especially near transit), but that is not what this zoning proposal is primarily about. It also has nothing to do with addressing any historical remnants having to do with race – in spite of the purposefully misleading rhetoric of the proponents. This is a proposal for dramatically increasing residential density – and not just in areas that currently have lower densities.
Many of us feel that Cambridge is already a relatively dense city – in fact, one of the most dense in the country – and that this proposal has more to do with creating development opportunities than it has to do with either housing affordability or good urban planning. There is also an element of hubris implicit in this petition, i.e. the notion that Cambridge can unilaterally address housing supply issues that properly must be addressed at a regional level and with modifications to the regional transportation system. There are opportunities for transit-oriented residential development that can and should be considered, but that is not part of this proposal. Perhaps the most telling comment was stated by one of the letter-writing proponents on a personal web page, “I am creating a better strategy for investments. I own multiple units in upstate NY, Rhode Island and Ohio. I currently reside in Massachusetts and am trying to find a few deals here.” Enough said.
It is interesting that Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Simmons, and Mallon are so concerned about how many votes will be minimally required to ram this travesty through. Perhaps the time has come to consider how many votes may be needed to elect or replace some councillors this November.
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-2, regarding the possibility of implementing a Sheltered Market Program, and Awaiting Report Item Number 21-4, regarding conducting a Spending Disparity Study on City Purchasing.
Placed on File 9-0
This is a very interesting legal analysis in spite of the somewhat cryptic "Sheltered Market Program." At issue is the degree to which City purchasing may give advantages to "historically disadvantaged groups" without running afoul of current laws and judicial decisions. It’s not always clear where "doing the right thing" ends and where political patronage begins. The City Solicitor recommends “that the City, in order to determine whether a sheltered market program under G.L. c. 30B, § 18 can be implemented in Cambridge, first conduct a disparity study to review and analyze whether there are present effects of past discrimination for which such a program would be intended to address. If it is determined that a basis exists for the City to implement a sheltered market program following a disparity study, the next step to implement such a program would be for the City to authorize the Purchasing Agent to establish such a program by: (1) a vote of a majority of the City Council; and (2) the approval of the City Manager.”
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for support for the City of Cambridge to join in the formation of a Boston Cambridge Tourism Destination Marketing District.
Placed on File; Order Adopted 7-0-0-2 (JSW,QZ – PRESENT)
Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a response regarding the City Council having its own budget for outside legal research.
Placed on File 9-0
The saga continues. I sometimes get the impression that the “bold, progressive change” councillors will simply never accept the notion that whatever they want to do still has to conform to existing laws, and that any opinion to the contrary is met with open hostility. The City’s Law Department has created a mechanism through which most or all of their needs can be met, but perhaps that’s not the real point. The combination of calls for charter change in conjunction with pursuits such as this is really about gathering more power and authority to the local legislative body. In my opinion, this is a wrongheaded quest – and the fact that this is taking place behind the veil of Covid-related limitations to transparency makes it all the worse.
Charter Right #1. Cambridge HEART Proposal. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Zondervan In Council May 25, 2021]
Approved 8-0-0-1 (Toomey – PRESENT)
Communications #9. A communication was received from Judith Nathans, regarding H.E.A.R.T Proposal and Public Safety Task Force Recommendations.
Placed on File 9-0
The bottom line is that whether ideas and recommendations come from a City-appointed Task Force or as suggestions from a small group of activists, any implementation will still lie with the Police Commissioner and the City Manager – presumably guided by need and best practices and informed by some of the programs that have been successful elsewhere. There is simply no value in casting this matter in terms of a political quest to “Defund the Police” or the absurd notion of “Abolish the Police” either in whole or in specific locations in Cambridge. There is also no value in casting this as a choice between “H.E.A.R.T. proposal vs. Task Force Recommendations.” If there are good ideas that make sense in the context of Cambridge, I would rather put my trust in those who understand public safety and who have proven themselves to be open to creative solutions, e.g. Police Commissioner Branville Bard.
Adopting the Budget
Committee Report #1. A communication was received from Anthony I. Wilson, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor E. Denise Simmons, Chair and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone Chair of the Finance Committee, for public hearings held on May 11, 2021 commencing at 9:00am and May 18, 2021 commencing at 10:00am and on May 19, 2021 commencing at 6:00pm to discuss Fiscal Year 2022 budget.
General Fund Budget of $707,104,105 Approved 7-0-0-2 (JSW,QZ – NO)
Note: Zondervan motion to reduce Police Dept. Budget to $65,000,000 failed 2-7 (JSW,QZ – YES)
Water Fund Budget of $13,016,825 Approved 9-0
Public Investment Fund Budget of $38,610,865 Approved 9-0
Unfinished Business #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,000,000 to provide funds for the reconstruction of various City streets and sidewalks. [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #6. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $10,000,000 to provide funds for the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan. … [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,800,000 to provide funds for various Schools for projects that include: asbestos abatement in various schools, replace the front plaza and failing masonry wing walls and recaulking the building at the Haggerty School, replace emergency generator and extend exhaust at Cambridgeport, recaulking precast panels at CRLS Field House, unit vents engineering at the Fletcher Maynard Academy and Longfellow building and replace the gym floor at the Amigos School. [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0
Unfinished Business #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to an order requesting the appropriation and authorization to borrow $28,500,000 to provide funds for the construction of sewer separation, storm water management and combined sewer overflow reduction elimination improvements within River Street and Harvard Square areas as well as the Sewer Capital Repairs Program and climate change preparedness efforts. [Passed to a Second Reading In Council May 10, 2021; to be Adopted on or after May 24, 2021]
Order Adopted 9-0
Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Zondervan, transmitting information on the FY22 police budget.
In most years the Budget Adoption and approval of Loan Orders for major capital projects tends to be rather pro forma with most councillors lavishing praise on all those involved (often well-deserved) and some councillors choosing to take a stand either on principal or simply to gain some political advantage. On the School Department budget, I have to side with Councillor Nolan, in particular, who may have seemed contrarian but was simply pointing out that we often don’t maintain very high standards for our schools and we achieve even less. Expressing disapproval may seem cruel in light of all the Covid-related difficulties of the past year, but even that should not let the School Committee or the School Department off the hook. Personally, I have for a long time felt that the focus of Cambridge schools has been far more about social engineering and indoctrination than about academic excellence. It’s particularly grating to listen to School Committee members who have developed their own dialect of "edu-speak" that allows them to "talk around" just about any matter of substance.
As for the rest of the City budget, I fully expect there to be plenty of grandstanding from the “bold progressive change” crowd on either the Police budget or the IT budget (because of the municipal broadband saga) and maybe a few other items before the Bottom Line comes to a final (presumably successful) vote.
Unfinished Business #9. Zoning Amendments related to Retail and Consumer Service Establishments as amended on May 17, 2021 (Ordinance # 2021-3) [Passed to a Second Reading on May 17, 2021; to be Ordained on or after June 7, 2021]
Ordained 9-0
Unfinished Business #10. Zoning Amendments related to Home Occupations (ORDINANCE #2021-4) [Passed to a Second Reading on May 17, 2021; to be Ordained on or after June 7, 2021]
Ordained 9-0
These could be ordained at this meeting, but I would be lying if I told you that I understood much about the proposed changes or the potential intended or unintended consequences.
Order #5. Live Acoustic Entertainment Ordinance. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Carlone
Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0
This might be OK, but the fact that percussion is considered acoustic and requires no amplification causes me some concern. Then again, the proposal does suggest that any performances must still conform to existing laws, including the Noise Ordinance. That said, I would be happier if the License Commission still had a role in at least reviewing these things and effecting compromises when appropriate. There is also a level of ambiguity in the proposal when it says “within the perimeter of their business.” Does this include outdoor patios? What about the case of relatively loud acoustic performance in a location abutting a residence – possibly where someone is working from home like so many of us are doing these days?
Order #7. That the City Manager and staff be requested to examine car storage policies and discuss potential updates with the City Council at a meeting of the Transportation Committee. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan
Order Adopted 9-0
Regardless of any other merits this proposal may have, let’s at least be aware of the fact that it proposes to eliminate residential and commercial parking minimums citywide and (though it doesn’t explicitly say so) significantly jacking up residential parking permit fees. So if you do choose to own a motor vehicle there will be greater competition for on-street parking and significantly greater expense for the “privilege” of doing so.
Committee Report #2. Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee – Committee Meeting – May 26, 2021 at 10:00am.
Report Accepted, Placed on File, Order Adopted 9-0
The purpose of the meeting was to consider the reappointment of Conrad Crawford to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board (slam dunk) and to discuss the pilot of street closures in Harvard Square. Street closure discussions in Cambridge are often a witch’s brew of "ban cars" sentiments and creative ideas for improving street life and local retail. The bottom line is that emergency vehicles still need to get through, and it is often the case that when you ban vehicles from one street it becomes just a game of "Whack-A-Mole" when the vehicles simply shift to alternate routes. The Great Exceptions to this are those streets that have been designated (or should be designated) as "woonerfs" – a Dutch term for what is essentially a shared, low volume street. In Cambridge, think Winthrop Street (by Grendel’s Den), Palmer Street (Club Passim), and the yet-to-be made spectacular Blanche Street at the edge of Central Square (which is still just a delivery alley at best). There are some other streets that could be operated as shared streets or ban all but emergency vehicles without creating a cascading vehicular hellscape. Making Palmer Street an interesting street (and not just artsy fartsy) would be a good place to start. Even a hot dog vendor would be a great improvement.
Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting information about Homelessness Working Group.
Placed on File 9-0
There is no doubt that more is needed in this arena, but these investigations can end up as reports on shelves – and the simple truth is that these are regional problems and when one well-meaning city like Cambridge does things to address these problems it often ends up paradoxically increasing the problems in that city as individuals migrate to where the enhanced services are to be found. For example, when Boston cracks down on Methadone Mile, some of that just relocates to Central Square. – Robert Winters
