Here are my choices for the notable stuff:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2022.
19 Orders Adopted; Reconsideration Fails 0-9
80%-10%-10%. Never changes.
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for approval to submit an amendment to the proposed Home Rule Petition for a special law regarding a fire cadet program for the City of Cambridge Fire Department.
Order Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Just a technical revision for clarity.
Order #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department, the City Solicitor, and other appropriate City staff to compile a report detailing the efforts the City has made toward creating LGBTQ+-Friendly Housing over the past decade, to state what impediments had been identified in realizing this effort, and to outline recommendations for how the City may successfully create such housing within the next three years. Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0
I still don’t understand the intent of this, though apparently the legal opinion that this “might violate federal fair-housing laws” has led to a more “affirmative action” alternative rather than the previous segregated housing proposal which seemed fundamentally regressive.
Order #4. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to work with the Public Health Department and report back to the City Council on the milestones that will be used to determine when the indoor mask mandate will no longer be needed. Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
This Order is primarily a request for public information, i.e. “it would be helpful for the community to know how decisions are made and what specific milestones need to be achieved.” At first glance I thought it was yet another attempt by inexpert councillors to micromanage our public health professionals. I actually would love to know what the milestones will be – and I hope they come real soon.
Order #5. That section 11.202(b) of Article 11.000 of the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the linkage fee, be amended by substitution. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern
Referred to Housing Committee, Ordinance Committee, and Planning Board 9-0 as Amended
Our “squeeze ’em ’til it hurts” councillors are proposing to increase in one giant leap the Incentive Zoning Linkage Fee from the current $20.10 per square foot to $33.34 per square foot for new commercial developments of more than 30,000 square feet of gross floor area. That’s a 66% increase. The fee sat at $4.58 per square foot of new commercial development from 1988 to 2015 when it was increased to $12 per square foot plus periodic annual and CPI adjustments that brought it to the current $20.10 per square foot in 2020.
Order #6. Council Support of H.926, The Massachusetts Schoolchildren Pesticide Protection Act. Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
This is absolutely a good idea, but it’s always worth remembering that prior to the (hopefully thoughtful and cautious) use of pesticides and other means to combat food-borne pathogens, sickness and death as well as some cancers (notably stomach cancer) were very common. The Modern World giveth and taketh away.
Order #7. That the City Council urges the US Congress to fulfill its obligation to prevent nuclear war, as outlined in the Back from the Brink campaign. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0 as Amended
So good to see the Cambridge City Council engaging again in what it does best – national and foreign policy.
Order #9. That the City Council schedule a hearing of the Ordinance Committee for the purposes of amending the Ordinance of the City of Cambridge regarding MUNICIPAL BUILDING PERMITS and WAGE THEFT. Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern
Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0
Among other things, it’s interesting that in this proposal the City Council is already presuming to have veto power over City Manager appointments. Also, the proposed “Wage Theft Enforcement Committee” would require that “No less than half the committee members shall be Cambridge residents, and no less than half shall be union/labor representatives.” In other words, existing labor unions would control all proposed enforcement.
I will note that even in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance there is no mention of any union requirements. Indeed, a search for the word “union” in the Zoning Ordinance returns no results.
Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee met on July 14, 2021 to discuss car storage policies in Cambridge.
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
The Cambridge City Council’s never-ending war on motor vehicles continues. Councillor Zondervan stated that “car storage is one of the worst land uses cities employ and hopes to achieve zero car storage and usage through policy regime.” Councillor Zondervan has a parking space on his property.
Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from City Clerk, Anthony I. Wilson, transmitting memorandums from City Solicitor, Nancy E. Glowa regarding Minor Correction to Ballot Question No. 3 Which Is to be Placed on the Nov 2, 2021 Ballot Pursuant to Calendar Item No. 3 of 6/28/21. [Note: Date of Election Day corrected – RW]
Amended text Approved 9-0; Report Placed on File 9-0
There is much that can be said on this topic and I will continue to do so in the days to come. The most significant change is the proposal to effectively give a bare majority of the City Council the right to control 100% of the membership of all City boards and commissions. So much for representation of minority viewpoints or, for that matter, expertise from anyone other than those favored by 5 councillors.
As further evidence of the shoddy work of the proponents of these ballot questions, the proposal that would require annual performance reviews of the city manager (which, by the way, they already have the power to do) would amend section 116 of the Plan E Charter that has to do with “General election laws; applicability” even though this proposed change has zero to do with elections. It seems pretty obvious that this should more properly amend section 103 that concerns “City manager; appointment; qualifications; compensation; removal.” Reading is apparently a lost art.
Personally, I feel that the primary intention of these “reforms” is simply to transfer some measure of executive power away from the city manager to the legislature (City Council) – which is supposed to be a policy-making body. The other two ballot questions are superfluous. It’s also worth noting that there was essentially zero public process leading up to the Council’s decision to place these particular questions on this November’s municipal ballot. There are potentially some good amendments to the Charter that could have been considered (for example, modifying the PR elections to eliminate ballot order dependence), but those were never discussed. – Robert Winters