You're invited to one of the least democratic events imaginable

If you're a registered Democrat and live in Ward 6, perhaps you'd like to drop by the Ward Caucus this Sunday to elect delegates to the Democratic State Convention. It takes place this Sunday, March 4 in the main cafeteria of the Cambridge Rindge & Latin School. Doors open at 1:30pm. There will be a short speaking program during which you may have to suffer through speeches by some of this year's candidates for statewide office starting shortly after 2:00pm. You must be in line to register for the Caucus by no later than 2:30pm to be able to participate in the election of delegates. Any Democrat registered in Ward 6 as of the day of the caucus is eligible to participate in the caucus and to run for delegate or alternate. There will be 9 delegates and 4 alternates selected (subject to gender balance requirements). Candidates should be prepared to give a 1-2 minute speech about why they want to be delegate this year.

Now..... why do I call this one of the least democratic events imaginable? Caucuses are typically low turnout events where only the most inside of inside political players ever show up, and if you're part of an organized activist group you can rule the day (unless you're a nut-case Lyndon LaRouche supporter). This year's version of the LaRouche crowd are the Our Revolution disciples of Holier Than Thou Bernie Sanders, and they have been successfully packing these ward caucuses in order to maintain the fiction that they represent some kind of majority. In this case they want very much to control the Democratic State Convention in order to (a) give an edge to their gubernatorial candidate so that he can have the privilege of being defeated by Charlie Baker this November, and (b) they want to "unrig the system" that they think their most despised Hillary Clinton controls - by rigging it themselves.

I intend to go to this caucus on Sunday for two reasons: (1) I like to witness spectacles; and (2) somebody has to go to represent Ward 6 voters other than just the fist-in-the-air Left-of-Lenin activist crowd. I will not be sending out a mass email appeal asking normal human beings to show up for this, but I thought I should at least post a note here on the CCJ asking people to join me to either (a) witness just how undemocratic the Democratic Party can really be, or (b) have a good laugh watching the politically obsessed be politically obsessed. There's also a long shot that maybe some rational delegates might be chosen - but I won't hold my breath. However, if a few more regular Democrats show up maybe it might even happen.

See you at the Carnival! - RW

Update - The Reluctant Delegate

Sun, Mar 4 - I got elected today as a Ward 6 delegate to the Democratic State Convention. I really don't know how to feel about this. First, as I was leaving a neighborhood get-together just before the caucus, I mentioned that I was headed to the caucus and that I expected it to be a showdown between the "revolutionaries" and mainstream "lunch bucket" Democrats. One woman said that, after all, we're all Democrats. When I explained that there are some Democrats who only see the need to provide benefits and programs for people while others want to empower people to manage their own affairs, she asked, "Have you always voted for Republicans?"

This is the essential problem. Some Democrats really don't believe in empowerment or self-reliance or, for that matter, even freedom of choice, and if you express any inclination toward those ideals they think you're a Republican. For them it comes down to some doctrine or another coupled with a generally low estimate of the capacity of people to either be self-reliant or to maintain sound moral judgment. Morality must be legislated and people are to be "taken care of" like any good house pet incapable of taking care of itself. Of course this isn't only about political philosophy. It's just as much about the quest for raw political power, e.g. the "Our Revolution" crowd. Though the turnout was predictably low, it was clear that there was a Sanders-lovin' contingent there just dying to get their hands onto a few levers of power and influence.

So, after being drafted to run for one of the delegate positions, I was narrowly elected and, come early June, it appears that I will be heading to Worcester as a delegate to a state convention of party-diehards. (Actually every candidate was either narrowly elected or narrowly defeated.) Refreshingly, it wasn't just one contingent who pushed their candidate slate through in order to exclude all others - as happened in most of the other Cambridge wards. Our delegation will actually be split, and I suppose that's a good thing. I have never been to a party convention and have never had even the slightest interest in attending one, but so it goes. I'll do my best to seek out the moderates or, as some of the dumbest of the dumb call them, establishment liberals. You know, people who willingly chose Clinton over Sanders.

The most regrettable aspect to this turn of fate is that I will now likely get boatloads of political Spam from every candidate and interest group who wants to get some benefit out of this convention. What the hell have I gotten myself into? - RW

On the Agenda - March 5, 2018 Cambridge City Council meeting Here are the things sure to get a rise out of at least someone: Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the appropriate City personnel to determine why there continues to be significant audio and video difficulties during live internet broadcasts of City Council meetings, how these difficulties can be resolved. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Simmons as Amended.] I have no idea what this was delayed or even debated last week. These live webcasts as well as the Cable TV broadcasts have always had problems no matter how many times they have been "fixed". That said, I'm not so sure that the best solution would be to host official proceedings on YouTube. Charter Right #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City departments to create additional Safety Zones for safer streets. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Simmons as Amended.] There are places where this makes sense and other places where it would be a pointless restriction. It makes a lot of sense in our pedestrian intensive major Squares and a few other places but, like the boy who cried "wolf", if you overplay your hand you run the risk of the restriction being generally ignored. Charter Right #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft language for a home rule petition for a Cambridge Right of First Refusal Legislation. [Charter Right exercised by Councillor Simmons.] Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from City Clerk, Donna P. Lopez, transmitting a communication from Councillor Carlone, submitting draft language on "AN ACT TO PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE THROUGH A TENANT'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE". This is the most incorrectly titled piece of legislation I have seen in a long time. It should more properly be titled "AN ACT TO EXPAND EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE ALL RENTAL PROPERTY AT TIME OF SALE". Any city councillor who supports this as written doesn't deserve to ever be reelected. The same goes for any member of the state legislature who supports the proposed home rule legislation. When you read through the details of this proposal it becomes clear that the most likely outcome will be that the "right of first refusal" will be directed to the City or one of its agents - especially in certain neighborhoods targeted for this treatment, and slowly but surely more and more rental properties will no longer be privately owned. If our elected officials actually want to do something useful, they should devise ways to encourage multi-family ownership by small landlords. This would do a lot to support housing affordability for middle-class residents and their tenants. This was the primary method of middle-class housing affordability in Cambridge for the last century. Update: I was very pleased to see Carlone's pilfered Somerville proposal soundly defeated on a 2-7 vote with only Carlone and Zondervan in favor. Carlone, in particular, should reconsider his practice of using ghost writers for legislative proposals. The original order to have the City Solicitor draft the language also died on a 3-6 vote with Siddiqui joining these two on this misguided proposal. Apparently (according to Zondervan) both Boston and Somerville are pushing this same approach to move as much privately owned rental property as possible into public ownership, and he was "embarrassed" that Cambridge would not be joining them. It doesn't surprise me that the Revolutionary Guard in Somerville (a.k.a. the current Board of Alderman) is pushing this. After all, revolutionaries tend to lose their credibility when not smashing capitalism or overthrowing something. I have to wonder if Boston is actually in favor of this. There are a lot of two-family and three-family buildings in Boston and a lot of owner-occupant small landlords who will not be pleased at this taking. Resolution #1. Resolution on the closing of Ryles Jazz Club.   Councillor Toomey When I first moved to Cambridge 40 years ago the first building I was ever in was a gymnasium at the corner of Harvard and Prospect Streets (now and office building) to play frisbee in February, and the second building was Ryles for beers afterwards. I hope that a similar use can continue in that space. Resolution #5. Resolution on the death of William "Bill" Noble.   Councillor Mallon, Councillor Simmons There was an obituary in the Feb 26, 2018 Boston Globe for Bill Noble - longtime tenant activist and one of the central figures at Cambridge City Council meetings during the rent control years in Cambridge. Present at most City Council meetings during many of those years were Michael Turk, Connie Thibaut, and Bill Noble from the Cambridge Tenants Union (CTU). There was a time when public comment at meetings happened whenever in the meeting a particular agenda item came up, so it was often necessary to stay through the end of the meeting if you wished to give public comment. The mainstays of the CTU were often there for the whole meeting. Some of the other regulars are quoted in the obituary. Bill Noble was also actively involved with the Riverside-Cambridgeport Community Corporation (RCCC - though everyone called it "R Triple C"). It was an interesting coincident that the obituary for Bill Noble was published the same day that many of the Small Property Owners Association (SPOA) from way back when were at the City Council meeting opposing what they see as a back-door attempt to impose similar controls on property that they successfully opposed nearly 25 years ago. It was almost like a virtual reunion - and a reminder of how Cambridge used to be an ongoing political war zone. Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to apply on behalf of the City of Cambridge for the Housing Choice Designation before the Apr 30, 2018 deadline.   Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Mallon At last week's City Council meeting, City Manager Louis DePasquale hinted at the possibility of some movement in the everlasting quest to build a new bridge over the railroad tracks west of the Alewife Brook Parkway that would connect the Alewife Triangle and the Alewife Quadrangle, but he gave no specifics. Everybody was intrigued about what he was driving at. [By the way, the only people who call it "The Quad" are people who attended prep school.] I heard of one possible mechanism through which funding might be derived to build this bridge. The Governor recently created the "Housing Choice Initiative" which allows communities to apply to the state to be recognized and designated as a "Housing Choice Community." To qualify, you have to either show that you've produced a certain rate of new units or adopted certain best practices. Cambridge would be in that top tier for housing produced and would qualify. Communities that qualify would get an advantage in applying for discretionary state funding and exclusive access to a new capital fund called the "Local Capital Projects Fund", which will be funded by casino revenue. More information is available at: https://www.mass.gov/housing-choice-initiative Wouldn't it be great if a by-product of Cambridge encouraging new housing (rather than trying to block it) was a community benefit like this bridge, hopefully built in conjunction with a new commuter rail stop to support the new housing and jobs? Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Solicitor, Attorney General and District Attorney to investigate the possibility of Cambridge joining this national suit against opioid manufacturers and distributors.   Councillor Kelley, Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Mallon The Order sounds good, but I was intrigued by the fact that it has six co-sponsors. I think this is great, but I expect some ne'er-do-well will claim it's an open meeting law violation. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Assistant City Manager of Community Development, the Director of Communications and Community Relations, or any other relevant City department with the view in mind of producing a document that can be presented at the City Council Housing Committee to provide a better perspective on the City's current efforts to address the housing issues facing Cambridge.   Councillor Toomey, Councillor Mallon, Councillor Siddiqui Perhaps Councillor Carlone can just ask the Somerville Board of Alderman to send the information. Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide the City Council with an Inman Square Reconstruction Project Timeline.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Kelley This project is based on established Listen Zero principles, but I suppose the planners can at least pass on a calendar of non-negotiables. Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council on the City’s plans for incorporating dock-less bikes into its urban mobility opportunities, to include licensing, contractual and liability issues; and that said report be transmitted to the Transportation and Public Utilities Committee for a public hearing on the issue of a dock-less bikeshare system.   Councillor Kelley, Councillor Siddiqui I had no idea that the City had any such plans but, then again, according to established Listen Zero principles, it's essential to push things like this through with as little discussion as possible. Order #8. That the City Council, City Manager, and City Staff are requested to work as quickly as possible to enact the necessary laws and regulations, including zoning and licensing of retail cannabis establishments, in order to implement the state law in a manner that addresses the racial and economic injustices of the past.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui The gist of this Order is that anyone who is less than enthusiastic about the proliferation of marijuana (oh, excuse me - cannabis) is refusing to address the "racial and economic injustices of the past". The sponsors are intent on "ensuring equitable enforcement and reasonable availability of cannabis throughout the city." Well, I guess we all have our priorities. - Robert Winters Comments?

Bridging the Divide - Items of Interest on the Feb 26, 2018 Cambridge City Council Agenda Here are some of the more interesting items on this week's agenda: Manager's Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to a request for the City Council vote to approve the use of the new voting equipment and to discontinue the use of the existing voting equipment effective immediately. Communications & Reports #1. A communication was received from Deputy City Clerk, Paula Crane, transmitting a report for a City Council public hearing held on Tues, Feb 20, 2018 for the purpose of the City Council and the public to view the new voting equipment purchased by the Election Commission. We first used the current AccuVote machines for the Sept 1996 State Primary, and they were a huge improvement over the punchcard system we used prior to that. It was necessary then to have some custom programming done so that the same scanners could also be used for the municipal PR elections, and that will again have to take place with the new ImageCast machines. That's just for creating the ballot data text files. The election tabulation will continue to be done the same we've been doing it. In addition to firming up our system for our own sake, it's worth noting that with Ranked Choice Voting being advocated in Massachusetts and elsewhere (though not necessarily PR), what we do in Cambridge may be helpful down the road in other places. Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Hovey & Markham Cottages as follows: 2A. Property located at 40 Cottage Street; and 2B. Property located at 44 Cottage Street. As I said a couple of weeks ago, whether a building is landmark-worthy should depend only on the building and not on its owners or occupants. Update: The City Council landmarked only one of the two properties (44 Cottage Street) and sent the other (40 Cottage Street) to Unfinished Business even though the landmarking only makes sense as the pair of buildings. Apparently, these councillors believe that landmarking is a function of whether they like the property owner or not (and whether they supported you politically). Resolution #24. Congratulations and thanks to William B. "Bill" King on the occasion of his retirement.   Mayor McGovern Suffice to say that I have great respect for all who voluntarily serve on City boards and commissions out of a sense of civic duty rather than single-issue advocacy. Bill King is one of those people who has consistently defined over many years what it means to be a great citizen. Communications #7. Sundry e-mails received on support of the protected bike lanes, relative to Policy Order #4 of Feb 12, 2018 Council Meeting. Copies are on file for review in the City Clerk’s office. I generally ignore all emails that are the product of a coordinated campaign with a list of "talking points", but I did happen to read one of these sundry emails that stated "You will see no slander in comments from the people who support the new infrastructure." I am reminded of the statement "Fortunately time takes care of old people for us" stated by one particular idiot who didn't appreciate the criticism by older people of the Cambridge Street configuration. PS - Former Mayor Alice Wolf submitted a late communication at the previous meeting with specific objections to the current configuration of Cambridge Street and the suggestion that a better configuration should be found. The Cambridge Bicycle Committee was created from her initiative, so let's put to rest the claim that criticism of this configuration is a fringe phenomenon of "the anti-bike people". Order #2. That the City Manager and the Mayor’s Office are requested to direct the new bicycle lane working group, once it has been convened, to hold a series of “listening sessions” at the senior buildings throughout Cambridge in order to ensure that our senior residents, who might otherwise be unable to attend the various hearings to weigh in on this issue, will have adequate opportunities to have their voices heard on an issue that could have an outsized impact upon them.   Councillor Simmons, Mayor McGovern Wouldn't it be great if "Vision Zero" didn't always mean "Listen Zero" when it comes to public feedback and other points of view? I will try to be optimistic. Then again there's this: Manager's Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-16, regarding a report on Inman Square construction. Synopsis: The City is very interested in your ideas about the color of the sidewalk and what varieties of flowers should be planted in the vicinity of the planned reconfiguration of Inman Square that is not subject to any compromise, discussion, or alternative perspectives. Order #5. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to confer with relevant City departments to create additional Safety Zones for safer streets.   Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Devereux I agree with this Order, but not just in the situation of "proximity to land-uses serving vulnerable populations". Some streets warrant lower speed limits simply because there is fast-moving traffic directly adjacent to a narrow sidewalk, e.g. westbound on Putnam Ave. When Prospect St. used to have an additional lane with neither a buffer nor parking it was very dangerous, especially close to Central Square. On-street parking can, in fact, be very effective in traffic calming - even moreso when speed limits are reduced. Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to consult with City staff on the feasibility of initiating a formal transit study and action plan of the Alewife area in response to unanimous concerns of the Envision Alewife Working Group regarding the need for a pedestrian/bicycle/shuttle bridge from the Quadrangle area along Concord Avenue across the railroad tracks to the Triangle area on Cambridgepark Drive and a commuter rail stop which would be critical to create neighborhoods that are safe and healthy for residents and businesses.   Vice Mayor Devereux, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Kelley, Councillor Carlone It would be great if the City and our various government representatives could find a way to make this happen, but not in the absence of either a new commuter rail stop or shuttle service or both. It will be very difficult to sell this proposal simply as a pedestrian and bicycle amenity (as has often been done), so I'm glad to see this phrased as it is. Contained in this letter is also one point of view that there should be a grade crossing of the railroad tracks (or underpass or bridge) at the western end of Cambridgepark Drive. You'll never see a new grade crossing approved there, and an underpass is unrealistic. As for a bridge option, it's only realistic to imagine one new bridge over the tracks and (even though I may like it there) all the proposals I've seen in the last few decades don't have it that far west. The letter also suggests a pedestrian bridge over the Little River. Except for the usual difficulties associated with building anything near a waterway, that bridge would be relatively easy to build and inexpensive. See picture (Blue Heron Bridge over the Charles River between Newton and Watertown - Wikipedia). Update: City Manager Louis DePasquale hinted at the possibility of some movement but gave no specifics. Everybody is intrigued about what he was driving at. Order #17. That the City Manager is requested to direct the City Solicitor to draft language for a home rule petition for a Cambridge Right of First Refusal Legislation.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Siddiqui It's curious that the authors of this Order chose not to specify what form of "Right of First Refusal bill" they want. There are good reasons why House Bill 3017 never made it out of committee. Do the authors simply want the City Solicitor to provide language that's the same as H.3017 or do they want a Home Rule Petition that is fundamentally different? It would be nice if the focus was primarily on providing options for long-term tenants rather than on creating a framework for ensuring that private property in select neighborhoods is transferred to public/quasi-public ownership. Update: Councillor Simmons exercised her Charter Right on this vacuous Order. This Order brought out more people during Public Comment than everything else on the agenda. Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Community Development Department to develop a timeline for the next Incentive Zoning Nexus Study.   Councillor Siddiqui, Mayor McGovern, Councillor Simmons The current version of the Incentive Zoning provisions was ordained on Sept 28, 2015. That ordinance has the following provision: "The City shall initiate a reevaluation of the Housing Contribution Rate and any other aspect of these Incentive Zoning Provisions at an interval of no less than three (3) years from the time the rate was last amended by the City Council." That's what a nexus study is, so I suppose this Order is right on schedule. - Robert Winters Comments?

March Programs (and Beyond) at Fresh Pond Reservation These events are FREE and open to the public. Children are welcome in the company of an adult.
Seasonal Walkabout at Lusitania Wet meadow Date: Friday, March 9th, 11:00am to 12:00pm Place: Meets at the “Meeting Rocks” (where the meadow meets the perimeter road trail)     Come out for a seasonal walkabout with Ranger Jean at the Lusitania Wet Meadow. We will monitor wildlife by sign, track or presence, and make note of weather, state of plants, condition of water and other abiotic resources. You can help chart the seasonal changes of some of our most active wildlife spots, or simply come to enjoy the walk. Come dressed to be outdoors for the hour. All knowledge levels welcome. We will be walking off-path. To RSVP, please contact Ranger Jean at (508) 562-7605 or email jrogers@cambridgeMA.gov. Heavy rain postpones to the following Friday.	Tree ID: Bark, Buds & Shape Date: Saturday, March 10th, 1:00 to 3:00pm Place: Meets at the “Meeting Rocks” (where the Lusitania meadow meets the perimeter road trail)     The leaves are on their way! But how to know which tree is which without leaves to guide us? Fine-tune your skills with this fun program and workshop. Come dressed to be outdoors for the hour, feel free to bring your own hand-lens. All knowledge levels welcome. We will be walking off-path. To RSVP, please contact Ranger Jean at (508) 562-7605 or email jrogers@cambridgeMA.gov.
Animal Detectives: Raccoons Date: Sunday, March 11th, 11:00am to 12:00pm Place: Meets at the Ranger Station, 250 Fresh Pond Parkway     March’s spotlight is on the raccoon. Come see what it takes to be a raccoon as we explore what they do and how they act. This family program is best suited for kids between 4 and 12. Accompanying adult must be present, service dogs only please, and dress appropriately as this is an outdoor program. Groups please check-in with Ranger Tim at tpuopolo@cambridgeMA.gov prior to Thursday, March 8th.	Welcome Spring Bird Walk Date: Saturday, March 17th, 9:00 to 11:00am Place: Meeting place given upon registration     Spring is almost here, and the earliest migrating birds are arriving at Fresh Pond. Some will stay for the breeding season, others will rest and eat before continuing their northward journey. The new arrivals and our year-round residents soon will be busy building nests and defending territories. We may see a variety of migrating waterfowl on the ponds as well as songbirds in trees. Beginners are welcome! We have binoculars to lend and will show you how to use them. To register and for our meeting place, email Catherine Pedemonti at friendsoffreshpond@yahoo.com.
World Water Day: World Water Treatment Date: Sunday, March 18th, 1:00 to 3:00pm Place: Meets at the Ranger Station, 250 Fresh Pond Parkway     Did you know that Cambridge has sister cities around the globe? World Water Day is Thursday, March 22nd and in honor of this we will look at how water is stored, treated and used in 5 of our sister cities across the planet. In this indoor program, we’ll perform a water test kit activity provided by the World Water Day organizers, learn about our sister cities, and finish with a brief tour of our water purification facility. Contact tpuopolo@cambridgeMA.gov for more info, parking directions, or to secure a spot.	Weekly Walk for Health Dates: Mondays, starting March 19th, 10:00 to 11:00am Place: Meets at the Ranger Station, 250 Fresh Pond Parkway     Start your week off right with a weekly fitness walk! Join us as we walk the perimeter of the pond (2.25 miles). Meet other park goers, get some exercise, and together notice what's happening on the Reservation. All ages and abilities are welcome! Feel free to contact Catherine Pedemonti at friendsoffreshpond@yahoo.com with any questions.
Fresh Air Walk: The Signs of Spring Date: Wednesday, March 21st, 12:00 to 1:00pm Place: Meets at the Ranger Station, 250 Fresh Pond Parkway     This casual walk, led by Ranger Tim, will encompass Fresh Pond and take an informal look at each month in nature. In honor of the vernal equinox, we’ll talk about how we can observe the signs of spring with all 5 senses on our way around the pond. Come alone or bring your co-workers! Rain or shine. Questions? Contact: tpuopolo@cambridgeMA.gov	The Disciplines of Animal Tracking Date: Sunday, March 25th, 10:30am to 12:00noon Place: Meets at the Ranger Station, 250 Fresh Pond Parkway     Ever wonder about the tracks you see? Animal tracking contains a lot more than just footprints. This guided walk will add depth to the aspects of arguably one of the oldest human traditions. Join Ranger Tim as we observe the hidden streets of Cambridge and read the stories written in the earth. Open to all audiences. Proper footwear encouraged, we will be walking off-path. Questions? Contact: tpuopolo@cambridgeMA.gov
Monday Night Movie Series: When the Water Tap Runs Dry Date: Monday, March 26th, 6:00 to 7:30pm Place: Meets at the Ranger Station, 250 Fresh Pond Parkway     What’s better than a free movie? Free popcorn! Water shortages are projected to be one of the greatest impacts of climate change. This documentary will go over how aspects of America’s water infrastructure are unprepared for extreme change in fresh water patterns. Stay afterward for an optional discussion. [Runtime: 40min. Rated: G] tpuopolo@cambridgeMA.gov for more information.	Unless otherwise specified, please contact Martine at 617-349-6489 or fpr@cambridgema.gov for any RSVPs or questions! Would you like to join Friends of Fresh Pond Reservation? Membership in Friends of Fresh Pond Reservation costs only $10 per year ($5 for seniors and students, $15 for families). To join, fill out a membership form available in the Ranger Station information racks, e-mail friendsoffreshpond@yahoo.com, call 617-349-6489, or visit our website at www.friendsoffreshpond.org to download a form. Keep up to date on events at the Pond. Visit the Friends group website at http://friendsoffreshpond.org to learn more about Friends group activities and the reservation and its inhabitants. Upcoming Programs
A Remembrance of Chip Norton, Watershed Manager for the Cambridge Water Department: http://www.friendsoffreshpond.org/calendar2014/photopages2014cal/jan14/p01-13-14chipnorton.htm

Bill H.3017
Chapter 184 of the General Laws is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 21A, as follows:

1. In any city or town which votes to adopt the provisions of this section, tenants of residential buildings with three (3) or more units, or their designees, as set forth herein, shall have the right of first refusal to purchase such buildings at fair market value, for the purpose of maintaining affordable housing and preventing tenant displacement.

2. At the time of execution of an agreement for the purchase and sale of a residential building with three (3) or more units, except for an owner-occupied building with three (3) units, the owner/seller of the building must give written notice of the agreed-upon sale to all tenants aged 18 or over, and to the municipality, in such form as shall be specified by ordinance or bylaw. The price specified in a good faith, arm’s length purchase and sale agreement shall be prima facie evidence of the fair market value of the property. 

3. The tenants, or any such non-profit housing entity as the tenants may form or formally designate, shall have forty-five (45) days in which to make a deposit to the owner, equal to five per cent (5%) of the agreed-on sales price, as set forth in the purchase and sale agreement, which shall be held in escrow by the seller’s agent or attorney. The tenants, or their designee, shall also execute a purchase and sale agreement with the seller, which shall have priority over the original purchase and sale agreement, contingent on financing.

4. The tenants or their designee shall have an additional one hundred and twenty (120) days from execution of the purchase and sale agreement to secure financing for and close the purchase of the building.

5. Tenants may assign or transfer their right of first refusal to an owners’ cooperative, a community development corporation, a land trust, or such other non-profit housing organization as will hold the property in perpetuity as limited-equity affordable housing. Such assignment transfer shall be in writing, on a form specified by the municipality.

6. Any municipality which votes to adopt the provisions of this section and which is not otherwise authorized to establish a housing trust fund, which shall be a revolving fund, is hereby so authorized. Funds from including, but not limited to, linkage fees, gifts or bequests, and duly authorized community preservation act funds, may be deposited in the housing trust fund. Any municipality which has a housing trust fund may authorize a grant or loan from the fund for purposes of purchases of real property under this section.

7. Any owner of any a residential building with three (3) or more units, including an owner-occupied building with three (3) units, may offer in writing to sell such building to the tenants or their designee at any time. In such a case, fair market value shall be negotiated between buyer and seller based on one or more professional appraisals. Once a price is agreed to, the parties shall proceed with the transaction as set forth in subsections 3 through 5 of this section.

---

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/in-dc-an-old-law-is-complicating-real-estate-deals_us_592d2b0ce4b08861ed0ccbb5

A Law Used To Stifle Landlords Is Reducing Affordable Housing In Washington, DC
While TOPA has served to protect tenants’ rights, it has had unintended consequences.
05/30/2017 04:53 am ET Updated May 30, 2017

In Washington, D.C., an old law to protect renters is getting new attention. The Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, commonly known as TOPA, has become so controversial critics are asking that the law be re-examined. This is because some tenants are using TOPA to extract money from landlords, should a landlord decide to sell a building. At present, TOPA is holding up or blocking real estate transactions, causing grief for developers and homeowners and victimizing low-income residents stuck living in buildings owners are unable to sell but forced to maintain at a financial loss.

Ostensibly, TOPA was created to protect tenants’ rights, which is important in Washington where about 30 percent of the District’s 672,000 residents rent instead of own a home. On its most basic level, the 1980 law is simple. “Under TOPA,” one publication wrote by way of explanation, “prior to the sale of a housing accommodation, the owner must send, by first class mail, a written offer of sale to each tenant and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.” The letter must state the property’s asking price and the terms of the sale. “In the case of a single-family home, a condominium, or cooperative unit… the tenant has 30 days to provide a written statement of interest to purchase the property.” If no offer is made, the sale goes through. If an offer is made, “the tenant has a minimum of 60 days… to negotiate a contract of sale with the property owner.”

Originally, the law was envisioned, according to one source, as a way “to protect tenants from potentially advantageous landlords and buyers.” That is to say, the law was trying to stop a developer from buying a property rented by low-income tenants and converting it to high-end housing. While TOPA has served to slow down this type of conversion, it has had unintended consequences.

One problem arises from the fact that a tenant can state he is willing to buy a property, but he is not required to demonstrate the financial means necessary to buy it. Even more troublesome, a tenant can assign — in other words sell — his TOPA rights to a third party such as a lawyer or a developer. This creates a situation where an outside party can complicate the sale of a property either by holding up the sale or inflating the value of the TOPA rights or both. It also violates the spirit of the law if the point of the original legislation was to protect the ability of a tenant to keep his home, not produce a bidding opportunity where TOPA rights can be auctioned off to the highest bidder, which is what has started to happen in Washington.

The bottom line is a tenant has the ability to cash in on the sale of a property without putting up any money of his own...

Consider the drama surrounding the recent sale of a home on Capitol Hill. The homeowner put her house on the market and received an offer. But when she gave notice to her tenant who leased the basement apartment for $800 a month, the tenant executed her TOPA rights, holding up the sale of the house. When the homeowner offered the tenant $10,000 to buy the TOPA rights, the tenant rejected the offer because she had multiple offers from third parties. “[My agent and I] are accepting offers which consider the ratio of time I am able to stay in the home and the buyout amount,” the tenant wrote to the homeowner. The conflict ended up in court.

Because of such examples — and there are many — critics of TOPA call it “tenant blackmail”; defenders call it “tenant capitalism.” The bottom line is a tenant has the ability to cash in on the sale of a property without putting up any money of his own, since he can hold a potential sale hostage until he signs over his TOPA rights. This is in stark contrast to real estate laws in, say, New York City, where a tenant can buy his apartment when his building converts to a cooperative but he is required to actually purchase the unit. He has a financial stake in the deal in a way tenants selling TOPA rights do not.

Sometimes the tenants band together and form a tenants’ association, which will represent all tenants concerning TOPA rights. But often a tenants’ association serves to drag out the purchase process with little or no intention of facilitating a sale. Such was the case with Museum Square. “So far,” The Guardian reported in an article about the sale, “the… tenants’ association of Museum Square is half way through the TOPA process. Seizing on their right to buy first… tenants have managed to stay put by claiming the number ($250 million) issued by their landlord as a sales price did not constitute a bona fide offer — meaning it did not represent the buildings’ current market value (the number instead reflected the estimated value of the luxury building that would have been built in its stead).”

In another case, tenants living in the low-income apartment complex surrounding the Congress Heights Metro station have exerted their TOPA rights, blocking the complex’s sale. The owner of the buildings, Sanford Capital, has been heavily criticized in the media for failing to maintain the property when in fact the company merely wants to divest itself of the property by selling it. It’s being prevented from doing so by the tenants, who have filed a TOPA lawsuit, guaranteeing the current situation, unacceptable to both the owner and the tenants, will continue on.

According to media reports, summer interns renting a room and even squatters can claim and sell TOPA rights. Critics of TOPA believe D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser should work with the City Council to reform TOPA to ensure that residents can exert their rights but not hold a sale hostage to a process that is being used to delay real estate transactions through extortion of landlords. Unless the law is changed, things will only get worse, slowing down the construction of new housing. Oddly enough, this won’t create more affordable housing in D.C. — as TOPA was designed to ensure — but make what housing is available even more costly.

Looking Back at 2017 and the 2016-2017 City Council term

Two years ago I put together an outline of some of the issues and tasks that lay before the City Council and the City administration that perhaps needed attention at that time. I called this outline “Unfinished Business” (Jan 5, 2016). Let's do a status check on how we fared over the last two years.

I – Housing

1. Barrett Petition – Accessory apartments, etc.
• Outcome: This was ordained on Jan 11, 2016 and most or all outcomes seem to be positive, including better and more creative use of basement spaces in commercial buildings.
2. Affordable Housing Overlay – Citywide? Or not?
• Outcome: To the best of my knowledge no report on this was ever issued and no definitive plan ever emerged. Proposals have been floated, especially during political campaigns, but it seems doubtful that any citywide proposal to encourage "affordable housing" in all most or all residential districts will garner political support. Don't be surprised if the concept is at least explored in the current (2018-19) term, but it seems more likely that any outcome will affect only some residential districts.
3. Future housing on Central Square parking lots?
• Outcome: No word yet on any such plans. In the meantime, there does seem to be at least some acknowledgement that you can't just wish away all parking needs, but look for enhancements to structured parking lots before any new housing appears on existing surface lots.
4. Adjustments to Inclusionary Zoning required percentages
• Outcome: The City Council on Apr 3, 2017 unanimously approved an increase from 15% (effectively about 11.6% after density bonus) to an absolute 20% requirement (with no additional density bonus) along with other amendments and provisions for periodic review.
5. Vail Court?
• Outcome: The City took the property by eminent domain and the matter is currently tied up in litigation.

II – Citywide Master Plan/Envision Cambridge

1. Will it be the ultimate way to kick every can down the road “until the master plan is completed”?
• Outcome: The Envision Cambridge process is proceeding with expert analysis, but there have been frequent suggestions that some matters be delayed "until the Envision Cambridge process is completed". It has also become common to refer some pressing matters to the Envision Cambridge process - a practice fraught with the risk (or possibly the intention) of unrealistic expectations.
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?
• Outcome: This has not appeared to generally be the case, though there have been some indications of resistance to some of the Alewife-specific proposals. We'll have to wait and see is there will be any other push-back as additional proposals are solidified this year.
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”?
• Outcome: This division of viewpoint is evident in ways that reach well beyond Envision Cambridge, especially in the dichotomy that played out during the recent municipal election.
4. Representativeness of participants – will all points of view be represented?
• Outcome: Irrespective of any other aspects of the process the Envision Cambridge staff and consultants have done a better job of outreach and seeking representativeness than anything in recent memory. That said, we should all expect criticism that the opposite was the case - especially if the recommendations are not to the liking of various interest groups.
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)?
• Outcome: At this point I would have to say both YES and NO to this. The current proposals do plan for significant new housing in the area, but there's also a lot of emphasis on "light industry" uses. The reality is that some significant housing growth has occurred and is still in development - regardless of the Envision Cambridge process. Much attention remains on transportation enhancements such as a bridge (possibly only for pedestrians/cyclists but maybe also for shuttle buses) over the RR tracks connecting the Triangle and the Quadrangle, but there are no solid plans or financial mechanisms in place for building such a bridge. This is almost certain to be part of City Council rhetoric for the next year or more, but I can't imagine how the City Council might turn words into action.
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?
• Outcome: The plan was, in fact, renamed “Envision Cambridge” and time will tell if there are any creative transportation proposals. The consultants have suggested bicycle-priority routes, but much of this seems to be going on outside of the Envision Cambridge process, e.g. among activists and highly politicized, e.g. the "bikelash" over the hastily-approved/implemented changes to Brattle St. and Cambridge St. Comprehensive transportation planning for all modes has become a war about "turf". Meanwhile, traffic remains dreadful on some major roadways, e.g. Fresh Pond/Alewife Brook Parkways.
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?
• Outcome: It's fair to say that prior studies and recommendations have been fairly integrated into the Envision Cambridge plans - or so it appears so far.
8. Will there be any movement on Central Square, the C2 Recommendations, or some alternative?
• Outcome: Most progress in this has been independent of the Envision Cambridge process, e.g. the ordination of the Central Square Restoration Petition on Feb 27, 2017.

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?
• Outcome: Creating opportunities in Cambridge-based companies, especially in the Kendall Square area, for people who have grown up in Cambridge remains one of the most difficult challenges with relatively few solutions so far. If the 2018-2019 City Council, the City administration, Cambridge schools, and these companies can make some progress in this it will be a great achievement.

IV – Bans, Ordinances, and changes in City services

1. Curbside Organics Collection
• Outcome: This goes citywide starting in April 2018.
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?
• Outcome: Actually, these bans seem to be working out OK and other cities and towns have followed suit.
4. Anything else to be banned or restricted? Soda? Candy? Fatty foods? Meat?
• Outcome: The City Council did ban the sale of all non-rescue animals in Cambridge pet shops. On the other hand, they changed the zoning to create a mechanism for beekeeping. Hopefully these are all rescue bees.
5. Regulation of outdoor lighting?
• Outcome: In spite of a zoning petition and a long effort to craft a municipal ordinance, this matter become stalled as efforts to regulate lighting became so broad that it eclipsed the more reasonable regulation of ordinary nuisance lighting.

V – Mass & Main

1. When will actual construction commence? Will there be disruptions?
• Outcome: It's happening right now.
2. Large stormwater storage tank to be built in parking lot behind Mass & Main site.
• Outcome: This is also in the pipeline (as is a pipeline crossing Mass. Ave. under the T) for 2018.
3. Will there be lawsuits to try to block project? More petitions?
• Outcome: There were, but primarily of the nuisance variety.

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?
• Outcome: There have been plenty of controversies, changes in plans, and added costs. Perhaps one day we'll all look at this as a great resource, but former City Manager Bob Healy's reaction to the gift of this building as part of the Alexandria zoning remain prophetic: "This is going to be a problem."

VII – Volpe Site – Zoning and Possible Uses

1. Likely that current petition will be re-filed
• Outcome: Development rights were award by the federal government to MIT who consequently filed a rezoning petition in June 2017 that was ordained as amended on Oct 23, 2017.
2. How will competition between economics and possible housing/open space play out?
• Outcome: I would say that this played out reasonably well - largely because MIT was the chosen developer of the site and their interests are much longer term (and they're not going anywhere). There were a lot of competing interests - all in the midst of a municipal election season - yet consensus was reached. There will be ~1400 units of new housing (20% "affordable"), a community center, a job connector program, transit improvements, money for community benefits, conveyance of rights along the Grand Junction RR right-of-way for a future multi-use path, and more. The memorandum of understanding also expresses MIT's commitment to constructing a significant amount of new graduate student housing.
3. Will Volpe Center just stay there in same building for another 20-50 years?
• Outcome: Don't look for too many immediate changes, but this site will see dramatic changes within a few years.

VII – The “Sharing Economy”

1. Uber, Lyft, taxis – how will that dilemma be resolved? New regulation by City? By State?
• Outcome: This seems to be stalled. The value of a taxi medallion has plummeted and Uber and Lyft vehicles are everywhere - often behaving badly.
2. AirBnB – will this be further regulated or will everybody run their overpriced condos as unofficial hotels?
• Outcome: The City unanimously ordained a well-considered and thoughtfully amended zoning petition on Aug 7, 2017 to regulate short-term rentals.

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

1. Publicly funded municipal elections
• Outcome: This was an interesting idea that went nowhere - largely because it was presented more as an accusation than a reform. The topic will likely come up again over the next two years, but hopefully independent of any political campaigns.
2. Voting rights for non-citizens in local elections
• Outcome: This was, I believe, forwarded to the state legislature with little chance of actually being implemented either locally or statewide.
3. Shifting of political power to individual councillors via political aides, discretionary money, and differing interpretations of the City Charter
• Outcome: This is a trend that unfortunately continues. Campaign managers continue to be hired as personal aides. There are opportunities with three new councillors and changes in the City Council office to possibly realign staff along the lines of City Council committees (and their purpose) rather than personal assistance, but don't count on it.
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)
• Outcome: Never heard another word on this.
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)
• Outcome: All such authority resides with the state legislature.
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.
• Outcome: Thankfully this was never heard again.
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).
• Outcome: This was implemented at 5 sites (not at 33 individual precincts) for state/federal general elections and seems to have been an great success with a high level of participation.
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).
• Outcome: This appears to finally be moving forward. How it affects Cambridge remains to be seen.
9. Will the current housing speculation bubble burst?
• Outcome: It hasn't yet.

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

• Outcome: Attention seems to have shifted locally toward things like bike lanes, immigrant-related matters, and the NIMBY vs. YIMBY dichotomy. How this helps a kid growing up in public housing seeking opportunities and a future remains to be seen.

XI – Other Notable Things that emerged in the intervening two years

1. Road reconfigurations (for better or worse) for bicycle accommodation
• Outcome: This remains unsettled and volatile.
2. Changes in License Commission policies and procedures
• Outcome: Overall things are moving in a good direction, but the loss of resale value of a liquor license stings.
3. Invasion of local politics by national political organizations
• Outcome: How's that Revolution workin' for ya?
4. Harvard Square controversies and changes
• Outcome: The Abbot building, &pizzapocalypse, proposal for revitaization of the former Harvard Square Cinema property, recent sale of Dow & Stearns properties on Brattle Street.
5. Changing of the Guard
• Outcome: Louis DePasquale takes over as new City Manager, Acting Police Commission Brent Larrabee and new Police Commissioner Branville G. Bard, Jr., retirement of Fire Chief Gerald Reardon
6. CRLS Boys Basketball repeats as State Champions
• Outcome: CRLS Basketball - Samara Vise photos   Cambridge Chronicle story   Gallery
7. Pedro Martinez plays in the Oldtime Baseball Game at St. Peter's Field
• Outcome: Pictures from the Oldtime Baseball Game - August 17, 2017
8. City Announces First Minibond Issuance, Invites Residents to Directly Invest in Cambridge
• Outcome: It was very popular.
9. The 2017 municipal election
• Outcome: 26 City Council candidates, 12 School Committee candidates
  Voluntary exit of three incumbents (Maher, Mazen, Cheung)
  Dramatic increase in voter turnout, especially among younger voters
  Election of new councillors Alanna Mallon, Sumbul Siddiqui, and Quinton Zondervan
10. Some very notable passings
• Renae Gray
• Robert Moncreiff, former Cambridge city councillor

CIVIC CALENDAR

Tues, Mar 6

6:00pm   Regular School Committee meeting  (Henrietta Attles Meeting Room, CRLS, 459 Broadway)

6:30pm   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

3. Town Gown Reports (Reports) – Planning Board Discussion

4. PB#311 – 18-26 Chauncy Street – Request to extend the Special Permit (Letter)

5. PB#231A – 29 Charles Street – Request to extend the use of the parking lot (Letter)

6. PB#328 – EF III – Design Update

Thurs, Mar 8

5:30-7:00pm   Commission for Persons with Disabilities meeting  (51 Inman St., 2nd Floor Conference Room)

7:00pm   Board of Zoning Appeals meeting  (Senior Center, 806 Mass. Ave)

Mon, Mar 12

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber) - cancelled

5:30pm   Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission Meeting  (Lombardi Building, 831 Mass. Ave, Basement Conference Room)

Wed, Mar 14

8:00-9:30am   Recycling Advisory Committee (RAC) Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber, City Hall)

5:30-7:30pm   Bicycle Committee meeting  (4th Floor Conference Room, 344 Broadway)

5:30pm   Cambridge Election Commission meeting  (1st Floor Meeting Room, 51 Inman St.)

I. MINUTES II. REPORTS 1. Executive Director's Report 2. Assistant Director's Report 3. Commissioners' Reports

III. PUBLIC COMMENT IV. ACTION AGENDA Old Business 1. 2018 State Primary, September 4th 2. 2018 State Election, November 6th New Business

Mon, Mar 19

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Mar 20

5:00pm   The City Council's Housing Committee will conduct a public hearing to receive a general overview on the state of affordable housing throughout Cambridge, and to receive updates from the Community Development Department, the Cambridge Housing Authority, Homeowners Rehab, Inc., and Just a Start on the work they are currently engaged in.  (Sullivan Chamber)

6:00pm   Regular School Committee meeting  (Henrietta Attles Meeting Room, CRLS, 459 Broadway)

6:30pm   Planning Board meeting  (2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway)

Wed, Mar 21

9:15am   Harvard Square Study Committee meeting  (Bank of America, 1414 Mass. Ave.)

4:30pm   Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Design Review Meeting  (Police Station, 125 Sixth St., First Floor Community Room)

5:30pm   Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting  (Police Station, 125 Sixth St., First Floor Community Room)

Thurs, Mar 22

4:00pm   The City Council's Neighborhood & Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebration Committee will conduct a public hearing to gain a better understanding of the extent of the City’s digital divide and to explore possible ways to increase digital access, including the Cambridge Broadband Task Force recommendations and Tilson Report (options 1, 2, and 3) and any other suggestions made in Policy Order #7 of February 12, 2018 or any other related matters.  (Sullivan Chamber)

5:30pm   FY2019 One-year Action Plan - Public Hearing for Utilization of Federal Funding  (City Hall Annex, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 344 Broadway)

6:00-8:00pm   Pedestrian Committee Meeting  (4th Floor Conference Room, 344 Broadway)

Mon, Mar 26

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

5:30pm   Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission Meeting  (Lombardi Building, 831 Mass. Ave., 2nd floor conference room)

Tues, Mar 27

2:00pm   The City Council's Civic Unity Committee will hold a public hearing to discuss whether the City’s Boards and Commissions adequately reflect the demographic makeup of the community, the proposed Office of Faith Based Initiatives, and the City’s ongoing cultural competency trainings.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Mar 28

12:00pm   The City Council's Economic Development and University Relations Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the implementation of several aspects of the Retail Strategic Plan, including pop-up activation of empty storefronts and an update on the potential for an empty storefront ordinance.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 2

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Apr 3

6:00pm   Regular School Committee meeting  (Henrietta Attles Meeting Room, CRLS, 459 Broadway)

Mon, Apr 9

5:30pm   City Council Roundtable/Working Meeting for the purpose of discussing the draft version of the Climate Change Preparedness and Resilience Plan for Alewife.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Apr 10

5:00pm   The City Council's Housing Committee will meet for an as yet undisclosed purpose.  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, Apr 11

8:00-9:30am   Recycling Advisory Committee (RAC) Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber, City Hall)

Mon, Apr 23

5:30pm   City Council meeting and Budget Overview  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Apr 30

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, May 1

9:00am   The City Council's Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY2019 City Budget  (Sullivan Chamber)

6:00pm   Regular School Committee meeting  (Henrietta Attles Meeting Room, CRLS, 459 Broadway)

Mon, May 7

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, May 8

9:00am   The City Council's Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY2019 City Budget  (Sullivan Chamber)

Wed, May 9

8:00-9:30am   Recycling Advisory Committee (RAC) Meeting  (Sullivan Chamber, City Hall)

6:00pm   The City Council's Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY2019 School Department Budget  (Sullivan Chamber)

Thurs, May 10

9:00am   The City Council's Finance Committee will conduct a public hearing to discuss the FY2019 City Budget - if necessary  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, May 14

4:00pm   2018 City of Cambridge Scholarship Awards Ceremony. This meeting to be televised.  (Sullivan Chamber)

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, May 15

6:00pm   Regular School Committee meeting  (Henrietta Attles Meeting Room, CRLS, 459 Broadway)

Mon, May 21

5:30pm   City Council meeting and expected Budget Adoption  (Sullivan Chamber)