Thurs, Feb 13 - Special Committee of the Whole
3:00pm The Special Committee of the Whole will hold a public meeting to resume the review and discussion of recommendations from the Charter Review Committee and any additional suggestions from the full City Council pertaining to the Cambridge City Charter. This is a continuation of the public hearing that began on Dec 9, 2024, that reconvened and recessed again on Jan 27, 2025. (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom) [Agenda & Attachments]
The Other Shoe Drops - February 10, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
It should be noted that this Regular City Council meeting will be preceded by a 3:00pm Special Meeting relating to negotiations to extend the contract of City Manager Yi-An Huang. Public comment will permitted at that meeting prior to going into Executive Session.
The Big Items (other than any developments on the City Manager’s contract) are the inevitable ordination of the ill-begotten Multi-Family Housing zoning (better characterized as the Gargantuan Upzoning Amendment) and an Order to move ahead on Municipal Broadband - regardless of cost.
Here are the items on the Regular Meeting that drew my attention this week:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Cambridge Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan final adoption. (CM25#26) [text of report and Order]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to create a plan with a schedule and milestones to move forward with the creation of a Municipal Broadband Network and present it for consideration by the Council at a Finance Committee meeting in the context of capital projects for coming years. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by JSW dismissing concerns about feasibility claiming much consultation with City officials; Nolan notes that service would not be free, says this Order in not a mandate to move forward, notes importance of net neutrality, says this is a necessary utility, calls it a manageable investment; Toner notes opposition due to range of “Whereas” statements, $150-250 million cost and changing technologies, other ways to address Internet equity; McGovern says he has been supportive of this, but notes different financial circumstances now, refers to “Trump-Musk administration” and federal cuts, proposes amendment to strike to “to move forward to the creation…” clause; Zusy concurs re: current financial circumstances, notes other ways digital equity is being addressed; Siddiqui OK with amendment; Wilson says conversation is important; Simmons says affordable Internet now not a luxury but a necessity, need for greater digital equity, notes that proposal doesn’t assure lower cost; McGovern amendment to remove “to move forward” Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (Toner-No)
Though I have no strong feelings on Municipal Broadband, I am aware of the significant costs associated with it as well as the risks and uncertainty of moving forward on an infrastructure proposal in an environment where emerging technologies may make this obsolete. I am also reminded of the various meetings and presentations on the tax levy over the last year and the repeated advice that the City needs to be more fiscally prudent in the near term. Perhaps Councillors Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, Nolan, and Wilson didn’t get the memo. Or maybe this is being introduced strategically right now as the City Manager’s contract extension is being negotiated. Or maybe it’s just another municipal election year bauble to be dangled in front of the electorate even though there is little or no indication that this will yield any cost savings for consumers. For the record, I deeply dislike Comcast/Xfinity - but mainly because of the crappy Cable TV options which, by the way, never enter into the discussions about Municipal Broadband.
Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Amended Feb 3, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#1) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Azeem amendment to footnote as suggested by CDD staff Adopted 9-0; McGovern amendment re: required abutters meeting that would have required notification to Planning Boards in adjacent towns (not viewable in recording of meeting); Nolan comments on electronic notification; McGovern amendment Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent); Zusy comments on this proposal producing most luxury units, raised real estate values, displacement, and other negative outcomes, suggests delaying this or reconsidering “3+3” alternative and establish funding mechanisms, community land trust; Azeem praises himself and Siddiqui; Siddiqui calls this her “birthday present”, suggests even more aggressive changes and “being intentional”, dismisses concerns of others as “fear of change”; McGovern addresses concern about “luxury units” and that target population is people who make too much money to be eligible for Inclusionary Housing units, calls this “good government”; Toner concurs and acknowledges that many people will be upset with his vote in favor, dismisses concerns about over-building on small lots, wants to now move forward on Squares and Corridors; Wilson emphasizes “crisis”, says she preferred “3+3” alternative; Nolan credits herself for initializing process for eliminating single-family zoning, says she preferred “3+3” alternative claiming it would have yielded more units and more affordability; Sobrinho-Wheeler notes that all current single-family housing sell for at least $1.5 million, says this change will yield 60% of all new buildings having affordable units; Simmons notes long process and suggests this will yield affordability for generations, says “leadership means making difficult choices”, says Squares and Corridors, housing vouchers next targets, says “we are a role model”; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to ORDINANCE 2025 #2 Multi-family Zoning Petition-Part 2. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025; Expires Feb 17, 2025] (ORD25#2) [Final Version as Ordained]
pulled by Azeem; Petition Ordained as Amended 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration Fails 0-9
Late Order #6. That the City Manager direct the Community Development Department and Law Department to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would make the provisions of Section 11.207.5.2.1, Paragraph (e), which allow qualified increases in building height under the Affordable Housing Overlay, not applicable in the Residence C-1 district. Councillor Toner (PO25#16)
Late Order Adopted 9-0
Other than the allowance of multi-family housing in all residential districts (which is not controversial), I think this gargantuan zoning change is a huge mistake. The existence of varying heights and densities in different parts of Cambridge is a feature - not a bug. I am also acutely aware of the value of setbacks and access - especially in regard to fire safety. Sometimes I think some of our city councillors are just robots created as part of an MIT project – programmed to solve some maximum packing problem set with no sense of aesthetics, liveability, or community. Meanwhile, the activists promise benefits like cheaper rents and lower costs that will most likely never be realized - at least not as a result of these zoning changes. Sometimes the call of “crisis” is just a tool to ram things through - both nationally and locally.
Committee Report #1. The Transportation and Public Utilities Committee held a public hearing on Jan 28, 2025 to discuss inter-jurisdictional projects that are in play that may impact mobility in Cambridge. The discussion was focused on the Community Development Department’s report of Nov 14, 2024 to the City Council, Awaiting Report 24-36. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I attended this meeting primarily to alert the councillors (at least those who actually listen) to some alternative approaches to pedestrian and bicycle-friendly crossings of the Charles River.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with appropriate departments to prepare a communication to DCR Commissioner Arrigo, urging that a study of traffic conditions at the intersections of Western Avenue and River Street at Memorial Drive and Soldiers Field Road (commonly referred to as “the box”), be included in their FY26 Capital Plan. Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0
This was one of the priorities discussed at the above meeting. Many of the current crop of activists only see merit in lane reductions and obstructions that make automobile use as difficult as possible. Reality sometimes has to intervene. - RW
Trumping History - February 3, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
Barring divine intervention, the ordination of The Bigger Cambridge Zoning is expected to happen next week (Feb 10) after being passed to a 2nd Reading at last week’s meeting. Having experienced a building fire this past Thursday just 10 feet from my house on Broadway, I have never felt the need for space between buildings more than I do right now. Urban planning in Cambridge is being steadily eclipsed by the urge to pack everything closer and stack everything higher. On the bright side, I suspect more than a few residents who rarely vote in local elections may have a change of heart this year now that new building heights and densities may soon be doubling or tripling in their neighborhoods.
Last week the second meeting of the “Special Committee of the Whole” looked at some of the more fringy proposals from some of the more fringy councillors. They dropped the proposal to double City Council terms from 2 years to 4 years when they heard some of the negative aspects that they should have understood all along had they been actually paying attention. The proposal to expand City Council authority in the City Budget process was soundly bashed by City staff, but its chief advocate (Sobrinho-Wheeler, DSA-Cambridge) chose to strategically withdraw it for possible revision rather than see it go down in flames. The proposal to have Department Head appointments be subject to City Council approval was mercifully put to sleep, but there will be another meeting on Feb 13 to continue discussion of some of the other problematic proposals. What they do after that is anyone’s guess, but I hope they will at least take a second look at the mechanisms for citizen redress as well as what appears to be a drastically watered down version of the Plan E prohibition of city councillors going around the city manager to direct or pressure City staff.
As for this week’s meeting, here are some things of possible interest:
Manager’s Agenda #1, #2, #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Surveillance Technology Impact Report (STIR). [#1 - Automated License Plate Recognition; #2 - Locked Cellular Device Access Software; #3 - Remotely Piloted Aerial Vehicle] (CM25#9)
pulled by Toner noting that these have already been through Public Safety Committee; Police Commissioner Christine Elow, Dept. Supt. John Boyle explain; Toner notes how drones may have been helpful in Faisal case, asks about circumstances when information gathered might be shared outside CPD; Boyle explains; Toner highlights unsolved murders and hesitancy of some people to come forward with information, trust in CPD; Zusy concurs with Toner, asks about use of surveillance in LA and in NYC, concerns about federal overreach; Elow explains how we have been at a deficit w/o these technologies, need to ask community with cameras, agrees that timing couldn’t be worse with new administration; City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes how policy is to protect residents in line with Welcoming City Ordinance; Yi-An Huang notes when it is appropriate to work with federal agencies in criminal investigations; Zusy asks about use of technologies to monitor protests; Boyle emphasizes that these would not be used to restrict speech but to monitor effects on traffic; Azeem comments, especially re: sharing of information; Megan Bayer explains about license plate recording and redaction of information; Azeem asks about “Proud Boys” illustration (suggesting that he would be OK with sharing info on some organizations but not others) and about joint investigation of extremist groups; Elow notes need for probable cause; Huang objects to these hypotheticals; McGovern notes that as a privileged white male he would not be subject to surveillance; Sobrinho-Wheeler says that only concept of surveillance was discussed at Public Safety Committee, wants to refer all 3 reports to Public Safety for further discussion; Huang notes uncertain times but says drone footage not high priority, real priority in keeping community safe; Wilson notes loss of friends to gun violence and how some technology might have been helpful in solving these crimes; Wilson motion to accept reports on license plate identification and cell phone data access; Siddiqui objects to Wilson motions, suggests that technology use overly broad, objects to use of drones; Nolan has concerns about drones, wants ACLU in conversation; Elow offers example of how technology would be used; Simmons offers additional explanation; Huang notes use of license plate readers to capture places in and out of the city; Nolan questions re: access to phones; Simmons notes Charlene Moore, Anthony Clay, Xavier Louis-Jacques murders and difficulty in bringing murder charges, reality that cameras and other technologies are already all around us, disproportionate effect of violence on Black and Brown communities and need to bring those most affected into conversation; Motion to approve license plate readers, cell phones access and to refer use of drones to Public Safety Committee Adopted 6-3 (BA,MM,PT,AW,CZ,DS - Yes; PN,SS,JSW - No)
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-69 regarding asbestos concerns with the MBTA’s Alewife construction. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins, Zusy, Sam Lipson (Senior Director of Environmental Health); Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $65,000 to be allocated to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations Other Ordinary Maintenance Account. This grant will support activities focused on the themes of revolution and independence, celebrating the significant historical milestones that have taken place in Cambridge.
Order Adopted 9-0
“This grant will support activities focused on the themes of revolution and independence, celebrating the significant historical milestones that have taken place in Cambridge.” … “Events will take place from April through June 2025, with a marketing campaign beginning in February.”
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of members of the Broadway Street Safety Improvement Project Working Group.
pulled by Zusy - notes timing of these appointments after most conclusions already made, imbalance of appointments tilted toward cycling advocates; Jeff Parenti (TPT) says Cycling Safety Ordinance dictates most except for finer details, esp. use of side streets to make up for loss of parking (which is beyond ridiculous from point of view of resident parking); Parenti deflects concerns about representativeness of the committee; Zusy suggests there should have been a commercial representative on the committee, lot of concern from residents about loss of parking, asks about use of parking lots (which is essentially irrelevant for Broadway); Owen O’Riordan notes recent amendments to TPDM ordinance; Wilson asks how many applications were received (over 30), also has concerns about representativeness of the appointments; Parenti says you don’t want too few or too many people on the committee; Wilson wants to hear from all people; Toner suggests mailing to all property owners w/parking lots (which is a deflection and fails to not potential exorbitant cost); Nolan notes limitations on what the committee can affect (the implication being that there will be no changes to the CSO); Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0
First, it’s just “Broadway”, not “Broadway Street”. We’ll see how this advisory process goes, but what many residents of Mid-Cambridge really want is to simply remove Broadway from the list of streets to be reconfigured in this manner, and that tide is rising.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a report on the use of M.G.L. Ch. 40U to determine which local statutes can be enforced by the local-option procedure in order to better collect fines in violation of Cambridge ordinances and provide a recommendation to the City Council for implementation of Ch. 40U procedures. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zusy
Order Adopted 9-0
Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to install “Bicycles Must Yield” signs along the Linear Park Parkway, Russell Field, Cambridge Commons, and any other shared use pathway determined appropriate by the City Manager and staff. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jan 27, 2025]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler w/concerns about staff capacity and who would be putting up/removing (A-frame) signs; Jeff Parenti would prefer to not deal with these and to use only fixed metal signs (Share the Path; Keep Right); Toner, Nolan, Zusy, Wilson supportive of improved signage; Azeem asks what exactly would change; Owen O’Riordan explains; Order Adopted 8-1 (JSW-No)
Charter Right #2. Condolences to the family of Janet Rose. [Charter Right – Simmons, Jan 27, 2025]
Resolution Adopted as Amended by Substitution 9-0
Charter Right #3. That the City Council Amend Petition One, Section 5.40, Footnote (2) to add paragraph (c) to read: (c) If the building does not require a Planning Board Advisory Consultation per Section 19.40 of this Zoning Ordinance and does not require any special permit from the Planning Board, then before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall schedule an in-person or virtual meeting to answer questions and gather feedback from abutters and shall prepare a notification including, at a minimum, a general description of the project, the date, time, location, and other information necessary for people to attend the meeting, and contact information (telephone and e-mail, at minimum) for the developer and shall provide that notification by mail to abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line of the lot, and to others whom the applicant may choose to contact, and shall include with the building permit application a copy of the notification and mailing list, a summary of the meeting, who attended, and what questions and feedback were received. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, Jan 27, 2025] [amended text]
taken up with Unfinished Business #4; McGovern comments, motion to amend by substitution; Nolan also proposes amendment; comments by Jeff Roberts (CDD); Zusy suggests that is neighborhood associations can do hybrid meetings then developers should also be able to do so; Simmons, Toner, Wilson comments - keep it simple; Nolan amendment Adopted 9-0; Megan Bayer clarifies language; Simmons comments; Sobrinho-Wheeler amendment to allow online notifications Adopted 9-0; Megan Bayer notes that this amendment is a new footnote to proposed ordinance; City Clerk LeBlanc clarifies votes; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0; Additional Amendment to add footnote #37 and to strike previous amendment 9-0; Zusy asks about proposal change 75' height to 74' height in Res. C-1 districts (due to AHO concerns) and to have 40% open space requirement (up from 30%), at least half permeable, for buildings over 75,000 sq ft; Toner seeks examples of where these apply; Jeff Roberts, Melissa Peters explain; JSW concerned about how this might affect unit count; Simmons withdraws this for now.
Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Ordinance 2025 #1 Multifamily Zoning Petition-Part 1. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 27, 2025; Eligible to be Ordained Feb 10, 2025] (ORD25#1) [amended text]
taken up with Charter Right #3; Amended 9-0
The general trend with recent City Councils is to limit most neighborhood and abutter feedback on development proposals and, in the case of the AHO to eliminate or greatly limit the roles of the Planning Board and BZA. They see the book “Neighborhood Defenders” as the last word and that all feedback is inherently NIMBYism. My sense is that if Sobrinho-Wheeler and several others could have their way, the only permissible objections would be from renters.
205 Communications: 73 pro-upzoning, 106 opposed, 15 for the “3+3” alternative (Councillor Wilson commented last week that “the community” supports the “3+3” proposal - based on what exactly?), and 11 others on various topics.
Resolution #4. Congratulations to Robyn Culbertson on the occasion of her retirement as Executive Director of the Office for Tourism. Mayor Simmons
Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee and Housing Committee held a joint public hearing on July 10, 2024 to review and discuss the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust and to discuss the City’s relationship with the Trust, consider funding priorities, and ways to fund affordable housing development in Cambridge. [text of report]
Comments by Nolan - meeting recessed, now closed, possible future meetings on topic; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Flushing - January 27, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
In the spirit of issuing problematic Executive Orders by the bushel, our intrepid city councillors are expected to move The Bigger Cambridge Zoning forward this week en route to a swift ordination in mid-February. Hey, a 5 foot-wide backyard is plenty, right? Only a capitalist NIMBY could possibly want more. So feel free to shout “Urban Renewal!” from the rooftops, but you had better yell loudly so that they can hear you down at ground level. I also encountered this week a proponent of A Bigger Cambridge who publicly declared that only people with driveways should be allowed to own cars in Cambridge. You can’t make this stuff up.
There is also a Special City Council meeting at 4:00pm to discuss strategy in preparation for negotiations with the City Manager relative to his contract. Perhaps most importantly, there is an 11:00am Monday meeting of the “Special Committee of the Whole”, i.e. all 9 councillors, to take up some of the more problematic suggestions for Charter changes proposed by some of its more radical members. There are also rumors of a possible ballot question campaign from Cambridge’s most problematic clown-car (DSA or “Democratic Socialists of America” - Cambridge Chapter) to throw out Cambridge’s Council-Manager form of government in favor of a strongman (or strongwoman or strongsomething) form of local government. Should the ballot question materialize, there is little doubt that it would be paired with the City Council campaigns of one or more socialist candidates in search of a Big Issue. Perhaps someone named Stalin or Castro will throw his hat in the ring. Then again, perhaps a couple more incumbents will hop in the clown-car.
On the matter of the proposed Cambridge Charter, I noticed that the current draft lacks at least two notable provisions that have been a part of the Plan E Charter since it was adopted in 1940: (1) the provision for citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions, and (b) the felony prohibition of councillors from going past the City Manager to pressure City department heads and other employees. These are Very Large Omissions.
Meanwhile, the Regular 5:30pm Meeting of the Ringwraiths has these notable agenda items:
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Transit Advisory Committee. [The official report notes 14 new appointees, but there are actually 16, in addition to the 8 reappointments.]
pulled by Nolan who states that women underrepresented in these appointments; Simmons concurs; Yi-An Huang notes limitations of the applicant pool; Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO24#154, regarding the City’s Sanctuary/Trust Act City status, the protections provided by the 2020 Welcoming Community Ordinance, and the importance of ensuring non-citizens are treated with dignity and respect. (CM25#14) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Carolina Almonte (Comm. on Immigrant Rights & Citizenship), Simmons, McGovern, Toner (asks what may be coming), Yi-An Huang, Megan Bayer (Law Department), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan (notes possibility of loss of federal funding), Simmons, McGovern (on what City cannot do), Wilson; Placed on File 9-0
When the Feds descend on Cambridge (and they will), this will likely be The Big Story.
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on negotiations with Harvard University regarding PILOT payments.
pulled by Toner; updates by Yi-An Huang (50 year agreement in 2004, City option to terminate at end of 20 years, 1 year extension in Sept 2023, expired at end of 2024), Harvard now negotiating in good faith, many changes over 20 years, expectation of increased commitment from Harvard, proposals have been exchanged but still being negotiated, issue of how to value in-kind contributions, seek agreement by July 2025, existing agreement was $4.7 million PILOT in 2024); comments/questions by Toner (asks if we need to terminate the existing agreement); Huang notes one extension already, acknowledges risk of losing current PILOT funding, notes that it is interest of both Harvard and the City to come to an agreement; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants increased PILOT w/o counting in in-kind contributions, prefers shorter (20-year) term; Wilson asks who is involved in the negotiations, what happens if no agreement by July, status of MIT PILOT agreement (50-year agreement with no opt-out provision); Siddiqui emphasizes priorities for PILOT $ (does she want to earmark?); Azeem suggests City has leverage via zoning, I-90 project (is he suggesting quid-pro-quo?), wants more graduate student housing; Nolan says in-kind should not be valued in PILOT but also calls it critically important, also suggests that PILOT $ have earmarks for Council priorities; Zusy emphasizes graduate student housing; McGovern concerns about withholding in-kind contributions, esp. w.r.t. schools, notes that you cannot force graduate students to live on campus and rent levels in graduate student housing needs to be attractive, old Vellucci story of taking Harvard Yard by eminent domain and turning it into parking; Owen O’Riordan notes that a major sewer line goes under Widener Library; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an updated drought regulation ordinance. (CM25#16) [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Nolan comments; Mark Gallagher (Managing Director, Water Dept.) comments; Zusy comments, notes email from Nicolai Cauchy re: water levels; Simmons concerned about gender-neutral language; comments by Megan Bayer re: proposed fine schedule; Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-54, regarding a review of Curb Cut Policies. (CM25#18) [text of report]
pulled by Toner w/hope that Council can be removed from process entirely and completely a staff decision; Megan Bayer notes that there is no legal requirement for abutter feedback; Kathy Watson (DPW) notes proposed process and proposal role of City Council only an case of an appeal; Azeem agrees that there should be no City Council role, no appeal mechanism; Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler concur; Megan Bayer explains that the delegation of power should be done via ordinance, suggest referral to Gov’t Operations because language not yet drafted; Toner Referral to Gov’t Operations Adopted 9-0
The bottom line is that the City Council can delegate this to City departments if it wishes - similar to how the License Commission handles some matters that once were under City Council authority.
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-31 regarding an update to the Municipal Facilities Improvement Plan (MFIP) including revised cost estimates to help inform the FY26 and ongoing capital budget priorities. (CM25#19) [text of report]
pulled by Zusy w/questions about $23.5 million for Windsor Street and status of Kennedy-Longfellow building; Owen O’Riordan that there will be no students at K-Lo next year, expect $50 million on schools over next 5 years including $10-12 million toward K-Lo building, to be part of this year’s budget hearings; First Street project (parking garage) expected; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-60 regarding federal grant funding. (CM25#20) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui for comments; Zusy comments re: difficulties of contractors doing Cambridge projects (lay-down areas, parking challenges); comments by Chris Cotter re: off-site construction, role of MAPC; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to potential amendments to required setbacks for additions and alterations to existing buildings in the Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions. (CM25#21) [text of report]
pulled by Siddiqui; Committee Report #3 also taken up (9-0); Committee Report #3 Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; McGovern lays out proposed amendments and votes; on Petition #1 setback amendments for existing buildings, comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Toner, Jeff Roberts (CDD), Amendment Adopted 9-0; on amendment re: procedures and abutter feedback for projects not requiring a special permit, comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler (wants to limit legal recourse for abutters), Megan Bayer, JSW wants to table this and replace “abutters” to “abutting homeowners and renters”, Megan Bayer explains, McGovern suggests JSW exercise his Charter Right; Nolan notes that any building permit can be challenged, notes that this only requires people to listen to feedback; Toner concurs re: right to challenge and Bayer agrees but notes new restrictions in state law to baseless challenges; Toner notes that there is no majority vote here to allow legal challenge, cautions against extending right to challenge to anyone who feels aggrieved; Charter Right by JSW on this amendment; on amendment decreasing heights from 4 to 3 stories and 6 for inclusionary projects; Wilson aligns with JSW re: DSA “3+3” proposal without any minimum land area, notes her history growing up in public housing, advocates more public housing, calls support for “3+3” “overwhelming” (which is ridiculous); JSW concurs re: “3+3” proposal, claims it would yield more market rate and subsidized housing, notes his opposition to lot size limitations, objects to suggestion to delay this, claims that of all new housing other that AHO projects only 1% is “affordable”, says these changes would provide affordable units in 60% of projects; Nolan supports “3+3” amendment even without the proposed lot size limitations, will vote to ordain this proposal; Azeem will not support “3+3” proposal “in spirit of compromise”; Toner will not support “3+3” proposal, notes that developers suggest this would only yield 3-deckers being torn down and replaced by single-family homes, notes public objection to 6-stories on all residential lots; Zusy feels MFH proposal is problematic and will not make housing more affordable, will create havoc in neighborhoods, make homeowners feel vulnerable, notes failure of similar changes in other cities, willing to support “3+3” proposal rather than “4+2” suggesting less backlash; Siddiqui comments on CDD projections, says whatever we pass is better than the status quo, housing developers OK w/“4+2”; Simmons says “4+2” language represents compromise, says CDD estimates 3500 new homes over next 15 years including 660 income-restricted homes; McGovern on “affordable housing piece”, notes rationale of doing AHO first (which sounds like a restatement of the stated ABC strategy), extols virtue of increasing inclusionary percentage to 20%, suggests that proposal primarily about middle-income housing, dismisses suggestion that 6-story buildings would appear on a tiny lot but then suggests it would happen w/o the restriction on lot size, says the “3+3” proposal would add in 15 years produce 550 more housing units and 260 more inclusionary units, says we can make up those numbers by going very tall in Squares and Corridors and even taller with AHO projects, will oppose “3+3” amendment; Zusy says some developers believe 5000 sq ft minimum requirement might not be necessary, suggests this might be rescinded when a 6-story building appears on a street with 2½ stories; Melissa Peters suggests that either option will be impactful in terms of number of units produced “in a positive direction”; Wilson comments suggesting that “the community” supports 3+3; AW,JSW “3+3” amendment Fails 4-5 (PN,JSW,AW,CZ-Yes; BA,MM,SS,PT,DS-No); Nolan comments on Squares and Corridors, etc., bemoans lack of Planning Board advice on petitions; Petition #1 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Petition #2 Passed to 2nd Reading 8-1 (Zusy-No); Reconsideration of #1 and #2 Fails 0-9; Placed on File 9-0.
114 Communications - mostly taking sides on The Bigger Cambridge Zoning.
Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood & Long Term Planning Committee held a public hearing on best practices for urban planning Wed, Jan 8, 2025. The meeting will feature MIT’s Chris Zegras Department Head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning and Professor of Mobility and Urban Planning and Jeff Levine, Associate Professor of the Practice of Economic Development & Planning and Harvard’s Maurice Cox, the Emma Bloomberg Professor in Residence of Urban Planning and Design at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. [text of report]
Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Jan 8, 2025 to continue the discussion on two Multifamily Zoning petitions. [text of report] [communications]
Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Thurs, Jan 16, 2025, at 3:00pm to continue the discussion on Multifamily Zoning Petition Part One and Multifamily Zoning Petition Part Two. [text of report] [communications]
The Council is expected to pass these to a 2nd Reading with ordination likely a couple of weeks later. Personally, I see no reason why such a substantial change is being zipped through the ordination process, but we are in one of those Progress At Any Cost moments in history - kind of like when the West End of Boston was leveled in the name of urban renewal or when Robert Moses ran roughshod over everything that Jane Jacobs defended. I guess it all comes down to your definition of “progress”, but you can count me among those who still prefers human-scale buildings and consistent scale in established neighborhoods. On the issue of the “housing crisis”, I would just remind everyone that Cambridge is not the problem – and we should not necessarily be sacrificing what is good in our city so that other cities and towns can continue to do little or nothing.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with a update on the status and timeline for the completion of the Grand Junction Multi-use Path and how implementation between Gore Street and Little Binney could coincide with Phase 2 of the CSO implementation on Cambridge Street. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Order #3. City Council opposition to Congressional Voter-Suppression SAVE Bill. Councillor Nolan, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0
I agree with this Order - mainly because of the burden it would place on our Election Commission and election workers. I will add that if I now had to register to vote for the first time I might run into a problem because I never got a passport and finding my birth certificate might take a Herculean effort. I do think, however, therefore I am.
Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department to install “Bicycles Must Yield” signs along the Linear Park Parkway, Russell Field, Cambridge Commons, and any other shared use pathway determined appropriate by the City Manager and staff. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; Toner, Nolan, Zusy, Sobrinho-Wheeler comments; Charter Right - Sobrinho-Wheeler
Yeah, I’m sure those signs will be scrupulously obeyed.
Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to develop zoning recommendations, pursuant to M.G.L. c.40A §9B, for regulations to encourage the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access for Registered Solar Energy Systems that have been in existence for one year, per Ordinance Ch. 22.60, specifically on structures over 4 stories. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Azeem; Nolan explains how this Order came about, add Wilson, Zusy as sponsors 9-0; Azeem asks for examples, Melissa Peters (CDD) responds; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Charter Right #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc. [Charter Right – Nolan, Jan 6, 2025]
McGovern says “charter-written”, Nolan says “charter-wrote” (Sheesh, do they understand the English language?); Nolan goes on about financial details, concerns about high interest rate and profit by Rockland Trust, etc., wants to bifurcate vote into $1.5 million and $1 million votes; Toner asks what would happen if Council did not support this, Chair of Neville Board notes that this would make things difficult; Zusy wonders why Neville didn’t get any ARPA funds, etc.; Solicitor says it’s OK to bifurcate vote; $1.5 million appropriation from Free Cash (for debt service) Adopted 8-1 (Nolan-No); $1 million appropriation from General Fund (for capital improvements) Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9.
Resolution #4. Thanks to Iram Farooq for her 25 years of commitment, service, and leadership at the City of Cambridge Community Development Department and best wishes as she joins Harvard University. Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson
pulled early by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Azeem, Nolan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, Zusy, Wilson, McGovern, Simmons, Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; all councillors added as sponsors; Adopted as Amended 9-0
Resolution #5. Condolences on the death of Robert V. Travers. Councillor Toner, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; add all councillors as sponsors; Resolution Adopted 9-0 as Amended
Resolution #6. Condolences on the death of Henry Edward (Ted) Tierney. Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern
Resolution #7. Condolences to the family of Janet Rose. Mayor Simmons
pulled by Simmons; Charter Right - Simmons (to add more details)
Meeting of the Special Committee of the Whole on the City Charter – Monday, January 27, 2025, 11:00am-1:00pm [Agenda]
I was the only person who gave public comment at the previous meeting in December. Presumably there will be others this time, but the unfortunate truth is that even though this is perhaps the single most significant matter now before this City Council, it has been flying almost completely under the radar.
This meeting features 5 additional proposed Charter changes from several city councillors, but the most interesting part of the agenda is the master class response from City Solicitor Megan Bayer that lays out with remarkable clarity the major problems with each of these proposals.
The new proposals are:
(1) give the City Council the power to increase parts of the annual budget by up to 10% compared to what is initially proposed by the City Manager
(2) City Solicitor would be appointed by the City Council
(3) Popularly elected mayor alongside a City Manager similar to Worcester
(4) 4 year (staggered) terms, with elections every 2 years
(5) Department heads appointed by the City Manager and approved by the Council
It is also worth noting, and I will likely address these during Public Comment, that:
(a) At the previous meeting of this Special Committee of the Whole, the councillors dismissed proposals for Resident Assemblies as well as proposed mechanisms for citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions. What they perhaps failed to realize is that citizen-initiated referendums and initiative petitions are part of our current Plan E Charter (by reference) and the apparent intention of the Charter Review Committee was to incorporate those provisions (with some changes) into the new proposed Charter. The action of the Special Committee effectively threw out an existing right to a mechanism for redress by citizens.
(b) The current Plan E Charter imposes severe penalties for Interference by City Council:
Section 107. Neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office by the city manager or any of his subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible. Except for the through the city manager, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately. Any member of the city council who violates, or participates in the violation of, any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, and upon final conviction thereof his office in the city council shall thereby be vacated and he shall never again be eligible for any office or position, elective or otherwise, in the service of the city.
The Proposed Charter addresses Interference by City Council, but conveniently removes all penalties:
3.3 (d) Interference by City Council Prohibited – Except as provided in Section 2-7 and by this charter, neither the city council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or their removal from, office by the city manager or any of their subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in that portion of the service of said city for whose administration the city manager is responsible. Except as otherwise provided by this charter, the city council and its members shall not give orders to any subordinate of the city manager either publicly or privately and shall direct all requests for service through the city manager. Nothing in this section shall prevent city council or its members from discussing matters generally with city staff, presuming the city manager is kept informed.
Without severe penalties against improper Council interference, it is likely that councillors would routinely blow past guardrails that protect against political meddling within City departments. I am of the belief that we should have better mechanisms for inquiry into policies and actions taken within City departments, but removal of these necessary guardrails is definitely not the remedy. - Robert Winters
Meet the New Year, Same as the Old Year - January 6, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting
There is a theme that has run through recent years in Cambridge City government, namely the belief that public input is a problem and that legislation and even proposed changes to the City Charter should reflect this point of view. Any disagreement is dismissed as NIMBYism. Public involvement in matters such as development proposals or roadway reconfigurations is inherently contrary to what the elite in City government see as the public good. We saw this in the various iterations of the Affordable Housing Overlay where not only is public feedback unwelcome, but even the Planning Board’s role has been reduced to that of spectators. It’s also baked into the latest “multi-family zoning” proposals where concerns about radical changes to existing neighborhoods have been either dismissed or at best marginally tolerated. I found it quite telling that in the current discussion about changes to the City Charter, all votes to consider ideas such as “resident assemblies” or “citizen initiative petitions” or “group petitions” were voted down either unanimously or nearly unanimously. The prevailing point of view seems to be that, once elected, our city councillors become all-knowing and all-seeing arbiters of the public good. Democracy is for suckers.
This is, of course, hogwash. For what it’s worth, I think there is great merit in having some form of “resident assemblies” or “ward committees” – even though I think that what was proposed by the Charter Review Committee was not only terrible but disempowering. Anyway, that’s a discussion for another day. I will also note that some councillors are still considering proposing a change in the Charter to extend their terms from two years to four years (staggered terms) - even though they haven’t given even a moment of thought to what this means in terms of our PR elections or the need for a recall provision. Less accountability has some support because apparently having to seek reelection every two years (like every member of the United States House of Representatives and every member of the Massachusetts House and Senate) is just so inconvenient.
Here are a few things that stand out on this week’s agenda:
Manager’s Agenda #1. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $29,388,181.96 from Free Cash to the Mitigation Revenue Stabilization Fund. During FY24, the City received mitigation revenues from various developers as a result of commitments related to zoning ordinance amendments and special permit conditions. By law, all mitigation revenues must be deposited into the General Fund and can only be appropriated after the Free Cash Certification is complete.
pulled by Siddiqui re: Free Cash balance and source of mitigation revenues; comments by Yi-An Huang, Taha Jennings; Siddiqui wants names of developers; Nolan comments; Order Adopted 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #2. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $2,500,000, from Free Cash, to the Finance Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($1,500,000), and to the Finance Department Extraordinary Expenditures account ($1,000,000), to support the continued operation and needed capital and equipment improvements to Neville Center, a 5-star skilled nursing facility with 112 beds, which is part of Neville Communities Inc.
pulled by Siddiqui w/questions about meetings related to this; Yi-An Huang notes difficulties in funding health care institutions, some history leading up to this point, changing loan terms w/Rockland Trust; Claire Spinner (Finance) additional comments and explanation; Andy Fuqua (Neville Board) on reducing monthly debt service and preservation of physical building; Siddiqui inquires about role of State Legislature delegation; Fuqua notes recent Act adjusting Medicaid reimbursements; Nolan notes concerns about use of public funds to pay down loan to a private bank, wants to know terms of original loan; Spinner notes that original term was 10 years at a high interest rate, term extended, now to be extended to a 30-year term, current debt service is ~$120,000/month to be reduced to ~$75,000/month; Charter Right - Nolan [Azeem asks if City Manager’s Agenda items are subject to Charter Right (of course they are, as are any New Business items)]
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of members to the Citizens’ Committee on Civic Unity.
Appointments Approved 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-65, regarding the creation of a jobs training trust through Home Rule Petition. [text of report]
pulled by Toner noting reasons he will be voting No; Sobrinho-Wheeler takes opposite view, naively noting that the Trust need not be funded and that this exists in Somerville and in Boston; Zusy supports intention of this but says cart is before the horse and that existing programs have not been evaluated and that additional funds and increased (already high) Linkage Fee may not be needed, petition is premature; Nolan supports motion w/explanation re: Nexus Study, agrees that existing programs should also be evaluated; JSW offers to have an additional committee meeting on this topic; Toner notes that such a meeting already pending; Home Rule Petition Adopted 7-2 (Toner, Zusy - No)
Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding citywide Multifamily Housing Zoning Petitions.
pulled by Toner re: insinuations that councillors have not paid attention to Planning Board, explains proposed revisions in line with Planning Board suggestions, notes impasse re: development review and relation to AHO; Toner notes that he would prefer to focus first on Squares and Corridors (still undefined) but that other councillors disagree; Azeem notes feedback from both sides of the advocates, prefers version prior to proposed amendments, suggests plenty of time and process to go [not really]; McGovern claims that he and other councillors are listening, disputes suggestion that Council is “eliminating zoning” [which is, of course, an intentional misreading of what people are actually saying]; Nolan notes that exclusive single-family zoning is proposed to be eliminated, wants Planning Board feedback on “4+2” vs. “3+3+3” options, previous Planning Board meetings were specifically about original proposal; Jeff Roberts notes that there is no precedent for back-and-forth w/Planning Board, but that expiration and re-filing would allow for this [It is worth noting that the Planning Board could voluntarily choose to do this. - RW; Simmons notes that Planning Board generally in favor (but with what?), does not want to slow this process down; Nolan notes that Planning Board is advisory to the City Council and has not opined on these specifics even though they have been requested to do so [seems like the CDD staff is the real roadblock here]; Zusy notes that many feel that this process has been rushed, Planning Board report doesn’t really reflect sentiments of Planning Board members and that they gave no recommendation because of their expressed concerns - some of which have not been addressed, possible escalation of property values that will make housing less affordable, notes thousands of letters expressing concerns, wants additional Planning Board meeting on this topic and CDD response to questions raised by councillors; Simmons objects to suggestion that process has been rushed [and not acknowledging that the scale of this proposal is unprecedented]; Jeff Roberts says CDD staff and Law Dept. have been working on this and plan to have responses for Jan 16 Ordinance Committee meeting; Zusy notes some developers are already amassing properties for redevelopment, not much time for evaluation of proposal; Siddiqui notes that Planning Board is only advisory and that City Council’s word is only thing that really matters noting past actions ignoring Planning Board’s advice; Referred to Petition 8-1 (Zusy - No)
Order #1. That the City Manager is hereby requested to work with the relevant City departments to report back on additional multi-family zoning considerations, along with the other amendments put forward by the City Council on Dec 23, 2024. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler to add Siddiqui as co-sponsor (Approved 9-0); Nolan asks clarification of “below current threshold of the inclusionary zoning ordinance”; Toner disagrees with the “average maximum unit size of 2,000 square feet per lot area” requirement; Zusy concurs on this; JSW notes desire to prevent a large single-family (“McMansion”) from being built under proposal; Zusy would prefer language to allow density increase only if increased housing units on the lot; JSW notes that proposal consistent with current zoning language; McGovern dismissively notes that “all we’re doing is asking a question”; Azeem concurs with JSW, says California concept (conditional upzoning based on adding units) noted by Zusy not consistent with existing enabling legislation (Chapters 40A or 40B); Simmons asks if Zusy has a specific proposal); Zusy notes that Azeem answered her question; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2 (Toner, Zusy - No)
Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on two Multifamily Zoning Petitions on Nov 19, 2024. This public hearing was recessed and reconvened on Dec 4, 2024. It was again recessed. It reconvened and adjourned on Dec 19, 2024. [Nov 19, 2024 report] [Dec 4, 2024 report] [Dec 19, 2024 report] [communications]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
These reports actually represent three separate meetings, though they are being lumped together because the first two meetings are technically recessed rather than adjourned. This is an unnecessary confusion.
162 Communications - overwhelming with the message “Stop the Rush – Petition amendments do not address the issues voiced by the community”.
Unfinished Business #1. An Ordinance 2023 #8B has been received from City Clerk, relative to Amend Chapter 14.04 – Fair Housing. [Passed to 2nd Reading Oct 2, 2023; Amended Nov 6, 2023; to remain on Unfinished Business pending legislative approval of Special Act needed prior to ordination] (ORD23-8B)
Siddiqui notes that legislative approval has been obtained, nod to Rep. Marjorie Decker shepherding it through process; Ordained 9-0
According to State Representative Marjorie Decker (who I wish was my representative), legislative approval has now been completed and signed by the Governor, so this matter is now ready for ordination.
Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to proposed amendments to the Cycling Safety Ordinance to extend the deadline associated with the completion of those sections of the ordinance that are required to be completed by May 1, 2026. [Passed to a 2nd Reading Dec 16, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained on or after Jan 6, 2025] (ORD24#8)
McGovern comments, Toner amendment to seek status of Grand Junction Multi-Use Path Adopted 9-0; Nolan says the current timelines are aggressive and that she looks forward to completion of currently planned lanes and additional expansion of the network; Ordained as Amended 9-0
This item is apparently also ready for ordination - though it could really use one important change.
Resolution #8. Condolence Resolution for Dr. Robert S. Peterkin. Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner
Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Dec 11, 2024 for an update and discussion on Public Investment Planning. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
I suppose money used to grow on trees in Cambridge. Now we have fewer trees and more fiscal constraints. - RW
Hidden Agenda - December 23, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
This week’s agenda is quite short, but perhaps the biggest item on the agenda was actually not on the original agenda at all - a Late Order containing proposed amendments to the two rather problematic zoning petitions now before the Ordinance Committee [Petition #1, Petition #2]. These petitions comprise perhaps the largest residential upzoning in the history of Cambridge zoning but are disguised under the innocuous banner of “allowing multi-family housing” citywide (or, as one of the local political advocacy organizations brands it, “ending exclusionary zoning”).
Here are the not-so-late agenda items of interest this week:
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to provide the City Council with a legal opinion on the City Council’s ability to levy a tax or fine on store fronts and commercial properties that remain vacant for more than two years, including any applicable definitions of “vacancy” and relevant legal precedents, and provide such opinion no later than the February 17th City Council meeting. Councillor Toner, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; Toner notes community scuttlebutt, Law Department never asked for legal opinion; Wilson wants to be added as cosponsor; McGovern recounts history; Siddiqui says she previously worked on this and that there was a legal memo on this (2018-19), says data on vacancies readily available; Sobrinho-Wheeler wants to also penalize residential vacancies; Simmons recounts some history on this; AW and MM added as sponsors 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
I will only note here the rather absurd proposal from several years ago that would have levied fines equivalent to the entire assessed value of such properties over the cost of just two years (4.17% of the assessed value every month). Obvious regulatory takings were apparently not so obvious to the councillors who proposed this “remedy” back in February 2017. Something should absolutely be done about the many vacant storefronts, but hopefully something constructive and collaborative rather than hostile or legally absurd.
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct Community Development Department (CDD) staff to draft proposed amendments to the Cannabis Business Permitting Ordinance that would accomplish adding select HCA requirements into the ordinance so the city can waive the HCA requirement and that the City Manager is requested to ask the CDD staff to draft a zoning amendment to remove the repackaging prohibition. Councillor Toner, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that these amendments intended to align Cambridge ordinances with recent state law and to streamline process; Order Adopted 9-0
Committee Report #1. Economic Development & University Relations Committee (cannabis policy issues, including the potential allowance for repackaging of products at local dispensaries, the 1800-foot minimum distance requirement between cannabis businesses, and the lack of zoning provisions for social consumption establishments that are now permitted under state law) - Committee Meeting - Dec 17, 2024. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner-Absent)
Are there any cannabis retail locations in Cambridge that are not owned at least in part by politically connected people?
Unfinished Business #2. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Flexible Parking Corridor Zoning Petition. [Adopted as a City Council Zoning Petition and Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024; Expires Feb 19, 2025]
Ordained 9-0
Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Municipal Ordinance. [Referred to Ordinance Committee Oct 21, 2024; Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024]
Ordained 9-0
Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to the Commercial Parking Space Permits Municipal Ordinance. [Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 2, 2024; Eligible to be Ordained Dec 23, 2024]
Ordained 9-0
These are the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Ordinances associated with accommodating parking displaced by the requirements of the (untouchable) Cycling Safety Ordinance (and dedicated bus lanes in some locations).
As for the aforementioned Late Order:
Late Order #3. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct Community Development to prepare updated Multi Family Housing Zoning language and report back to the Ordinance Committee, not later than January 16, 2025. Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner
pulled by Toner; Toner notes misinformation over recent days, clarifies procedure of late order, notes that this ordinance is not yet done and additional committee meetings prior to Feb 10 final vote deadline, notes that he would prefer to focus first on (undefined) “corridors”; McGovern offers his own explanation, notes that this is purely procedural in that Council cannot order departments to do anything except through the City Manager via a City Council order and that there are more meetings pending, objects to suggestion that City Council is not listening, characterizes putting back minuscule setbacks as “putting them back in”, suggests that many people favor original proposed ordinance changes; Burhan “phone it in” Azeem says he’s trying to “lower the temperature”; Siddiqui says intent is not to do anything without transparency, objects to “misinformation”; Zusy says she will vote against these amendments, not that amendments are misguided, that people are OK with added heights in squares and (undefined) “corridors”, concerns about allowing massive development as-of-right w/o special permits, loss of open space and other environmental consequences, questionable stated need (76 projects in process now 5,301 units with 987 affordable - mostly in East Cambridge), all housing nonprofits now have multiple projects in process, lack of any urban design plan, unintended consequences; Nolan expresses excitement over proposed zoning changes with reservations about middle-income housing, insatiable demand for market-rate housing, concerns about effect on solar power arrays, notes that many people are unaware of proposed changes, just having meetings does not imply that people are being made aware of proposed changes, hope that Planning Board can have a meeting on this to offer their perspective; Wilson says she supports an amendment to require 3 floors of inclusionary housing for any new 6-story building under this ordinance (plus 3 stories for an AHO project), acknowledges lack of community engagement; Order Adopted, Referred to CDD 8-1 (Zusy-No)
It seems that the current political modus operandus in Cambridge is to propose something outrageous and then scale it back somewhat to merely excessive so that you can claim that a happy compromise has been reached. I still have some serious questions about the data and goals underlying much of these proposed changes. - RW
Quick Take – December 16, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
Here’s my quick take on this week’s agenda highlights:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the reappointment of Judith Laguerre, Yasmin Padamsee Forbes, and Stephen Curran as members of the Cambridge Human Rights Commission for a term of three-years.
Appointments Approved 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent)
“Nevertheless I persist” in encouraging residents to volunteer to serve on City boards & commissions and highlighting all such appointments.
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO24#141, regarding the BZA Dormers Petition. (CM24#266) [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Unfinished Business Brought Forward 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent), McGovern Motion to Amend by Substitution Adopted 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent); Nolan comments suggesting language still too restrictive (suggests deleting sub-paragraph 3); Jim Monteverde (BZA Chair) responds; Toner agrees w/Nolan amendment; Zusy defers to wisdom of Historical Commission and BZA; Monteverde explains that language would not prohibit a longer dormer - they would have to seek variance, as is required now; Azeem agrees w/Toner-Nolan; Nolan motion to delete 8.22.1.i.3 and renumber Adopted 7-1-1 (Zusy-No, Wilson Absent); Adopted as Amended 9-0; Placed on File 9-0
Unfinished Business #5. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to ARTICLE 2.000 DEFINITIONS Dormer. A roofed projection built out from a sloping roof, containing a window or windows. ARTICLE 8.000 NONCONFORMITY 8.22.1h. Construction of a dormer or dormers to a nonconforming one- or two-family dwelling. [Passed to 2nd Reading Nov 4, 2024; Eligible To Be Ordained on or after Nov 25, 2024] (ORD24#9)
Taken up w/Managers Agenda #2; Nolan motion to delete 8.22.1.i.3 and renumber Adopted 7-1-1 (Zusy-No, Wilson Absent); Ordained as Amended 9-0; Placed on File 9-0
Seems ripe for ordination.
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Planning Board Report regarding the flexible parking zoning petition.
Referred to Petition 9-0
372 Communications - most regarding the proposed corrections to Garden Street traffic patterns (caused by the Untouchable Cycling Safety Ordinance).
It’s worth noting that the proposal for “flexible parking” (a real departure from the environmental priorities leading up to the City’s PTDM Ordinance) was necessitated by the complete inflexibility of some city councillors regarding the Cycling Safety Ordinance. If anyone actually believes that the right to pay a substantial fee for parking is a fair trade for loss of on-street parking, I have a bridge for sale at a great price.
Order #1. That the City Council meeting scheduled for Jan 13, 2025 be designated as a Joint Roundtable of the City Council and School Committee to discuss the City’s universal pre-kindergarten program. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0
I am just a bit curious what is to be discussed. The Order gives no indication.
Order #2. That the City Council approve and issue the City Manager’s Performance Evaluation. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled early by Toner along w/Dec 10 Minutes; Minutes Accepted 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent); Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent)
Order #3. That the City Council intends to renew the City Manager’s employment beyond Sept 5, 2025, and initiate negotiations for a successor employment contract, which contract, if agreed to, shall become effective Sept 6, 2025. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy
pulled early by Toner along w/Dec 10 Minutes; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Wilson-Absent)
Order #4. That the City Council immediately suspend new requests for memorial dedications and that the Government Operations and the Civic Unity Committee, working with the City Manager, hold hearings to discuss new ideas to honor and remember individuals (i.e. memorial garden, fountain, wall or path), criteria for eligibility, a more robust committee structure, and a means for recording and maintaining our current and future memorials. Councillor Toner, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Toner for explanation; Nolan comments; Order Adopted 9-0
Good idea.
Resolution #3. Resolution honoring John Tagiuri. Councillor Zusy
Late Resolution #4. Resolution Re: Whitney’s Bar. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson
comments by McGovern re: Gerald Chan’s properties in Harvard Square and elsewhere (including Harvard Square Cinema, Dickson’s Bros. Hardware locations); McGovern, Wilson added as sponsors 9-0; Nolan comments (will vote Present based on letter from Chan’s lawyers re: court order and rent forgiveness); Toner reluctant but will support, notes insane and threatening comments by supporters; Wilson supports noting proprietor Dan Maguire is a friend; Simmons notes important history of this business; McGovern notes that some people who express support for business rarely patronize them; Simmons expresses hope that Gerald Chan will reconsider; Siddiqui decries personal threats that have been expressed; Azeem comments; Resolution Adopted 8-0-0-1 (Nolan-Present)
12 Committee Reports - 10 from previous City Council terms (9 never previously reported) and 2 current reports. These follow 8 reports the previous week (Dec 9) and 14 at the (infamous) Nov 25 meeting.
All Reports Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; Committee Report #12 - CSO Amendments Passed to 2nd Reading
I really want to take everyone from the City Clerk’s Office out for a beer. They have been cleaning up the mess left by negligent City Council committee Chairs dating back 6 years. Prior to that I don’t recall a single committee meeting that went unreported for more than a few months.
As City Council salaries and personal staff have increased (and reserved parking spaces and private offices provided), responsibility has diminished. Some of this should have been part of the City Charter discussion, but instead they choose to focus on things like longer terms and greater Council control over the City budget process. Curiously, all proposals for possible mechanisms for “Redress of Grievances” were recently unanimously dismissed. - (the real) Robert Winters
Special City Council Meeting for Purpose of Discussing City Manager Evaluation – Tuesday, December 10, 12:00pm-2:00pm [Agenda]
Special Committee on Charter Review Meeting – Monday, December 9, 1:00pm-3:00pm [Agenda]
December 5th, 2024
To Mayor Simmons and Members of the Cambridge City Council:
As Co-Chairs of the Special Committee on Charter Review, we have scheduled a meeting on December 9th, 2024, from 1 to 3pm for the full Council to discuss the status of Charter Review process and develop a timeline and plan for advancing recommendations to put forward on the November 4th, 2025 ballot.
In advance, we ask that you review the discussions and materials from the June 5th and June 25th, 2024 Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee meetings. Both meetings began with public comment and were followed by discussions on the Charter Review Committee recommendations, challenges of some of the recommendations, and strategies for moving the process forward.
- June 5th Government Operations meeting (VIDEO)
- June 5th Meeting Agenda and Documents
- June 25th Government Operations Committee Meeting (VIDEO)
- June 25th Meeting Agenda and Documents
At this time, the only decision that has been made is that a two-thirds majority of the Council will be required to advance any recommendations to the Attorney General and/or Legislature, and residents on a future ballot.
Our goal for the December 9th meeting is to review each of the recommendations from the Charter Review Committee. We will schedule a follow-up meeting in January 2025 for items that require more discussion, as well as any additional recommendations from the City Council.
Sincerely,
| Paul Toner Co-Chair, Special Committee on Charter Review |
Sumbul Siddiqui Co-Chair, Special Committee on Charter Review |
The Committee met for 2¼ hours and recessed until a to-be-scheduled next meeting in January. All votes taken were recommendations to the full City Council, held for further discussion, or referrals to the Government Operations Committee for possible future action independent of the Charter revision process.
A. City Manager or Strong Mayor form of Government
Vote was 7-2 to in favor of retaining city manager form. (Siddiqui and Sobrinho-Wheeler preferred strong mayor form.)
B. Maintain an at-large city council elected by proportional representation.
Vote was 8-0-1 to retain PR (Simmons Absent).
C. Maintain an at-large city council of 9 members.
Vote was 7-1-1 in favor. (Nolan expressed preference for a mixed system with some district councillors and some at-large. Simmons was Absent.)
D. Enfranchise non-citizens in municipal elections.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent). There were actually two parts to this: (1) allowing non-citizens to vote, and (2) allowing non-citizens to be candidates in municipal elections. Only Councillor Zusy expressed the view that voting rights are intertwined with citizenship.
E. Enfranchise 16- and 17-year-olds in municipal elections.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent).
F. Move municipal elections to even years.
Vote was 8-0-1 to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee for possible future separate Home Rule Petition (Simmons Absent).
G. Create more flexibility and modernize election voting and tabulation methods in charter language.
Vote was 8-0-1 in favor with directive that Law Department draft appropriate language (Simmons Absent).
H. Participation in and Accessibility of Government for all Residents by creating Resident Assemblies.
Vote was 1-7-1 with only Sobrinho-Wheeler in favor (Simmons Absent).
I. Public tracking mechanisms of council policy orders.
Vote was 1-8 with general view expressed that this is already done and if any further direction is necessary it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter. Only Sobrinho-Wheeler was in favor.
J. Effectiveness of Government through Measurable Goalsetting.
Vote was 0-9 with general view expressed that this is already done and if any further direction is necessary it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter.
K. Maintain 2-year terms for city councillors.
This was held for further discussion at a later meeting. Some councillors expressed view that extending terms might be viewed as self-serving (obviously).
Note: None of the councillors seemed to understand that staggered 4-year terms (5 and 4) would fundamentally change the nature of our PR elections with a much larger election quota and diminution of minority representation. They also failed to understand the need for a recall provision with longer terms - something that is not compatible with our PR elections.]
L. Responsiveness and Accountability through delineating budget process and priority setting.
Vote was 0-9 with general view that this is already done and if any further clarity is needed it would be better in incorporate it into the City Council Rules rather than in the City Charter.
M. Give the City Council the power to add or increase line items in the budget.
This was held for further discussion at a later meeting.
N. Enshrine resident initiative provision.
Vote was 0-9.
O. Enshrine group petition provision.
Vote was 0-9.
P. Campaign finance study committee.
Vote to refer to Gov’t Ops. Committee was 2-7.
It’s Beginning to Look A Lot Like 2016 Again - December 9, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
It seems like Deja Vu all over again. As I was grabbing links to past Sanctuary City resolutions, I stumbled upon my notes from the Nov 21, 2016 City Council meeting. Some of the agenda items were strikingly similar to this week’s agenda - both, of course, in the context of a forthcoming Trump presidency. [Sanctuary City references: 1985, 2006, 2016 and 2020; and now this]
Note: There was a meeting of the Special Committee on Charter Review earlier in the day at which a long list of proposed Charter amendments were either recommended, dismissed, held over until the next meeting or referred to the Government Operations Committee for possible separate action.
Here are the items that seemed interesting to me this week:
Boards & Commissions
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Zhonghe Li and Jean Dany Joachim and the re-appointment of David Daniel, Aliyah Gary, Lori Lander, Calvin Lindsay Jr., Ann Lawson, Stella Aguirre McGregor, Michael Monestime, Diane Charyk Norris, Katherine Megumi Shozawa and Christine Lamas Weinberg to the Cambridge Arts Advisory Board for a term of three years.
Appointments Approved; Placed on File 9-0
Resolution #1. Congratulations to CHA Board Commissioner Gerard J. Clark on his retirement. Mayor Simmons
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-24, regarding a Porchfest pilot. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Jason Weeks, Simmons, Wilson; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Affordable Homeownership Commitment. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
Transportation and, of course, bikes
Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the proposed Bluebike bike share system contract term.
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Yi-An Huang, Stephanie Groll, Wilson, Simmons, Megan Bayer; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and Harvard University to restore Garden Street to two-way automobile traffic while preserving two-way protected bike lanes, preserving as much parking on and/or near Garden Street as possible and identifying potential areas for resident parking on neighboring streets and communicating the changes to the affected neighborhood. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Zusy, Nolan, Wilson, Yi-An Huang, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Azeem, Siddiqui, Owen O’Riordan; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-61, regarding lowering speeds on state highways. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Jeff Parenti, Brooke McKenna; Order Adopted 9-0
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to forward a letter to all Cambridge organizations working with immigrant populations, as well as all City Departments, reminding them of the city’s Sanctuary/Trust Act City status, the protections provided by the 2020 Welcoming Community Ordinance, and the importance of ensuring non-citizens are treated with dignity and respect. Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Zusy, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toner (PO24#154)
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern, Siddiqui, Nolan, Wilson, Simmons; Order Amended to add all councillors; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
On The Table #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and encourage the state Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the MBTA to adhere to Cambridge local ordinances, including the Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance, during Alewife Construction. [Tabled Nov 25, 2024]
Removed from Table 9-0; comments by Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0
Resolution #3. Recognition of Cambridge Investment in Renewable Energy. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled for comments by Nolan
8 Committee Reports - 7 from previous City Council terms
Reports Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Communications & Reports #2. A communication from Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Toner, transmitting an update on the Special Committee on Charter Review. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
And So It Goes – December 2, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
I skipped last week’s LoveFest, but the memories will last forever. This week features relatively little, but here goes:
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update regarding Community Engagement. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to review with a robust and inclusive community process the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, most recently updated in 2020, and identify potential improvements and consider next steps for a network of Separated Bicycle Facilities, and Separated Bicycle Facilities on streets across the city in order to facilitate safer travel and ways to coordinate routes with neighboring communities including Arlington, Somerville, Watertown, Belmont, Boston, and others. Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0
On The Table #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and encourage the state Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the MBTA to adhere to Cambridge local ordinances, including the Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance, during Alewife Construction. [Tabled – Nov 25, 2024]
Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on November 21, 2024 to discuss the City Council’s Flexible Parking Corridor Zoning Petition, the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) Municipal Ordinance, and the Commercial Parking Space Permits Municipal Ordinance. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; 3 Items Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0
Communications & Reports from City Officers #2. A communication from Mayor Simmons transmitting a Report on the Recent Senior Citizens Town Hall. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
Pre-Thanksgiving Dinner - November 25, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
Here are the noteworthy items this week:
Reconsideration #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Erik Sarno and Andrea Taylor and the reappointment of Saffana Anwar, Christopher Fort, Robert Winters, Tahir Kapoor, and Esther Hanig to the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years. [Reconsideration filed by Sobrinho-Wheeler]
Placed on File 5-4 (Azeem, Nolan, Toner, Zusy, Simmons -YES; McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson - NO)
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Joe Camillus and Filo Castore as a members of to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) Board.
Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the reappointment of Tabithlee Howard and appointing Johanny Maria Castillo, Jasper Adiletta, Shanjnin (Eva) Asraf, Jasper Mallon, and Larisa Mendez-Peñate to the Coordinating Council for Children Youth and Families also known as the Family Policy Council, effective Nov 25, 2024.
Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report 24-32, regarding exploring with the MBTA how to best ensure that the public art, Gift of the Wind, is preserved. (CM24#253) [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $15,000 to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations (Arts Council) Other Ordinary Maintenance account. The MCC Cultural District Grant provides financial support to state-designated Cultural Districts throughout the Commonwealth. This funding will support District-based initiatives that drive economic growth and strengthen the distinctive character of the Central Square Cultural District.
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #1. That the Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee hold a meeting to explore the ability to prohibit, either through city or state legislation, the common practice of landlords requiring tenants to pay broker fees. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments and encourage the state Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the MBTA to adhere to Cambridge local ordinances, including the Cambridge Asbestos Protection Ordinance, during Alewife Construction. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy
Tabled 9-0
14 Reports & Minutes of committee meetings from prior City Council terms - Catching up!
All Reports Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Communications & Reports #2. A communication from Mayor E. Denise Simmons, transmitting Notice of Special City Council Meeting re: Charter Review
Placed on File 9-0
Post-Apocalyptic Gathering - November 18, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
We’ll have to wait to see what the fallout will be of a changing federal picture on left-leaning “sanctuary cities” like Cambridge. I can easily imagine changes in both funding and eligibility for public housing and perhaps some economic repercussions for life sciences and pharmaceutical companies that dominate Kendall Square. Will there be efforts to replace lost federal money by jacking up local property taxes? It’s all just a big guessing game right now. I don’t believe we will be receiving too many federal favors for the next several years.
Here are the items that drew my local attention this week:
Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the findings of the 2024 Cambridge Resident Satisfaction Survey. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Yi-An Huang, Lee Gianetti, survey rep., Zusy, Azeem, Toner, Wilson, McGovern; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City Manager’s LGBTQ+ Friendly Housing Task Force Final Report. [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, Maura Pensak, Carolina Almonte, Phoebe West, McGovern, Zusy; Placed on File, Referred to Civic Unity Committee 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of members to the Cambridge Street Safety Improvement Project Working Group.
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (TPT), Toner (asks if there will be a similar group for Broadway - yes), Wilson; Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Erik Sarno and Andrea Taylor and the reappointment of Saffana Anwar, Christopher Fort, Robert Winters, Tahir Kapoor, and Esther Hanig to the Central Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years.
pulled by Zusy; comments by Simmons, Yi-An Huang (on update to add RW), Zusy (notes only 9 applicants for 7 positions on CSAC; for HSAC only 12 applicants for 11 positions - suggests advertising more broadly), Iram Farooq (notes how prescriptive categories are for CSAC and HSAC, mechanism for applying for all open boards and commissions); Zusy asks if a broad range of perspectives is sought; Appointments Approved as Amended, Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Gareth Dohety, Ivy Moylan, Henry Grabar, Chad Bonney, and Ryan Clinesmith Montalvo and the reappointments of Matthew Simitis, Kari Kuelzer, John DiGiovanni, Nicola Williams, Alexandra Offiong, and Allison Crosbie to the Harvard Square Advisory Committee for a term of three years.
Appointments Approved, Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-36, regarding coordinated and timely communication related to interjurisdictional transportation projects. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan (bus shelters, green roofs, shade, Alewife maintenance tunnel, Asbestos Ordinance; Iram Farooq, Owen O’Riordan, City Solicitor Megan Bayer (noting that state/MBTA not subject to City’s ordinance), Nolan (Draw One Bridge), Farooq (state not currently planning to add bike/ped connection to bridge); Nolan (bridge over Fitchburg commuter rail and addition of station in Alewife area), Farooq (reconstruction of Alewife garage may have possibility of commuter rail station); Zusy (I-90 project coordination, impact of construction on traffic, Eversource projects, asbestos concerns at Alewife, Draw One Bridge, need for commuter rail station at Alewife and bridge); Sobrinho-Wheeler (start date for Memorial Drive reconstruction, Riverbend Park impacts), Owen O’Riordan; Zusy on plans for Transportation Committee; Referred to Transportation Committee 9-0
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a draft home rule petition to authorize the City of Cambridge to implement automated parking enforcement technology; and to continue to work with the City of Boston to collaborate on the home rule process. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan on special status of Boston and Cambridge that necessitates a home rule petition, notes that this would be cost-neutral; Siddiqui added as sponsor 9-0; Wilson asks why Boston, Cambridge are exceptions; Megan Bayer explains; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0
Order #2. Resolution in Support of H.823 and S.551, Paint Stewardship and Recycling. Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0
Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a Home Rule Petition to enact legislation which would allow the City of Cambridge to prohibit associations from unreasonably restricting the use of a solar energy system. [Charter Right – Nolan, Nov 4, 2024]
Nolan notes why home rule petition may be needed; Megan Bayer explains why state law on this matter is insufficient; Toner asks about enforcement; Bayer suggests that this could be done as either a zoning amendment or a municipal ordinance; McGovern suggests sending this to a committee for larger discussion; Zusy seeks clarification of intention, Nolan explains, Zusy notes how things could get “messy” with condo associations; Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0
Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department to draft a home rule petition for the creation of a Cambridge Jobs Training Trust, and report back to the City Council in a timely manner. [Charter Right – Toner, Nov 4, 2024]
Sobrinho-Wheeler explains at authorization doesn’t obligate Council to implement, no need to send to Ordinance Committee; Amendment to strike “to be sent to the Ordinance Committee for a hearing” Adopted 9-0; Toner proposes sending to Economic Development Committee for further discussion (on 11 questions) and how this relates to how things are done now; comments by Yi-An Huang expresses concerns about raising linkage fees now, Ellen Semonoff, Toner asks whether setting up a Jobs Trust bank account would create obligation to fund it; Yi-An Huang notes last increase in Linkage Fee was from $22 to $33 based on 2019 Nexus Study, next Nexus Study to start in 2025, notes that Council will have to decide how Linkage Fee is to be allocated; Toner proposes referring to Economic Development Committee; Zusy notes inadequate options for CRLS students; McGovern has questions on how this would be implemented - wants to preserve all affordable housing allocation and increase Linkage Fee to add allocation for jobs training, but suggested that if the fee went up to something like $45 he would not support that; Sobrinho-Wheeler proposes amendment to have an Econ. Dev. meeting in addition to filing home rule petition promptly; McGovern notes RSTA initiatives; Siddiqui OK with further conversation in committee; Wilson, Zusy, Nolan, McGovern comments; Adopted Order as Amended 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)
Committee Report #1. The Housing Committee held a public hearing on Apr 30, 2024 to discuss the feasibility of municipally funded housing vouchers as referenced in PO24#24. The meeting was recessed and reconvened on Oct 15, 2024 to continue the discussion. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)
Committee Report #2. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public hearing on Oct 23, 2024 to discuss issues facing homeless shelters in Cambridge and concerns raised by the unhoused community. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)
Committee Report #3. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 23, 2024 to hear specific ideas from neighborhood leaders about revisions to the Multifamily Housing Proposal. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)
Committee Report #4. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 24, 2024 to discuss research on four-day work week pilot programs with businesses, government agencies, and non-profits and models for a four-day work week that have been implemented locally. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)
Committee Report #5. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 31, 2024 to discuss the Economics of Real Estate: Housing, Zoning, and the Economic Impact of Zoning. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Simmons-Absent)
The Eve of Derangement - November 4, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting
The night before a national election often feels strange – when our local government meets to talk about things like hazardous waste collection, speed bumps, and bikes lanes while on the national stage many people are in crisis mode imagining civil war breaking out if the candidate they hate gets elected as President. It often brings to mind the Serenity Prayer: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” So let’s fix those potholes and catch up on those old SeeClickFix requests while much of the country readies for derangement. “Don’t follow leaders, watch the parking meters.”
I have of late been thinking a lot about what the word “democracy” actually means – a way of governing which depends on the will of the people. What exactly does that mean then “the people” are almost evenly divided between highly divergent viewpoints? Does this mean that 50.1% should translate into imposing policies that are abhorrent to 49.9% of the people or that an Electoral College win should be viewed as a mandate to run roughshod over the interests of the losing party? Extreme partisanship is a deranged view of democracy. If the country (or the city, for that matter) is nearly evenly divided on an issue, the better democratic option is to find whatever common ground there is and to work out compromises that a clear majority can accept and maybe even embrace. It should never be about “winner take all”. The American System is in some ways inferior to parliamentary systems where coalition governments have to be formed when there is no clear majority. Even Cambridge’s system of proportional representation raises the essential question: “Proportional to what?”
A good friend of mine once wrote an essay about our local Cambridge political factions in the 1980s and 1990s when rent control was THE defining local issue. The notable quote about those factions was simply: “They both benefit from the existence of a problem.” In other words, finding actual compromise solutions would dilute their political clout – even if it would be in everyone’s best interest to solve the existing problems. Partisanship continued to be rewarded right up to the point when Question 9 caused the entire political house of cards to come tumbling down.
Call me naive, if you wish, but I still believe that the great majority of Americans share far more in common than the political partisans would have you believe. So bring on the protests while the rest of us are just taking care of our everyday lives. - RW
Meanwhile, back in The Peoples Republic, here are a few notable agenda items for this eve of derangement:
Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-56, regarding a request to consider scheduling a Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Day and a Paper Shredding Event on a Sunday, instead of having them all on Saturday. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0
Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-59, regarding the feasibility of speed control bumps on Antrim Street. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Brooke McKenna (TPT), Simmons, City Manager Yi-An Huang, Toner, Siddiqui, Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan; Placed on File 9-0
Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to prepare a Home Rule Petition to enact legislation which would allow the City of Cambridge to prohibit associations from unreasonably restricting the use of a solar energy system. Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Toner; Charter Right - Nolan
Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City staff to prominently incorporate recognition of the Massachusett Tribe during key official events, documents, websites, and communications, establish a living memorial in Cambridge that honors the Massachusett Tribe, with special recognition of Sqa Sachem for her leadership and enduring legacy and place a plaque with this language in a prominent location within City Hall, ensuring that this acknowledgment remains visible and lasting. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Simmons (to amend to add Wilson, Toner 9-0); comments by Simmons, Zusy (who proposed deleting references to Sqa Sachem), McGovern, Nolan, Simmons, Wilson, Zusy, Simmons, Siddiqui; Zusy amendment Fails 1-8 (Zusy-Yes); Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-0-1 (Zusy-Present)
Note: Sqa Sachem is referenced in various sources, in particular Lucius Paige’s History of Cambridge (1877), Chapter XX, Indian History. Lucius Paige was both the Town Clerk and (after 1846) the City Clerk of Cambridge.
Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Law Department to draft a home rule petition for the creation of a Cambridge Jobs Training Trust, and report back to the City Council in a timely manner. [support letter] Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Toner; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler (with proposed amendment); Charter Right - Toner
Order #4. The City Manager is requested to work with the Department of Public Works (DPW) on the expansion of the mattress and box spring recycling program to include residents living in multi-unit residential buildings, starting with affordable housing properties that charge a fee to their residents. Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0
Resolution #10. Congratulations to Robin Harris on being awarded the 2022 National Humanities Medal by President Joe Biden. Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui
Comments by Toner, Nolan, Simmons
Resolution #16. Condolences on the death of Alan Steinert, Jr. Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Nolan to be added as sponsor
Resolution #19. Honoring Cambridge Veterans and Recognizing Veterans Day. Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern
Committee Report #1. The Ordinance Committee met on Apr 29, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on the Broad Canal Zoning Petition. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #2. The Ordinance Committee conducted a public hearing on June 10, 2021 to discuss the Cambridge Missing Middle Housing Zoning Petition (Ordinance #2021-2). [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee met on July 26, 2021 to continue discussion on two proposals to regulate campaign donations. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee met on July 28, 2021 to conduct a public hearing on an amendment to Article 22 of the City of Cambridge Zoning Ordinance “Emissions Accounting” (Ord#2021-13). [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #5. The Ordinance Committee met on Sept 29, 2021 to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District citizen’s petition. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #6. The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 16, 2019 at 2pm on Taxicab use of E-Hail in the Sullivan Chamber. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #7. The Ordinance Committee met on Oct 23, 2019 at 5pm to discuss the Zoning petition to create an Alewife Quadrangle Northwest Overlay District. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #8. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Oct 10, 2024 to discuss preliminary recommendations from the Central Square rezoning process. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #9. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Oct 15, 2024 which was recessed and reconvened on Oct 29, 2024, regarding a Zoning Petition by the City of Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Articles 2.000 and 8.000 with the intent to add a definition of “dormer” to Article 2.000 and to amend the requirements related to adding dormers to nonconforming one- and two-family dwellings in Section 8.22.1.h.2 in order to allow certain dormer(s) construction as-of-right. The Ordinance Committee voted favorably to forward the Board of Zoning Appeal’s amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to add a definition of dormer to Article 2.000 and to amend the requirements related to adding dormers to non-conforming one- and two-family dwellings in Section 8.22.1.h.2, to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation and that it be passed to a second reading. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Passed to 2nd Reading 9-0; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
Committee Report #10. The Health and Environment Committee held a public hearing on Oct 22, 2024 to review and discuss the updates to the Zero Waste Master Plan (ZWMP). [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0
| City Council subcommittees for 2024-2025 [revised Sept 30, 2024 due to death of Councillor Joan Pickett] |
|
| Committee | Members |
| Ordinance | McGovern (Co-Chair), Toner (Co-Chair),
Azeem, Nolan, Pickett, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Simmons (committee of the whole - mayor ex-officio) |
| Finance | Nolan (Co-Chair), Toner (Co-Chair), Azeem, McGovern, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Zusy, Wilson, Simmons (committee of the whole - mayor ex-officio) |
| Government Operations, Rules, and Claims | Toner (Chair), Azeem, McGovern, Zusy, Sobrinho-Wheeler |
| Housing | Azeem (Chair), Siddiqui (Chair), McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson |
| Economic Development and University Relations | Toner (Chair), Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, Wilson |
| Human Services & Veterans | McGovern (Chair), Wilson (Chair), Sobrinho-Wheeler, Siddiqui, Nolan |
| Health & Environment | Nolan (Chair), Azeem, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson |
| Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations |
Zusy (Co-Chair), Sobrinho-Wheeler (Co-Chair), Azeem, Nolan, Siddiqui |
| Transportation & Public Utilities | Zusy (Chair), Azeem, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Toner, Wilson |
| Civic Unity | Simmons (Co-Chair), Zusy (Co-Chair), McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson |
| Public Safety | Toner (Chair), Wilson (Chair), McGovern, Zusy, Siddiqui |
| Family Policy Council | Siddiqui (Co-Chair), Wilson (Co-Chair) |
| Special Committee on Rules | Toner (Chair) |
Rules? We don’t have to follow no stinkin’ rules!
Updated Nov 2, 2024 - In the 2022-23 City Council Rules, there are two items that have been often ignored in recent City Council terms:
Rule 28. Every committee of the City Council to which any subject may be referred shall report on the subject within a reasonable time from the time of referral. Any committee report that has not been signed by the Chair of the committee within seven days after submission of the committee report by the City Clerk will be placed on the City Council agenda unsigned…
Rule 29. Minutes shall be kept of all committee proceedings. All minutes, reports, and papers shall be submitted to the City Council by the City Clerk or their designee. Recommendations of each committee shall be made to the City Council for consideration and adoption.
As if communication through the Tunnel of Zoom wasn’t bad enough, some committee Chairs apparently have not seen fit to keep either their colleagues or the public informed unless they were present at the meeting or chose to view a recording of the meeting. There are reasons why minutes of a meeting are taken. Not everyone wants to suffer through a recording of a long and possibly boring meeting, and a voluminous transcript is not a substitute for good (succinct) minutes.
Here is the current record of deliquency [Chair]: (updated Dec 16, 2024)
Ordinance Committee (7 missing reports) Finance Committee (0 missing reports) Gov’t Operations, Rules & Claims (1 missing report) Health & Environment Committee (2 missing reports) Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, etc. (1 missing report) Public Safety (0 missing reports) |
Econ. Development & University Relations (4 missing reports) Human Services & Veterans (1 missing report) Housing Committee (0 missing reports) Transportation & Public Utilities (0 missing reports) Civic Unity (0 missing reports) Most Delinquent: Number of Missing Reports: |
City Council subcommittees for 2022-2023
| Committee | Members |
| Ordinance | McGovern (Co-Chair), Zondervan (Co-Chair), Azeem, Carlone, Mallon, Nolan, Siddiqui, Simmons, Toner (committee of the whole - mayor ex-officio, quorum 5) |
| Finance | Carlone (Co-Chair), Nolan (Co-Chair), Azeem, Mallon, McGovern, Siddiqui, Simmons, Toner, Zondervan (committee of the whole - mayor ex-officio, quorum 5) |
| Government Operations, Rules, and Claims | Mallon (Chair), Carlone, Nolan, Simmons, Toner (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Housing | Simmons (Chair), Azeem, Carlone, Mallon, McGovern (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Economic Development and University Relations | Toner (Chair), Azeem, Mallon, Nolan, Zondervan (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Human Services & Veterans | McGovern (Chair), Azeem, Mallon, Toner, Zondervan (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Health & Environment | Nolan (Chair), Azeem, Carlone, McGovern, Zondervan (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Art, and Celebrations | Carlone (Chair), Mallon, McGovern, Nolan, Zondervan (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Transportation & Public Utilities | Azeem (Chair), McGovern, Nolan, Toner, Zondervan (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Civic Unity | Simmons (Chair), Carlone, Mallon, Toner, Zondervan (5 members, quorum 3) |
| Public Safety | Zondervan (Chair), Azeem, McGovern, Nolan, Toner (5 members, quorum 3) |
The Mayor shall serve as ex-officio member of all committees of the City Council.
FYI - Current Rules and Goals: Cambridge City Council & Cambridge School CommitteeCity Council Rules 2020-2021 (as amended Oct 26, 2020) City Council Rules 2018-2019 (provisionally adopted for 2020-2021 term on Jan 6, 2020) City Council Rules 2016-2017 (adopted Feb 29, 2016) City Council Rules 2014-2015 (adopted January 7, 2014, amended Feb 10, 2014 to reflect current Council committees) City Council Goals - FY2012-2013 (adopted Dec 13, 2011) City Council Committees (for the current term) Rules of the School Committee 2020-2021 - Adopted January 6, 2020 (document says 2019-2020) Rules of the School Committee 2018-2019 - Adopted January 1, 2018 School Committee Rules (adopted January 7, 2008) School Committee Goals (adopted October 7, 2008) |
Research Assistants? I don’t think so...
May 2, 2006 – The Cambridge City Council voted 8-1 on May 1 in favor of giving themselves personal “research assistants.” Only Councillor Craig Kelley had the fortitude to raise any questions about the proposal. So it appears the proposal will sail through the Budget Hearings with barely a raised eyebrow. While I have raised the issue of the genesis of this proposal, the question of its merits and its implementation have not been addressed here. So, here are some observations, questions, and suggestions for our elected officials, City administration, and residents to consider:
1. There was a time when our elected officials enlisted citizens to assist them in research matters relating to public policy. Cambridge is perhaps the best city in the United States in which to find experts in almost any matter that the City Council (or School Committee) may need to better understand. There is a wealth of evidence over the last 65 years showing how citizens have worked with elected officials in the development of public policy. If the City Council feels burdened by the research needs of its committees, there is an enormous pool of talent available at no cost. Currently, the City Council makes very little use of this very available resource.
2. There was a time when councillors collaborated much more than they currently do in committee work and in the development of policies. A well-functioning City Council committee should delegate responsibilities so that each member masters certain facets of the tasks at hand and shares this knowledge with the rest of the committee. In effect, councillors serve as staff to each other. I would argue that it is better that elected officials educate themselves.
3. Are these jobs going to be publicly posted with a job description? Who will be doing the actual hiring? If Councillor Smith wants to hire Mr. Jones as personal staff, will the mayor have veto power over the hire? Does the Personnel Department have a role to play here or are these to be political hires? None of these details have been discussed publicly and they are important.
4. If these “research assistants” are to be hired, there should be policies and safeguards to ensure that they are not working on behalf of any councillor’s political campaign. Otherwise, this proposal will have the effect of using taxpayer dollars to support the political campaigns of incumbent councillors. In fact, maybe it’s time to consider a similar disqualification for staff in the Mayor’s Office. A founding principle of Plan E government is the elimination of political patronage in favor of responsible, professional government. Some of us still believe in this ideal. At the very least, strong guidelines should be established for what is and is not permissible.
5. The existence of this proposal within the budget of the Mayor’s Office is very strange indeed since it involves personnel for councillors, not the mayor. Should we not infer from this that the consensus of the councillors is that the City Council staff is not up to the task? If the job of councillor has changed so much, should there not be some discussion of revamping the Office of the City Council to better match the needs of the councillors? Why are these tasks being outsourced?
6. Some councillors have recently stated that the filing of City Council orders requesting information through the City Manager is not enough and that councillors would be better served by having their own staff to get this information. This strikes me as contrary to the intent of the Plan E Charter which dictates that all matters involving City personnel be directed through the Manager. One can easily imagine a scenario where each councillor has his or her personal staff contact City department heads for information rather than filing an Order as a body to get a common response. If the consensus is that the City Manager is being obstructive or extraordinarily slow in responding, shouldn’t the City Council take more forceful action in holding the Manager accountable?
7. If the term “research assistant” is meant to be factual, then perhaps these RAs should be topic-specific so that we can have people who have some background or aptitude for the tasks at hand. If, for example, research in energy-related matters is what is needed, then someone with that knowledge would be ideal. Is any such protocol being discussed to ensure that the councillors and the taxpayers will get the best quality research for their tax dollars? I would hope that matters like scheduling and event planning will be handled by the City Council Office rather than by “research assistants.”
8. Several councillors have complained that e-mail has had a dramatic effect on the responsibilities of a city councillor due to the time consumption associated with responding to these messages. I don’t doubt this. However, there are efficiencies that can make such tasks much easier. For example, if each councillor receives 100 e-mail messages on a particular topic, then rather than making 100 shallow replies, I would advise responding to ALL of the issues of substance raised by residents in a single, comprehensive message sent (using blind-carbon-copy) to all of the people who sent messages. Those of us in academics have been doing this for years. It’s much more effective to craft comprehensive messages sent to the whole class rather than many nearly identical messages sent to individual students. There are MANY ways to be more effective in e-mail communication. Then again, if individual responses are seen as more valuable in securing potential votes in the next election, that’s a choice each councillor must make on his or her own - independent of taxpayer-supported staff.
In summary, I am not questioning whether or not some changes in staffing are warranted. I am, however, asking that any such changes be done in the best interest of taxpayers and that City funds are never used to either directly or indirectly support the reelection efforts of elected officials. - RW, May 3, 2006
Punching Out Your Cake and Having it Too – a chronology of the proposal for personal Council staff
(posted April 28, 2006)
Jan 1998 - The vote for who was to be mayor went on for several weeks as Ken Reeves held out until there were 4 other votes for Katherine Triantafillou, an outcome sincerely supported by at most two councillors (Reeves and Triantafillou). The would-be mayor rounded up her supporters for the coronation. A congratulatory cake was ordered. As the vote occurred and there were momentarily 5 votes on the table for Triantafillou (Born, Davis, Duehay, Reeves, Triantafillou), Councillors Galluccio and Russell changed their votes to Duehay. Councillors Born, Davis, and Duehay then changed their votes to Duehay and Mayor Duehay was elected. Councillor Galluccio was then elected vice-mayor. Meanwhile, in the room next to the Council chamber, Alice Wolf aide and Triantafillou supporter Marjorie Decker exploded in anger and punched out the cake, police were called, and a grudge began that remains to this day.
Feb 1998 - Mayor Duehay made good on the deal by hiring Galluccio campaign worker Terry Smith to work in the Mayor’s Office “to assist the mayor and vice mayor”. This marked the first time (to my knowledge) that any councillor other than the mayor received personal staff (except for a brief experiment with interns some years earlier). Resentment grew among other councillors about the special treatment one councillor received in exchange for delivering the mayor’s job.
1999 - Frank Duehay and Sheila Russell announced they would not seek reelection. Jim Braude, David Maher, and Marjorie Decker were subsequently elected to the City Council as incumbent Katherine Triantafillou was defeated, principally as a result of Marjorie Decker winning her seat.
2000 - After 1½ months without electing a mayor, Anthony Galluccio was able to secure 6 votes to become mayor (Braude, Davis, Galluccio, Maher, Sullivan, Toomey). David Maher was elected vice-mayor. Terry Smith became chief of staff of the Mayor’s Office. David Maher did not request any personal staff. Kathy Born suggested during the Budget hearings that the idea of personal staff for councillors be referred to the Government Operations Committee. Ken Reeves said at this time, “I don’t believe the vice-mayor needs the extra staffing and not us.” Note that this was a reference to the previous administration (Duehay-Galluccio).
Around this time, the Government Operations Committee met to discuss the proposal for personal staff. The estimates given for City Council staff were: (1) $390,250 for a low-level, bare bones proposal; (2) $157,450 for 8 part-time staff with no benefits; (3) $72,300 for one legislative research assistant. Deputy City Manager Rich Rossi said personal staff was tried briefly about 10 years earlier with interns. Michael Sullivan voiced concern about keeping in touch personally with his constituents and wondered how he would find enough things for this person to do. Most of the councillors spoke in support of giving themselves personal staff. Kathy Born said that if she found her job to be too much, she could hire her own staff person, only she would have to pay for it out of after-tax money, unlike an employee of a business. She suggested higher Council pay with the option of paying for a staff person out of this additional pay. The option would remain for a councillor to act as a “full-time councillor” without staff. Jim Braude said that a councillor could lend his or her campaign the money for the staff person.
One week later, the City Manager proposed a 23% pay raise for city councillors and a change in the ordinance to allow for automatic increases so that they would never again have to vote to raise their own pay. The pay raise was approved and the question of personal staff disappeared for the rest of the Council term.
2001 - Kathy Born and Jim Braude chose not to seek reelection. Brian Murphy and Denise Simmons were elected to the City Council.
2002 - Michael Sullivan was elected mayor on Inauguration Day. Henrietta Davis was elected vice-mayor. Unlike the previous term, Henrietta Davis did request and receive personal staff as vice-mayor when Garrett Simonsen, Davis’ election campaign manager, was hired to the Mayor’s Office staff as her assistant. Indications are that he served more than just the vice-mayor.
2004 - Michael Sullivan was again elected mayor, only this time Marjorie Decker was elected vice-mayor. Garrett Simonsen became chief of staff of the Mayor’s Office. Sullivan hired Kristin Franks (who had been Decker’s campaign manager) as “assistant to the mayor and vice-mayor” but the indications were that she was working almost exclusively for Decker. By summer, Franks was gone and Nicole Bukowski, another Decker campaign worker, was hired as exclusive staff to Decker. For the remainder of the Council term, Bukowski waited hand and foot on Decker - and resentment among other councillors grew for the remainder of the Council term.
Late 2005 - Craig Kelley was elected to the City Council and incumbent David Maher was defeated. Speculation immediately began about who would be the next mayor. Some councillors reported that a plan was being discussed to give certain councillors personal staff as part of the vote-trading for electing the mayor.
Early 2006 - Ken Reeves was elected mayor and Tim Toomey vice-mayor. In a surprising turn of events, Bukowski continued to serve out of the Mayor’s Office as personal staff to Councillor Decker - clearly a part of the deal to make Reeves mayor. Rumors circulated that there was a plan to assign some councillors additional committee chairs as justification for getting personal staff. When the committee chairs were announced, Councillor Decker (who, along with Councillor Galluccio, has maintained the worst record of committee attendance during her time on the Council) was surprisingly given four committees to chair. In contrast, Henrietta Davis (who has always been at or near the top in committee attendance) was given only one. This was seen by some as a way to justify Decker keeping her personal aide in exchange for her vote for mayor.
April 2006 - Ken Reeves submitted a budget for the Mayor’s Office that is 54.3% higher than the previous year. The cause for the increase is a proposal for personal staff for all the remaining councillors at a recurring annual cost of about a quarter-million dollars. There was no public indication of any kind that such an extravagant plan was in the works. An order is on the May 1 City Council agenda (after the budget was already submitted on April 24 including the increase) formally calling for the major staff increase. The order is co-sponsored by Reeves, Toomey, Decker, Galluccio, Sullivan, and Davis. It is expected that, like every person hired to date as staff for the vice-mayor (and most of those on the mayor’s staff), all of the new “research assistants” will be affiliated with the election campaigns of the officials they will serve. Curiously, these patronage hires will be occurring at a time when there are fewer major issues before the Council and when an unprecedented number of councillors are either serving in other elected positions or seeking election to other positions now or in the near future. - RW, April 28, 2006
Ref: April 27, 2006 Cambridge Chronicle story on the Council staff proposal
April 27, 2006 Cambridge Chronicle story on the submitted FY07 Budget
|
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, One Ring to rule them all, |
The nine Nazgûl arose as Sauron’s most powerful servants in the Second Age of Middle-earth. It is said that three of the Nine were originally “Great Lords” of Númenor. They were all powerful mortal Men to whom Sauron each gave nine Rings of Power. These proved to be their undoing: “Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thralldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron’s. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows. The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Enemy’s most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death” (The Silmarillion: “Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age”, 289). |
The corrupting effect of the rings caused their bodily forms to fade over time until they had become wraiths entirely. Given visible form only through their attire, their original form was completely invisible to mortal eyes. The red reflection in their eyes could be plainly distinguished even in daylight, and in a rage they appeared in a hellish fire. They had many weapons, which included long swords of steel and flame, daggers with magical venomous properties and black maces of great strength. |
|