Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

May 10, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Manager’s Agenda tonight features significant public investment items – primarily authorizations to borrow for infrastructure projects. Here’s the list:

Mgr #8. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $5,250,000 to continue sewer projects in the Harvard Square, Cambridgeport, and Alewife Watershed areas of the City.

Mgr #9. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $700,000 to provide funds to replace the existing artificial turf on the soccer field at Danehy Park as well as resurfacing the 400 meter running track.

Mgr #10. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,000,000 to provide funds to fund the reconstruction of JFK Street between Eliot and Brattle Streets.

Mgr #11. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $2,500,000 to provide funds to fund the first phase of the reconstruction of the Harvard Square Tunnel (Cambridge Street Underpass).

Mgr #12. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $500,000 to provide funds to fund the design of the restoration of the Kendall Square area on Main Street between Broadway and Ames Street.

Mgr #13. Appropriation and authorization to borrow $1,500,000 to provide funds for improvements to several City buildings including the East Cambridge and Inman Square Fire Stations, Ryan Garage at Public Works, Central Square Library, and several elementary schools.

There should be “suitably engrossed” awards in gilded folders given to city councillors who generate excessive numbers of suitably engrossed resolutions at (I believe) around $5 a pop. This week’s runner-up award goes to Mayor Maher for his 11 identical resolutions to various people for “passing the Massachusetts Department of Public Health written and performance test for the position of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA).” The top prize this week goes to Councillor Simmons for her 51 (I’m not kidding) nearly identical resolutions to people for their “work on the Prince Hall Memorial Committee.” Good thing she has that aide to help with such important “research” matters like this. By the way, did I mention that the single biggest jump in department budget over a five year span was for the City Council. So many resolutions, so little time.

Councillor Decker has another Vanity Order this week:

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to determine with due consideration for, among other things, return on investment, to what extent it is reasonable to not participate in any business activities substantially connected with the State of Arizona, municipalities in Arizona, and other business entities in Arizona or conducting substantial business in Arizona.   Councillor Decker

Regardless of the merits of the Arizona law, it’s arrogant for an elected official in the northeast to weigh in on matters in a border state whose issues she can’t even begin to appreciate. Besides, it’s hard to imagine the City of Cambridge having any investments in Arizona, so this really is just a Vanity Order.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and commission heads to develop a standard set of resources, facility privileges, tools, and barebones operating budget the unfunded commissions may use in their work of enacting Council policy.  Councillor Cheung

Essentially all Cambridge citizen boards and commissions work closely with one or more City departments which provide support for these boards. Councillor Cheung’s Order focuses primarily on “the capability for all commissions to post and maintain an email distribution list” and seems to suggest that the capacity for this should be made available on City servers rather than via such services as YahooGroups and GoogleGroups. This does raise the inevitable issue of public records. Clearly, if City servers are involved then any and all communications are potentially available as public records. It’s not clear if this is the case for communications among members on outside servers. Another consideration is that with an outside service the group “owner” can freely moderate the group and even delete some communications. This probably would not be permitted if hosted on City servers as it may constitute “destroying a public record.” Perhaps things are better left as they are.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to update the City Council on the impact of the MWRA water pipe rupture on the Charles River in Cambridge.  Councillor Seidel

Actually, Councillor Seidel’s Order asks about two incidents: the recent MWRA break in Weston and a February 2010 diesel spill in the Lower Charles River Basin. While I cannot speak to the latter, I can say with some confidence that the Weston break had no impact whatsoever on Cambridge other than to highlight the great advantage of having our own independent water supply. As it turns out, I was leading a group of 40 hikers that day (May 1) along a section of the Sudbury Aqueduct in Wellesley and telling the history of Boston Water and about how this aqueduct was last used about 35 years ago and was still maintained for use in a “catastrophic emergency”. Little did I know that such an emergency was unfolding even as I spoke and that by day’s end the Sudbury Aqueduct would be back in service during the emergency. — Robert Winters

April 5, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Council returns tonight with a very full agenda. For starters, the City Manager provides 15 responses out of 25 pending City Council requests for information – a nice spring cleaning. These reports cover such topics as traffic, Google, the census, airplane noise, Lechmere, a proposed zoning amendment, Central Square, affordable housing, web video on the City website, bedbugs, telephone books as free speech, and weatherization. The Manager also reports that the new Election Commission Executive Director will be Tanya Ford who comes to us from Bethpage, Long Island. There’s still no word on the pending appointment for one of the Democrat seats on the Election Commission, but Alexandra Detjens has been appointed to the Police Review & Advisory Board. Recommendations from the Green Building/Zoning Task Force round out a very full agenda from the Manager.

Regarding the Council’s Agenda, there are these two related items:

Reconsideration #1. Councillor Kelley filed reconsideration on the adoption of Order Number Eight of Mar 22, 2010 as amended to place on the table and refer to the Government Operations and Rules Committee the proposal to amend the City Council rules to replace the Health and Environment Committee with two committees, the Community Health Committee and the Sustainable Environment Committee.

Committee Report #1. 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 meeting held on Mar 25, 2010 for the purpose of discussing dividing the Health and Environment Committee into two committees, one to focus on health issues and the other on environmental and sustainability issues.

Though really just a formality, the discussion of this modification to the City Council committees degenerated into accusations of political shenanigans at the previous meeting. The apparent cause of this kerfuffle seems to be that Mr. Reeves is peeved at not being appointed Chair of the Economic Development Committee (Councillor Cheung got that honor) and this led to some “acting out” over this apparently unrelated modification. In truth, the split into the Community Health Committee and the Environment Committee makes sense and all of the councillors seem to acknowledge this. Councillor Kelley still seems to think that all the committee need to be “rejiggered”, but this point of view does not extend beyond him.

The previous City Council meeting on March 22 ended with 8 Orders made subject to the Charter Right and carried over to the April 5 meeting. These include:

Charter Right #1. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey on Order Number Twelve of Mar 22, 2010 requesting the City Manager to direct the new Executive Director of the Police Review Advisory Board to submit a report to the City Council detailing what are perceived to be the issues of greatest importance that the Police Review Advisory Board must focus on, and that this report should be submitted to the City Council no later than 90 days from the adoption of this order.

This was an Order from Councillor Simmons that seems directed at the relevance and purpose of the PRAB in the wake of its relative irrelevance in last summer’s “Great Gatescapade”. Together with this week’s Order #6 calling for an Executive Session on the still-unresolved Monteiro case, the appointment of a 5th member to the PRAB, and some dissatisfaction with the Gatescapade-inspired Review Committee, there seems to be more than enough kindling to start a political fire.

Charter Right #5. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey on Order Number Seventeen of Mar 22, 2010 requesting the City Manager to report back to the City Council on the feasibility of adopting a Pay-As-You-Throw program in Cambridge.

See comments from the last meeting. Basically, this is a good idea for promoting recycling and waste reduction in many communities, but any additional benefits may be limited in a city like Cambridge which is already doing reasonably well in these areas compared to many other cities and which may do better if the next contract includes single-stream collection and processing of recyclable materials.

Charter Right #6. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Toomey on Order Number Eighteen of Mar 22, 2010 requesting the City Manager to direct the City Solicitor to report back to the City Council with options for amending the city ordinance to allow for the Manager to permit civic organizations to use public space after hours.

This was introduced in advance of a planned sleep-out on the Cambridge Common a week ago. They came, they slept, and they marched the following day without incident. It seems unnecessary to change an ordinance when a little discretion in enforcement seems more than adequate.

Applications & Petitions #7. A zoning petition has been received from Boston Properties, requesting that City Council amend the Zoning Ordinance and Map relating to the Mixed Use Development District Section 14.32.1 and 14.32.2 located between Main Street and Broadway.

It’s unclear what this zoning amendment is really about except that it emphasizes the definition of a “Smart Growth/Underutilized Area” in the heart of Kendall Square. One can’t help but think this means that Boston Properties wants to more intensely develop within this area. Let’s hope the councillors do their homework and ask the appropriate questions when this goes to the Ordinance Committee.

The City Council Orders include a few potentially controversial or otherwise interesting items. For example:

Order #5. That this City Council go on record requesting that Harvard and MIT cease further layoffs and any cuts in hours, salary or benefits and engage in an open and transparent dialogue with all stakeholders including staff and the community.   Councillor Decker and Councillor Cheung

The impact of such an City Council Order is likely zero. It would be nice if the sponsors would provide tangible evidence that these personnel decisions of the universities are being made for any reason other than economic necessity.

Order #6. That the Mayor be and hereby is requested to convene the City Council in Executive Session with relevant City and support staff at the earliest opportunity to discuss ongoing litigation, to include the Monteiro and Idenix cases.   Councillor Kelley

It’s certainly good for the City Council to get periodic updates regarding ongoing litigation, but it’s never clear whether Councillor Kelley’s motivation is illumination or just acting out. In any case, I’m always interested in whether Ms. Monteiro will ultimately prevail in “milking Mother Cambridge” or whether the taxpayers will be relieved of this burden. Too bad the Executive Session is closed to the public.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the possibility of structuring the City’s parking ticket system in a way that would increase parking tickets as people stayed longer at expired meters or general no-parking spots.   Councillor Kelley

Order #10. That the City Council’s committee on Transportation, Traffic and Parking be and hereby is requested to hold the appropriate hearings to determine if the price for a residential sticker in Cambridge is appropriately set and if visitor passes are appropriately priced and available.   Councillor Kelley

Order #11. That the City Council’s committee on Transportation, Traffic and Parking be and hereby is requested to hold the appropriate hearings to determine if the amount of parking required for multi-unit residential units is appropriate.   Councillor Kelley

It’s hard to say whether Councillor Kelley is morphing into chief fundraiser for the Traffic Department or just committing political suicide by leading the charge toward higher prices for residential parking permits. Few would argue that the $8 annual charge is excessive and most would be happy to pay somewhat more, yet it seems unwise for an elected official to agitate for an increase rather than merely accede to such a proposal from the City Manager. That said, if the Cambridge Climate Congress had its way, I suppose we’d all be in ZipCars or paying $1000 per year for resident stickers for a vanishing-by-design supply of on-street parking spaces.

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the City’s policy towards on-street public spaces being used by workers of large construction projects and what impact the workers’ “feeding” relevant meters has on the City’s ticketing efforts.   Councillor Kelley

Here’s another radical proposal that I hope a councillor considers for introduction: Let’s have the Traffic Department review areas with metered parking in mixed residential/commercial zones to determine when it would be appropriate to – a) allow resident parking without a fee at metered spots during morning hours; and b) eliminating the fee during hours when there is little or no demand. For example, on Broadway (near my house), the greatest demand for metered spots is by people going to the City Hall Annex. That building is closed after noon on Fridays and on Saturdays, so why are all the meters in effect when there is essentially no demand other than among area residents?

Order #14. That the City Council is requested to discuss additional use of the Sullivan Chamber by the School Committee in the immediate future and come to a formal decision on whether to support this additional use or not at the next City Council meeting.   Councillor Kelley

This is apparently related to an effort by School Committee member Patty Nolan and others to ensure continued School Committee access to the Sullivan Chamber during construction at the high school. The issue seems to be potential conflict with City Council committee meetings, yet the evidence shows there to be little or no conflict.

Order #15. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update to the City Council on the status of Vail Court and any activities related to the property.   Councillor Seidel

This is noteworthy only as evidence of an era now passed. It was not so long ago that hordes of Eviction Free Zone protesters would descend on City Hall over real or perceived violations against tenants at Vail Court on Bishop Allen Drive. That parcel now consists primarily of boarded-up buildings and may as well have sagebrush blowing through it. Where have all the activists gone – long time passing?

Order #16. That the Council supports adoption of a regulation by the License Commission to prohibit licensed hotels from subcontracting housekeeping services such as guestroom service.   Councillor Decker, Councillor Cheung, Mayor Maher, Councillor Toomey and Councillor Reeves

There are more than a few questions of obstruction of commerce in this Order. The fact that a license is required to run a hotel does not give license to elected officials or City administration to micromanage these businesses. What’s next? Should the fact that a driver’s license is required to operate a motor vehicle allow the government to dictate where someone can drive for shopping or recreation?

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to confer with appropriate departments and community agencies and report back to the City Council detailing the processes and procedures by which the City plans for, selects, and enacts its affordable housing commitment.   Councillor Cheung and Councillor Toomey

This Order is potentially the most controversial item on the entire evening’s agenda in that it questions the “logic and process of site selection for affordable housing.” The Order requests a report on how these projects are distributed throughout the city, suggests that there be more balance in how and where projects are sited, and asks what future plans the City and its related agencies may have for “affordable housing” in Cambridge. Good questions all. — Robert Winters

March 8, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

It is expected that Mayor David Maher will announce the City Council committee appointments either tonight or tomorrow. Let’s hope the persons most suitable to the tasks at hand find their way into leadership positions on these various committees (see March 1 notes below for elaboration). The City Manager’s Agenda is relatively routine this week, but there are a few notable Resolutions and Orders:

Resolution #5. Retirement of Marsha Weinerman from the Election Commission.   Mayor Maher

Though I have not always enjoyed the friendliest relations with Marsha during her time at the Election Commission, in the end it’s fair to say that she always tried to make the operation as professional as possible and was open to constructive suggestions even from the likes of me. In addition, when controversies arose over errors in the voter lists or what activities were permitted at the polls, she was always quick to defend her staff and take the heat – even when the national press chose to make a federal case out of relatively small and understandable missteps. I’m glad that as she leaves the job, she and I have managed to attain some level of mutual respect.

Order #5. Availability of public meeting space at the Cambridge Main Library and other library related issues.   Councillor Kelley

Though Councillor Kelley is well known for his frequent requests for information, often of questionable value and requiring substantial staff time, this particular request is of some interest. The new Main Library has become a very popular place and with this success has come some perhaps unintended consequences. Kelley’s Order notes that some staff from the various branch libraries have been needed at the Main Library with resulting decreased service at the branches (at least according to the Order). Councillor Kelley also asks about the availability of public meeting rooms and the new café space. Access to Library space is of some interest to me as a teacher who occasionally needs to arrange for makeup exams for a few students, and the Library is a great location for miscellaneous tasks such as this. Though not in Kelley’s Order, I would like to know if the room that houses the Cambridge history collection is open yet or when it will become open to the public.

I’m especially intrigued by this line in Kelley’s Order: “WHEREAS: Coping with the influx of high school students at various parts of the day has proven to be somewhat problematic.” High school students using the Library is a good thing to be sure, but perhaps there can be too much of a good thing.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to convene a meeting of various stakeholders in the Central Square community for the purpose of discussing and reviewing current action plans for Central Square.   Councillor Reeves

This Order is both necessary and timely. Anyone passing through Central Square today is struck by the number of commercial vacancies. This includes a number of properties that have remained vacant for several years now – perhaps most notably the MIT-owned space next to the new theater and the recently vacated space previously occupied by Pearl Art. A recent Council Order (with a response this week) inquired about making some of these vacant spaces temporarily available to various nonprofit groups. Though a nice sentiment, this is a distraction from the more serious challenge of attracting good, economically sustainable businesses to Central Square with a spectrum of spaces and rents that will ensure an economically diverse mix of businesses that match the needs and interests of residents in the greater Central Square area. This should not be about temporary solutions.

Councillor Reeves’ Order also makes note of the never-ending presence of people in the Square engaged in substance abuse and other problematic behavior. However, as long as the City directly or indirectly concentrates most of its shelters and social service agencies in the Central Square area, this problem will remain insoluble.

Once upon a time during its relatively brief existence, the Central Square Neighborhood Coalition was very successful in convening various stakeholders (residents, business owners, landlords, and City officials) to collaborate for their mutual interests in Central Square. Now is the time for more of that collaboration and it’s appropriate that Councillor Reeves should file the Order as he was, once upon a time, a major advocate for the betterment of Central Square before it was fashionable.

Order #10. City Council support for Massachusetts House Bill 4526 “A Bill Relative to Municipal Relief.”   Councillor Seidel

This Order is specifically about making loans available to private property owners for energy efficiency projects. It’s appropriate that with the conclusion of the “Cambridge Climate Congress” this past weekend the City Council should be advocating for initiatives such as this. Though the activity and outcome of this Cambridge Climate Congress is perhaps a topic for a much more involved discussion, at the very least we should expect to see some specific and sensible energy efficiency goals and City initiatives in the coming days and years. — Robert Winters

March 1, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

The City Council now has a mayor – Mayor Maher – and hopefully we’ll have City Council committee appointments today or very soon. David Maher has often portrayed himself as the “common sense” candidate and councillor, so let’s hope that rings true in his committee appointments. Several years ago, I posted the Grimm’s Fairy Tale “The Mouse, the Bird, and the Sausage” in connection with these appointments to emphasize what can go wrong when responsibilities are assigned for the wrong reasons (see below). Some of the choices for the members and chairs of these committees should be obvious to anyone who follows City Council business. Here are some random thoughts on the possibilities:

Ordinance: Unless the Mayor wants to break from tradition and appoint himself, I suppose this leaves Councillors Seidel, Davis, and Toomey as the pool of most logical choices for Chair or Co-Chairs of this committee.

Finance: Though it would be a significant responsibility for the new guy, Councillor Cheung has the background most suitable for the job.

Health and Environment: Councillor Davis is the obvious choice, but the task of this committee is quite flexible and could lean more toward public health. In that case, Councillor Toomey’s work in the state legislature would make him an excellent choice as Chair of this committee.

Human Services: It would seem logical that Councillor Reeves’ not-yet-implemented initiatives from the previous Council might warrant his continuation as Chair.

Civic Unity: This is, as always, anybody’s guess since this committee’s function has often been at the whim of its Chair except when responding to some hot issue of the day. Mayor Maher should flip a coin on this one.

Transportation, Traffic, and Parking: This was Councillor Davis’ bailiwick, though Councillor Kelley remains a logical choice to continue as Chair.

Government Operations and Rules: This may turn out to be the most important of the committees and perhaps the most politicized. Toward the end of this City Council term, there will almost certainly be discussion of the future possibilities for the position of City Manager. This committee also occasionally initiates discussions about possible Charter reform, though this is usually just a short-term reaction to dissatisfaction with the mayoral selection process. In recent years, the most logical choices were Councillor Maher and former Councillors Sullivan and Murphy. Though there may be no ideal choice this year, Councillors Toomey, Davis, and Seidel seem best-matched to the task.

Housing: Councillors Simmons or Seidel or Decker come to mind.

Neighborhood and Long Term Planning: Councillor Seidel, of course, though Councillor Cheung would be a welcome member of this committee.

Claims: Councillor Toomey always asks for it.

Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations: Perhaps Councillor Reeves or Councillor Davis.

Veterans: The clear choice is Councillor Kelley, a veteran who really cares about the purpose of this committee.

Cable TV, Telecommunications, and Public Utilities: Since energy and climate-related issues are advancing into the spotlight, perhaps this should again be chaired by Councillor Davis. However, it would also be a good choice for Councillor Cheung who has already proposed initiatives relevant to this committee. It would be great if at least some attention was given this term to future Cable TV and related options – an area that is quickly changing and for which structures laid out 25 years ago are trending toward obsolescence.

Public Safety: Councillor Toomey, Councillor Kelley, or Councillor Simmons come to mind.

Economic Development, Training, and  Employment: Councillors Simmons, Seidel, or Cheung are probably best-suited for this committee. Other reasonable choices could be Councillors Davis or Decker. In contrast, the previous Chair (Reeves) met this committee only once in two years and only then in response to complaints from some taxi drivers about being required to accept credit card payments.

University Relations: Councillor Cheung is the sensible (and obvious) choice.

Let’s see what we get, and don’t forget what became of the mouse, the bird and the sausage.

At the last Council meeting, two items were tabled via the Charter Right and will presumably be voted tonight.

Charter Right #1. Charter Right exercised by Councillor Seidel on City Manager Agenda Number Fourteen of Feb 22, 2010 on a communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the transfer within the Community Policing Grant of $31,360 from Grant Fund Police Extraordinary Expenditures account to the Grant Fund Police Travel and Training account to cover costs associated with the Cambridge Review Committee.

According to Marc Levy’s account of this in his Cambridge blog, Councillors Seidel, Reeves, and Decker all had things to say about this item, though their reasons for objection varied from lack of transparency and inclusiveness (Seidel) to outright disagreement with the entire purpose of this committee (Reeves). It seems likely that additional debate/speeches will be heard on this matter.

Charter Right #2. Charter Right exercised by Vice Mayor Davis on Policy Order Number Eight of Feb 22, 2010 that the City Manager is requested to communicate to Oak Tree Development that the City Council requested that the CPA funds used for the preservation of St. James Church be returned to the City.

This one should be filed along with the author’s previous order a few years ago to downzone a stretch of Memorial Drive essentially to pastureland in response to concerns over hotel workers being fired. A City Council Order should be both serious and legally legitimate. In this case, regardless how one may feel about this proposed development, Community Preservation Act funds were used by St. James Church for the restoration of its belfry. It is simply not logical to demand that because this church (or any entity for that matter) received public funds for part of its property that this should allow the City to make demands on other property owned by the church or which may soon be sold by the church. The belfry was preserved and remains preserved regardless what happens nearby.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Assistant City Manager of Community Development to work with community groups and to conduct a feasibility study of a public market at Lechmere Square.   Councillor Toomey and Councillor Cheung

This idea was floated by the East Cambridge Planning Team last year and deserves a good look even if something very different comes out of the discussion. This is an important parcel which will be vacated when the T station moves across the McGrath Highway which hopefully will one day be restored to something less like a highway and more like an urban boulevard.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Chief Information Officer of Information Technology to to evaluate available options and report back to the City Council with the results of that evaluation and a timeframe for transitioning to a modern web video platform.   Councillor Cheung

Once again, our new Councillor injects his ever-so-modern perspective into the workings of the City Council and spares no details.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to report back on the infrastructure of Central Square, its planned improvements, and whether these improvements are on track to be completed in time for the BIO 2012 conference.   Councillor Reeves

The only point I would make on this one is that any infrastructure and improvements in Central Square should be done first for the betterment of its residents and existing businesses and should not be driven by the needs of a conference, no matter how large, that will last a few days and be gone. A little more detail on exactly what infrastructure is being referenced in this Order would also be appreciated. — Robert Winters