Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Rites and Rongs of Spring – March 22, 2021 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here’s my vernal-eyed view of this week’s proceedings:

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

Communications & Reports #4. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting questions for the City Manager’s COVID-19 update.
Placed on File 9-0

Still searching for that vaccination. Preregistered for Covid vaccine. Got a call telling me to call 211 to book an appointment. Called 211 and was told there are no appointments available. So what was the call about? This is typical Massachusetts. Who can I bribe to get a vaccination appointment? (I’m age-eligible.)

Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of a grant received from MAPC in the amount of $52,250 which will be used for technical assistance for 1) planning and permitting the expansion of the floating wetland pilot in the Charles; 2) outlining and disseminating a permitting road map and lessons learned that can enable similar capital, resiliency projects; and 3) engagement with the wider community to support understanding of water quality and to inform the expansion process.
Order Adopted 9-0

I really do like projects like this, but as long as it’s now OK to put things in the river, how about a floating boardwalk on the back side of the Museum of Science garage to create a quiet pedestrian connection on the river away from the traffic on the Craigie Bridge? Decades have now passed since this idea was “floated.”

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to proposed amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance. [DPR letter] [proposed ordinance changes]
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (Toomey – NO)

On the Table #5. The Health & Environment Committee met on Oct 13, 2020 to discuss amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (Toomey – NO)

On the Table #6. The Health & Environment Committee met on Nov 10, 2020 to continue discussing amending the Tree Protection Ordinance based on the findings of the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force.
Referred to Ordinance Committee 8-1 (Toomey – NO)

Among the shortcomings in the proposed revised Tree Protection Ordinance is that it only considers single lots in isolation. The removal of a "significant tree" on one lot would trigger significant cost or tree replacements on that lot even if the removal might be greatly beneficial to trees on an adjacent lot. There are also no guidelines regarding what might be considered dangerous, e.g. very close proximity to a building. Prior to ordination there should also be provided a list of some examples with actual costs so that people can get a sense of the potential burdens that may be imposed on homeowners.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2021 and ending Mar 31, 2022. [City Manager letter]
Order Adopted 9-0

Water rates are proposed to go up 1% and sewer rates are proposed to go up 8% for a combined increase of 6.5%. For the lowest block, it’ll cost you $3.05 to buy 750 gallons of water and $13.51 to get rid of it.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to suggested zoning text amendments as well as amendments to Chapter 5.50 of the Municipal Code regarding cannabis delivery businesses. [Law Department memo] [Zoning text] [Municipal Code]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0

The proposed zoning and ordinance changes replace the recently expired zoning proposal. Though I don’t oppose any of the individual proposed cannabis business locations I often think about what the cumulative effect of all of this might be. Cambridge doesn’t generally do a very good job of considering The Big Picture when pushing their favored few things, and cannabis has definitely been a favored thing over the last few years among councillors.

Resolution #6. Standing in Solidarity with Asian Community and Condemning White Supremacy.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey
Adopted as Amended 9-0

I don’t suppose you’ll find anyone around here who supports any of the things that this Order condemns, but both "Resolved" statements in the resolution draw conclusions that may not necessarily be true.

Order #1. Opposing wood-burning biomass plants.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. In Support of the FARE Act.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui
Adopted 9-0

This proposal would make public transit free on the days of all statewide primary and general elections. The idea of making it free every day is not actually insane.

Order #3. Making Remote Participation in City Council Meetings Permanent.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan
Adopted as Amended 9-0

I’m pretty sure that remote participation is here to stay in some form or another regardless of this City Council order. There are a few observations I might make about the whole experience. First, it does provide more equitable access to public meetings, so I guess that’s a positive from a democracy point of view. On the other hand, it has facilitated what I sometimes call “democracy by the pound” where tech-savvy organizers can marshal their troops to read scripted comments from the comfort of home. Like the much-maligned-of-late and far-to-easy-to-invoke filibuster rule, I generally leans toward having at least minor hurdles to increase the fraction of serious democratic participants and ideas. Perhaps showing up in person to a meeting isn’t the only way to do this and we have seen ill-informed parades of actual people at public meetings in recent years carrying the flag of their various noble causes. The depth of the pond just seems more shallow of late. On balance, I’d say that ensuring some remote participation is still a good thing – especially for those who may be physically less able to make their way to the Sullivan Chamber or other civic venue. I still prefer to do things in person.

There’s another aspect of this virtual zoom-government that I consider to be a Big Problem. Citizens may get to tune in to watch the political equivalent of Hollywood Squares and maybe even give their 120 seconds of public comment before being muted with no opportunity for rebuttal (which you could always do in person outside the Sullivan Chamber). They may even be able to watch the recorded meetings in their leisure time. However, Open Meeting Law or not, there’s a lot of deliberation and decision-making that now takes place out of public view. Significant proposals often simply rise out of the virtual firmament and the public gets to react far more than it gets a chance to act and often too late to make any real difference. Neighborhood listservs have become the dreadful forum of action and reaction in which the loudest voices take up a lot more space than rational discussion. Social media campaigns have become the norm, and much of it is indistinguishable from propaganda.

Order #5. Opposing The MBTA Service Cuts.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Adopted as Amended 9-0

This is one of those cases where both sides are right. It sucks to cut back on public transportation while there’s still a pandemic, but because of the pandemic the ridership is a fraction of what it used to be and it’s crazy to be operating empty and near-empty trains and buses. Perhaps a Reality Compromise can be found. It’s not all about “winning.”

Committee Report #1. The Public Safety Committee met on Oct 14, 2020 to discuss traffic enforcement and Order #14 of July 27, 2020.
Accept Report, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 28, 2020 to discuss the Real Estate Transfer Home Rule Petition.
Accept Report, Placed on File 9-0

The more I think about this the less I like it – even though it would likely not affect me personally (unless the redistributionists really go wild). In truth, I don’t like any revenue proposal that dedicates all the revenue to a single purpose, e.g. subsidized housing. It takes decisions about financial priorities out of the hands of the local legislature. I’m even having second thoughts about the Community Preservation Act for similar reasons. The rumor is that this Home Rule Petition doesn’t stand a chance in the State Legislature, though some believe that it could lead to enabling legislation that might allow any city or town to sock it to the seller. I hope not. Local control does not necessarily translate into fairness.

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Feb 11. 2021 to conduct a public hearing a petition to amend Article 8.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.
Accept Report, Placed on File 9-0; Passed to 2nd Reading

This is more of a technical correction based on recent court opinions and will like be passed to a 2nd Reading and ordained in a few weeks.

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui and Vice Mayor Mallon transmitting information about a Commercial Composting Pilot Program in Cambridge. [Cambridge Table to Farm Commercial Composting Report] [Cambridge Table to Farm Composting Fact Sheet]
Placed on File 9-0

I generally find this to be a good proposal, but there is a part of me who wonders whether this is more about cost avoidance for small businesses than it is about environmental salvation.

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui, transmitting an update on the Charter Assessment Review. [Siddiqui memo] [Collins Center memo] [Appendices]
Placed on File 9-0

I piped up about this at last week’s Government Operations Committee meeting about the initial steps of the city manager search process. It seems a bit awkward to be talking about hiring the next city manager at the same time that some councillors are privately (and publicly) talking about shifting more power to themselves by possibly moving away from a city manager form of government. That would be a dreadful outcome, but once again that problem of invisibility behind the Zoom screen rears its ugly head. Overturning a system that has worked well for 80 years is not something that should be considered lightly.

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Mayor Siddiqui, transmitting communicating information from the School Committee.
Placed on File 9-0

With all this talk about searching for an interim school superintendent and then a "permanent" school superintendent in addition to the initial steps to search for the next city manager, all I can think of is John Wayne, Natalie Wood, and Jeffrey Hunter. – Robert Winters