Winter Carnival – January 26, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting (remote only due to snow emergency)
After several mild winters, we’re getting a taste this week of what we’ve been missing. Having migrated to Cambridge 48 years ago as soon as the roads were reopened after the Blizzard of ’78, this is for me a mixture of nostalgia and terror. That said, life goes on at City Hall and the Peoples Republic of Cambridge. There’s even a new system for public meeting notices (complete with the expected glitches). Here’s what’s on tap this week:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a federal update including an update on relevant court cases. [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; statement by Yi-An Huang; comments by Siddiqui, Al-Zubi (wants to revise Welcoming City Ordinance), Flaherty, Nolan, City Solicitor Megan Bayer, McGovern; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to AR25#69, regarding a review of the previous home rule petition and prepare a new petition that would allow Cambridge to enact a Real Estate Transfer Fee to be sent to the state legislature. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan re: impact on rents, etc.; Charter Right – Nolan
It is worth noting that there already are taxes on the sale of real estate in Massachusetts. The Mass. real estate transfer tax (also known as stamp tax) is $4.56 per $1,000 of the property’s value, plus the newer “millionaire’s tax” on sales over $1 million – due at closing to the Registry of Deeds. The Affordable Care Act also has its 3.8% “Net Investment Income Tax” that applies to individuals, estates and trusts that have certain investment income above certain threshold amounts. A local Real Estate Transfer Fee would be on top of those other taxes.
This proposed additional transfer tax would be 2% of the portion of the purchase price exceeding $1,000,000. This was before the City Council on Feb 26, 2024, and the Council at that time adopted the Order on a 6-2-1 vote with Joan Pickett and Paul Toner voting No, and Burhan Azeem Absent. The most recent call to re-file the home rule petition was on Dec 8, 2025, and it passed 8-1 with Paul Toner voting No. I would be inclined to vote against this – or at least demand a full accounting of the total fees and taxes associated with a real estate sale. There is also the larger question that should be asked about what fraction of a city’s housing stock should be taken out of private ownership and moved into government or government-related ownership. The socialists certainly have made their preferences clear.
Order #1. That the City Manager ask the appropriate departments to review the city’s digital equity work to date, including the study’s recommendations and all steps taken since the study conclusion in order to update the evaluation of existing internet access programs, assessing whether residents’ digital needs are or could be better provided for and to propose how we can better meet their needs and to report back to the Council by June 2026 on internet access programs. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor Azeem
pulled by Al-Zubi; comments by Zusy (w/cost concerns); Charter Right – Al-Zubi
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments regarding incorporating plant-based solutions into the Sustainable Cambridge initiative, incorporating plant-based purchasing practices in City-operated events, and using municipal communications channels to promote sustainable and affordable food and drink practices throughout the city. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Zusy; comments by Nolan, McGovern, Zusy (add as sponsor); Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Resolutions like this one give me an appetite for a double cheeseburger.
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prioritize pilot projects in 2026 without the use of a consultant for an extensive pedestrianization study, and in the medium-term consider how additional pedestrianization of a section of Brattle Street by restoring two-way traffic to JFK Street could enhance the Square. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Al-Zubi; comments by Nolan, Simmons, Al-Zubi (thinks 2-way JFK St. would be dangerous – not aware that it was previously a 2-way street); Order Adopted 9-0
I’m sure the newly rebranded Department of Congestion, Obstruction, and Aggravation (a.k.a. Department of Transportation, formerly the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department before they chose to remove all references to motor vehicles) will have a few ideas to share about this proposal.
Order #8. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide an update regarding PO25#69 FY26 Operating Budget a continued commitment to Emergency Housing Vouchers for Permanent Supportive Housing and Mixed Status Families, and the Transition Wellness Center. Councillor Al-Zubi, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0
An update on this initiative is overdue, but let’s be clear that the Transition Wellness Center was never meant to be a permanent program.
Order #9. That the Mayor hereby appoints a committee, to screen applicants for the position of City Clerk. Mayor Siddiqui
pulled by Zusy; taken up with Comm. & Reports #4; comments by Siddiqui, Simmons (re: prior process), Zusy (thanks to Paula Crane), Flaherty (will find no one better than Paula Crane); Order Adopted 9-0
Communications & Reports #4. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting information about the search process for a permanent City Clerk. [text of report]
Taken up w/Order #9; Placed on File 9-0
I look forward to the process for this crucially important position, but at this point I have little confidence in Mayor Siddiqui’s committee appointments.
Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Nathaniel Stickney House at 45 Mt. Auburn Street. [Charter Right – Al-Zubi, Jan 12, 2026]
Comments by Al-Zubi (will vote for landmarking, wanted more “community members” in the conversation), Azeem (not in favor, calls report “vindictive”), Sobrinho-Wheeler (wants “community use” preserved – based on what exactly?, feels that City should be providing these spaces), Flaherty (was in the building before the Democracy Center was there, notes that entire area is an historical district, will not support landmarking), Zusy, Kathy Watkins, Charles Sullivan (Historical Commission), Nolan, McGovern, Simmons, Flaherty; Order Failed of Adoption 2-7 (Al-Zubi, Zusy – Yes)
But first we have to hear from the activists…..
Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to conduct a comprehensive review of existing safety and security measures at Cambridge City Hall, which shall include an assessment of physical access controls, visitor screening practices, on-site security staffing and training, emergency response and evacuation protocols, and the use of security technologies such as surveillance systems and alarm monitoring. Councillor Simmons, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor McGovern (PO26#3) [Charter Right – Simmons, Jan 12, 2026]
Comments by Simmons; add McGovern as sponsor 9-0; comments by McGovern, Flaherty (notes that there are metal detectors in buildings across the Commonwealth), Azeem (notes that measures now in place in State House and Boston City Hall and they are still welcoming, says he has received threats), Nolan (can support this depending on what measures are suggested), Simmons, Al-Zubi (with alternate amendment w/JSW), Yi-An Huang (notes challenges due to layout of the building with two entrances, would be helpful to discuss this with a subset of councillors, real concern would be gun weapons – what problem are we trying to solve?, solutions could be costly, this will take some time to consider), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Simmons, Zusy (would support an assessment as proposed by Simmons, suggests this might be the subject of an Executive Session), Siddiqui, Al-Zubi; Al-Zubi amendment fails 4-5 (AAZ,PN,JSW,SS – Yes; BA,TF,MM,DS,CZ – No); Order Adopted as Amended 7-1-0-1 (Sobrinho-Wheeler – No; Al-Zubi – Present)
On the Table #3. An Ordinance has been received from Interim City Clerk Paula M. Crane, relative to amend the Zoning Map and Articles 3.000, 17.000, and 19.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance as follows with the intent of establishing four new zoning districts for the Cambridge Street corridor. [Passed to 2nd Reading, Dec 8, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 22, 2025; Expires Jan 28, 2026] (ORD25#17) [Revised][Published]
Removed from Table 9-0; Taken up with Mgr #12, Comm. & Reports #2; Ordained as Amended 6-3 (see Mgr #12)
Communications & Reports #2. Proposed Amendments to Cambridge Street Zoning Petition. [text of report]
Taken up with Mgr #12, On The Table #3; Placed on File 9-0
(Late) Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Street Zoning Petition. (CM26#15) [text of report]
motion of McGovern to take up this item, Communications & Reports #2, On The Table #3; comments by Nolan, Yi-An Huang, Azeem (will support amendments, but not excited about it), Sobrinho-Wheeler (will oppose amendments), Zusy, Melissa Peters (CDD), Al-Zubi (will abstain on amendments, will vote No on overall petition, only wants “working class” people to benefit, notes that future Nexus study will likely reduce inclusionary requirements, says 20% inclusionary is minimum she would accept, talks about race and class, wants social housing, decommodification instead), McGovern (says this is NOT being rushed, objects to any requirements that slow down housing development, would prefer 8 stories on Cambridge St., concerns about middle-income residents, notes that we can’t get 6 votes w/o these amendments), Flaherty (would prefer that petition expire, will not support the amendments, notes that housing shortage is a regional issue, notes that last year entire city was upzoned with inevitable demolitions and no affordability requirement, prefers that Cambridge remain a sustainable city for families, does support upzoning on Webster St. area, would prefer Special Permit requirements), Siddiqui (re: amendments, not rushed, potential impacts, possibility of social housing), Azeem (contradicts Flaherty saying that this is effectively only changing Webster Ave. area, sees social housing as weakening AHO, leading to more market-rate housing and less affordable housing), Simmons (wants to vote); McGovern moves to amend Cambridge St. Petition by substitution; Amendments Pass 6-2-0-1 (Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Zusy, Siddiqui – Yes; Flaherty, Sobrinho-Wheeler – No; Al-Zubi – Present); Petition Ordained as Amended 6-3 (BA,MM,PN,DS,JSW,SS – Yes; AAZ,TF,CZ – No); Communication Placed on File 9-0; after procedural questions of Al-Zubi, Simmons, Flaherty, Zusy, McGovern, Rules Suspended for the Purpose of Reconsideration 7-2 (Flaherty, Zusy – No); Reconsideration Fails 1-8 (Zusy – Yes)
The ABC (A Bigger Cambridge) insiders are apparently pulling out the stops to rush this one through – regardless whether it is reflective of the goals of the Our Cambridge Street community process (a planning study for Cambridge Street between Inman Square and Lechmere Station) that supposedly led to the current rezoning petition.
Resolution #1. That the City Council formally go on record in extending its deepest condolences to the family of Donald Williams for their tremendous loss. Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons; Sadly, Don passed away on Saturday, Jan 24, 2026 – a true friend of Central Square; Amended Resolution Adopted 9-0
Resolution #5. Speedy Recovery wishes to Mr. Hatch Sterrett. Councillor Al-Zubi
Note: Hatch’s full name is Henry Hatch Dent Sterrett, III.
Committee Report #1. The Housing Committee and Finance Committee held a joint public hearing on Dec 3, 2025 to discuss the feasibility and potential impacts of implementing residential development incentives – such as tax incentives, public equity financing, and reduced fees and requirements – on housing production and city finances. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #2. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Dec 4, 2025 to review and discuss the Executive Summary from the Community Benefits Advisory Committee which was presented to the full City Council on May 19, 2025, CM25#128. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #3. The Public Safety Committee held a public hearing on Dec 9, 2025 to further discuss the implications of deploying automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) and to discuss whether adjustments should be made related to the deployment of ALPRs since approval in February of this year, CM25#257, which was in City Council on Oct 20, 2025. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #4. The Health and Environment Committee and Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on Dec 11, 2025 to review and discuss PO25#137, which asks the Community Development Department to draft zoning language to reduce the impact on solar energy systems, based on the recommendations discussed in the Sept 16, 2025 Health and Environment Committee meeting. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Late Order #10. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the relevant City staff and departments to order that the flag at Cambridge City Hall, the main administrative municipal building, be flown at half-staff as soon as practicable in somber remembrance of and sympathy with Renee Good and Alex Pretti and their friends and families, the dozens of individuals who have lost their lives at the hands of federal immigration enforcers, and the people enduring the brutality of the Trump Administration’s illegal and violent efforts for at least seven days. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Al-Zubi, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
Comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, Nolan, Azeem; Order Adopted 9-0
In Cambridge we like to tout our Proportional Representation (PR) election system as superior to other systems, and in many ways this is true. There is one question, however, that has been nagging at me for some time: “Proportional to what?” During the heyday of Cambridge rent control, it was pretty clearly the case that the City Council was in a similar proportion to the tenant-dominated electorate and that many, perhaps most, voters at that time were guided by that one dominant issue before considering any other issues or candidate traits. After the demise of rent control after Question 9 in 1994, the dominance of the rent control issue faded quickly and we entered a prolonged period where individual personalities and legacy affiliations guided local electoral choices. The notion of proportionality became more of a relic than anything else. In recent years, we have seen the rise of single-issue politics (density, subsidized housing, bike lanes, preservation), but identity politics is as much of a factor as any polarized issue. The question of “Proportional to what?” could not be muddier. What I find most aggravating is how single-issue advocates quote municipal election results to argue why their single issue is somehow reflective of the will of the electorate. There are so many confounding factors involved in voter choice that it is simply never valid to draw conclusions on issues that were not explicitly on the ballot.
This week’s agenda is dominated by several City Council Orders meant to address (or navigate around) the contentious issue of whether the proposed separated bicycle lanes, removal of most of the existing parking, and loss of curb access should proceed on Broadway as currently mandated by the Cycling Safety Ordinance. This is not really a matter of safety so much as political clout. Some straightforward analysis using the current registered voter list indicates that those who want the street reconfiguration to proceed as planned are approximately 25 years younger than those who have signed the petition opposing the reconfiguration. It is also anecdotally clear that there is also a large gap in socioeconomic status. Basically, young professionals are well-represented among those wanting to remove the parking, and those in opposition include far more seniors, people with mobility issues, and people who need their motor vehicles for work and chores.
