A selection of agenda items of interest for the Sept 25 City Council meeting:
City Mgr. Agenda #1. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the votes necessary to seek the Massachusetts Department of Revenue approval for the tax rate for FY2007:
There's a a public hearing to discuss the property tax rate classification scheduled for 6:30pm during the meeting. It's expected that the Council meeting will move right into the hearing immediately after public comment, though this might also be interrupted for the hearing (or it should be if the mayor takes his job seriously). The property tax classification is done more or less the same way every year and is done so as to shift as much of the burden as possible from residential properties to commercial properties. The only thing that varies is the amount of "free cash" or reserve funds used to reduce the tax levy, but that's been roughly the same for several years. The residential exemption factor used to be 20%, but Cambridge has exercised its local option to use a 30% factor for about 3 or 4 years now.
What's not stated in the agenda, but which some of us would very much like to know, is what happened to the initiatives that were being investigated after the unexpectedly high tax bill increases two years ago, especially for multi-family houses. It's very disturbing when things like this just vanish without a trace and none of the councillors say anything about it.
City Mgr. Agenda #8. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to the matter the CMAC/Dance Complex issue; and
Charter Right #5. That the City Manager is requested confer with the appropriate City Departments to immediately release CMAC’s funds.
This issue has been festering for several years now. In order to exert its only available leverage on CMAC (Cambridge Multicultural Arts Center) to do right by the Dance Complex, the Council has voted for the last two years to slow down the City's financial support for CMAC (part of the Public Celebrations budget) to induce them to come to a settlement with the Dance Complex. The latest interchange with CMAC includes a proposal that the City guarantee them either $200,000 annual support for ten years or a lump sum payment of about $2 million. Of course the City shouldn't be caught up in conflicts like this at all. Furthermore, except for the City's own major capital projects and essential services, there should be no guarantee of funding for any agency beyond the current fiscal year. How CMAC gets off making demands like this is beyond me.
Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Massachusetts Highway Department to discuss the possibility of postponing the closure of the Walden Street bridge until further studies are done and more neighborhood association involvement takes place. Councillor Decker, Councillor Davis and Councillor Kelley
I'll buy dinner for anyone who can explain to me why it should require two years to reconstruct this short little bridge. Two weeks seems like a more appropriate time frame if you plan it in advance.
Order #16. That the City Council go on record encouraging the various Departments, non-profits and Trusts associated with providing and maintaining affordable housing in Cambridge to, as far as is legally possible, develop housing policies, to build housing spaces and to provide financial assistance in a fashion that supports artists and city employees and that specifically provides housing to individuals who do not own cars. Councillor Kelley
So why not subsidize teachers, day-care providers, and other important contributors as well? Why do artists and city employees deserve such special treatment?
Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to confer with relevant Departments to determine which stop lights, if any, may be safely converted to a blinking red/yellow combination during late evening and early morning hours when there is very little traffic. Councillor Kelley
In this order, Councillor Kelley specifically mentions "WHEREAS: Cars stopped at red lights at these streets during these lightly traveled hours can jar the neighborhood with loud car stereo music as they wait for the light to turn; and WHEREAS: Allowing cars to move more quickly through some intersections during late evening and early morning hours may reduce noise in the neighborhood without compromising public safety; now therefore be it....."
This, of course, begs the question: Why aren't the councillors and the police doing something to address the proliferation of these extraordinarily loud cars? After all, they're actually forming a committee to regulate the use of leaf blowers. Do the elected officials only respond to those who write the bigger checks to their political campaigns?
As a resident of Broadway, I can tell you that these loud cars are getting progressively worse and there's nothing being done to contain the problem. There are actually people who clearly have nothing to say who drive up and down Broadway like it was Revere Beach with their sound systems blaring in a pathetic effort to get noticed. Meanwhile, the councillors maintain their silence....