Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 27, 2022

Cambridge City Charter Review – Resources

Cambridge City Charter Review

Resources for those who wish to objectively view the history and evolution of the charter
of the City of Cambridge from 1846 to the present and possible modifications for the future.

http://rwinters.com/CharterReview/

Cambridge City Charter Study Group

I would like to informally gather a group of concerned Cambridge residents to form a Study Group to better understand the Cambridge City Charter – past, present, and future – in detail. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current Charter? How did we come to have the current (Plan E) Charter? What improvements to the governmental form and election methods might be advisable? [References]

This Study Group would be separate from the “official” Cambridge Charter Review Committee that was recently appointed by several city councillors. Among other things, this group can monitor the official review committee, discuss and critique any proposals coming from that committee, and independently propose alternatives. If you are interested, please let me know. – Robert Winters

original proposed 1846 Charter
(this is not the same as what was
passed and sent to Cambridge voters!)
1846 Charter w/amendments through 1890 appended
(as approved by Legislature and Cambridge Town Meeting)
1891 Charter 1915 (Plan B) Charter 1940 (Plan E) Charter
(as amended)
M.G.L. Chapter 43: CITY CHARTERS
M.G.L. Chapter 43B: HOME RULE PROCEDURES
M.G.L. Chapter 43C: OPTIONAL FORMS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

City SealThe official Charter Review Committee now has a website: https://www.cambridgema.gov/charterreview
This page has links to the recordings of all of the meetings held so far.


How best to distribute political power in Portland? Fault lines erupt over charter ballot proposal (The Oregonian, Sept 18, 2022)
Yeah – I’m quoted in the article. – RW


Additional Resources

House No. 13 – An Act to establish the city of Cambridge – 1846 (HTML – this is not the same as what was passed and sent to Cambridge voters! House No. 13 – An Act to establish the city of Cambridge – 1846 (PDF – scan retrieved via Google) – not the same as final version adopted by voters March 30, 1846
Original 1846 Charter w/amendments through 1890 appended (HTML) – See Note below Original 1846 Charter w/amendments through 1890 appended (PDF) – scan from Revised Ordinances 1892, published by City of Cambridge – adopted by voters March 30, 1846 – See Note below
Note: with Amendments of 1853 (adopted Dec 5, 1853); Amendments of 1857 (adopted May 1, 1857); Amendments of 1867 (adopted Nov 5, 1967); Amendments of 1869 (adopted Nov 2, 1869); Amendments of 1870 (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1873-A (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1873-B (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1877 (adopted by City Council March 14, 1877); Amendments of 1878 (adopted by City Council); Amendments of 1890 (adopted by City Council May 3, 1890)
1891 Charter of the City of Cambridge (HTML)
– adopted by voters Dec 8, 1891
1891 Charter of the City of Cambridge (PDF) – scan from Revised Ordinances 1892, published by City of Cambridge) – adopted by voters Dec 8, 1891
1911 Proposed Charter (scan from original pamphlet of Cambridge Charter Association) – not approved by voters – 5272 For, 6073 Against
Chart from 1911 Charter Proposal     Inside front cover of 1911 Charter Proposal pamphlet     Insert from 1911 Charter Proposal pamphlet
1915 Charter (Plan B) from Mass. General Laws, Chapter 43 – adopted by voters Nov 2, 1915
1938 Mass. House Report of the Special Commission on Taxation and Public Expenditures – Part X (City Manager Government and Proportional Representation), Feb 25, 1938 – scanned from original
Plan E Charter (as amended through 2021)
defeated in Nov 8, 1938 municipal election: 19955 For, 21722 Against (47.9%-52.1%), 4615 Blanks
approved in Nov 5, 1940 municipal election: Nov 7 Cambridge Chronicle reports 25875 For, 18323 Against (58.5%-41.5%), 7513 Blanks
Spreadsheet of votes in 1938 and 1940 elections to adopt Plan E
M.G.L. Chapter 43: CITY CHARTERS
M.G.L. Chapter 43B: HOME RULE PROCEDURES
M.G.L. Chapter 43C: OPTIONAL FORMS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mass. General Laws Chapter 54A (Proportional Representation)     PDF version Rules for Counting Ballots (1941 pamphlet from Cambridge Election Commission)
Political History of Cambridge in the 20th Century – by Glenn Koocher (Nov 2004); edited by Robert Winters (July 2006)
[An alternate edit of this essay appeared, along with many other valuable essays, in a centennial volume published by the Cambridge Historical Society in 2007.]
The Advent of PR in Cambridgeoriginally published in the Cambridge Civic Journal on Feb 12, 1998
HOW TO BREAK A POLITICAL MACHINE – Collier’s Magazine, Jan 31, 1948 (posted Sept 24, 2020, updated Mar 27, 2021)

In case you were wondering about how to make Cambridge’s PR elections independent of how the ballots are counted…

Election Method Comparison – STV/Cincinnati vs. Fractional Transfer – 2021 Cambridge City Council Election (posted Jan 15, 2022)

Plan E Cambridge City Councils – At A Glance (Mayor in bold)Comments?

Plan E Cambridge School Committees (and Mayors) At A GlanceComments?

Cambridge PR Election Archive
Sept 21, 2020 City Council meeting notes – CCJ Forum (see comment at end)

Sept 23, 2020 Special City Council meeting w/Collins Center:   Agenda/Materials    meeting video (includes links to documents/presentation)

Mar 22, 2021 City Council meeting notes – CCJ Forum (see Communications & Reports #2)  Communication from Mayor Siddiqui re: Collins Center
[Siddiqui memo] [Collins Center 1st memo (Mar 11, 2021)] [Appendices]

May 3, 2021 City Council meeting notes – CCJ Forum (see Communication & Reports #2 at end – memo provided only after meeting was held)
[Collins Center 2nd memo (Apr 28, 2021)]

May 26, 2021 Special City Council meeting w/Collins Center – Agenda (there was no advance notice of this meeting, and it was canceled)

June 2, 2021 Special City Council meeting on Charter Review w/Collins Center:    meeting video

Ad Hoc Selection Committee Announces 15 Charter Review Committee Members (July 1, 2022)

15-member review team to take first look at the Cambridge town charter (July 13, 2022, Cambridge Chronicle)

May 25, 1907 Cambridge Chronicle – “The ‘new charter’ has been abandoned”
 
May 25, 1907 Cambridge Chronicle - part 1
 
May 25, 1907 Cambridge Chronicle - part 2

September 7, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 561-562: September 6, 2022

Episode 561 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 6, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Sept 6, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Primary Election Day; 1st day of work for City Manager Yi-An Huang; Council returns next week; Covid updates; Central Square revives – amidst challenges; Linkage, Incentive Zoning, and perverse incentives. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 562 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 6, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Sept 6, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Charter review and charter reform, history of Cambridge charters 1846-present, causes for change, influence of councillors by proxy; legislators nibbling at executive role; strong mayor = less democracy, less access; upcoming events. Hosts: Patrick Barrett, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

July 6, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 555-556: July 5, 2022

Episode 555 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 5, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on July 5, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: July 4 weekend wrap; benefiting from the existence of a problem, tales from the death of rent control; Charter revision history, ideas and concerns. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 556 – Cambridge InsideOut: July 5, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on July 5, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Charter Review Committee; election methods – corrections and pitfalls; School Committee as forgotten stepchild of charter revision; Cambridge Jazz Festival; retirements of Louis DePasquale, Jim Monagle, Arthur Goldberg, Jim Maloney. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

April 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 545-546: April 19, 2022

Episode 545 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 19, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Apr 19, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Board appointments; Charter Review details in process – “activist” vs. neutral review?; roles of regulatory boards; power, politics, agendas & who gets to appoint. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 546 – Cambridge InsideOut: Apr 19, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Apr 19, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Mass. Ave. bike lane and roadway alternatives; pushing back against the “Pledge”; bureaucratic simplification; anti-idling bounty hunters; tweeting in your political silo, and the dark side of proportional representation; ageism and ignorance; wandering through history in Concord and Cambridge. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 19, 2022

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 533-534: January 18, 2022

Episode 533 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 18, 2022 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Jan 18, 2022 at 6:00pm. Topics: Police Commissioner Christine Elow and some history of Chief vs. Commissioner; optimistic Covid update; bikes & buses – controversy and alternatives; ideology within Community Development Department; future prospects. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 534 – Cambridge InsideOut: Jan 18, 2022 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Jan 18, 2022 at 6:30pm. Topics: Filibuster and the value of slow legislation; Charter questions – past, present, and future; Envision history; Charter Change while seeking new City Manager, City Clerk (and City Auditor); proportional representation (PR) realities and distortions by single-issue politics; role of planning within CDD vs. responding to partisan petitions; PR revisions for fractional transfers should be part of future Charter revision discussions. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

January 15, 2022

Election Method Comparison – STV/Cincinnati vs. Fractional Transfer – 2021 Cambridge City Council Election

Filed under: 2021 election,Cambridge,elections — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:03 pm

It has been suggested at various times that Cambridge should consider modifications to its current proportional representation election method – especially in regard to its method of distribution of surplus #1 votes using the “Cincinnati Method” which is dependent on the order in which ballots are initially tabulated. An alternate method that is often suggested (but rarely explained) is known as “Fractional Transfer” and various other names. Indeed, the tabulation software currently used by Cambridge (ChoicePlusPro) has Fractional Transfer as its default method, and our own “Cambridge Rules” must be invoked for our local Cambridge elections. The Election Quota is calculated in the same manner, i.e. the total number of valid ballots divided by one more than the number to be elected, rounded up to the nearest integer (or add 1 if a whole number).Vote!

There are several key differences between the Cambridge Rules and Fractional Transfer:
(1) Under the Cambridge Rules, any overvote where the same rank is given to more than one candidate is ignored. Under Fractional Transfer, overvotes may be counted (for example if 4 candidates are given a #1 vote they would each get 0.25 votes) or they may be ignored. This is a choice that would have to be made.

(2) Under the Cambridge Rules, surplus #1 votes are redistributed to the next highest ranked continuing candidates as whole ballots where the whole ballots are chosen via the Cincinnati Method, i.e. every nth ballot where n is the nearest integer to the quotient of the total and the number of surplus ballots. For example, if Quota was 2000 and a candidate had 2600 #1 votes, there would be 600 surplus votes and 2600/600 would be approximately 4.3 and the ballots chosen for redistribution would be (in sequence) #4, #8, #12, etc. Any surplus ballot with no valid next preference would not be transferable and would remain with the #1 choice. Thus there can be no “exhausted” ballots during the surplus distribution. The distribution of surplus ballots continues until the elected candidate’s number of votes is reduced to the Election Quota. If during this surplus distribution another candidate reaches Quota, that candidate would be declared elected and would no longer be eligible to receive additional ballots with any subsequent ballots transferred to the next preference candidate on that ballot still eligible to receive transfers. There are thus two ways in which the initial ballot order can affect the election results – the specific ballots chosen for redistribution and the point at which any other candidate reaches Quota.

Under Fractional Transfer, any elected candidate with surplus votes would have a fraction of ALL ballots transferred to the next preferred continuing candidate with a corresponding weight. For example, if the Quota was 2000 and the candidate had 2500 votes (so the surplus would be 500), then ALL of that candidates ballots would be transferred to the next preferred candidate with a weight of 1/5 or 0.2 with the elected candidate retaining 0.8 of all of all ballots – thus reducing the total to the election quota. In the case where there is no valid next preference, that weight (0.2 in the example) would be exhausted, so there can be ballot exhaustion during the surplus distribution in order for the election to be independent of ballot order. If another candidate reaches Quota during this distribution (or any subsequent surplus distribution), the distribution will continue allowing the newly elected candidate to exceed Quota. A subsequent count will then take place to also reduce that candidates total down to Quota – again transferring a fraction of ALL of that candidate’s ballots in the same manner. Any candidate who has reached Quota at the end of any round is declared elected and becomes ineligible to receive transfers.

(3) Under the Cambridge Rules, after all #1 vote surpluses have been fully distributed, the next Round is the “Under 50” Round where all candidates with fewer than 50 votes at that point are simultaneously defeated and all ballots transferred to next preferred eligible candidates or exhausted if there is no additional valid choice.

Under Fractional Transfer, all candidates who have been “mathematically eliminated” are defeated simultaneously. This means that the sum of all of the votes of those candidates at that point is less than the number of votes for the next lowest candidate. If any continuing candidate reaches Quota during this round, that candidate is declared elected at the end of the round, and any surplus ballots are subsequently redistributed in a subsequent round.

(4) Under the Cambridge Rules, the remainder of the process is a series of runoffs where the candidate with the fewest votes at the end of each round is defeated and all of that candidate’s ballots are transferred to the next highest ranked continuing candidate or exhausted. This continues until the required number of candidates have been elected either by reaching Quota or by having not been defeated at the point where the requisite number of candidates have not been defeated. If any candidate reaches Quota during a round, that candidate is declared elected and is no longer eligible to receive additional ballots. This is another way in which the original ordering of ballots can affect the election outcome. After the initial #1 surplus distributions, no candidate can ever have more than the Election Quota of ballots.

Under Fractional Transfer, the election proceeds in much the same way via a series of runoffs, but whenever a candidate reaches Quota during a round, the count continues until all of the defeated candidate’s ballots have been transferred or exhausted, and any surplus ballots of an elected candidate are transferred in a subsequent surplus distribution round to reduce that elected candidate’s total to Quota. This process continues until the number of candidates is reduced to the number to be elected. In the final round some candidates may go over Quota, but the standard rule is that the election is declared to be complete at that point without any additional surplus distribution.

(5) Under the Cambridge Rules, if a vacancy occurs, the vacancy is filled via a “Vacancy Recount” using only the Quota of ballots that were used to elect that candidate. This is simply a series of runoffs to elect one candidate where all candidates not previously elected are eligible to receive votes (but not including any votes previously received in the original election).

There is no established rule for how a vacancy would be filled under Fractional Transfer. It could be done in the same manner as the Cambridge Rules, but candidates elected in the final round might have a substantial number of surplus ballots compared to any candidates elected during previous rounds all of whom would have exactly a Quota of ballots.

Here is a comparison of three methods for the most recent (2021) Cambridge City Council election: (1) the official results using the Cambridge Rules; (2) Fractional Transfer with overvotes included; and (3) Fractional Transfer with all overvotes ignored. As you can see, the same candidates are elected with the order of election differing slightly and the rounds somewhat different due to differences in the rules – most notably in the introduction of surplus distributions after any candidate reaches Quota during a round.

Official Count:
CouncilFinal2021

Fractional Transfer including overvotes:
Fractional2021

Fractional Transfer – No Overvotes:
Fractional2021NoOvervotes

January 10, 2022

Opening Day – What’s on Deck for the January 10, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Opening Day – What’s on Deck for the January 10, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting?

You really can’t expect too much at the first meeting of a new City Council term, especially with two rookies on the team. Of the 80 items awaiting report from the previous term, 44 have been carried over to the new term (including 5 new ones), and 36 were dispatched to oblivion (a good thing, in my humble opinion).City Hall

I often find myself searching for paradigms. Before diving in with comments and analysis I generally need a way to frame things rather than simply react to the proposals, rhetoric, actions and reactions. This is especially true with the coming of a new year or a new City Council term. I don’t even bother trying to make sense of the Cambridge School Committee anymore.

One paradigm I have been considering lately in regard to the City Council as well as other elected bodies is the nature of representation. Who do our elected representatives really represent – especially in a system that is supposed to be proportional representation? Are the geographical areas of the city proportionally represented? What about viewpoints on various issues, especially in a political context where some advocates are working overtime to convince voters and elected officials that just one or two issues are all that matter? Perhaps more significantly, do our elected officials represent the people of the city or primarily the activists? [One of the initial actions of one newly minted councillors was to meet with activists rather than residents in general. The other newly minted councillor held an open community meeting in North Cambridge.] Suffice to say that the overwhelming majority of Cambridge residents would likely not identify as “activists”.

This is important when you consider some of the recent flash points such as the reconfiguration of North Mass. Ave. in a manner that delights many activists and infuriates many residents and business owners (and their customers who may be driving from elsewhere). We have seen and will likely soon be seeing more densification zoning proposals pushed by activists who see themselves as part of a national movement. There are proposals now before the Council and the City administration having to do with alternate models for police and emergency response. Are these really what residents want or what the activists want? Do our city councillors see their main job as responding to the demands of the activists or reflecting the desires of the residents of the city? I shudder to think about what criteria some councillors may be using to decide on the next City Manager.

I really wish we had a better way to gauge public opinion than the biased views of city councillors, various neighborhood and activist listservs, NextDoor, or Twitter. My perhaps shocking point of view is that Cambridge people are actually pretty normal – but you wouldn’t necessarily know that from all the chatter.

As for the current meeting, here are the agenda items I thought worthy of comment as we get this next term underway:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Chief Public Health Officer, the Cambridge Health Alliance, and other relevant City staff to create a “priority line” and/or establish “senior hours” at the City’s Covid-19 testing locations.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

I don’t envy the job of a mayor, city manager, or school superintendent during a pandemic or other crisis. You’re likely to be a hero or a villain in the eyes of many people when you are simply trying to do your job, and the determination of hero vs. villain may be a function of things over which you have little control. The impulse to demand that you “do something” such as imposing restrictions or mandates is strong, and as the person in charge you have to weigh those demands against all the practical aspects of actual vs. perceived safety, union contracts, and economic survival of local businesses.

I follow the Covid numbers pretty closely and make new graphs daily in my “Plague Report” – nothing like a little medieval reference to keep your spirits up. What I don’t track (only because the local numbers are hard to access) are hospitalizations and similar measures of severity. Deaths and positive test results are no longer the most relevant measures of this pandemic now that Omicron has spread like a prairie fire with relatively few people dying or getting severely ill (largely thanks to widespread vaccination here). I am always eager to hear more specifics from our public health officials, and I’m grateful that time is set aside every couple of City Council meetings to delve more deeply into the specifics.

Intuitively, I expect that this Omicron prairie fire will burn itself out within a few weeks, but I really have no facts with which to back that up. Some people have been noting the patterns in South Africa, but we really are not all that comparable, especially in terms of vaccination rates. Meanwhile, even if the severity of illness has been tolerable, local businesses are still struggling and some are still closing for good. Suffice to say that the actions of city councillors have not played much of a role in this. This is not meant as a criticism. It’s just that there’s simply not much that they can do. Let’s just hope for an early spring of Red Sox games and reflection of the pandemic past.


Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Assistant City Manager for Fiscal Affairs & Public Investments David J. Kale as a member of the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees, effective Jan 10, 2022.
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to approval of new appointments and reappointments of members of the Peace Commission for a term of three years. New Appointments: Kaleb Abebe, Annie Brown, Sarah DeMott, Yasmine Hung, Bonnie Talbert; Reappointments: Kazimiera I.H. Fraley, Larry Kim, Elka Kuhlman, David Seeman
Order Adopted 9-0

I suspect that every City Manager appointment this year will be taken as an opportunity to test the waters of the recent ill-advised charter change that gives the City Council veto power over appointments to City boards & commissions. Does this apply to the Cambridge Health Alliance Board of Trustees that was established under a Special Act rather than under the traditional management roles under the Plan E Charter? I don’t think we’ll be seeing any vetoes of appointments to entities like the Peace Commission, but I wouldn’t put it past some councillors to make an issue of it anyway. By the way, there is still no established protocol for how the City Council intends to consider appointments and/or exercise its unfortunate new authority.


Charter Right #1. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to appoint a 20-25 person Cycling Safety Ordinance Implementation Advisory Committee to advise and improve upon the implementation of the citywide bicycle safety infrastructure and to establish recommendations on mitigating any concerns raised in regard to this infrastructure, with the appointments to be announced no later than Jan 31, 2022. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Dec 20, 2021]
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to convene meetings between his office, the Director of the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department, and with the heads of the Neighborhood Business Associations, with the Neighborhood Associations, and within each of the Cambridge Housing Authority’s senior buildings, to ensure that these stakeholders are given the opportunity to collaborate on devising new plans that will inform the City’s approach going forward in establishing citywide bicycle-safety infrastructure that works for bicyclists, motorists, pedestrians, seniors, those with mobility impediments, the local business community, and all our residents. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Dec 20, 2021]
Order Adopted as Amended by Substitution 9-0

Communications: There are 13 letters regarding the North Mass. Ave. roadway changes; 2 supporting the HEART proposal; 1 solicitation re: cable TV franchise fees; 1 on Covid testing; and 34 “sundry communications” on the proposal now being floated by CDD to radically alter residential zoning citywide (33 opposed and 1 in favor).
Placed on File 9-0

It was not so long ago that the idea of having stakeholder meetings and advisory committees would be noncontroversial and desirable – even if that meant some delay due to “processing things to death.” In our new “progressive” environment such community feedback is now viewed as counterproductive and obstructionist. After all, it might slow down the juggernaut. In the last meeting of the previous Council term there were actually people who who spoke out emphatically against these proposals for community input and review. Like it or not but being a “progressive” these days seems to be primarily about increasing and endorsing government control without question.


Resolution #3. Thanks to Peter Daly for his tremendous work as Executive Director of Homeowners Rehab, Inc., over the past 33 years, and in wishing him the very best as he looks to pursue his next exciting chapter.   Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui

Resolution #5. Resolution on the death of Janet Axelrod.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui

I especially like what Library Director Maria McCauley had to say about Janet Axelrod: “It is with sorrow that I write today. One of our longstanding Library champions, Janet Axelrod, passed away on December 26. Janet was the chair of the Board of Library Trustees. She was also one of the founders of the Cambridge Public Library Foundation. Janet was the very best board chair. She cared deeply about accessible library services, the freedom to read, and the privacy rights of users. She understood the complexities of a public library. She was committed to social justice, civil rights, and equity and inclusion work, and she greatly appreciated the staff of the Library and its volunteers.

There are many Cambridge residents who volunteer their time and energy on various City boards & commissions completely independent of the politics of the day. They perform an essential function, and Janet Axelrod was an essential part of this tradition.

Resolution #7. Resolution on the death of legal scholar, civil rights champion, and Cambridge resident Lani Guinier on January 7, 2022 at the age of 71.


Order #2. That Article 20.90 – Alewife Overlay Districts 1-6 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance be amended to insert a new section entitled Section 20.94.3- Temporarily prohibited uses.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

This is simply a re-filing of this proposed moratorium due to the failure to schedule an Ordinance Committee meeting within the time limits required under state law. That said, I’ll repeat what I said when this was initially introduced: “If the City were to now pass either temporary or permanent zoning changes that significantly decrease the development potential, it sure seems like a good case could be made by the new owners that they should be compensated for that loss. I hope that won’t happen, but this says a lot about the consequences of City Council inaction or lack of a coherent vision.”

Suffice to say that the City Council should have established at least interim zoning for this area several years ago and before a significant amount of real estate changed hands. That, of course, presumes that our elected officials actually have some idea of what they want.


Order #3. That the Mayor is requested to schedule a training session within the month of January for the purpose of reviewing Robert’s Rules of Order with the entire City Council.   Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Mayor Siddiqui, announcing the formal 2022-2023 appointments to the City Council Committees.
Placed on File 9-0

Perhaps at some level it doesn’t really matter who is chosen to be Chair of any given committee, but the practical fact is that committee Chairs do use that role not only to facilitate deliberation but also as a vehicle for their personal political agendas. I simply cannot fathom some of Mayor Siddiqui’s appointments for this term, especially Ordinance and Public Safety. On the other hand, Dennis Carlone is a good match for NLTP, as is Marc McGovern with Human Services. The role of the Gov’t Operations Committee during a time when we’ll be selecting a new City Manager as well as a new City Clerk looms large and consequential. I hope they don’t screw it up. – Robert Winters

November 16, 2021

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 525-526: November 16, 2021

Episode 525 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:00pm. Topics: Final Election process; reprecincting; Boncore vacancy; non-implementation of planning efforts in Alewife and Central Square; Alewife and Envision chronology; failure of well-paid councillors to show up for work; deep pockets and the means to achieve good results. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters
[On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 526 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 16, 2021 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 16, 2021 at 6:30pm. Topics: Detailed election results and analysis; the dominance of incumbency; political spin in the absence of mandates; importance of establishing a loyal political base vs. “movement” candidates; winners & feeders; slate voting results; Siddiqui’s margin of victory and dissatisfaction with other candidates; the Cincinnati problem; ballot transfers, #2 votes, alternate measures of popularity; School Committee campaign finance. Hosts: Judy Nathans, Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress