Marching Fourth - March 4, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Perhaps this is the year we’ll march in like a lamb and out like a lion. There are some interesting things circling around - notably the recent Feb 28 Finance Committee meeting where City staff made it abundantly clear that the City Council might want to be just a bit less ambitious and expansive in their requests to fund everything under the sun. They are anticipating tax levy increases for the next few fiscal years in excess of 10%, and this may translate into very large jumps in property taxes - especially for single-, two-, and three-family homes. [Don’t worry, condo owners, you will likely continue to get the sweetest deal in town. The main message was “The City is at a critical inflection point and will need to take action to preserve future financial stability.”

Perhaps the two most substantive items on the week’s agenda are the final report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and the Central Square Lots Study Report.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the final report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). [text of report]
pulled by Wilson to announce that there will be a Public Safety Committee meeting on this on Apr 2, 3-5pm; Referred to Public Safety Committee 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Central Square Lots Study Report. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson - a says outreach was unsatisfactory, loss of Starlight Square; Yi-An Huang responds to questions about representation, nature of process of the study, role of councillors in facilitating community feedback; McGovern questions about Request for Information (RFI), Melissa Peters responds about RFI and planning for Central Square rezoning, trade-offs, housing options; Yi-An Huang refers to Lots Study as a “test fit”, desire for housing, including “affordable”, need to bring Cambridge Redevelopment Authority into process, possibility of joining with adjacent (privately-owned) properties [Note: this was exactly the point I made in the Central Square Advisory Committee (CSAC) meeting on this - especially in regard to the privately-owned lots at Prospect/Bishop Allen and building on Green Street adjacent to parking lot at Pleasant (currently hosting Needle Exchange)]; McGovern on Starlight (Lot 5) and how its loss would be upsetting to many; Yi-An Huang notes that he has discussed with with CSBID, City financial support for Starlight/Popportunity - uses phrase “square within the square”, possibility of housing, performance space, and parking at this location; Siddiqui expresses disappointment that there will be a limited Starlight season this year with an early end, notes ARPA award to support it, says there is community support to extend it; Pickett wants to reconcile Lots Study and planning for zoning changes; Melissa Peters says Lots Study and zoning planning are parallel processes, RFP will come after the zoning is completed; Pickett asks about continuing community engagement; Nolan concerns about long-term planning [Hey, isn’t there a committee with that name?], suggests citywide survey, impacts on City budget - both capital and operating budgets, quantifying value of Starlight Square; Azeem bemoans loss of Starlight, need for alternatives, offers comments on various lots and properties; Sobrinho-Wheeler uptalks; Simmons wants to refer to NLTP Committee, expresses hope for Starlight, notes decades of studies on Central Square - brings up slide (from CCJ site), Central Square as a cultural district, how this fits in with ongoing MAPC study, shallow referencing of “people of color”, dissatisfaction with degree of outreach, 44 years with 24 studies - “hurry up and wait”; Yi-An Huang notes that this “test fit” utilized past studies; disagreement about whether there is a call for action or additional feedback and study; Yi-An Huang (correctly) notes that Starlight was built as a temporary structure during Covid and that focus now should be on future alternatives; Wilson references long gap between ideas/suggestions and actions; Pickett speaks to how NLTP will take this on; McGovern expresses a “blitz” of meetings on this; Referred to NLTP 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-4, regarding recommendations and legal opinions for adjusting transportation related fees and other considered changes based on the conversations in committee on Dec 6, 2023. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan - wants to raise resident parking permit fees w/low-income discounts, fees based on vehicle size; City Solicitor Megan Bayer responds; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a communication regarding the American Rescue Plan Act’s (“ARPA”) definition of “Obligation.” [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler - what happens to unspent ARPA funds; Magan Bayer says these go back to U.S. Treasury if unspent; Matt Nelson provides additional information; Nolan asks if this has been communicated to nonprofit organizations; Yi-An Huang responds in the affirmative; Pickett wants to know what unallocated funds remain; Wilson comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-7, regarding a review of the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee. [text of report]
pulled by Pickett - reminder (from Toner) to councillors to forward their questions to Councillor Toner; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Resolution #4. Condolences on the death of Paul Ryder.   Councillor Toner

Order #1. That the Executive Assistant to the City Council confer with the Dedication Committee to consider a request for a dedication in a suitable location in honor of Paul Ryder.   Councillor Toner
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Order #5. Tenant Protection Resources.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan, Wilson, Simmons; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Economic Development and University Relations Committee held a public hearing on Thurs, Feb 15, 2024 to discuss the current lab, office, and retail vacancies in Cambridge and their expected impact on City revenues in the near and long term. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (Toner Absent)

Comments?

Very Sad News

Paul Ryder (Mar 8, 1952 - Feb 26, 2024), former Director of Recreation for the City of Cambridge, passed away yesterday (Feb 26, 2024). Paul’s family is currently in the process of making arrangements. Paul was a great friend to many. - RW
Keefe Funeral Home

“Nobody or nothing else was like Paul Ryder.” David Gardiner

Paul Ryder, a longtime resident of Stoneham, Massachusetts, passed away peacefully on February 26, 2024, at the age of 71 following a brief but devastating lung disease. He was surrounded by his dear family. Paul was married to the love of his life, Sheila, for 45 years. He was the proud and loving father to his two children, Alex and John. Born in Warwick, Rhode Island, he was the younger son of John and Peg Ryder. Paul was predeceased by his parents. He is survived by his wife Sheila; his daughter Alexandra Ryder and husband, Adam Carver of Deerfield, New Hampshire; his son John Ryder of Stoneham; his brother Alan Ryder (Nancy d.) of Cranston, Rhode Island; sisters-in-law Paula Whitesides (Walt) and Donna Mazzone (Elmo) as well as many nieces, nephews and cousins and wonderful friends.

Paul embraced life and played hard, established life-long friendships wherever he went. He called Rhode Island, Stoneham and Cambridge home. We knew him as a sentimental guy who retold stories of childhood baseball games, high school athletic feats, URI escapades, holiday card games and victories on golf courses nation-wide (most notably the Member/Guest championship in August 2023 at Cape Neddick Golf Course).

Paul was still closely connected with friends from Wyman Elementary School and Pilgrim High School. Paul went off to college at URI in 1970, with an eye on physical education and doing some good in the world. He met Phi Mu Delta brothers there and maintains those dear friendships to this day. After college, Paul taught in RI and Massachusetts before becoming Director of the newly refurbished Bird Street Community Center in Dorchester.

In 1982, he moved on to the City of Cambridge to serve as the Director of Recreation in the Department of Human Services Programs while not knowing single person in Cambridge. When he retired in 2016, he may have known every person in Cambridge. It was a perfect match for his idealism and enthusiasm. The city, the position and the people captured his heart. He guided construction and renovations of parks and athletic spaces and created recreation and social programs to enrich the lives of all Cambridge citizens. The Cambridge Program, The City Run, Jazz at Danehy, Fresh Pond Golf Course, Danehy Park, West Cambridge Youth Center, Old Timers Baseball Game and DePasquale Universal Design Playground all have his mark.

He was equally active in his community of Stoneham – a vocal coach in youth sports and most recently a member of the Stoneham School Building Committee. He loved his local golf league. He served on the Board for 10 years and also as Board Chair of Special Olympics Massachusetts. Paul worked with CHAMPSBoston and Robert Lewis Jr. to establish training programs for youth coaches and was recognized by The Boston Foundation as a “Changemaker of the Year” in 2012. He proudly received many honors and recognitions throughout his career.

Running was a wonderful part of Paul’s life, perhaps from the early days when he would run home for lunch from Wyman Elementary School. He ran a 4.24 minute mile in high school and, as co-captain of the Pilgrim High School track team, led the team to its first state championship. In 1989, he ran the Falmouth Road Race in honor of dear Alex. He organized countless road races throughout the years, hollering out directives to his colleagues, and enjoyed being there at the end to make sure the runners were comfortable at the finish line. He loved the VIP tent at The Boston Marathon and the Cambridge Classic Races, especially when John joined him in the works.

Fun, Friendship and Family were his creed. He loved and was loved beyond measure. Long may you run, Paulie.

Please join Paul’s family in a Celebration of Life
Thursday March 7, 2024
Cocktail Hour and Greeting 12pm-1pm
Words of Remembrance 1pm-2pm
Reception and Celebration 2pm-4pm
Bear Hill Golf Club
2 North Street Stoneham, MA 02180

In lieu of flowers, please consider a donation to:
The Cambridge Program https://www.cambridgema.gov/DHSP/Recreation/specialneeds
c/o Janice Alger/DHSP - City of Cambridge
51 Inman St
Cambridge, MA 02139

Nicholas Shannon Memorial Fund
16 Pond Street
Stoneham, MA 02180

Gently Stepping Forward – February 26, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

The previous meeting featured some rather obvious jostling for position in the process of evaluating the recent Charter Review Final Report and deciding any charter change proposal. This week should bring even more of this power struggle when the question of “next steps” is taken up. The report has already been sent to the Law Department, the Election Commission, and perhaps more departments for review, but the question now is whether this should be initially vetted within the Government Operations Committee (chaired by Councillor Toner) or if Councillor Nolan (and perhaps others) will try to bypass that initial review by creating some kind of ad-hoc committee-of-the-whole so that she can gain more control of the process. This, of course, is intertwined with the election of Mayor Simmons who appoints all the City Council committees – and those appointments were done with some care.

I will say right now that some of the proposed Charter recommendations are virtually assured to be dead on arrival at the State House, but I don’t yet know if the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (or whatever committee takes up such matters) can take an à-la-carte approach to proposed city charters or if it’s all-or-nothing. Before any modified Charter can go before Cambridge voters, it must first clear this hurdle.

I will also say that there are some aspects of the structure of Cambridge government that really should be rolled into any new Charter but which the Charter Review Committee never considered, e.g. the Special Acts that established/empowered the License Commission, the Election Commission, the Traffic Board, the Cambridge Health Alliance, the Cambridge Housing Authority, and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. It is commendable that the Committee chose to consolidate most of the charter specifics that were only referenced in the Plan E sections of M.G.L. Chapter 43 (sections 93-116) - at the suggestion of the Collins Center staff who were advising the Committee - but this was incomplete, probably because of lack of expertise on those specifics within the Collins Center staff. This is especially true of matters involving our proportional representation elections (an essential component of Plan E). There may be good reasons to leave some of these out of the Charter, but since they are part of how we do business, these questions should at least be part of the current discussion. [Needless to say, this should have been discussed within the now-dissolved Charter Review Committee, but that’s another conversation that has much to do with how that committee was formed.]

Here are the agenda items that caught my eye this week:

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Bicycle Committee.
pulled by Nolan; PN wants committees to be “commissions” so that City Council would gain more control over these appointments, asks about whether diversity of opinion is a factor in appointments; Iram Farooq claims there is some diversity, but acknowledges that these committees are primarily advocates rather than representatives; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to appointments and reappointments of members to the Cambridge Pedestrian Committee.
pulled by Nolan; no additional comments; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, Policy Order Response #24-15 dated Feb 12, 2024 regarding drafting zoning language and related changes to allow for and encourage the continued growth, redevelopment, and evolution of Central Square. [text of report]
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; JSW wants to know when this would go to Planning Board; Farooq says it goes to PB when petition is filed and during the process; Toner asks if this will build upon work already done; Farooq says YES, and that advisory committees need not be consulted (really?); Nolan suggests that better methods of informing community should be considered; Pickett asks if Central Square Lots study will be integrated and how; Farooq says study in its final stages; Wilson agrees re: communication with residents; Placed on File 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Charter Right #1. That the Final Report of the Charter Review Committee be referred to the Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee. [Charter Right – Simmons, Feb 12, 2024]
Toner says conversation should start in Gov’t Operations Committee; Nolan OK with starting there, but says it should not stay there - noting that she and Siddiqui are “deeply involved in this” (quite the understatement); Pickett draws parallel with how possible Rules changes are now being considered in committee; Siddiqui OK with starting in committee, but will participate and “brainstorming” with suggestion of a robust process; Toner explains process of culling ideas from councillors, legal questions, timeline; Wilson wants a community conversation around this; Referred to Gov’t Ops. 8-0-1 (Azeem Absent)

Resolution #6. Resolution on the death of Charles Fried.   Councillor Nolan

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to present recommendations for the refinement and improvement of the housing permitting process to the City Council, with a focus on reducing delays, minimizing costs, and enhancing clarity and accessibility for all stakeholders.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Toner proposed amendments; JSW wants to keep “affordable” language, wants to add other groups for consultation; Toner motion to change “affordable housing” to “housing” Fails 2-6-1 (MM,PT-YES; PN,JP,SS,JSW,AW,DS-No; BA-Absent); Toner motion on simplifying processes to all housing and not just “affordable” housing, McGovern says middle-income housing should be included; Adopted 8-0-1; JSW motion to amend Toner motion to add two additional groups Adopted 8-0-1; Toner motion as amended Adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1 (BA Absent)

Order #2. City Council support of H.4138, The Affordable Homes Act, and urge legislators to retain the provisions for a location option transfer fee.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Toner; Toner will vote NO on proposed transfer fee; Nolan says Council has supported transfer fee in the past, delivers a prepared speech, says that this would not enact a tax or fee but only permit that local option (this is unbelievably naive), notes that legislation would set the range of possible fees, says this is about local control (but this begs the question about other proposed “local control” proposal to allow municipalities to create their own rent control laws); Nolan suggests motivation for supporting this is so that other municipalities would enact such a tax (again, very naive); McGovern concurs with Nolan, quotes David Kale in asserting that commercial transactions are lion’s share and that some residential exemptions could be made, expresses desire to take in as much revenue as possible; Pickett asks how this relates to existing Home Rule Petition now before the State Legislature, notes that there is already a $4.56/thousand stamp tax by state and that this would be on top of that; JSW uptalks that Legislature could act on our and Somerville’s and Cambridge’s petitions or pass current legislation, deflects by asserting that revenue raised could be used for other purposes; Pickett wants homeowners to gain maximum value in the sale of their greatest financial asset; Wilson offers generalities and suggestion that this might not lead to a tax; Simmons notes that we do use CPA fund for this but characterizes this as a “shortfall” and that (unlimited) more money is needed, notes Envision report and suggests that what we are doing is not enough; Order Adopted 6-2-1 (JP,PT - No; BA Absent)

Order #5. That the City Manager is hereby directed to confer with the City Manager’s Housing Liaison, Community Development Department, and the Cambridge Housing Authority on the feasibility of municipally-funded housing vouchers.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Pickett (who offers amendments); Nolan supports order and JP amendments; McGovern asks of motion-makers are OK with the amendments; Wilson supports amendments; both JP amendments adopted 8-0-1; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-1

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to report back to the City Council with the data analysis included in the Economic Feasibility Analysis provided to EOHLC as part of Cambridge’s MBTA Communities final compliance submission.   Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan
pulled by Toner; Order Adopted 8-0-1

Comments?

Project of the Week — Local News Sources
If you have any additions or suggestions, let me know.

Random Thoughts - February 14, 2024

In addition to the romanticism of Valentine’s Day, this day also marks the day I moved to the Cambridge/Boston area - 46 years ago. While this means that I can never be a True Cantabrigian, my consolation is that many lifelong Cambridge residents have adopted me as a kind of lost cousin. In fact, my move to Cambridge happened on the first day that buses were running from New York to Boston after the Blizzard of ’78, so it’s always easy for me to remember when I first washed up on the shores of the People’s Republic.

I spent a couple of hours yesterday attending a Special City Council meeting called for the purpose of updating the City Council Goals that were most recently updated over 5 years ago in October 2017. It’s likely that the statement of Guiding Principles and City Council Goals will change little, though perhaps they’ll get a bit more specific than the rosy generalities issued in 2017.

I have to say that I have never enjoyed meetings like this where participants stumble about trying to say something relevant that might get the attention of the facilitator. I will add that these exercises often seem more like justifications for keeping “facilitation companies” going than actually producing anything useful. I might say the same thing of most “team building” exercises and virtually all “trainings” - online or in-person. Especially in the context of elected officials who are endlessly competing for credit or attention, the notion that you can train competition into collaboration seems a bit naive. They’ll either do it or they won’t.

That said, there were a few moments of wisdom, reality, and perhaps even redefinition. For example, at least one councillor noted the difference between City Council orders and committee work. This is something I appreciate – over the years I have come to view many policy orders as “drive-by orders” where some random idea is tossed into the public arena or perhaps lifted from some other municipality. Committee work used to be more like a serious detailed discussion that welcomed public participation. That hasn’t really been the case in recent years - unless you are one of the privileged few who function more like “10th councillors” thanks to your affiliation with a lobbying group that also endorses candidates in the municipal election. Everyone else just gets their two or three minutes to make a short statement before being terminated by the Chair. I liked it better when if you actually offered constructive ideas at a committee meeting you might actually be involved in a back-and-forth discussion with the councillors. Nowadays you just perform and exit - unless you are among the politically privileged.

One suggestion made at yesterday’s meeting was that the City Manager and staff should send out weekly general updates of current topics being worked on by City staff. City Manager Yi-An Huang welcomed the idea but also expressed concern about “granularity” as he noted that at any given time there are ~2000 employees working on different things. Was the suggestion to have “weeklies” really be just about getting updates on the usual “hot topics” like bike lanes, BEUDO, and plans for recently-acquired City properties? It was also not made clear if these “weeklies” would be just for councillors or if they would be publicly available. Also unanswered was how such a protocol might mesh with the current daily updates to which many of us are subscribed.

One suggestion was that there should be a 311 system - a single point of contact for resident complaints and inquiries. This brought two things to mind. First, this sounds a lot like SeeClickFix – which is supposed to be the place for residents and elected officials alike to report problems. There seemed to be some sense that this system may not be functioning as well as it should be, and that when there is no response or action the calls go to city councillors. My experience has been that some kinds of SeeClickFix reports get an almost immediate response, and others languish for months or even years. It doesn’t help that some people view SeeClickFix as just another social media outlet on which they can bitch and moan about things that often go well beyond what the City can or should do. The other thing that came to mind was the proposal from over 20 years ago to create an Ombudsman Office that would respond to resident requests. That proposal went down in flames when councillors realized that responding to such complaints was an essential part of their political existence and that transferring that responsibility would only hurt their role in providing “constituent services”. In short, councillors often benefit from the existence of a problem.

Yesterday’s facilitator suggested that city councillors should be asking questions more than making statements. The response from some councillors was that this really doesn’t work in the context of a City Council meeting where you have to wait your turn to be recognized by the Chair and where technically all remarks are made through the Chair. I would note that in committee meetings this kind of questioning and back-and-forth conversation at least used to be common (and useful). It was also pointed out that the Open Meeting Law actually thwarts this kind of questioning and collaboration.

When the facilitators displayed their distillation of apparent City Council priorities (presumably based on some kind of questionnaire), the results were both predictable and misleading. The same can be said of the periodic Resident Surveys conducted on behalf of the City. Affordable housing always tops the list but rarely, if ever, is there any clarification of what that actually means. In one sense, it’s likely that 100% of residents want their housing to be affordable, but does that mean that they want to be able to buy a home on the open market at an affordable price, or does it mean that they want the City to subsidize the purchase? The same goes even more significantly when it comes to renting an apartment. I believe most renters simply want to see more affordable rents, and not necessarily that they want the City to subsidize those rents, but you would never know that from the Resident Survey or from the councillors’ prioritization.

It is worth noting that many, perhaps most, things that residents care about are not directly addressable by city councillors, the City administration, or from any level of government. Kindness, mutual respect, neighborliness, and voluntarism form the glue of society and likely have more to do with the satisfaction of living in a town or city than anything that was ever woven into a City Council policy order.

I was especially impressed when Deputy City Manager Owen O’Riordan noted that a major portion of City expenditures are in infrastructure, yet there was not even a mention of this in the list of City Council priorities. Perhaps this serves to highlight the difference between the politics of being an elected councillor and the management by City administration. Indeed, one of the greatest problems with a popularly-elected mayor as CEO is that it almost guarantees a greater share of attention and resources toward popular concerns and a corresponding decrease in focus on matters like infrastructure and municipal finance. I hope our current group of councillors keep this in mind as they debate possible Charter changes. It is, in fact, this focus on such matters by City management that allows the elected councillors to focus on more visible populist concerns.

Mayor Simmons bemoaned the fact that DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) was way down on the list of priorities, but stated that “this should be the lens through which we look at things.” It’s certainly one such lens, but fiscal responsibility, effective service delivery, responsiveness, and transparency are also pretty good lenses through which to look at and evaluate what we do as a city.

There was an interesting back-and-forth about the Envision plan and how it is often quoted or ignored depending on what you want or don’t want. There also continues to be a lot of misinterpretation of the goals and metrics in that report - especially in the area of housing.

Regarding Central Square, City Manager Huang stated that many of the goals contained in past studies have already been implemented - noting, in particular, bike lanes and outdoor dining. In fact, there is little mention of bike lanes in these past studies (perhaps due to how long ago the studies were produced), and much of the outdoor dining came about not from past studies but as an emergency response to the Covid epidemic as a means of helping some local businesses to economically survive. Indeed, the only significant new developments in Central Square happened independently of past studies, e.g. the Mass & Main (Normandy/Twining) zoning petition. It is my understanding that some new zoning proposals may be forthcoming based, in part, on some of the considerations of the C2 Study (from over a decade ago), but we’ll have to see where that road leads. – Robert Winters

Comments?

Cambridge Municipal Election News

Who has been raising and spending money? [Feb 2, 2022 - present]
(source - Mass. Office of Campaign and Political Finance)
Note: Expenditures last updated Jan 31, 2024.
Note: You may have to “Clear Cache” in order to refresh some of the embedded charts/tables for campaign finance.

City Council Campaign Finance - Sorted by Receipts

2023 Cambridge Candidate Pages     Calendar of 2023 Election-related events

City Council Campaign Finance - Sorted by Expenditures

Periodic OCPF Bank Reports

Union Contributions to Candidates - Incumbency Protection

School Committee Campaign Finance

Cost per #1 Vote - City Council 2023	Cost per #1 Vote - School Committee 2023