Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

March 24, 2025

Meanwhile, In Other News – March 24, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 3:13 pm

Meanwhile, In Other News – March 24, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

With a backdrop of personal indiscretion on the part of one councillor and political opportunism by others, here are the more interesting agenda items for this week’s City Council meeting:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning April 1, 2025 and ending March 31, 2026. (CM25#54) [text of report]
Order Adopted 9-0

Water & Sewer Block Rates: FY16 – FY26
Water and Sewer Rates - FY26

Water & Sewer Rate Increases: FY16-FY26
Water & Sewer increases: FY16-FY26

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge retaining its AAA rating from the nation’s three major credit rating agencies. (CM25#55) [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a summary of a Planning Board Meeting on the 2024 Town Gown Reports and Presentations. (CM25#63) [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

The only point I’ll make here is that even though many people argue that our local universities should provide housing for their undergraduate students, graduate students, and other affiliates, not everyone wants to live in university housing. Speaking personally, I never even considered it when I was a graduate student.

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a proposed Home Rule Petition prepared by the Law Department which would raise the sound business practices and written quote contract thresholds under M.G.L. c. 30B for City contracts with certified disadvantaged businesses. (CM25#64) [text of report]
Order Adopted 9-0

I continue to wonder where the line is drawn between “affirmative action” and “political patronage” – especially in regard to employment and City contracts.

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to renewal of the Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District. (CM25#66) [text of report]
Charter Right – Azeem

I always love these detail-rich reports from the Cambridge Historical Commission. That said, I fear that the ABC juggernaut to bulldoze the historic fabric of Cambridge may object to any and all efforts to preserve the many historic features of our city in favor of maximum development.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Incentive Zoning Nexus Study.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I will be interested to see what a current analysis shows regarding the effect of recent significant increases in Linkage Fees for new development as well as the effect of our current Inclusionary Housing requirements. Politically-motivated initiatives do not generally align with economic realities, and courage among elected officials to acknowledge this is often in short supply.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Office of the Housing Liaison and all relevant departments to ensure the successful implementation of an outreach and assistance campaign to provide broad and equitable access to eviction record sealing for eligible Cambridge tenants.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested 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.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 9-0

I interpret this Order as yet another mop-up attempt to mitigate the negative effects of major road reconfigurations that dramatically reduce available parking – especially on and near commercial and residential “corridors”.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and institutional stakeholders currently operating some form of shuttle to explore options for a municipal transit pilot program.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Zusy
Order Adopted 9-0

73 Communications – mostly requesting that the City Council exercise restraint in any proposals to rezone “our squares and corridors”.

Resolution #5. Condolences on the death of Gladys “Pebble” Gifford.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Mon, Feb 24, 2025 to review and discuss the launch of the Cambridge Net Zero Transportation Plan (NZTP). [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Tues, Feb 25, 2025 to discuss tenant-paid broker fees and other housing fees and the options that the city and state government have to regulate them. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Feb 26, 2025 to review and discuss the City Council priorities and goals and discuss how these will shape and be incorporated within the City budget. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on March 19, 2025 to receive an update on the amendments to the Floodplain regulations. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

January 26, 2025

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Flushing – January 27, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,Charter,City Council,Deaths — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 5:51 pm

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Flushing – January 27, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Robert MosesIn the spirit of issuing problematic Executive Orders by the bushel, our intrepid city councillors are expected to move The Bigger Cambridge Zoning forward this week en route to a swift ordination in mid-February. Hey, a 5 foot-wide backyard is plenty, right? Only a capitalist NIMBY could possibly want more. So feel free to shout “Urban Renewal!” from the rooftops, but you had better yell loudly so that they can hear you down at ground level. I also encountered this week a proponent of A Bigger Cambridge who publicly declared that only people with driveways should be allowed to own cars in Cambridge. You can’t make this stuff up.

There is also a Special City Council meeting at 4:00pm to discuss strategy in preparation for negotiations with the City Manager relative to his contract. Perhaps most importantly, there is an 11:00am Monday meeting of the “Special Committee of the Whole”, i.e. all 9 councillors, to take up some of the more problematic suggestions for Charter changes proposed by some of its more radical members. There are also rumors of a possible ballot question campaign from Cambridge’s most problematic clown-car (DSA or “Democratic Socialists of America” – Cambridge Chapter) to throw out Cambridge’s Council-Manager form of government in favor of a strongman (or strongwoman or strongsomething) form of local government. Should the ballot question materialize, there is little doubt that it would be paired with the City Council campaigns of one or more socialist candidates in search of a Big Issue. Perhaps someone named Stalin or Castro will throw his hat in the ring. Then again, perhaps a couple more incumbents will hop in the clown-car.

On the matter of the proposed Cambridge Charter, I noticed that the current draft lacks at least two notable provisions that have been a part of the Plan E Charter since it was adopted in 1940: (1) the provision for citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions, and (b) the felony prohibition of councillors from going past the City Manager to pressure City department heads and other employees. These are Very Large Omissions.

Meanwhile, the Regular 5:30pm Meeting of the Ringwraiths has these notable agenda items:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Transit Advisory Committee. [The official report notes 14 new appointees, but there are actually 16, in addition to the 8 reappointments.]
pulled by Nolan who states that women underrepresented in these appointments; Simmons concurs; Yi-An Huang notes limitations of the applicant pool; Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO24#154, regarding the City’s Sanctuary/Trust Act City status, the protections provided by the 2020 Welcoming Community Ordinance, and the importance of ensuring non-citizens are treated with dignity and respect. (CM25#14) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Carolina Almonte (Comm. on Immigrant Rights & Citizenship), Simmons, McGovern, Toner (asks what may be coming), Yi-An Huang, Megan Bayer (Law Department), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan (notes possibility of loss of federal funding), Simmons, McGovern (on what City cannot do), Wilson; Placed on File 9-0

When the Feds descend on Cambridge (and they will), this will likely be The Big Story.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on negotiations with Harvard University regarding PILOT payments.
pulled by Toner; updates by Yi-An Huang (50 year agreement in 2004, City option to terminate at end of 20 years, 1 year extension in Sept 2023, expired at end of 2024), Harvard now negotiating in good faith, many changes over 20 years, expectation of increased commitment from Harvard, proposals have been exchanged but still being negotiated, issue of how to value in-kind contributions, seek agreement by July 2025, existing agreement was $4.7 million PILOT in 2024); comments/questions by Toner (asks if we need to terminate the existing agreement); Huang notes one extension already, acknowledges risk of losing current PILOT funding, notes that it is interest of both Harvard and the City to come to an agreement; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants increased PILOT w/o counting in in-kind contributions, prefers shorter (20-year) term; Wilson asks who is involved in the negotiations, what happens if no agreement by July, status of MIT PILOT agreement (50-year agreement with no opt-out provision); Siddiqui emphasizes priorities for PILOT $ (does she want to earmark?); Azeem suggests City has leverage via zoning, I-90 project (is he suggesting quid-pro-quo?), wants more graduate student housing; Nolan says in-kind should not be valued in PILOT but also calls it critically important, also suggests that PILOT $ have earmarks for Council priorities; Zusy emphasizes graduate student housing; McGovern concerns about withholding in-kind contributions, esp. w.r.t. schools, notes that you cannot force graduate students to live on campus and rent levels in graduate student housing needs to be attractive, old Vellucci story of taking Harvard Yard by eminent domain and turning it into parking; Owen O’Riordan notes that a major sewer line goes under Widener Library; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an updated drought regulation ordinance. (CM25#16) [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Nolan comments; Mark Gallagher (Managing Director, Water Dept.) comments; Zusy comments, notes email from Nicolai Cauchy re: water levels; Simmons concerned about gender-neutral language; comments by Megan Bayer re: proposed fine schedule; Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-54, regarding a review of Curb Cut Policies. (CM25#18) [text of report]
pulled by Toner w/hope that Council can be removed from process entirely and completely a staff decision; Megan Bayer notes that there is no legal requirement for abutter feedback; Kathy Watson (DPW) notes proposed process and proposal role of City Council only an case of an appeal; Azeem agrees that there should be no City Council role, no appeal mechanism; Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler concur; Megan Bayer explains that the delegation of power should be done via ordinance, suggest referral to Gov’t Operations because language not yet drafted; Toner Referral to Gov’t Operations Adopted 9-0

The bottom line is that the City Council can delegate this to City departments if it wishes – similar to how the License Commission handles some matters that once were under City Council authority.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-31 regarding an update to the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan (MFIP) including revised cost estimates to help inform the FY26 and ongoing capital budget priorities. (CM25#19) [text of report]
pulled by Zusy w/questions about $23.5 million for Windsor Street and status of Kennedy-Longfellow building; Owen O’Riordan that there will be no students at K-Lo next year, expect $50 million on schools over next 5 years including $10-12 million toward K-Lo building, to be part of this year’s budget hearings; First Street project (parking garage) expected; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-60 regarding federal grant funding. (CM25#20) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui for comments; Zusy comments re: difficulties of contractors doing Cambridge projects (lay-down areas, parking challenges); comments by Chris Cotter re: off-site construction, role of MAPC; Placed on File 9-0


Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to potential amendments to required setbacks for additions and alterations to existing buildings in the Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions. (CM25#21) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; Committee Report #3 also taken up (9-0); Committee Report #3 Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; McGovern lays out proposed amendments and votes; on Petition #1 setback amendments for existing buildings, comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Toner, Jeff Roberts (CDD), Amendment Adopted 9-0; on amendment re: procedures and abutter feedback for projects not requiring a special permit, comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler (wants to limit legal recourse for abutters), Megan Bayer, JSW wants to table this and replace “abutters” to “abutting homeowners and renters”, Megan Bayer explains, McGovern suggests JSW exercise his Charter Right; Nolan notes that any building permit can be challenged, notes that this only requires people to listen to feedback; Toner concurs re: right to challenge and Bayer agrees but notes new restrictions in state law to baseless challenges; Toner notes that there is no majority vote here to allow legal challenge, cautions against extending right to challenge to anyone who feels aggrieved; Charter Right by JSW on this amendment; on amendment decreasing heights from 4 to 3 stories and 6 for inclusionary projects; Wilson aligns with JSW re: DSA “3+3” proposal without any minimum land area, notes her history growing up in public housing, advocates more public housing, calls support for “3+3” “overwhelming” (which is ridiculous); JSW concurs re: “3+3” proposal, claims it would yield more market rate and subsidized housing, notes his opposition to lot size limitations, objects to suggestion to delay this, claims that of all new housing other that AHO projects only 1% is “affordable”, says these changes would provide affordable units in 60% of projects; Nolan supports “3+3” amendment even without the proposed lot size limitations, will vote to ordain this proposal; Azeem will not support “3+3” proposal “in spirit of compromise”; Toner will not support “3+3” proposal, notes that developers suggest this would only yield 3-deckers being torn down and replaced by single-family homes, notes public objection to 6-stories on all residential lots; Zusy feels MFH proposal is problematic and will not make housing more affordable, will create havoc in neighborhoods, make homeowners feel vulnerable, notes failure of similar changes in other cities, willing to support “3+3” proposal rather than “4+2” suggesting less backlash; Siddiqui comments on CDD projections, says whatever we pass is better than the status quo, housing developers OK w/“4+2”; Simmons says “4+2” language represents compromise, says CDD estimates 3500 new homes over next 15 years including 660 income-restricted homes; McGovern on “affordable housing piece”, notes rationale of doing AHO first (which sounds like a restatement of the stated ABC strategy), extols virtue of increasing inclusionary percentage to 20%, suggests that proposal primarily about middle-income housing, dismisses suggestion that 6-story buildings would appear on a tiny lot but then suggests it would happen w/o the restriction on lot size, says the “3+3” proposal would add in 15 years produce 550 more housing units and 260 more inclusionary units, says we can make up those numbers by going very tall in Squares and Corridors and even taller with AHO projects, will oppose “3+3” amendment; Zusy says some developers believe 5000 sq ft minimum requirement might not be necessary, suggests this might be rescinded when a 6-story building appears on a street with 2½ stories; Melissa Peters suggests that either option will be impactful in terms of number of units produced “in a positive direction”; Wilson comments suggesting that “the community” supports 3+3; AW,JSW “3+3” amendment Fails 4-5 (PN,JSW,AW,CZ-Yes; BA,MM,SS,PT,DS-No); Nolan comments on Squares and Corridors, etc., bemoans lack of Planning Board advice on petitions; Petition #1 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Petition #2 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration of #1 and #2 Fails 0-9; Placed on File 9-0.

114 Communications – mostly taking sides on The Bigger Cambridge Zoning.

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning Committee held a public hearing on best practices for urban planning Wed, Jan 8, 2025. The meeting will feature MIT’s Chris Zegras Department Head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning and Professor of Mobility and Urban Planning and Jeff Levine, Associate Professor of the Practice of Economic Development & Planning and Harvard’s Maurice Cox, the Emma Bloomberg Professor in Residence of Urban Planning and Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. [text of report]

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Jan 8, 2025 to continue the discussion on two Multifamily Zoning petitions. [text of report] [communications]

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Thurs, Jan 16, 2025, at 3:00pm to continue the discussion on Multifamily Zoning Petition Part One and Multifamily Zoning Petition Part Two. [text of report] [communications]

The Council is expected to pass these to a 2nd Reading with ordination likely a couple of weeks later. Personally, I see no reason why such a substantial change is being zipped through the ordination process, but we are in one of those Progress At Any Cost moments in history – kind of like when the West End of Boston was leveled in the name of urban renewal or when Robert Moses ran roughshod over everything that Jane Jacobs defended. I guess it all comes down to your definition of “progress”, but you can count me among those who still prefers human-scale buildings and consistent scale in established neighborhoods. On the issue of the “housing crisis”, I would just remind everyone that Cambridge is not the problem – and we should not necessarily be sacrificing what is good in our city so that other cities and towns can continue to do little or nothing.


Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a update on the status and timeline for the completion of the Grand Junction Multi-use Path and how implementation between Gore Street and Little Binney could coincide with Phase 2 of the CSO implementation on Cambridge Street.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #3. City Council opposition to Congressional Voter-Suppression SAVE Bill.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

I agree with this Order – mainly because of the burden it would place on our Election Commission and election workers. I will add that if I now had to register to vote for the first time I might run into a problem because I never got a passport and finding my birth certificate might take a Herculean effort. I do think, however, therefore I am.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to install “Bicycles Must Yield” signs along the Linear Park Parkway, Russell Field, Cambridge Commons, and any other shared use pathway determined appropriate by the City Manager and staff.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Toner, Nolan, Zusy, Sobrinho-Wheeler comments; Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler

Yeah, I’m sure those signs will be scrupulously obeyed.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to develop zoning recommendations, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A §9B, for regulations to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems that have been in existence for one year, per Ordinance Ch. 22.60, specifically on structures over 4 stories.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Azeem; Nolan explains how this Order came about, add Wilson, Zusy as sponsors 9-0; Azeem asks for examples, Melissa Peters (CDD) responds; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc. [Charter Right – Nolan, Jan 6, 2025]
McGovern says “charter-written”, Nolan says “charter-wrote” (Sheesh, do they understand the English language?); Nolan goes on about financial details, concerns about high interest rate and profit by Rockland Trust, etc., wants to bifurcate vote into $1.5 million and $1 million votes; Toner asks what would happen if Council did not support this, Chair of Neville Board notes that this would make things difficult; Zusy wonders why Neville didn’t get any ARPA funds, etc.; Solicitor says it’s OK to bifurcate vote; $1.5 million appropriation from Free Cash (for debt service) Adopted 8-1 (Nolan-No); $1 million appropriation from General Fund (for capital improvements) Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9.

Resolution #4. Thanks to Iram Farooq for her 25 years of commitment, service, and leadership at the City of Cambridge Community Development Department and best wishes as she joins Harvard University.   Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson
pulled early by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, Zusy, Wilson, McGovern, Simmons, Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; all councillors added as sponsors; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Resolution #5. Condolences on the death of Robert V. Travers.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Resolution Adopted 9-0 as Amended

Resolution #6. Condolences on the death of Henry Edward (Ted) Tierney.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern

Resolution #7. Condolences to the family of Janet Rose.   Mayor Simmons
pulled by Simmons; Charter Right – Simmons (to add more details)

December 17, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 637-638: December 17, 2024

Episode 637 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 17, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Dec 17, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Remembering Vici Casana and the early days of Cambridge Recycling; Flexible Parking Zoning petition; Rethinking One-Way Garden Street; coming controversy of Broadway Bike Lanes; City Manager contract extension pending; streetcorner dedication moratorium; John Tagiuri resolution; Whitney’s Bar closure controversy and Gerald Chan properties; City Clerk cleaning up City Council neglect; Iram Farooq exiting CDD for Harvard; Charter Review Meeting and votes. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 638 – Cambridge InsideOut: Dec 17, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Dec 17, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Sanctuary City resolutions; Porchfest pilot pending; Two-way Garden Street and the Untouchable Cycling Safety Ordinance; MBTA should adhere to Cambridge’s Asbestos Protection Ordinance; Last word on DSA and defamation; Draw One Bridge Replacement; A Brief History of Big Ideas and Plans – Some Whose Time Never Came; Charles River Dam Walkway; Proposed Colossal Upzoning sold as Multifamily Housing Citywide. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

November 17, 2024

Post-Apocalyptic Gathering – November 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Post-Apocalyptic Gathering – November 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

photo by Daniel MennerichWe’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.

Here are the items that drew my local attention this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the findings of the 2024 Cambridge Resident Satisfaction Survey. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Yi-An Huang, Lee Gianetti, survey rep., Zusy, Azeem, Toner, Wilson, McGovern; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City Manager’s LGBTQ+ Friendly Housing Task Force Final Report. [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, Maura Pensak, Carolina Almonte, Phoebe West, McGovern, Zusy; Placed on File, Referred to Civic Unity Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of members to the Cambridge Street Safety Improvement Project Working Group.
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (TPT), Toner (asks if there will be a similar group for Broadway – yes), Wilson; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Erik Sarno and Andrea Taylor and the reappointment of Saffana Anwar, Christopher Fort, Robert Winters, Tahir Kapoor, and Esther Hanig to the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years.
pulled by Zusy; comments by Simmons, Yi-An Huang (on update to add RW), Zusy (notes only 9 applicants for 7 positions on CSAC; for HSAC only 12 applicants for 11 positions – suggests advertising more broadly), Iram Farooq (notes how prescriptive categories are for CSAC and HSAC, mechanism for applying for all open boards and commissions); Zusy asks if a broad range of perspectives is sought; Appointments Approved as Amended, Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Gareth Dohety, Ivy Moylan, Henry Grabar, Chad Bonney, and Ryan Clinesmith Montalvo and the reappointments of Matthew Simitis, Kari Kuelzer, John DiGiovanni, Nicola Williams, Alexandra Offiong, and Allison Crosbie to the Harvard Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years.
Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-36, regarding coordinated and timely communication related to interjurisdictional transportation projects. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan (bus shelters, green roofs, shade, Alewife maintenance tunnel, Asbestos Ordinance; Iram Farooq, Owen O’Riordan, City Solicitor Megan Bayer (noting that state/MBTA not subject to City’s ordinance), Nolan (Draw One Bridge), Farooq (state not currently planning to add bike/ped connection to bridge); Nolan (bridge over Fitchburg commuter rail and addition of station in Alewife area), Farooq (reconstruction of Alewife garage may have possibility of commuter rail station); Zusy (I-90 project coordination, impact of construction on traffic, Eversource projects, asbestos concerns at Alewife, Draw One Bridge, need for commuter rail station at Alewife and bridge); Sobrinho-Wheeler (start date for Memorial Drive reconstruction, Riverbend Park impacts), Owen O’Riordan; Zusy on plans for Transportation Committee; Referred to Transportation Committee 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a draft home rule petition to authorize the City of Cambridge to implement automated parking enforcement technology; and to continue to work with the City of Boston to collaborate on the home rule process.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan on special status of Boston and Cambridge that necessitates a home rule petition, notes that this would be cost-neutral; Siddiqui added as sponsor 9-0; Wilson asks why Boston, Cambridge are exceptions; Megan Bayer explains; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. Resolution in Support of H.823 and S.551, Paint Stewardship and Recycling.   Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a Home Rule Petition to enact legislation which would allow the City of Cambridge to prohibit associations from unreasonably restricting the use of a solar energy system. [Charter Right – Nolan, Nov 4, 2024]
Nolan notes why home rule petition may be needed; Megan Bayer explains why state law on this matter is insufficient; Toner asks about enforcement; Bayer suggests that this could be done as either a zoning amendment or a municipal ordinance; McGovern suggests sending this to a committee for larger discussion; Zusy seeks clarification of intention, Nolan explains, Zusy notes how things could get “messy” with condo associations; Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department to draft a home rule petition for the creation of a Cambridge Jobs Training Trust, and report back to the City Council in a timely manner. [Charter Right – Toner, Nov 4, 2024]
Sobrinho-Wheeler explains at authorization doesn’t obligate Council to implement, no need to send to Ordinance Committee; Amendment to strike “to be sent to the Ordinance Committee for a hearing” Adopted 9-0; Toner proposes sending to Economic Development Committee for further discussion (on 11 questions) and how this relates to how things are done now; comments by Yi-An Huang expresses concerns about raising linkage fees now, Ellen Semonoff, Toner asks whether setting up a Jobs Trust bank account would create obligation to fund it; Yi-An Huang notes last increase in Linkage Fee was from $22 to $33 based on 2019 Nexus Study, next Nexus Study to start in 2025, notes that Council will have to decide how Linkage Fee is to be allocated; Toner proposes referring to Economic Development Committee; Zusy notes inadequate options for CRLS students; McGovern has questions on how this would be implemented – wants to preserve all affordable housing allocation and increase Linkage Fee to add allocation for jobs training, but suggested that if the fee went up to something like $45 he would not support that; Sobrinho-Wheeler proposes amendment to have an Econ. Dev. meeting in addition to filing home rule petition promptly; McGovern notes RSTA initiatives; Siddiqui OK with further conversation in committee; Wilson, Zusy, Nolan, McGovern comments; Adopted Order as Amended 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 30, 2024 to discuss the feasibility of municipally funded housing vouchers as referenced in PO24#24. The meeting was recessed and reconvened on Oct 15, 2024 to continue the discussion. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)

Committee Report #2. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Oct 23, 2024 to discuss issues facing homeless shelters in Cambridge and concerns raised by the unhoused community. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)

Committee Report #3. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 23, 2024 to hear specific ideas from neighborhood leaders about revisions to the Multifamily Housing Proposal. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)

Committee Report #4. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 24, 2024 to discuss research on four-day work week pilot programs with businesses, government agencies, and non-profits and models for a four-day work week that have been implemented locally. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)

Committee Report #5. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 31, 2024 to discuss the Economics of Real Estate: Housing, Zoning, and the Economic Impact of Zoning. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)

November 5, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 633-634: November 5, 2024

Episode 633 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 5, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Nov 5, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Election Day 2024; City Hall Inscription restored; State Ballot Questions; poor Presidential choices, political dysfunction, no choices in most elections; democracy not just about winner-take-all; putting the “united” back in United States; speed humps and bumps; solar systems; kerfuffle over Sqa Sachem; proposed Jobs Training Trust and Linkage. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 634 – Cambridge InsideOut: Nov 5, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Nov 5, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Tax rates, assessments, tax levy; pet programs (Rise Up) may not be fundable; Supersized Zoning Petition – obliterating current residential zoning districts; unacceptable alternatives; disingenuous CDD presentation, misinterpretation of Envision Cambridge process; lazy and arrogant planning; blocking public input; Central Square Rezoning and local pushback. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

October 17, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 631-632: October 15, 2024

Episode 631 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 15, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Oct 15, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Cambridge Mosaic; Joan Pickett memorial; Cathie Zusy elected; Bow Tie Ride and Brattle Street crash; Memorial Drive fatality, short-term and long-term redesigns, Beacon Yards and Mass Pike realignment; Ballot Questions 1 and 2. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 632 – Cambridge InsideOut: Oct 15, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Oct 15, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Ballot Questions 3-5; Tax Rate Hearing and Vote, tax bills coming; A Bigger Cambridge upzoning proposals being sold as “ending exclusionary zoning”; disconnect between ideologues and residents; Central Square rezoning. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

September 27, 2024

Juggernaut or Not? – September 30, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Filed under: Cambridge,City Council,cycling,history — Tags: , , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 2:15 pm

Juggernaut or Not? – September 30, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

JuggernautThe dreams of A Bigger Cambridge (who prefer to be called “A Better Cambridge” for political reasons) were delayed from last week via the Charter Right. At issue is a mega-proposal shepherded on a fast track through the Housing Committee by Co-Chairs Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui with the aim of doubling (and more) the permissible heights of residential buildings across the city – and packaged with the perfectly agreeable goal of allowing multi-family housing in all zoning districts. The rallying cry to “End Exclusionary Zoning!” is the tactic being employed to push through these two very distinct initiatives, but it’s really just the record-breaking upzoning proposal that is at the heart of the controversy.

There was a great event held last Tuesday at the Main Library called “100 Years of Zoning” marking the 100th anniversary of Cambridge’s first zoning ordinance. (There were actually various “proto-zoning” ordinances already in place before 1924 under our local Building Code – largely motivated by concerns about public health and fire safety.) It was made pretty clear by the presenters that a century ago there was a concern about the proliferation of “tenement housing” that accompanied rapid population growth largely associated with immigration – and at that time the triple-decker was seen in this light. The sorting out of residential zoning districts into higher and lower density zones came a bit later.

When I was growing up in New York City, the term “tenement” was largely associated with dilapidated housing stock in which people were packed – often in unsafe conditions. This is not how I saw our triple-deckers in Cambridge and Boston when I first arrived in 1978. To me, they were graceful residential buildings with front and rear porches that originally allowed a middle-class homeowner to live and thrive in the city and to also provide affordable housing to their tenants. I chose to live in a triple-decker, and I eventually bought the building and I’m still living at the same address. You will get no argument from me about the value of triple-deckers and similar buildings. However, I don’t think they’re for everyone nor do I think that living in or next door to larger apartment buildings is for everyone.

I like some of the lower density parts of Cambridge, and I’m glad that people have been able to settle into the kind of neighborhoods that suit their preferences. It does seem to me that the philosophy (if you want to call it that) of the densifiers at “A Bigger Cambridge” is that apartment buildings should be the standard across all of Cambridge – and if you don’t like it you should move or meet your maker. I could not disagree more.

There are plenty of locations in Cambridge that I could easily identify where a larger apartment building would fit in very well and be an improvement over existing conditions. I can also point out locations where dropping a larger apartment building in would be a radical and very unwelcome change. But that’s not the ABC way. Their “vision” is to impose a single high-density standard across all of Cambridge, and they are selling this under the questionable claim that this will miraculously cause all housing to become more affordable. I don’t question the economic principle that when housing supply is increased in an equilibrium situation, then purchase prices and rents may be expected to decrease. Cambridge housing right now is not really in an equilibrium state – largely due to a couple of decades of growth in university affiliates and our local high-tech economy and a national trend of people choosing to move into the cities and closer to work (a reverse migration compared to the suburban exodus of decades ago). I will also note that there has more recently been a double reverse outward for some people in the age of Covid and work-from-home arrangements, and if ever the dream of driverless vehicles is realized many experts predict even more outward migration.

The question of affordability is an interesting one. Everyone wants housing to be affordable, but the philosophy of those working in our Housing Department seems to be that the only way to do this is via subsidized, deed-restricted housing created via government mandate – hence the so-called “Affordable Housing Overlay” 1.0, 2.0, and I’m certain we’ll soon see 3.0 and beyond as they endlessly try to game the economics of housing development. It does seem to be the case that if developers are permitted to build twice as much as-of-right, the land values will jump accordingly and this will virtually guarantee an AHO 3.0 or other mechanism to further game the economics. This escalation seems inevitable, and some neighborhoods (particular those with “soft sites”) may be ground up under the wheels of this Juggernaut.

At the last City Council meeting, Heather Hoffman posed several questions to city councillors and City staff regarding these twin zoning proposals. Here are her questions (expanded and really deserving of their own article):

1. Would increasing the inclusionary percentage violate the MBTA Communities Act?

2. Would decreasing the inclusionary percentage mean that we could not increase back to where it is now without violating the MBTA Communities Act?

3. What analysis has been done on whether this proposal would cause displacement of currently housed residents? If the answer is none, why is that?

4. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on median rents? If the answer is none, why is that?

5. What analysis has been done on what sorts of properties would be demolished? If the answer is none, why is that?

6. What analysis has been done on how this proposal would affect currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing? If the answer is none, why is that?

7. What analysis has been done on what is happening to currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing under current zoning? If the answer is none, why is that?

8. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on the market value of properties that would be upzoned by it? If the answer is none, why is that?

9. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on development under the AHO? If the answer is none, why is that?

10. What analysis has been done on how this would affect the City’s finances, especially with respect to the City’s ability to maximize tax shifting from residential to commercial properties under Prop 2-1/2? If the answer is none, why is that? Would the City have to find new commercial development prospects in order to maintain its Prop 2-1/2 balance?

The final point I will make now (made extra clear by Heather’s great questions) is that there are MANY unanswered questions about these proposed changes, and virtually zero analysis about their intended and unintended consequences.

Here are the agenda items I find interesting this week:

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Preservation Restriction at 90 Brattle Street. (CM24#214) [text of report]
pulled by Azeem; supportive comments by Azeem; overview of significance of house by Charles Sullivan and owner’s desire for additional protections; enthusiastic support by Mayor Simmons; Preservation Restriction Adopted, Communication Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Half Crown-Marsh NCD Decennial Review Report. (CM24#215) [text of report]
pulled by Azeem; questions from Azeem; Clerk clarifies that matter should be referred to Ordinance Committee; Charles Sullivan concurs with explanation; City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes that matter is not required to go to Ordinance Committee; Azeem questions process; Bayer reiterates that doesn’t need to be accepted as a petition – just a study report satisfying an ordinance requirement; Yi-An Huang notes that Council could just accept the report but that an Order will be required in next 5 months to renew NCD or amend it; Simmons asks who will remind Council and Huang says City will do this; Zusy notes benefit of NCD advice to homeowners; Report Accepted and Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to request that the City Council authorize the purchase of a parcel of land located within the town of Lexington identified as 0 Cambridge/Concord Turnpike in Lexington, Massachusetts. (CM24#216) [map]
pulled by McGovern w/purpose of finalizing tonight; comments/explanations from Owen O’Riordan, Megan Bayer (resolves litigation); Siddiqui notes Bob Reardon’s role in assessment of property; Order Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9


Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding an evaluation of the legal feasibility of the following proposals and analyze how much housing could be created under the following proposals. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern re: including requirement of inclusionary units for a 6-story building, 4-story limit otherwise; Bayer concurs; Azeem moves suspension to bring forward the related items on Charter Right (#1, #2 and #3) – prevails 9-0; Azeem comments, asks about “corridors”, Central Square, Mass. Ave., Cambridge St. and where related processes stand; Iram Farooq offers explanation and notes that they are within the limits proposed, desire to be more specific on where proposals apply; Azeem says proposals for corridors and Squares coming next year, etc., wants to move forward to Ordinance Committee; Toner asks for clarification of what Councillor Wilson wants re: inclusionary requirements and whether they would be increased beyond current requirements; Wilson explains; Toner asks if this might constitute an increase, suggests that immediate focus should be on corridors and Squares, does not want to start the clock ticking if sent now to Ordinance Committee, prefers to Table; Nolan asks about which corridors would be included – noting that Huron Ave. is not included; Farooq agrees about need for clarity on what constitutes a “corridor”; Nolan OK w/ending “exclusionary zoning” but has concerns about massive citywide upzoning, notes that focusing on corridors and squares might actually yield more housing units than proposal as written; Nolan expresses desire to include Huron Ave. among corridors and add significant heights and density along Huron Ave. and geographical distribution of more housing, wants analysis of where teardowns might be expected; Zusy shares Nolan’s concerns and would prefer more clarity prior to referring to Ordinance Committee; Zusy moves to Table pending this additional information, expresses concerns about how this is dividing the community and need for more community input; Zusy Motion to Table these three items matters to permit discussion in NLTP Committee Fails 4-5 (PN,PT,CZ,DS-Yes; BA,MM,SS,JSW,AW-No); Siddiqui wants to send to Ordinance, condescends to Zusy about NLTP Committee not being a committee of the whole, says timeline is important – meet in November, clock starts when Ordinance Committee meets on matter; Siddiqui motion to Place Communications of File and refer two petitions to Ordinance Committee; Wilson asks CDD about process if now referred to Ordinance; Farooq notes pending requests for analysis, pending request for community meetings, notes 65 days until Ordinance Committee required to meet, and then 90 days for action by City Council after that; Wilson asks for CDD recommendation and Farooq recommends sending to Ordinance Committee now to prevent “dueling ideas” (??); Simmons notes that these conversations can be confusing for the average person; McGovern wants a “Fact Sheet” as was done when AHO was railroaded through (twice), notes that Ordinance Committee could meet as late as Dec 4, then 90 days after for ordination or can be re-filed – noting that AHO was re-filed twice, saw 62 amendments (many of which were terrible), suggests that this matter is not being rushed; Toner will work with McGovern to develop the Ordinance Committee schedule, agrees with need for FAQ, suggests a Roundtable; Azeem notes that all projects that have produced affordable units have been 6 stories or greater, wants this in current Res A and Res B districts; Nolan wants clarity on what constitutes “community meetings” as opposed to City Council meetings with very limited public participation; Farooq says there would be at least two community meetings in addition to the hearings; Nolan notes perceptions of betrayal of trust, suggests using Envision definitions for what constitutes “corridors”; Farooq says additional analysis expected in November; Siddiqui wants to split motion into separate votes; Zusy notes confusion among citizens in that this proposal flies against recommendations in Envision in regard to protecting character of neighborhoods, noting that existing apartment buildings in C-Port are typically less than 3 stories, setbacks for triple-deckers – and this reality conflicts with current proposals, suggests that need for MANY amendments suggests lack of a clear plan; Simmons notes need for two votes – one simple majority for proposals meeting Housing Choice Act requirements and other requiring two-thirds majority; Megan Bayer notes that sending both to Ordinance is by simple majority; but future ordination requires simple majority for proposals to add housing and two-thirds majority for aspects that do not directly create more housing; Mgr #9 Placed on File 9-0; Charter Right #1 Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No); Charter Right #2 Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy-No); Charter Right #3 Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy-No).

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed at the Housing Committee to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts. [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Charter Right #2. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition -Part 1, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Charter Right #3. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition – Part 2, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)


Order #3. City Council support of the Week Without Driving challenge and specifically designate Oct 3, 2024 as a day in which participants are encouraged to use alternative transportation options such as public transit, biking, carpooling, and walking.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to produce the petition(s) necessary to accomplish the goal of lowering the speed limit as much as possible on all state highways that fall within Cambridge’s geographic boundaries, including and especially Memorial Drive.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that DCR already proposing lane reductions west of JFK St. but there’s a need for more discussion needed for other sections of Memorial Drive, proposes amendment to delete reference to lane reductions; Zusy concurs with Toner noting concerns of people in neighborhoods that would be affected by re-routed traffic, notes another planned changes pending; McGovern notes statistics (1200 crashes, 446 injuries, 20 incapacitating, and 4 fatalities over last 10 years) and need to address most problematic areas sooner than later; Nolan comments and amendment; Siddiqui notes advocacy suggesting that DCR already planning lane reductions here; Yi-An Huang says City has been in close contact with DCR – 1) immediate changes for greater safety where crash occurred, 2) lower speed limit, 3) reconstruction/redesign of rotary over next 2-4 years (and relation to BU Bridge and Mass Pike project), 4) lane reductions between Eliot Bridge and JFK Street; and 5) other land reductions (that have been scaled back) – and need for more community process; Brooke McKenna notes that City can and will request that DCR lower speed limits, coordination with Conservation Commission; Siddiqui seeks clarification on lane reductions; Yi-An Huang promises more detail in writing; Simmons suggests need for more information to be disseminated to potentially affected neighborhoods; Azeem asks about matter before Conservation Commission; McKenna notes that this relates only to area in vicinity of the rotary; Azeem notes that DCR may resist major changes due to associated cost; Charter Right – Azeem

Order #5. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the City Council on the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) NOFO as soon as possible.   Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor E. Denise Simmons, transmitting the updated 2024-2025 Committee assignments.
Placed on File as Amended 9-0

September 17, 2024

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 629-630: September 17, 2024

Episode 629 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 17, 2024 (Part 1)

This episode was recorded on Sept 17, 2024 at 6:00pm. Topics: Constitution Day; Open Archives Roadshow; Boomer Kennedy; Women in Trades; Bob LaTrémouille; Red McGrail; Joan Pickett memorial service; Cambridge Mosaic; Vacancy Recount; Decker/MacKay Recount; charter reconsideration and consensus. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]


Episode 630 – Cambridge InsideOut: Sept 17, 2024 (Part 2)

This episode was recorded on Sept 17, 2024 at 6:30pm. Topics: Boards & Commissions; “emergency” extension of Cannabis Permitting Ordinance; Vail Court, lost opportunities, letting the planners plan; Housing Committee super-size proposal and ABC hostility and arrogance; MBTA Communities Act w/Cambridge as poster child; soft targets will bear the burden; political fallout; perfect tax storm coming soon. Host: Robert Winters [On YouTube] [audio]

[Materials used in these episodes]

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress