Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

April 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 545-546: April 19, 2022

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]

February 4, 2022

City Council Campaign Receipts, Bank Reports, $/Vote – 2021

Filed under: 2021 election,Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 8:55 am

Follow the money….

Money!Here’s the final tally of campaign receipts for candidates for City Council in the 2021 municipal election as well as Political Action Committees who backed candidates in the municipal election. Only late reported data and error corrections will be made after this point.

I have always found the pattern of campaign receipts to be a strong indicator of which candidates are likely to seek reelection and which candidates are pursuing this goal most aggressively. It must be emphasized that aggressive fundraising should never be misinterpreted as quality of any given candidate.

Here’s the latest account of the (a) total receipts, (b) Cambridge contributions, (c) contributions by candidate to own campaign, (d) union contributions, (e) real estate contributions (as best as I could discern), and (f) total of union and real estate money contributed over this election cycle starting from Feb 1, 2020 through Jan 31, 2022 (a full two-year election cycle) for all City Council candidates (notes: – receipts include loans from candidates to their campaigns; refunds deducted if clearly a refund):

Note to candidates and campaigns: If you feel that anything in these tables is not correct, please contact me at election2021@cambridgecivic.com to make your case. Reasonable requests only.

You can sort on any field by clicking on the field name – in increasing order on the 1st click and in decreasing order on the 2nd click.

Total Receipts

Table of reported City Council campaign receipts (Feb 1, 2020 - Jan 31, 2022 - a full two-year election cycle)
Total Receipts, Cambridge Receipts, Self-funding, Unions, Real Estate
Last updated Apr 27, 5:35pm.
[Note: The figures shown for Nicola Williams required some correction due to very poor record-keeping, duplicate entries, etc. by the campaign Treasurer. There are likely still errors to be corrected.]
Candidate (and PACs)ReceiptsCambridgePctSelfunionsPctReal EstatePctunions+REPct
Toner, Paul$76,707.00$38,980.0050.8%$5,025.00$5,600.007.3%$11,625.0015.2%$17,225.0022.5%
Zondervan, Quinton$71,129.90$52,490.1873.8%$17,000.00$500.000.7%$0.000.0%$500.000.7%
Simmons, E. Denise$67,899.99$32,772.0048.3%$0.00$6,100.009.0%$18,200.0026.8%$24,300.0035.8%
McGovern, Marc C.$66,284.21$33,925.0051.2%$0.00$10,350.0015.6%$13,175.0019.9%$23,525.0035.5%
Williams, Nicola A.$58,415.40$43,775.2174.9%$7,780.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Skeadas, Theodora$48,374.40$8,321.0017.2%$3.90$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Mallon, Alanna$41,596.02$25,514.5761.3%$136.00$5,500.0013.2%$3,850.009.3%$9,350.0022.5%
Siddiqui, Sumbul$40,070.03$28,310.4370.7%$0.00$3,000.007.5%$500.001.2%$3,500.008.7%
Carlone, Dennis$39,358.47$29,596.0575.2%$0.00$750.001.9%$0.000.0%$750.001.9%
Nolan, Patricia M.$37,491.00$27,082.0072.2%$0.00$1,000.002.7%$499.001.3%$1,499.004.0%
Azeem, Burhan$37,402.10$24,925.1066.6%$14,000.00$500.001.3%$0.000.0%$500.001.3%
CCC - IEPAC$32,855.00$32,855.00100.0%$0.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jivan$30,977.11$15,722.0850.8%$2,177.88$3,250.0010.5%$0.000.0%$3,250.0010.5%
McGuirk, Joe$27,187.81$9,866.2136.3%$10.00$1,500.005.5%$850.003.1%$2,350.008.6%
Hicks, Tonia$19,607.777112.9436.3%$120.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
ABC - IEPAC$18,594.00$14,555.0078.3%$0.00$0.000.0%$200.001.1%$200.001.1%
Bullister, Dana$15,047.01$8,199.0154.5%$5,399.01$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Eckstut, Robert$10,452.00$1,120.0010.7%$720.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
ORC - PAC$4,860.00$4,860.00100.0%$0.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
BikeSafety-PAC$4,231.00$3,275.0077.4%$0.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
ABC - PAC$1,280.00$1,130.0088.3%$0.00$0.000.0%$50.003.9%$50.003.9%
CResA - PAC$1,045.00$1,045.000.0%$0.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Pierre, Frantz$250.00$50.0020.0%$0.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Moree, Gregg$100.00$100.00100.0%$100.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Levy, Ilan S.$0.00$0.000.0%$0.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
CCC - PAC$0.00$0.000.0%$0.00$0.000.0%$0.000.0%$0.000.0%
Total$751,215.22$445,581.7859.3%$52,471.79$38,050.005.1%$48,949.006.5%$86,999.0011.6%

Source: Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF)

ABC-PAC: “A Better Cambridge Political Action Committee” [dissolved 4/14/21 in favor of ABC-IEPAC]
ABC-IEPAC: “A Better Cambridge Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee”
BikeSafety-IEPAC: “Cambridge Bicycle Safety Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee”
CCC-PAC: “Cambridge Citizens Coalition Political Action Committee” [dissolved 11/5/21 in favor of CCC-IEPAC]
CCC-IEPAC: “Cambridge Citizens Coalition Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee”
CResA-PAC: “Democracy for Cambridge Political Action Committee” – Cambridge Residents Alliance
ORC-PAC: “Our Revolution Cambridge Political Action Committee”

Note: Late support from two additional Independent Expenditure PACs (IEPAC) associated with Liam Kerr has been reported for two candidates:
Priorities for Progress IEPAC – $3000 toward Paul Toner (Novus Group, digital advertisements)
Democrats for Education Reform IEPAC – $2500 toward Patricia Nolan (Novus Group, digital advertisements)


Bank Reports and $ per #1 Vote

Bank Reports 2021 - Cambridge City Council Candidates and PACs
Last updated Feb 4, 1:00pm
CandidateFromToStartReceiptsExpendBalanceAs Of#1 Votes$/#1 Vote
ABC-PAC02/01/2004/14/21$2,051.88$1,229.43$3,281.31$0.0004/14/21
ABC-IEPAC02/17/2110/31/21$0.00$18,424.00$11,178.25$7,245.7511/01/21
CCC-PAC02/01/2010/31/21$5,142.82$0.00$5,142.82$0.0011/04/21
CCC-IEPAC01/01/2112/31/21$0.00$32,855.00$32,512.40$342.6001/05/22
CResA-PAC02/01/2001/31/22$456.16$2,041.56$1,419.26$1,078.4602/03/22
BikeSafety-IEPAC02/01/2010/20/21$0.00$3,861.00$0.00$3,861.0010/20/21
ORC-PAC02/01/2001/31/22$60.00$4,860.10$4,433.08$487.0202/01/22
Azeem, Burhan02/01/2001/31/22$53.68$38,646.06$38,307.13$392.6102/03/221379$27.78
Bullister, Dana11/01/2001/31/22$0.00$15,071.40$14,930.41$140.9902/04/22520$28.71
Carlone, Dennis02/01/2001/31/22$7,231.04$40,784.41$35,958.09$12,057.3602/01/221493$24.08
Eckstut, Robert05/12/2101/31/22$0.00$9,886.39$9,688.13$198.2602/01/2270$138.40
Hicks, Tonia11/01/2001/31/22$0.00$19,079.01$17,277.12$1,801.8902/01/22363$47.60
Levy, Ilan02/01/2001/31/22$54.78$0.00$51.00$3.7802/01/2297$0.53
Mallon, Alanna02/01/2001/31/22$4,944.73$40,630.07$39,879.65$5,695.1502/03/221220$32.69
McGovern, Marc02/01/2001/31/22$11,356.02$67,758.37$65,477.31$13,637.0802/02/221539$42.55
McGuirk, Joe12/01/2001/31/22$0.00$26,359.48$23,853.41$2,506.0702/01/22611$39.04
Moree, Gregg12/31/2011/30/21$0.00$100.00$100.00$0.0012/06/2180$1.25
Nolan, Patty02/01/2001/31/22$6,855.33$36,922.69$30,637.02$13,141.0002/01/221971$15.54
Pierre, Frantz11/01/2012/31/21$0.00$3,336.17$2,312.83$1,023.3401/04/22355$6.52
Siddiqui, Sumbul02/01/2001/31/22$15,318.99$40,290.95$35,863.41$19,746.5302/01/224124$8.70
Simmons, Denise02/01/2001/31/22$8,662.33$66,729.02$60,207.29$15,184.0602/01/221764$34.13
Skeadas, Theodora02/01/2101/31/22$0.00$46,663.79$46,008.27$655.5202/01/22813$56.59
Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jivan02/01/2001/31/22$2,103.89$30,001.90$31,048.50$1,057.2902/01/221225$25.35
Toner, Paul02/01/2001/31/22$156.57$75,858.01$74,637.07$1,377.5102/01/221703$43.83
Williams, Nicola A.02/01/2001/31/22$262.21$61,089.46$60,934.55$417.1202/01/221159$52.58
Zondervan, Quinton02/01/2001/31/22$256.49$70,872.25$70,347.73$781.0102/01/221295$54.32

2021 Cambridge Candidate Pages

January 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 533-534: January 18, 2022

Episode 533 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 18, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 18, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Police Commissioner Christine Elow and some history of Chief vs. Commissioner; optimistic Covid update; bikes & buses – controversy and alternatives; ideology within Community Development Department; future prospects. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 534 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 18, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 18, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Filibuster and the value of slow legislation; Charter questions – past, present, and future; Envision history; Charter Change while seeking new City Manager, City Clerk (and City Auditor); proportional representation (PR) realities and distortions by single-issue politics; role of planning within CDD vs. responding to partisan petitions; PR revisions for fractional transfers should be part of future Charter revision discussions. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 15, 2022

Election Method Comparison – STV/Cincinnati vs. Fractional Transfer – 2021 Cambridge City Council Election

Filed under: 2021 election,Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:03 pm

It has been suggested at various times that Cambridge should consider modifications to its current proportional representation election method – especially in regard to its method of distribution of surplus #1 votes using the “Cincinnati Method” which is dependent on the order in which ballots are initially tabulated. An alternate method that is often suggested (but rarely explained) is known as “Fractional Transfer” and various other names. Indeed, the tabulation software currently used by Cambridge (ChoicePlusPro) has Fractional Transfer as its default method, and our own “Cambridge Rules” must be invoked for our local Cambridge elections. The Election Quota is calculated in the same manner, i.e. the total number of valid ballots divided by one more than the number to be elected, rounded up to the nearest integer (or add 1 if a whole number).Vote!

There are several key differences between the Cambridge Rules and Fractional Transfer:
(1) Under the Cambridge Rules, any overvote where the same rank is given to more than one candidate is ignored. Under Fractional Transfer, overvotes may be counted (for example if 4 candidates are given a #1 vote they would each get 0.25 votes) or they may be ignored. This is a choice that would have to be made.

(2) Under the Cambridge Rules, surplus #1 votes are redistributed to the next highest ranked continuing candidates as whole ballots where the whole ballots are chosen via the Cincinnati Method, i.e. every nth ballot where n is the nearest integer to the quotient of the total and the number of surplus ballots. For example, if Quota was 2000 and a candidate had 2600 #1 votes, there would be 600 surplus votes and 2600/600 would be approximately 4.3 and the ballots chosen for redistribution would be (in sequence) #4, #8, #12, etc. Any surplus ballot with no valid next preference would not be transferable and would remain with the #1 choice. Thus there can be no “exhausted” ballots during the surplus distribution. The distribution of surplus ballots continues until the elected candidate’s number of votes is reduced to the Election Quota. If during this surplus distribution another candidate reaches Quota, that candidate would be declared elected and would no longer be eligible to receive additional ballots with any subsequent ballots transferred to the next preference candidate on that ballot still eligible to receive transfers. There are thus two ways in which the initial ballot order can affect the election results – the specific ballots chosen for redistribution and the point at which any other candidate reaches Quota.

Under Fractional Transfer, any elected candidate with surplus votes would have a fraction of ALL ballots transferred to the next preferred continuing candidate with a corresponding weight. For example, if the Quota was 2000 and the candidate had 2500 votes (so the surplus would be 500), then ALL of that candidates ballots would be transferred to the next preferred candidate with a weight of 1/5 or 0.2 with the elected candidate retaining 0.8 of all of all ballots – thus reducing the total to the election quota. In the case where there is no valid next preference, that weight (0.2 in the example) would be exhausted, so there can be ballot exhaustion during the surplus distribution in order for the election to be independent of ballot order. If another candidate reaches Quota during this distribution (or any subsequent surplus distribution), the distribution will continue allowing the newly elected candidate to exceed Quota. A subsequent count will then take place to also reduce that candidates total down to Quota – again transferring a fraction of ALL of that candidate’s ballots in the same manner. Any candidate who has reached Quota at the end of any round is declared elected and becomes ineligible to receive transfers.

(3) Under the Cambridge Rules, after all #1 vote surpluses have been fully distributed, the next Round is the “Under 50” Round where all candidates with fewer than 50 votes at that point are simultaneously defeated and all ballots transferred to next preferred eligible candidates or exhausted if there is no additional valid choice.

Under Fractional Transfer, all candidates who have been “mathematically eliminated” are defeated simultaneously. This means that the sum of all of the votes of those candidates at that point is less than the number of votes for the next lowest candidate. If any continuing candidate reaches Quota during this round, that candidate is declared elected at the end of the round, and any surplus ballots are subsequently redistributed in a subsequent round.

(4) Under the Cambridge Rules, the remainder of the process is a series of runoffs where the candidate with the fewest votes at the end of each round is defeated and all of that candidate’s ballots are transferred to the next highest ranked continuing candidate or exhausted. This continues until the required number of candidates have been elected either by reaching Quota or by having not been defeated at the point where the requisite number of candidates have not been defeated. If any candidate reaches Quota during a round, that candidate is declared elected and is no longer eligible to receive additional ballots. This is another way in which the original ordering of ballots can affect the election outcome. After the initial #1 surplus distributions, no candidate can ever have more than the Election Quota of ballots.

Under Fractional Transfer, the election proceeds in much the same way via a series of runoffs, but whenever a candidate reaches Quota during a round, the count continues until all of the defeated candidate’s ballots have been transferred or exhausted, and any surplus ballots of an elected candidate are transferred in a subsequent surplus distribution round to reduce that elected candidate’s total to Quota. This process continues until the number of candidates is reduced to the number to be elected. In the final round some candidates may go over Quota, but the standard rule is that the election is declared to be complete at that point without any additional surplus distribution.

(5) Under the Cambridge Rules, if a vacancy occurs, the vacancy is filled via a “Vacancy Recount” using only the Quota of ballots that were used to elect that candidate. This is simply a series of runoffs to elect one candidate where all candidates not previously elected are eligible to receive votes (but not including any votes previously received in the original election).

There is no established rule for how a vacancy would be filled under Fractional Transfer. It could be done in the same manner as the Cambridge Rules, but candidates elected in the final round might have a substantial number of surplus ballots compared to any candidates elected during previous rounds all of whom would have exactly a Quota of ballots.

Here is a comparison of three methods for the most recent (2021) Cambridge City Council election: (1) the official results using the Cambridge Rules; (2) Fractional Transfer with overvotes included; and (3) Fractional Transfer with all overvotes ignored. As you can see, the same candidates are elected with the order of election differing slightly and the rounds somewhat different due to differences in the rules – most notably in the introduction of surplus distributions after any candidate reaches Quota during a round.

Official Count:
CouncilFinal2021

Fractional Transfer including overvotes:
Fractional2021

Fractional Transfer – No Overvotes:
Fractional2021NoOvervotes

January 5, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 531-532: January 4, 2022

Episode 531 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 4, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 4, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Inauguration and Election of Mayor; history of mayoral elections; Plague Report and forecast; committee appointments pending; civility pledge; work vs. inflammatory posturing; prospects for new councillors; failure to produce committee reports; cleaning up old business prior to taking up new business. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 532 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 4, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 4, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Looking ahead; competing proposals for alternate police response; Chapter 30B and contracting for alternatives for police response; HEART proposal – no experience, no qualifications; no expertise; search for City Manager and City Clerk; housing/zoning alternatives, form-based zoning; ideology/movements vs. good ideas and compromise; role of councillors as eyes, ears, thermometer of resident views and concerns vs. imposing ideology on residents. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 22, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 529-530: December 21, 2021

Episode 529 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 21, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Dec 21, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Obscurity of Zoom; parting resolutions (esp. Tim Toomey); alarming increase in Covid positive tests and potential new restrictions; City Manager search status with City Clerk search coming; hazardous political environment; clearing out the dead wood at the end of a City Council term. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 530 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 21, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Dec 21, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Mayoral prospects and the coming inaugurations; transition and some truth about election results; need for cooperation and de-poisoning of the political waters; the consequences of initiatives passed under the cover of darkness (Zoom); the “OK, Boomer” dynamic of playing to one lobby over all other concerns; “processing to death” vs. “running over all opposing views”; campaign finance limits ordained, changing traditions, and running on purity. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 8, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 527-528: Dec 7, 2021

Episode 527 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 7, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Dec 7, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Covid-19 updates; Bike Lane Battles, confirmation bias of studies, and some history of bicycle advocacy; campaign finance limitations and City Council contorted rhetoric. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 528 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 7, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Dec 7, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Zoom reflections; campaign finance facts & fallacies; Battles of Righteousness – virtue signalling and hypocrisy; policy orders as policies and not mandates; strong mayor vs. city manager systems; Awaiting Report Forever; tribunals for board appointments coming soon. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

December 5, 2021

Preview of December 6, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting – T Minus Two Meetings

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,covid — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 1:35 pm

Preview of December 6, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting – T Minus Two Meetings

The Pandemic Council Term is winding down even as the Omicron Variant is winding up for the next term. I fully expect another two years of coronagendas pushed through under the Shadow of Zoom.Running Down the Clock

Here are a few items of possible interest for this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (Nolan – ABSENT)

Suffice to say that the latest rates of positive tests have been quite alarming – even though fatalities have become quite rare (as he searches for wood on which to vigorously knock). I would very much appreciate more information about where the increased positive tests are rooted. It appears as though the university populations and younger people are the chief contributors, but many of us would like more clarity.


Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as new members of the Family Policy Council effective Dec 1, 2021: Wendy Georgan, Tabithlee Howard, Sophie Goldman, Elijah Lee-Robinson, Elaine Wen
Placed on File 9-0

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the City Solicitor to draft the appropriate ordinance amendments for the City Council to review following the recent charter amendments.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Simmons – ABSENT)

<sarcasm>I believe we need to see a report detailing the status of each of these appointees in terms of ethnic representativeness, rental status, and philosophy regarding housing density. After all, Family Policy is Housing Policy. Please wait until after January 1 to refer these appointments to the Civic Unity Committee.</sarcasm>

I am looking forward to seeing how the tribunals will be structured for the evaluation of the worthiness of citizen volunteers by a panel of clueless and politically motivated councillors. Meanwhile, all I have heard regarding the rather important matter of choosing the next City Manager is a throng of crickets.


Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-88, regarding amendments to the draft Ordinance to limit and monitor campaign donations by individuals seeking financial benefit from the City of Cambridge. [Solicitor’s response]
Referred to Proposed Ordinance 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

On the Table #1. That the City Council adopt a municipal ordinance to reduce or limit campaign donations from donors seeking to enter into a contract, seeking approval for a special permit or up-zoning, seeking to acquire real estate from the city, or seeking financial assistance from the city; Ordinance #2020-27. [Tabled – Nov 8, 2021]
Taken from Table 9-0; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended 7-2 (Simmons, Toomey – NO)

On the Table #2. That the attached Home Petition titled “Petition For An Act Authorizing The City Of Cambridge To Enact An Ordinance To Limit And Monitor Campaign Donations In Local Elections By Individuals Seeking Financial Reward From The City Of Cambridge” be forwarded to the General Court for adoption. [Tabled – Nov 8, 2021]
Taken from Table 9-0; Placed Back on Table 8-0-0-1 (Simmons – PRESENT)

For what it’s worth, I don’t actually support these restrictions. I’m all for disclosure, and I do my best to help illuminate campaign donations, but the forced imposition of restrictions like those in the proposed ordinance is a slippery slope that serves no useful purpose and is based on the loosiest and goosiest of interpretations and carve-outs for politically acceptable influence-purchasing. Every candidate is free to refuse donations from any source or to highlight the acceptance of those donations by their competitors.

And just to piss off anyone who continues to lose sleep over the Citizens United case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, I actually agree that the right to raise and spend money falls under the category of “free speech”. That said, I think everyone should cast a suspicious eye toward Super-PACs, Independent Expenditure PACs (which, lets face it, often aren’t all that independent of the candidates they support), and any other vehicle used to purchase election victories. Perhaps a more relevant pursuit would be to ensure that all credible candidates are guaranteed widely accessible free platforms via which voters can get to know them.

Some of the most lavishly-funded campaigns derive their treasures not from “individuals seeking financial reward from the City of Cambridge” but from highly-paid professionals who enjoy great access and influence with the councillors they support. I will add that I find it endlessly entertaining to listen to the rhetorical contortions of councillors arguing both sides of this issue. Everyone is always looking for an edge.


Communications #1-6 all address concerns about the recent N. Mass. Ave. bus and bike lane installation and its impacts on traffic and commercial viability.Traffic - North Mass Ave - photo from Save Mass Ave site

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with appropriate departments on what the standard public process will be prior to implementing new sections of bike lanes, and what general evaluation process will take place post-installation.   Councillor Toomey, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

The problem, of course, is that the City Council passed amendments to the Bike Safety Ordinance that essentially limits public process to little more than a discussion over the color of the flex posts. Considerations of such things as the viability of businesses, traffic congestion, and even actual bike safety must take a back seat to everything except perceived safety and the comfort of cyclists.

Order #3. That the Cambridge City Council condemns, in the strongest possible terms, any actions that may result in the physical injury of any individual, regardless of their support or non-support, of the bike/bus lane implementation on Massachusetts Avenue.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 7-0-0-2 (Simmons, Toomey – PRESENT)

To any idiot who thinks that you can advance your cause by spreading tacks or bricks or broken glass in bike lanes: Violence is a poor substitute for reason, persistence, or even mockery. Try winning your argument with wit and wisdom instead. Even if you don’t prevail you can still live with your conscience (assuming you have one).


Order #2. City Council opposition to the MBTA’s plans to introduce new diesel infrastructure at the North Cambridge Garage and buses with diesel heaters.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Placed on File (motion of Mallon) 8-1 (Zondervan – NO)

Order #6. That the City Clerk is requested to forward the Home Rule Petition establishing a Net Zero emissions requirement for building construction in Cambridge in accordance with its Net Zero Action Plan, adopted in 2015, to the entire state legislative delegation for immediate adoption.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone
Charter Right – Zondervan

I will soon be getting insulation pumped into all the outer walls of my building, and I think most Cambridge property owners are receptive to greater energy efficiency in their buildings. That said, I am always suspicious of actions by the City Council that may potentially lead to dramatic increases in the cost of home renovations.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft home rule language to establish a Cambridge Jobs Creation Trust for City Council review by the Dec 20, 2021 regular City Council meeting.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

It sure seems as though this City Council is poised to jack up the linkage fee on new commercial developments as high as legally possible regardless of the intended or unintended consequences. Any reasonable person likely supports job creation for residents, but the proposed Cambridge Jobs Creation Trust seems more like a justification for an increase in the linkage fee than anything else.

Order #9. That a special meeting of the City Council, School Committee, Cambridge Health Department and other appropriate city and school staff be scheduled to discuss the findings of the 2021 Cambridge Teen Health Survey for Middle and High School students and what immediate interventions are going to be implemented in response to concerns.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Carlone – ABSENT)

Suffice to say that the statements “46% of high school students and 31% of middle school students reported feeling tense, nervous, or worried every day for two or more weeks in a row” and “35% of high school students and 27% of middle school students reported feeling so sad or hopeless almost every day for 2 weeks or more that they stopped doing usual activities” may well apply to a lot of people at various times during the pandemic. – Robert Winters

Comments?

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress