Spring Backwards - March 20, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Spring officially begins Monday, Mar 20, 2023 at 5:24pm. Six minutes later the Cambridge City Council will spring backwards into Zoom isolation. Here are the agenda items that caught my attention:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the new appointments of Maria Guadalupe Arlotto and Brendan Koscher as members of the Police Review and Advisory Board for terms of five years.
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-05, regarding a report on beginning the process of obtaining police body worn cameras (BWC) 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.
pulled by Toner; comments by PT, DS, MM, PN (critical of previous city managers), QZ (opposed to body cameras); responses by Commissioner Christine Elow, and Superintendent Freddie Cabral; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 23-09, regarding a report on engaging 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.
pulled by Zondervan; questions from Siddiqui; comments by QZ (concerned about bidding process for contract - curious that no such concerns about HEART funding and contract; also challenging use of a police entity doing review), DS (noting that CPD already intentional about deescalation methods), AM, DC, PN, SS; responses by Elow, City Manager Huang; Placed on File 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to fund the HEART initiative and negotiate a contract for services with HEART, to include but not limited to HEART responding to certain 911 calls. [Charter Right – Nolan, Mar 6, 2023]
Siddiqui again says “charterwritten”; Toner moves to also discuss Comm. & Rpts. #3; Nolan reads prepared statement, says HEART expects to be ready in Fall, proposes amendments; Zondervan supportive of amendments; Toner OK with amendments but questions HEART, prefers to develop a scope of services for others to bid on, questions about liability; McGovern says that Manager believes that contracts with a non-profit entity do not need to go out to bid, floats notion of $8 million funding for HEART, fully supports Community Safety Department but wants HEART to be outside of any City department; Simmons notes her letter with Toner expressing concerns about HEART, notes model for non-police response that grew from Task Force, wants assurance that any entity chosen is actually equipped to do the job; Zondervan expresses support w/o any questions; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 7-1-0-1 (Simmons - Present; Toner - No)

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Councillor Toner, transmitting Questions regarding Requests to Fund Heart Using City Funds.
Discussed along with Charter Right #1; Placed on File 9-0

It seems all but certain that the reason the City Council meeting is taking place on Mount Zoom this week is because of the multiple police-related agenda items and the inevitability of a PSL invasion (Party for Socialism and Liberation). We may also see further evidence of the current Mayor’s differences of opinion with the City Administration (and perhaps a signal of how she might prefer to change the Charter to gain more authority). [“In Cambridge, our charter grants the City Manager power over the Police Department as well as oversight of personnel matters. There have been repeated demands from the community to release the name of the officer who shot Faisal, and I personally believe this is an important step for the sake of transparency, but a statement released last week made clear the City will not do so.”]. Ms. Siddiqui’s definition of “the community” is not so clear.

Regarding HEART: There’s something disturbing about the fact that city councillors are pressing the City Manager to award a contract to a particular vendor - and especially a vendor with zero track record other than the consistent hostility of its adherents toward the Cambridge Police Department.

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations for the block rates for water consumption and sewer use for the period beginning Apr 1, 2023 and ending Mar 31, 2024. [FY24 water/sewer charts]
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN; responses by Owen O'Riorden, Kathy Watkins (DPW); Placed on File 9-0

The notable increases in the water rate this year actually exceed the increases in the sewer rate, but it has generally been the reverse for some time. It costs far more to lose the water than to supply it.

*All rates are per CcF. CcF is an abbreviation of 100 cubic feet. One CcF is approximately 750 gallons

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments and reappointments of Danielle Jones-McLaughlin, Deepti Nijhawan, Loring Brinckerhoff, Avril dePagter, Mary Devlin , Dan Stubbs as members of the Cambridge Commission for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD).
Appointments Approved 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Salvation Army Shelter and Daytime Program.
pulled by Zondervan; comments by QZ, MM, PT; responses by Yi-An Huang, Ellen Semonoff (annual cost $1,080,000); Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO23#35, related to the Allocation Plan for Cambridge’s HOME-ARP funds.
pulled by Nolan; comments by PN, QZ, MM, DC, SS; responses by Yi-An Huang, Iram Farooq; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a summary of a Planning Board Meeting on the 2022 Town-Gown Reports and Presentations.
pulled by Carlone; comments by DC (graduate student housing, etc.), PN; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the final report for the City’s comprehensive year-long municipal broadband feasibility study.
Placed on File 9-0

I am eager to be convinced that this is a worthwhile investment that won’t jeopardize the City’s financial standing. The $194 million estimate is almost certainly less that what the actual cost will be. I also have a lot of questions about what this initiative would mean in terms of residents who have their Internet, Cable TV, and phone bundled into a single Comcast package. For example, will a resident still have to contract with Comcast if they want to watch TV? Will the result actually be cost savings or additional cost? Will Cable TV simply dry up and blow away in a few years with everything shifting toward data-intensive streaming options? Even more fundamentally, were any of these questions raised in the supposedly “scientific survey” now being touted by some councillors in their pre-campaign email blasts?

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO23#44, related to the Barrett, et al., Zoning Petition. [text of report]
Referred to Petition 9-0

Unfinished Business #3. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc City Clerk, relative to a Zoning Petition from Patrick Barrett et al. North Mass Ave BA-5 Zoning District Petition (Ordinance #2022-21). [Passed to 2nd Reading, Mar 6, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Mar 20, 2023; Expires Apr 3, 2023]

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments to ensure multi-family properties on the market are reviewed as quickly as possible as potential affordable housing acquisitions. [Charter Right - Simmons, Mar 6, 2023]
Remarks by Simmons, Nolan; Amendments Adopted 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I don’t wish to infuriate anyone by saying this, but the notion that multi-family buildings, particularly two- and three-family buildings, should be removed from private ownership flies in the face of the reality that small property owners have been possibly the greatest source of affordable rents in Cambridge for well over a century. A nonprofit corporation is not an improvement over a good landlord or landlady and these properties have long been an essential part of securing a middle class of Cambridge residents.

Unfinished Business #4. An Ordinance has been received from Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to Ordinance # 2022-6 Article III Green Jobs 2.66.100 Definitions. [Passed to 2nd Reading, Feb 27, 2023; To Be Ordained on or after Mar 20, 2023]
pulled by Zondervan; Ordained 9-0

Applications & Petitions #1. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Charles Jessup Franklin et al., regarding allowing new construction that is similar in size and shape as existing buildings for the purpose of promoting housing and first floor retail.
pulled by McGovern; comments by MM, BA (not enthusiastic, wants even higher density); Referred to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 8-0-0-1 (Carlone - Present)

Perhaps we should call this latest variation the Missing Middle Revisited Petition. Variations on this theme by the densifiers seem endless. The suggested residential densities in this variant are in many ways even greater than those proposed in the previous “Missing Middle” attempt - and continue to be be somewhat oblivious to how housing on Cambridge streets actually functions. [Ref.: “A few observations on density”]

Applications & Petitions #2. A Zoning Petition Has been received from Michael Monestime et al. regarding Outdoor Use Zoning Petition for the Central Square Cultural District.
pulled by McGovern; comments by MM, QZ, PT, PN, DS; Referred to Planning Board and Ordinance Committee 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager work with the Central Square Business Improvement District and provide a license agreement, as well as direct financial and regulatory support for the continued and uninterrupted operation of Starlight Square.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Siddiqui; remarks by Siddiqui, Simmons, McGovern, Nolan, Zondervan, Carlone (consider redevelopment of the edges as well), Azeem, Mallon; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

I greatly appreciate that we had Starlight Square during the pandemic, and I absolutely hope that we can have a suitable venue like this in the future. That said, Starlight Square as it is now is something of a relic that would need either a substantial upgrade or a relocation. Many of us view it as an experiment that strongly made the case for comparable and perhaps much better options in the future. Central Square needs options for vendors such as those provided by Popportunity, and we definitely need better gathering spaces for events or a rethinking of existing spaces. Dumping on the BZA (as some councillors are doing) is more of a cheap shot than an actual plan that can be sustained.

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Sara Reese on receiving the 2023 Exemplary School Champion Award for her leadership in workforce development in Cambridge.   Councillor Toner

Resolution #2. Gratitude to Margaret Drury for her many years of tireless service to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority and to the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Simmons, Vice Mayor Mallon, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Simmons (notes Margaret’s three decades of service to the City); remarks by McGovern, Carlone; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council is requested to confer with the Dedication Committee to consider the request to dedicate a street corner in honor of Ned Handy.   Councillor Carlone, Councillor Toner
pulled by Carlone; remarks by Carlone; Order Adopted 9-0

Order #1. That the City Council go on record supporting Enabling Legislation for a Real Estate Transfer Fee.   Councillor Carlone, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Carlone; remarks by Carlone (would generate $23 million more per year for affordable housing); Order Adopted 9-0

Order #3. Policy Order for Garden Street Accommodations.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Zondervan; remarks by Toner; notable that there were many nearly identical comments during Public Comment from the “bike lobby” opposing this Order; Charter Right - Zondervan

This is a start - and hopefully not just ass-covering for some city councillors concerned about how West Cambridge residents might vote in November. Ensuring bicycle safety need not be a monolithic enterprise with little room for revision.

Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee met on May 7, 2019. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; Reported Accepted as Amended, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee met on Feb 16, 2022 to consider the City Council goals in relation to the budget and to gather input and discuss priorities on the FY23 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee met on Feb 23, 2022 to reconvene its Feb 16, 2020 meeting to receive public comment regarding the City Council goals in relation to the budget and to gather input and discuss priorities on the FY23 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Finance Committee met on Apr 20, 2022 to discuss the city’s ARPA application/funding update status. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #5. The Finance Committee met on May 10, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #6. The Finance Committee met on May 11, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 school budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #7. The Finance Committee met on May 17, 2022 to conduct hearing on FY 2023 budget. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #8. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on June 14, 2022 to receive an update on ARPA funding. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #9. The Human Services and Veterans Committee held a public meeting on Feb 28, 2023, to discuss the status of after school programming in Cambridge. [text of report]
Reported Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Perhaps Neil Sedaka should provide the soundtrack with “Catching Up Is Hard To Do”. My favorite case is the (March 6) adoption of the ordinance establishing the procedure for appointment of the Charter Review Commission as required by the Charter amendments adopted in 2021. The committee was appointed July 1, 2022 - more than 8 months prior to the adoption of the ordinance. - Robert Winters

Comments?

Municipal Broadband or Municipal Boondoggle

March 13, 2023 - There’s a City Council Roundtable tonight that includes a presentation on “Municipal Broadband Feasibility and Business Model Options”. Advocacy for municipal broadband has gained a lot of traction among city councillors over the last few years - perhaps even unanimous support - but the issue has always been about financial cost and exposure, i.e. the notion that a huge amount of money might be invested in a technology that might become obsolete with the next wave of innovation.

If surveyed, residents would likely be nearly unanimous in the view that having affordable alternatives for fast Internet access is very desirable - hence a winning position for city councillors to support. What is often not said is that municipal broadband would likely not include Cable TV access (unless you subscribe to one of the new streaming options), and if consumers who now bundle their phone, Internet, and TV access wanted municipal broadband there might not even be a financial benefit in doing so. More significantly, the full capital cost of such an investment is estimated to be $194 million with a City contribution estimated to be $150 million.

KEY STUDY FINDINGS

• The full capital cost is estimated at ~$194 million, incorporating a 30% contingency and inflation over a 5-year construction period, assuming a 40% take-rate.

• A City contribution of ~$150 million is required to establish a sustainable FTTP business from scratch, applying reasonable assumptions under a “base case”. This contribution is the investment the City would need to make for which there would likely be no return. The remaining capex can be supported from net revenues after operating costs.

• Entering into a partnership with one or more entities to lease fiber and run the business would reduce the City’s risks and potentially reduce costs. A partner could potentially leverage existing operations and assets, achieving economies of scale.

Comments?

The City of Cambridge Unveils Report on Municipal Broadband Feasibility and Business Model Options

March 15, 2023 – The City of Cambridge has released the final report for its comprehensive year-long municipal broadband feasibility study, Municipal Broadband in Cambridge: Feasibility and Business Model Options. The report examines the feasibility of the City of Cambridge implementing a municipal fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) service, providing a detailed FTTP design and cost estimate, and a range of business and financial models for building, operating, and providing service to all premises in Cambridge.

“We have the opportunity to build a gigabit fiber network that will serve Cambridge for the next generation while protecting our values around data privacy, net neutrality, and digital equity. While there is still significant work to be done, this report will guide the City’s next steps in its broadband journey,” said City Manager Yi-An Huang.

The City of Cambridge partnered with nationally recognized firms, CTC Technology & Energy (CTC) and Rebel Group (Rebel), to conduct the study. CTC offers independent strategic, technical, and financial guidance primarily to public sector and nonprofit entities, while Rebel works with public and private organizations on infrastructure needs and financial resources through public-private partnerships, innovative financing, and strategic program management. CTC and Rebel have helped develop municipal broadband strategies for cities and communities across the nation.

The Municipal Broadband in Cambridge report explores several key findings, including:

• Constructing an FTTP network to reach all 52,300 residences and businesses in Cambridge would cost an estimated $124 million to $161 million in 2022 dollars or $149 million to $194 million when considering inflation.
• A citywide FTTP network would likely require a significant capital contribution to be financially feasible, including a $150 million upfront City contribution, based on relatively conservative assumptions, including that 40 percent of premises subscribe.
• There are several business models that the City could explore, each impacting Cambridge’s contribution differently depending on the type of partnership and a variety of business factors.
• Once the City reaches a decision to move forward on exploring a specific option, there is 18 to 24 months of key activities and decision points before the City would formally decide to execute a specific implementation project.

The report also highlights a high-level FTTP network design and cost estimates developed by CTC to inform the City’s broadband planning effort. The design provides for ubiquitous service within the Cambridge city limits, delivering residential services at symmetrical speeds of up to gigabit speeds and scalable to higher speeds with modest upgrades to electronics in the future.

The report identifies four business models developed by Rebel, each with the potential to meet the City’s goals, albeit to varying degrees and with certain tradeoffs. Regardless of the business model selected, the report suggests that the City should leverage competition to maximize value for taxpayers and subscribers.

A randomized mail survey conducted in May and June of 2022 also provided key insights into broadband access and use, and demand for additional internet service options. The survey found very few gaps in acquisition of residential internet services, but also that lower-income households may be underserved. Additionally, connection reliability ranks as the most important internet service aspect among subscribers, followed by connection speed. Many respondents also would be interested in acquiring services from a new internet service provider (ISP) in Cambridge, and would support a new fiber broadband network, even if it is subsidized by the City.

Any finalized project time horizon would most likely include a five-year construction period and 25 years of operations.

The Municipal Broadband in Cambridge: Feasibility and Business Model Options report is available for download on the City of Cambridge website.

Rules? We don’t have to follow no stinkin’ rules!

March 18, 2023 - In the 2022-23 City Council Rules, there are two item that has been largely ignored for the current term as well as the two previous terms:

As if communication through the Tunnel of Zoom wasn’t bad enough, some committee Chairs apparently have not seen fit to keep either their colleagues or the public informed unless they were present at the meeting or chose to view a recording of the meeting. There are reasons why minutes of a meeting are taken. Not everyone wants to suffer through a recording of a long and possibly boring meeting, and a voluminous transcript is not a substitute for good (succinct) minutes.

If we use a standard of two months as a reasonable time for report (not unreasonable), then here is the current record of deliquency:

Plague Report (Mar 21) - 7 new Covid cases reported today, and wastewater levels still generally falling.

There were 7 new COVID positive tests reported today, and the 7-day daily average increased slightly from 3.4 to 3.7 cases/day. The total number of residents who have tested positive is now 35,444 (not including me and possibly thousands of others who have tested positive at home). The Cambridge total increased by 7 today, and 13 (covering 3 days), 2, 3, 10, 23, 5 (covering 3 days), 4, 6, and 9 in recent days. Time will tell where this is headed as the various variants (especially XBB) continue to work their way through, but things are looking really good. The 7-day averages are now in the 0-5 range. The percentage of positive tests (measured over the last two weeks) stands at 4.7% (recent previous rates 4.69%, 5.23% 6.96%, 6.73%, 7.84%, 9.06%, 11.22%, 11.99%, 8.82%, 8.29%, and 8.5%). 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.

Mar 21, 2023 Breakdown of Cases:
35444 tested positive (total) - an increase of 7 since Monday
[includes 4505 Harvard (0 new) and 2849 MIT (0 new)]
188 confirmed deaths - 93 in long-term care facilities, 95 in general community
(new deaths recorded Mar 3 and Mar 8 - both 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 Mar 9, 2023

(click on above graph for the latest)
MWRA Biobot wastewater data - Mar 16, 2023

MWRA Biobot recent wastewater data - North System - Mar 16, 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.
Earlier this year it rose as high as 2023 due to the latest variants, but now stands at 325 (copies/mL).

The percentages detected in wastewater samples in Middlesex County are now XBB* at 91.8%, Other at 8.2%,
as of the week of Feb 27. [updated Mar 17]

Omicron Variant Overview - as of Mar 1, 2023 [updated Mar 17]

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

A chronology of the 1972 conflict over Proportional Representation in Cambridge
(posted Feb 24, 2023)

The Gathering Storm - March 6, 2023 Cambridge City Council meeting

Municipal Election Year dynamics are gradually emerging in the form of policy orders, social media chatter, and topics being emphasized or scrupulously avoided. There’s even a chance to chime in on where you stand on the endless state of war that is Rent Control (always an opportunity to turn friends into enemies and enemies into friends). Here are a few agenda items that may prove interesting (possibly in Zoom if the egocentrists of PSL continue to stamp their feet and display their ignorance):

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Policy Order 2022 #181, regarding convening a North Mass Avenue Corridor District Zoning Proposal Working Group.
pulled by Toner; remarks by Toner, Iram Farooq, Carlone on urban design, Nolan, Simmons on outreach and who will Chair committee - Farooq says City staff; Placed on File 8-0-1 (McGovern Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $150,000 from Free Cash to the Public Investment Fund Community Development Department Extraordinary Expenditures account to be used for professional services for a planning study for Massachusetts Avenue from Cambridge Common to Alewife Brook Parkway. Funds will be combined with existing balances from prior related projects.
pulled by Carlone; Farooq says $400,000 estimated total cost; Order Adopted 7-0-2 (Azeem, McGovern - Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 22-78, regarding safety concerns at the LBJ Apartment building.
pulled by Simmons; Commissioner Elow responds; Zondervan objects to deploying Police rather than a security service at public housing; Huang notes that private security don't play as engaged a role as Police and commends Cambridge Police; McGovern notes that tenants often let people in building who should not be there; Simmons notes that residents (correctly) equate Police with safety and security; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a transfer of $40,000 from the General Fund Reserves Other Ordinary Maintenance account to the General Fund City Council Other Ordinary Maintenance account to cover current and anticipated costs related to the work of the Charter Review Committee.
Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the City of Cambridge retaining its AAA rating from the nation’s three major credit rating agencies. [S&P] [Moodys] [Fitch]
pulled by Carlone; David Kale (Finance) explain about savings of $1.4 to $2 million interest; McGovern asks about ability to issues bonds, Kale says you can bond anything but the market decides the rates (recently 3.06%); Nolan notes ESG ratings in each of the reports; Toner notes value of stability in staff with change in City Manager, asks about effect of commercial vacancies and possible effects, Kale notes range of revenues and healthy reserves and notes what may happen with office space as leases expire and uses possibly change, $1 billion in new growth last year in lab space, uncertainty in office space (Gayle Willett - Assessing); Azeem about limitations on spending that might occur w/o AAA ratings, Kale explains value of strong and consistent management, long-term capital plan, ongoing leadership and bench strength in financial team, strength of local economy; Huang relates City budget to personal budgets, what might happen if City simply spent a lot more money - financial stewardship and optimization; Azeem notes about trade-off of pay-as-you-go vs. borrowing; Simmons remarks on potential downturn, Kale notes that revenues support expenditures, stable tax rates, managing debt, scheduled to pay off pension liabilities by 2026, more to do with long-term pension liabilities, history of bond ratings from Prop 2½ (early 1980s) until today; Zondervan dismissive of AAA ratings and focuses on the negatives of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and equity; Kale thanks Manager and Finance team, CDD, and other department heads and staff - echoed by City Manager Huang; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Annual Surveillance Report concerning City Departments’ use of Surveillance Technology or Surveillance Data.
pulled by Zondervan (who has issues with Shot Spotter); Reports Approved and Placed on File 9-0

My question is simply this: “How much staff time is occupied assembling these reports?”

Charter Right #2. That the joint Economic Development and University Relations and Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committees forward the amended proposed Policy Order regarding Labs and Neighborhood Planning to the full City Council. [Charter Right – Zondervan, Feb 27, 2023]
Siddiqui again says this was “charterwritten”; Zondervan amendments Approved 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Charter Right #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate City Departments to work with Eversource to include in their annual reporting, updates on their work to move forward with providing the infrastructure required to move Cambridge toward electrifying the city. [Charter Right – Nolan, Feb 27, 2023]
Siddiqui again says this was “charterwritten”; Nolan added as sponsor and McGovern amendments Adopted 9-0; Carlone comments on monopolies like Eversource; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Unfinished Business #4. 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; Ordinance Amended Feb 27, 2023]
Comments by (Abundant Housing Treasurer) Azeem on embedded emissions accounting such as materials used in construction, proposes amendments exempting some housing; Zondervan prefers version w/o amendments saying it has been fully vetted and that Planning Board wants this accounting for all projects w/o special exemptions for housing; Toner supports Azeem amendments; (Sky is Falling) Carlone says software already out there for embodied emissions accounting and that this is all just common sense and wants version w/o amendments; Nolan now trying to appear as a “moderate” and will support amendments; Siddiqui aligns with Zondervan, Carlone; Azeem amendments Adopted 5-4 (BA,MM,PN,DS,PT - Yes; DC,AM,QZ,SS - No); Ordained as Amended 9-0

Resolution #1. Congratulations to Robert Steck on his retirement from the City of Cambridge.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Carlone
pulled by Carlone who lauds Rob Steck as a playground designer and more

Resolution #3. Congratulations to Sam Corda on his retirement from the Cambridge Water Department.   Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons

Resolution #4. Resolution on the death of David Leslie.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon

Order #3. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to direct CDD to provide language that would amend the Patrick Barrett et al. North Mass Ave BZ-5 Zoning District Petition to include the amendments proposed by the petitioner and report back to the City Council by Mar 13, 2023.   Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon
Order Adopted 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Ordinance Committee, chaired by Councillor Zondervan, met on Feb 28, 2023 to continue the discussion of Citizens Zoning Petition from Patrick Barrett et al. North Mass Ave BZ-5 Zoning District Petition – AP22#52. [text of report]
pulled by Zondervan; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; Passed to 2nd Reading 6-3 (BA,AM,MM,PN,DS,PT - Yes; DC,QZ,SS - No)

Order #4. That the City Council go on record in support of the Tenant Protection Act HD.3922/SD.2368.   Councillor Zondervan, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Carlone, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Toner; Zondervan notes that this is about rent stabilization and “just cause” evictions; Siddiqui says this is similar to one Council previously supported; Toner will vote NO because he does not want to bring back divisiveness of rent control and observes that this will cause preemptive rent increases and thwart housing production; Nolan wants local control and says that (20 years ago) Cambridge voted overwhelmingly against rent control; McGovern will also support this with double-talk about how this is not actually rent control (which it obviously is); Mallon also double-talks and stresses “local control” rather than what this is really about, lauds Rep. Connolly; Siddiqui adds to the double-talk about “options; Order Adopted 8-1 (Toner NO)

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the City Manager’s Housing Liaison, Community Development Department, and the Cambridge Housing Authority [and the City Solicitor] on the feasibility of municipally-funded housing vouchers.   Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon, Councillor McGovern, Councillor Simmons, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Carlone, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zondervan (PO23#47)
pulled by Simmons; remarks by Siddiqui, Simmons, Mallon about how Somerville is doing this (with ARPA funds) but without any estimate of how costly this would be; Toner asks about legal issues and wants opinion of City Solicitor; Carlone (aggressively) suggests this should be made unanimous; McGovern says this would eliminate homelessness of veterans; Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to fund the HEART initiative and negotiate a contract for services with HEART, to include but not limited to HEART responding to certain 911 calls.   Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Azeem, Mayor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Nolan; remarks by Zondervan, Nolan; Charter Right - Nolan

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate City departments to ensure multi-family properties on the market are reviewed as quickly as possible as potential affordable housing acquisitions.   Councillor Nolan, Mayor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor Mallon
pulled by Nolan; Amendments proposed to add MM,DC; Charter Right - Simmons

Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee conducted a public meeting to discuss the FY24 Capital Budget, and future investment priorities in Cambridge’s physical infrastructure ahead of the FY24 budget cycle. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Housing Committee met on Wed, Feb 8, 2023 from 12:30-2:30pm to discuss potential amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay district as outlined in the Nov 21, 2022 policy order adopted by the City Council. [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; remarks by Simmons (meeting recessed, not adjourned, so no public comment), Carlone (NLTP meeting on Mar 22), Azeem says time needed for robust discussion; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Wed, Mar 8
3:00pm   The Housing Committee will hold a public meeting to continue the recessed meeting from Feb 8, 2023 to continue discussing potential amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay district as outlined in the Nov 21, 2022 policy order adopted by the City Council. No Public Comment.

Tues, Mar 22
5:30pm   The Neighborhood & Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts & Celebrations Committee will hold a public meeting to discuss potential amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay.

Comments?

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

Members Sought for Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board - Deadline Mon, April 3, 2023

Member Sought for Cambridge Community Benefits Advisory Committee - Deadline Mon, April 3, 2023

Members Sought for Cambridge Public Art Commission - Deadline Mon, April 24, 2023

Members Sought for Cambridge Public Art Commission

March 15, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking Cambridge residents interested in serving on the Cambridge Public Art Commission (PAC).

The Public Art Commission guides the implementation of the Public Art Ordinance and the Art Gifts and Donation Policy, and advises on the overall direction of the Public Art Program. The Commission brings its collective expertise to bear on discussions regarding the various program areas of the city's public art program, such as acquisition and deaccession, project planning, maintenance, conservation, educational programming, and the exhibitions in Cambridge Arts’ Gallery 344. The Commission reviews every percent-for-art project from artists’ proposals to final design. PAC approval is required before a project can go into fabrication.

The Public Art Commission is composed of nine volunteer members who are appointed by the City Manager to a three-year term, renewable once. The PAC meets on the second Tuesday of the month from 6-8 p.m., at the Cambridge City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway, 2nd Floor, in the Cambridge Arts Council Conference Room, or when permitted, virtually on Zoom.

The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Commission members in must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

The PAC seeks to represent the socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural diversity of the city, as well as various art and design disciplines (such as artists, architects, landscape architects, art educators, urban planners, art historians, conservators, curators, and art administrators).

Additional responsibilities of the Public Art Commission include:

• Advising on the artist selection process and community engagement process for major projects;
• Recommending qualified jurors to select artists (the Commission does not select artists);
• Reviewing public art proposals;
• Recommending potential sources for additional funding;
• Advising on outreach and education;
• Providing connection to the wider community and recommendations on community interests, resources, contacts, and neighborhood or city-wide issues;
• Contributing a broad perspective and interest in the city’s goals and values;
• Attending monthly meetings.

Commission members are encouraged to participate in Public Art activities and Gallery 344 events, such as public art openings, artist talks, community presentations, gallery receptions, public art tours, and other related happenings. Additionally, members have the opportunity to learn about the day-to-day work of the staff, Arts Council partners, and other departments and to offer advice and viewpoints that reflect the Commission’s purpose and role of arts advocacy within city government.

For more information about public art in Cambridge, visit Cambridgema.gov/publicart.

Applications to serve on this commission can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience should be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Ave. The application deadline is Monday, April 24, 2023.

Members Sought for Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board

Mar 6, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang seeks candidates for consideration for the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority Board (CRA). The CRA is an independent public body focused on publicly-beneficial real estate projects and infrastructure investment within the City of Cambridge.

The mission of the CRA from its 2014 Strategic Plan states “the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority is committed to implementing imaginative, creative development that achieves social equity and environmental sustainability. Our goal is to work in the public interest to facilitate infrastructure investments and development projects that integrate commercial, housing, civic, and open space uses. We are a public real estate entity with a unique set of redevelopment tools, working in close partnership with the City of Cambridge and other organizations.”

In 2012, under the guidance of a newly appointed Board, the CRA launched a strategic planning process which developed the mission above, along with a guiding set of operating principles, from which the organization initiated a series of new redevelopment activities for the community. Since then, the CRA launched the Foundry Redevelopment Demonstration Project, amended the Kendall Square Urban Redevelopment Plan (KSURP), initiated the Forward Fund nonprofit grant program, initiated multiple park and streetscape improvement projects, and purchased and renovated the nonprofit office building at 99 Bishop Allen Drive.

The CRA is finalizing a new strategic plan that deepens its commitment to equity and sustainability through community infrastructure projects, affordable housing investments, and economic opportunity programs. This strategic plan requires that the CRA be both nimble and thoughtful in taking on new projects and initiatives. Anticipated efforts for the upcoming years include the development of affordable homeownership opportunities, the preservation and renovation of commercial and non-profit spaces that advance economic opportunity, and the support of vital community infrastructure including community facilities, open space, and transit. The CRA Board will be responsible for the deployment of its financial resources and establishing partnerships to implementation of imaginative redevelopment programs.

Per the state regulations creating redevelopment authorities (M.G.L. 121B), the CRA Board is composed of five members, four of whom are appointed by the City Manager and confirmed by the City Council to five-year terms. The fifth member is appointed by the Governor’s office. The CRA Board is a public body that meets at least monthly under the guidance of the Open Meeting Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Regular board meetings are currently held virtually on the second or third Wednesday of each month, from 5:30-8:30pm.

Board members are responsible for overseeing the fiscal management and strategic direction of the CRA. They oversee project selection, program policy, internal controls, contracting and procurement decisions, and general management of operations. The Board hires the Executive Director and sets annual budgets for the organization. They serve as a critical connection between community interests and program management. They bring forward redevelopment concepts for consideration. They review suggested initiatives received from the City of Cambridge and CRA staff. They guide existing redevelopment programs providing land use and design review of buildings in the KSURP area of Kendall Square. They monitor the delivery of ongoing community benefit agreements in Kendall Square and other plan areas.

The City of Cambridge 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, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Additional information regarding the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority is available on the project webpage, www.cambridgeredevelopment.org.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, April 3, 2023. Applications can be submitted to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume, or an overview of relevant experience, can also be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue. For more information, call the City Manager's Office at 617-349-4300.

Member Sought for Cambridge Community Benefits Advisory Committee

Mar 6, 2023 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking to fill a vacancy on the City’s Community Benefits Advisory Committee. This Committee makes recommendations to the City Manager for the approval and awarding of grant agreements with nonprofit organizations for the provision of Community Benefits.

Community Benefits may be programs or services provided by nonprofit organizations that directly benefit Cambridge residents. The role of the Committee is to solicit and evaluate applications from local non-profit providers for the provision of services that are consistent with the Cambridge City Council’s Funding Priorities. The Committee is also responsible for establishing rules, regulations, and guidelines to provide for the proper administration and implementation of Community Benefit funding.

In 2020, the Committee recommended funding for four Partnerships to work with low-income families to address housing stability, financial stability, and behavioral health issues. Those Partnerships will be entering their 4th year of funding. The Committee will be focusing on the evaluation of the Community Benefits Projects, and the Committee’s work as well as supporting the Partnerships in planning for the future.

The Committee’s 13 members represent non-profit organizations, City staff members, Cambridge residents, the Cambridge Community Foundation, the business/property development community, the city’s universities, and the Cambridge Nonprofit Coalition. One seat is currently open for a Cambridge resident, who would serve a 3-year term. The Committee currently meets virtually on the first Monday of the month, from 4-6pm, though the schedule may sometimes change to accommodate Committee needs. In the future, meetings may transition to hybrid format to include in-person.

Individuals with interest in human service programs, experience/expertise in relevant topics (examples include but not limited to nonprofit leadership, fiscal management, community development, program design/development, public health, housing, homelessness, food access/insecurity, mental health/substance abuse, grant writing, social justice, child development), and a demonstrated ability to work effectively with diverse viewpoints to craft consensus solutions are encouraged to apply.

The City is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. All committee 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, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

Applications to serve on the Commission should be submitted by Monday, April 3, 2023 using the City of Cambridge’s online application system at cambridgema.gov/apply. A cover letter and resume or applicable experience may be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue.

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?

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?