Playing Politics – March 31, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
While there are some featured attractions at the circus, it’s the side shows that get the most attention. After the “vigils”, the selective outrage, and competing efforts to pack Public Comment have passed, here are some of the more significant things on the agenda this week:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
This will likely be a regular agenda item for the foreseeable future as the repercussions of current federal policies affect local programs – and sometimes wreak havoc. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in terms of the City’s FY2026 Budget, program cuts, subsidized housing eligibility, reallocation of resources, and the potential for local tax increases to offset discontinued federal funding. This is somewhat reminiscent of the weekly COVID updates of a few years ago.
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-53, regarding assisting companies, institutions, and other organizations in adopting truck safety requirements. [text of report]
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-66 regarding an automated parking enforcement draft home rule petition. [text of report]
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-68 regarding Garden Street two-way traffic alternatives. [text of report]
I expect plenty of two-way competing testimony on this during Public Comment.
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Floodplain Zoning Amendments. [text of report]
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a memo regarding 84 and 96 Bishop Allen RFI submission responses and next steps. [text of report]
“All but one respondent envisioned a mixed-income housing approach to 84 Bishop Allen Drive. 84 Bishop Allen Drive was seen as large enough to create a meaningful number of affordable units within a mixed income, mixed-use residential building. In contrast, the smaller 96 Bishop Allen Drive site was seen as manageable as an affordable housing only project.” My take is that as more and more required criteria are added the less viable everything becomes. I also expect some Public Comment insisting that the least economically viable options should be the only ones considered.
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-17 which requested that the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint the members of a working committee tasked with integrating the objectives of both the Task Force to Examine the Status and Wellbeing of the City’s African American/Black Population and the Commission on the Status of Black Men and Boys into a unified, actionable framework. [text of report]
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on Harvard PILOT negotiations. [text of report]
Interim one-year agreement to increase their annual payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) from $4.7 million to $6 million per year – with the hope of a much longer term agreement after that. Those who actually think about the many important roles our local universities play will also understand how many Cambridge residents are employed by those universities and of the enormous value that provides to Cambridge residents. It is worth emphasizing that our local universities are facing many of the same threats to funding as the City is – likely moreso.
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Department of Public Works to work together with the Chair of the Health and Environment Committee to make appropriate changes to the draft of the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0 and forward a final draft to the full City Council for approval as the City’s policy document on zero waste. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
As with the BEUDO Ordinance, I have some concerns about granting carte-Blanche to the Chair of the Health and Environment Committee to forward a final draft to the City Council that they may not scrutinize prior to approving it. This has become a growing problem in how the City Council has conducted itself over that last several years – especially in our first COVID year when several consequential actions were waved through with minimal scrutiny of possible unintended (and sometimes intended) consequences.
I served on the Recycling Advisory Committee for 22 years and always tried my best to view all proposed changes through the eyes of the residents of the city. We had the enormous benefit of having some very knowledgeable members (I’m thinking of you Rob Gogan) who understood the practical aspects of recycling and not just the idealism and advocacy. The current ZWMP draft includes “Evaluate a hybrid Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program” among its strategies. Exactly how this might work in a city dominated by multi-family buildings is unclear, and I’m not really sure how people would feel about having to purchase stickers or follow some other protocol to pay for any excess trash above some permitted limit. What works in the suburbs doesn’t necessarily work in a more urban environment.
All that said, I was pleased to see that we appear to be reasonably on target with our previously established waste reduction goals. The last point I will make is one that my friend Sumner Martinson (DEP) emphasized many years ago: We are fundamentally just materials collectors when we put out our recyclable and compostable materials out at the curb for pickup. Recycling is what is done (or not done) at the next step down the road. Waste reduction is important, but recycling is actually carried out by industrial partners when they take the feedstock we produce and remanufacture new products from that feedstock. People love to pat themselves on the back for recycling when they fill their toters, but that’s actually not recycling at all – and the recycling industry continues to suffer out of public view. Glass may be in the worst place at all – it’s more likely to end up as gravel substitute for drainage applications at landfills than be remade into new containers. The economics of recycling is far more important than the idealism of recycling.
Order #2. Appointment of Paula M. Crane as Interim City Clerk effective June 1, 2025. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern
I am grateful for Diane LeBlanc’s time with us as Cambridge City Clerk. Her background as an archivist in our very historic city has been a blessing. That said, Paula Crane is an unsung hero in the Office of the City Clerk and she’ll be great in the short- or long-term.
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to prioritize Cambridge Street and Northern Massachusetts Avenue first and to introduce the necessary zoning language and to continue working on Central Square as soon as practicable. Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee and Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on Mar 4, 2025 to discuss zoning priorities focusing on major squares and corridors. The Committee voted favorably to recommend that the City Manager be requested to direct the Community Development Department to prioritize Cambridge Street and Northern Massachusetts Avenue first and to introduce the necessary zoning language and to continue working on Central Square as soon as practicable. See PO25#43. [text of report]
Though there is obviously room for new development in these places, I get the strong feeling that the chief proponents of new development – either residential or commercial – pay very little attention to long-term goals or consequences.
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Cambridge Police Department, and Human Rights Commission, and local immigrant rights and immigrant-serving organizations to develop and implement policies and protocols to prevent illegal detainment, hold Know Your Rights trainings, and ensure that the City of Cambridge is adequately prepared to respond to and mitigate violations of this nature. Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to do more outreach to residents, businesses, and property owners to communicate the drought status and take all measures to reduce nonessential water use citywide, and provide a report on citywide water usage and water supply. Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui
Water conservation is good, but we are in a far better position now than we were just a few months ago. In fact, our Stony Brook Reservoir is now overflowing, and the level of the Hobbs Basin (a.k.a. Cambridge Reservoir) is much higher now.
Stony Brook Reservoir overflowing into the Charles River – March 12, 2025
Order #6. That the Human Services and Veterans Committee hold a meeting to discuss Sex Work and Sex Trafficking. Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui
Regardless of any positive aspects of such a discussion, this is quite clearly a move by some councillors – most notably Sobrinho-Wheeler and Siddiqui – to capitalize politically on the current misdemeanor charge involving Councillor Toner. Indeed, many of the people writing letters and jumping on this bandwagon have affiliations with the local Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and/or the Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) – though, quite frankly, it’s getting difficult to tell the difference between the two. The “outrage” is clearly well-coordinated.
For the handful of people who actually are interested in my opinion, I will simply say that I understand the difference between what city councillors do as part of their jobs and what they do outside of their jobs. I am primarily interested in the former, and I’ll leave the latter to the local tabloids and anonymous commenters. I count myself among the many people who feel that Councillor Toner has been one of our effective and collaborative city councillors. He’s also a human being.
By the way, whatever happened with this little kerfuffle of a couple of years ago? I don’t recall there being a subsequent policy order regarding the “toxic work environment” next door to the Sullivan Chamber at that time. Just imagine what that environment might have been in a “strong mayor” system. How do we feel about the fact that City-salaried City Council aides routinely work in the political campaigns of their bosses? I can recall a time when one incumbent councillor was granted nearly-free campaign headquarters space in a prominent location in obvious violation of campaign finance laws. No whistle, no foul.
It is indeed ironic that the most recent Best Motion Picture Academy Award went to the film “Anora” – while here in Cambridge some are reacting in a manner analogous to Claude Rains in “Casablanca”, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” We even have a local state legislator supporting the legalization of sex work while simultaneously calling for Councillor Toner’s resignation. Let’s not forget that not so long ago a person selling marijuana might have been written off as a dope dealer, and now we have a City Council resolution congratulating a sitting member of the Cambridge School Committee on his grand opening of a cannabis dealership. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Times change. You don’t have to love all the changes, but sometimes you just have to roll with them.
Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to renewal of the Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District. [Charter Right – Azeem, Mar 24, 2025] (CM25#66) [text of report]
As I said last week, I fear that the ABC juggernaut to bulldoze the historic fabric of Cambridge may involve objecting to any and all efforts to preserve the many historic features of our city in favor of maximum development. Councillor Azeem’s exercise of his Charter Right last week seems to confirm this. There are several communications from ABC adherents indicating their preference to discard most or all of such preservation efforts. If all you really want is A Bigger Cambridge, why let a long and rich history get in your way?
On The Table #3. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $570,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Police Extraordinary Expenditures account for the procurement of replacement firearms for the Police Department. These funds would support the purchase of replacement firearms for the Department. Police Department firearms are typically replaced on approximately a ten-year cycle. The manufacturer has ceased production of the model currently used and replacements are almost impossible to source. It is important that department personnel are all trained on the same firearm to ensure safety and interoperability. [Tabled – Mar 17, 2025]
On The Table #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $160,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Police Extraordinary Expenditures account for the procurement of a new fully electric accessible transport wagon. This funding will allow the purchase of a fully electric, American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant transport wagon to replace one of the aging F350s. The new vehicle will ensure the safe and comfortable transport of community members to court, shelters, and other service providers. [Tabled – Mar 17, 2025]
Though these will likely be approved after the recent delay and corresponding Finance Committee hearing last week, I allow myself to be entertained by the many ways Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler (DSA) tap-dances his way through the many ways to say “Defund The Police” without explicitly saying “defund the police”. He apparently also believes in disarming the police – as evidenced by his remarks at the recent hearing. The Ghost of Zondervan lives on.
162 Communications – mainly on (a) Garden Street, (b) “Our squares and corridors”, and (c) support for Councillor Toner.
March 17 marks the 249th anniversary of the end of the 11-month siege of Boston that ended when the Continental Army under the command of George Washington fortified Dorchester Heights in early March 1776 with cannons captured at Ticonderoga. British General William Howe’s garrison and navy were threatened by these positions, and they were forced to decide between attack and retreat. Howe chose to retreat in order to prevent what could have been a repeat of the Battle of Bunker Hill, withdrawing from Boston to Nova Scotia on March 17, 1776. The British evacuation was Washington’s first victory of the Revolutionary War. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this event was how 
There is a theme that has run through recent years in Cambridge City government, namely the belief that public input is a problem and that legislation and even proposed changes to the City Charter should reflect this point of view. Any disagreement is dismissed as NIMBYism. Public involvement in matters such as development proposals or roadway reconfigurations is inherently contrary to what the elite in City government see as the public good. We saw this in the various iterations of the Affordable Housing Overlay where not only is public feedback unwelcome, but even the Planning Board’s role has been reduced to that of spectators. It’s also baked into the latest “multi-family zoning” proposals where concerns about radical changes to existing neighborhoods have been either dismissed or at best marginally tolerated. I found it quite telling that in the current discussion about changes to the City Charter, all votes to consider ideas such as “resident assemblies” or “citizen initiative petitions” or “group petitions” were voted down either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The prevailing point of view seems to be that, once elected, our city councillors become all-knowing and all-seeing arbiters of the public good. Democracy is for suckers.