A chronology of the 1972 conflict over Proportional Representation in Cambridge

Senate Next? House Votes To Kill PR
Cambridge Chronicle, March 2, 1972

In a legislative surprise, the House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday afternoon that would abolish the proportional representation method of voting, unique in this country to Cambridge. The bill, passed on a voice vote, now goes before the Massachusetts Senate next week. Representative Thomas (Hap) Farrell, of Worcester, and former Representative Charles McGlue, of Boston, submitted the bill. Last year, a similar bill passed the House but was defeated in the Senate. Cambridge Representative Thomas H. D. Mahoney said the question of retaining or abolishing PR was for the city to decide under the Home Rule amendment. Four times in the past, Cambridge voters have opted to retain PR when the matter has appeared on the city ballot.

PR Wobbles on Last Legs on the Hill
Cambridge Chronicle, March 9, 1972

Cambridge’s unique Proportional Representation system of voting was wobbling on its last legs on Beacon Hill this week after receiving all but the final death blow from the State Legislature. The Senate Tuesday voted 18-10 not to reconsider its earlier vote to abolish PR. Monday, the Senate had given initial approval of the move to kill PR on a 17-8 vote. The bill, which was passed by the House last week, now goes to the Senate’s Committee on Bills for a Third Reading where it will be checked for form. From there, it will go back to the Senate floor for approval. Then, the bill goes back to the House for enactment and returns to the Senate for final enactment. The bill is expected to be on Governor Sargent’s desk for his signature sometime this week. Supporters of the bill to abolish PR, including Senators Francis X. McCann and Denis L. McKenna, charged that PR voting violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s “one man, one vote” rule. Opponents of the bill said that the issue was for Cambridge residents to decide under the Home Rule amendment to the State Constitution. Senate debate on the bill was highlighted by the surprising opposition of legislators representing areas outside Cambridge. Senator Irving Fishman, Democrat, of Newton, argued that passage of the bill would violate Home Rule. Senator John Parker, Republican of Taunton, said no Cambridge residents had co-sponsored the bill. But Senators McCann, McKenna and Mario Umana supported the bill. McKenna told the Chronicle he questioned whether PR is constitutional. “The Supreme Court has called for one man one vote, but you don’t get this under PR,” he said. He said, however, “I don’t like pushing this down the throats of residents and if PR is constitutional the City Council should have the final say on whether PR is used.”

Let Cambridge Decide
Cambridge Chronicle Editorial, March 9, 1972

If the Legislature, as is expected, gives its final approval to the bill to abolish Proportional Representation voting, we hope that Governor Sargent will veto it. We feel that this would be an appropriate and logical step for the Governor since there are questions of whether, under the Home Rule amendment, the Legislature should pass a bill which tells one city how to elect its municipal officials. Although the bill calls for the repeal of the general law allowing PR and is not, in its wording, aimed specifically at Cambridge, this is the only city which will be affected by its passage. Cambridge is the only city in the country which uses PR to elect City Council and School Committee officials. Retaining this system should be left up to the citizens in Cambridge and not the State Legislature. In both the House and Senate votes on the PR issue during the past two weeks, many legislators were absent. That's understandable. Why should legislators from Saugus, or Fall River or any community outside Cambridge care what method of voting is used in this city? We are not arguing the concept of PR itself here. At this point in the discussion of the Legislature's action, we feel the issue is not whether PR is good or bad, but rather who should decide on its merits. Five times since PR was first adopted by the city in 1941 Cambridge voters have approved this system in local referendums. The last referendum, in 1965, resulted in a 2,536 margin in favor of keeping PR. We feel it may well be time for another referendum, and we would support a movement to put PR before Cambridge voters once again either in a special election or the next municipal election. The Council could vote to put PR on the ballot. Failing that, six percent of the registered voters could sign a petition to have PR on the ballot in the next municipal election. Twelve percent would be needed to hold a special election on the question of PR. The point is it’s the option of Cambridge voters to decide the fate of PR since this is the only city which has it.

Compromise Sought In PR Repeal Bill; Referendum is Key
Cambridge Chronicle, March 16, 1972

Cambridge residents may still get a chance to vote on whether they want to retain Proportional Representation voting in spite of assaults against PR on Beacon Hill.

Representative Thomas H.D. Mahoney Tuesday got the blessing of House Speaker David Bartley to submit a compromise amendment to the bill to repeal PR which would hinge the effective date of bill on a local referendum.

Under Mahoney’s amendment, the repeal would not take effect until approved by voters in a referendum here.

Mahoney said that Representative Thomas Farrell, of Worcester, who submitted the bill to repeal PR, had tentatively agreed to the compromise.

“I am not arguing the merits of PR,” Mahoney told his House colleagues Tuesday. “It is conceivable that the system has outlived its usefulness. The issue is who should make the decision to keep it (PR) or abandon it. In my opinion, the time may well be here that a popular referendum should be held... it is the option of the voters of Cambridge to decide the fate of PR since this is the only city which uses this method of election.”

Mahoney hopes to submit his amendment to the House next Monday.

The House last Monday voted to enact the repeal of PR into law. Mahoney, however, moved reconsideration of the vote.

Reconsideration will be voted on Monday, and if it passes Mahoney will submit his amendment. Between 11am and 1pm Tuesday, Mahoney button-holed about 40 representatives to get their support to pass reconsideration so he could submit his amendment.

Mahoney said that “abolition of PR is not your (the House) prerogative” because of the Home Rule amendment to the State Constitution.

“This should be left up to the citizens of Cambridge not the Legislature,” he said.

Representative Charles Flaherty, also of Cambridge, told the Chronicle Tuesday that he would “have no problem” supporting Mahoney’s amendment “as long as I can be sure that the amendment requires a referendum and that citizens would not have to petition to get PR on the ballot”.

Flaherty originally supported the repeal of PR when it first reached the House floor February 29.

“I have opposed PR voting since I have been in the House,” Flaherty said, “and I base my opposition on philosophical grounds.”

He said the majority of the voters don’t understand PR and that PR can “dilute” the effect of votes. “In some instances, a minority can rule the majority under PR,” he said.

In the Senate, Senator Francis X. McCann told the Chronicle Tuesday that if the language of the amendment is clear, “if it doesn’t leave an opening where at a later date someone could claim the amendment was a violation of Home Rule,” he would vote for it if it reached the Senate.

He said he would have to read the amendment first, however. McCann originally supported the repeal of PR when the bill reached the Senate floor last week. To be sent to the Governor, the bill would have to be voted on again in the Senate, this time for enactment.

Mahoney’s amendment may be on the bill when it reaches the Senate floor.

The Amendment is Needed
Cambridge Chronicle Editorial, March 16, 1972

We support Representative Thomas H. D. Mahoney’s efforts to strike a compromise in the Legislature’s moves to repeal Proportional Representation voting.

Mahoney’s amendment requiring Cambridge voters’ approval via a referendum before the repeal of PR could take effect should gain wide support in both the House and Senate.

Legislators will be hard pressed to justify a vote opposing such a requirement, especially if they ever want to proclaim the peoples’ right to make decisions on issues which affect them.

The amendment is perhaps the safest way to assure that the decision on retention or abolition of PR will be left up to Cambridge voters.

To allow the repeal to be passed without the referendum requirement, hoping for either a Gubernatorial veto or court decision in favor of a PR referendum is to play a risky game. Neither the veto nor the favorable court decision are assured. The amendment to be offered by Mahoney does assure Cambridge will have the deciding voice on the fate of PR.

As Mahoney said on the House floor, interfering with the affairs of one city will place the Home Rule amendment in jeopardy. Cambridge will be the victim this time, but any of the other cities or towns in the Commonwealth could be the victim the next time.

House Okays PR Compromise
BY PAUL E. TEAGUE
Cambridge Chronicle, March 23, 1972

The Massachusetts House Monday okayed an amendment to the bill repealing Proportional Representation voting which would hinge the effective date of repeal on a local referendum.

The amendment, submitted by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney and passed on a voice vote, says that the repeal bill will be submitted to the voters “in the next biennial state election in which voting by PR is in effect” (next November).

The question on the ballot would read: “Shall an act passed by the general court in the year 1972 entitled ‘An Act to prevent the election of certain city and town officers by proportional representation or preferential voting be accepted’”?

If the majority of the votes on that question are “yes”, then repeal would take effect, “but not otherwise”.

The amended bill now goes to the Senate, where it should be voted on next Monday. It will then go to Governor Sargent for his signature.

Last week, the House had voted to enact the repeal bill without the stipulation of a local referendum, but Mahoney, with the blessing of Speaker David Bartley, moved reconsideration so he could submit the compromise amendment.

The House Monday voted to reconsider its action, Mahoney offered his amendment, and it passed.

“I am not concerned with the merits of PR at this time, Mahoney told the House”. “I am concerned with the question of who should decide on abolishing or retaining PR. I believe it is up to Cambridge voters”.

Meanwhile, the battle over PR flared on at least two other fronts.

The city council Monday voted 5-4 to oppose the repeal of PR (see story elsewhere in the Chronicle).

The council majority was seen as opposed also to Mahoney’s amendment calling for a referendum.

Councillor Robert Moncreiff said that under Home Rule the only two ways PR could be repealed were through a locally elected charter commission or a special act of the legislature on petition of the council or the voters.

But the counsel for the House of Representatives said, in an opinion delivered to Mahoney, that “the General Court may repeal any general law relative to proportional representation which it had previously enacted without first obtaining the prior approval of any city.”

In another development, the Cambridge Civic Association sent a letter to its members asking them to write Governor Sargent urging him to veto the PR repeal bill.

The letter said, in part, “in a sudden display of machine politics, Senators McCann, McKenna, Councilmen Clinton and Sullivan, and a few cronies, have quietly rushed through the Legislature a bill abolishing PR voting in Cambridge. This self-serving band of old line Cambridge politicians and courthouse hangers-on, having lost control of city government in last November’s election, are trying to re-write the election laws, to recoup their losses.”

The letter also said the CCA board of directors had written to the Governor urging his veto.

“Regardless of your own view on PR”, the letter said to members, “basic changes in the election laws should come only after thorough study of alternatives, wide public debate and local referendum – not by precipitous legislative action”.

The letter was dated March 10, before Mahoney had submitted his amendment to the House.

MAIL from our readers
On Proportional Representation
Cambridge Chronicle, April 6, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
I wish to thank Representative Thomas H.D. Mahoney for his single-handed, successful fight to keep the choice of voting system up to the people of Cambridge. Our other legislators originally wanted to abolish PR without a referendum.

A proportion is a share. If we do not have proportional representation we will have UNproportional representation and some group will have more than its share. The at large system for the House elections was abolished by the U.S. Congress in 1842 because it does not guarantee that a majority of the voters will elect a majority of the representatives. The same is true of the ward system. In good faith, we cannot go back to those systems. The issues cut across ward lines and we must have a system which represents the majority and minority fairly.

The thing some people are forgetting is that no organization elected anyone. It was the voters of Cambridge who chose five from the CCA slate and four others for council and three from the CCA slate and three others for school committee. So many white voters voted for blacks that two were elected to the council. When the first choice votes were counted, the five CCA slate members now on the council were in the top nine, and three CCA slate members in the school committee race were in the top six.

There is really no mystery about PR, it’s just a lot of preliminary elections in which only one candidate is eliminated at a time. Your number two choice, three, four, and so on, marked on your ballot with numbers, saves you a trip back to the polls if your favorite is eliminated.

The votes Sullivan didn’t need helped elect Danehy, Vellucci, and Clinton. If they had been left in Sullivan’s pile they would have been wasted and the result of the election might have been different.

At the end after all the little preliminaries, members of the CCA slate had 13,793 votes, the independents 11,856. The school committee ended with 12,591 for the CCA slate and 12,641 for independents.

With PR, a majority of the votes elected a majority of the councillors.

BYRLE BRENY
1039 Mass. Ave.

PR Bill And NASA Acres Are Discussed on the Hill
Cambridge Chronicle, April 6, 1972

The bill to repeal Proportional Representation voting, complete with an amendment requiring a local referendum, was in the Senate Consul as of press time this week.

It was expected that the Senate would pass the bill and send it back to the House for final enactment this week so it would be ready for Governor Sargent’s signature.

The original amendment calling for a local referendum, sponsored by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney, was changed by the House Committee on Bills in a Third Reading, but the changing only affected the way the referendum question would be worded.

The amended bill requires this question to be on the ballot here in the November state election: “Shall the elective officers of this city be nominated by preliminary election and elected by ordinary plurality voting? Yes or No.”

A majority of yes votes would kill PR. A majority of No votes would mean the city keeps PR.

PR Bill Is Vetoed By Sargent
Cambridge Chronicle, May 11, 1972

Gov. Francis Sargent this week vetoed the bill passed by the legislature which called for a local referendum on proportional representation voting here.

In his veto message. Gov. Sargent said the bill was “unwarranted and probably unconstitutional interference with home rule.” He said further the bill as passed “violated the spirit and probably the letter of the home rule amendment.”

Introduced in the house this spring the bill called for a local referendum to ask voters the question, “Shall the city adopt a plurality method of voting?” PR opponents here gave active support to the legislation.

PR Bill Is Dead
Cambridge Chronicle, May 11, 1972

The bill requesting a local referendum here on PR (proportional representation) voting is, for all practical purposes, dead.

Senate President Kevin Harrington’s office says the President has no plans to remove the bill from the table, where it has been since it was sent to the Senate several weeks ago. That effectively kills the bill for this year.

Originally passed by both House and Senate, the PR bill backed by opponents of Cambridge’s unique PR system was vetoed by Gov. Francis Sargent, who said it interfered with home rule.

Legal fights due on PR
Cambridge Chronicle, July 13, 1972

Supporters of the city’s Proportional Representation system of voting were scrambling this week to put together lawsuits challenging a referendum on PR which is scheduled to be on the September ballot here.

In a swift vote at noon on Saturday, the State Senate voted 24-12 to override Governor Sargent’s veto of a bill which requires the referendum.

The Senate vote came as a last minute surprise during the Legislature’s drive toward Prorogation. The House had overrode the veto May 16, but Senate President Kevin Harrington said at that time he had no intention of calling for a Senate vote.

PR supporters will charge that the referendum violates the Home Rule amendment to the State Constitution. That amendment, they say, protects cities and towns from interference in such matters by the state.

The original bill to kill PR was voted by the House on February 29. The Senate followed with a quick initial approval of the bill.

But Representative Thomas H.D. Mahoney got the blessing of House Speaker David Bartley to amend the bill with a requirement for a referendum. He said at the time the merits of PR were not at issue, but that it was important that Cambridge voters make the decision on abolishing the system of voting.

The city council March 20 voted 5-4 to oppose the PR bill and referendum on the grounds that it violated Home Rule.

Governor Sargent vetoed the bill on the same grounds in early May, but the House overrode his veto May 16.

Mahoney said the controversial bill against PR was not his idea, “but since the bill was there and the House and Senate seemed bound to pass it, I added the referendum to ensure a local voice on the matter. To simply hope the courts would rule against the original bill to abolish PR was too chancy”.

Cambridge has had PR since 1941. There have been five referendums on PR, and each time voters have decided to keep the system. The last referendum was in 1965, and the margin in favor of PR was 2,536.

MAIL from our readers
On PR bill
Cambridge Chronicle, July 20, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
I am writing concerning the article about the “legal fights due on PR" appearing on the front page of the July 13 Chronicle.

Rep. Mahoney’s statement implied that he was basically against the bill and that his amendment just made it less bad. If this is the case, why did he ask the Governor to sign what he considered a bad bill?

HARLEY R. VICTOR
37 Lee St.
City Republican Chairman

Former city leaders rally on both sides of PR fight
Cambridge Chronicle, September 28, 1972

The question of whether to keep Proportional Representation (PR) voting or throw it out may not appear on the ballot in this city in November if legal efforts of some former city officials are successful.

If those efforts are not successful, however, another group, including four former mayors, the president of the Chamber of Commerce and the first chairman of the Cambridge Advisory Committee will wage a campaign to convince voters to drop the controversial I voting system.

Monday morning, Attorney Michael Callahan went before Supreme Judicial Court Justice Paul Reardon to present the case for getting the PR question off the ballot.

He was representing former City Councillors Don Belin, and Connie Wheeler, former School Committeeman Gus Solomons, Professor Edwin C. Newman, husband of Mary Newman, state Secretary of Manpower Affairs, and attorney Gerald Berlin.

They are contending that the law passed by the State Legislature which puts the PR question on the ballot is invalid “since it applies only to Cambridge despite its general soundings”. They say it could only be adopted by a special law procedure which requires a request from the city council or the Governor.

(The law putting a PR question on the ballot was passed by the Legislature last Spring. Originally it outlawed PR, but was amended by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney to include a local referendum on the question. The bill, with the amendment, was vetoed by Governor Sargent, but both the House and Senate overrode his veto.)

Callahan told the Chronicle a hearing by the full bench of the SJC would probably be held next week. He said he was hoping for a decision before the ballots are printed by the Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, the second group of former city officials formed the “Committee to Make Every Vote Count” to convince voters that plurality voting is better than PR.

This group consists of former Mayors Edward A. Crane, Joseph A. DeGuglielmo, Daniel J. Hayes Jr., Edward J. Sullivan and Advisory Committee Chairman George A. McLaughlin, Sr., all of whom are co-chairmen. Don S. Greer, president of the chamber, is treasurer.

Crane and DeGuglielmo were endorsed by the Cambridge Civic Association while on the council, and DeGuglielmo was chairman of a Committee to Save Cambridge by keeping PR when a similar question appeared on the ballot in 1965. McLaughlin was one of the co-founders of the move to adopt the city manager — Plan E charter form of government in 1938-40. Plan E at that time included PR.

In a statement announcing their effort to get plurality voting for Cambridge the committee members said:

“We now have an exhausted government in Cambridge and an exhausting tax rate, exhausted rent payers and exhausted property owners because of the 10 to 12 percent exhausted ballots which have robbed us of representation and total lack of leadership.

“In 1971 there were 30,400 ballots cast with more than 3000 exhausted ballots which could not be tallied for anyone.

“We wind up after each election with a 5-4 fractionalized city council as the result of this confusion.

“For eight long months this year the fractionalized council struggled just to settle the city manager issue.

“This set a new record for frustration and time wasted which could have been better used to provide leadership for a city so badly in need of corrective measures for the benefit of all our citizens.

“A Yes vote for plurality voting will guarantee that all the councillors and school committee members will have to answer to every voter rather than to a personal constituency.

“We want to eliminate the confusing transferable vote and substitute the American way of counting in Cambridge.

“We support a strong city manager form of government and the system will be more responsive to the will of the citizens when the electorate has nine effective votes for the city council and six effective votes for school committee.”

[Photo caption] AMONG FORMER city leaders involved in the PR issue are, top left, Former City Manager and City Councillor Joseph DeGuglielmo; top right, former Councillor Edward A. Crane; former Councillor Cornelia Wheeler, bottom left, and former School Committeeman Gus Solomons, bottom right.

PR voting: Two different views
Cambridge Chronicle, October 5, 1972

(Editor’s note: The Chronicle publishes below two separate views on Proportional Representation voting which were received in the news office this week. We do not necessarily agree with the conclusion drawn in either of the two articles.)

Let’s keep it
By BYRLE BRENY

Cities all over the country are frustrated and searching for acceptable solutions to problems. They have many different kinds of charters and voting systems. The fault lies in things that are common to all cities. These are the things we must identify and correct. Changing our voting system will not bring us the money we need to get decent housing, fix our streets, build our schools, and pay for our skating rinks.

The “Committee To Make Every Vote Count” has complained about a 10 to 12 per cent exhausted vote under PR. They want plurality voting. That’s very strange because the exhausted vote in last year’s plurality election in Boston was 52 per cent. That means plurality voting is worse than PR. That can’t be their real reason.

If we end up with a 5-4 city council under plurality voting what will they blame then? All cities are divided. Cambridge is just more evenly divided than most. Voting for the plurality system won’t change that.

The four former mayors on the committee against PR know full well that any citizen of Cambridge can file a “corrective measure” with the city council.

Why would a councillor have to answer to all of the voters, or even to a majority of them, if he doesn’t need a majority to win?? Plurality voting allowed three candidates to win in Boston last time who were supported by less than a third of the voters. All of the present Boston councillors are minority councillors!

One man – one vote does not mean one man – nine votes. It means that councillors should each represent the same number of people. PR does that best. In Boston, one councillor has a 93,000 vote constituency while another has a 60,000 vote constituency. There’s nothing one man - one vote about the plurality system.

It doesn’t bother me that the first person in modern times to suggest that people use PR was a Mr. Andrae in Denmark. Who invented plurality voting? Was he an American? What’s his name? Or her name?

We will go back to the polls in November to finish the election of state representatives and state senators. If our favorite candidate lost in September we must transfer our vote to someone else. If we had been able to mark our ballots with numbers, 1 for first choice, 2 for second choice, and so on, we wouldn’t have to do it all over again. That’s all a transferable vote is, not very confusing is it?

Votes that count for losers are not very effective votes. In plurality voting in Boston last year 40 percent of the votes were for losers. In PR voting in Cambridge last year more than 90 percent of the votes were for winners. PR clearly has a much larger percentage of effective votes.

Incidentally, any city can choose a plan E type of government, including PR, by using a charter commission, unless the courts rule otherwise. None of the “alphabet charters" can be adopted by the old 10% petition and referendum method at this time. Section 96 of Plan E has not been repealed. It is the section which says “the city council shall be elected at large by proportional representation (PR)”.

(Ms. Breny was a candidate for city council in 1969.)

Let’s get rid of it
By GEORGE A. McLAUGHLIN, SR.

Many of us who worked to establish the City Manager Plan E Charter in 1938 and 1940 in Cambridge have now realized what devastation PR has brought to our Plan E government.

Even the Cambridge Chronicle, which has from the start been a strong supporter of Plan E, and still may be, said editorially in 1970 that our city is “a municipality of loose ends and unfinished business.” The editor added: “Of course the fundamental reason why things are at sixes and sevens is that our City Council lacks the kind of majority (whether CCA or coalition) that is needed to make the City Manager plan tick.” Then the editor chides the voters for a city policy which “sometimes led to confusion of voices and a delay in acting on community needs.”

The editor was wrong on one point. It is not “sixes and sevens” that divides the city but the many city councils of fours and fives.

For example, take the election of mayors to demonstrate what the customary 5-4 fractionalized council has done. It took 309 ballots and weeks to elect John D. Lynch as mayor. It took 1321 ballots and many more months to elect Michael J Neville mayor. It took 189 ballots to elect John J. Foley and 49 ballots for Alfred E. Vellucci.

And this year it took 8 long months for the city council to end its struggle on the City Manager. And all the while Cambridge community needs, citizen needs and business needs suffered from the weak system which left Councillors staring at one another.

More than one million voters in Lowell, Quincy, Worcester, Medford, Gloucester and Revere in this State and 36 other communities in the United States abolished PR and adopted the American way of counting votes. They had given the transferable voting system a fair chance to bring stability to their local governments. Today Cambridge stands alone in the entire country with the transferable voting system. Just as PR failed elsewhere, it has failed in Cambridge.

I speak for Edward A. Crane, Joseph A. DeGuglielmo, endorsed by the CCA when they were in city government, and for Daniel J. Hayes and Edward J. Sullivan who ran as independents when in city government. All four are former mayors who have reason to be concerned with the devastating results of a fractionalized city government. Don S. Greer, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and I are working with the four former mayors to put together a team of citizens which seek to take advantage of the chance given to Cambridge by the Legislature to vote YES for plurality voting on Question 10 on the Cambridge ballot on Nov. 7.

We support a strong City Manager Plan E form of government. A divided city government, fractionalized by the present PR system of voting, can only bring continued high costs, higher taxes, further confusion and instability. We want every voter to help elect all nine city councillors and all six school committee members rather than have their votes count for only one city councillor and one school committee member, if his ballots are not exhausted before the election count is completed.

A YES vote for plurality voting, when Cambridge citizens get a chance to vote, will guarantee that all city councillors and all school committee members will have to answer to every voter rather than to their personal constituency.

Next Thursday evening in the Hotel Commander at 8 o’clock the voters of Cambridge are invited to join the effort to “Make Every Vote Count.” The meeting is open to the public.

(Mr. McLaughlin is a member of the Committee to Make Every Vote Count.)

MAIL from our readers
Wants PR out
Cambridge Chronicle, October 5, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
Having publicly advocated charter reform in Cambridge for several years, both as a candidate for city council and as a private citizen (and as recently as July 20), I was very pleased to see in last week’s Chronicle an editorial urging that it “is important ... to re-assess the present system” (Plan E).

The most immediate question we face in terms of charter reform is that of Proportional Representation, because a referendum question on PR will be on the ballot this November. PR does have its good points, but it is no doubt in part responsible for the present situation, in which our city government has virtually ceased to function as an effective servant of the people of this community.

The first step toward having a city government which does a good job is to vote against PR in November, and I strongly urge all residents who are dissatisfied with the state of affairs in this city to vote out PR. Then we can go to work to rebuild a city government which serves the needs of the people of Cambridge, a city government which is more than merely an arena for the games of windbag politicians, whether old-style or so-called new-style.

200 years ago Americans searched for, and fought for, a new way to govern themselves. That is what we need today, a new way to govern ourselves, a way which gets things done. And the place to start is by voting out PR.

STEVE NELSON
104 Kinnaird St.

PR question out; ’73 is new target
Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 1972

The State’s Supreme Judicial Court, in an order last Friday, threw the referendum question on Proportional Representation voting (PR) off the ballot this year.

The Court issued an order to Secretary of State John F. X. Davoren not to print the question on the ballots to be used in the November 7 election here.

Plans to have the question put on the ballot next year have already gotten underway, however.

The Committee to Make Every Vote Count, composed of four former mayors, the former head of the Cambridge Advisory Committee and the president of the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, will hold a public meeting Oct 26 at 8pm at the Hotel Commander to map a campaign to kill PR.

In other action, however, the Cambridge League of Women Voters, long a supporter of PR, reaffirmed its support at a series of memberships meetings recently.

League members agreed that in spite of their dissatisfaction with the operation of Cambridge government “PR is the voting system that gives the most accurate representation to minority groups at the same time it ensures majority rule,” according to Nancy R. Evans, city government chairman of the League.

The Supreme Court case to get the PR question off the ballot was brought by former City Councillors Don Belin and Connie Wheeler, former School Committeeman Gus Solomons, Professor Edwin C. Newman, husband of State Secretary of Manpower Affairs Mary Newman and attorney Gerald Berlin.

They contended that the State law putting the question on the ballot was “invalid” because it applied only to Cambridge “despite its general soundings”.

That law was passed by the Legislature last spring. Originally it simply outlawed PR, but was amended by Rep. Thomas H.D. Mahoney to include a local referendum. Mahoney said at the time his concern was not with the merits of PR but with reserving the right to decide its fate with Cambridge voters.

Governor Sargent vetoed the bill, with the amendment, but the Senate and House overrode his veto.

The Committee to Make Every Vote Count was formed in early September to mobilize support to dump PR in favor of plurality voting if the question remained on the ballot.

Committee members include former Mayors Daniel Hayes, Edward A. Crane, Joseph DeGuglielmo and Edward J. Sullivan, former Advisory Committee Chairman George A. McLaughlin and Chamber President Don S. Greer.

Speaking for the Committee, Hayes said the members were “disappointed that voters will not have an opportunity to vote on PR this year”.

Hayes expressed surprise that the group which has “stressed power to the people” in the past took action to deprive voters of the right to decide the PR question on the November ballot.

“At a time when an estimated 40,000 will go to the polls in Cambridge, the PR supporters decided to go to court to deprive them of the right to vote on the question.”

The former North Cambridge city councillor said the current voting system has fractionalized the nine member Council and six member School Committee into a group “who represent neighborhoods rather than the entire city.”

Hayes said that fractionalization was the cause of the delay in electing a city manager and a new school superintendent.

Mail from our readers
League supports PR
Cambridge Chronicle, October 12, 1972

Editor, Chronicle:
At a series of recent membership meetings the Cambridge League of Women Voters reaffirmed its support of proportional representation in Cambridge. League members agreed that in spite of their dissatisfaction with the operation of Cambridge government, PR is the voting system that gives the most accurate representation to minority groups at the same time that it insures majority rule. PR guarantees minority groups - racial, ethnic, or ideological - representation but not control over the governing body. PR prevents a minority of the voters from winning a majority of seats on the council.

On the other hand, at-large plurality voting makes it possible for a bare majority to sweep all of the seats on the council or even for a minority of the voters to capture a majority of the seats. Although plurality voting might give us a council that could easily reach agreement, such agreement could be bought at the price of many groups and points of view being excluded from the debate.

The experience of cities such as Cincinnati and Worcester which have switched from PR to at-large plurality voting shows that under plurality voting it becomes increasingly difficult for new candidates to win, for incumbents to be unseated, and for minority groups to be represented.

We believe that PR is not the cause of our problems in Cambridge; it simply reflects quite accurately the different forces and points of view that actually exist in the city. Most cities - with diverse populations and interest groups - whatever their form of government or voting system — are similarly dissatisfied with the operation of their government since all segments of the population are not being served equally; taxes are rising at all levels of government and taxpayer dissatisfaction is growing.

We therefore object to any view which attempts to simplify the debate over city government by pinning the blame on PR and which purports to solve our problems simply by getting rid of our present voting system. Instead we urge Cambridge citizens to look at our total structure of government - PR, council-manager form, the state-mandated authorities and procedures, as well as the personalities and forces at work in our community — before attempting to diagnose our problems and prescribe a solution to them.

NANCY R. EVANS
City Government Chairman
League of Women Voters of Cambridge

Citation: 362 Mass. 530
Parties: G. D'ANDELOT BELIN & others vs. SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH.
County: Suffolk
Hearing Date: October 4, 1972
Decision Date: October 19, 1972
Judges: TAURO, C.J., REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, & KAPLAN, JJ.

Statute 1972, c. 596, requiring that a question regarding a change to plurality voting be placed on the ballot to be used at the biennial state election in any city or town with proportional representation voting but in fact, when enacted, applicable only to the city of Cambridge, is a special act “relating to cities and towns” and not a general law applicable “to a class of not fewer than two” cities and towns, and thus violates art. 89 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution in that it was enacted neither on a petition filed or approved by the voters or the city council nor by the two-thirds vote of each branch of the General Court following a recommendation of the Governor.

PETITION for a writ of mandamus filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on September 21, 1972.

The case was reserved and reported by Reardon, J.
Acheson H. Callaghan, Jr. (Barry R. Furrow & Jeffery Swope with him) for the petitioners.
Walter H. Mayo, III, Assistant Attorney General, for the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
George A. McLaughlin & Edward J. Lonergan, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Charles H. McGlue was present but did not argue.

REARDON, J. The petitioners, residents, taxpayers, and duly registered voters in Cambridge, have petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The facts are not in dispute.

Cambridge has a Plan E form of government conformable to G. L. c. 43, Sections 93-116, as amended, and is the only city or town in the Commonwealth where officers are elected by proportional representation or preferential voting. The respondent was in the process of preparing a question contained in St. 1972, c. 596, Section 3, to be placed on the official ballot for the November 7, 1972, biennial State election in Cambridge. The question described in Section 3 will not appear on the ballot in any other city or town in the Commonwealth. Statute 1972, c. 596, which was enacted over the veto of the Governor, provides as follows:

“SECTION 1. Section one hundred and fifteen of chapter forty-three of the General Laws is hereby repealed.”

“SECTION 2. Chapter fifty-four A of the General Laws is hereby repealed.”

“SECTION 3. The state secretary shall cause the following question to be placed on the official ballot to be used at the biennial state election in each city in which voting by proportional representation or preferential voting is in effect: --

‘Shall the elective officers of this city be nominated by preliminary election and elected by ordinary plurality voting?’ YES. NO.”

“The state secretary shall cause the following question to be placed on said ballot in each town in which voting by proportional representation or preferential voting is in effect: -- ‘Shall the elective officers of this town be elected by ordinary plurality voting?’ YES. NO.”

“If a majority of the votes in answer to such question by any such city or town is in the affirmative elective officers in such city or town shall thereafter be nominated and elected in the manner provided in said question.”

“If a majority of the votes in answer to said question is in the negative those elective officers who, on the date of said election, were elected by proportional representation or preferential voting shall continue to be so elected.”

Statute 1972, c. 596, was not enacted (1) on a petition filed or approved by the voters or by the city council of Cambridge, or (2) by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the General Court following a recommendation by the Governor.

The contention of the petitioners is that because St. 1972, c. 596, was enacted in violation of art. 89 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth (the home rule amendment), it has no force and effect, and the respondent is under a duty not to place the question described in Section 3 therein on the official ballot in Cambridge for the biennial State election to be held on November 7, 1972.

Section 1 of art. 89 provides, “It is the intention of this article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters, subject to the provisions of this article and to such standards and requirements as the general court may establish by law in accordance with the provisions of this article” (emphasis supplied).

The provisions limiting the power of the Legislature are to be found in Section 8 of the article. On its face it is plain that St. 1972, c. 596, can be classified as a law “in relation to cities and towns” and therefore subject to the restrictions of Section 8. If it be a special law, it is unconstitutional since it was not enacted on a petition filed or approved by the voters or by the city council of Cambridge or by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the General Court following a recommendation of the Governor.

If on the other hand c. 596 can be viewed as a general law applicable “to a class of not fewer than two” cities and towns, there being no obstacle in art. 89 to the enactment of such laws, it is constitutional.

The basic issue thus is whether St. 1972, c. 596, by its terms applicable to a class of “all” cities having proportional representation but in fact only to Cambridge, is to be characterized as a general law applicable to a class of not fewer than two or as a special law within the meaning of Section 8 of art. 89.

In Opinion of the Justices, 356 Mass. 775, we stated that legislation for a multi-purpose stadium, tunnel and an arena was, in most of its aspects, regional legislation having some State-wide effect and was not to be considered as a law “in relation to cities and towns,” and therefore was not subject to the requirements for either general or special laws specified in Section 8. We there noted, “We do not interpret the words ‘to act in relation to cities and towns’ as precluding the Legislature from acting on matters of State, regional, or general concern, even though such action may have special effect upon one or more individual cities or towns. If the predominant purposes of a bill are to achieve State, regional, or general objectives, we think that, as heretofore, the Legislature possesses legislative power, unaffected by the restrictions in art. 89, Section 8. On the other hand, in instances where the primary purpose of a major and severable portion of a bill, otherwise enacted for State, regional, or general purposes, is to legislate ‘with respect to . . . [the] local government,’ or ‘local matters,’ of a particular city or town, it may be necessary to consider whether in the particular circumstances that severable major portion complies with Section 8 of art. 89. pp. 787-788.

In our view the last quoted sentence is fully applicable to c. 596, Section 3. That section provides for a question to be placed on a municipal ballot which, if approved by the voters in Cambridge, will alter the method by which the city council and the school committee are elected in that city. It is directly and solely concerned with altering a crucial feature of municipal government. If the words “in relation to cities and towns” are to be given any meaning they must be applicable to this statute. Therefore, c. 596, Section 3, must be subject to the requirements of art. 89, Section 8.

We thus consider whether c. 596, Section 3, applies alike “to all cities, or to all towns, or to all cities and towns, or to a class of not fewer than two.” That c. 596, Section 3, is phrased in general terms, and is, arguably, potentially applicable to cities in addition to Cambridge at some indefinite future time, is not sufficient to meet the test which Section 8 of art. 89 establishes. When enacted, c. 596, Section 3, was applicable in fact only to Cambridge. That it was phrased in general or specific terms does not control under Section 8, which prescribes a clear and simple test of minimum applicability. In Opinion of the Justices, 357 Mass. 831, we pointed out relative to an act affecting the towns of Southwick and West Springfield that it met the test of a general law within the meaning of the first sentence of art. 89, Section 8, and, hence, did not need to be enacted in accordance with the special procedures for special laws there defined. That case involved two towns, a situation quite different from that which confronts us here.

We said in Mayor of Gloucester v. City Clerk of Gloucester, 327 Mass. 460, 464, “No municipality has any vested right in its form of local government. All such matters are subject to the paramount authority of the Legislature, which may change, and even abolish, at will.” However, the relevance of this and other cases decided prior to 1966 has been considerably diminished, if not erased. The adoption of art. 89 “effected substantial changes in the legislative powers of the General Court and the cities and towns.” Opinion of the Justices, 356 Mass. 775, 787.

In sum, art. 89 was adopted by the people to prevent precisely the type of legislation which is represented by St. 1972, c. 596, Section 3.

It is for this reason that, by our order dated October 6, 1972, we have directed the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the respondent not to print the question contained in St. 1972, c. 596, Section 3, on the official ballot for the biennial State election of Cambridge.

Note on Gaspard D'Andelot Belin

Guy D. Belin (May 30, 1918 – April 15, 2003; also referred to as Don Belin) was elected to the Cambridge City Council in 1961. He resigned effective November 13, 1962 to take a position in Kennedy Administration as General Counsel to the United States Treasury. (He was McGeorge Bundy's brother-in-law.) Cornelia (Connie) Wheeler was easily elected on his redistributed vote on November 16, 1972 in the Vacancy Recount.

He and his wife Harriett Bundy Belin are buried in Mount Auburn Cemetery.

A few updated charts of voter turnout in Cambridge municipal elections during the Plan E era: 1941-2021

Sept 28, 2022 – As part of an historical research project on Cambridge civic/political history and the chronology of the city’s charters that John Pitkin and I have been doing, today I updated my turnout charts to coincide with the entire Plan E era. We’ll soon take this back in some form or another to around 1846. - RW

An Idea Whose Time Has Come Again - Redress of Grievances

Jan 26, 2023 – In this year when charter review is underway and possible charter revision may be on the horizon, it is perhaps valuable to look back at some provisions of previous Cambridge City Charters for some guidance. For example, in the original 1846 Cambridge City Charter, there’s this:

Sect. 19. General meetings of the citizens qualified to vote may, from time to time, be held, to consult upon the public good, to instruct their representatives, and to take all lawful measures to obtain redress of any grievances, according to the right secured to the people by the Constitution of this Commonwealth; and such meetings may, and shall be duly warned by the mayor and aldermen, upon the requisition of thirty qualified voters.

Perhaps “the requisition of thirty qualified voters” may not be the appropriate standard today in a city of 120,000 people, and perhaps the procedure should be modified to be more aligned with the way our City Council and School Committee is constituted under the current charter, but there should be a reasonably attainable standard that would allow for “redress of grievances.” The current situation is that a group of hundreds of citizens could send a petition to the City Council (or, presumably the School Committee) asking for reconsideration or change in some policy or ordinance, or action of the City or School administration, but that petition would likely only appear as a “Communication” on an agenda that could, and generally is, simply “Placed on File.” A better system would be to have the respective elected body or City department be required to respond and vote on any reasonable question or request in a timely manner, e.g. within thirty days.

It is a deficiency in the current Plan E Charter that other than begging a city councillor to file a policy order (which could well end up under “Awaiting Report” for months or years), there is no effective way for citizens to hold their elected officials or the City Administration (or any specific department) or the School Department accountable. Requiring a positive or negative response - on the record - would go a long way toward addressing the problem expressed by so many Cambridge residents that they “are not being heard.” - Robert Winters

Comments?

Peter Valentine: The Fence Speaks for Itself

In the Spring of 2014, when an art walk was being planned for River Fest, organizers invited Peter to talk about his Cosmic Moose and Grizzly Bear’s Ville fence, the imaginative “canvas” he’d created in front of his home on the corner of Brookline and Franklin streets.

From locals around Cambridgeport, to tourists wandering off the beaten path in Central Square, the fence was legendary. People would stop to read the insights, wit and philosophy that Peter freely shared. If he was home, some were lucky enough to chat with him. Regular visitors noticed that, from time to time, he would add new thoughts for passersby to stop and ponder.

Peter declined the invitation to speak about the fence at the June festival but asked me – his brother-in-law, (we called each other “brothers-in-love”) – to speak in his place. I quickly told Peter that I didn’t feel qualified to speak about the fence, but I had an idea: what if I read a sampling of his writings “so the fence could speak for itself.”

Peter agreed. When we met before I began compiling his insights, Peter told me, “At a certain point when I was creating the fence, I thought it was a living thing. And then I came to feel it was the Earth speaking. And then – I just let go.”

What follows is a selection that I read at River Fest that year and again at Starlight Square on September 10, during the uplifting, heartfelt celebration of Peter’s remarkable life.

— Rob Okun   

Thought is beautiful.

Talk to the day.

There is only one frontier that’s endlessly self-fulfilling – the frontier of words.

You are having an intergalactic conversation with the fence.

Freedom is a special tree. It can only be grown by a fierce gardener.

Truth cannot be voted on. Either you allow it in or you are without it.

Your only true power is your uniqueness, which you will never discover if you crave group similarities.

Problems aren’t the problem. Solving them magnificently is the problem.

It’s okay to be happy. It’s better to be ready.

All lies are honest.

It’s permissible to lie to a liar because for a liar being lied to is like being made love to.

Only the pure makes you honest.

I’m stumbling my way into perfect expectations. Be careful not to trip on me.

Stop talking. Make something incredible.

Today’s date is – forever.

© Peter Valentine, 2022

A Personal Note

Feb 14, 2023 - Valentine’s Day this year marks the 45th anniversary of my moving to Cambridge (and I've lived in the same building the entire time). Moving Day in 1978 for me was the first day the roads were fully open for the Greyhound Bus to make the trip from New York City to Boston after the Blizzard of 1978. That year I covered the rent by tutoring area college students in mathematics, physics, and chemistry based in little notices I stapled onto various message boards at MIT, Harvard, Northeastern, and Boston University. I had already applied to graduate school at MIT, but I would not learn that I had been accepted (with a Teaching Fellowship) until (appropriately) April Fools Day. When I got the phone call informing me that I had been accepted, I literally jumped for joy. Unfortunately, I was standing in a doorway at the time and managed to slam my head into the top of the doorway yielding a rather dramatic bleeding head wound minutes before the doorbell rang with a student coming over for tutoring. She was a nursing student, took a look at the blood streaming down my face, and said simply, “You ought to do something about that.”

45 years laters (and more than 35 years after buying my building), I’m still here, still teaching, and most likely couldn’t now jump high enough to hit the top of the doorway. - Robert Winters

Business as Usual - Or Not: February 13, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

We’ll have to see if the Cambridge City Council and its Chair (a.k.a. Mayor) will continue to allow a small group of wannabe socialists to hijack their meetings. As the saying goes, “That’s so Cambridge.” Needless to say, our political processes are hijacked by small groups of acronymed activists routinely. Anyways, whether live or Zoom, here are a few items of interest on this week’s agenda.

Update: The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) has announced yet another rally at City Hall this Monday. They and some Harvard students will meet at 5:45pm and march to City Hall where they will likely once again shut down the regular meeting and cause the Council to recess and reconvene in Zoom. [Note: They had their rally on the steps of City Hall and then continued their march down to the Police Station.]

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Maria Baldwin-Alvaro Blodgett Houses.
pulled by Simmons; Order Adopted 8-0-1 (PN-Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Final Landmark Designation Report for the Cambridge Gas-Light Company Building.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (PN-Absent)

We are blessed with the Cambridge Historical Commission who never disappoints when producing interesting and thorough reports for properties being consider for Landmark Designation.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order 2023 #7, regarding Information on Blier, et al., Zoning Petition.
Referred to Petition 8-0-1 (PN-Absent); Reconsideration Fails 0-8-1

Manager’s Agenda #11. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of the Accelerating Climate Resilience Grant in the amount of $100,000 received from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) to the Grant Fund Public Celebrations (Arts and Culture) Other Ordinary Maintenance account, which will be used to commission artists to design temporary shade pavilions for city parks or other public facilities.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (PN-Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of the following persons as a members of the Foundry Advisory Committee for a term of three years: Connie Chin; Barbara Thomas; and Rubén Mancha.
Placed on File 8-0-1 (PN-Absent)

This communication also includes an update on the Foundry from Thomas Evans, Executive Director of the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority.

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number #22-84, regarding report on working with the residents at 931 Massachusetts Avenue to identify and provide a short-term parking spot in front of 931 Massachusetts Avenue.
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Carlone, Zondervan (who advocates closing main travel lane for moving activities across bike lane!), Simmons, McGovern; Placed on File 9-0

And the judge wasn’t going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one. And people who need to stop for pickups and deliveries along this stretch of Mass. Ave. will simply continue to exercise the only reasonable option available to them - violating the overly restrictive and inflexible regulations.

---

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to draft amendments to the proposed BEUDO language to change the net zero deadline from 2050 to 2035 and to propose language to meet that deadline throughout the document (From the Apr 20, 2022 Ordinance Committee).
pulled by Toner; comments by Zondervan, Nolan; Mallon notes that CDD has been operating all along as though deadline is 2035; intentions now within Ordinance Committee is to keep 2050 deadline for nonresidential buildings; McGovern comments that there were only 5 members at the meeting that proposed moving deadline to 2035, that Eversource information made clear that ambitious goal was not feasible, wants condos excluded from earlier deadline, wants this referred to Ordinance Committee; Carlone notes that there were 5 votes to move deadline to 2035, calls this an aspirational goal but wants to keep it for all buildings (including condos), notes that incurable diseases will come to us unless 2035 goal is mandated, says “we’re listening to the wrong developers”; Zondervan claims that Eversource is not required to fully electrify city by 2035 (but does not acknowledge the fact that any alternatives would be a tax which the City cannot legally impose); comments by Zondervan, Mallon, Nolan, Simmons, McGovern, Carlone, City Clerk, and City Solicitor on procedures; Mallon motion to call the question prevails 9-0; Glowa notes that referring back to Ordinance Committee is proper; Zondervan amendment adopted 5-4 (BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS-Yes; AM,MM,DS,PT-No); Order Adopted as Amended 5-4 (BA,DC,PN,QZ,SS-Yes; AM,MM,DS,PT-No)

Unfinished Business #5. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to Emissions Accounting Zoning Petition (Ordinance #2022-20). [Passed to 2nd Reading Dec 19, 2022; To Be Ordained on or after Jan 9, 2023; Expires Mar 6, 2023]

Unfinished Business #7. The Ordinance Committee met on Apr 20, 2022, to continue the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (Ordinance #2021-26). …
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

There comes a time when discretion is the better part of valor and to conclude that the best course of action is to listen to the concerns of residents and Eversource representatives and ask the zealots on the City Council and within CDD to take a step back and reconsider the feasibility and cost implications of their demands.

---

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to look into the feasibility of automated traffic enforcement in Cambridge as well as using unarmed CPD traffic details for future discussion Automated/Unarmed Traffic Enforcement. [Charter Right – Toner, Feb 6, 2023]
pulled by Toner who offers substitute Order (that was not available to public); comments by Azeem, Nolan, Zondervan, McGovern, Carlone, Toner; Azeem proposes tabling Order; Tabled 9-0

Order #2. That the entire City Council go on record in support of HD.3530 and SD.1263.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Late Order #6. Policy Order Regarding Police Details.   Toner
Charter Right - Zondervan

HD.3530/SD.1263 is titled “An Act Relative To Automated Enforcement”. Its principal features are: (1) “A city or town that accepts this chapter may install an automated road safety camera system as a means of promoting traffic safety;” (2) no more than one automated road safety camera system per 2500 residents - so up to about 50 such camera systems for Cambridge; (3) a maximum fine for a camera enforceable violation of $25 per violation; and (4) camera enforceable violations would not be made part of the operating record of the violator and conviction of a moving violation would not yield a surcharge on a motor vehicle insurance premiums

---

Charter Right #3. That City Council rescind the vote to refer the Brown Petition to the Ordinance Committee and Planning Board for hearing because the petition is defective as a matter of law. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Feb 6, 2023]
pulled by Mallon; Zondervan wants to table this; Mallon opposes tabling so that petition can be re-filed; McGovern notes that Solicitor acknowledged error and time to move on; Zondervan wants “the public” to have time to opine while matter is On The Table - there is a late communication (today) from Solicitor on this matter; Nolan “is torn on this”, favors tabling, and is dissatisfied with Solicitor’s responses; Glowa notes that she gave her opinion orally last week and the late communication is merely supplemental; Toner moves to rescind previous vote; Carlone wants to move forward, says this petition has merit; Siddiqui wants to rescind; Zondervan calls his vote a principled vote; Rescind Vote 7-2 (PN,QZ-No)

Manager’s Late Agenda #20. A Late Communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number PO 2023 #28, regarding a legal opinion on the Doug Brown petition.
Placed on File 9-0

I’m not really sure why this was delayed from the previous meeting, and I expect that a non-defective re-filing of this petition will appear soon.

---

Lotsa Communications (143) - mainly from the previous meeting and primarily on the topics of BEUDO and the AHO Behemoth Proposal (AHOBP).

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department, the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department and all other relevant departments to engage the U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center to partner on the next steps of the City of Cambridge Clean Fleet goals.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. That the entire City Council go on record in support of HD.766 and SD.1013.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

HD.766/SD.1013 is titled “An Act Relative to Universal School Meals”. The Act would require all schools providing lunch under the National School Lunch Act or breakfast under the National Child Nutrition Act to make breakfast and lunch available at no charge to each attending student.

Order #4. Free School Meals For All Students.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

This is essentially “Plan B” that calls on the City of Cambridge to foot the bill for free meals should the State Legislature not pass the above Act or not fully fund the mandate.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate departments and agencies to ensure the continuation of Riverbend Park closures on Saturdays and Sundays.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor Mallon
Charter Right - Simmons
Note: There was also a proposed substitute order from Councillor Simmons that was not voted.

This Order actually has 5 sponsors, including Mayor Siddiqui, even though this was reduced to the maximum of 4 in the summary. If anything, this highlights the absurdity of some formal provisions of the Open Meeting Law – it’s often the case that more than 4 councillors (and their aides) are involved in drafting Orders, and reducing the number of “sponsors” to 4 is done to keep up appearances. The substance of the Order calls for ensuring that Riverbend Park along Memorial Drive from Gerry’s Landing to Western Avenue on Saturdays and Sundays remain open during the spring, summer, and fall months. In the “We don’t need no stinkin’ physics” department, the sponsors then go on to seek changes in traffic signals and lane markings along Western Avenue at Putnam Ave, Memorial Drive, and Soldier’s Field Road to cause as much of the diverted traffic as possible to simply disappear. - Robert Winters

Late Order #7. HOME-ARP Public Process [$2.3 million in additional ARPA funds].   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Comments?

Play Resumes - February 6, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

I hope this meeting proceeds as scheduled without the stamping of young socialist feet. If so, here are a few things under consideration this week:

[Note: The idiots from the Party for Socialism and Liberation once again disrupted the Cambridge City Council meeting - forcing them to run and hide and conduct the rest of the meeting in Zoom.]

Whose Choice?

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number #22-81, related to improving marketing and communication efforts and outreach for the Cambridge Community Electricity (CCE) program.
pulled by Nolan, Order Adopted 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department and all other relevant departments to engage with community groups and the City’s existing multi-member bodies to design the next iteration of the Cambridge Community Electricity Aggregation program.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Nolan; Adopted as Amended 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

---

Picking Weed Winners

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Calendar Item No. 10 of 3/21/22 requesting that the City Manager amend all existing Host Community Agreements (“HCA”) previously issued by the City by reducing the Impact Fee to 0.05% of Gross Revenue and to refrain from placing this burden upon any future HCAs that may yet be issued, unless supporting evidence is provided by the City showing a finding that it incurred additional expenses and impacts upon its road system, law enforcement, inspectional services, permitting services, administrative services, educational services and public health services greater than the .05% of Gross Revenue collected from all the Economic Empowerment applicant and Social Equity applicant dispensaries annually.
pulled by Toner, Placed on File 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to have the appropriate City staff establish the framework that will allow for the immediate elimination of the bicycle parking fees imposed upon Economic Empowerment and Social Equity applicants and cannabis dispensary operators in the City of Cambridge. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Jan 23, 2023]
Zondervan amendment to reimburse any such fees that have already been paid - Adopted 7-0-2; Order Adopted as Amended 7-2-0 (BA,DC Absent); Reconsideration moved by Simmons - Reconsideration Fails 0-7-2

---

In the Zone (including The Twilight Zone)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Council Order No. O-8 of 1/23/2023, regarding (1) whether there is a two year bar on considering repetitive zoning petitions that have been unfavorably acted upon by the Council, (2) if so, whether that bar on repetitive petitions would prohibit the Council from moving forward with a Council initiated lab use zoning petition if there is unfavorable action on the pending Callender, et al. Petition, and (3) if so, what types of changes to zoning petition would be necessary for it to no longer be considered a repetitive petition.
pulled by Toner, Referred to the Petition to be discussed at Feb 7 committee meeting; Toner moves Reconsideration “hoping the same will not prevail”; Reconsideration Fails 0-7-2

Unfinished Business #5. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to Ordinance #2022-23 Removing the Limit on BZA Compensation. [Passed to 2nd Reading Jan 9, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Jan 30, 2023; Expires Mar 14, 2023]
Ordained 7-0-2

Committee Reports #7. The Ordinance Committee met on Jan 26, 2023, to continue the discussion on proposed Ordinance #2022-9, Climate Resilience Zoning. The Committee Voted favorably to send the Petition to the Full Council with a favorable recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; remarks by Nolan; Passed to 2nd Reading; Report Acceepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Diane LeBlanc, City Clerk, regarding the Douglas Brown Petition. (COF23#27)
pulled by Nolan (early) - asks why defective; City Solicitor Glowa says petition affects entire city and not just the property of the petitioner; Nolan and Mallon seem peeved at City Solicitor for apparently contradicting what she said at the previous meeting; Mallon moves to Rescind Previous Vote, but Zondervan exercises Charter Right first; Charter Right - Zondervan
Zondervan makes additional (new) motion asking for legal clarification; Motion Adopted 7-0-2; Communication Placed on File 7-0-2

---

Envision Danehy

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to relative to a request for approval to seek authorization from the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General (the “IG”) for the City to use the Construction Manager at Risk (“CMaR”) procurement and construction method (the “CMaR Method”) in connection with the Danehy Park Gateway Pavilion project. (CM23#25) [Attachment A] [Attachment B]
Order Adopted 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

---

Well Appointed - and other tales

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment and reappointment of members of the Recycling Advisory Committee.
Appointments Confirmed 7-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Committee Reports #6. The Government, Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public meeting on Jan 11, 2023 for the purpose of reviewing recent report of Boards and Commissions from the City Manager which are subject to City Council approval, and to discuss the City Clerks request for a dedicated email address for City Council communications. [text of report] [EXTRA - Full Info Sheets from Oct 24, 2022 City Manager Communication]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Note: The report suggests that several city councillors would like to further change the City Charter in order to transfer even more executive authority into their entirely inappropriate legislative hands - specifically to get control of any remaining boards for which they do not currently have confirmation authority. A few lessons in history illustrate that while proportional representation may be a good model for legislative representation, it has a terrible record in terms of actual governance. This is why it’s important that PR be coupled with a strong city manager and why city councillors need to be prohibited from directing City staff or having appointing authority.

---

Police and Police-Related (with the hope that none of these be referred to the Public Safety Committee unless the Mayor replaces its Chair)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Police Review and Advisory Board quarterly reports.
pulled by Zondervan, QZ noved suspension to take with #8 and #9; Zondervan moves to refer to Public Safety Committee; Referred to Public Safety Committee 7-0-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a report on an itemized statement of all materials, tools, and property owned by the Cambridge Police Department. (CM23#28) [Cover Letter] [Materials, Tools, and Property as of 6/30/21] [Photographs of Inventory as of 6/30/21]
pulled by Zondervan, Referred to Public Safety Committee 7-0-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a report on an itemized statement of all materials, tools, and property owned by the Cambridge Police Department. (CM23#29) [Cover Letter] [Materials, Tools, and Property as of 6/30/22] [Photographs of Inventory as of 6/30/22]
pulled by Zondervan, Referred to Public Safety Committee 7-0-2 (Azeem, Carlone ABSENT)

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to take immediate steps to begin the process of obtaining police body worn cameras for the Cambridge Police Department, and to work with all appropriate Departments to produce policy recommendations that would allow body worn camera usage while also not violating civil liberties in compliance with the City’s Surveillance Ordinance.   Councillor McGovern, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
pulled by McGovern; additional remarks by Nolan, Mallon, Toner, Simmons, Siddiqui; Zondervan opposed to body cameras and anything that adds to Police budget; Order Adopted as Amended 6-1-2 (QZ - No; BA,DC - Absent)

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to direct Police Commissioner Elow to work on providing publicly-accessible traffic stop, arrest and citation police data on a new Procedural Justice Dashboard as soon as possible.   Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern
pulled by Mallon; additional remarks by McGovern; Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #5. That the Finance Committee convene a meeting on Police Budget including body camera discussion.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to look into the feasibility of automated traffic enforcement in Cambridge as well as using unarmed CPD traffic details for future discussion Automated/Unarmed Traffic Enforcement.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone
pulled by McGovern; Charter Right - Toner (McGovern was going to do it as well)

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to direct the Police Commissioner to explore additional less-than-lethal alternatives that pose the smallest risk of injury when deployed for standard issue in the Cambridge Police Department.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to engage a third party, independent firm/consultant or university partner to review and examine the Cambridge Police Department’s policies and practices regarding de-escalation methods, mental health calls for service, training, and more.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Azeem
pulled by Siddiqui; additional remarks by Mallon, McGovern, Toner, Nolan, Simmons, Zondervan; Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Order #12. That the City Manager is requested to work with staff in the Cambridge Public Health Department to review the current state of mental health resources, particularly for underserved communities, within the Cambridge Health Alliance.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Siddiqui; additional remarks by McGovern (Human Services Committee meeting to follow), Zondervan (add all as sponsors); Adopted 7-0-2 as Amended (BA,DC - Absent)

---

The Ongoing BEUDO Saga

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to instruct the Community Development Department to draft amendments to the proposed BEUDO language to change the net zero deadline from 2050 to 2035 and to propose language to meet that deadline throughout the document (From the Apr 20, 2022 Ordinance Committee).   Councillor Zondervan
Rules Suspended 7-0-2 to take up early; Toner asks Iram Farooq if this Order is helpful at this time; Farooq says they have initiated some conversations with affected property owners, “trying to build trust” as she emphasizes the “climate crisis” as justification for just about anything; Charter Right - Toner

Committee Reports #5. The Ordinance Committee met on Apr 20, 2022, to continue the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Building Energy Use Disclosure Ordinance (Ordinance #2021-26). The Committee voted favorably to ask the City Manager to instruct the Community Development Department to draft amendments to the proposed BEUDO language to change the net zero deadline from 2050 to 2035 and to propose language to meet that deadline throughout the document. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; Report Accepted, Placed on File; Minutes Amended to correct attendance 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent); Mallon attempts to exercise Charter Right; Clerk suggests this is proper - but THIS IS NOT NEW BUSINESS; Mallon says “the Order that we charterwrote” - which is not an actual word, nor is the make-believe word "charterwritten". Siddiqui also rules that committee reports are subject to the Charter Right; Zondervan suggests referring report to the Order contained therein. Clerk suggests taking no action on the report which will move it to Unfinished Business.

---

Trains, Planes, and Automobiles (actually just Cars & Bikes)

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager continue our current policy of towing cars on street cleaning days and come back to the Council with a plan to create an annual fund to reimburse economically disadvantaged residents who are unable to pay the towing fee before the beginning of towing season. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Jan 23, 2023]
Zondervan notes many communications on this topic, claims that he speaks for low-income residents; Toner calls this a “solution without a problem” - wants to create a fund to reimburse fees and expresses concern for tow companies; McGovern bristles at Zondervan’s characterizations, says City should do more outreach about towing days (as if the announcements somehow aren’t heard); Nolan likes pilots - even though they are often actually not just pilots; Siddiqui aligns with Nolan; Order Fails of Adoption 3-4-2 (MM,DS,PT - Yes; AM,PN,QZ,SS - No; BA,DC - Absent)

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to determine the best ways to promote bike safety with a particular focus on expanding the distribution of bike lights throughout the City.   Councillor McGovern, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by McGovern; additional remarks by Toner (about penalties for not having a light), Nolan (on safe distance); Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

---

Remembering Alice

Resolution #13. Resolution on the death of Alice Wolf.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Nolan
pulled by McGovern; remarks by McGovern, Simmons, Nolan, Siddiqui, Zondervan, Toner, Mallon; Resolution Adopted 7-0-2

---

Late Resolution #15. Resolution on the death of Jane Richards who died on Jan 31, 2023 at the age of 86.   Councillor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Simmons
Resolution Adopted 7-0-2

---

Next Steps toward Universal Pre-K

Order #9. That the City Council and the School Committee will hold a joint roundtable on Tues, Feb 14, 2023, at 5:00pm to receive an update from the City Manager, Superintendent, and the Cambridge Office of Early Childhood on the next steps towards the implementation of universal Pre-K in Cambridge.   Mayor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

---

Looking Back In Time

Committee Reports #1. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Sept 26, 2019 to discuss the petition by Stephen R. Karp, Trustee of Cambridgeside Galleria Associates Trust, to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by adding a Section 13.100 that creates a new PUD-8 District and to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Cambridge by adding the new PUD-8 District, which District would include the property located at 100 Cambridgeside Place (currently zoned in the Business A and PUD-4 Districts). [text of report] [Note: This meeting was already reported Nov 25, 2019]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Committee Reports #2. The Ordinance Committee met on Nov 14, 2019 to continue discussions on the petition by Stephen R. Karp, Trustee of CambridgeSide Galleria Associates Trust, to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Cambridge by adding a Section 13.100 that creates a new PUD-8 District. [text of report not yet available] [Note: This meeting was already reported Nov 25, 2019]
Referred to Unfinished Business due to lack of report

Committee Reports #3. The Ordinance Committee met on Mar 30, 2022 to conduct a public hearing on, Ordinance #2022-3, the Wage Theft Ordinance. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Committee Reports #4. The Ordinance Committee met on Apr 13, 2022, to hold a public hearing on proposed ordinance number 2022-2, Charter Change Municipal Code Amendments. The Committee voted favorable to send the following language to the Full Council with a recommendation to pass to a second reading. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; Report Accepted, Placed on File; Ordinance Amendments Passed to 2nd Reading 7-0-2 (BA,DC - Absent)

Comments?

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Planning Board

Feb 6, 2023 – The City of Cambridge is seeking members to serve on the Planning Board. All Cambridge residents are invited to apply.

The Planning Board is made up of Cambridge residents who make recommendations and decisions about urban development on behalf of the City of Cambridge. The Planning Board has seven full members and two associate members who are appointed by the City Manager, and then approved by the City Council. Members generally serve a 5-year term. All members can participate in Planning Board discussions.

The Planning Board meets regularly in a public forum to discuss the city’s urban planning objectives, and apply them in the following ways:

• Reviewing major urban development proposals, granting certain types of special permits when they are needed, and putting conditions on special permit approval. The Planning Board reviews about 20-25 special permit cases each year.
• Reviewing proposed amendments to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, which sets rules for urban development, and making recommendations to the City Council. The Planning Board reviews about 10-15 proposed zoning amendments each year.
• Making recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) on some cases. The BZA is a different board that grants some special permits and variances.
• Discussing other city planning efforts.

Anyone who lives in Cambridge can apply to serve on the Planning Board. You don’t need to be a homeowner. The city is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All board and commission members in Cambridge must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, Black, Indigenous and other people of color, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

No specific professional background is needed to serve on the Planning Board. However, since a big part of the Planning Board’s role is reviewing building plans and designs, it is important that members have a strong interest and enthusiasm for urban design and how it shapes the community. Successful members of the Planning Board will be able to:

• Engage in a constructive discussion of urban planning topics, including urban design, transportation, housing, infrastructure planning, public space, and other topics
• Listen to people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives and consider different points of view
• Visit and learn about different parts of Cambridge, and bring experience from other cities that members have visited, lived in, or learned about
• Ask critical questions and make sure to get clear answers
• Work toward constructive solutions to complex problems
• Collaborate and build consensus with a group of people
• Learn about and understand the laws related to planning and zoning
• Make reasonable decisions on behalf of the City that follow those laws

We strongly suggest that people who are interested in the Planning Board attend or watch a Planning Board meeting. Visit www.cambridgema.gov/planningboard to learn about upcoming meetings. Archived video of meetings can be found on the city’s website here (then scroll to “Available Archives” / “Planning Board”).

By state law, all board members need to complete training in ethics and conflict-of-interest laws. The city’s Law Department also provides training and assistance to Planning Board members on legal issues. The city provides training to employees on topics including Preventing Sexual Harassment and Valuing Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These trainings will be available to Planning Board members and may be required.

The Planning Board is supported by professional planning staff in the Community Development Department, with added support from the Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, the Department of Public Works, and others. Staff give written reports to Planning Board members on cases that are before them, and are also available if members have questions. Staff may also develop training on other topics that are relevant to the Planning Board’s work and may direct Planning Board members to training offered by outside organizations.

The Planning Board usually meets 2-4 times each month on Tuesday evenings at 6:30pm. Meetings can last about 3-4 hours. Members are expected to attend most meetings.

The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law usually requires meetings to be in person. However, the Planning Board has been meeting remotely under the temporary Open Meeting Law provisions established during the COVID-19 pandemic and may continue to meet remotely through March 2023. For remote meetings, Planning Board members will need to have a computer or other device with an internet connection, camera, and microphone that can support video conferencing. It is also helpful to have a private place to attend remote meetings without distractions.

Members can expect to spend about 2-4 hours before each meeting reviewing materials such as plans and documents, which are sent to members about 5 days before each meeting. Some members find it helpful to visit sites that they are reviewing in person, but it is not required.

Starting in January 2023, Planning Board members will get $6,000 per year as a stipend. This stipend is meant to offset the annual out-of-pocket costs that members might need to pay to make it possible to serve on the Planning Board, such as child care, transportation, and other expenses.

People interested in being considered should apply by using the city’s online application system at www.cambridgema.gov/apply and selecting “Planning Board” in the list of Current Vacancies. You can also obtain a paper application in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. During the application process, you should provide a cover letter to explain why you are interested in being on the Planning Board, and a résumé or summary of applicable experience. Experience can include both professional and volunteer work.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, March 6, 2023.

If you have questions, contact Swaathi Joseph in the Community Development Department at 617-349-4668 or sjoseph@cambridgema.gov or visit www.cambridgema.gov/planningboard.

Volunteer Opportunities - Cambridge Boards & Commissions (click for details)

Members Sought for City of Cambridge Planning Board - Deadline Mon, Mar 6, 2023

City of Cambridge Seeking Members for Cambridge Climate Committee - Deadline Mon, Feb 27, 2023

Feb 17 - This is the 4th day running that the City has failed to provide Covid data.
I updated the figures and charts based on posted cumulative totals and will adjust if and when the City gets its act together.

Plague Report (Feb 17) - 21 new Covid cases reported today (covering 4 days), and wastewater levels are generally falling.

There were 21 new COVID positive tests reported today (covering 4 days during which the City’s data people have failed fix their database), and the 7-day daily average decreased from 6.7 to 5.9. There was 1 new death reported on Feb 15 but it is unknown whether this was in long-term care or general community. The total number of residents who have tested positive is now 35,240 (not including me and possibly thousands of others who have tested positive at home). The Cambridge total increased by 21 today (covering 4 days), 16 on Monday (covering 3 days), and 3, 11, 13, 32, 9 (covering 3 days), 5, and 7 in recent days. Time will tell where this is headed as the BA.4&5, the BF.7, the BQ.1, and the even newer XBB variant continue to work their way through. The 7-day averages are now in the 5-10 range. The percentage of positive tests (measured over the last two weeks) stands at 6.96% (recent previous rates 6.73%, 7.84%, 9.06%, 11.22%, 11.99%, 8.82%, 8.29%, 8.5%, 5.84%, 4.90%, 4.73%). Most importantly, the effects of the latest virus variants (along with vaccinations) appear to be much milder.

Click on graph above for latest Cambridge data.

Feb 17, 2023 Breakdown of Cases:
35240 tested positive (total) - an increase of 21 since Monday
[includes 4496 Harvard (0 new) and 2829 MIT (0 new) - not updated since Monday]
184 confirmed deaths - 93 (or 94) in long-term care facilities, 90 (or 91) in general community

Thanks to vaccinations, even though the 7-day averages were dreadful
the impacts were not as bad as they could have been.

City of Cambridge Covid Information     Harvard University COVID-19 data     MIT COVID-19 data

High vaccination rates have helped to blunt what might have been a larger surge and far more deaths.

Covid Cases by Age Group - through Feb 10, 2023

(click on above graph for the latest)
MWRA Biobot wastewater data - Feb 15, 2023

MWRA Biobot recent wastewater data - North System - Feb 15, 2023
The 7-day average reached as high as 8644 (copies/mL) in January 2022 before dropping to as low as 101 in March.
The BA.2 variants brought it back up to 1273 in May before dropping to under 400.
Recently it rose as high as 2023 due to the latest variants, but now stands at 557 (copies/mL).

Sample Date	1/25	1/26	1/27	1/28	1/29	1/30	1/31	2/1	2/2	2/3	2/4	2/5	2/6	2/7	2/8	2/9	2/10	2/11	2/12	2/13	2/14	2/15
North System (copies/ml)	871	448	773	685	767	689	1169	706	906	907	568	913	941	539	577	461	1110	498	366	-	547	588
Northern 7-day Avg.	854	718	720	688	685	653	745	723	800	818	796	817	854	765	743	674	694	681	598	554	556	557

The percentages detected in wastewater samples in Middlesex County are now XBB* at 94.7.%, BA.5* at 0.0%,
BQ.1* at 0.0%, and 5.3% other as of the week of Jan 30. [updated Feb 16]

Omicron Variant Overview - as of Jan 25, 2023 [updated Feb 16]

Region	BA.2*	BA.4*	BA.5	BF.7	BQ.1*	XBB*	Other
Nationwide	8.1%	1.3%	8.9%	-	11.8%	65.6%	4.3%
Midwest	6.7%	-	9.2%	0.1%	14.1%	60.3%	9.6%
Northeast	4.3%	1.6%	4.9%	-	4.2%	83.5%	1.5%
South	9.6%	1.6%	11.5%	-	14.6%	58.2%	4.5%
West	14.2%	1.0%	12.6%	-	22.2%	43.0%	7.0%

An asterisk (*) indicates that sub-lineages are included. “Other” indicates all other lineages of SARS-CoV-2, including Delta.

Destroying a City is as Easy as ABC: The AHO Behemoth Proposal Returns on February 8 (excerpts from - Nov 2022)

Perhaps it’s a good time to burn some bridges and take sides. The 2023 Municipal Election Season has now begun and there is some detritus that needs to be disposed.

Order #15. Amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan
pulled by Toner; Azeem amendment Fails (BA,MM,DS,QZ - YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS - NO)
QZ amendment to Require Committee Reports by Jan 31, 2022 Fails 4-5 (BA,MM,DS,QZ - YES; DC,AM,PN,PT,SS - NO)
Toner Amendment to send to Housing Committee and NLTP Committee (rather than to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board) Adopted 8-1 (QZ - NO)
Order Adopted as Amended 8-1 (QZ - NO)

This may well be the most outrageous proposal I have ever seen from this or any other Cambridge City Council. Please read the full text of this Order and the accompanying maps. It simply blows past decades of thoughtful, deliberative planning and public participation in favor of dramatic upzoning without any meaningful opportunity for public response or input. I will add that we may now be at the point where proposals such as this will have to be viewed through a “regulatory taking” lens in the sense that what is allowed and what is proposed to be allowed for government-sponsored developers is dramatically more than what is allowed for ordinary property owners. It seems as though the policy of this City Council has become completely skewed toward moving privately-owned property toward “social housing” – and they apparently are willing to keep skewing the rules to benefit their chosen developers (who are likely also the ones drafting the regulations) until they achieve this shift.

I feel some obligation to now talk about proportional representation elections. In the absence of any true civic and political infrastructure in Cambridge, our municipal elections have become dominated by single-issue advocacy groups. In the absence of a true local newspaper willing to listen to community concerns and provide objective journalism, political propaganda has become the rule, and that includes partisans embedded in neighborhood listservs eager to attack anyone who might stand in the way of their respective agendas. So here is my first bit of advice when it comes time to vote in the next municipal election – in addition to considering which candidates you find acceptable and ranking them by preference, think even more about which candidates you should exclude from your ballot. We are now in a period where voting for candidate slates is being strongly encouraged, and in an environment where most residents remain unaware of the actions and proposals of councillors and candidates, propaganda can dominate. The truth is that some candidates win regardless of endorsements and it’s demonstrably false to claim that a majority of voters support policies of your organization simply because they are included on your candidate slate. We have never actually polled Cambridge voters about specific issues, and the range of criteria used by most voters in their candidate preferences is as wide as an ocean.

The ABC group (more properly called “A Bigger Cambridge”) has never made a secret of its long-term mission - namely to dramatically increase heights and densities everywhere in Cambridge, to eliminate all neighborhood conservation districts and historic preservation regulations, and to “streamline” permitting in the sense that most or all rights to object to development proposals should be eliminated. One of their principal officers even suggested a target population of at least 300,000 for Cambridge a few years ago (that’s about triple the current population). This is like the reincarnation of Robert Moses as Jane Jacobs rolls over in her grave. I actually ranked 3 of the 9 candidates ABC endorsed in the 2021 municipal election. I will not rank any of their endorsees again even if I like them personally, and I encourage others to do the same. This, by the way, should not be viewed in any way as an endorsement of any other candidates or candidate slates - despite what some activists may choose to think (or tweet).

---

Here’s a letter sent by Patrick Barrett to the City Council that captures many of my sentiments and makes some very important points:

Honorable Mayor Siddiqui and Cambridge City Council,

I have to admit that following this Council lately is a lot like drinking from a fire hose. It has been difficult to keep up with all of the proposed changes. This latest amendment request has a lot of stuff in it but instead of getting tangled in the binary weeds of yes or no I think what I am seeing here is a moment in time where we ought to clearly state or get comfortable with where this city is headed. In about a month it will be C2’s 9th birthday ... a failed planning initiative that was ultimately rejected by CDD, some current councillors, and the Planning Board. I compare that five year process to this petition and I can only think about how massively this conversation about development has changed in such a short time. Back in those days (2013) 14 stories was declared too tall, would block out the sun, and force MBTA personnel to use brooms to push passengers into overcrowded T stops. Dark times to be sure. However, now the pendulum has swung wildly in another direction where proponents of any change now state that an “emergency” dictates that we must act immediately on everything … all the time … no matter what. Even worse, proponents of everything from BEUDO to the AHO state that to not be 100% onboard is akin to doing nothing, being a climate denier, being anti-housing, or being a racist. It is hard to take them seriously especially in a city like Cambridge where it is unlikely and rare to find another city that does more within 6.2 sq miles on either subject. Maybe we ought to start thinking about what we do instead of berating ourselves over the false perception that we do nothing?

I am supportive of “tall” buildings in Central Square in part because we already have them and because Central Square, more than most areas of the City, has yet to come close to realizing its potential. However I think this has to do more with a lack of vision than archaic zoning, though to be clear Central Square zoning is the absolute worst in the city. I must admit, and please do not faint, that I have an issue with 100% affordable development schemes; especially when they preclude market rate developments that match. For instance, Central Square has a base height of 55' whereas this proposal would allow for 280' and potentially unlimited height depending on how you interpret the section on open space subparagraph (f). I’m not sure I care that much about height and I cannot tell the difference between an 18 story building or a 24 story building especially from the ground floor but such a wildly disproportionate development scheme for one type of housing is a mistake anywhere and especially in an area that already exceeds 30% affordable for total housing stock. I say this in light of the fact that proponents of the AHO often cited lack of affordable housing in other parts of the city, currently below even 40b standards, and that the AHO was designed to fix that. This has not been the case so far and maybe it makes sense to put the lion share of affordable housing in one section of the city … but I've yet to hear anyone in planning or the City explain why. I also believe that market rate housing IS the “affordable housing” for the vast majority of people coming to Cambridge who do not qualify for affordable housing. Without a substantive plan to address that population aren’t we just kicking the can and further exacerbating values? Have we decided collectively that supply and demand is a myth? If so that might help explain this strategy though I've not heard that openly expressed by CDD or City Staff.

My questions about this policy change are more about bigger picture issues:

1) Are we no longer going to permit market rate development?

2) Do we have a goal with regard to affordable housing?

3) Have we thought about what happens once people are housed or are we merely counting units?

4) What happens in the commercial districts or more importantly a cultural district when the developer is no longer bound to zoning in any way?

5) Is home ownership no longer a goal?

6) If the council feels that 280' is an appropriate height for buildings, why limit that to affordable only?

7) Has anyone audited the impact of the AHO on market costs?

8) Have we assessed the impact of changing inclusionary zoning since it was increased in 2015?

9) Is there a conflict of interest with the affordable housing trust where the Manager, affordable developers, and a few interested parties are solely responsible for doling out taxpayer money to each other for their own projects and also now draft zoning changes with City staff to remove their need to comply while everyone else has to? I cannot imagine we’d accept this arrangement for market rate development. Why is it OK here?

10) I would love to hear someone articulate a clear vision for the City. In Central Square we have been pushing our own vision in the absence of a clear direction from the City. I am happy to share that vision; would you kindly share yours?

Lastly, our ordinance is a book about us and our values and it seems at this moment in time it is making assumptions that are incorrect. Maybe this is the moment where we take a pause and try to piece together the dozens of studies, reams of data collected over four decades, and actually reform our zoning code to reflect the values everyone seems to claim they have? It doesn’t have to take another decade or even more than a few months, but if we are planning for the next 150 years like our university friends do we should be looking at this top down not through the narrow lens of one subject.

CC: Hatfields
CC: McCoys

Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Patrick W. Barrett III

---

Order #18. That the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding Comments on Citizen’s Petition to Amend Ch. 2.78, Article III, Neighborhood Conservation Districts and Landmarks and the memo from Charles Sullivan regarding the Proposed Friendly Amendments to Ch. 2.78, Art. III be forwarded to the full City Council with the recommendation to refer said memos to the Ordinance Committee for further discussion.   Councillor Carlone
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning Committee conducted a public meeting on Oct 25, 2022 to discuss the Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition: Historical Commission Proposed Response. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Suffice to say that the “Neighborhood Conservation District Citizen’s Petition” is one of ABC’s policy goals to minimize or eliminate public review of development proposals. As for Neighborhood Conservation Districts in general, while I absolutely would not want them to dictate what paint I can use on my house or the requirement of materials that are dramatically more expensive, I absolutely support their underlying purpose. In spite of the Robert Moses view of things, I believe there are many things in Cambridge worthy of preservation.

Comments?