Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

December 14, 2009

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 12:53 pm

Dec 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s meeting will be the next to last of the 2008-09 City Council term with one more to go next Monday. It’s notable how the number of Council Orders and Resolutions drops precipitously after Election Day. The City Manager has 7 responses to City Council requests on his agenda (dealing with parking, police details, the Red Line, tree wells, railroad tracks, trash pickup, and scabies), but we are blessed with just 3 new City Council Orders. Fortunately, Councillor Davis submitted the following Order before flying the coop on her way to Copenhagen:

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments including the Inspectional Services Department and the City Solicitor to report back to the 2010 City Council in January on what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers.   Councillor Davis

I have met these chickens and I hope we can provide them legal, affordable housing in Cambridge. This reminds me of the rooster that used to live behind a house on Columbia street diagonally behind the Squirrel Brand Community Garden (before the City sacrificed half the garden to build an underutilized mini-park in the name of community access – but I digress). I don’t know whether the rooster died or was evicted, but it was once a marvelous thing to hear the cock crow while visiting that garden. I’m sure the “new people” moving into the neighborhood did not appreciate that bird as I did.

So, let’s change the ordinances to allow the chickens to come home to roost. Maybe we should get some cows to graze on the Common while we’re at it.

There’s also this:

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Cable Television Department to determine the reason for Comcast to be conducting a poll regarding the City’s Cable Channels and CCTV channels.   Councillor Toomey

I don’t know what the Evil Empire of Comcast is up to with this poll, but I’ll be happy to offer some feedback right here. It was not very nice to take away virtually all of the TV stations for Basic Analog Cable customers other than those that can be picked up off the air. Except for New England Cable News, CCTV, and the municipal stations, everything else recently vanished. Perhaps some stations would return if I got their digital service, but I expect that will require at least another $50 per month for the privilege of getting back some of these commercial-laden stations and it’s hard to justify this. I believe I’d have to pay close to $100 per month to see any Red Sox games. Meanwhile, Comcast is in the process of buying the National Broadcast Company (NBC) from General Electric for perhaps $35 billion. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when we need him to break up the trusts?

My inclination is to say good-bye to Comcast. I hope others in Cambridge feel the same way. Of course, I’m sure the Evil Empire will only try to find other ways to restrict access to television programs unless their trolls are paid handsomely in order to buy up even more media companies. Welcome to The World of More.

Other business on tonight’s agenda includes 6 City Council committee reports as our elected officials scurry to close out the books for this term. There’s also the official word from the Election Commission that the School Committee Recount returned the same winners (after considerable cost even though there was essentially no chance that the results would change). — RW

November 9, 2009

Observations on the 2009 Cambridge Election – Part 1

Filed under: 2009 Election — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:52 pm

Nov 9 – There may be a handful of additional ballots to be included this Friday after 5:00pm in the Final Official Count for the Cambridge Municipal Election, but this will almost certainly not affect the outcome of the election. While we all stand breathlessly waiting for the results to be finalized, perhaps this is a time to make a few observations on this year’s election:

1) We were blessed this year with some very good new candidates, most notably Tom Stohlman, Minka vanBeuzekom, Leland Cheung, and Neal Leavitt for City Council and Alan Steinert for School Committee, to name a few. Let’s hope they all assume greater roles in civic affairs in Cambridge and perhaps consider being candidates again in the future.

2) While many were quick to dismiss Marjorie Decker’s chances as a write-in candidate, nearly all the incumbents and several of the challengers knew better as indicated by their concerns expressed at several Election Commission meetings prior to the election. Indeed, an often expressed sentiment was that she might actually have an advantage by being distinguished by the notoriety of the write-in campaign and by the ability to appeal to voters to give their #1 vote this time due to this special situation. She also had a great campaign manager in Jeni Wheeler and plenty of cash.

3) Newly elected Leland Cheung was not, in fact, carried into office by waves of MIT and Harvard students. Though he did well among the relatively few students who voted, Leland’s votes were spread uniformly across the city.

4) Though some activists in East Cambridge did their best to portray Tim Toomey in the worst possible light, he still managed to get 52.5% of all #1 votes in Ward 1. East Cambridge challenger Charlie Marquardt, in contrast, received 3.6% of the #1 votes in Ward 1.

5) Though it took longer than usual to review all the additional auxiliary ballots caused by the write-in campaign, the general consensus is that the process was thorough and accurate and relatively quick (once they got the hang of it).

6) The School Committee election was unusual in that 8 of the 9 candidates did quite well in #1 vote totals with 7 of them within a few hundred votes of each other. None of them reached the election quota in the 1st Count. In the deciding 5th Count, only 19 votes separated Patty Nolan and Joe Grassi. However, unlike the 2001 election when there was a near 3-way tie for the last 2 seats and a lengthy recount, the ballot scanners did not accept ballots with overvotes (or write-ins or blanks) and consequently almost all potentially challengeable ballots have already been reviewed during the two days after Election Day. It is therefore extremely unlikely that a recount would change the results, especially since there were no over-quota candidates and therefore no variability caused by which surplus ballots would be distributed.

Stay tuned. Once the Final Official results are in, much more analysis will follow.

Nov 5 – Unofficial Final Election Results (Thursday): Elected to the City Council – Henrietta Davis, Denise Simmons, Tim Toomey, Craig Kelley, David Maher, Ken Reeves, Sam Seidel, Marjorie Decker, and Leland Cheung (in order of election).

Elected to the School Committee – Richard Harding, Nancy Tauber, Marc McGovern, Fred Fantini, Alice Turkel, and Patty Nolan (in order of election).

Excel spreadsheets of Unofficial Final Election Counts (including auxiliary ballots)

Printable PDF of Unofficial Final Election Counts

October 5, 2009

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:08 pm

Oct 5, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s City Manager’s Agenda is dominated by many responses (16) by the City Manager and staff to Council Orders requesting information. The City Council Orders may prove interesting. They run the gamut from violence in the Congo to tree wells, flagpoles, greyhounds, and the Police Review and Advisory Board. Some that drew my attention are:

Order #10. That the City Council hold a special meeting on the status of the Police Review and Advisory Board [PRAB] and all related topics. Councillor Kelley

Perhaps Councillor Kelley could be more nonspecific, but I doubt it. If the intention of this Order is to clean house on the Unfinished Business item that has been languishing on the agenda for half a decade, then this is good housekeeping at its best.

Unfinished Business #3. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on Nov 18, 2004 for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to Chapter 2.74 of the Cambridge Municipal Code, the Police Review and Advisory Board Ordinance. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Feb 14, 2005. [Four sections of the proposed amendment were passed to be ordained as amended. Ordinance #1284. The remaining proposed amendments to chapter 2.74 remain on Unfinished Business.]

However, the vagueness of Kelley’s Order seems to open the door for a free-for-all during which we may be treated to speeches on a) the ongoing legal challenge to the Monteiro v. City of Cambridge verdict; b) the recent PRAB decision to take up the a case filed by a Boston-based advocacy group on the Great Gates Affair; and c) anything under the sun. I hope there’s at least one city councillor who will force a little more specificity on this.

Order #14. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with an explanation of the Cambridge Police Department’s policy on making available to the public information about crimes and suspects and other information not prohibited from public release. Councillor Kelley

This brings to mind a Council meeting a while back when Councillor Kelley asked that the Police Department publish a list of all the places where they regularly look for speeding violations. I’m all for public disclosure of useful information, but is it sensible for the Cambridge Police Department to announce in advance where they will or will not be looking for speeders? Regarding Councillor Kelley’s latest foray into police work, I would like it if complete descriptions of bad guys were made available after every crime, regardless of concerns about political correctness. Public safety is more important than concern for delicate sensibilities. On the other hand, I definitely don’t need to know about details in an ongoing investigation that might possibly compromise the investigation or subsequent prosecution. In some matters, you just have to trust the cops to do their job.

Order #17. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support House Bill No.3643 which would reduce the prevailing speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph in urban districts on local roads. Councillor Davis

This Order is notable only because of how many times we’ve seen it. It must be a dozen or more times that I’ve read essentially the same Order over the last decade.

Order #18. Urge members of the Cambridge Legislative Delegation to support H.853 which would prohibit new buildings that cast new shadow on parks except during the first hour of sunrise or before 7:00 a.m. or during the last hour before sunset. Councillor Davis

It’s important to note that the proposed law would apply only to specific parks. There is already a law affecting the Boston Public Garden, the Boston Common, and the Lynn Common. This would expand that list to include Magazine Beach Park, the Esplanade, Christopher Columbus Park, the Rose Kennedy Greenway, the Commonwealth Avenue Mall, and Copley Square Park and would not apply to the long shadows of early morning or late afternoon. I suppose the devil is in the details and I would anticipate a few reasonable exceptions that may have to be made.

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to provide a status report to the City Council on traffic safety measures in place at the intersection of Fresh Pond Parkway and Mount Auburn Street. Vice Mayor Seidel

They could start by painting some lanes to guide the traffic on Mt. Auburn as it passes through that intersection. However, all the traffic engineering in the world will likely have minimal effect on those drivers who continue to enter the intersection after the light has turned red. Red light cameras might help a lot. Let’s not forget that vote on March 23: Order #20. The City Council go on record supporting red light camera enforcement. Councillor Kelley and Councillor Toomey. Voting in favor: Davis, Kelley, Maher, Seidel, Toomey; voting against: Decker, Reeves, Simmons, Ward. — Robert Winters

September 21, 2009

Sept 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 3:13 pm

Sept 21, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s Big Item is the series of votes necessary to seek the Massachusetts Department of Revenue approval for the tax rate for FY2010. As Bob Healy reminds the councillors every year, the City Council does not set the tax rate. They adopt a budget in the spring and then take the required votes on tax classification, allocations from Free Cash and reserves, and on a variety of statutory exemptions. The Mass. Department of Revenue then determines and approves the tax rates based on what was sent by the City, but the end result in usually entirely predicable to the penny. There is a 6:30pm hearing during the meeting to discuss the property tax rate classification.

Every Cambridge resident should read the message submitted by the City Manager for this meeting. There are many lessons contained within. There are other agenda items of note, but everything else pales in comparison. — Robert Winters

September 14, 2009

Sept 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 11:23 am

Sept 14, 2009 City Council Agenda Highlights

The big item on tonight’s agenda is the very first item on the City Manager’s Agenda – the vote on the Community Preservation Act allocations. When this item came around last year, there was actual discussion among councillors about the appropriateness of the 80%-10%-10% distribution respectively to subsidized housing, open space acquisition, and historic preservation. Regardless how one may feel about what the percentages should be, there is an important issue that doesn’t get nearly enough attention. When the CPA surcharge was approved by voters in 2001, the councillors at that time asked for and received assurance from the City Manager that his appointments to the CPA Committee would give the maximum allocation to subsidized housing, and this has been the case every year since, including this year’s recommendations. However, there is a general principle in government that an elected body cannot “bind” its successor, and there have been four municipal elections and four new councillors elected (Simmons, Kelley, Seidel, Ward) since that understanding between Manager and Councillors took place. To what degree is that initial understanding still binding? In principle – not at all.

The belief among many who have attended the CPA hearings over the last several years is that they are entirely pro forma and that all decisions have been made prior to the hearings. Typically, the nonprofit housing agencies Just A Start (JAS) and Homeowner’s Rehab (HRI) get the word out to people to pack the meetings in favor of giving 80% for housing, but in each of the last few years there has also been a solid presence from people from East Cambridge and the Wellington-Harrington neighborhood who have advocated for more open space acquisition in that part of the city. The stock answer from the CPA Committee and Rich Rossi, Chair of the committee, has been that the City allocates plenty of money from other sources for open space acquisition and related purposes and that it is not necessary that this money come from CPA funds.

A good argument can be made (and I’ve made this argument myself in public testimony) that as long as the City commits to appropriate allocations for these various competing interests, the decision of how the CPA portion of these funds should be allocated should be based primarily on how much additional money can be leveraged from the matching state funds that come with the CPA. In past years, the money allocated toward subsidized housing did leverage more additional funds than did the other allocations, so the total financial benefit for City-supported projects was optimized by the 80%-10%-10% split. I hope that at least one city councillor will ask the appropriate questions tonight to determine whether the recommended allocations will again be in the best interests of the City or whether the main priority is simply the continued public subsidy of JAS and HRI who, arguably, view CPA funding as an entitlement. The question of how much City-controlled funds should be dedicated toward subsidized housing is another matter, and its answer appears to be slowly evolving. Tonight’s discussion may prove enlightening.

Another item that caught my attention was this:

Manager’s Agenda #20. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Grant (Year 2) in the amount of $39,000 to the Grant Fund Library Other Ordinary Maintenance account and will support the purchase of approximately 15 computers which will expand public access to technology throughout the library system.

This translates into $2600 per computer. Has the City visited MicroCenter lately? I’m sitting right now in front of a dandy little PC that cost me $400. With an additional monitor and other goodies, I might have spent as much as $800. Perhaps some thrifty councillor can press the Manager on why it costs three times as much per computer when the money comes from the foundation of the PC Man Himself (Bill Gates). Is this to pay someone’s salary? The message from the City Manager only refers to the purchase of the machines.

There also these items that may see a vote tonight:

Committee Report #4. A communication was received from …. the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 30, 2009 for the purpose of considering a proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow wind turbines to be placed in the City of Cambridge. …. Petition expires Sept 28, 2009.

Committee Report #5. A communication was received from …. the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 30, 2009 for the purpose of considering a proposal to amend Chapter 8.24 of the Cambridge Municipal Code “Refuse and Litter” and to add a new proposed ordinance Chapter 8.25 “Dumpster Licenses.” …. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Aug 10, 2009.

Committee Report #6. Committee Report from …. the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on July 2, 2009 for the purpose of considering a petition filed by Jean Connor et al. to amend the Zoning Map of Cambridge …. The petition was passed to a Second Reading on July 27, 2009. The question comes on passing to be ordained on or after Aug 10, 2009. Planning Board hearing held July 7, 2009. Petition expires Sept 30, 2009.

Manager’s Agenda #22. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a recommendation from the Planning Board not to adopt the Connor, et al Petition to rezone an area on the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge in the vicinity of Garden, Walden, Sherman and Winslow Streets from the current Residence C-1 designation to a Residence B designation.

There are 33 letters protesting the Connor Petition (none supporting it) in the Council materials. The primary point made by the Planning Board in its negative recommendation is that it would render far too many other properties nonconforming.

There are some noteworthy City Council Orders:

Order #2. That the Connor et al. zoning petition to amend the Zoning Map from its current designation as a Residence C-1 to a Residence B District encompassing all or portions of lots on Assessors Plats #205, #206 and #228 including but not limited to those abutting Garden, Winslow, Fenno, Stearns, Esten, Sherman Streets and Upland Road, be re-filed with the City Council upon the expiration of the current petition on Sept 30, 2009, that said re-filed petition be referred to the Planning Board and City Council Ordinance Committee; and that upon adoption of this order, the Ordinance Committee public hearing be advertised and scheduled promptly, with a report back to the City Council as soon as possible.   Councillor Maher and Vice Mayor Seidel

One has to speculate whether the same petition is being re-filed (for what purpose?) or whether an alternative zoning petition is being contemplated for this area. Then again, the filing of Zoning Petitions is standard fare in every municipal election year.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the possibility of initiating curbside pickup of food waste.   Councillor Davis

This is a good idea, but whether or not it’s viable depends on things like cost and the ability to obtain permits for sites for composting of food waste near enough to Cambridge that transportation costs don’t break the bank or have a net detrimental environmental effect. In any case, backyard composting remains a simple and effective option for many residents.

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the City’s plans to help fund the Housing Authorities redevelopment projects, to include any land swaps, loan backing or direct financial assistance.   Councillor Kelley

This item is noteworthy simply for the gargantuan scale of what is proposed.

O-19     Sept 14, 2009
COUNCILLOR KELLEY
WHEREAS: The Cambridge Housing Authority is embarking on a 10-year, $250 million dollar renovation project that will involve the demolition and rebuilding of various CHA developments; and
WHEREAS: The first of these demolition/renovation projects has tentatively been scheduled to start in late 2009; and
WHEREAS: It is not clear how the Cambridge Housing Authority is involving the public in any planning process for its renovation projects; and
WHEREAS: The City may be financially involved in these various renovation projects; now be it therefore
ORDERED: That the City Council’s Housing Committee is requested to hold a public hearing in the near future to review CHA’s plans and the City’s plans to help finance them; and be it further
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to report back to the City Council on the City’s plans to help fund the Housing Authorities redevelopment projects, to include any land swaps, loan backing or direct financial assistance.

– Robert Winters

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress