The Other Shoe Drops – February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
It should be noted that this Regular City Council meeting will be preceded by a 3:00pm Special Meeting relating to negotiations to extend the contract of City Manager Yi-An Huang. Public comment will permitted at that meeting prior to going into Executive Session.
The Big Items (other than any developments on the City Manager’s contract) are the inevitable ordination of the ill-begotten Multi-Family Housing zoning (better characterized as the Gargantuan Upzoning Amendment) and an Order to move ahead on Municipal Broadband – regardless of cost.
Here are the items on the Regular Meeting that drew my attention this week:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan final adoption. (CM25#26) [text of report and Order]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to create a plan with a schedule and milestones to move forward with the creation of a Municipal Broadband Network and present it for consideration by the Council at a Finance Committee meeting in the context of capital projects for coming years. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by JSW dismissing concerns about feasibility claiming much consultation with City officials; Nolan notes that service would not be free, says this Order in not a mandate to move forward, notes importance of net neutrality, says this is a necessary utility, calls it a manageable investment; Toner notes opposition due to range of “Whereas” statements, $150-250 million cost and changing technologies, other ways to address Internet equity; McGovern says he has been supportive of this, but notes different financial circumstances now, refers to “Trump-Musk administration” and federal cuts, proposes amendment to strike to “to move forward to the creation…” clause; Zusy concurs re: current financial circumstances, notes other ways digital equity is being addressed; Siddiqui OK with amendment; Wilson says conversation is important; Simmons says affordable Internet now not a luxury but a necessity, need for greater digital equity, notes that proposal doesn’t assure lower cost; McGovern amendment to remove “to move forward” Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner-No)
Though I have no strong feelings on Municipal Broadband, I am aware of the significant costs associated with it as well as the risks and uncertainty of moving forward on an infrastructure proposal in an environment where emerging technologies may make this obsolete. I am also reminded of the various meetings and presentations on the tax levy over the last year and the repeated advice that the City needs to be more fiscally prudent in the near term. Perhaps Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, Nolan, and Wilson didn’t get the memo. Or maybe this is being introduced strategically right now as the City Manager’s contract extension is being negotiated. Or maybe it’s just another municipal election year bauble to be dangled in front of the electorate even though there is little or no indication that this will yield any cost savings for consumers. For the record, I deeply dislike Comcast/Xfinity – but mainly because of the crappy Cable TV options which, by the way, never enter into the discussions about Municipal Broadband.
Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Amended Feb 3, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#1) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Azeem amendment to footnote as suggested by CDD staff Adopted 9-0; McGovern amendment re: required abutters meeting that would have required notification to Planning Boards in adjacent towns (not viewable in recording of meeting); Nolan comments on electronic notification; McGovern amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Zusy comments on this proposal producing most luxury units, raised real estate values, displacement, and other negative outcomes, suggests delaying this or reconsidering “3+3” alternative and establish funding mechanisms, community land trust; Azeem praises himself and Siddiqui; Siddiqui calls this her “birthday present”, suggests even more aggressive changes and “being intentional”, dismisses concerns of others as “fear of change”; McGovern addresses concern about “luxury units” and that target population is people who make too much money to be eligible for Inclusionary Housing units, calls this “good government”; Toner concurs and acknowledges that many people will be upset with his vote in favor, dismisses concerns about over-building on small lots, wants to now move forward on Squares and Corridors; Wilson emphasizes “crisis”, says she preferred “3+3” alternative; Nolan credits herself for initializing process for eliminating single-family zoning, says she preferred “3+3” alternative claiming it would have yielded more units and more affordability; Sobrinho-Wheeler notes that all current single-family housing sell for at least $1.5 million, says this change will yield 60% of all new buildings having affordable units; Simmons notes long process and suggests this will yield affordability for generations, says “leadership means making difficult choices”, says Squares and Corridors, housing vouchers next targets, says “we are a role model”; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to ORDINANCE 2025 #2 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 2. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#2) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Late Order #6. That the City Manager direct the Community Development Department and Law Department to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would make the provisions of Section 11.207.5.2.1, Paragraph (e), which allow qualified increases in building height under the Affordable Housing Overlay, not applicable in the Residence C-1 district. Councillor Toner (PO25#16)
Late Order Adopted 9-0
Other than the allowance of multi-family housing in all residential districts (which is not controversial), I think this gargantuan zoning change is a huge mistake. The existence of varying heights and densities in different parts of Cambridge is a feature – not a bug. I am also acutely aware of the value of setbacks and access – especially in regard to fire safety. Sometimes I think some of our city councillors are just robots created as part of an MIT project – programmed to solve some maximum packing problem set with no sense of aesthetics, liveability, or community. Meanwhile, the activists promise benefits like cheaper rents and lower costs that will most likely never be realized – at least not as a result of these zoning changes. Sometimes the call of “crisis” is just a tool to ram things through – both nationally and locally.
Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Jan 28, 2025 to discuss inter-jurisdictional projects that are in play that may impact mobility in Cambridge. The discussion was focused on the Community Development Department’s report of Nov 14, 2024 to the City Council, Awaiting Report 24-36. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I attended this meeting primarily to alert the councillors (at least those who actually listen) to some alternative approaches to pedestrian and bicycle-friendly crossings of the Charles River.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with appropriate departments to prepare a communication to DCR Commissioner Arrigo, urging that a study of traffic conditions at the intersections of Western Avenue and River Street at Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road (commonly referred to as “the box”), be included in their FY26 Capital Plan. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0
This was one of the priorities discussed at the above meeting. Many of the current crop of activists only see merit in lane reductions and obstructions that make automobile use as difficult as possible. Reality sometimes has to intervene. – RW
Barring divine intervention, the ordination of The Bigger Cambridge Zoning is expected to happen next week (Feb 10) after being passed to a 2nd Reading at last week’s meeting. Having experienced a building fire this past Thursday just 10 feet from my house on Broadway, I have never felt the need for space between buildings more than I do right now. Urban planning in Cambridge is being steadily eclipsed by the urge to pack everything closer and stack everything higher. On the bright side, I suspect more than a few residents who rarely vote in local elections may have a change of heart this year now that new building heights and densities may soon be doubling or tripling in their neighborhoods.
It seems like Deja Vu all over again. As I was grabbing links to past Sanctuary City resolutions, I stumbled upon my notes from the 
We’ll have to wait to see what the fallout will be of a changing federal picture on left-leaning “sanctuary cities” like Cambridge. I can easily imagine changes in both funding and eligibility for public housing and perhaps some economic repercussions for life sciences and pharmaceutical companies that dominate Kendall Square. Will there be efforts to replace lost federal money by jacking up local property taxes? It’s all just a big guessing game right now. I don’t believe we will be receiving too many federal favors for the next several years.