Preview of the Vacancy Recount (Cathie Zusy will be elected)

Alternate Method for Filling Vacancy - Re-run election using original ballot data with candidate(s) excluded

Official Count - November 2023 (PDF)

History of City Council and School Committee Vacancies under Plan E Charter

1941 Council
Ed Crane entered armed forces and was succeeded by Francis Scully as “acting member” under Special Act.

1941 School Committee
William Brooks entered armed forces and was succeeded by Frank Duddy as “acting member” under Special Act.
Ralph Robart entered armed forces and was succeeded by Margaret Kelliher as “acting member” under Special Act.

1947 Council
Michael A. Sullivan died in January 1949 and was succeeded by Thomas McNamara.

1947 School Committee
Robert Reardon died in July 1949 and was succeeded by Francis “Cheese” McGreahan.

1951 Council
Francis Sennott died in October 1952 and was succeeded by Thomas McNamara.

1961 Council
Guy D. Belin resigned to work in the Kennedy Administration and was succeeded by Cornelia “Connie” Wheeler.

1965 School Committee
Ed McMahon resigned to join the priesthood and was replaced by John A.P. Good. [monotonicity violation]

1983 Council
Leonard “Lenny” Russell died on June 16, 1985 and was replaced by Alfred LaRosa

1985, 1987 School Committee
Joseph Maynard died Nov 26, 1985 after being reelected. The vacancy was not filled for the remaining month of the term, and Maynard was replaced by Tim Toomey for the 1988-89 term.

1993 Council
William Walsh was sentenced to prison on Nov 15, 1994 which vacated his seat. He was replaced by Anthony Galluccio. [monotonicity violation, vacancy recount unsuccessfully challenged to Supreme Judicial Court by Jim McSweeney]

2005 Council
Michael Sullivan resigned and was replaced by David Maher on Sept 5, 2007.

2007 Council
Brian Murphy resigned to accept job with the Commonwealth and was replaced by Larry Ward on Feb 24, 2009.

2019 School Committee
Emily Dexter was elected but resigned under duress prior to Inauguration. She was replaced by David Weinstein on Jan 16, 2020.

2021 School Committee
Akriti Bhambi resigned to accept a job in New York City. She was replaced by Caroline Hunter on Dec 1, 2022.

2023 Council
Joan Pickett died on Aug 31, 2024. Cathie Zusy was elected to succeed her in a Sept 19, 2024 Vacancy Recount and was sworn in on Sept 23, 2024.

Massachusetts 2024 Ballot Questions:

Question 1: Should the auditor oversee the legislature?

Question 2: Eliminating the MCAS graduation requirement

Question 3: A union for rideshare drivers

Question 4: Legalizing psychedelic drugs

Question 5: The minimum wage for tipped workers

Taxing Time – October 7, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

It’s that time of year again, fellow citizens (especially you property owners), when the bills come due to pay for all that marvelous largess of your favorite elected officials and City staff. It’s Taxing Time! The revenuers are coming!

Here are the items that got my attention:

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to produce the petition(s) necessary to accomplish the goal of lowering the speed limit as much as possible on all state highways that fall within Cambridge’s geographic boundaries, including and especially Memorial Drive. [Charter Right – Azeem, Sept 30, 2024] (PO24#137)
Comments by all; Adopted as Amended 5-4 (BA,MM,PN,SS,JSW-Yes; PT,AW,CZ,DS-No)

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on Memorial Drive. (CM24#219) [text of report]
pulled by Toner; Placed on File 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

“In the short time since the crash, DCR has mobilized its Engineering staff, completing layout of an expanded shared use path along the river straddling the BU rotary, for a total of roughly 1,000 linear feet. DCR will widen the path west of the Rotary (to the Magazine Beach parking lot) and east of the rotary (to the BU boathouse).”

“Although the BU Bridge refurbishment project is complete along with improvements to the intersection on the south end of the bridge at Commonwealth Avenue, a severe southbound queueing problem persists, stretching well into lower Cambridgeport in the afternoon rush period, especially before events at Fenway Park. The problem is caused by southbound approach capacity at Commonwealth Avenue rather than by the rotary itself. Additionally, the current bicycle lanes on the BU Bridge do not have physical separation and the lane configuration is challenging for cyclists. Conversations are currently underway between the multiple jurisdictional stakeholders around the rotary and the Bridge about possible improvements to improve both the congestion impacts in Cambridgeport and the bicycle facilities on the Bridge itself.”

Tax Rate Hearing #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to votes necessary to seek approval from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue of the tax rate for FY2025. (CM24#220) [text of report]
Orders Adopted, Placed on File 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

Agenda Item Number 1A     Oct 7, 2024
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is authorized to use $2,000,000 in Overlay Surplus Reserve to be used to reduce the Fiscal Year 2025 tax rate.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

Agenda Item Number 1B     Oct 7, 2024
ORDERED: That the City Council classifies property within the City of Cambridge into five property classes allowed for the purpose of allocating the property tax levy. Additionally, that the City Council hereby adopts a minimum residential factor of 64.2099 for the purpose of distributing the property tax levy.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

Agenda Item Number 1C     Oct 7, 2024
ORDERED: That the City Council approves a thirty (30) percent residential exemption for owner-occupied homes.
Order Adopted 8-0-1 (DS-Absent)

The bottom line is: The FY25 Adopted Operating Budget increased by 8.1% ($71.8 million) over the FY24 Adopted Budget. This compares to last year’s 7.2% over the FY23 Adopted Budget ($57.8 million) - after some one-time accounting changes. The FY25 Budget adopted by the City Council in June 2024 projected a property tax levy increase of $53.4 million (9.28%) to $628.8 million in order to fund operating and capital expenditures. With approval of the recommendations in this memo, the actual FY25 tax levy required to support the FY25 Budget is $628,388,753 which is an increase of $52,970,264 or 9.21% from FY24. This increase is slightly lower than the estimated increase of 9.28% projected in June 2024 as part of the Adopted Budget, due in large part to higher than projected investment earnings.

The property tax levy increase of 9.21% is higher than the FY24 increase of 8.3%. The five-year (FY21-FY25) annual average increase is 7.51%, and the ten-year (FY16-FY25) annual average increase is 6.31%. The FY25 residential tax rate will be $6.35 per thousand dollars of value, subject to Department of Revenue approval. This is an increase of $0.43, or approximately 7.3% from FY24. The commercial tax rate will be $11.52, which is an increase of $1.06, or 10.1% from FY24.

By property class, an average a single-family home will see a 7.86% tax increase, a two-family will see a 6.44% increase, a three-family will see a 7.5% increase, and a condo will see an 11.46% increase. This last figure is interesting in that due to the flat residential exemption, condo owners have actually been seeing decreases in recent years. Here are the median figures including the CPA Surcharge:

FY2025 Taxes

History of changes in residential property taxes

Note: Unlike previous years, the information on the number of residential properties in each
of the 17 Residential Tax Districts was not provided in this year’s City Manager letter.

Order #1. That this City Council go on record in support of 2024 ballot Question 2 to replace the MCAS graduation requirement and require instead that districts certify that students have satisfactorily completed coursework demonstrating mastery of the skills and knowledge required by the Commonwealth’s strong, statewide standards in order to graduate.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson (PO24#139)
pulled by Toner; comments by all but Simmons; Order Fails 4-4-0-1 (MM,SS,JSW,AW-Yes; BA,PN,PT,CZ-No; DS-Present)
Note: Councillor Toner quoted statistics that, over the last 10 years at CRLS, there have been 5,352 graduations and only 41 who did not receive a diploma due to failure to pass 10th Grade MCAS exam.

Late Communications & Reports #2. A communication from David Murphy, Interim Superintendent of Schools, re: CPS MCAS Achievement Data.
Placed on File 9-0

Suffice to say that I do not agree with this policy order nor do I agree with the current heavily funded media campaign sponsored by the Mass. Teacher’s Association (MTA) in support of this measure. Maintaining the MCAS graduation requirement does not mean that teachers must “teach to the test.” It simply means that they have to do a great job of teaching. Lowering standards (even if the MTA claims this would do otherwise) is what some refer to as the “soft bigotry of low expectations” and I agree with this characterization. – Robert Winters

Comments?

Juggernaut or Not? – September 30, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

The dreams of A Bigger Cambridge (who prefer to be called “A Better Cambridge” for political reasons) were delayed from last week via the Charter Right. At issue is a mega-proposal shepherded on a fast track through the Housing Committee by Co-Chairs Burhan Azeem and Sumbul Siddiqui with the aim of doubling (and more) the permissible heights of residential buildings across the city - and packaged with the perfectly agreeable goal of allowing multi-family housing in all zoning districts. The rallying cry to “End Exclusionary Zoning!” is the tactic being employed to push through these two very distinct initiatives, but it’s really just the record-breaking upzoning proposal that is at the heart of the controversy.

There was a great event held last Tuesday at the Main Library called “100 Years of Zoning” marking the 100th anniversary of Cambridge’s first zoning ordinance. (There were actually various “proto-zoning” ordinances already in place before 1924 under our local Building Code - largely motivated by concerns about public health and fire safety.) It was made pretty clear by the presenters that a century ago there was a concern about the proliferation of “tenement housing” that accompanied rapid population growth largely associated with immigration – and at that time the triple-decker was seen in this light. The sorting out of residential zoning districts into higher and lower density zones came a bit later.

When I was growing up in New York City, the term “tenement” was largely associated with dilapidated housing stock in which people were packed - often in unsafe conditions. This is not how I saw our triple-deckers in Cambridge and Boston when I first arrived in 1978. To me, they were graceful residential buildings with front and rear porches that originally allowed a middle-class homeowner to live and thrive in the city and to also provide affordable housing to their tenants. I chose to live in a triple-decker, and I eventually bought the building and I’m still living at the same address. You will get no argument from me about the value of triple-deckers and similar buildings. However, I don’t think they’re for everyone nor do I think that living in or next door to larger apartment buildings is for everyone.

I like some of the lower density parts of Cambridge, and I’m glad that people have been able to settle into the kind of neighborhoods that suit their preferences. It does seem to me that the philosophy (if you want to call it that) of the densifiers at “A Bigger Cambridge” is that apartment buildings should be the standard across all of Cambridge - and if you don’t like it you should move or meet your maker. I could not disagree more.

There are plenty of locations in Cambridge that I could easily identify where a larger apartment building would fit in very well and be an improvement over existing conditions. I can also point out locations where dropping a larger apartment building in would be a radical and very unwelcome change. But that’s not the ABC way. Their “vision” is to impose a single high-density standard across all of Cambridge, and they are selling this under the questionable claim that this will miraculously cause all housing to become more affordable. I don’t question the economic principle that when housing supply is increased in an equilibrium situation, then purchase prices and rents may be expected to decrease. Cambridge housing right now is not really in an equilibrium state – largely due to a couple of decades of growth in university affiliates and our local high-tech economy and a national trend of people choosing to move into the cities and closer to work (a reverse migration compared to the suburban exodus of decades ago). I will also note that there has more recently been a double reverse outward for some people in the age of Covid and work-from-home arrangements, and if ever the dream of driverless vehicles is realized many experts predict even more outward migration.

The question of affordability is an interesting one. Everyone wants housing to be affordable, but the philosophy of those working in our Housing Department seems to be that the only way to do this is via subsidized, deed-restricted housing created via government mandate - hence the so-called “Affordable Housing Overlay” 1.0, 2.0, and I’m certain we’ll soon see 3.0 and beyond as they endlessly try to game the economics of housing development. It does seem to be the case that if developers are permitted to build twice as much as-of-right, the land values will jump accordingly and this will virtually guarantee an AHO 3.0 or other mechanism to further game the economics. This escalation seems inevitable, and some neighborhoods (particular those with “soft sites”) may be ground up under the wheels of this Juggernaut.

At the last City Council meeting, Heather Hoffman posed several questions to city councillors and City staff regarding these twin zoning proposals. Here are her questions (expanded and really deserving of their own article):

1. Would increasing the inclusionary percentage violate the MBTA Communities Act?

2. Would decreasing the inclusionary percentage mean that we could not increase back to where it is now without violating the MBTA Communities Act?

3. What analysis has been done on whether this proposal would cause displacement of currently housed residents? If the answer is none, why is that?

4. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on median rents? If the answer is none, why is that?

5. What analysis has been done on what sorts of properties would be demolished? If the answer is none, why is that?

6. What analysis has been done on how this proposal would affect currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing? If the answer is none, why is that?

7. What analysis has been done on what is happening to currently existing naturally occurring affordable housing under current zoning? If the answer is none, why is that?

8. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on the market value of properties that would be upzoned by it? If the answer is none, why is that?

9. What analysis has been done on what effect this proposal would have on development under the AHO? If the answer is none, why is that?

10. What analysis has been done on how this would affect the City’s finances, especially with respect to the City’s ability to maximize tax shifting from residential to commercial properties under Prop 2-1/2? If the answer is none, why is that? Would the City have to find new commercial development prospects in order to maintain its Prop 2-1/2 balance?

The final point I will make now (made extra clear by Heather’s great questions) is that there are MANY unanswered questions about these proposed changes, and virtually zero analysis about their intended and unintended consequences.

Here are the agenda items I find interesting this week:

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Preservation Restriction at 90 Brattle Street. (CM24#214) [text of report]
pulled by Azeem; supportive comments by Azeem; overview of significance of house by Charles Sullivan and owner’s desire for additional protections; enthusiastic support by Mayor Simmons; Preservation Restriction Adopted, Communication Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the Half Crown-Marsh NCD Decennial Review Report. (CM24#215) [text of report]
pulled by Azeem; questions from Azeem; Clerk clarifies that matter should be referred to Ordinance Committee; Charles Sullivan concurs with explanation; City Solicitor Megan Bayer notes that matter is not required to go to Ordinance Committee; Azeem questions process; Bayer reiterates that doesn’t need to be accepted as a petition - just a study report satisfying an ordinance requirement; Yi-An Huang notes that Council could just accept the report but that an Order will be required in next 5 months to renew NCD or amend it; Simmons asks who will remind Council and Huang says City will do this; Zusy notes benefit of NCD advice to homeowners; Report Accepted and Referred to Ordinance Committee 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to request that the City Council authorize the purchase of a parcel of land located within the town of Lexington identified as 0 Cambridge/Concord Turnpike in Lexington, Massachusetts. (CM24#216) [map]
pulled by McGovern w/purpose of finalizing tonight; comments/explanations from Owen O’Riordan, Megan Bayer (resolves litigation); Siddiqui notes Bob Reardon’s role in assessment of property; Order Adopted 9-0; Reconsideration Fails 0-9

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding an evaluation of the legal feasibility of the following proposals and analyze how much housing could be created under the following proposals. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern re: including requirement of inclusionary units for a 6-story building, 4-story limit otherwise; Bayer concurs; Azeem moves suspension to bring forward the related items on Charter Right (#1, #2 and #3) - prevails 9-0; Azeem comments, asks about “corridors”, Central Square, Mass. Ave., Cambridge St. and where related processes stand; Iram Farooq offers explanation and notes that they are within the limits proposed, desire to be more specific on where proposals apply; Azeem says proposals for corridors and Squares coming next year, etc., wants to move forward to Ordinance Committee; Toner asks for clarification of what Councillor Wilson wants re: inclusionary requirements and whether they would be increased beyond current requirements; Wilson explains; Toner asks if this might constitute an increase, suggests that immediate focus should be on corridors and Squares, does not want to start the clock ticking if sent now to Ordinance Committee, prefers to Table; Nolan asks about which corridors would be included - noting that Huron Ave. is not included; Farooq agrees about need for clarity on what constitutes a “corridor”; Nolan OK w/ending “exclusionary zoning” but has concerns about massive citywide upzoning, notes that focusing on corridors and squares might actually yield more housing units than proposal as written; Nolan expresses desire to include Huron Ave. among corridors and add significant heights and density along Huron Ave. and geographical distribution of more housing, wants analysis of where teardowns might be expected; Zusy shares Nolan’s concerns and would prefer more clarity prior to referring to Ordinance Committee; Zusy moves to Table pending this additional information, expresses concerns about how this is dividing the community and need for more community input; Zusy Motion to Table these three items matters to permit discussion in NLTP Committee Fails 4-5 (PN,PT,CZ,DS-Yes; BA,MM,SS,JSW,AW-No); Siddiqui wants to send to Ordinance, condescends to Zusy about NLTP Committee not being a committee of the whole, says timeline is important - meet in November, clock starts when Ordinance Committee meets on matter; Siddiqui motion to Place Communications of File and refer two petitions to Ordinance Committee; Wilson asks CDD about process if now referred to Ordinance; Farooq notes pending requests for analysis, pending request for community meetings, notes 65 days until Ordinance Committee required to meet, and then 90 days for action by City Council after that; Wilson asks for CDD recommendation and Farooq recommends sending to Ordinance Committee now to prevent “dueling ideas” (??); Simmons notes that these conversations can be confusing for the average person; McGovern wants a “Fact Sheet” as was done when AHO was railroaded through (twice), notes that Ordinance Committee could meet as late as Dec 4, then 90 days after for ordination or can be re-filed - noting that AHO was re-filed twice, saw 62 amendments (many of which were terrible), suggests that this matter is not being rushed; Toner will work with McGovern to develop the Ordinance Committee schedule, agrees with need for FAQ, suggests a Roundtable; Azeem notes that all projects that have produced affordable units have been 6 stories or greater, wants this in current Res A and Res B districts; Nolan wants clarity on what constitutes “community meetings” as opposed to City Council meetings with very limited public participation; Farooq says there would be at least two community meetings in addition to the hearings; Nolan notes perceptions of betrayal of trust, suggests using Envision definitions for what constitutes “corridors”; Farooq says additional analysis expected in November; Siddiqui wants to split motion into separate votes; Zusy notes confusion among citizens in that this proposal flies against recommendations in Envision in regard to protecting character of neighborhoods, noting that existing apartment buildings in C-Port are typically less than 3 stories, setbacks for triple-deckers - and this reality conflicts with current proposals, suggests that need for MANY amendments suggests lack of a clear plan; Simmons notes need for two votes - one simple majority for proposals meeting Housing Choice Act requirements and other requiring two-thirds majority; Megan Bayer notes that sending both to Ordinance is by simple majority; but future ordination requires simple majority for proposals to add housing and two-thirds majority for aspects that do not directly create more housing; Mgr #9 Placed on File 9-0; Charter Right #1 Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No); Charter Right #2 Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy-No); Charter Right #3 Referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy-No).

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, regarding draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed at the Housing Committee to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts. [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Charter Right #2. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition -Part 1, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Charter Right #3. That the Council accept Multi Family Zoning Petition - Part 2, as presented in CM24#207, as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Charter Right – Nolan, Sept 23, 2024] [text of report]
Adopted 8-1 (Zusy-No)

Order #3. City Council support of the Week Without Driving challenge and specifically designate Oct 3, 2024 as a day in which participants are encouraged to use alternative transportation options such as public transit, biking, carpooling, and walking.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate departments to produce the petition(s) necessary to accomplish the goal of lowering the speed limit as much as possible on all state highways that fall within Cambridge’s geographic boundaries, including and especially Memorial Drive.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; Toner notes that DCR already proposing lane reductions west of JFK St. but there’s a need for more discussion needed for other sections of Memorial Drive, proposes amendment to delete reference to lane reductions; Zusy concurs with Toner noting concerns of people in neighborhoods that would be affected by re-routed traffic, notes another planned changes pending; McGovern notes statistics (1200 crashes, 446 injuries, 20 incapacitating, and 4 fatalities over last 10 years) and need to address most problematic areas sooner than later; Nolan comments and amendment; Siddiqui notes advocacy suggesting that DCR already planning lane reductions here; Yi-An Huang says City has been in close contact with DCR – 1) immediate changes for greater safety where crash occurred, 2) lower speed limit, 3) reconstruction/redesign of rotary over next 2-4 years (and relation to BU Bridge and Mass Pike project), 4) lane reductions between Eliot Bridge and JFK Street; and 5) other land reductions (that have been scaled back) – and need for more community process; Brooke McKenna notes that City can and will request that DCR lower speed limits, coordination with Conservation Commission; Siddiqui seeks clarification on lane reductions; Yi-An Huang promises more detail in writing; Simmons suggests need for more information to be disseminated to potentially affected neighborhoods; Azeem asks about matter before Conservation Commission; McKenna notes that this relates only to area in vicinity of the rotary; Azeem notes that DCR may resist major changes due to associated cost; Charter Right - Azeem

Order #5. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to report back to the City Council on the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) NOFO as soon as possible.   Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

Late Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from Mayor E. Denise Simmons, transmitting the updated 2024-2025 Committee assignments.
Placed on File as Amended 9-0

Comments?

Preview of a Consequential Meeting - September 23, 2024 Cambridge City Council meeting

Cathie Zusy will be sworn is as a city councillor to replace Joan Pickett at the start of this meeting. There are also some very consequential items and another flood of communications related to the controversial proposals to allow large apartment buildings to be built anywhere and everywhere in Cambridge - effectively ending the Resident A and Resident B zones in favor of something similar to Resident C-1 zones - only with substantially higher allowable heights and densities. Here are the featured items:

Swearing-In of Cathie Zusy to fill vacancy created due to passing of Councillor Joan Pickett

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2024. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson; comments by Wilson, Sobrinho-Wheeler (who disagrees with use of CPA $ for golf course clubhouse renovations), Zusy (noting important role of CPA funding for Magazine Beach), Siddiqui; All six votes Adopted 9-0

This is the annual ritual - guaranteed 80%+ to the Affordable Housing Trust without any consideration of alternatives.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to an update on the Temporary Respite Center at the Registry of Deeds.
pulled by Sobrinho-Wheeler; comments by Sobrinho-Wheeler, Maura Pensak, Wilson; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 24-52, re: draft zoning language based on the proposal discussed at the Housing Committee to eliminate exclusionary zoning and allow up to six stories of multifamily housing in all residential districts. (CM24#207) [text of report]
Charter Right on Manager’s Communication and twin zoning petitions - Nolan

I will repeat what I said last week — “The synopsis here is that most individuals and interest groups are perfectly OK with allowing multifamily housing in all zones (though I wish we could put an end to the “exclusionary zoning” terminology and its associated mythology). The matter of allowing up to six stories (or more) everywhere is far more controversial and highly questionable. I don’t think there are many people who question the need for more housing in Cambridge and elsewhere, but there are better and worse places (economically, architecturally,aesthetically, etc.) for such structures to be allowed and encouraged. Failure to make such distinctions is basically equivalent to dismissing the better intentions of zoning to create a mosaic of neighborhoods with varying features appealing to varying needs and desires. Choice is not a bad thing. I really hope the current Housing Committee is not successful in ramming through such a partisan proposal. It would be far better if our elected officials and CDD staff could be more nuanced in their analysis and perspective.”

Alternative language introduced independently last week by Councillor Toner and Councillor Wilson is a mixed bag. The notion that dramatically greater heights and densities should be concentrated only in the Squares and “major corridors” - and exempting other streets - is a bit of a punch in the face to those of us who live on streets such as Broadway, though what exactly constitutes a “major corridor” was not spelled out in the amendment. In contrast, I can fully agree that places like Central Square can support more residential development - especially on sites such as the underutilized parking lots at Prospect and Bishop Allen (and, of course, the adjacent Vail Court). Councillor Wilson’s amendment suggests that only “projects that either contain more than 9 units or that are larger than 10,000 square feet” should get the zoning bonus, i.e. housing developments that would be subject to the current Inclusionary Zoning requirements.

I would also like to remind everybody that Cambridge is not the problem when it comes to allowing apartment buildings, greater densities, and publicly subsidized housing. This is a problem associated with many of the cities and towns in the Greater Boston area - but not Cambridge. This was made clear by the fact that in order for Cambridge to meet the standards of the recent MBTA Communities Act, Cambridge did not need to change a single thing in its zoning code.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the MBTA to prioritize addressing housing affordability in the redevelopment of the Alewife garage.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Nolan; Nolan amendment adopted 9-0; Order Adopted 9-0

There should, of course, be more residential and commercial development at this important transit node. However, as I have often said, there’s a big difference between addressing housing affordability and simply building more “affordable housing,” a.k.a. public housing. If this is primarily about building several more Rindge Towers at Alewife (as referenced in this Order), then I am less than enthusiastic.

Order #4. City Council support for the construction of the North-South Rail Link.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Nolan; Amended to add Nolan, Zusy as sponsors; Order Adopted 9-0

Cost is an issue – a big issue. Will the suggested benefits really outweigh the exorbitant cost?

Order #6. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Finance Department, Law Department, and other relevant departments to explore the feasibility of a successor program to Rise Up Cambridge.   Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Mayor Simmons
pulled by Siddiqui; comments by Siddiqui, McGovern, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Wilson, Zusy, Nolan, Simmons; Amended to add Simmons as sponsor 9-0; Order Adopted 9-0

I have been expecting this since the day the City re-directed $22 million in Covid relief funds toward this new municipal welfare program. Currently the Anti-Aid Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution prevents the use of local property taxes from being used for direct payments to individuals and organizations except as fees for services rendered. Personally, if this kind of expanded welfare program is desired, it should be a statewide program with far better eligibility standards than the temporary federally-funded program currently in place. Better yet, state- and federally-funded public assistance programs should be restructured if this really is a desirable goal.

Resolution #2. Wishing Marvin Gilmore a Happy 100th Birthday.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Toner

I attended a 100th birthday bash for Marvin (as well as honoring several other prominent Cantabrigians) entitled Cambridge Mosaic at the Brattle Theatre this past Friday. It was a wonderful reunion of many great friends.

Committee Report #1. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Mon, Sept 9, 2024 to discuss truck safety in Cambridge. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 8-0-0-1 (Zusy - Present)

Advocacy for better truck safety is not controversial. The difficulty is that Cambridge cannot impose vehicle standards unilaterally - only the state and really the federal government can do that. As for designing intersections for greater safety, especially in regard to turning vehicles, it’s nice to see the cycling advocates finally coming around to what the rest of us have been saying all along, i.e. separated bike lanes may provide greater “comfort” but the provision of greater safety is primarily about the intersections. - Robert Winters

Comments?

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

Transit Advisory Committee (deadline Tues, Oct 15, 2024)

Problematic - Graffiti Alley