Margaret Hamilton has died. Her software guided the Apollo missions. (New York Times, Oct 7, 2026)

Margaret Hamilton, pioneering programmer whose software rescued the first moon landing, dies at 90 (by Bryan Marquard, Boston Globe, Oct 8, 2026)

Margaret was a neighbor on Inman Street who I got to know a bit in recent years. Having grown up during the years of the Apollo missions, I have considered it a great privilege to have had the opportunity to meet some of the people who were substantially involved in those missions. Margaret passed away on September 30. - RW

Third arrest is made in the July 4 shooting death of Xavier Bautista (Cambridge Somerville Independent, Sept 22, 2026)

2nd Man Charged In Connection With Fatal Shooting Of Cambridge DPW Employee (Patch.com, Sept 17, 2026)

Globe article: Second suspect arrested for alleged role in July 4 slaying of Cambridge public works employee, officials say

For your consideration… - a letter from Patrick Barrett

Cambridge City Council
City of Cambridge
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Sunday, September 13, 2026

Mayor Siddiqui and Honorable Cambridge City Council,

I am writing to you in my capacity as an advocate, long-time volunteer, multiple committee member, and at this point in my career too many Cambridge specific advocacy boards and initiatives to name. I am, of course, also a real estate developer.

In the coming weeks you will be discussing the renewal of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District (MCNCD), amendments to the revolutionary Multifamily Housing Zoning ordinance which is currently slated to be examined and taught this Spring at both Harvard and MIT, and you will finally release the long overdue ¹ Inclusionary Zoning Nexus Study. I have been involved in enough discussions about “controversial” issues in Cambridge to know when the die has already been cast. This comes typically by way of concessions made during the mayoral shuffle at the beginning of any term or when we tip over the edge of any even year into the “danger zone” of the municipal election cycle. Rarely are these concessions in the best interests of Cambridge and even more rarely do the knee-jerk decisions based on misinformation campaigns or the fear inspired by a potential election loss ever produced a good outcome.

On June 8th I represented a client on a conversion project; we were adding a sizable addition to create 4 large format townhouse units from an existing smaller format three-unit building. An interesting twist in that case was that prior to our presentation another presentation was given by a sitting member of the Cambridge Historical Commission (CHC). His project, a down conversion of a three-unit building (in fairness the developer didn’t know if it was a 2 or 3) into a single-family home with an additional single-family home behind it. The existing property is pending at $3.5M. Aside from the clear conflict of interest that a sitting CHC member has with the MCNCD (CHC reviews all MCNCD appeals) what set this presentation apart was that it was approved unanimously with little conversation about the loss of housing and a bit of lip service to a 51” caliper tree on the abutting lot. When my case came up the first question asked of me by Commissioner Tice was “Are these units affordable?” – a ridiculous question that somehow never came up during the previous case. This was then followed by Commissioner Corstens asking me, the attorney advocate, directly, “What is your legacy?” – a bizarre question but similar to a question Councillor Zusy had asked me a while ago who also happened to be in the audience that evening. The chef’s kiss came in the form of Kyle Sheffield joining in, now announcing himself as a concerned citizen (and abutter), admonishing the project and calling me out directly for challenging the City’s unlawful and irrevocably broken Inclusionary Ordinance. Our case was rejected, no continuance, no further discussion. A City special employee attacking a litigant in a very publicized legal challenge could only be construed as an attempt to unduly sway a regulatory body or to intimidate or both. Our case was rejected and Cambridge lost at least three new units of much needed housing and gained two new $5+M homes. The MCNCD is by far the largest NCD in the city and according to the Cambridge Historical Commission, consists of approximately 2000 buildings and is roughly .35 square miles. It acts as a de-facto homeowner’s association displacing development to other less “protected” areas of the city. The MCNCD residents enjoy this “protection” at zero cost to themselves to the detriment and expense of everyone who cannot afford Mr. Sheffield’s bespoke $5M homes. That is the legacy of the MCNCD. That is why it should not be renewed.

On September 16th this Council will convene in the Sullivan Chamber to discuss the proposed pre-ordained changes to the Multifamily Housing Zoning ordinance wherein there is a 100% chance that the proposed changes and more, shared a few months ago, will be pushed forward to CDD for drafting. In doing so you will signal to all projects in the city and all prospective projects that Cambridge is essentially closed for business; pencils down until we know what the rules are. To date, not a single inclusionary housing project has been approved. While Councillor Flaherty can write op-ed’s ² about how the 2025 ordinance is “failing” all he really exposed was how little he knows about the development process in the City of Cambridge. It takes, at minimum, 12-18 months just to go from a schematic design to assemble a CDD-approved application to application approval before one can even get to permitting which will also take months, maybe even another year. Had anyone started a month before the ordinance was ordained, we would still be sitting in CDD’s waiting room; and we are. The frustration felt by the citizenry and through the Council are all the smaller projects that do not have to go through any process (nor should they). These projects stay below the “magic” numbers: 9,999, 11,999, and 24,999 – thresholds for inclusionary zoning, passive house, and small project review by the Cambridge Community Development Department. These projects tend to be in tight conditions and are difficult to execute but are necessary to upgrade and rebuild this city. However, the set of rules you have before you favor these smaller builds over larger ones and as a policy it is the antithesis of Article 1.30 and 19.30. You favored development in the middle of a block and not only penalized corners but made them almost undevelopable without a variance or special permit. Fortunately, the state acted and now what it means to get a variance is a whole new issue; one you ought to bring up on the 16th. However, nothing in the proposed changes fixes or even addresses it and the only suggestion I’ve heard so far would make the condition laughably worse. I could go on with examples, but this is why a knee jerk mob-ruled change will not address or even ameliorate the underlying issues legitimate complaints have pointed out. A working group of experts; developers large scale and small scale should be publicly consulted on any change before one is pushed forward on the 16th. We should not erase progress applauded in local and national press and by experts across the country because the change you have embraced makes people uncomfortable. We should not indulge “serial misinformationalists” ™ who have littered the airwaves with AI slop, misleading and overly dramatic Facebook posts, phony development lists, and who feel very comfortable doxxing homeowners simply because they fear change. Please vote to keep this in committee, convene a group of practitioners, and get it as close to right as possible. Maybe the Council should sit in at MIT and Harvard’s classes next Spring?

Lastly, the inclusionary report comes out at the end of this month and will definitely state that 20% inclusionary requirements work! It will further offer the Council a simple buffet of options that will largely be seen as unnecessary to the general population, each one more baffling than the next and begging the question; why? How do I know this? Because this is a pattern of behavior that those of us who pay attention have seen time and time again. It’s exactly what happened in 2016 that got us here in the first place. I fully understand that this is a highly political and ideologically driven issue but math is math. It isn’t, however, just the man with the wanted sign who is saying this. All you have to do is look at Chelsea, San Francisco, San Jose, Denver, Portland OR, Seattle, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City who have already significantly reduced their IZ requirements to see where this issue is headed. It’s national. It is why towns across the US are exploring ways to reduce. Where Cambridge sets itself apart, like Somerville and Boston (who also chose RKG) is that politically, reduction or elimination is just a non-starter. If you read RKG’s analysis of Somerville in 2025 you can literally see the consultants twisting themselves into knots on every page. Whether it’s their 23% operational costs for rental building (excluding tax) without a way to incorporate that number to get a real value or $67k land value per unit they associate with projects. They used two different feasibility bars and used them inconsistently, that $67k land cost was applied to all five districts but rent varied by subarea, their downstream scenarios all modeled after Subarea 3, all inputs were interview-sourced without disclosure “for-profit developers,” and the smallest most adversely affected project size was never tested. If you use enough sliders and pick the data you like, everything works. They, like Rosen before them, cherry pick best case conditions for large and small development and present them as a cohesive metric for underwriting real estate development. I just wanted to get it on record this time, (I missed the chance in 2016 though Cambridge Day has a few choice comments), that this report is nonsense like the one’s RKG has produced in the past which has left Boston and Somerville scrambling ³ and politically trapped by their own nonsense RKG “study.” Maybe there is a better way? ⁴

Respectfully,
Patrick W. Barrett III

Footnotes:

1   11.203.2 Inclusionary Housing Requirement.
(c) The City shall initiate a reevaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement at an interval of no more than five (5) years from the time the Inclusionary Housing Requirement was last amended. Such reevaluation shall include a report provided to the City Council reviewing factors such as changes in demographic characteristics and residential development activity, housing trends measured in terms of, but not limited to, vacancy rates, production statistics, prices for dwelling units, and affordability, and the relationship between Inclusionary Housing Projects and all housing in Cambridge. The Community Development Department shall also conduct an annual review and report on the Inclusionary Housing Program.

2   It Didn’t Work - by Councilor Flaherty

3   Not going so well

4   A better way

Comments?

Editor’s Note: Though I agree with many of Mr. Barrett’s concerns, I do want to make clear that I emphatically do not agree with his recommendations regarding renewal of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District. NCDs are simply tools designed to produce better outcomes. Any tool can be used improperly, but this does not invalidate the usefulness of the tool. - RW

Open Archives 2026 – Sat, Sept 12, 2026, 1:00pm-3:00pm at the Main Library (Joan Lorentz Park)

Cambridge Open Archives in 2026: Evolving Landscapes

This free annual event, hosted by the Cambridge Historical Commission, invites you to explore the rich history of our city with the help of archivists from multiple repositories across the city.

What’s on the Itinerary?
Family Fun: We’ve got scavenger hunts with prizes and unique crafting opportunities. With activities and engaging exhibits for Cantabrigians of all ages, it’s a day of fun for the whole family.

Meet the Archivists: Chat with the passionate archivists and historians who keep our city’s history alive. They’ll be on hand to answer questions, share stories, and give you a peek behind the archival curtain. This year’s event features a lineup of Cambridge’s major archives:

• Arthur and Elizabeth Schlesinger Library
• Cambridge Black History Project
• City Clerk’s Office
• Harvard Art Museums Archives
• Cambridge Historical Commission
• History Cambridge
• Lesley University Archives
• Longfellow House-Washington's Headquarters National Historic Site
• MIT Libraries’ Distinctive Collections
• Mt. Auburn Cemetery

Mark your calendars, pack a picnic, and let’s make history together!
For more details, follow the Instagram hashtag #CambridgeOpenArchives and check out our Instagram account @cambridgehistoricalcommission or contact histcomm@cambridgema.gov with questions.

FAQs
What is Open Archives?
Cambridge Open Archives, is an annual free event that offers members of the public the rare chance to interact with a number of unique archives and collecting agencies across Cambridge. Cambridge Open Archives is organized by the Cambridge Historical Commission.

What are archives?
Here's a good description.

What kinds of things will I see at Open Archives this?
This varies from place to place. Most archives set up displays of special collections materials - photographs, correspondence, documents, maps, art, and more - while archives staff are on hand to tell stories and answer questions.

In previous years, participating institutions have planned their tours and collection displays around a special theme. Past Open Archives themes have included Archives Road Trip (2024); Born in Cambridge (2023); Adventures in Gastronomy; Cambridge in the 1860s; Spaces: Profane and Sacred; Living and Dying in Cambridge (2017); New Acquisitions & Old Treasures; Politics and Activism (2019); and Cambridge’s Famous and Infamous. Whatever each institution decides to display, you are guaranteed to see a wonderful variety of unique materials.

Does Open Archives cost anything?
Open Archives is completely free and no registration is needed this year!

Anything else I should know?
Be sure to follow the Instagram hashtag #CambridgeOpenArchives and check out our Instagram account @cambridgehistoricalcommission for more info.

Add likes, comments or questions on the posts so we know what you think!

Massachusetts Sept 1 Primary Results (Boston Globe)

Massachusetts Sept 1 Primary Results (Boston Herald)

Cambridge Results (unofficial)

24th Middlesex House:
Rogers 6906 (70.7%)   Ganguly 2867 (29.3%)

25th Middlesex House:
Decker 4104 (53.3%)   MacKay 3599 (46.7%)

26th Middlesex House:
Connolly 5069 (75.8%)   Miller 1617 (24.2%)

Second Middlesex Senate:
Uyterhoeven 12397 (36.9%)   Barber 10207 (30.4%)   Azeem 6099 (18.2%)   McLaughlin 4191 (12.5%)

Suffolk & Middlesex Senate:
Brownsberger 12293 (50.07%)     Lander 12258 (49.93%) - Final Count after Recount (35 vote difference)

Note: The City of Cambridge Election Commission will conduct a recount for Senator in General Court, Suffolk and Middlesex District, in the Democratic Primary held on Sept 1, 2026. The recount will be held on Thurs, Sept 10, 2026, beginning at 10:00am at the Russell Youth Center, 680 Huron Avenue, 2nd Floor Conference Room. The recount will be open for public observation. If you have any questions, please call (617) 349-4361.
The recounts in Belmont, Boston, and Watertown commence on Wed, Sept 9.
Note: Brownsberger prevailed in the Recount (Sept 10).

District Attorney, Middlesex County Northern District:
Ryan defeated Solet