Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

June 29, 2025

Featured Items on the June 30, 2025 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Featured Items on the June 30, 2025 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Starting next week, incumbents and challengers will be pulling nomination papers for City Council and School Committee and transforming into salesmen and saleswomen. Here are some of the interesting agenda items before the snake oils sales commence:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a federal update and the Law Department will provide an update on relevant court cases. (CM25#177) [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Yi-An Huang, City Solicitor Megan Bayer, Asst City Solicitor LaBianca; Placed on File 9-0

There are 27 court cases listed in this report.

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the 2024 Transportation Demand Management Program Report. (CM25#179) [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (TD), Ryan McKinnon (TD), Zusy, Azeem; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-30, regarding a review of barriers to housing production, a timeline for next Inclusionary Housing Study, and the feasibility of additional development incentives. (CM25#180) [text of report]
pulled by Azeem; comments by Azeem, Simmons, Melissa Peters (CDD), Chris Cotter (HD), Toner, Nolan, Yi-An Huang, McGovern, Zusy, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson; Placed on File 9-0

In addition to the Cotter report, you may want to also take a look at these two articles by Patrick Barrett:

1) Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (May 2, 2025)

2) Follow-Up Memo on Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Concerns Under MBTA Communities Act Compliance (June 14, 2025)

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-36, regarding a request that the language of the Welcoming Community Ordinance be amended to clarify that City employees shall not participate in federal immigration enforcement operations and that the sole role of City employees during any action by ICE is only to protect public safety, and be amended to clarify that if Cambridge Police Department Officers respond to the scene of ICE action, CPD Officers should document the actions of ICE including their badge numbers. (CM25#181) [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Megan Bayer, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons, Supt. Pauline Carter-Wells (CPD); Referred to Ordinance Committee and Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the first half of 2025. (CM25#183) [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the 2025 Goals and Metrics for the Annual City Manager Performance Review. (CM25#184) [text of report]
pulled by Wilson; comments by Wilson, Yi-An Huang, Siddiqui, Nolan; Placed on File 9-0


Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Florrie Darwin, Scott Kyle, and Michael Rogove; and the reappointments of Chandra Harrington, Joseph Ferrara, Kyle Sheffield, Gavin Kleespies, Paula Paris, Elizabeth Lyster, and Yuting Zhang as members of the Cambridge Historical Commission. (CM25#185) [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Simmons, Charles Sullivan (Hist. Comm.), Azeem, McGovern; Substitute Order Appointments Adopted 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Wednesday, June 25, 2025 to discuss term limits and appointments to Neighborhood Conservation Districts and the Historical Commission, CM25#145, CM25#146, and CM25#147. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee voted favorably to forward CM25#145, CM25#146, and CM25#147 to the full City Council with no recommendation. [text of report]
Taken up early along w/Mgr #8; All Appointments Approved as Amended; Report Accepted, Placed on File as Amended 9-0


Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to explore creative solutions that reduce car dependency, while expanding access to parking options nearby Broadway.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, Nolan, Zusy; Order Adopted 8-1 (Simmons – No)

File this under “Adding Insult to Injury”. These councillors are apparently incapable of listening to the actual concerns expressed by affected residents.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to ensure that the wording for the proposed amendment to Section 5.40 Footnote #2 is in line with the City Council’s intention to continue to include the inclusionary requirement for any nonreligious use property that is going above four stories, and to strike “except for religious purposes” used from Section 5.40 Footnotes #1 and #37.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Yet another example, of this City Council’s “Break It First, Then Pick Up The Pieces” philosophy.

Order #3. That the Mayor is hereby appointing a committee, to be announced in the coming days, to screen applicants for the position of City Clerk.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to continue to work with stakeholders in the area including Harvard University and the Harvard Square Business Association to pursue options for pedestrianization on Lower Bow Street and to report on the option for automatic bollards for Winthrop and/or Bow Street.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare an interim report on demolition requests and building permit applications, in order to facilitate a discussion on the outcomes observed during the first six months of the new Multifamily Housing Zoning.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Zusy, McGovern, Azeem; Order Adopted 9-0

Yet another example, of this City Council’s “Break It First, Then Pick Up The Pieces” philosophy.

Order #6. That the Human Services and Veterans Committee hold a meeting in Fall 2025 and extend an invitation to the Superintendent of Cambridge Public Schools and the School Committee to discuss the progress and future direction of the Cambridge Preschool Program.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Zusy; comments by Siddiqui, Wilson, Zusy, Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0


Community Benefits for Whom?

Unfinished Business #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a revised draft of the “Eastern Cambridge Community Enhancements” Zoning Petition. [Placed on Unfinished Business, June 9, 2025] (CM25#153)
No Action Taken, Votes Expected Aug 4

Unfinished Business #6. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to East Cambridge Community Enhancement Overlay District (“ECCE Overlay District”), which is governed by the regulations and procedures specified in this Section 20.1200. It is the intent of this Section that these regulations will apply to land within the ECCE Overlay District. [Passed to 2nd Reading, June 9, 2025] (ORD25#10)
pulled for discussion (JSW); comments by Yi-An Huang, Zusy, Simmons, Megan Bayer, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, Wilson, Siddiqui, Toner, Azeem, Nolan; No Action Taken, Votes Expected Aug 4

There is a brewing controversy associated with this zoning petition and, more specifically, the proposed community benefits agreement tied to the petition that would, in particular, greatly benefit the East End House (~$20 million). I suspect this may be the featured item during Public Comment.

Original BioMed Petition Text (Mar 17)     Petitioner Revisions (Apr 18)     CDD Memo (Apr 24)

Planning Board Presentation (Apr 29)     Planning Board Report (May 19) – original document     Ordinance Committee Agenda (May 20)

Ordinance Committee Report (June 9)     DS,MM,SS,AW Reallocation Memo (June 9)     Order #3 (PO25#96) (June 23)

Cambridge Community Center 6/26 message (“URGENT! Ask City Council to delay the inequitable disbursement of over $20 million”)

Follow-up CCC 6/29 message (“Our Collective Response to Representative Mike Connolly’s Letter to the City Council”)
[I haven’t yet seen Connolly’s letter to the City Council, but I’m sure it is characteristically ill-informed.]

Joint Response from CCC, CAC, CEOC, and The Dance Complex

This controversy reminds me of what then-City Manager Robert Healy reportedly said when informed of the gift of the Foundry building to the City in conjunction with a zoning petition then being sought: “This is going to be a problem.” Indeed, there was competition almost immediately among councillors for their pet projects that might be located in this windfall building. In the end, the cost associated with retrofitting the building for its current use was, I believe, well in excess of the value of the gift. I am also reminded of how the provision of ARPA funds turned into a competition among many interested parties and their City Council sponsors – including the Rise Up Cambridge local welfare program that then-Mayor Siddiqui incessantly associates with her own name. I may have some of the timeline confused, but I am also reminded of then-Councillor Sam Seidel’s effort to come up with an equitable way of distributing benefits derived from “contract zoning” – more often than not in and around East Cambridge (or, as Heather Hoffman often describes it, “the eastern sacrifice zone”).

I have been to many events held at the Cambridge Community Center on Callender Street in the Riverside neighborhood, and each time I am there I have taken note of the deterioration of the building – and the window frames and sills in particular. It is abundantly clear that this important building needs some love. Perhaps Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds could be used for this purpose, but the Affordable Housing Trust would likely oppose that. The public policy question is whether (and how) revenues derived from projects in one part of the city should be appropriated that is fair to all residents of the city but at the same time primarily benefits those neighborhoods most affected by this new development.

I am not convinced that the current City Council is particularly skilled at answering these questions. Their approach in recent years has become more imperious and less concerned about the impacts in areas and along streets most affected by their “progressive” policy decisions.

The ECCE Overlay District Petition expires August 18. Though it is expected to be voted on June 30, it could be delayed until the Midsummer City Council meeting on Aug 4.


Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wednesday, June 18, 2025 to continue the discussion on a Zoning Petition by Mushla Marasao, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Sections 5.28.21, 8.22.1, 8.22.2, and Table 5.1 with the intent to remove gross floor area (GFA) and floor area ratio (FAR) limitations for religious uses, permit conforming additions to nonconforming structures without limitation for religious uses, and permit religious uses with the same dimensional limitations as residential uses except that in a Residence C-1 district permeable open space would not be required, buildings would be permitted up to 6 stories and 74 feet above grade without meeting inclusionary housing requirements, and buildings taller than 35 feet and 3 stories above grade would not be required to notify neighbors and hold a meeting. The Ordinance Committee voted favorably to forward the Mushla Marasao, et al. Zoning Petition to the full City Council with no recommendation. [text of report]
Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0


Resolution #8. Congratulations to Joseph Grassi on his retirement from the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons

Resolution #18. Congratulations to Officer Robert P. Reardon on his promotion to the rank of Sergeant with the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons

Resolution #20. Congratulations to Superintendent Pauline Wells on being awarded the 2025 Massachusetts Association of Women in Law Enforcement Organization Heritage Award.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons

Resolution #24. Congratulations to Donald “Ducky” Down on his retirement from the Department of Public Works.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern

Note: The meeting was preceded by a tribute to Charles Sullivan for his 51 years of service (and counting) to the City of Cambridge. Later in the meeting there were extensive comments of heartfelt thanks and farewell to retiring Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan.

May 19, 2025

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Summer is coming and pretty soon candidates will be pulling papers at the Election Commission to run for City Council or School Committee (or both). In the meantime, the tables are being set for “the issues” by the various single-issue and narrow-focus political advocacy groups around town. Heck, without ghost writers we wouldn’t have half the City Council orders that we see in any given week. Here’s what’s on tap this week:Peoples Republic of Cambridge

Reconsideration #1. First floor retail policy order. [Reconsideration filed by Councillor Toner]
Motion to Reconsider (Azeem) Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Toner amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by Nolan; Yi-An Huang on federal funding impacts and how we are processing the potential for interactions between federal ICE operations and local police. Harvard now up to $3 billion in federal grants frozen or cancelled, over 100 terminations issued last Thursday along, impacts of faculty staff, students, layoffs ongoing – especially at School of Public Health, MIT in similar position – cuts, layoffs, etc.; both Harvard and MIT issues bonds to raise cash to replace funds lost; Massachusetts school districts affected, etc. – some in litigation, hiring freezes pending; some FY26 Budget adjustments may be necessary; account of Worcester arrest; note that Cambridge also has a “welcoming city” status – what this potentially means; system of checks and balances under severe strain; Councillor Nolan asks about when a warrant is required; City Solicitor Megan Bayer explains what is legally required; McGovern comments on informing people on what we will and will not due in similar situations; Police Commissioner Christine Elow clarifies that the role of CPD is to maintain order and not assisting ICE in arrests; Wilson comments on advice for residents; Azeem asks if a warrant is needed for ICE to break into a car; Megan Bayer notes that CPD does not have the authority to interfere with a federal action; Azeem asks about Governor’s announced hiring freeze; Sobrinho-Wheeler asks if ICE informed Worcester officials in advance of their actions, notes that there is a reporting requirement as part of our Welcoming City Ordinance; Elow notes that there have been 4 federal detainer requests and Cambridge has not honored any of them; Zusy recommends that everyone watch the “Know Your Rights” video; Wilson suggests having a Roundtable Meeting with immigration attorneys and others; Mayor Simmons asks Ellen Semonoff (Human Services) about how school staff should handle summer programs in this regard; Megan Bayer notes trainings for staff should ICE conduct an action within a City building; Nolan asks about local shelters; Placed on File (voice vote)

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Cambridge Out of School Time (OST) Expansion Study Report. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson for comments; Ellen Semonoff notes space constraints, need to access space in school buildings, challenges in staffing and pay/benefits, etc.; Zusy if anything in the report was surprising; Siddiqui, McGovern, Nolan comments; Referred to Human Services & Veterans Committee (voice vote)

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Executive Summary of the City’s Community Benefits Advisory Committee’s work over the past several years. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern for details and concerns expressed by former City Councillor Carlone during Public Comment; Ellen Semonoff concurs that current ordinance does not allow Community Benefits money to be used for infrastructure, explains why this was decided when adopted; Semonoff notes composition of the committee and some history; Siddiqui would like to change the ordinance – perhaps as a funding source for her pet Rise Up local welfare program; Zusy asks for source of funds; Wilson expresses desire to alter Ordinance to divert funding toward other projects, impatience in how long it takes to realize funding; Referred to Human Services & Veterans Committee (voice vote)


Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board Report regarding the Cannabis Repackaging Petition.
Referred to Petition 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent)

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on May 7, 2025 on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 11.000 with the intent to amend a subsection of the Cannabis Uses standards, Section 11.800 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, with the intent to remove the provision that prohibits the packaging or repackaging of cannabis products on the premises of a Cannabis Retail Store. The Committee will also review and discuss proposed amendments to the Cambridge Municipal Code Chapter 5.50, Cannabis Business Permitting. The Committee voted favorably to forward the proposed amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance and Cambridge Municipal Code to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
Zoning Amendment Passed to 2nd Reading 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Amendment to Municipal Code 5.50 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Report Accepted, Placed on File (vv)

Cannabis Sales seem at times to enjoy having the local equivalent of Favored Nation Status. Has any other local business had this level of City Council advocacy and intervention?


Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report on the BioMed Realty, L.P. petition to amend the Zoning Map.
pulled by McGovern; Referred to Petition (voice vote); McGovern moves Reconsideration (hoping the same will not prevail); Reconsideration Fails 0-8-1 (Toner-Absent)


Order #1. That this City Council hereby declares June 19, 2025 as a Day of Reflection on Mass Incarceration in the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, go on record in support, and gives its endorsement of, the Juneteenth Festival at Cambridge Common as a vital community event celebrating freedom and resilience, and go on record in support and commending the work of The Black Response Cambridge in creating the film “Where Do Black Men Live?”, which powerfully highlights the lived experiences, struggles, and stories of Black male populations in Cambridge, bringing greater awareness to critical issues of housing, justice, and belonging.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Zusy; comments by McGovern, Zusy, Nolan, Wilson; Order Adopted 9-0

Pardon my not jumping on the support bandwagon, but here are a few nuggets of what this organization espouses:

  • Mission: The Black Response is an abolitionist research and advocacy organization that envisions and works toward building a world free of carceral and harmful responses. We seek to uplift the Black, brown, and otherwise marginalized communities in Cambridge and everywhere by working to unbundle and abolish policing, defund the police to invest in communities, and support the building of alternatives to public safety and the development of community care initiatives.
  • Here we are, Black Cambridge residents. We are actively calling on the Cambridge City Council to #DefundThePolice!
  • Anti-Capitalism – We recognize the interlocking and mutually reinforcing character of racism, patriarchy, and class oppression, as well as the deep and toxic interconnections between the prison industrial complex, capitalism and racism. We believe capitalism and class war are fundamental contradictions at the heart of the global order we live in today. We therefore seek to build equity, cooperation, and self-determination by replacing capitalist practices with racial and economic justice; and centering those most deeply affected by racism.
  • Abolition Internationalism – We believe that the pervasive violence of capitalism, policing and prisons do not stop at our borders. These systems are crucial tools for maintaining imperialism and the subjugation of African-descended people around the world from Atlanta to Haiti to Sudan. We therefore organize in a way which “thinks global and acts local”. In other words, we seek, wherever possible, to align our efforts with decolonial and revolutionary movements in the Global South and around the world.
  • We call on the City Council to end police patrol in the Black communities in Cambridge. … We want community workers instead.

Some advocacy organizations do more harm than good – even in The Peoples Republic of Cambridge.


Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to explore with the Government Operations Committee whether the functions of the Peace Commission may be improved and enhanced by bringing them within another City Commission or Department, such as the Human Rights Commission, and report back in a timely manner.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; JSW says this is not intended to eliminate functions of the Peace Commission, need for review of this and other boards; Nolan notes that it would be prudent to review of other boards and commissions, wants to also consider changing function of Police Review and Advisory Board; Simmons notes roles of committees but concerns that this Order involves personnel matters, inappropriateness of intervening in this way at this time; Charter Right – Simmons

This Order is Out Of Order. Though the City Council was responsible for establishing some of these boards and commissions many, many years ago, it’s really a case of jumping the Plan E fence to start directing the City Manager on how these boards should be staffed or if and how the management of the city government should best be organized. I would also speculate that the lead sponsor of this Order would like nothing more than to redefine the Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) in a manner more aligned with his own personal agenda and that of his DSA affiliates.

The Right Order – something that is decades overdue – would be a call for a periodic review of ALL discretionary boards and commissions. The “Cambridge Commission on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Education” was established in 1982 for one purpose but now describes itself as: “The Cambridge Peace Commission promotes peace and social justice within Cambridge and in the wider world by working with other municipal agencies, communities of faith, nonprofit organizations, and the community as a whole to build connections, strengthen relationships, and promote positive dialogue.” The mission has clearly changed even though the ordinance has not.

There are many priorities the citizens of a city like Cambridge should be addressing, and perhaps a few priorities that deserve reevaluation. Did you know that an “Oil Recycling Committee” was established but never disestablished? It just disappeared. The Recycling Advisory Committee and the Committee for Environmentally Desirable Practices were once distinct entities established by Ordinance, but they eventually began meeting jointly and exist now only as the Recycling Advisory Committee.

The Cambridge Traffic Board was established by a Special Act of the Legislature in 1961, but it was allowed to die on the vine until a few of us pointed out that state law mandates that it be appointed. The City Manager and the Law Department eventually agreed and three members were appointed (all bike lane advocates, by the way), a couple of years ago – but I have been told that they have yet to meet (please correct me if I have this wrong!). We have a Bicycle Committee and a Pedestrian Committee, yet operators of motor vehicle operators have almost no recourse – and some might argue that the newly-renamed Transportation Department might more aptly be renamed the Department of Traffic Congestion and Obstruction (DTCO).

I have appreciated some of the historical research of the Cambridge Women’s Commission, but I do occasionally wonder whether that board and several other boards are really extracting the highest and best use of the volunteer efforts of the people of Cambridge. Maybe all discretionary boards should have a sunset provision and a thoughtful reauthorization process every decade or so.

There is also the nagging question of whether the agendas of City boards and commissions as well as their membership should be primarily determined by City staff – some of whom are quietly carrying out their own agendas behind the wall of the Plan E Charter.


Order #3. That the City Council go on record in support of H1811/S1114 and H1693/S1124 and the Clean Slate Massachusetts campaign.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Siddiqui for comments in support; Nolan added as cosponsor (vv); Order Adopted as Amended (vv)

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to meet with the leadership of the Harvard Square Business Association to discuss the proposal and to take the necessary steps to facilitate the release of $72,000 to fund the RFP development for the tunnel engineering study. [Charter Right – Azeem. May 12, 2025]
Azeem proposes amendment (with Toner); Azeem, Zusy, Nolan comments; Amendment Adopted (vv); Order Adopted as Amended (vv)

Communications #50. Patrick W Barrett III, re: Support for PO25#68 (Inclusionary Housing Study).

This issue isn’t going away – and our newly established Housing Department can no longer wish it away.

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on April 14, 2025 to review and discuss regulations to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems. (PO25#7). [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File (vv)

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on April 16, 2025 to review and discuss capital and large-scale programs and projects currently underway and in the funding plan, and potential future programming and projects that would need to be planned and incorporated into medium- and long-term capital and operating budgets. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File (vv)

My take on this meeting and other recent meetings has been that perhaps this isn’t the time for city councillors to be advocating forcefully for their personal pet projects that might be real budget busters. I would also like to draw everyone’s attention to the very informative memo from Finance Director Claire Spinner that was presented at the May 8, 2025 Budget Hearing. That golden goose seems a little less golden these days. I will add that the shift of the tax levy onto the residential sector won’t fall evenly on all housing types. The condo owners will be the least affected, but the owners of single-, two-, and three-family homes may soon experience some serious sticker shock.

Its Conclusion: “Cambridge faces a critical fiscal juncture that requires disciplined financial stewardship and strategic planning. The FY26 budget reflects a concerted effort to maintain essential services, support community priorities, and meet the budget and tax levy targets set last fall – all while navigating mounting economic uncertainty, shifting property valuations, and increasing dependence on property tax revenue. The potential shift in tax burden from commercial to residential properties and the erosion of excess levy capacity highlight the need for careful moderation in budget growth. By implementing a multi-year fiscal framework, preserving financial flexibility, and preparing for federal funding risks through targeted reserves, the City is taking proactive steps to ensure long-term stability. As we move forward, continued collaboration between the City Council, staff, and the broader community will be essential to making informed choices that sustain Cambridge’s financial health and its capacity to invest in a resilient and equitable future.”

May 11, 2025

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

The FY26 Budget Hearings are continuing, but here are the highlights for this week’s regular City Council meeting… comments and additional details to follow:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to technical corrections that should be made to the Floodplain Zoning text. (CM25#118) [text of report]
pulled by McGovern along with Committee Report #1; comments by Nolan, Zusy; text amended 9-0 per Committee Report #1; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Apr 30, 2025 to hold a public hearing on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 5.000 and Section 20.70 with the intent of (1) replacing the Floodplain Overlay and Planning Board Special Permit with the Massachusetts model ordinance structure for permitting development in the flood plain through administrative review; (2) updating references to the most recent FEMA maps to maintain compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program; and (3) revising other parts of the Zoning Ordinance for internal consistency. The Committee voted favorably to accept the amendments and forward them to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled early along with Manager’s Agenda #1; Report Accepted, Place on File 9-0


Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to meet with the leadership of the Harvard Square Business Association to discuss the proposal and to take the necessary steps to facilitate the release of $72,000 to fund the RFP development for the tunnel engineering study.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, City Manager Huang re: cost considerations, Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan re: pedestrianizing a portion of Harvard Square and skepticism re: tunnel proposal, McGovern, Toner, Nolan, Azeem; Charter Right – Azeem

I saw some images and videos of the abandoned tunnel under Brattle Street several years ago. This is a very intriguing idea.


Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to ensure that all city owned parking lots, with a focus on school complexes, including the still under construction parking at Tobin/Darby Vassal school complex, could be made available for after-hours use by residents.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan re: more general parking concerns; add Siddiqui, Zusy, Wilson as sponsors 9-0; Toner notes that this is a request, a hope – notes that parking used to be available in off hours; Simmons comments, proposed amendment adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

On the Table #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-22, regarding a request to work with the School Department, the Department of Public Works, and other relevant departments to open the publicly owned parking at the King Open/Cambridge Street Upper School Complex for either residential free parking or commercial parking opportunities during “off” hours. [Tabled – May 5, 2025]


Charter Right #1. The City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Inclusionary Housing Study, explore remedies to address the lack of housing starts and provide for consideration draft amendments to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and explore other incentives to encourage developers to include affordable units beyond the requirement voluntarily. [Charter Right – Azeem, May 5, 2025]
Azeem amendment by substitution, McGovern amendment to change date from January 2026 to October 2025; late communication from Chris Cotter (Housing) re: Inclusionary Housing; Toner, Simmons comments; [Editor’s Note: Chris Cotter’s testimony – esp. re: amount of time required for “study”, failure to conduct study on schedule – seems evasive and less than sincere]; Azeem wants accelerated timeline, does not support lowering 20% inclusionary requirement; comments by Zusy, City Manager Huang (noting that lowering pct. would not legally require a study); Simmons comments; date change from Jan 2026 to Oct 2025 adopted 9-0; Nolan, Toner amendments noting (in part) that the required study was not done and a reminder that adjustments of IZ percentages for different project sizes was requested in Sept 2024; comments by Nolan, Toner, Zusy (noting possible reduction in housing demand due to federal policies), Cotter, Wilson, Huang; Azeem calls the question (to end discussion) – voted 9-0; Nolan, Toner amendments adopted 9-0; JSW comments – not in favor of any reductions, wants even higher required percentages for larger projects, use of AHT funds to subsidize; Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Late Communication #2. A communication was received from Director of Housing, Chris Cotter. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

The original Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (1998) made sense in that the mandate for subsidized units in projects of 10 or more units came with a density bonus plus one additional market-rate unit for every mandated “affordable” unit. The revised ordinance (2017) was politically driven and economically nonsensical. The City Council could now amend the ordinance to reflect current conditions and economic reality … or they can act politically and ensure that few new inclusionary housing units are ever built. Indeed, many of the inclusionary units that have come on line in recent years were ones that were hatched prior to the current ordinance. Municipal election years can confound good decision-making.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to include in the FY26 Operating Budget a continued commitment to Emergency Housing Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing and Mixed Status Families, and the Transition Wellness Center, as well as allocate the necessary resources to establish a municipal successor to Rise Up Cambridge that builds on its mission of providing direct, dignified economic support to families. [Charter Right – Wilson, May 5, 2025]
Wilson proposes substitute Order that; Wilson elaborates that substitute order calls for “allocation of at least 25 additional housing vouchers or $1 million, whichever is greater, that would be open to the 20 remaining residents at the Transitional Wellness Center who do not have a permanent housing placement in process and to other shelter residents in Cambridge; and to allocate funding for a successor program to Rise Up Cambridge as soon as possible”; comments by Wilson, McGovern; Ellen Semonoff reports that there are some beds available at 240 Albany Street for people in recovery, efforts now being made to find situations for all remaining TWC occupants; Nolan comments, proposed amendment to require report of scope and cost of any Rise Up successor program; comments by Yi-An Huang of projects now in pipeline by Affordable Housing Trust (AHT); comments by Zusy re: open-ended continuing costs associated with keeping TWC open, fact that an unlimited number of people will continue to come to Cambridge for our generous services, suggests greater support for 240 Albany St./Bay Cove rather than open-ended provision of vouchers; Toner asks if additional $1 million for vouchers is feasible; Yi-An Huang notes that vouchers would be specifically for those in transition to permanent supportive housing; Toner expresses concerns about wording of request to fund a successor to Rise Up program; McGovern elaborates on possible options for successor program, criteria for eligibility, implementation dates; Wilson addresses matter of a “benefit cliff” that could potentially trigger loss of MassHealth benefits, implementation timeline (hoping to have everything up and running by Jan 1, 2026); Siddiqui notes that getting this into FY2026 Budget may not be possible; Toner expresses concerns about operation of proposed program and where the money would be coming from; Yi-An Huang says there is a path to creating a successor program – challenge is resourcing, questions of scale of program, prioritization; JSW comments about ARPA, opening of shelters, would prefer to give vouchers to all residents of all shelters, calls Rise Up successor program critical; Zusy to vote No because City budget otherwise seeing cuts; Nolan amendment to Substitute Order Adopted 9-0; Substitute Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Some councillors must have not read the memo regarding the need for greater fiscal restraint for the time being. And, of course, municipal election years can confound good decision-making.

Charter Right #3. First floor retail policy order. [Charter Right – Zusy, May 5, 2025]
Toner offers additional amendment that the Order be referred to the Economic Development and University Relations Committee and the the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee for a hearing and discussion before being forwarded to the Ordinance Committee for deliberation; comments by Zusy about value of neighborhood retail; Nolan, JSW, Azeem comments; Amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent)

I live in a BA-1 zone (mixed residential/commercial), but I don’t think this would be advisable for all residential zones. It’s one thing to grandfather existing small retail establishments, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to open up all residential zones to ground floor retail. Besides, isn’t everyone aware of how many vacant retail spaces there are right now and the fact that a lot of retail is croaking?

Resolution #7. Resolution congratulating Diane LeBlanc on her Retirement.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
pulled by Simmons for comments; additional comments by McGovern, Toner, Siddiqui, Azeem, Nolan, Zusy, Wilson, Sobrinho-Wheeler, City Council Assistant Naomie Stephen; standing ovation for Diane LeBlanc; comments by Diane LeBlanc w/appreciation and thanks to staff of City Clerk’s Office

Diane LeBlanc has been a blessing for the last three years. We are an historic city and it has been great to have someone with a background as an archivist in the role of City Clerk.

Committee Report #2. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on May 5, 2025 to initiate the process of re-appointing the City Auditor, PO25#62. The Committee voted favorably to forward the re-appointment of the City Auditor, Joseph McCann, to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Joseph McCann reappointed to another 3-year term as City Auditor 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

May 2, 2025

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance – a letter from Patrick Barrett

Date: May 1, 2025Patrick Barrett

City Manager Yi-An Huang
Mayor E. Denise Simmons
Members of the Cambridge City Council
City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Subject: Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203)

Dear City Manager Huang, Mayor Simmons, and Honorable Members of the City Council,

I write to highlight critical legal and economic flaws in Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203), which mandates that 20% of residential floor area in developments with 10 or more units be dedicated to affordable units. While the City’s affordability goals are laudable, the ordinance’s non-compliance with state law, reliance on outdated economic assumptions, failure to meet procedural mandates, and disproportionate impact on smaller developers demand immediate action. Specifically, I address: (1) non-compliance with the MBTA Communities Act; (2) failure to conduct a required nexus study by April 2022; (3) reliance on the outdated 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report amidst changed economic conditions; and (4) legal vulnerabilities under recent judicial precedents.

1. Non-Compliance with the MBTA Communities Act
The MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A), enacted in January 2021, requires MBTA communities like Cambridge to establish a zoning district of reasonable size allowing multi-family housing as-of-right with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, located within 0.5 miles of a transit station, without age restrictions and suitable for families. Cambridge, as a rapid-transit community, was required to submit a compliant zoning ordinance to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) by December 31, 2023. We have been certified compliant however we are not in compliance with our own zoning requirements and lack a valid economic feasibility analysis (EFA). This opens the question of the validity of certification and what if any standards are being met in certification. If Cambridge is to be an example to other towns currently fighting the MBTA Communities Act we must, at a bare minimum, be in compliance with our own laws. Further the 2025 Multifamily Housing Zoning Amendment eliminated most of the “bonus” density awarded to inclusionary projects as a financial offset. This was done without a corresponding nexus study which would have been required to show the impact of removing bonuses anticipated by the Rosen report.

The February 2025 zoning reform, allowing multi-family housing citywide up to four stories (six stories for inclusionary projects on lots ?5,000 sq ft), aligns with Section 3A’s density and as-of-right requirements. However, the 20% affordability requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines, which permit up to 10% of units at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) without an economic feasibility analysis (EFA). Higher percentages, up to 20%, require an EFA demonstrating financial viability. Cambridge’s blanket 20% requirement, applied citywide without a recent EFA, is not in compliance, as it clearly does render projects economically infeasible without significant cross collateralization as seen in 121 Broadway, and is particularly onerous given rising costs since 2016.

2. Failure to Conduct a Required Nexus Study (Section 11.203.2(c))
Section 11.203.2(c) mandates that the City “initiate a reevaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement at an interval of no more than five (5) years” to assess the percentage of affordable units, income eligibility, and program effectiveness. The ordinance was amended in April 2017, increasing the requirement from 15% to 20% based on the 2016 Rosen report. The first reevaluation was due by April 2022.

No evidence indicates a comprehensive reevaluation occurred. The 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report, documenting 258 units completed or under construction, is a progress update, not a nexus study. The Community Development Department’s (CDD) ongoing monitoring (1,200+ units since 1998) and the 2025 reform do not fulfill Section 11.203.2(c)’s mandate. This procedural failure undermines the ordinance’s legitimacy, as the City cannot justify the 20% rate’s proportionality under Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024), which requires legislative exactions to be tailored to project-specific impacts. Non-compliance suggests arbitrary policymaking, exposing the ordinance to legal challenges.

3. Outdated 2016 Rosen Report and Changed Economic Conditions
The 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report recommended increasing the inclusionary requirement to 20%, contingent on four conditions to ensure economic feasibility. The report’s economic assumptions are outdated due to significant changes by 2025 in interest rates, land costs, construction costs, utility costs, capitalization rates (cap rates), and new zoning regulations not anticipated in 2016. Most conditions remain unmet, exacerbating the ordinance’s adverse impact, particularly on smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units.

Analysis of the Rosen Report

Interest Rate: The report assumed a blended interest rate of 4.5–5.0% for construction and permanent loans reflecting 2016 market conditions. By 2025, interest rates have risen to 8.5–10.8%, increasing debt costs.

Land Cost per Unit: The report estimated residual land costs at $50,000–$170,000 per unit for multi-family developments (6–300 units), with smaller projects at higher costs (~$150,000–$170,000) and larger ones at lower costs (~$50,000–$80,000). By 2025, land costs have escalated to $150,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% increase), requiring ~$200,000/year additional NOI at a 5.0% cap rate, unfeasible without higher rents or incentives.

o Disproportionate Impact: Smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units but under 200 face greater economic barriers under the 20% inclusionary mandate compared to larger or incentivized projects permitted under the 15% mandate (December 2016–June 2017), such as 425 Mass Ave & 47 Bishop Allen Drive (completed 2018 by Twining Properties), 195-211 Concord Turnpike (completed 2018 by Bozzuto Group), and more recent projects like 121 Broadway which levered outstanding commitments, increased density, and funding from the CRA. Market Central, including 47 Bishop Allen Drive, leveraged a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting ground floor area exemptions, an FAR increase to 6.5, a special overlay re-mapping, and height increases to 195 feet from by-right 55 feet and special permit 80 feet, enabling affordability via retail (15,400 sq ft) and residential revenue (Link, Watermark). Atmark Cambridge used mixed-use revenue (retail). Smaller projects lack such advantages, facing:

High Land Costs: ~$200,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% higher than 2016), increasing financial burdens.

Rising Construction Costs: Up 50-60% since 2016, straining budgets for projects without economies of scale.

New Zoning Costs: Article 22 (2018, amended 2023), tree protection (2019), and climate resilience (2021) add 10–25% to costs ($1.5M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft).

Removal of Density Bonus: The 2025 six-story bonus for lots ?5,000 sq ft is absent in high-density zones (e.g., Central Square) or insufficient to offset 20% mandate costs without density bonuses.

Permitting Delays: Community meetings (Footnote 37) and environmental reviews add $20,000–$50,000, disproportionate for smaller developers. As-of-Right projects subject to Article 19.50 averaging roughly 7-12 months and 11 – 20 months if a 19.23 special permit is required.

Construction Costs: The report assumed stable prices (~$200–$300/sq ft). By 2025, costs have risen nearly 40% due to supply chain issues, labor shortages, and inflation.

Utility Costs: The report implied 2016 utility costs. In 2025, costs have risen significantly, reducing NOI:

o Electricity: Up 38% (22.5 to 31 ¢/kWh), increasing monthly costs by $150/unit, reducing NOI by $14,688/year for 12 units.

o Natural Gas: Up 67% ($1.50 to $2.50/therm), reducing NOI by $14,400/year for 12 units.

o Heating Oil: Up 52% ($2.70 to $4.10/gallon), reducing NOI by $10,800/year for 12 units.

For a 12-unit project, a $39,888 NOI drop lowers value by ~$864,000 at a 5.0% cap rate, hitting smaller projects harder.

Cap Rate Comparison: The report implied cap rates of 4.5–5.0% (Class A/B) and 5.0–5.5% (Class C). In 2025, cap rates are 4.8–5.3% (Class A/B) and 5.3–5.8% (Class C, CBRE), driven by higher interest rates and costs. A $1M NOI project at 4.5% (2016) yields $22.22M, but at 5.0% with $43,200 NOI drop (2025), yields $19.12M—a 14% valuation drop, worse for smaller projects with higher effective cap rates (~5.5%).

Additional Post-2016 Zoning Changes
Since 2016, Cambridge adopted regulations not anticipated in the Rosen Report, increasing costs:

Article 22 – Sustainable Design and Development (2018, amended 2023): Mandates LEED certification and net-zero readiness for projects over 25,000 sq ft, adding 10–25% to costs ($6M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft per BXP reports) and $10,000–$50,000+ in application delays not including costs to carry.

Tree Protection Ordinance Enhancements (2019): Requires tree permits ($100–$500/tree) and replacements ($500–$1,500/tree), adding $5,000–$20,000 and $10,000–$30,000 in delays.

Climate Resilience Requirements (2021): Mandates flood-resistant designs, adding 5–15% to costs ($1.5M–$5M for 50,000 sq ft) and $20,000–$50,000 in delays.

Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (2022): Saves $500k–$2.5M by removing $50,000–$100,000/space, but most for sale condo buildings seek to add parking not remove it thus the bonus only truly applies in a rental scenario.

These changes increase costs by 10–25%, offsetting parking savings and rendering the 20% mandate unfeasible for smaller projects without density bonuses.

Four Conditions for Raising Inclusionary Requirement Outlined In Rosen
The Rosen report outlined four conditions to support the 20% requirement:

1. Increased Density Bonuses: Recommended citywide FAR bonuses.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 2025 six-story bonus (lots ?5,000 sq ft) is limited or absent in high-density zones, unlike Market Central’s PUD concessions. Removing density bonuses further undermines feasibility, likely requiring a new nexus study and opening to challenge the current ordinance.

2. Flexible Requirements for Smaller Projects: Suggested tiered percentages (e.g., 10–15% for <20 units).

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 20% mandate is uniform, deterring smaller projects. It is not clear that 10% works for smaller projects (10 – 20 units) based 2025 conditions.

3. Streamlined Permitting Processes: Advocated faster permitting.

o 2025 Relevance: Partially Met. As-of-right zoning and parking elimination help, but community meetings (footnote 37), special permits through Article 19, Small Project Review in Article 19.50, environmental reviews, and traffic and parking mitigation add massive delays.

4. Periodic Reevaluation: Required reassessments every five years.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. No 2022 reevaluation occurred, leaving the 20% rate unadjusted despite cost escalations, removal of bonuses, and passage of the MBTA Communities Act.

The unmet conditions and outdated assumptions (4.5–5.0% interest rate vs. 8.5–10.8%, $50,000–$170,000 vs. $150,000–$250,000 land cost, 40% construction cost increase, 20–136% utility cost increases, 4.5–5.0% vs. 4.8–5.3% cap rates) make the 20% mandate infeasible for smaller projects, especially without density bonuses.

4. Legal Vulnerabilities

The ordinance faces legal risks:

Unconstitutional Takings: The 20% mandate lacks proportionality, failing the Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz test, relying on the outdated 2016 Rosen report without a 2022 nexus study. Removing density bonuses would exacerbate this by increasing the exaction’s burden without justified impact assessments, risking due process violations.

MBTA Communities Act: The 20% requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines (10% without EFA, 20% with EFA). Without bonuses, a new EFA is needed to prove feasibility, or the ordinance risks non-compliance with Section 3A.

5. Recommendations

To address these flaws, I urge the City to:

1. Reduce the Inclusionary Housing Requirement: Lower to 10% without an EFA to comply with M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A as an emergency measure for the next three years.

2. Initiate a Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz-Compliant Study: Conduct a nexus study per Section 11.203.2(c) to justify exactions. Require CDD act immediately and limit time to completion.

3. Explore Returning Development Bonuses: Direct the Cambridge Community Development Department to create bonuses that anticipate the 2025 multifamily housing change including but not limited to fast tract permitting, removing Article 19, scaling inclusionary with tailored nexus studies per Sheetz, and any other potential bonus to offset the exorbitant burden IZ zoning places on residential development.

Cambridge’s housing leadership is commendable, but the ordinance’s flaws undermine its effectiveness and legality. Please work to rapidly address the issues raised herein to address the urgency of the housing crisis we are in and to ensure we do not further encumber ourselves with ineffective counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,
Patrick W. Barrett III

April 4, 2023

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 585-586: April 4, 2023

Episode 585 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 4, 2023 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Apr 4, 2023 at 6:00pm. Topics: Development standards and costs; cumulative effect of ordinances, regulations, and other requirements; Inclusionary housing, Linkage and nexus studies; economies of scale benefitting major players; memories of rent control driving properties from small-scale to large-scale owners; more diverse ownership preferable. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 586 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 4, 2023 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Apr 4, 2023 at 6:30pm. Topics: Charter Review; ideas of charter changes; proportional representation; elected office as service and not as a career; redress of grievances in previous charters; charter provisions as guardrails; history of revised ordinances after charter change. Hosts: Robert Winters, Patrick Barrett [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

July 2, 2019

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 407-408: July 2, 2019

Episode 407 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 2, 2019 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on July 2, 2019 at 5:30pm. Topics: “Affordable Housing Overlay” at Planning Board & Ordinance Committee; Inclusionary Zoning; some housing history; CDD Housing Division as landlords. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 408 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 2, 2019 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on June July 2, 2019 at 6:00pm. Topics: Candidates pulling nomination papers; who is and is not running; School Committee toxicity; Open Archives highlights; Tom Magliozzi; hiding the state flag. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

June 25, 2019

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 405-406: June 25, 2019

Episode 405 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 25, 2019 (Part 1)

This episode was broadcast on June 25, 2019 at 5:30pm. Topics: Picking winners in Inclusionary Housing, Cannabis permitting; micro-legislating; First Street Garage & innuendo. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 406 – Cambridge InsideOut: June 25, 2019 (Part 2)

This episode was broadcast on June 25, 2019 at 6:00pm. Topics: Open Archives, Car Talk Plaza, City Dance Party; candidate updates; rooftop mechanicals, BarBQ; Arts Task Force, CMAC, EMF, and politics. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

Powered by WordPress