Campaign Tales - August 31

Aug 31 - While other candidates are spending their Labor Day weekend handing out campaign literature and promising whatever it takes to win a #1 vote, I was down in the basement yesterday clearing the collected dust and debris out of a dryer vent. In addition to hair clips and mini-Lego pieces from my previous 1st floor tenants (who were great, by the way), I was able to pocket $1.37 in loose change. I guess I’ll use that to supplement the cost of the 3rd floor front porch deck that I will likely be replacing next month. Owning a triple-decker is great - except when it isn’t.

Back in my computer saddle, I updated several Candidate Pages yesterday and I’m sure I’ll be doing many more soon. It’s relatively quick and easy to do and it gives me an opportunity to read about all the other candidates for City Council and School Committee. I am planning to attend some of the upcoming candidate events - especially the School Committee candidate forums, in part because the Council events conflict with my teaching. Most of the City Council candidate forums are exercises in repetition – bike lanes, empty promises of housing affordability, and the action-reaction to rezoning Cambridge to be more like the ever-exploding downtown Flushing in Queens, NY (where I went to high school). I’ll be interested to hear more about how the Mamdani-inspired candidates will plan to cover the cost of their promises during a time of limitations in municipal finance and how they plan to Defund The Police while carefully employing euphemisms to convey that sentiment.

Also from my computer saddle, I set up an email account yesterday for the Membership Secretary of the Middlesex Canal Association. (I’m a Board member, webmaster, walk leader, and publisher of our Towpath Topics newsletter.) [By the way, is “webmaster” now a verboten word?] I have also been hearing from a few people about a “Not secure” message some people have been getting when going to the rwinters.com and middlesexcanal.org (and possibly other domains and subdomains). There are zero financial transactions happening on any of my websites, so there’s not really a problem, but I’m looking into fixing this for those who get scared off by the warning messages. It’ll cost me a few bucks, but I’ll just tell myself that the ample Social Security payments I’m now receiving will cover it. Hey, it’s better than blowing it at the Encore casino or on a fast red car.

Starting next week, I’ll be back in the mathematics teaching saddle. After Harvard Summer School wrapped up several weeks ago, it’s been great having some time to just walk the Earth like Caine in Kung Fu. That said, Harvard Extension School is calling and I have an all-time record enrollment in one of my two courses - currently 222 students, about 50% more than ever before. I suppose I can chalk it up to my boyish good looks, but there may be some other things going on in the wider world. Even though there has been a “distance option” in my courses going back to Fall 2017, in the semester after Covid first hit (2020) we had large increases in enrollments - all online that year. We have been doing the courses hybrid (in person or online) since then, so that doesn’t explain the big increase this Fall. For the Summer School course, there were as many students who registered and dropped before the start of classes as there were students who attended. This was true for many of the Summer School courses, and my theory is that many were scared off by shifting federal policies and the targeting of Harvard by the Executive Branch. Perhaps the gigantic increase in my Multivariable Calculus course, especially students attending remotely, is also an unexpected consequence of federal policies. Or maybe, mathematics has become the Taylor Swift of academic disciplines.

Having partially buried the lede, let me say a few more words about the municipal election season.

Municipal election campaigns didn’t used to pick up until after Labor Day and, being an old school kinda guy, I’ve been sticking to that schedule. Perhaps I’ll put up a few yard signs this week and do an email blast. I have plenty of yard signs, bumper stickers, and buttons (hint, hint). I also have to update my candidate website - primarily simplification. I’m also thinking of making a few short videos on various topics.

The questionnaires keep on coming - not so much sincere inquiries about the opinions of a candidate on various relevant (or irrelevant) issues of the day, but more of the “Do you agree with our rigid and inflexible ideology on Topic X?” type. The latest one came from a heretofore unknown group calling itself “Cambridge for Palestine (C4P)”. As expected, no names were provided for this new mystery group. I won’t be responding to their little push poll on topics having zero relevance to Cambridge municipal government, but it was good for a chuckle. [That said, I’m sure at least several current candidates will be providing enthusiastic responses.] I suppose it’s only a matter of time before C4P gets included in the “Cambridge Progressive Electoral Collaboration” list of “allies”.

Speaking of the Lefties, 7 Council candidates are now on the record saying they’ll support a Home Rule petition to bring back rent control to Cambridge (Al-Zubi, McGovern, Nolan, Rivkin, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, and Wilson). There may be others. Of course, barring a change in state law, that’s really just a hollow gesture. Besides, what exactly is the value in freezing rents at stratospheric levels? Perhaps that’s not really the point. It’s just the politics of promising something you can’t actually deliver - kinda like when “A Better Cambridge” promises affordable housing as they do every election. My personal platform may include free Internet, free ice cream (w/vegan option, of course), and free ponies for everyone!

Though I am spending less time on it than previous years, I have been watching the campaign finance reports for the municipal election. Perhaps most noteworthy is the (currently) $83,550 in receipts for new candidate Tim Flaherty who is apparently the candidate being backed by the players who have mobilized in the wake of Paul Toner’s decision to not seek reelection. I like Tim and consider him a friend, but there is something very unsettling about this. I’m also a bit puzzled about the criteria used by the various organizations who will be promoting candidate slates this year. Some of them seem primarily focused on ensuring the reelection of their favored incumbents with a few feeder candidates thrown in for insurance. I just wish there was a Reasonable Cambridge slate. I might request inclusion in that slate, but that’s just wishful thinking at this point. I think that’s the candidate slate most Cambridge residents would prefer. Unfortunately, the single-issue advocates are all that we hear from.

By the way, if you want to talk, give me a call (617-661-9230), send me email, or ring my doorbell. I have beer.

Robert Winters (in my role as a candidate)

Comments?

Campaign Tales - August 25

Aug 25 - I just read through a candidate questionnaire from a group calling itself the “Committee of Interns and Residents-SEIU, representing over 3,500 resident physicians at Cambridge Health, MGB, Boston Medical Center, Beth Israel, Greater Lawrence Family Health Center, and UMass Medical Center.” I will be very surprised if many of the interns or residents of any of the above-named institutions have read or are even aware of the questions being posed to candidates. As is the case with many, perhaps most, unions, the connection between the membership and those involved in political activities in the name of the union (including donations made to candidates) is tenuous at best. The names of the people sending the questionnaire are Tal Frieden, Anthony Landry, and Alyssa Ruiz Nicholson.

As a candidate, I will not be completing their questionnaire due to its overt politcal bias, its irrelevance to Cambridge, and the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with medical residents or interns. That said, I am sure that many of the other City Council candidates will happily comply. Not me.

Here is a sampler of some of the questions:

• Are you accepting donations from police unions?
• Are you accepting donations from AIPAC, United Democracy Project, NORPAC, Democratic Majority for Israel, or similar funding?
• Do you believe in a ceasefire in Gaza?
• Recently, MA Senators Warren and Markey voted in favor of a resolution to block arms sales to Israel. Representative Ayanna Pressley has cosponsored the Block the Bombs Act to limit arms sales to Israel. Would you support similar legislation supporting an arms embargo on Israel?
• CIR is committed to ensuring that physicians can take care of their communities, without unjust interference. Immigrants in our communities have been targeted by ICE, including in hospitals in Massachusetts. Immigrant physicians have also been targeted by ICE in New England, denying communities of the care immigrant physicians provide. What actions have you taken or do you plan to take in your position to support ensuring that immigrants in our communities (patients and physicians) are free from harassment in seeking and providing medical care?
• Our union, CIR, is committed to pursuing justice for all, in particular bringing economic and social justice to those most exploited. Throughout our history, we have refrained from supporting institutions and organizations supporting apartheid (as defined by the UN) or genocide. Have you taken financial support from organizations accused of supporting apartheid or genocide? Will you use your position to support efforts to dismantle apartheid or intervene in genocide? If so, how would you pursue these goals?

Robert Winters (in my role as a candidate)

Emerging and Converging Political Factions

Aug 18 – Candidates continue to send me materials for their Candidate Pages and I generally get those posted soon after I get them. You all can thank me later.

I’m also a City Council candidate, and the usual barrage of questionnaires from advocacy groups have been arriving. I’ll be answering some of them but, quite frankly, some are simply not worth wasting my time answering such narrow-minded, self-serving interests that leave candidates little room for nuance, explanation, historical perspective, or much of anything else. It will be interesting to see which candidates dish out all the BS the advocates want to hear in their endless quest for endorsements from a handful of self-anointed, self-appointed activists. Yeah, you know who I’m talking about.

One of the more curious things I have seen emerging over the last few years and municipal election cycles is the coalescence of the left-wing activist groups - including several groups that have emerged relatively recently which are at least somewhat centered around particular candidates. In addition to the Our Revolution gang (ORC), the highly problematic local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) which has become indistinguishable from the DSA, we now have groups calling themselves the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition (CHJC) and the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizers (CHAO). In classic chicken-and-egg fashion, it’s hard to say whether the groups have grown around the candidates or if the candidates were spawned by the groups. Many of the same individuals are affiliated with several of these groups. Perhaps most interesting this year is that essentially all of the leftist groups have settled on a common questionnaire promoted by something known as the “Cambridge Progressive Electoral Collaboration”.

Personally, I won’t be answering that questionnaire for a number of reasons. First, there’s no way in Cambridge or on Earth that a centrist like me would ever be supported by the radicals behind this “collaboration”. Second, any group that wants to grill Cambridge candidates on their views regarding Israel and Gaza doesn’t really deserve a response from a municipal election candidate – though I’m sure some of the current candidates will be thrilled to express their views from the river to the sea. Our local socialist loonies are likely looking to Mamdani and New York City for inspiration. Could they add a City Council seat this year? Perhaps, but I really hope not. We are actually in a moment where fiscal restraint should be the call of the day, but we could end up with 5 votes calling for the City Manager to drain our “free cash” in order to fund every imaginable giveaway.

The “A Better Cambridge” faction will, no doubt, sell its slate on the usual promise of housing affordability, but all they really want to do is turn every parcel into a lucrative development opportunity – even if all of the neighbors object. [The ABCers will simply call them all NIMBYs or worse.] I do find it striking that during all the years when “affordable housing” has been the expressed goal of most aspiring City Council candidates, that train has been traveling steadily in the opposite direction. The current pitch is that increased supply will cure all ills, but my guess is that we’ll mainly see more investment vehicles where people (many of them non-residents) can store their wealth. So many landlords, so little time.

Just about every School Committee candidate says they want to narrow the “achievement gap” and provide for the needs of all children (they always italicize the all), yet that gap always seems to grow wider. Even though I am a candidate for City Council, I’m actually quite interested in what’s going on with the School Committee election. There are several matters that have motivated so many candidates to run for School Committee, e.g. the closing of the Kennedy-Longfellow School, the early firing of the previous School Superintendent, the current process to select the next Superintendent, and (at least I hope) the neverending hope for improved educational outcomes - especially in math and science. I don’t really get too jazzed about all the equity talk. Not surprisingly (considering what I do for a living) I just want to see everyone succeed in math and science.

Though I like most of the candidates under the “Cambridge Citizens Coalition” umbrella, they apparently have no criteria for candidate endorsement other than personal whim. I am actually more comfortable as a candidate being completely independent of all the factions.

Then there’s The Bike People, their irrational beliefs, and their total disregard for any residents who travel on more than two wheels.

We may or may not see the proposed new City Charter on this year’s ballot. The clock is ticking. I would love to have the opportunity to talk about the tortured process that led to the current proposal.

Enough for now. - RW

Comments?

Cambridge Voting Histories - 2025 City Council and School Committee Candidates

Aug 18 - I heard some whispers the other day about the voting histories of several of this year’s candidates. Rather than single out any particular candidates, here’s the whole list with their Cambridge voting histories in the November elections going back to 2009. Clearly, some of the younger candidates haven’t been voting here long enough to have much of a record, and others have only moved to Cambridge recently. You can decide for yourself whether any of this is relevant. - RW

2025 Cambridge Candidate Pages

We currently have the following lineups for City Council and School Committee:

Notes:

(1) Louise Venden failed to submit nomination signatures but has indicated her intention to run for City Council as a write-in candidate. [Aug 1]

(2) Caitlin Dube qualified for both the City Council and the School Committee ballots but has decided to run only for School Committee. [Aug 2]

(3) Candidates had until Monday, Aug 18 at 5:00pm to file with the Election Commission for withdrawal of nomination (689 Mass. Ave.).

Grading Final Exams

Aug 11 – Pardon my employment (apparently not a high priority among other City Council candidates), but I’m busy grading Final Exams right now for my Harvard Summer School course (Linear Algebra & Differential Equations) and I have a long way yet to go. Course grades are due on Thursday and I have a very large course. I did manage to catch the Rocky Horror Picture Show on Church Street Saturday night (Thanks Denise!), and perhaps I’ll see you at the Harriett Jacobs event at The Foundry on Wednesday evening.

Candidates continue to send me materials for their Candidate Pages and I generally get those posted soon after I get them. You all can thank me later.

Yes, I’m also a City Council candidate, and the usual barrage of questionnaires from advocacy groups have been arriving. I’ll be answering some of them but, quite frankly, some are simply not worth wasting my time answering such narrow-minded, self-serving interests that leave candidates little room for nuance, explanation, historical perspective, or much of anything else. It will be interesting to see which candidates dish out all the BS the advocates want to hear in their endless quest for endorsements from a handful of self-anointed, self-appointed activists. Yeah, you know who I’m talking about.

I did finally manage to review what our City Council did last week (Aug 4) and recorded the results of the votes without any of my usual snarky comments.

I’ll be back on the candidate train later this week when all of my course grades have been submitted. Priorities, folks, priorities. - RW

UPDATE (Aug 14): All of the Final Exams have been graded and I’ll be submitting course grades today. Anyone feel like dropping by over the next few days to plot out a City Council election campaign? Let me know. I have beer. - RW

Coming Up Next Week (Aug 9 - Aug 15)

Note: Harriet Jacobs is buried alongside her daughter Louisa Matilda Jacobs in Mount Auburn Cemetery.

photo by Robert Winters, Aug 9, 2015

No TV today - but plenty going on…

Aug 5 – There’s a lot going on in Cambridge right now - from municipal election candidates to intrusive development proposals to roof scammers on the prowl, but I’m cancelling the scheduled Cambridge InsideOut shows again today to do some catching up. I’ll pre-record some shows soon. Maybe you can join me in a show or two or three or four.

I just finished grading midterm exams and I still have a Final Exam to write. I also have to review what our City Council did or didn’t do last night. And there’s also that little matter of being a City Council candidate this year that warrants my attention. More on that later. - RW

Nomination Papers - 2025 Municipal Election (FINAL - July 31 - the deadline)

as of Fri, Aug 1, 12:00pm

2025 Cambridge Candidate Pages

Nomination Signatures submitted and now officially certified by the Election Commission:

We will have the following lineups for City Council and School Committee:

Notes:

(1) Louise Venden failed to submit nomination signatures but has indicated her intention to run for City Council as a write-in candidate. [Aug 1]

(2) Caitlin Dube qualified for both the City Council and the School Committee ballots but has decided to run only for School Committee. [Aug 2]

Foundry Advisory Committee Vacancy

July 28, 2025 – The City of Cambridge is seeking to fill two vacancies on the Foundry Advisory Committee. The Foundry is a self-sustaining center of creativity and collaboration in the Kendall Square neighborhood, offering the Cambridge community opportunities in science, technology, engineering, arts, and math.

The Foundry Consortium, the Foundry’s non-profit operator, helps facilitate access for residents, especially underrepresented communities to the dynamic working and learning environment of Kendall Square.

What is the role of the Foundry Committee (FAC)?
The FAC serves in an advisory capacity to the City of Cambridge and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA), to help ensure that the Foundry building’s redevelopment and ongoing operation remains consistent with the Vision and Objectives established in the Demonstration Plan that grew out of an extensive community planning process. The Foundry’s nonprofit operator, the Foundry Consortium, manages the building and stewards community activities in the various community spaces including the performance space, maker workshops, dance studio, art classrooms, and multi-purpose rooms. Learn more about upcoming events and available spaces at www.cambridgefoundry.org.

As a member of the FAC, duties may include:

• Providing regular updates to the City Manager and to the CRA Executive Director on anticipated building operations;
• Utilizing performance metrics to measure how the building is meeting its mission;
• Reviewing any proposals for significant capital changes, to assess how they affect the community objectives;
• Providing annual updates to the CRA Board at regular Board meetings, which provides an additional forum for public input.

What is the Term of Appointment/Time Commitment for Board Members? When do they meet?
The Committee is made up of seven community members who serve three-year terms. Meetings are typically held quarterly and are open to the public. Meetings are currently held in person at the Foundry, 101 Rogers Street, Cambridge. Special accommodations can be made for online participation.

What kind of skills and abilities do you need to effectively serve on Name board or committee?
Ideal candidates will have experience and expertise in visual and performing arts, technology, maker-spaces, entrepreneurship, and workforce development as well as provide representation from various neighborhoods within the City of Cambridge, and local non-profit and community organizations.

Additionally, the City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies, and be able to work effectively on a team with diverse perspectives to craft consensus recommendations. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

How can I apply to serve on the committee?
Applications can be submitted using the City’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience can be submitted during the online application process. The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, September 15, 2025.

If you have questions about the application process or need assistance, please contact the City Manager's Office at 617-349-4300 or boardsandcommissions@cambridgema.gov.

For more information about the FAC, contact Claudia Zarazua, City of Cambridge Director of Arts & Cultural Planning, at czarazua@cambridgema.gov.

Tom Lehrer, Musical Satirist With a Dark Streak, Dies at 97 (NY Times)

A mathematician by training, he acquired a devoted following with songs that set sardonic lyrics to music that was often maddeningly cheerful.

July 27 – Tom Lehrer, the Harvard-trained mathematician whose wickedly iconoclastic songs made him a favorite satirist in the 1950s and ’60s on college campuses and in all the Greenwich Villages of the country, died on Saturday at his home in Cambridge, Mass. He was 97.

Note: I learned about Tom Lehrer’s death today at the Cambridge Jazz Festival from a neighbor of Tom. He was found dead in his home on Saturday but may have died several days earlier as a result of an accidental fall in his Sparks Street home.

Note 2: This week while walking on Broadway I saw a box of refrigerator magnets of the chemical elements. Later in the day I found them all scattered along Broadway and have been picking them up over the last few days. Perhaps this was a foreshadowing of the passing of Tom Lehrer.

William Bruce “Bill” King (1932 - 2025)

KING, William Bruce “Bill” — Lawyer; Civic Leader; Beloved Father, Grandfather, and Friend William Bruce “Bill” King, of Cambridge, Needham, and Phillipston, MA, passed away on July 22, 2025, at age 93, after a brief illness. Beloved and respected by all who knew him, Bill charmed family, friends, and colleagues with bonhomie, long stories, good humor, curiosity, and keen intelligence. He was dedicated to his family, to the law firm where he spent his entire professional career, and to civic engagement in every community he joined.

Bill was born on June 3, 1932, the third of four sons of Gilbert and Frances (Hood) King of Chestnut Hill, MA. He graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy (1950) and Harvard College (1954), before serving two years as an officer in the Navy at the end of the Korean conflict, followed by ten years of reserve duty. Returning to Cambridge after active service, Bill graduated from Harvard Law School in 1959 and started a 40-year career at Boston law firm Goodwin Procter.

On a blind date in the spring of his freshman year at Harvard, Bill met Radcliffe classmate, Sheila Malone, who became the love of his life and, in July 1955, his wife. They enjoyed 65 years of marriage until Sheila passed away in 2020. Surviving him are their three children, Stephen King (Mindy Aldridge) of Bryn Mawr, PA, Rachel King (Mark Mansoor) of Newton and Christopher King (Tara King) of Bellevue, WA; seven grandchildren, William, Sam, and Robb, Hannah and Matthew, Henry and Piper; and two step-grandchildren, Katharine Mancini and Matthew Mansoor. Bill is also survived by his younger brother, Richard King, of Worcester, MA; and several nephews and nieces. He was predeceased by his older brothers, Gilbert King, Jr. and Arthur King.

In his career as a corporate attorney at Goodwin, Bill was one of the pioneers of real estate investment trusts (REITs), and through his work, Goodwin became one of the preeminent law firms involved nationally in the real estate capital markets. For many years, Bill actively participated in the work of the National Association of REITs and in 1995, received its Industry Leadership Award.

Throughout his adult life, Bill was an active participant in Cambridge civic affairs, serving as president of the Cambridge Civic Association (1965-67); a trustee of the Buckingham School and, after its merger, of Buckingham Browne & Nichols School during the 1970s, a corporator for 50 years of the Cambridge Savings Bank and for 40 of those, a trustee and member of its Board of Investment, a corporator and later member of the Board of Overseers of Mount Auburn Hospital and in his later years, on the board of assisted living facility The Cambridge Homes.

In 1973, Bill was appointed a member of the Cambridge Historical Commission and, through reappointments by four city managers, served on the Commission for 44 years, 31 as Chair, before retiring in 2017. While initially joining the Commission to provide legal counsel, he became passionately interested in and committed to historical preservation over his decades of service. During his tenure, the Commission was the driving force in urging the Cambridge City Council to use such preservation tools as demolition delay and local landmark/neighborhood conservation districts that might then influence redevelopment of significant properties. As Chair, Bill was known for his fairness and determination to hear from every side of an issue. In 2015, he was among the first recipients of Francis H. Duehay Volunteer Public Service Award, granted by Cambridge’s mayor, and in 2017, the Cambridge Historical Commission gave him its Preservation Award upon his retirement.

In 2019, Bill and Sheila left Cambridge, after more than 60 years, to begin a new life at North Hill, a retirement community in Needham. Bill enjoyed a full and busy next chapter there, avidly participating in classes, committees, and conversation groups, and making many good friends. In 2022, Bill’s lifelong commitment to serving the surrounding community led him to run for and win a seat on the Needham Town Meeting, becoming an elected official for the first time at age 90. Ever the optimist, he ran again and was elected to a second three-year term earlier this year.

Despite his many accomplishments, Bill was humble and always gave credit to his mentors and mentees. He took deep interest in others, drawing out their stories and then remembering every detail about them for years thereafter. He was highly social, enjoyed bringing people together, and had an open, generous spirit with all he met. He loved his work, his vegetable garden at the family summer home in Phillipston, travel, history and biography, good food and martinis, and especially classical music, which brought him pleasure and comfort right to the end. Indeed, to the bemusement of his doctors, his immediate regret upon learning of his advanced diagnosis was that he had just ordered his tickets for the Boston Symphony’s 2025-26 season.

A Celebration of Bill’s Life will be held on Saturday, August 9, at 11am, at St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church, in Wellesley, MA, standrewswellesley.org Livestream of the service will be available on the St. Andrews website.

Contributions in memory of William B. King can be made to Cambridge Community Foundation, cambridgecf.org or Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust, mountgrace.org

View the online memorial for William Bruce “Bill” KING

To plant trees in memory, please visit the Sympathy Store. Published by Boston Globe from July 26 to July 27, 2025.

Note: Bill King was a great man, a good friend, and a brilliant observer and participant in Cambridge civic affairs. - RW

Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Board Vacancy for CHA/Affiliate Housing Resident

July 25, 2025 – The City of Cambridge is seeking to fill a vacancy on the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) Board for a seat that must be held by a resident of CHA/affiliate owned housing.

What is the Cambridge Housing Authority?
The Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) was established in 1935. It provides long-term rental housing and rental assistance. More than 10,000 low-income families, elders, and disabled individuals receive this assistance. CHA invests in Cambridge families and provides enhanced support to 10% of the city population. The CHA mission is to develop and manage safe, good quality, affordable housing for low-income individuals and families in a manner which promotes citizenship, community and self-reliance in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. Learn more about Cambridge Housing Authority.

What are the terms of appointment for the CHA Board?
The Board of Commissioners is a five-member Board with each member serving five years. One member is appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts; the remaining four members are appointed by the Cambridge City Manager and confirmed by the Cambridge City Council. All Board members must be residents of Cambridge, and one member must physically reside in CHA/affiliate owned housing.

What is the role of the Cambridge Housing Authority Board?
The CHA Board oversees the Agency’s direction. This includes approving:

• Contract awards
• Budget decisions
• Formal submissions to state and federal funding agencies
• Planning and reporting documents
• Major policy decisions

Commissioners also serve as board members on CHA’s five non-profit affiliates. The Board appoints an Executive Director to oversee the housing authority and implement the Board’s policies.

What kind of skills/experience should members have?

• Computer literacy to participate in hybrid meetings
• Ability to interact with the public
• Advocacy skills

For this vacant seat, applicants must also be residents of CHA/affiliate-owned housing. Additionally, the City of Cambridge and CHA are committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Board members must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

How can I apply to serve on the committee?
Applications to serve on the Board can be submitted using the City of Cambridge’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience may be submitted during the online application process.

The application deadline is Monday, August 25, 2025.

If you want to make a friend, let someone do you a favor. — Benjamin Franklin

July 12 - I will soon be sending a message to a list of people asking them to sign my City Council nomination papers. I’m generally accustomed to doing favors for other people, but I hesitate when asking favors of others. Perhaps this is a result of how I was raised, but it’s a barrier I need to overcome as a candidate. Asking people to vote for me feels immodest (#1, of course!), but it has to be done. Asking people for a signature is comparatively benign, but still I hesitate.

So… please sign my papers (even if I didn’t send you a message). Ben Franklin had the right idea. I’m usually home (366 Broadway) when I’m not teaching my Harvard Summer School class or taking my daily walk through Central Square. Give me a call (617-661-9230), send me email, or just drop by and ring my doorbell. I can also come to you if that’s more convenient. - RW

PS - Don’t forget – you can only sign nomination papers for one City Council candidate and one School Committee candidate.

Update (July 23): I have most of my required nomination signatures now, but I still need more to get over the threshold. I would really love to turn them in very soon, so if you’re willing to do me the favor I would love to get your signature. - RW

Update (July 30): I have 61 provisionally certified signatures, so I’m good. Thank you to all the kind souls who signed my papers and for the many extended conversations I had with most of the people along the way. - RW

10th Annual Cambridge Jazz Festival July 26 & 27 — Free: At Danehy Park

Join us for the 10th Annual Cambridge Jazz Festival on Saturday and Sunday, July 26 and 27, 2025, from noon to 6pm each day, at Cambridge’s Danehy Park. Free admission. Open to everyone. Presented by the Cambridge Jazz Foundation in partnership with and sponsored by Cambridge Arts. The festival lineup features:

July 23, 6:20pm - No water on Broadway east of Dana Street (all the way to Boardman Street) for most of today. They’re replacing a valve at Dana Street and they had to shut down the giant 30 inch main that runs under Broadway and serves the eastern half of Cambridge. Off Broadway they have water coming off the network of smaller water mains, likely some reversing flow and yielding discoloration of the water.

Yikes, I hope they get this fixed soon. - RW

Update (8:38pm) – The broken valve has been capped and the system has now been restored.

George Washington and the 250th Birthday of the US Army at the Cambridge Common

Friday, June 27 in front of City Hall and from Prospect Street to Bigelow Street – Be There or Be Square

2025 Municipal Election: Nomination Papers

June 25, 2025 – Nomination papers for City Council and School Committee will be available beginning Tuesday, July 1st at the Election Commission office. Please be aware that the Election Commission office has moved to 689 Massachusetts Ave. The office will be open from 8:30am until 5:00pm on July 1st. The deadline to file nomination papers is Thursday, July 31, 2025, at 5:00pm.

Municipal Election Calendar is posted on the Commission’s website: www.cambridgema.gov/election

The requirements to run for City Council or School Committee are:

1. The person must be a registered voter in Cambridge. To register, one must be 18 years of age by Election Day, a U.S. citizen and a resident in the City of Cambridge.

2. The person must file no fewer than fifty (50) and no more than one hundred (100) certifiable signatures of registered voters in the City of Cambridge.

The Commission has prepared an information kit for candidates containing important dates, Commission policies, services and publications. The kits will be available with the nomination papers on July 1st.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 4, 2025.

Things To Do — June 21-22 Weekend (click on image for details)

Lessons in Inclusionary Zoning - by Patrick Barrett

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (May 1, 2025)

Follow-Up Memo on Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Concerns Under MBTA Communities Act Compliance (June 11, 2025)

City Reaches Agreement with the Harvard Chabad

June 13, 2025 – The City of Cambridge is pleased to announce that it has reached an agreement with the Harvard Chabad to resolve the dispute currently before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This matter involved strongly held views from multiple perspectives. City officials carefully considered these perspectives in light of applicable local and Federal law.

Following a thorough mediation process overseen by U.S. Magistrate Judge Page Kelley, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

We recognize that this resolution may not reflect the preferences of all residents. However, we have concluded that the laws involved mandate the authorization of a new building for the use by the Chabad.

We anticipate that the new facility will serve the worship needs of its congregation and positively contribute to the broader Cambridge community. The City remains committed to supporting a diverse and inclusive community that respects its legal obligations and the rights of its residents, neighborhoods, and institutions.

Editor’s Note: This was one of the two items discussed during the City Council’s Executive Session on Monday, June 9. [Reference - Harvard Crimson] The other item involved the Vail Court property (Bishop Allen Dr. and Temple St.) that the City sized by Eminent Domain in September 2016. No information is publicly available re: the status of that dispute.

Things To Do (or not do, thanks to the rain) — June 14-15 Weekend (click on image for details)

Event Update: Due to weather concerns forecasted Saturday morning and early afternoon,
the 250th Anniversary of the United States Army event at the Cambridge Common
will be postponed to Monday, July 7 (start time TBD).

Fresh Pond Day is CANCELLED due to expected rain.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/news/2025/06/selectcambridgeeventsplannedforthisweekendpostponedduetoweatherconcerns
On the other hand, there are now conflicting reports that it will be going ahead as scheduled.
I frankly don’t know which to believe.

Follow-Up Memo on Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Concerns Under MBTA Communities Act Compliance - by Patrick Barrett

To: Cambridge City Council
From: Patrick W. Barrett III, Esq
Date: June 11, 2025
Subject: Follow-Up Memo on Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Concerns Under MBTA Communities Act Compliance

“Liberal legalism – and through it liberal government – had become process-obsessed rather than outcomes-orientated. It had convinced itself that the state’s legitimacy would be earned through compliance with an endless catalog of rules and restraints rather than through getting things done for the people it claimed to serve.”
— Abundance

Introduction
The above quote from Ezra Klein’s book “Abundance” describes more apply than I ever could the current state of affairs in the City of Cambridge in nearly all aspects, but no more acutely than in Cambridge’s zoning and housing policy. While intended to address housing affordability, the City’s focus on procedural compliance (“Policy”), reinforced by a flawed Economic Feasibility Analysis (“EFA”) to gain MBTA Act certification, a weak and deeply flawed nexus study three years overdue that was “forgotten,” and continued misleading data presentations, has undermined effective outcomes, revealing a paper thin veneer of a housing market held up by labs, hubris, and wishful thinking.

• This is an update from a memo I issued a few weeks ago to clarify a few points made previously (EFA) and to put into public view some exciting updates from our friends at CDD and new legal actions across the country. I also read Klein’s book … not too shabby.

Violates the MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A)
The MBTA Communities Act mandates multi-family housing as-of-right with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, suitable for families and without age. EOHLC guidelines permit up to 10% affordability at 80% AMI without an EFA, while higher percentages, up to 20%, require a robust EFA demonstrating financial viability. Cambridge’s 20% affordability requirement, applied citywide since 2017, lacks a credible EFA, by using weak anecdotal data without citing sources, project addresses, or any specific material fact about the projects used to set policy. On June 27, 2024, the consultant issued a report to the Housing Committee wherein it stated, “No scenario is financially feasible under existing market conditions” and “Higher density does not overcome financial barriers in current market.¹” He was quick to retract this in an email dated September 17, 2024 where the consultant states, “Based on the original EFA analysis and these economic conditions, I conclude that both rental and ownership housing development projects of different sizes that conform to the densities, dimensional requirements and minimum parking requirements under as of right zoning in the qualifying district can be feasibly developed² with Cambridge’s existing inclusionary zoning requirements.” No calculation, no attachment, no underlying data to support this conclusion other than the email equivalent of a thumbs up. The consultant’s email cites improved interest rates, cap rates, and investment return thresholds as the basis for his conclusion. On June 27th, 2024, the avg interest rate hovered at 6.89%. This dipped by 69 basis points on September 17th, 2024 in anticipation of the federal reserve’s rate cut, and the current interest rate as of this writing is 6.89%. Cap rates between September ’24 and May ’25 have only increased and, given the risk associated with construction, tariffs, and other regulatory hurdles that exist in Cambridge, investor thresholds have only become more stringent (see also: The Bank). However, since CDD likes bar graphs, let’s deliver the information in a form they are accustomed to:

Basing housing policy on razor thin margins, whether we accept the consultant’s assessment or not, is not sustainable and sets the city up for confrontation where the only answer is either to dig in on failed policy or reassess. Did a mere two months change all that?

Misleading Representation of Inclusionary Housing Production

Presented on May 12th, 2025 the Director of Housing issued the above chart in his report on inclusionary housing production. (COF 2025 #81³) The cumulative graph of IHP units from pre-FY99 to FY24 (above) suggests robust production, with FY24 as the tallest bar (~1,400 units). Spoiler: the FY24 tallest bar in the graph is where the least amount of “inclusionary housing” was permitted (zero actual IZ units).

This presentation is highly misleading. The cumulative format obscures annual trends, exaggerating recent progress by aggregating all prior units. In FY24, the only cited projects are 121 Broadway (99 units, project-specific zoning via contract or Planned Unit Development, not IZO compliance) and 8 Winter St (3 units, amending permit but not approved), resulting in zero permitted inclusionary units under the 2017 IZO revisions yet presented to the Cambridge City Council as the highest bar in a continuum of success and growth. Of the 20 developments from FY18-FY24 (524 IHP units, 3,227 total units), (4 projects: Mass & Main, 50 Rogers, 165 Main Street, 121 Broadway; 229 units) involve project-specific zoning, not standard IZO, and (12 projects: 305 Webster, St. James Place, 249 Third Street, 201 & 203 Concord Turnpike, 14-16 Chauncy Street, Charles & Hurley, 95-99 Elmwood, 151 North First Street, 212 Hampshire Street, 3-5 Linnaean Street; 144 units) are pre-2017 IZO projects exempt from the 20% mandate due to prior permitting or PUD special permits. Projects listed as “IZO with 2017 Revisions” include errors: 47 Bishop Allen Drive (23 total units, 3 IZ units) is part of Mass & Main (project-specific zoning, not IZO), and 8 Winter St is not yet underway and in the process of amending their plan set. After corrections, only four projects (50 Cambridge Park Drive: 55 units; 55-Wheeler Street: 99 units; 605 Concord Ave.: 7 units; 1055 Cambridge Street: 3 units; 164 IHP units over a 6 year period) comply with the 2017 IZO, comprising just 31% of IHP units, far below expectations for a 20% mandate. This data confirms the 20% requirement has not driven significant inclusionary production, and the City’s graph misrepresents the program’s effectiveness and raises serious questions regarding the viability of inclusionary zoning as a housing strategy.

Analysis of Economic Feasibility Assessment
The City’s reliance on the EFA produced in 2023 to support the 20% mandate is misplaced, as the analysis is so deficient it fails to meet EOHLC requirements for a comprehensive, transparent, and current EFA. Its outdated assumptions, lack of methodological rigor, and failure to use a sustainable economic model or account for the ordinance’s impact on smaller projects make it functionally equivalent to the absence of an EFA. Key points include:

• Outdated Cost Assumptions: The Consultant’s EFA assumes a uniform land acquisition cost of $87,000 per unit across all project sizes (small: 15 units, medium: 42 units, large: 49 units), based on three unspecified projects⁴, failing to account for economies of scale or market variations. The 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates (DRA) Inclusionary Housing Study⁵, which informed the 2017 increase from an effective 11.4% to 20% set-aside, estimated land costs at $50,000–$170,000 per unit, with smaller projects at ~$150,000-$170,000 and larger projects at ~$50,000-$80,000. Consultant’s $87,000 per unit land cost, applied uniformly in 2023, is implausible given the consultant is using a lower land basis than used in the Rosen study. The EFA’s lack of transparency about data sources and its failure to adjust for 2023 market conditions further undermine its credibility. Even if a larger project could procure land at or below $87,000 per unit (I know of at least one), the 20% mandate remains economically infeasible due to higher costs of debt (8.5-10.8% vs. EFA’s 8.25%), equity requirements, construction costs ($400-$525/sq ft vs. EFA’s $350-$375/sq ft), and mitigating factors such as increased utility costs (e.g., electricity up 38%, natural gas up 67%), permitting delays, and new zoning requirements (e.g., Article 22, tree protection, climate resilience adding 10-25% to costs). Additionally, the EFA assumes no parking costs for all projects, including condos, despite market demand for parking in for-sale condo developments. The market typically requires 0.5-1 parking spaces per unit at $50,000-$100,000 per space. This omission underestimates costs by $500,000-$2,500,000 for a 15-42-unit project. These flawed assumptions inflate Consultant’s projected returns, as shown in the table below, which compares EFA returns with recalculated 2025 returns using current market conditions ($120,000-$200,000/unit land, $400-$525/sq ft construction cost, 9.65% lending rate, 5.3% cap rate, $13,000/unit operating expenses, $75,000/space parking for condos). The 2025 returns, significantly below developer expectations (7% ROC, 15-20% IRR for condos), confirm the mandate’s infeasibility. For example, the recalculated 5.62% IRR for a 42-unit condo project is far below the industry-standard 15-20% IRR for levered condo developments, making it unacceptable to developers and investors.

• Comparison with Director of Housing Contribution Rate: On January 23, 2025, CDD Housing Director Chris Cotter proposed increasing the IZ monetary contribution rate from $450/sq ft to $534/sq ft, based on $195,475,665 in subsidies for 366,298 sq ft of affordable housing across three projects (52 New Street, Jefferson Park Federal, 430 Rindge Ave). In contrast, Consultant’s EFA assumes construction costs of $350/sq ft for rental projects and $375/sq ft for condos (podium and stick-built), underestimating 2025 costs by 14-37%. This discrepancy inflates Consultant’s projected returns, making the 20% mandate appear more feasible than it is. Cotter’s $534/sq ft is wildly below the loss developers incur on inclusionary units which adds to the confusion of how Cambridge assesses proportionality impact. The number is derived from a gap in funding and not related to any nexus between the development and its impact on the City.

• Construction Costs Underestimated: The EFA’s $350/sq ft (rental) and $375/sq ft (condo) assumptions are significantly below 2025 market rates of $400-$525/sq ft, skewing return calculations and overestimating project viability.

• Unrealistic Financial Metrics: The EFA assumes a 5% cap rate and 8.25% lending rate, but 2025 cap rates are 5.3% for Class A/B and 5.3-5.8% for Class C (CBRE data), and lending rates are 8.5-10.8%, reducing NOI and valuations, especially for smaller projects. The Consultant does not distinguish between classes of building and assumes a uniform cap rate of 5%.

• Density Bonus Assumptions Flawed: The EFA assumes density bonuses (e.g., 15 units from 11 for small projects), but the 2025 zoning reform eliminated most bonuses in high-density zones (e.g., Central Square), undermining feasibility. Only a two-story increase in C-1 zones remains and its value is dubious. In most cases the extra stories are required for viability, so the “bonus” is more coercive than remunerating.

• Neglect of Smaller Project Impacts: The EFA’s scenarios (15-49 units) do not adequately address smaller projects or projects with existing structures, which face much higher per-unit costs. Using just three unnamed projects of similar size with no background data significantly limits the value of this analysis. It is the equivalent of saying “lots of people say…”

• Utility and Operating Costs: The EFA assumes $10,000/unit operating expenses and minimal utility cost increases, despite 2025 data showing electricity up 35%, gas up 65%, and heating oil up 50%, reducing NOI with more impact on lower unit buildings.⁶

• Conclusion on the EFA: Consultant’s EFA, with its reliance on anecdotal assumptions (e.g., $87,000/unit land, $350-$375/sq ft construction, no parking costs), inflated returns, and lack of transparency, would not withstand scrutiny under EOHLC guidelines, effectively leaving Cambridge without a credible EFA to justify the 20% mandate. The recalculated 2025 returns, including a 5.62% IRR for a 42-unit condo project (vs. 15-20% industry standard), and the City’s misleading FY24 data (zero 2017 IZO units despite the cumulative graph’s tallest bar) highlight the mandate’s infeasibility.

Legal Vulnerabilities

• Unconstitutional Takings: The 20% mandate lacks proportionality, failing the Nollan/Dolan/Koontz/Sheetz test, relying on the outdated and inaccurate 2016 Rosen report without the required 2022 nexus study. Removing density bonuses would exacerbate this by increasing the exaction’s burden without justified impact assessments.

• Update: Two cases have been filed already citing Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz/Koontz and attacking inclusionary zoning exactions as a taking.
  • Pilling v. City of Healdsburg CA (status: Settled in favor of Plaintiff 2024)
    • City settled less than two months after action filed
    • Plaintiff awarded sum of exaction taken plus damages
  • RedT Homes v. City of Denver CO (status: filed May 25, 2025 pending)
    • Denver used Rosen and Associates to provide a nexus study which in part states that new residents generate more housing demand. Much like Cambridge who also used Rosen, Denver is punishing builders working to help solve the housing crisis.

The Supreme Court determined in a quartet of rulings that governments cannot burden homebuilders with costs for problems they do not create. How does building more housing make housing more expensive? (see: Rosen’s nexus study). Taken together, those cases established that permit conditions for new construction must be proportional and directly related to its impact. Anything above and beyond is an unconstitutional property taking. Now that Sheetz has “kicked open” the door allowing for Nollan/Dolan heightened scrutiny for government exactions, developers and homeowners are taking note and, in the case of the Pilling, winning.

Revisiting Rosen (The Nexus)
In 2016, Cambridge issued a nexus study produced by David Rosen and Associates. Key findings included:

• Affordability has declined markedly in Cambridge since the inception of inclusionary zoning program.⁷

• Increased migration of high wage earners due to increased commercial growth in Kendall Square.

• Increased migration leads to decreased diversity and “continued decrease in proportion of lower-income residents if current trends continue.” ⁸

The “nexus” between residential development requiring an exaction of 20% is tied to the growth of the commercial sector. The result, and an odd conclusion in my opinion, is that because commercial development draws in more people who make more money and therefore can buy out existing homes in the city of Cambridge and displace existing residents, the City decided to levy the highest tax on the development of homes that would ameliorate displacement. The report uses exaggerated cap rates (4%) to reverse engineer viability and presents an outcome that was politically preordained. Rosen does try to backtrack slightly and states, “If the inclusionary housing provisions become so onerous as to make new residential development problematic, then new affordable units will not be created. As Cambridge looks to update the Zoning Ordinance, the city will need to balance these concerns.” ⁹ Hence the 5-year reassessment Cambridge declined to initiate or, to paraphrase CDD, just plumb forgot.

Conclusion:
Inclusionary zoning in Cambridge is at best a mixed bag. It is not certain whether it ever worked as advertised and certainly from 2016 on it has not. The City has asked small to midsized developers to play a game that the largest and most capable developers were and still are largely exempt from. Further, the lack of a defendable EFA, the “whoops” moment of forgetting to update the nexus study, the lack of follow through on any of the non-punitive recommendations within the Rosen report, and the long history of cutting deals with large developers ($5.7M paid in 2020 to remove a 25-unit obligation Biomed inherited and Special Permit PUD exemptions in perpetuity for Cambridge Crossing and other groups in 2016) all leave Cambridge vulnerable to legal challenges, as we saw in 2020 with Arnold Circle, a case that predates Sheetz. In my opinion, if you agree to build inclusionary units as part of your project at anything above 11.4% of gross area, you are a committing your capital and risk to a scheme that the City makes very few well capitalized groups commit to and, further, is likely a violation of the takings clause of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Notes:
1  Multifamily Zoning Analysis
2  Email Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:39:17 PM “Cambridge EFA Analysis” Attached Hereto.
3  Attached
4  EFA_Scenario Analysis Model Results (attached)
5  Rosen Nexus Study (2016)
6  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
7  Rosen pg 6
8  Id. 38
9  Id. 56

Sources:

• Rosen Nexus Study 2016
• Chamber of Commerce Memo 2016
• Seidman Housing Report 2024, EFA, EFA Analysis and Methods, EFA Update
• Arnold Circle & Cambridge Day Article
• Supreme Court’s Sheetz decision casts doubt on validity of Massachusetts inclusionary zoning regulations (Nolan/Dolan/Koontz/Sheetz Primer)
• CDD’s May 12th Report on IZ

Comments?

How Harvard Lost the JFK Library

June 7, 2025, Harvard Crimson, By Anwen Cao and By Stephanie Dragoi and Abigail S. Gerstein

Summer Shack in Zippy the Pinhead today! (June 6)

Random Observations (June 3, 2025):

For many decades the Cambridge political dichotomy was defined as the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) vs. the Independents. At various times this was aligned with the Town vs. Gown divide, and (except for councillors from East Cambridge) also associated with the division between those who favored rent control vs. those who were opposed. During the 1990s, the CCA was largely associated with downzoning and limiting commercial development, while the Independents were generally in favor of new development and growing the tax base (which also kept residential property tax rates low). Everything changed after the demise of rent control (1994) though the political labels and voting patterns persisted for another decade or so.

Over the last decade we have seen the rise of new political associations and their associated candidate slates. The Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) arose largely in opposition to residential development proposals in and around Central Square. This led to the formation of an opposition group that later came to be known as “A Better Cambridge” (ABC) - initially in support of transit-oriented development, especially in and around Central Square. Some principal leaders in the ABC group were also affiliated with non-profit subsidized housing developers and, with the emergence of the national “YIMBY” movement, ABC shifted its focus toward such local initiatives as the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) which, for the most part, has further concentrated subsidized housing within existing properties owned by the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) and other nonprofit housing developers. ABC has shifted more recently toward a general “densification” philosophy - promoting dense housing development (market-rate and otherwise) anywhere and everywhere rather than just transit-oriented development. “Smart Growth” has yielded to just “Growth and Density” - even at the cost of so-called “naturally occurring affordable housing” and any notions of historic preservation. [This is why I generally refer top ABC as “A Bigger Cambridge”.] The ABC attitude toward such things as “neighborhood conservation districts” (NCDs) can only be described as hostility.

Somewhere along the line, a counter-organization, the Cambridge Citizens Coalition (CCC), came into existence - largely centered around themes of limited growth, especially in existing, relatively established neighborhoods. They have also been solidly in favor of historic preservation where appropriate. In many respects, the new political dichotomy has become CCC vs. ABC, but it’s more complicated than just that. Reflecting current national trends, there has also been a relatively small but nontrivial growth in hard-left political identifications - primarily Sunrise Boston (not sure if they’re still around), Our Revolution Cambridge (ORC - an offshoot of the Bernie Sanders campaigns), and the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). These groups appear to draw support primarily among college-age and recent graduates of our local universities, and the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel crowd largely aligns with the DSA (as well as other national entities like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) - an offshoot of the “Answer Coalition”. I don’t know that there’s much value added to local government with affiliation to what are effectively fringe national political parties - and hate-filled ones to boot. The Cambridge Residents Alliance, comprised mainly of much older people, has effectively become the aged wing of the local DSA (though Our Revolution has a few aging Marxists as well).

Then there’s the bicycle crowd, primarily the well-funded Cambridge Bike Safety group. They really are the ultimate single-issue group - even more than ABC and its density-above-all focus. There are also counter-efforts such as Cambridge Streets for All (CSA) that has pushed back against the rather hostile revised Bicycle Safety Ordinance (2020) that mandates separated bike lanes that are sometimes reasonable but often arbitrary and problematic. Just as is the case currently in Washington, DC, some matters come down to just raw political power and influence - regardless of sense or effectiveness.

In an interesting twist, people who would have at one time been associated with the CCA and many “townies” who at one time been associated with the Independents, now find themselves (whether or not they realize it) on the same side of the current political dichotomy. They are all what the ABC affiliates would dismiss (with great hostility) as “Neighborhood Defenders” - a term taken from the title of what has essentially become the ABC bible. Preserving quality of life (“liveability”), maintaining adequate parking, tree protection, etc. are viewed in the ABC world much the same way that Robert Moses dismissed the views of Jane Jacobs.

Things line up (more or less) these days as (1) long-time residents (townies) and the CCC, (2) pro-development supporters (ABC), and (3) Leftists and anti-capitalists (who dislike group (1) as the local aristocrats and entitled “boomers” and remain uncomfortable with group (2) because development is associated with capitalists. The bicycle obsessives are less easy to categorize. There are also several small groups emerging (and likely centered on a candidate or two) such as the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizers (CHAO - seemingly mostly Harvard affiliates) and the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition (CHJC - very fringy and anti-capitalist) which align with the hard-left and rent control advocacy.

I just wish there was a clear “reasonable” political tent under which some of us could comfortably camp out. - Robert Winters

City Departments Moving to 689 Massachusetts Ave

June 3, 2025 – Several City departments are relocating from 51 Inman Street to 689 Massachusetts Avenue. These departments will be closed to the public on Friday, June 6, and Monday, June 9, and plan to reopen at their new location on Tuesday, June 10.

Departments moving to 689 Massachusetts Avenue:

• Commission on Immigrant Rights & Citizenship
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Domestic and Gender-Based Violence Prevention Initiative
• Human Rights Commission
• Language Justice Division
• LGBTQ+ Commission
• Peace Commission
• Police Review & Advisory Board

City staff can be reached via email during the transition.

Election Commission Schedule:

• The Election Commission is also moving to 689 Massachusetts Avenue, but will have a different reopening schedule. The office will be closed to the public from Friday, June 6, through Tuesday, June 10, and will reopen at the new location on Wednesday, June 11. During the closure, staff can be reached via email at elections@cambridgema.gov. Additionally, Election Commission ballot drop boxes will be relocated to the new address at 689 Massachusetts Avenue.

Election Commission Moving to 689 Massachusetts Ave

May 30, 2025 – The Cambridge Election Commission office is moving. They will be open to the public at their new office at 689 Massachusetts Ave starting on Wednesday, June 11. The Election Commission office will be closed to the public from Friday, June 6 through Tuesday, June 10 but they can be reached at elections@cambridgema.gov during that time.

Boston City Council set to vote on move to ranked-choice voting system for local elections

May 14 – In what would be a radical overhaul of the way elections work in the city, the Boston City Council is scheduled to vote today on adopting a ranked-choice voting system, the Herald’s Gayla Cawley reports. The change would affect elections for mayor and City Council and would require approval from the state Legislature. — Boston Herald (via MASSter List)

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Council on Aging Board

May 12, 2025 – The Cambridge Council on Aging (COA) is seeking interested individuals to serve on its board to help advocate for important issues impacting older adults (residents ages 60 and older).

The purpose of the COA board is to:

Promote and encourage existing and new services and activities intended to enhance and improve the quality of life of older persons in the city; Advise the City Manager on all matters pertaining to the welfare of older adults who live in Cambridge ; Advocate for older adults in Cambridge . Board members also support COA/ Senior Center staff with community outreach for services, benefits, activities and programs available to older adults.

Applicants must be Cambridge residents, age 60 or older. The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Committee members must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

The Council on Aging meets virtually via the Zoom platform on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, 9:30-11am.

For more information about the Council on Aging, please contact Susan Pacheco, Executive Director of the Council on Aging at 617-349-6220 or at spacheco@cambridgema.gov.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, June 16, 2025. Applications can be submitted using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/Apply. A cover letter and resume, or an overview of relevant experience, can also be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are also available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue.

Deputy City Manager City Manager Owen O’Riordan Announces Retirement

Dear City Councilors,

I wanted to let you know that I will retire from the City on July 5th of this year. My wife Nora retired last year and so we are looking forward to being able to spend more time together in the coming years.

I wanted to thank you for your friendship and support to me over the years and am grateful that we have been able to accomplish so much over my time working for the City.

I have worked here for twenty-eight years, and it has been a deeply rewarding experience. While I have never lived in the city, the city has lived in me for the 28 years and has been my constant companion from first thing in the morning until I go to bed each night.

I expect to send an email out to staff tomorrow morning but wanted you to know in advance.

Sincerely,
Owen

Owen O’Riordan
Deputy City Manager
City of Cambridge

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance - a letter from Patrick Barrett

Date: May 1, 2025

City Manager Yi-An Huang
Mayor E. Denise Simmons
Members of the Cambridge City Council
City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Subject: Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203)

Dear City Manager Huang, Mayor Simmons, and Honorable Members of the City Council,

I write to highlight critical legal and economic flaws in Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203), which mandates that 20% of residential floor area in developments with 10 or more units be dedicated to affordable units. While the City’s affordability goals are laudable, the ordinance’s non-compliance with state law, reliance on outdated economic assumptions, failure to meet procedural mandates, and disproportionate impact on smaller developers demand immediate action. Specifically, I address: (1) non-compliance with the MBTA Communities Act; (2) failure to conduct a required nexus study by April 2022; (3) reliance on the outdated 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report amidst changed economic conditions; and (4) legal vulnerabilities under recent judicial precedents.

1. Non-Compliance with the MBTA Communities Act
The MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A), enacted in January 2021, requires MBTA communities like Cambridge to establish a zoning district of reasonable size allowing multi-family housing as-of-right with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, located within 0.5 miles of a transit station, without age restrictions and suitable for families. Cambridge, as a rapid-transit community, was required to submit a compliant zoning ordinance to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) by December 31, 2023. We have been certified compliant however we are not in compliance with our own zoning requirements and lack a valid economic feasibility analysis (EFA). This opens the question of the validity of certification and what if any standards are being met in certification. If Cambridge is to be an example to other towns currently fighting the MBTA Communities Act we must, at a bare minimum, be in compliance with our own laws. Further the 2025 Multifamily Housing Zoning Amendment eliminated most of the “bonus” density awarded to inclusionary projects as a financial offset. This was done without a corresponding nexus study which would have been required to show the impact of removing bonuses anticipated by the Rosen report.

The February 2025 zoning reform, allowing multi-family housing citywide up to four stories (six stories for inclusionary projects on lots ≥5,000 sq ft), aligns with Section 3A’s density and as-of-right requirements. However, the 20% affordability requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines, which permit up to 10% of units at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) without an economic feasibility analysis (EFA). Higher percentages, up to 20%, require an EFA demonstrating financial viability. Cambridge’s blanket 20% requirement, applied citywide without a recent EFA, is not in compliance, as it clearly does render projects economically infeasible without significant cross collateralization as seen in 121 Broadway, and is particularly onerous given rising costs since 2016.

2. Failure to Conduct a Required Nexus Study (Section 11.203.2(c))
Section 11.203.2(c) mandates that the City “initiate a reevaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement at an interval of no more than five (5) years” to assess the percentage of affordable units, income eligibility, and program effectiveness. The ordinance was amended in April 2017, increasing the requirement from 15% to 20% based on the 2016 Rosen report. The first reevaluation was due by April 2022.

No evidence indicates a comprehensive reevaluation occurred. The 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report, documenting 258 units completed or under construction, is a progress update, not a nexus study. The Community Development Department’s (CDD) ongoing monitoring (1,200+ units since 1998) and the 2025 reform do not fulfill Section 11.203.2(c)’s mandate. This procedural failure undermines the ordinance’s legitimacy, as the City cannot justify the 20% rate’s proportionality under Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024), which requires legislative exactions to be tailored to project-specific impacts. Non-compliance suggests arbitrary policymaking, exposing the ordinance to legal challenges.

3. Outdated 2016 Rosen Report and Changed Economic Conditions
The 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report recommended increasing the inclusionary requirement to 20%, contingent on four conditions to ensure economic feasibility. The report’s economic assumptions are outdated due to significant changes by 2025 in interest rates, land costs, construction costs, utility costs, capitalization rates (cap rates), and new zoning regulations not anticipated in 2016. Most conditions remain unmet, exacerbating the ordinance’s adverse impact, particularly on smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units.

Analysis of the Rosen Report

• Interest Rate: The report assumed a blended interest rate of 4.5–5.0% for construction and permanent loans reflecting 2016 market conditions. By 2025, interest rates have risen to 8.5–10.8%, increasing debt costs.

• Land Cost per Unit: The report estimated residual land costs at $50,000–$170,000 per unit for multi-family developments (6–300 units), with smaller projects at higher costs (~$150,000–$170,000) and larger ones at lower costs (~$50,000–$80,000). By 2025, land costs have escalated to $150,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% increase), requiring ~$200,000/year additional NOI at a 5.0% cap rate, unfeasible without higher rents or incentives.

o Disproportionate Impact: Smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units but under 200 face greater economic barriers under the 20% inclusionary mandate compared to larger or incentivized projects permitted under the 15% mandate (December 2016–June 2017), such as 425 Mass Ave & 47 Bishop Allen Drive (completed 2018 by Twining Properties), 195-211 Concord Turnpike (completed 2018 by Bozzuto Group), and more recent projects like 121 Broadway which levered outstanding commitments, increased density, and funding from the CRA. Market Central, including 47 Bishop Allen Drive, leveraged a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting ground floor area exemptions, an FAR increase to 6.5, a special overlay re-mapping, and height increases to 195 feet from by-right 55 feet and special permit 80 feet, enabling affordability via retail (15,400 sq ft) and residential revenue (Link, Watermark). Atmark Cambridge used mixed-use revenue (retail). Smaller projects lack such advantages, facing:

• High Land Costs: ~$200,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% higher than 2016), increasing financial burdens.

• Rising Construction Costs: Up 50-60% since 2016, straining budgets for projects without economies of scale.

• New Zoning Costs: Article 22 (2018, amended 2023), tree protection (2019), and climate resilience (2021) add 10–25% to costs ($1.5M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft).

• Removal of Density Bonus: The 2025 six-story bonus for lots ≥5,000 sq ft is absent in high-density zones (e.g., Central Square) or insufficient to offset 20% mandate costs without density bonuses.

• Permitting Delays: Community meetings (Footnote 37) and environmental reviews add $20,000–$50,000, disproportionate for smaller developers. As-of-Right projects subject to Article 19.50 averaging roughly 7-12 months and 11 – 20 months if a 19.23 special permit is required.

• Construction Costs: The report assumed stable prices (~$200–$300/sq ft). By 2025, costs have risen nearly 40% due to supply chain issues, labor shortages, and inflation.

• Utility Costs: The report implied 2016 utility costs. In 2025, costs have risen significantly, reducing NOI:

o Electricity: Up 38% (22.5 to 31 ¢/kWh), increasing monthly costs by $150/unit, reducing NOI by $14,688/year for 12 units.

o Natural Gas: Up 67% ($1.50 to $2.50/therm), reducing NOI by $14,400/year for 12 units.

o Heating Oil: Up 52% ($2.70 to $4.10/gallon), reducing NOI by $10,800/year for 12 units.

For a 12-unit project, a $39,888 NOI drop lowers value by ~$864,000 at a 5.0% cap rate, hitting smaller projects harder.

• Cap Rate Comparison: The report implied cap rates of 4.5–5.0% (Class A/B) and 5.0–5.5% (Class C). In 2025, cap rates are 4.8–5.3% (Class A/B) and 5.3–5.8% (Class C, CBRE), driven by higher interest rates and costs. A $1M NOI project at 4.5% (2016) yields $22.22M, but at 5.0% with $43,200 NOI drop (2025), yields $19.12M—a 14% valuation drop, worse for smaller projects with higher effective cap rates (~5.5%).

Additional Post-2016 Zoning Changes
Since 2016, Cambridge adopted regulations not anticipated in the Rosen Report, increasing costs:

• Article 22 - Sustainable Design and Development (2018, amended 2023): Mandates LEED certification and net-zero readiness for projects over 25,000 sq ft, adding 10–25% to costs ($6M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft per BXP reports) and $10,000–$50,000+ in application delays not including costs to carry.

• Tree Protection Ordinance Enhancements (2019): Requires tree permits ($100–$500/tree) and replacements ($500–$1,500/tree), adding $5,000–$20,000 and $10,000–$30,000 in delays.

• Climate Resilience Requirements (2021): Mandates flood-resistant designs, adding 5–15% to costs ($1.5M–$5M for 50,000 sq ft) and $20,000–$50,000 in delays.

• Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (2022): Saves $500k–$2.5M by removing $50,000–$100,000/space, but most for sale condo buildings seek to add parking not remove it thus the bonus only truly applies in a rental scenario.

These changes increase costs by 10–25%, offsetting parking savings and rendering the 20% mandate unfeasible for smaller projects without density bonuses.

Four Conditions for Raising Inclusionary Requirement Outlined In Rosen
The Rosen report outlined four conditions to support the 20% requirement:

1. Increased Density Bonuses: Recommended citywide FAR bonuses.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 2025 six-story bonus (lots ≥5,000 sq ft) is limited or absent in high-density zones, unlike Market Central’s PUD concessions. Removing density bonuses further undermines feasibility, likely requiring a new nexus study and opening to challenge the current ordinance.

2. Flexible Requirements for Smaller Projects: Suggested tiered percentages (e.g., 10–15% for <20 units).

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 20% mandate is uniform, deterring smaller projects. It is not clear that 10% works for smaller projects (10 – 20 units) based 2025 conditions.

3. Streamlined Permitting Processes: Advocated faster permitting.

o 2025 Relevance: Partially Met. As-of-right zoning and parking elimination help, but community meetings (footnote 37), special permits through Article 19, Small Project Review in Article 19.50, environmental reviews, and traffic and parking mitigation add massive delays.

4. Periodic Reevaluation: Required reassessments every five years.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. No 2022 reevaluation occurred, leaving the 20% rate unadjusted despite cost escalations, removal of bonuses, and passage of the MBTA Communities Act.

The unmet conditions and outdated assumptions (4.5–5.0% interest rate vs. 8.5–10.8%, $50,000–$170,000 vs. $150,000–$250,000 land cost, 40% construction cost increase, 20–136% utility cost increases, 4.5–5.0% vs. 4.8–5.3% cap rates) make the 20% mandate infeasible for smaller projects, especially without density bonuses.

4. Legal Vulnerabilities

The ordinance faces legal risks:

• Unconstitutional Takings: The 20% mandate lacks proportionality, failing the Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz test, relying on the outdated 2016 Rosen report without a 2022 nexus study. Removing density bonuses would exacerbate this by increasing the exaction’s burden without justified impact assessments, risking due process violations.

• MBTA Communities Act: The 20% requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines (10% without EFA, 20% with EFA). Without bonuses, a new EFA is needed to prove feasibility, or the ordinance risks non-compliance with Section 3A.

5. Recommendations

To address these flaws, I urge the City to:

1. Reduce the Inclusionary Housing Requirement: Lower to 10% without an EFA to comply with M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A as an emergency measure for the next three years.

2. Initiate a Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz-Compliant Study: Conduct a nexus study per Section 11.203.2(c) to justify exactions. Require CDD act immediately and limit time to completion.

3. Explore Returning Development Bonuses: Direct the Cambridge Community Development Department to create bonuses that anticipate the 2025 multifamily housing change including but not limited to fast tract permitting, removing Article 19, scaling inclusionary with tailored nexus studies per Sheetz, and any other potential bonus to offset the exorbitant burden IZ zoning places on residential development.

Cambridge’s housing leadership is commendable, but the ordinance’s flaws undermine its effectiveness and legality. Please work to rapidly address the issues raised herein to address the urgency of the housing crisis we are in and to ensure we do not further encumber ourselves with ineffective counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,
Patrick W. Barrett III

Comments?

Robert Campbell, architect and longtime Globe architecture critic, dies at 88 (Boston Globe, May 1, 2025)
Bob was also a neighbor (Antrim Street). - RW

Pollution Solutions: Stormwater Infiltration Trenches in the Mystic River Watershed