Civic Infrastructure (from Dec 1, 2015)

Civic landscape today dominated by single-issue advocacy and neighborhood groups that often do not represent their neighborhoods. Common pattern is that some dominant characters eventually drive out other participants rendering the group a narrow agenda-driven entity. Some groups (PSNA, Agassiz-Baldwin) generally have a better focus such as (a) children (Agassiz), or (b) cooperation with the local business community (PSNA).

Groups like the Cambridge Residents Alliance are dominated by zoning and, arguably, efforts to slow or stop new development - residential or commercial/office/lab. The Fresh Pond Residents Alliance is of this type (in addition to serving as a launching point for a City Council candidacy).

For the Cambridge Schools there are also advocacy groups (Special Ed and others), but not necessarily a general forum for broader discussion.

June 7, 2009 - Once upon a time there was a civic organization in Cambridge known as the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA). It was formed in 1945 out of several organizations that had been existed through the 1930s and that had lobbied the state legislature to create the Plan E Charter option (1938) which featured a city manager form of government and proportional representation elections for city council and school committee. These reforms were central to model charter reform movements active in the United States from the early 1900s. The central theme of the CCA in its early days was "good government" in the sense of being anti-patronage and for professionally managed local government. This changed with the introduction of rent control at the end of the 1960s after which the CCA shifted leftward and became permanently lashed to the mast of the rent control vessel. Though the CCA still exists on paper (I believe), it rapidly declined after the statewide abolition of rent control (late 1994) and essentially disappeared a decade later (early 2005).

I bring up the ghost of the CCA today only to point out that when it was created it had some very admirable goals. Here's the original Mission Statement of the CCA:

Purposes: This association is formed for the following purposes:

• 1. To promote businesslike, honest, and efficient conduct of local government, open to public scrutiny.
• 2. To induce residents to take an active interest in the affairs of the City of Cambridge.
• 3. To encourage and support the candidacy of men and women seeking election to public office and to support intelligent, wholesome leadership in public affairs.
• 4. To assure that the best qualified persons are appointed to positions in the City government after consideration of all qualified candidates.
• 5. To promote among the citizens of Cambridge equitable distribution and benefit of public services and equal opportunity for economic security, education, and social advancement.
• Possible additions:
  6. To foster an environment of mutual cooperation between local business districts and the neighborhoods they serve.

These are pretty good founding principles for a civic organization.

One founding principle of the CCA that fell into disuse over the years is listed above as #3: To encourage and support the candidacy of men and women seeking election to public office and to support intelligent, wholesome leadership in public affairs. Indeed, I can personally testify to the fact that in its dying years the only reason the CCA made endorsements at all was because the CCA-endorsed incumbents wanted the benefit of having an advertised CCA slate of candidates that would help secure their reelection. There was precious little effort to recruit new candidates or to support them. Today, the benefits of incumbency are greater than ever. The cost of political campaigns have become absurdly high and most of the incumbents now have (City paid) staff who are inevitably political appointees who directly or indirectly assist in the reelection efforts of their bosses. The deck is increasingly stacked against challengers. Furthermore, the salary and benefits for elected councillors are now so sweet that it is unlikely that any of them would ever want to move on to another job.

CCA Origin

The Advent of PR in Cambridge - by David Goode

What Slates are Not (from Dec 1, 2015)

Tom Stohlman recently wrote up his version of an explanation of how PR voting works. His illustrations involved cups being filled with water. The representation was a good one, but he completely mischaracterized the role of slates among actual voters. Tom's belief seems to be that most voters identify themselves with one of the various slates in the same way that they might identify as either Democrat, Republican, or other party. Though there are certainly some voters that have such a Black & White view of things, there really isn't much evidence to support that point of view. What seems far more apparent is that voters still are focusing on individual candidates and then appreciate the "advice" that one or more slates seem to provide - even if imperfectly.

The far more dominant factor in this election was that some voters who might previously voted for Leland Cheung chose this time to vote for somebody else - in part due to lack of a campaign, in part due to a concerted effort by Mazen and others to draw those votes away, and in part because of some unpopular stands taken by Cheung, e.g. the 1,000 foot Volpe tower.

A Kelley voter may have been influenced by the advice to vote for other Unity Slate candidates, but there is no natural grouping of some of the Unity Slate candidates other than the political convenience of their having worked cooperatively over the current City Council term. Similarly, a typical Toomey #1 voter might see David Maher as a likely #2 choice, but beyond that the Slate is more like casual advice. A Mazen voter most likely doesn't identify all that much with other candidates beyond perhaps Mariko Davidson. Carlone/Devereux voters might be more inclined to identify with (a portion of) the CRA Slate, but the same certainly cannot be said of most Cambridge voters.

Perhaps Slates may take on more of a distinct identity in future municipal elections, but they were primarily utilitarian this year.

That said, the electorate is changing and the way political association is carried out in future years will have to take this into account.

In terms of candidates, we could really use something analogous to the Farm System of Minor League Baseball.

“Unfinished Business” (from Jan 5, 2016)

I – Housing

1. Barrett Petition – Accessory apartments, etc.
2. Affordable Housing Overlay – Citywide? Or not?
3. Future housing on Central Square parking lots?
4. Adjustments to Inclusionary Zoning required percentages
5. Vail Court?

II – Citywide Master Plan

1. Will it be the ultimate way to kick every can down the road “until the master plan is completed”?
2. Will it be cooperative or combative with people taking sides from the start and competing to pack the public meetings and serve on committees?
3. Will it be a competition between those who support transit-oriented development and density vs. those who support limiting growth, limiting heights, limiting density in the name of “livability”?
4. Representativeness of participants – will all points of view be represented?
5. Alewife early action item – will the current Concord-Alewife Plan be significantly altered to respond to those concerned about pace of housing growth in the area (and NIMBYism)?
6. Transportation in the Citywide Plan (likely to be renamed “Envision Cambridge”: Will the discussion continue to be dominated by “bicycle as panacea” or will there be a more comprehensive view? Will any new connections be proposed over RR tracks, rivers, or one-way patterns? Will new modes like personal mobility devices be accommodated?
7. Will the end product have any fundamental recommended changes or will it be essentially an endorsement, more or less, of the way we are now doing things?
8. Will there be any movement on Central Square, the C2 Recommendations, or some alternative?

III – STEAM/STEM

1. Will there be any follow-up of discussions of the last year or so?
2. Will there be any actual jobs created or connections to jobs for Cambridge residents who actually need them?
3. Will we have simply created or grown another bureaucracy that drafts plans but delivers little benefit?

IV – Bans, Ordinances, and changes in City services

1. Curbside Organics Collection
2. Plastic Bag Ban - Checkout Bag Ordinance – when does it go into effect? Any glitches?
3. Polystyrene ban – when does it go into effect? Possible glitches, exemptions, recommended changes?
4. Anything else to be banned or restricted? Soda? Candy? Fatty foods? Meat?

V – Mass & Main

1. When will actual construction commence? Will there be disruptions?
2. Large stormwater storage tank to be built in parking lot behind Mass & Main site.
3. Will there be lawsuits to try to block project? More petitions?

VI – Foundry Building

1. When will building actually become available for use?
2. Programming in building – what fraction for non-profits, etc. and what fraction for revenue generation to support the whole building? Will there be controversies over decisions made by Advisory Committee and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority?

VII – Volpe Site – Zoning and Possible Uses

1. Likely that current petition will be re-filed
2. How will competition between economics and possible housing/open space play out?
3. Will Volpe Center just stay there in same building for another 20-50 years?

VII – The “Sharing Economy”

1. Uber, Lyft, taxis – how will that dilemma be resolved? New regulation by City? By State?
2. AirBnB – will this be further regulated or will everybody run their overpriced condos as unofficial hotels?

IX – Miscellaneous other Cambridge-style initiatives that may happen or go nowhere

1. Publicly funded municipal elections
2. Voting rights for non-citizens in local elections
3. Shifting of political power to individual councillors via political aides, discretionary money, and differing interpretations of the City Charter
4. Changes to Residential Exemption, e.g. only for low-income people with requirement that residents prove their income to be eligible (very unlikely – authority of state)
5. $15 minimum wage (also unlikely except for City contracts and City workers – City lacks authority to set wages/prices except perhaps in declared emergency)
6. Proposed special status for “recognized groups” at Ordinance Committee meetings – opens up a wider discussion of legitimacy and representativeness of neighborhood associations, political advocacy groups, etc.
7. Proposal to have 11 full days of early voting for November election at precincts all across the city with staffing and security. A far better Order would have asked for a report from the Election Commission on how to best plan for Early Voting in accordance with changes in state law (as opposed to dictating to staff how this should be done).
8. Effect of new development in Union Square, Somerville on Cambridge traffic, housing availability and affordability, access to Green Line Extension (if it happens any time soon).
9. Will the current housing speculation bubble burst?

X – Civic Unity – Race, class, and the never-ending conflicts between different groups, neighborhoods, etc.

Looking Ahead

Possible City Council and School Committee candidates for 2017 (with age at time of election)

Dec 31 - There are others who are likely to be candidates but who have not yet chosen to be identified as such. Please let me know of other candidates. Not all of the individuals listed above may wish to be identified as candidates, and I will be more than happy to remove those names (unless I am absolutely certain they will be running!). Anyone who has filed papers with OCPF (Office of Campaign & Political Finance) is assumed to be running for City Council. - RW

CIVIC CALENDAR

Tues, Jan 3

3:00pm   The City Council's Ordinance Committee will conduct an additional public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance on the petition of the City Council to delete the existing Section 20.700 – Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts; create a new Section 11.800 – Medical Marijuana; and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary within Section 4.35 of the Table of Use Regulations, allowed only by Planning Board Special Permit within Business A, B, B-1, B-2, C, Industry A-1, B-1 and B-2 districts. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

7:00pm   Planning Board meeting  (2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway)

General Business

1. Update from the Community Development Department

2. Adoption of Planning Board meeting transcripts

Public Hearings

7:00pm   47 Bishop Allen Drive, Special Permit for construction of 23 residential units pursuant to Sections 4.26 Multifamily, 2.304.4 Waiver of Setback Requirements, 20.304.6 and 6.35 Reduction of the Parking Requirement, 6.22.2 off site accessory parking within 400 feet, 10.40 special permit and 19.20 Project Review. Watermark Central Venture LLC is the applicant. This public hearing was opened on November 15, 2016 and continued without any presentation or public comment.

8:00pm   Medical Marijuana Zoning Petition by the City Council to delete the existing Section 20.700 Medical Marijuana Overlay Districts; create a new Section 11.800 Medical Marijuana and list Registered Marijuana Dispensary with Section 4.35 of the Table of Use regulations, allowed only Planning Board Special Permit within business A, Business B, Business B-1, Business B-2, Business C, Industry A-1, Industry B-1, and Industry B-2 districts. This public hearing was opened on November 1, 2016.

General Business

3. 55 Regent Street extension request for the decision and filing of the special permit decision.

4. Discovery Park Subdivision Plan approval as required in the Planning Board PB #198 Master Plan.

5. Board of Zoning Appeal Cases

a. BZA010210-2016 – 40 Whittemore Avenue, Special Permit to upgrade existing telecommunications equipment. Sections 4.32.G.1 and 4.40 footnotes

b. BZA011991-2016 237 Hampshire Street, Sign Variance to install signs above the second story windows.

6. Election of the Planning Board chair (the current Chair is Ted Cohen).

Wed, Jan 4

3:00pm   The City Council's Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing on a petition by the City Council to amend provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to Inclusionary Housing, including the insertion of new definitions into Article 2.000 and the substitution of revised zoning text for the current text of Sections 11.200 through 11.206. This hearing to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

6:00pm   Central Square Advisory Committee meeting  (344 Broadway, 4th floor meeting room)

*Case: 907 Main Street

Applicant: Patrick W. Barrett, III

Proposal: The proposed project is located at the corner of Main and Columbia Streets and would be a renovation of the existing building to 58 sleeping rooms on the upper three floors, retail first floor consisting of two of the existing tenants and a hotel lobby and bar and a fifth floor addition to contain a bar. The proposal requires a Planning Board Special Permit to exempt Gross Floor Area for basement space and to waive the Parking and Loading requirements pursuant to Section 20.304.6(2).

*Central Square Restoration Zoning Petition

*Discussion of the proposed Stormwater Retention Tank system in Central Square and the Port.

*Discussion of the public toilet

Mon, Jan 9

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Jan 10

6:00-8:00pm   School Committee Curriculum and Achievement Sub-Committee meeting  (Attles Meeting Room, CRLS, 459 Broadway)

The Curriculum and Achievement Sub-Committee will meet for the purpose of discussing the proposed FY2018 model for 9th grade English and History.

Wed, Jan 11

3:00pm   The City Council's Ordinance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss a proposed Municipal Code amendment to Chapter 2.125 to change the name to “Cambridge Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Plus Commission.” (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, Jan 12

2:30pm   The City Council's Economic Development and University Relations Committee will conduct a public hearing to review City Ordinance 12.08.010 Encroachments onto streets – Permit required – Fee – Exceptions to discuss the City’s policies towards permitting sandwich board and A-frame Signs, and what improvements can be made.  (Ackermann Room)

Mon, Jan 23

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Jan 25

5:30pm   The City Council's Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY18 Operating and Capital Budget.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Jan 30

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, Feb 2

5:30pm   The City Council's Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY18 School Department Budget.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 6

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 13

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Feb 27

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)