Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 17, 2023

How to turn a flawed AHO2 into a net positive for Cambridge

How to turn a flawed AHO2 into a net positive for Cambridge

Yesterday, October 16, 2023, the three-year-old Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) zoning got a boost in height to 12 stories along Cambridge’s main corridors and 15 stories in Central, Harvard, and Porter squares. However, many expect the impact of this new law to be limited. The limitation for these buildings for 100% AHUs and nonprofit builders are preferred to construct will neither lead to a widespread success as a housing solution nor create these housing units fast enough. Besides, the implementation of it will surely meet neighborhoods’ opposition.

How do we create better outcomes for this flawed ordinance?

First, we must preserve our squares and corridors to the standards and characters that our neighborhoods desire. We can build with the support of our communities. A well-intended policy to house more people in our city must come with our appeals to neighborhoods’ support. More trees and open spaces can only improve the quality of life of our new residents. Building even taller buildings at the easier-to-build places will reduce the cost of the new units than force-building them at our squares and some stretches of our corridors.

Secondly, we should motivate commercial builders and allow these buildings for mixed-use and a good portion for market rates. We have a limited capacity to build. Cambridge is not known for producing large quantities of housing units quickly. If we are mostly limited to nonprofit builders, our ability to build will not fulfill the AHO or Envision Cambridge promises.

Lastly, we need to address the broader issues facing our city. The socioeconomic underpinning has shifted since Envision Cambridge.  Our city is undergoing a likely hollowing out of our middle classes, coupled with a poverty problem.  Gentrification is already happening, though incomplete. Our teachers, scientists, researchers, police, medical staff, and young college graduates all need housing. Many of them are forced to leave Cambridge and live elsewhere. Reducing the percentage of affordable housing units to less than 25% of the new build, coupled with increasing the threshold to apply for housing assistance, can help them to live and work here, to mix with our low-income population, which in turn will generate more jobs and opportunities for our low-income population, ultimately contribute to the eradication of poverty in our city.

The AHO2, however well intended, was created with less operation experience, little impact analysis, and essentially no implementation planning. The new council should work together to turn it into a net positive for our city.

Hao Wang

2023 Cambridge City Council Candidate

Hao for Cambridge

October 2, 2023

A Taxing Situation – October 2, 2023 City Council Meeting and Tax Rate Hearing

A Taxing Situation – October 2, 2023 City Council Meeting and Tax Rate Hearing

Real Estate TaxesAs expected, the property tax bills for owners of one-, two-, and three-family homes is leaping upward this year, and next year and future years are likely to see even more dramatic increases. Shockingly, the rapid expansion of new programs (and more) actually costs money, and there are limits to just how much revenue you can raise by growing more commercial property to cover those costs.

Including the likely ordination at this meeting of the zoning amendment that will allow stratospheric heights along some streets and squares with no meaningful mechanism for public input, here’s a sampler of what’s on deck this week:

TAX RATE HEARING
The Cambridge City Council will conduct a public hearing related to setting the property tax rate classification. Under the laws of the Commonwealth, the City has the option of taxing residential and commercial/industrial property at different tax rates. At this public meeting, the City Council will review tax rates/classifications proposed by the City Manager and the Board of Assessors. The votes taken will result in property tax rates that reflect the City’s property tax levy for Fiscal Year. [City Manager’s Tax Rate Letter]

The bottom line is that: the FY23 Adopted Operating Budget increased by 10.0% ($82.3 million) over the FY23 Adopted Budget, though $24.6 million of that increase represents a shift of funding for the Affordable Housing Trust from the Capital Budget to the Operating Budget. A better accounting therefore is that the FY24 Operating Budget represents an increase of $57.8 million or 7.2% over the FY23 Adopted Budget. The FY24 Budget adopted by the City Council in June 2023 projected a property tax levy increase of $48.8 million, or 9.2%, to $580.3 million in order to fund operating and capital expenditures. With approval of the recommendations in this memo, the actual FY24 tax levy required to support the FY24 Budget is $575,418,489 which is an increase of $43.9 million or 8.3% from FY23. This increase is lower than the estimated increase of 9.2% projected in June 2023 as part of the Adopted Budget, due in large part from higher than projected investment earnings, hotel motel taxes, and building permit revenue.

The property tax levy increase of 8.3% is above the FY23 increase of 7.45%. The property tax levy increase is also above the five-year (FY20-FY24) annual average increase of 7.03%, and the ten-year (FY15-FY24) annual average increase of 5.77%. The FY24 residential tax rate will be $5.92 per thousand dollars of value, subject to Department of Revenue approval. This is an increase of $0.06, or approximately 1% from FY23. The commercial tax rate will be $10.46, which is an increase of $0.08, or 0.7% from FY23. By property class, on average a single-family home will see a 8.41% tax increase, a condo will see a 6.5% decrease, a two-family will see a 4.7% increase, and a three-family will see a 5.4% increase.

FY2024 Taxes

Residential Property Type FY24 Median Tax (incl. CPA Surcharge) Median $ increase
Condominium $1,555 – $ 7
Single-Family $7,674 $ 743
Two-Family $6,713 $ 494
Three-Family $8,246 $ 598

History of changes in residential property taxes

Median Annual Tax Increases – Cambridge
Tax Year condo single-family two-family three-family
FY2009 $ 18 $ 40 $ 24 $ 72
FY2010 $ 69 $ 119 $ 47 $ 41
FY2011 $ 77 $ 306 $ 132 $ 154
FY2012 $ 60 $ 269 $ 177 $ 215
FY2013 $ 65 $ 159 $ 80 $ 85
FY2014 – $ 38 $ 109 $ 110 $ 201
FY2015 $ 15 $ 11 $ 334 $ 253
FY2016 – $ 18 $ 64 $ 101 $ 217
FY2017 $ 11 $ 324 $ 237 $ 336
FY2018 $ 76 $ 136 $ 33 $ 61
FY2019 $ 21 $ 124 $ 292 $ 469
FY2020 $ 43 $ 449 $ 366 $ 369
FY2021 $ 3 $ 246 $ 131 $ 218
FY2022 $ 33 $ 545 $ 301 $ 335
FY2023 – $ 107 $ 419 $ 269 $ 379
FY2024 – $ 7 $ 743 $ 494 $ 598
5 year average – $ 7 $ 480 $ 312 $ 380
10 year average $ 7 $ 306 $ 256 $ 324
15 year average $ 20 $ 268 $ 207 $ 262
number of properties (FY2023) 14841 3910 2292 1168

As you can see from these figures, it’s the large number of condominiums (nearly 15,000) that enables the City to declare such things as “80% of residential taxpayers will see a reduction, no increase, or only a modest increase.” For owners of single-, two-, and three-family homes, the story is quite different – especially during the last 5 years. Indeed, this year continues the sweet deal for condo owners. This year’s median change for condo owners is a reduction of $7, while it’s increases of $743 for a single-family, $494 for a two-family, and $598 for a three-family. Next year promises to see even greater increases.

Required Votes:
• Transfer of Excess Overlay Balances. [Authorize $2,000,000 in overlay surplus/reserves to be used for reducing the FY24 tax rate.]
Order Adopted 9-0

• Classify property into the five classes allowed, and adopt a minimum residential factor of 65%.
Order Adopted 9-0

• Approve the residential exemption factor of 30% for owner occupied homes.
Order Adopted 9-0


Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to revisions to the Affordable Housing Overlay Petition. [CDD Memo]
Placed on File 9-0Corridors of Destruction

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from City Council, relative to Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) amendments. (Proposed Ordinance #2023-7) [Passed to 2nd Reading Sept 11, 2023; Amended Sept 18, 2023] [text of First Publication] [AHO-Sept12Edit]
Amended 8-1 (BA,AM,MM,PN,DS,PT,QZ,SS-Yes; DC-No) – further details to follow

Communications & Reports #4. A communication from Councillors Nolan, Carlone, and Toner transmitting alternative language to the Affordable Housing Overlay amendments. [text of communication]
Placed on File 9-0

Communications & Reports #5. A communication from Councillors Nolan, Carlone, and Toner transmitting alternative language to the Affordable Housing Overlay amendments. [text of communication]
Placed on File 9-0

I have stated from the outset that the entire concept of the original Affordable Housing Overlay as well as this next premature amendment was a flawed concept in a number of ways. First, it is based on unrealistic and unsustainable targets for deed-restricted housing units. The cost is not simply the cost of construction. The amount of real estate taxes coming from every such unit is the bare legal minimum (think ~$100 rather than $1000 or $8000 – see above) while the cost of services for each resident is far greater. In other words, each additional deed-restricted unit represents a permanent sizable cost that must be covered either by shifting that burden onto other residential taxpayers or by permitting new commercial construction or both. As one local expert has stated, “Affordable housing makes housing less affordable.” This, of course, does not mean that “affordable housing” should not be built but rather that the actual costs must be understood – and we never hear any of that discussion among city councillors (or candidates).

The second fundamental principle of the AHO has been and continues to be the prohibition of any meaningful public input from residents, including direct abutters.

The important question that should be asked is what the appropriate percentage of deed-restricted units should be. During the Envision Cambridge process, there was a basic acknowledgment of that percentage being in the neighborhood of ~15% of all housing units and that perhaps that should rise somewhat. However, in a poorly attended meeting late in the game, a target percentage of 25% of all new housing units appeared out of nowhere, and it is from that unrealistic figure that claims of our “not meeting our goals” is derived. This is economically infeasible and unsustainable from the perspective of residential property taxation (see above).

The AHO is based on the principle of restricting housing growth in order to force the sale and development of residential housing only toward the so-called nonprofit developers. Specifically, if you own property along some of the proposed “AHO corridors” (see map above) you may need to seek variances for even modest alterations to your property, but a nonprofit developer can snap up the property next door and build a structure more than three times as tall (up to 12 stories on “AHO corridors” and 15 stories in “AHO squares”) with little or no setbacks and not be subject to any of the other restrictions that have been imposed over time on other property owners. This is bad from a planning perspective. It is an assault on urban design. It is economically unsustainable. Nonetheless, this latest AHO amendment will likely have 5 or 6 votes to be ordained based purely on populist politics and a shallow understanding of urban planning and municipal finance.


Unfinished Business #2. Amendment to Chapter 2.78 of the Cambridge Code of Ordinance, entitled ”Historical Buildings and Landmarks.” (Ordinance #2022-11). [Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended, Aug 7, 2023; further Amended Sept 18, 2023; Eligible to be Ordained – no expiration] [text of proposed amendment]
Ordained 6-3 (BA,AM,MM,DS,QZ,SS-Yes; DC,PN,PT-No)

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition has been received from Allene R. Pierson, regarding Cambridge Lodging House Zoning Change to strengthen Cambridge residential housing efforts, mitigate the disruptive impacts of short-term platform-based market rate rentals. [Signed petition] [Lodging House Petition]
Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 9-0


Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with CDD and the Law Department to review the proposed amendment to BEUDO regarding new buildings, and to propose adjustments, especially with regards to the building permit vs certificate of occupancy question.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct CDD to meet with the Universities, large labs, large property developers and anyone with technical expertise regarding the proposed BEUDO amendment to get their input.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Sept 20, 2023, to discuss potential amendments to the Building Energy Use Ordinance. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0


Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant departments to change the hours of off leash usage at Joan Lorentz Park to 6:00 to 10:00am to allow usage prior to typical work hours.   Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #7. Appointment of Lauren Reznick to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority for a five-year term.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #8. Housing contributions from the City’s major institutions.   Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #9. That the City Council schedule a roundtable on Mon, Oct 23, 2023, from 3:00pm-5pm to receive an update from the City Manager, relevant departments, and community partners on Central Square.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to work with the License Commission and other relevant departments to prepare recommendations on regulations that would ban or limit the sale of nips in Cambridge.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Carlone
Charter Right – Toner

Order #13. That the City Manager is requested to reaffirm the City’s commitment to renovating the schoolhouse at 105 Windsor Street as a top priority following the completion of the Central Square lots study.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan
Charter Right – SimmonsPeoples Republic of Cambridge

Committee Report #1. The Civic Unity Committee held a public hearing on Aug 21, 2023 to discuss a proposed ”Cambridge Truth and Reconciliation Taskforce” from local reparations activists. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Sept 12, 2023, to hold a public hearing on potential amendments to the Municipal Code for the City of Cambridge to Protect Family Inclusion and Relationship Diversity, POR 2023 #97. The Committee voted favorably to send the proposed Ordinance language as amended to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation to Pass to a 2nd Reading. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File; Ordinance Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0

Committee Report #3. A public meeting of the Cambridge City Council’s Health and Environment Committee was held on Tues, Sept 13, 2023. The call of the meeting was to discuss PO23#73. The Committee voted favorably that the City Manager direct relevant departments to work with the Health and Environment and Ordinance Chairs and report back to the City Council no later than the end of October 2023. The Committee also directed the City Manager to work with relevant departments on funding sources to incentivize the transition to electrification of lawn equipment. Note: PO23#163 and PO23#164 were adopted in City Council on Sept 11, 2023. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

September 21, 2023

Cambridge Announces Opening of New Triangle Park in East Cambridge – Celebration to Be Held September 27

Filed under: Cambridge,East Cambridge — Tags: , , , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:27 am

Cambridge Announces Opening of New Triangle Park in East Cambridge;
Celebration to Be Held September 27

Sept 21, 2023 – The City of Cambridge has announced the opening of the new Triangle Park in East Cambridge, located on Binney Street between First Street and Edwin H. Land Boulevard. An opening celebration will be held at the park on Wed, Sept 27 from 11am to 1pm.

Tree planting and growing the area’s tree canopy were areas of emphasis for the design of Triangle Park. The park is located in the East Cambridge neighborhood, which has less tree canopy compared to other neighborhoods in Cambridge. The park employs a micro-forest planting approach with nearly 400 new trees planted in less than one acre.

“Our parks are such an important part of what makes Cambridge a great place to live, work, and visit,” said City Manager Yi-An Huang. “The opening of this new park, creation of a new public space, and commitment to a more expansive tree canopy are a testament to the dedicated efforts of the City, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, and our community members.”

“The design of this project was guided by the City’s Urban Forest Master Plan and includes significant tree plantings and canopy growth in the Kendall Square area,” said Public Works Commissioner Kathy Watkins. “It also allowed us to try some new approaches for how we think about open spaces and planting trees in the City. As the trees and plantings grow in over time, this unique park will provide an incredible shaded space in the heart of Kendall Square for residents, workers, and visitors to enjoy.”

The passive-use park includes concrete seat walls, lawn spaces, an urban grove with seating, and a multi-purpose timber deck for lounging and seating that can also serve as a small performance stage.

The park is the second of three new parks the City of Cambridge is designing and constructing in the East Cambridge neighborhood, and the second of two built with funding and on land transferred to the City by Alexandria Real Estate Equities. The first (Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. Park) opened in September 2021.

“Triangle Park is the realization of the shared vision of the City and the community to transform a vacant lot that previously worked as a traffic island to a green oasis in Kendall Square,” said Assistant City Manager for Community Development Iram Farooq. “It’s exciting to track the history from the Alexandria rezoning through which the City received this land to today, when we celebrate the completion of this new park. I look forward to seeing it become a place for residents, workers, and visitors to connect and enjoy community life together.”

The design of the park was led by STOSS Landscape Urbanism and construction was led by Argus Construction Corporation. The park is open from dawn to dusk.

For more information on Triangle Park, visit https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/Projects/Parks/trianglepark.

Triangle Park

January 31, 2023

Arlington to Harvard Square on a Bicycle

The video embedded in this post is of my bicycle ride on Massachusetts Avenue from the Arlington town line to Harvard Square and Brattle Street, November 29, 2022. I recorded continuously, so the video runs for 15 minutes. I have added narration explaining my actions. I describe many different riding conditions and strategies, so think that your patience to watch it all the way through is warranted. Most of the time, I chose not to ride in the designated bikeway, in the interest of my safety or to avoid obstructions. I didn’t cause delay for anyone: quite the contrary, the traffic signals established travel times and at the end, I caught up with a truck that had passed me 12 minutes earlier.

This is a high-definition video. For the best viewing experience, expand it to fill the screen.

January 22, 2023

Completing the Square [June 11, 2013]

Filed under: Cambridge,Central Square,planning — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 2:30 pm

[This was originally posted almost ten years ago — June 11, 2013. What has changed? What remains the same?]

Central Square in Cambridge has once again become a focal point for planners, activists, property owners, developers, elected officials, and residents. There is much that can be said, but the primary point of this picture book is to emphasize the opportunities that exist in what may be a narrow window in time to “Complete the Square” in a manner that should satisfy most people. Here are a few images (mostly taken on Monday, June 10, 2013) to help tell this story.

It’s important to understand that Central Square today is just an echo of the days when it was a prime shopping district for the residents of Cambridge and elsewhere. There are proposals today that would encourage a more diverse mix of retail and bring more residents close to the Square. This may require some creative changes in the zoning laws to bring about these positive changes. There’s plenty of room for debate on location, height and density but there are good opportunities now to make some great changes for the better. – RW

Central Square
This was once the site of the Cambridge Athenaeum
which also served for a time as City Hall
Central Square
There seems to be something missing next to the
beautiful facade of the Barron Building.
Cambridge Athenaeum
Central Square
This site at Pearl Street could be so
much more vital than it is today.
Central Square
Another strip of “taxpayers” – one story structures that occupy
space formerly occupied by far more appropriate structures.
Central Square
The rhythm of Mass. Ave. benefits from a mixture of taller
and shorter structures, especially when the sides of the
taller buildings have something to offer visually.
Central Square
This is one of the most deficient parts of the Central Square streetscape
– a site where new retail and residential uses would be a great benefit.
Today the most prominent feature is the graffiti next door.
Central Square
Central Square could be so much better than prominent displays of
vandalism. There should be great buildings all the way to Norfolk St.
Central Square
The site of the Middle East Restaurant today occupies what was a
building with several stories. It could use some upstairs space.
Central Square
Many of us remember this block when you could rent tools in one
location, watch a movie in another, buy clothes at another,
and enjoy some great Chinese food.
Central Square
This block is improving, but we could still do better.
Central Square
One of the blocks that seems to be missing a lot. The Central
Square Cinema and other storefronts once occupied this space.
Central Square
Lafayette Square now hosts Jill Brown-Rhone Park. This end of the
Square can only improve with more residents in proximity.
Central Square
Standing like a lone soldier in what should be a series of great buildings.
Central Square
Miracle of Science at the eastern edge of the Square
Central Square
The park is beautiful and tries to draw attention from the
scene’s most prominent feature – a blank pink wall.
Central Square
This may be the most incomplete corner in all of Central Square.
The decaying billboard on the roof guards the deficit.
Central Square
The U-Haul is convenient for those who are moving, but this stretch
of Main Street would be so much better with residential uses.
Central Square
One of the many Quest sites recently sold which may soon
potentially enhance this area.
Central Square
Another missing tooth. The outline of a former building
is apparent on the blank brick wall.
Central Square
Ideally, the future Central Square would still retain some of its industrial
past, but maybe people could live next door to the chocolate factory.
Central Square
The view from Main Street across Lafayette Square
Central Square
The view toward the hotel at University Park. Ideally, Central Square
should have more of a rhythm of heights and density.
Central Square
Architecturally Lacking – #1
Central Square
Architecturally Lacking – #2
Central Square
This end of Columbia St. would be so much better with more activity.
Central Square
A great Central Square building
Central Square
Central Square Hardware and Tool Rental was once here until a
spectacular fire destroyed the building. It’s now a parking lot.
A view of what this block once looked like is shown at right.
Central Square
Central Square
Another great Central Square building
Central Square
The Odd Fellows Hall (now the Dance Complex)
seems to be missing a neighbor.
Central Square
Vacancies where there was once a very active street
Central Square
Though this site at Pearl Street is just feet from public transit and should
support more height, the existing building seems to be in good shape.
Central Square
The site of the former Manhattan Market has cycled
through multiple commercial tenants in recent years.
Central Square
The old signage on the side of the Barron Building
Central Square
This block could stand to have a lot more character.
Central Square
The Barron Building – another great Central Square building
Central Square
Here’s an example of a good-looking tall building in Central Square.
Central Square
Most of us agree that we don’t want this kind of tall building again.
Central Square
The often-criticized Holmes Building was supposed to have cafes and other
amenities on the ground floor. Instead we got banks and phone stores.
Central Square
With the old pool removed, we get a brief look at the YWCA prior
to new housing construction on Temple Street.
Central Square
Looking across the Temple Street lot toward City Hall
Central Square
The ultimate eyesore – Vail Court still vacant after decades
Central Square
Lost opportunity – Vail Court still vacant on Bishop Allen Drive
Central Square
View from the balcony of the new Alice K. Wolf Center
Central Square
View of the Holmes Building from the Alice K. Wolf Center
Central Square
View of City Hall from the Alice K. Wolf Center
Central Square

Central Square Central Square Central Square
Central Square Central Square Central Square

November 21, 2022

Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC – November 21, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC – November 21, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Perhaps it’s a good time to burn some bridges and take sides. The 2023 Municipal Election Season has now begun and there is some detritus that needs to be disposed.Corridors of Destruction

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Orders 2022 number 290 & 291 [Awaiting Report 22-82], regarding continuing the outdoor dining season and considering the extension of the reduced fee schedule.
pulled by Zondervan; Placed on File 9-0

Though this may not be the response some councillors wanted, but it makes total sense – especially in regard to how much of the space taken in the public way for cold weather outdoor dining went unused most of the time last winter.


Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 21-90, regarding a request for various City departments in coordination with the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to identify spaces in Central Square that would support the creation and protection of cultural and human services.
pulled by Mallon; Placed on File 9-0

Another great response from the City Manager and staff. One extra note I will make is that venues that support music and the arts should be viewed as “community benefits” in much the same way as open space and ground-floor retail and housing that is affordable to people whose incomes might otherwise leave them priced out.

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Reports Items Numbered 16-111, 18-38, and 20-61, regarding Municipal Property Inventory. [Report]
Pulled by Nolan; Charter Right – Zondervan

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $200,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to be used for professional services related to a Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study.
pulled by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0

Excellent reports that make clear the range of priorities that need to be considered – especially in the proposed Central Square area municipal property needs assessment and planning study. All too often the City Council simply throws ideas out onto the floor based on what they see as popular. This is how Boston ended up with zillions of MDC skating rinks while the water and sewer infrastructure crumbled – until the courts created the MWRA to properly manage these resources. In the Cambridge context, this illustrates very well the value of a city manager form of government over some populist alternative.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge resuming the use of the city-owned water supply on Nov 19, 2022.
pulled by Nolan; Placed on File 9-0

Speaking of infrastructure, it’s great to have you back again, Cambridge Water.


Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-77, regarding a review of the proposed language for Ordinance #2022-18, the Incentive Zoning Rate Study Petition, as amended in Committee and report of findings back to the City Council.
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Petition 9-0

Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received, relative to Reevaluation of Housing Contribution Rate, Incentive Zoning Petition, Section 11.202 (d) of Article 11.000 entitled SPECIAL REGULATIONS, Ordinance #2022-18, as amended. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 31, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Nov 21, 2022] (ORD22#18)
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained as Amended 9-0

This is really just a minor alteration in the timeline for the next nexus study, but I still believe that the whole basis for Incentive Zoning needs to be reviewed rather than to exist only as a cash cow for “social housing.”


Unfinished Business #3. The Government Operations, Rules & Claims Committee met on Oct 25, 2022, to discuss potential changes to the City Council Rules. The Committee voted favorable to recommend several amendments to the Rules of the City Council related to Rule 15, Rule 21(resulting in Rule 21, 21A and 21B), Rule 22, Rule 24B, Rule 24C.1b, Rule 27-Economic Development and University Relations Committee, Rule 27-Housing Committee, Rule 27-Civic Unity Committee, Rule 32 (adding new Rule 32D), Rule 38.8, and adding a new Rule 40.1. The Committee also voted favorably to replace “he” and “she” with gender neutral language. Rule 36B. No amendments or additions to the rules may be enacted until at least seven days have elapsed from the date of the submission of the proposed changes or additions and require a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council. [Order #1] [Order #2] [Order #3] [Order #4] [Order #5] [Order #6] [Order #7] [Order #8] [Order #9] [Order #10] [Order #11] [Order #12] [Order #13] [Order #14]
pulled by Mallon; Orders #1-6, #8-14 Adopted 9-0; Order #7 Adopted 8-1 (Zondervan – NO)

This is mainly routine “hey kids, let’s re-write the student organization constitution” stuff. I will note only two specific things. First, amending the Rules should not be viewed as an opportunity to enshrine specific policies. City Council Orders and Resolutions are the more appropriate places for that. Second, there are better ways to achieve gender-neutral language than nonsense phrases like “A member that has recused themselves shall not participate in the discussion…” Try something more like, “A member, after recusal, shall not participate in the discussion…” Just a friendly suggestion.


Order #15. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Toner; Azeem amendment Fails (BA,MM,DS,QZ – YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS – NO)
QZ amendment to Require Committee Reports by Jan 31, 2022 Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,DS,QZ – YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS – NO)
Toner Amendment to send to Housing Committee and NLTP Committee (rather than to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board) Adopted 8-1 (QZ – NO)
Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (QZ – NO)

This may well be the most outrageous proposal I have ever seen from this or any other Cambridge City Council. Please read the full text of this Order and the accompanying maps. It simply blows past decades of thoughtful, deliberative planning and public participation in favor of dramatic upzoning without any meaningful opportunity for public response or input. I will add that we may now be at the point where proposals such as this will have to be viewed through a “regulatory taking” lens in the sense that what is allowed and what is proposed to be allowed for government-sponsored developers is dramatically more than what is allowed for ordinary property owners. It seems as though the policy of this City Council has become completely skewed toward moving privately-owned property toward “social housing” – and they apparently are willing to keep skewing the rules to benefit their chosen developers (who are likely also the ones drafting the regulations) until they achieve this shift.

I feel some obligation to now talk about proportional representation elections. In the absence of any true civic and political infrastructure in Cambridge, our municipal elections have become dominated by single-issue advocacy groups. In the absence of a true local newspaper willing to listen to community concerns and provide objective journalism, political propaganda has become the rule, and that includes partisans embedded in neighborhood listservs eager to attack anyone who might stand in the way of their respective agendas. So here is my first bit of advice when it comes time to vote in the next municipal election – in addition to considering which candidates you find acceptable and ranking them by preference, think even more about which candidates you should exclude from your ballot. We are now in a period where voting for candidate slates is being strongly encouraged, and in an environment where most residents remain unaware of the actions and proposals of councillors and candidates, propaganda can dominate. The truth is that some candidates win regardless of endorsements and it’s demonstrably false to claim that a majority of voters support policies of your organization simply because they are included on your candidate slate. We have never actually polled Cambridge voters about specific issues, and the range of criteria used by most voters in their candidate preferences is as wide as an ocean.

The ABC group (more properly called “A Bigger Cambridge”) has never made a secret of its long-term mission – namely to dramatically increase heights and densities everywhere in Cambridge, to eliminate all neighborhood conservation districts and historic preservation regulations, and to “streamline” permitting in the sense that most or all rights to object to development proposals should be eliminated. One of their principal officers even suggested a target population of at least 300,000 for Cambridge a few years ago (that’s about triple the current population). This is like the reincarnation of Robert Moses as Jane Jacobs rolls over in her grave. I actually ranked 3 of the 9 candidates ABC endorsed in the 2021 municipal election. I will not rank any of their endorsees again even if I like them personally, and I encourage others to do the same. This, by the way, should not be viewed in any way as an endorsement of any other candidates or candidate slates – despite what some activists may choose to think (or tweet).

Here’s a letter sent by Patrick Barrett to the City Council that captures many of my sentiments and makes some very important points:

Honorable Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,

I have to admit that following this Council lately is a lot like drinking from a fire hose. It has been difficult to keep up with all of the proposed changes. This latest amendment request has a lot of stuff in it but instead of getting tangled in the binary weeds of yes or no I think what I am seeing here is a moment in time where we ought to clearly state or get comfortable with where this city is headed. In about a month it will be C2’s 9th birthday … a failed planning initiative that was ultimately rejected by CDD, some current councillors, and the Planning Board. I compare that five year process to this petition and I can only think about how massively this conversation about development has changed in such a short time. Back in those days (2013) 14 stories was declared too tall, would block out the sun, and force MBTA personnel to use brooms to push passengers into overcrowded T stops. Dark times to be sure. However, now the pendulum has swung wildly in another direction where proponents of any change now state that an “emergency” dictates that we must act immediately on everything … all the time … no matter what. Even worse, proponents of everything from BEUDO to the AHO state that to not be 100% onboard is akin to doing nothing, being a climate denier, being anti-housing, or being a racist. It is hard to take them seriously especially in a city like Cambridge where it is unlikely and rare to find another city that does more within 6.2 sq miles on either subject. Maybe we ought to start thinking about what we do instead of berating ourselves over the false perception that we do nothing?

I am supportive of “tall” buildings in Central Square in part because we already have them and because Central Square, more than most areas of the City, has yet to come close to realizing its potential. However I think this has to do more with a lack of vision than archaic zoning, though to be clear Central Square zoning is the absolute worst in the city. I must admit, and please do not faint, that I have an issue with 100% affordable development schemes; especially when they preclude market rate developments that match. For instance, Central Square has a base height of 55′ whereas this proposal would allow for 280′ and potentially unlimited height depending on how you interpret the section on open space subparagraph (f). I’m not sure I care that much about height and I cannot tell the difference between an 18 story building or a 24 story building especially from the ground floor but such a wildly disproportionate development scheme for one type of housing is a mistake anywhere and especially in an area that already exceeds 30% affordable for total housing stock. I say this in light of the fact that proponents of the AHO often cited lack of affordable housing in other parts of the city, currently below even 40b standards, and that the AHO was designed to fix that. This has not been the case so far and maybe it makes sense to put the lion share of affordable housing in one section of the city … but I’ve yet to hear anyone in planning or the City explain why. I also believe that market rate housing IS the “affordable housing” for the vast majority of people coming to Cambridge who do not qualify for affordable housing. Without a substantive plan to address that population aren’t we just kicking the can and further exacerbating values? Have we decided collectively that supply and demand is a myth? If so that might help explain this strategy though I’ve not heard that openly expressed by CDD or City Staff.

My questions about this policy change are more about bigger picture issues:

1) Are we no longer going to permit market rate development?

2) Do we have a goal with regard to affordable housing?

3) Have we thought about what happens once people are housed or are we merely counting units?

4) What happens in the commercial districts or more importantly a cultural district when the developer is no longer bound to zoning in any way?

5) Is home ownership no longer a goal?

6) If the council feels that 280′ is an appropriate height for buildings, why limit that to affordable only?

7) Has anyone audited the impact of the AHO on market costs?

8) Have we assessed the impact of changing inclusionary zoning since it was increased in 2015?

9) Is there a conflict of interest with the affordable housing trust where the Manager, affordable developers, and a few interested parties are solely responsible for doling out taxpayer money to each other for their own projects and also now draft zoning changes with City staff to remove their need to comply while everyone else has to? I cannot imagine we’d accept this arrangement for market rate development. Why is it OK here?

10) I would love to hear someone articulate a clear vision for the City. In Central Square we have been pushing our own vision in the absence of a clear direction from the City. I am happy to share that vision; would you kindly share yours?

Lastly, our ordinance is a book about us and our values and it seems at this moment in time it is making assumptions that are incorrect. Maybe this is the moment where we take a pause and try to piece together the dozens of studies, reams of data collected over four decades, and actually reform our zoning code to reflect the values everyone seems to claim they have? It doesn’t have to take another decade or even more than a few months, but if we are planning for the next 150 years like our university friends do we should be looking at this top down not through the narrow lens of one subject.

CC: Hatfields
CC: McCoys

Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Patrick W. Barrett III


Order #16. The City Manager is requested to work with the Finance and Assessing Departments to determine how the City could adopt G.L. c. 40, sec. 60B, created under the Municipal Modernization Act, which allows cities and towns, through their respective legislative bodies, to provide for Workforce Housing Special Tax Assessments Zones (WH–STA) as an incentive to create middle-income housing.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

This Order quotes the “Envision Cambridge Housing recommendations” that supposedly came out of the Housing Working Group of Envision Cambridge (of which I was a member). I consider that entire exercise to be a failed process due to the manner in which that committee was formed primarily of inside “affordable housing” developers, funders, and advocates with virtually no focus on housing in general. That said, this is an interesting proposal. It does, however, need some clarification. In particular, does the statement “The WH-STA Zone is an area in which the City identifies opportunities for increased development of middle-income housing and provides property tax relief to developers during construction and for up to five years, in exchange for all units being rented at a pre-established rate targeting middle-income renters…” mean to imply that rent levels would be maintained for up to 5 years or be subject to regulation in perpetuity (which would seem to violate state law)?

Order #17. Roundtable on Open Space Planning and Programming including the Public Space Lab.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #18. That the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding Comments on Citizen’s Petition to Amend Ch. 2.78, Article III, Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Landmarks and the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding the Proposed Friendly Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III be forwarded to the full City Council with the recommendation to refer said memos to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 25, 2022 to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition: Historical Commission Proposed Response. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Suffice to say that the “Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition” is one of ABC’s policy goals to minimize or eliminate public review of development proposals. As for Neighborhood Conservation Districts in general, while I absolutely would not want them to dictate what paint I can use on my house or the requirement of materials that are dramatically more expensive, I absolutely support their underlying purpose. In spite of the Robert Moses view of things, I believe there are many things in Cambridge worthy of preservation.

Committee Report #1. The Health and Environment Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 12, 2022 to discuss the issue of water quality from the Cambridge water supply including PFAS levels, and comparison with the MWRA system, the long-term strategy for ensuring water quality standards for all users and all other water quality related issues and concerns. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I didn’t attend this meeting and I don’t really buy into the alarmism espoused by some of the councillors. I do, however, agree that some businesses (coffee shops are the one that come to mind) and some residents have expressed concerns about hardness and possibly other qualities of Cambridge water that can affect appliance life span. I have heard this many times from plumbers. The Water Department recommends that we “Flush/Drain/Clean Hot Water Heater at least Annually (per manufacturers recommendation)” but the truth is that many of us still go with the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” philosophy.

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Nancy E. Glowa, transmitting a response of City of Cambridge to Open Meeting Law Complaint of John Hawkinson dated Nov 7, 2022.
Response to Office of Atty. General Approved 9-0

I suppose we all have the discretion to choose which hill to die on. This isn’t my hill. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a training is just a training.

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Deputy Superintendent Rick Riley on his retirement from the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Toner

Best of luck and happy trails, my friend. – Robert Winters

October 3, 2022

Growing a Government – for Better or Worse: October 3, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Growing a Government – for Better or Worse: October 3, 2022 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here are a few items that warrant further comment this week:Fat City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on new positions. [responds to Awaiting Report Items 22-37 and 22-40]
pulled by Carlone; Placed on File 9-0

Here come the “Chief People Officer”, the “Talent Officer”, the Director of Community Engagement, and the Director of Emergency Management. I’m not quite sure what to make of the first three of these new positions.


The Linkage Question

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-62, regarding requests for a legal opinion and additional analysis on linkage fee rate increase discussion.
pulled by Carlone along with Mgr #6, Mgr #7, Unf. Business #4, Comm. & Reports #1; McGovern amendment adopted 9-0; Referred to Petition

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board report with a recommendation not to adopt the Incentive Zoning Rate Increase Petition.
pulled by McGovern; Referred to Petition 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a communication received from the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust regarding the Incentive Zoning amendment.
pulled by McGovern; Referred to Petition 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. Section 11.202(b) of Article 11.000 Special Regulations linkage fee., be amended by substitution. (Ordinance #2022-14). [Passed to 2nd Reading Sept 12, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Oct 3, 2022]
Removed for discussion and amendment, returned to Unfinished Business

Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Councillor Marc McGovern, transmitting a proposed amendment to the linkage fee.
McGovern amendment adopted 9-0; Referred to Petition

Late Order #12. That the City Manager direct the Community Development and the Law Department to review the amendment that states that exclusing the first 30,000 sq ft for buildings less that 60,000 sq ftin total size and sharing feedback, and report back to the City Council by the regular City Council meeting on Mon, Oct 17.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Zondevan, Councillor Azeem
Order Adopted 8-0-0-1 (Carlone – PRESENT)

We’ll see how this goes, but it will be very disappointing if this all comes down to just maximizing revenue generation without regard to any other incentives or unintended consequences.


Taxation without Representation

Manager’s Agenda #1 (Tax Rate Hearing). A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2023. [Tax Rate Orders] [Tax Rate Letter]

The bottom line is that: the FY23 Adopted Operating Budget increased by 6.5% over the FY22 Adjusted Budget. The June 2022 FY23 Adopted Budget projected a property tax levy increase of $41.5 million, or 8.4%, to $536.3 million in order to fund operating and capital expenditures. This included the use of $13 million from Free Cash. With approval of the recommendations, the actual FY23 tax levy required to support the FY23 Budget is $531,600,922 – an increase of $36.9 million or 7.45% from FY22. This increase is lower than the estimated increase of 8.4% projected in the June 2022 Adopted Budget due in large part from higher than projected state aid and the use of reserve funds to lower the required tax levy. The property tax levy increase of 7.45% is above the FY22 increase of 4.7%. The property tax levy increase is also above the five-year (FY19-FY23) annual average increase of 6.44%, and the ten-year (FY14-FY23) annual average increase of 5.31%. Based on a revised property tax levy of $531,600,922 the FY23 residential tax rate will be $5.86 per thousand dollars of value, subject to Department of Revenue approval. This is a decrease of $0.06, or 1% from FY22. The commercial tax rate will be $10.38, which is a decrease of $0.85, or 7.6% from FY22. By property class, on average a single-family home will see a 6.6% tax increase, a condo will see a 6.5% decrease, a two-family will see a 4.7% increase, and a three-family will see a 5.4% increase.

Required Votes:
• Authorize $19,000,000 in Free Cash to Reduce the FY23 Tax Levy. [Adopted 8-1, QZ – NO]
• Transfer of Excess Overlay Balances. [Adopted 8-1, QZ – NO]
• Classify Property and Establish Minimum Residential Factor. [Adopted 9-0]
• Residential Exemptions. [Adopted 9-0]


Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to convene a North Massachusetts Avenue Corridor District Zoning Proposal Working Group Policy Order Proposing a North Massachusetts Avenue (NMA) Corridor Working Group for the purpose of developing comprehensive zoning recommendations. [Charter Right – Azeem, Sept 19, 2022]
Withdrawn by Councillor Toner in favor of new Policy Order #3 (yet the required vote for unanimous consent was NOT taken)

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to convene a North Massachusetts Avenue Corridor District Zoning Proposal Working Group by June 15, 2023.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 9-0

To repeat what I said from the previous meeting: “This is a very promising Order. I will note, however, that unlike the days of yore when CDD would study and process things to death before coming to any conclusions, they often now arrive with conclusions and simply run interference during any subsequent public process. Let’s hope this time is different.”


Wild in the Streets

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Transportation and Parking Department to convene a series of meetings with the Vision Zero, Pedestrian Committee, Bicycle Committee, the newly appointed Bicycling Advisory Committee, Cambridge Police Department, and any other departments deemed necessary, to review and revise the Cambridge Street Code. [Charter Right – Simmons, Sept 19, 2022]
Withdrawn by Councillor Toner in favor of new Policy Order (yet the required vote for unanimous consent was NOT taken)

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking, and Transportation Department to meet with and receive input from the Vision Zero, Pedestrian, Bicycle Committee, the Council on Aging, the Transit Advisory Committee, the Commission for Persons with Disabilities Advisory Board, Cambridge Police Department, and any other departments, to review and revise the Cambridge Street Code, promulgate the updated guide throughout the city, and develop recommendations for staffing and methods of improving traffic enforcement.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Toner; Charter Right – Zondervan

It is noteworthy that at the previous meeting a number of prominent members of the bicycle lobby took issue with the idea of updating the Cambridge Street Code, and at least two councillors carried their water. Go figure.


On the Table #3. That the City Council refer the zoning petition regarding lab use to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for a hearing and report. [Tabled Sept 19, 2022]
Removed from Table by Toner 8-1 (QZ – NO); Amended by Toner, Mallon; Amendment Adopted 8-1 (BA – NO); Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (QZ – NO); Referred to Economic Development and University Relations Committee and the Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee for a review and discussion

Unfinished Business #5. Transmitting Communication from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of appropriation and authorization to borrow $4,500,000 to provide funds for the design and construction of building renovations to the vacant City owned property at 105 Windsor Street. [Passed to 2nd Reading Sept 12, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Oct 3, 2022]
pulled by Zondervan; Order Adopted 9-0

Unfinished Business #7. That the City Council schedule a hearing of the Ordinance Committee for the purposes of amending the Ordinance #2022-3 Wage Theft of the City of Cambridge to insert the language. [Passed to 2nd Reading Sept 19, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Oct 3, 2022]
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained 9-0

Resolution #18. Happy 80th Birthday wishes to Bill Cunningham.   Councillor Zondervan

Happy birthday, Bill – even though we’ll probably never agree on a lot of things.


BEUDO Communications

Communications #31. A communication was received from Patrick W. Barrett III, regarding BEUDO Meeting Recap.

Communications #40. A communication was received from Nancy E. Donohue, Director of Government and Community Relations, Cambridge Chamber of Commerce regarding joint Business/Institutional BEUDO letter. [Joint Business/Institutional BEUDO letter] [BEUDO April 2022 letter] [BEUDO questions from 9-15-22] [BEUDO Amendment Requirements]

The “conversation” continues in spite of the tin ears of some councillors.


Time of the Season

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to convene an advisory group to determine ways in which the City can work to lift up the voices and experiences of the descendants of the Indigenous People who currently reside in our community.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Simmons; Adopted 8-1 as Amended (Carlone – ABSENT)

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to affix the Indigenous Peoples’ Day Banner above JFK Street and Mount Auburn Street beginning on Oct 4, 2022, for no less than one week and recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day on Oct 10, 2022.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by McGovern; Adopted as Amended 9-0

At the same time, let’s give a hearty shout-out to all of the immigrants from other continents and their descendants who have contributed so much to this country and the world.


Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department to automatically provide an initial legal opinion to the City Council and the City Clerk at least three business days in advance of the first Public Hearing on any amendment to the Code of Ordinances formally introduced in the City Council.   Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #8. Amendment to section 22.25.1(c) of Article 22, entitled Sustainable Design and Development.   Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Zondervan; Referred to Planning Board & Ordinance Committee 9-0

Committee Report #5. On Sept 21, 2022, at 5:30pm, the Ordinance Committee, Chaired by Councillor McGovern, continued the Public Hearing on Ordinance #2022-5 that would eliminate parking minimums. This ordinance was originally proposed under POR 2022 #19. Councillor Zondervan made a motion that was approved by the Committee to amend the petition by substitution so that it adds the sentence underlined and in red below to section 6.30, and that this be the entirety of the petition. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended (by Toner) 8-1 (Carlone – NO)

I do want to point out that one can support eliminating parking minimums in many circumstances while still acknowledging their value in other circumstances. Treating this as yet another ideological mandate is not helpful, but I suppose that’s where we’re at these days. – Robert Winters

September 19, 2022

Sloppy Seconds – September 19, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Sloppy Seconds – September 19, 2022 Cambridge City Council Agenda

Last week was the first City Council meeting for newly minted City Manager Yi-An Huang, and he’ll be back for seconds this week. Here’s a sampler from this week’s buffet:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Council Order No. O-13 of 9/12/22, regarding a report on a legal opinion on the following questions regarding Policy Order #11 (proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance) from the Sept 12, 2022 City Council meeting. [City Solicitor response]
pulled by Toner; Charter Right #3 brought forward 9-0 (the next time Mayor Siddiqui says “charterwritten” I may scream); Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #3. That the Ordinances of the City of Cambridge be amended as it relates to Permitting Preferences for Priority Applicants. [Charter Right – Toner, Sept 12, 2022]
pulled by Toner; Council must declare an “emergency affecting the health and safety of the people of or their property” to justify rushing this amendment to a vote without going through passing to a 2nd Reading and waiting the requisite time prior to a vote; Emergency declared 9-0; Ordinance Amendment Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

As I said last week: There comes a point when repeated efforts to prop up and give advantages to certain cannabis operators becomes indistinguishable from political patronage. We have reached that point.


Charter Right #2. That the City Council refer the zoning petition regarding lab use to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for a hearing and report. [Charter Right – Toner, Sept 12, 2022]
Mayor Siddiqui again says “charterwritten”, Toner offers amendments but Zondervan is not interested; McGovern proposes sending Toner proposed amendments along with petition to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee, but this is not permissible; McGovern proposes Tabling both and taking up issues in Economic Development Committee and Long-Term Planning Committee; Toner hopes to discuss, delay for 6 months; Azeem agrees; Mallon agrees on Tabling; Tabled 9-0, Toner withdraws proposed amendments for now

Order #1. That the City Council refer the attached zoning petition regarding the Housing Contribution Rate to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for a hearing and report.   Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0; Referred to Ordinance Committee and Planning Board

Lotsa-Listserv-Generated (LLG) Communications on the matter of proposed amendments to the Incentive Zoning Ordinance (Linkage Fee).

I’m not sure that there’s much to do this week other than to refer the lab restriction zoning petition to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board, but suffice to say that there are contrasts between the “command and control” approach of banning lab uses and the more economically enlightened view of adjusting incentives to promote alternatives. I also still don’t know how the City defines a “lab”.


On the Table #5. An application was received from Andy Layman representing Tasty Burger, requesting permission for three (3) projecting signs at the premises numbered 23 Prospect Street. approval has been received from Inspectional Services, Department of Public Works, Community Development Department and abutter. [Tabled – Sept 12, 2022]
pulled by McGovern; Order Adopted 7-2 (DC,PN – NO)

This may be small potatoes over tasty burgers, and I do have a fondness for signage, but there is a limit on just how many signs are really necessary to help Mr. J. Wellington Wimpy find his way to his favorite meal (for which he’ll gladly pay you Tuesday).

Wimpy
By the way, before there was the tall building at the corner, there used to be a hamburger joint (Wimpy).

Resolution #1. Resolution on the death of Elie Yarden.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons

I have know many “activists” over the years – some of whom have been very difficult people – but Elie Yarden was always thoughtful and kind to me even when our views were as different as different can be.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to convene a North Massachusetts Avenue Corridor District Zoning Proposal Working Group Policy Order Proposing a North Massachusetts Avenue (NMA) Corridor Working Group for the purpose of developing comprehensive zoning recommendations.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan
Pulled by Toner; Charter Right – Azeem

This is a very promising Order. I will note, however, that unlike the days of yore when CDD would study and process things to death before coming to any conclusions, they often now arrive with conclusions and simply run interference during any subsequent public process. Let’s hope this time is different.

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Community Development Department to work with Councillors Azeem and Simmons on all necessary preparations for the next meeting in the discussion on potentially allowing multi-family housing to be built citywide.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 9-0

Generally speaking, allowing more flexibility in the kinds of residential housing that are permissible in any of the city’s residential zones is a good thing. I do worry, however, that this may just be the first step toward blenderizing Cambridge in the long term into just high density porridge. Personally, I like the fact that different parts of Cambridge have very different histories, densities, lot sizes, and residential patterns.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Transportation and Parking Department to convene a series of meetings with the Vision Zero, Pedestrian Committee, Bicycle Committee, the newly appointed Bicycling Advisory Committee, Cambridge Police Department, and any other departments deemed necessary, to review and revise the Cambridge Street Code.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
Pulled by Toner; Mallon substitute Order; Charter Right – Simmons

There was a time when cycling advocates would proudly display their “One Less Car” or “Share the Road” T-shirts. Those were the days of peace and love and peasant blouses. Now it’s Lycra and spandex and “War on Cars” and “Separated Bike Lanes”. I also remember when the City’s Traffic Department and the Transportation Folks in CDD would emphasize safe operation of bicycles. Somewhere along the road the emphasis shifted from safe operation and cooperation to segregation. Meanwhile, lots of newfangled “mobility devices” have emerged and safe operation seems like an afterthought. – Robert Winters

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress