Cambridge Candidate Pages - 2025

Aug 6, 2025 (updated Sept 6) – Without any prompting, I have already received photos, contact and website information, and a variety of candidate statements from most of this year’s municipal election candidates. I generally get all such contributions up on the Cambridge Candidate Pages as soon I receive them - and I only edit for punctuation and spelling (and perhaps some slight formatting changes). [I will not, however, permit any overtly hateful statements.] You can also send any changes/additions right up until Election Day (within reason, of course, as I do have other things to do with my time).

If you are a candidate, send me your stuff via email: election2025@cambridgecivic.com. If you are a friend of one of the candidates, send me their contact information – or have the candidate or campaign helper contact me directly.

Check out some of the other Candidate Pages for a sample of the kinds of things candidates choose to post on their Candidate Pages.

I only post what the candidates send me - no opinions, no bias. This is all about creating a level playing field for all candidates.

Note: If it bothers you that I am also a candidate, there’s not much I can do about that. I have been providing this service since 2001 - almost a quarter century now - and will continue to do so for as long as I am able. - Robert Winters, Editor, Cambridge Civic Journal

War Chests - 2025 City Council Candidates (and Political Action Committees)

Total Receipts: Jan 1, 2024 - Present	Percent Cambridge Receipts: Jan 1, 2024 - Present
Percent Union Receipts: Jan 1, 2024 - Present	Total Expenditures: Jan 1, 2024 - Present

Political Action Committees and their Candidate Slates

Sept 16 – For better or worse, the various single-issue Political Action Committees and other advocacy groups have been revealing their endorsements.
[Note: As a candidate, I have not sought any endorsements. - RW]
Here are the lists so far (additions, corrections welcome):

Cambridge Voting Histories - 2025 City Council and School Committee Candidates

Aug 18 - I heard some whispers the other day about the voting histories of several of this year’s candidates. Rather than single out any particular candidates, here’s the whole list with their Cambridge voting histories in the November elections going back to 2009. Clearly, some of the younger candidates haven’t been voting here long enough to have much of a record, and others have only moved to Cambridge recently. You can decide for yourself whether any of this is relevant. - RW

Campaign Tales - August 31

Aug 31 - While other candidates are spending their Labor Day weekend handing out campaign literature and promising whatever it takes to win a #1 vote, I was down in the basement yesterday clearing the collected dust and debris out of a dryer vent. In addition to hair clips and mini-Lego pieces from my previous 1st floor tenants (who were great, by the way), I was able to pocket $1.37 in loose change. I guess I’ll use that to supplement the cost of the 3rd floor front porch deck that I will likely be replacing next month. Owning a triple-decker is great - except when it isn’t.

Back in my computer saddle, I updated several Candidate Pages yesterday and I’m sure I’ll be doing many more soon. It’s relatively quick and easy to do and it gives me an opportunity to read about all the other candidates for City Council and School Committee. I am planning to attend some of the upcoming candidate events - especially the School Committee candidate forums, in part because the Council events conflict with my teaching. Most of the City Council candidate forums are exercises in repetition – bike lanes, empty promises of housing affordability, and the action-reaction to rezoning Cambridge to be more like the ever-exploding downtown Flushing in Queens, NY (where I went to high school). I’ll be interested to hear more about how the Mamdani-inspired candidates will plan to cover the cost of their promises during a time of limitations in municipal finance and how they plan to Defund The Police while carefully employing euphemisms to convey that sentiment.

Also from my computer saddle, I set up an email account yesterday for the Membership Secretary of the Middlesex Canal Association. (I’m a Board member, webmaster, walk leader, and publisher of our Towpath Topics newsletter.) [By the way, is “webmaster” now a verboten word?] I have also been hearing from a few people about a “Not secure” message some people have been getting when going to the rwinters.com and middlesexcanal.org (and possibly other domains and subdomains). There are zero financial transactions happening on any of my websites, so there’s not really a problem, but I’m looking into fixing this for those who get scared off by the warning messages. It’ll cost me a few bucks, but I’ll just tell myself that the ample Social Security payments I’m now receiving will cover it. Hey, it’s better than blowing it at the Encore casino or on a fast red car.

Starting next week, I’ll be back in the mathematics teaching saddle. After Harvard Summer School wrapped up several weeks ago, it’s been great having some time to just walk the Earth like Caine in Kung Fu. That said, Harvard Extension School is calling and I have an all-time record enrollment in one of my two courses - currently 222 students, about 50% more than ever before. I suppose I can chalk it up to my boyish good looks, but there may be some other things going on in the wider world. Even though there has been a “distance option” in my courses going back to Fall 2017, in the semester after Covid first hit (2020) we had large increases in enrollments - all online that year. We have been doing the courses hybrid (in person or online) since then, so that doesn’t explain the big increase this Fall. For the Summer School course, there were as many students who registered and dropped before the start of classes as there were students who attended. This was true for many of the Summer School courses, and my theory is that many were scared off by shifting federal policies and the targeting of Harvard by the Executive Branch. Perhaps the gigantic increase in my Multivariable Calculus course, especially students attending remotely, is also an unexpected consequence of federal policies. Or maybe, mathematics has become the Taylor Swift of academic disciplines.

Having partially buried the lede, let me say a few more words about the municipal election season.

Municipal election campaigns didn’t used to pick up until after Labor Day and, being an old school kinda guy, I’ve been sticking to that schedule. Perhaps I’ll put up a few yard signs this week and do an email blast. I have plenty of yard signs, bumper stickers, and buttons (hint, hint). I also have to update my candidate website - primarily simplification. I’m also thinking of making a few short videos on various topics.

The questionnaires keep on coming - not so much sincere inquiries about the opinions of a candidate on various relevant (or irrelevant) issues of the day, but more of the “Do you agree with our rigid and inflexible ideology on Topic X?” type. The latest one came from a heretofore unknown group calling itself “Cambridge for Palestine (C4P)”. As expected, no names were provided for this new mystery group. I won’t be responding to their little push poll on topics having zero relevance to Cambridge municipal government, but it was good for a chuckle. [That said, I’m sure at least several current candidates will be providing enthusiastic responses.] I suppose it’s only a matter of time before C4P gets included in the “Cambridge Progressive Electoral Collaboration” list of “allies”.

Speaking of the Lefties, 7 Council candidates are now on the record saying they’ll support a Home Rule petition to bring back rent control to Cambridge (Al-Zubi, McGovern, Nolan, Rivkin, Siddiqui, Sobrinho-Wheeler, and Wilson). There may be others. Of course, barring a change in state law, that’s really just a hollow gesture. Besides, what exactly is the value in freezing rents at stratospheric levels? Perhaps that’s not really the point. It’s just the politics of promising something you can’t actually deliver - kinda like when “A Better Cambridge” promises affordable housing as they do every election. My personal platform may include free Internet, free ice cream (w/vegan option, of course), and free ponies for everyone!

Though I am spending less time on it than previous years, I have been watching the campaign finance reports for the municipal election. Perhaps most noteworthy is the (currently) $83,550 in receipts for new candidate Tim Flaherty who is apparently the candidate being backed by the players who have mobilized in the wake of Paul Toner’s decision to not seek reelection. I like Tim and consider him a friend, but there is something very unsettling about this. I’m also a bit puzzled about the criteria used by the various organizations who will be promoting candidate slates this year. Some of them seem primarily focused on ensuring the reelection of their favored incumbents with a few feeder candidates thrown in for insurance. I just wish there was a Reasonable Cambridge slate. I might request inclusion in that slate, but that’s just wishful thinking at this point. I think that’s the candidate slate most Cambridge residents would prefer. Unfortunately, the single-issue advocates are all that we hear from.

By the way, if you want to talk, give me a call (617-661-9230), send me email, or ring my doorbell. I have beer.

Robert Winters (in my role as a candidate)

Comments?

Campaign Tales - August 25

Aug 25 - I just read through a candidate questionnaire from a group calling itself the “Committee of Interns and Residents-SEIU, representing over 3,500 resident physicians at Cambridge Health, MGB, Boston Medical Center, Beth Israel, Greater Lawrence Family Health Center, and UMass Medical Center.” I will be very surprised if many of the interns or residents of any of the above-named institutions have read or are even aware of the questions being posed to candidates. As is the case with many, perhaps most, unions, the connection between the membership and those involved in political activities in the name of the union (including donations made to candidates) is tenuous at best. The names of the people sending the questionnaire are Tal Frieden, Anthony Landry, and Alyssa Ruiz Nicholson.

As a candidate, I will not be completing their questionnaire due to its overt politcal bias, its irrelevance to Cambridge, and the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with medical residents or interns. That said, I am sure that many of the other City Council candidates will happily comply. Not me.

Here is a sampler of some of the questions:

• Are you accepting donations from police unions?
• Are you accepting donations from AIPAC, United Democracy Project, NORPAC, Democratic Majority for Israel, or similar funding?
• Do you believe in a ceasefire in Gaza?
• Recently, MA Senators Warren and Markey voted in favor of a resolution to block arms sales to Israel. Representative Ayanna Pressley has cosponsored the Block the Bombs Act to limit arms sales to Israel. Would you support similar legislation supporting an arms embargo on Israel?
• CIR is committed to ensuring that physicians can take care of their communities, without unjust interference. Immigrants in our communities have been targeted by ICE, including in hospitals in Massachusetts. Immigrant physicians have also been targeted by ICE in New England, denying communities of the care immigrant physicians provide. What actions have you taken or do you plan to take in your position to support ensuring that immigrants in our communities (patients and physicians) are free from harassment in seeking and providing medical care?
• Our union, CIR, is committed to pursuing justice for all, in particular bringing economic and social justice to those most exploited. Throughout our history, we have refrained from supporting institutions and organizations supporting apartheid (as defined by the UN) or genocide. Have you taken financial support from organizations accused of supporting apartheid or genocide? Will you use your position to support efforts to dismantle apartheid or intervene in genocide? If so, how would you pursue these goals?

Robert Winters (in my role as a candidate)

Emerging and Converging Political Factions

Aug 18 – Candidates continue to send me materials for their Candidate Pages and I generally get those posted soon after I get them. You all can thank me later.

I’m also a City Council candidate, and the usual barrage of questionnaires from advocacy groups have been arriving. I’ll be answering some of them but, quite frankly, some are simply not worth wasting my time answering such narrow-minded, self-serving interests that leave candidates little room for nuance, explanation, historical perspective, or much of anything else. It will be interesting to see which candidates dish out all the BS the advocates want to hear in their endless quest for endorsements from a handful of self-anointed, self-appointed activists. Yeah, you know who I’m talking about.

One of the more curious things I have seen emerging over the last few years and municipal election cycles is the coalescence of the left-wing activist groups - including several groups that have emerged relatively recently which are at least somewhat centered around particular candidates. In addition to the Our Revolution gang (ORC), the highly problematic local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) which has become indistinguishable from the DSA, we now have groups calling themselves the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition (CHJC) and the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizers (CHAO). In classic chicken-and-egg fashion, it’s hard to say whether the groups have grown around the candidates or if the candidates were spawned by the groups. Many of the same individuals are affiliated with several of these groups. Perhaps most interesting this year is that essentially all of the leftist groups have settled on a common questionnaire promoted by something known as the “Cambridge Progressive Electoral Collaboration”.

Personally, I won’t be answering that questionnaire for a number of reasons. First, there’s no way in Cambridge or on Earth that a centrist like me would ever be supported by the radicals behind this “collaboration”. Second, any group that wants to grill Cambridge candidates on their views regarding Israel and Gaza doesn’t really deserve a response from a municipal election candidate – though I’m sure some of the current candidates will be thrilled to express their views from the river to the sea. Our local socialist loonies are likely looking to Mamdani and New York City for inspiration. Could they add a City Council seat this year? Perhaps, but I really hope not. We are actually in a moment where fiscal restraint should be the call of the day, but we could end up with 5 votes calling for the City Manager to drain our “free cash” in order to fund every imaginable giveaway.

The “A Better Cambridge” faction will, no doubt, sell its slate on the usual promise of housing affordability, but all they really want to do is turn every parcel into a lucrative development opportunity – even if all of the neighbors object. [The ABCers will simply call them all NIMBYs or worse.] I do find it striking that during all the years when “affordable housing” has been the expressed goal of most aspiring City Council candidates, that train has been traveling steadily in the opposite direction. The current pitch is that increased supply will cure all ills, but my guess is that we’ll mainly see more investment vehicles where people (many of them non-residents) can store their wealth. So many landlords, so little time.

Just about every School Committee candidate says they want to narrow the “achievement gap” and provide for the needs of all children (they always italicize the all), yet that gap always seems to grow wider. Even though I am a candidate for City Council, I’m actually quite interested in what’s going on with the School Committee election. There are several matters that have motivated so many candidates to run for School Committee, e.g. the closing of the Kennedy-Longfellow School, the early firing of the previous School Superintendent, the current process to select the next Superintendent, and (at least I hope) the neverending hope for improved educational outcomes - especially in math and science. I don’t really get too jazzed about all the equity talk. Not surprisingly (considering what I do for a living) I just want to see everyone succeed in math and science.

Though I like most of the candidates under the “Cambridge Citizens Coalition” umbrella, they apparently have no criteria for candidate endorsement other than personal whim. I am actually more comfortable as a candidate being completely independent of all the factions.

Then there’s The Bike People, their irrational beliefs, and their total disregard for any residents who travel on more than two wheels.

We may or may not see the proposed new City Charter on this year’s ballot. The clock is ticking. I would love to have the opportunity to talk about the tortured process that led to the current proposal.

Enough for now. - RW

Comments?

Revision Cambridge – September 15, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Here’s my first pass at the highlights. Revisions, comments, etc. to follow:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to recommendations of the Community Preservation Act Committee (CPAC) for FY2026. [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; comments by Taha Jennings, Nolan, Zusy
VOTE 1: Fiscal Year 2026 Local Funds ($19,700,000) voted 9-0
VOTE 2: Fiscal Year 2025 State Matching Funds [received in FY2026] ($2,800,000) voted 9-0
VOTE 3: CPA Fund Balance - Administration ($15,000) voted 9-0
VOTE 4: Historic Preservation Reserve ($113,000) voted 9-0
VOTE 5: Open Space Reserve ($331,000) voted 9-0

80%-10%-10% from now until the end of time - non-debatable. Anything else might be interpreted as democratic.

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number #25-50, regarding a Deadline for Charter Change.
pulled by Simmons; Megan Bayer notes that House and Senate approved, sent to Governor to sign, Election Commission preparing guides, ballot; Yi-An Huang thanks Sal DiDomenico, Marjorie Decker, now just waiting for Governor’s signature; Tanya Ford provided updates; comments by Simmons, Nolan, Megan Bayer (not the full text on the ballot or the guide - just the summary), Wilson, Siddiqui, Zusy, Simmons (special thank you to Tanya Ford); Placed on File 9-0

I’m presuming this means that it’s got the go-ahead. For those who are paying attention, the proposed Charter is fundamentally the same as the Plan E Charter that has worked well for the City of Cambridge since its adoption in 1940. Thankfully, all the problematic proposals were beaten back, but all that could soon change if a clown car is elected in November for the next City Council.

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Numbers 25-38, 25-39 and 25-41, regarding issues related to parking in the area surrounding the eastern end of Broadway. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Brooke McKenna (evasive re: parking for employees at 344 Broadway), Wilson (notes large number of School and City staff who park on Broadway), Siddiqui, Toner, Nolan, Stephanie Groh; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-27, regarding the City Manager investigate bike pod storage options to be placed in suitable areas in the city to provide residents and visitors safe storage options. [text of report]
pulled by Wilson; comments by Wilson, Stephanie Groh, Simmons; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-42 regarding pedestrianization of Lower Bow Street. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan (wants auto-bollards), Kathy Watkins; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #10. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-32, regarding a request that the City engage in discussions with leadership from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Harvard Square Business Association (HSBA) regarding a proposal to explore the feasibility of repurposing the long-abandoned MBTA tunnel in Harvard Square into a commercial or cultural space. [text of report]
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons (disappointed), Zusy, Azeem; Charter Right - Azeem

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to provide an update to the City Council at the September 29, 2025 City Council meeting regarding the status of discussions with the MBTA and HSBA, the potential allocation of funds for the tunnel feasibility RFP, and any anticipated next steps in this process.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, McGovern, Nolan; Order Adopted 9-0

Though I think this is a fabulous idea worth exploring, I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for movement on this. There are multiple parties involved - both public and private, and even one-ball juggling often proves far too difficult when undertaking creative ideas involving more than one party.

Manager’s Agenda #11. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the transmission of the Cambridge Street Zoning Petition. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern; Zoning Petition referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy - No)

Manager’s Agenda #12. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the transmission of the Massachusetts Avenue Zoning Petition. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern; Zoning Petition referred to Ordinance Committee & Planning Board 8-1 (Zusy - No)

Manager’s Agenda #13. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-43, regarding a request for an interim report on demolition and building permit applications received during the six-month period following the City Council’s adoption of the Multifamily Housing Zoning Amendment on February 10th, 2025. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern; comments by McGovern (17 demolition petitions filed, 7 issued since MFZ passed); Jeff Roberts (CDD) says 46 applications submitted and of these 13 issued to date, 13 for residential demolitions and 7 issued; McGovern desperately trying to put a positive spin on this; Nolan; Melissa Peters (CDD); Jacob Lazzara (ISD); Zusy (notes that some developers may be waiting pending possible changes in Inclusionary rate); Azeem says we’re not going to lower the Inclusionary requirement; Toner; Placed on File 9-0

It is at times like this that I look back at all the ideas floated during the Envision Cambridge process and come to the conclusion that the Community Development Department has simply tossed it all into the wastebasket. Surely there is a “third way” somewhere between the current status and having Mass. Ave. and other corridors lined end-to-end with 12-story and higher buildings.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Cambridge Police Department to review current crisis prevention protocols, strengthen them by clearly defining the role and deployment of mental health professionals.   Councillor Wilson, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
Order Adopted 9-0

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Cambridge Police Department, the Law Department, and relevant stakeholders to develop and present to the City Council a proposed policy for the timely release of body-worn camera footage.   Councillor Azeem, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Azeem, Nolan, McGovern; Order Adopted 9-0

These Orders grew out of a Public Safety Committee meeting last week in which the Cambridge Police Department provided the facts and almost all of Public Comment (except me) provided the fiction. In Cambridge, the tail continues to wag the dog.

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Commission on Immigrant Rights & Citizenship, the City Solicitor, the Police Department, the Mayor’s Office, and other relevant stakeholders to evaluate and implement ICE Encounter Guidance.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Simmons; comments by Simmons, McGovern, Yi-An Huang, Sobrinho-Wheeler, Nolan, Wilson; Order Adopted 9-0

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City staff to ensure that, effective immediately (and for each fiscal year in which the Office for Tourism continues to receive TDMD funding) that the City shall redirect its municipal funding to distribute those funds equally among the Central Square Business Improvement District (BID), the East Cambridge Business Association, the Harvard Square Business Association, and the Kendall Square Association. [Charter Right – Toner, Sept 8, 2025]
Comments by Toner (w/Comm #1); Comments by Simmons, Wilson; Referred to Econ. Development & University Relations Committee 9-0

Communications #1. Candice Beaulieu, re: CIVITAS- TDMD FAQ Sept 2025.
pulled by Councillor Toner; Referred to Econ. Development & University Relations Committee 9-0

There is a back story here that hopefully will get aired more fully. - RW

Comments?

The Return – September 8, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

While Visions of Number Ones Danced in Their Heads – The City Council returns from a summer of leafleting, door-knocking, and snake oil sales for their first meeting of the Fall. Here are a few things on this week’s agenda that I thought might be somewhat interesting:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a federal update including an update on relevant court cases. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0

I always find these updates interesting.

Manager’s Agenda #4. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $120,000, received from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health’s (DMH) Jail Diversion Program, to the Grant Fund Police Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($120,000). Grant funds will be used to continue the Co-response program with one clinician through June 2026. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Police Commissioner Christine Elow; Order Adopted 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $10,000, to the Grant Fund Police Department Salaries and Wages Account ($5,000) and to the Grant Fund Police Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account ($5,000). Grant funds will be used to support costs related to providing aftercare support such as supplies that individuals can bring with them to detox such as clothing, supplies (including Narcan) and personal hygiene products and transportation to treatment or clinical care services. A portion of the funding will also be allocated towards providing dedicated POST outreach services. [text of report]
Order Adopted 9-0

Normally, I don’t even comment on sensible appropriation requests like these, but I am aware that there was a brouhaha earlier this year about the Cambridge Police Department (CPD) doing what some councillors and political activists felt should be entirely in the hands of others - in particular the new Community Safety Department (CARE). Rather than celebrate the forward thinking of CPD, I expect several councillors will again pipe up in favor of keeping separate law enforcement and assisting people in crisis. That would indicate a complete misunderstanding of how our police actually operate. Just as one example: Several days ago we had to call CPD about a manic individual howling across the street - apparently just released from a hospital setting. The police came, as did an ambulance and even a fire truck. They talked with the man at length, calmed him down, and provided him with a shirt. When I later asked if all was well, one of the officers (who I knew) told me they were working on getting him some shoes. This is the Cambridge Police Department I know, and I am grateful for all the intervention and aftercare support that they provide.

In an unrelated matter, I see that there’s a Public Safety Committee hearing later this week on the police response relating to an incident at the Close Building at Broadway and Windsor in early August. I have no idea what the optimal way to handle that situation might have been, but I’m not inclined to second-guess the people whose job is to respond to unpredictable situations such as this. Sadly, if I choose to speak in support of CPD at this hearing, I will likely be outnumbered and disparaged by the defunders who will surely be in attendance.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Sephany Alexis, Sally Benbasset, and Christina Turner and the reappointment of Elizabeth Aguilo, Rowan Murphy, and Michelle Lower as members of the Community Benefits Advisory Committee for a term of three years. [text of report]
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Asst. City Manager Ellen Semonoff (who has announced that she will soon be retiring), Toner, McGovern, Wilson [the gist being that some councillors think that the appointments should be made only after the policies guiding the committee are revised - a rather short-sighted perspective]; Appointments Accepted, Placed on File 8-0 (w/Zusy voting to Abstain)

Manager’s Agenda #9. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to amendments to the Cambridge Tobacco Ordinance. [text of report]
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan, Wilson, Sam Lipson (Director of Environmental Health), Asst. City Solicitor Paul Kawai, and Chief Public Health Officer Derrick Neal (who chose to characterize this in racial terms); Referred to Health & Environment Committee 9-0

I have always been something of an anti-tobacco crusader myself, but it was interesting to read in this report how the Town of Brookline adopted an ordinance which permanently banned the sale of any tobacco product to anyone born on or after Jan 1, 2000. Though this ban was upheld in the Mass. SJC, I would be very surprised if such a “generational ban” would survive a US Supreme Court challenge. I also found it interesting that prohibition of tobacco sales within a specified distance from schools is being suggested while at the same time there have been discussions of relaxing such restrictions for cannabis outlets. Perhaps one day we’ll be hearing suggestions on banning the sale of meat for persons born after a certain date or within a certain distance from schools.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Department of Transportation, the Commission for Persons with Disabilities, and any other relevant City departments to assess the current accessible parking capacity in the vicinity of Kendall Square and identify potential solutions, which may include adding dedicated accessible parking spaces, creating short-term accessible loading/unloading zones, or implementing other reasonable accommodations.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Parking accommodation for tech workers in Kendall Square, but complete dismissal of resident concerns about parking and curb access along Broadway. Why am I not surprised?

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to consult with the appropriate City departments, including the City Solicitor’s Office, to establish a formal policy that clearly defines the City’s role and financial responsibilities in supporting large-scale public events hosted by Cambridge-based non-profit and not-for-profit organizations.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson
pulled by Wilson to be added as sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This would be a good move. When Cambridge-based organizations are piecing together larger-scale public events (such as the Cambridge Jazz Festival), they shouldn’t have to go begging for City support as long as they meet some basic, reasonable criteria.

Order #4. That the City Manager is requested to work with the appropriate City staff to ensure that, effective immediately (and for each fiscal year in which the Office for Tourism continues to receive TDMD funding) that the City shall redirect its municipal funding to distribute those funds equally among the Central Square Business Improvement District (BID), the East Cambridge Business Association, the Harvard Square Business Association, and the Kendall Square Association.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Simmons; Charter Right - Toner

My only objection to this is the stipulation that such funds should be equally distributed among four specified groups. There will be times when more support may be needed for one group, and some groups may have the advantage of other funding sources not available to other groups. Perhaps this should instead specify “fairly distributed” rather than “equally distributed”.

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Community Development Department, the City Assessor, and all other relevant departments to develop a comprehensive policy for future private development projects in the city.   Councillor Toner, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan, Siddiqui, Zusy, Wilson, Simmons; Zusy added as sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This Order is specifically about “contract zoning” and negotiated community benefits contributions – the contentious issue at the heart of the recent Bio-Med rezoning (“Eastern Cambridge Community Enhancements” Zoning Petition). Though I can understand the desire for a policy, I still am disheartened by the whole idea of replacing generosity with bureaucracy, and I have long felt that “contract zoning” is just a more polite way of characterizing “pay to play”. Planning and zoning should be based on principles rather than on cash and prizes.

Order #7. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Election Commission, the City Solicitor, and the City Clerk, and report back to the City Council no later than the September 15, 2025 City Council meeting on the Policy Order regarding the deadline for Charter Change.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Toner
pulled by Toner; comments by Simmons, Toner, McGovern, Nolan, Siddiqui, Wilson; Order Adopted 9-0, Reconsideration Fails 0-9 [It was noted that the Charter petition has now been engrossed by the State Senate and was back before the House and is expected to soon by signed by the Governor]

Communications & Reports #2. A communication was received from City Solicitor Megan B. Bayer, transmitting a memorandum re: City Voter Guide for Ballot Questions - Proponent Argument for Proposed City Charter. [text of report]
Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0; Reconsideration Failed 0-9

Communications & Reports #3. A communication was received from Lesley Waxman, Assistant Director, Cambridge Election Commission, transmitting a request Letter - In Favor Argument City Charter. [text of report]
Placed on File 9-0; Reconsideration Failed 0-9

The clock is ticking and the State Legislature has to act quickly now so that the proposed new Charter will be on the ballot this November. Indications are that this will happen but, regardless, the “pro” and “con” arguments have to be ready to go so that voters will have access to that information prior to Early Voting. Fortunately, essentially all of the proposed charter changes are superficial - more about updating form and language than about fundamentally changing the structure of our local government.

Order #8. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant departments to seek input from the community as well as direct outreach to condo owners and short-term rental operators and develop additional recommendations based on the discussion in the Ordinance Committee.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Siddiqui
pulled by Toner; comments by Toner, Nolan, McGovern, Zusy; Order Adopted 9-0 [It was noted that only ~150 out of ~600 short-term rentals are currently registered with the City.]

Committee Report #3. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on Wed, Aug 27, 2025 on a Zoning Petition by the Cambridge City Council to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 4.000 with the intent to amend Section 4.60 to redefine short-term rental, add definitions for “operator-occupied short-term rental,” “owner-adjacent short-term rental” and “booking agent,” add conditions of authorized uses to comply with the state building code, fire code, sanitary code, and all other state and local habitability requirements, add requirements to provide booking information and other documentation to the City upon request, and add enforcement mechanisms for violation of the ordinance or state regulations. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Sometimes I think we complicate things too much. I would be happy if we just granted any resident property owner the right to one short-term rental as long as they meet any necessary health and building codes and to treat it no differently than any other rental. If a non-resident owner does short-term rentals, then I’d call that a hotel use, and all laws and ordinances for hotels should be applicable – including prohibition if hotel uses are not permitted in that zone. Same goes for a resident owner who does more than one short-term rental, but I really think that should simply be prohibited unless the owner is operating a licensed rooming house.

Order #9. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant departments and multi-member bodies to report back to the City Council and inform the community of the work of, and when the recommendations coming from the Micromobility Commission will be available.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan, Zusy, Wilson; Zusy added as sponsor; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #10. That the City Manager is requested to consult with relevant departments about the implications of deploying license plate readers and provide recommendations as to whether adjustments in plans for deployment should be made in light of changes since approval in February.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
pulled by Toner; comments by Nolan (with proposed amendment) , Sobrinho-Wheeler (who suggested that license plate readers might be used to track Texas women coming to Massachusetts for abortions), Toner, City Manager Yi-An Huang; Adopted 9-0 as Amended

Methinks this is yet another example of a policy order born from a NextDoor posting. The February 3 approval of license plate readers and cell phones access was adopted 6-3 with Nolan, Siddiqui, and Sobrinho-Wheeler opposed.

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to coordinate with the Community Safety Department, the Cambridge Police Department, and other relevant parties to ensure that the overnight use of the garden area between St. James Episcopal Church and the Beech Street condos is actively monitored. [Charter Right – Simmons, Aug 4, 2025] (PO25#108)
Comments by Simmons, McGovern, Nolan, Wilson, Zusy; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Resolution #5. Congratulations to Cynthia Shelton Harris for her promotion to Executive Director of Veterans’ Services.   Vice Mayor McGovern, Mayor Simmons, Councillor Wilson

Resolution #6. Condolences on the death of Elizabeth Camacho.   Councillor Toner

Resolution #10. Condolences to the family and friends of Mary Leno.   Mayor Simmons

I will miss running into Mary Leno and her canine companions.

Late Resolution #13. Congratulations to The Sacramento Community Garden.   Councillor Nolan

Committee Report #1. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Aug 12, 2025 to discuss the City’s community engagement function, share updates on its structure and direction, and hear from the City Council about their values, priorities, and expectations for engaging with community members. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

I spoke at this hearing. The minutes almost never convey the real meaning of the comments. The short version is that I recalled how when I first arrived in Cambridge I was amazed at how responsive City departments were with just a simple phone call. Now we have SeeClickFix and over 40 “community engagement” staff and, in my opinion, responsiveness has often been replaced by public relations and spotty SeeClickFix requests. We might do better with a few phone numbers and some really good Cambridge-born-and-bred phone operators.

Committee Report #2. The Neighborhood and Long-Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee held a public hearing on Aug 14, 2025 to discuss policy options presented by city staff to regulate maximum unit sizes to ensure that the City’s zoning ordinances incentivize the creation of housing. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Order Adopted, Placed on File 9-0

Order #11. That the City Manager is requested to work with all relevant departments on zoning amendments to incentivize multifamily zoning while allowing reasonable development of single and two- family homes, the “balanced incentive approach” which is Option Four outlined in the presentation to the NLTP Committee.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler
Order Adopted 9-0

There are several things for which every additional “solution” only creates further problems and, ultimately, no solution at all. Except for government housing, essentially every initiative done under the banner of “affordable housing” has resulted in less affordability in housing, and I’m confident that efforts done over this past year will yield similar results. I am also reminded that in all the years our School Committee has been trying to address the “achievement gap”, that gap has only grown wider. The unquenchable desire to control rarely results in sustainable solutions. - RW

Comments?

When Representation Fails to be Representative – June 23, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (abridged)

In Cambridge we like to tout our Proportional Representation (PR) election system as superior to other systems, and in many ways this is true. There is one question, however, that has been nagging at me for some time: “Proportional to what?” During the heyday of Cambridge rent control, it was pretty clearly the case that the City Council was in a similar proportion to the tenant-dominated electorate and that many, perhaps most, voters at that time were guided by that one dominant issue before considering any other issues or candidate traits. After the demise of rent control after Question 9 in 1994, the dominance of the rent control issue faded quickly and we entered a prolonged period where individual personalities and legacy affiliations guided local electoral choices. The notion of proportionality became more of a relic than anything else. In recent years, we have seen the rise of single-issue politics (density, subsidized housing, bike lanes, preservation), but identity politics is as much of a factor as any polarized issue. The question of “Proportional to what?” could not be muddier. What I find most aggravating is how single-issue advocates quote municipal election results to argue why their single issue is somehow reflective of the will of the electorate. There are so many confounding factors involved in voter choice that it is simply never valid to draw conclusions on issues that were not explicitly on the ballot.

Last week’s meeting featured 4 Orders that either directly or indirectly addressed the question of installing separated cycle tracks on Broadway and the loss of on-street parking and curb access. It was an interesting mix of political theater, dismissal of the concerns of many petitioners (mainly older and working class voters), and some degree of betrayal and political favoritism. Costumes and props were plentiful, and facts were in short supply as assertions of treacherous conditions on Broadway were made that bore very little resemblance to the actual reality that residents on and around Broadway see every day. Perhaps those who question the plans for Broadway should have shown up with walkers and work clothes. We are now living in a version of Cambridge where unicorns are real and nobody has any need for a car or for parking. City policies are based on wishful thinking and capitulation to advocacy groups flush with cash and social media savvy. Our City Manager seems unable or unwilling to question the advocates embedded in his own City departments. Reason and compromise have no place in this new Cambridge, and older people and working class people should just suck it up. They clearly don’t count in the political calculus of people named Azeem, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern, and Siddiqui, and they are at best dangled along by others named Nolan and Zusy. Our City Council, and probably our School Committee, is now proportional in name only.

Random Observations (June 3, 2025):

For many decades the Cambridge political dichotomy was defined as the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA) vs. the Independents. At various times this was aligned with the Town vs. Gown divide, and (except for councillors from East Cambridge) also associated with the division between those who favored rent control vs. those who were opposed. During the 1990s, the CCA was largely associated with downzoning and limiting commercial development, while the Independents were generally in favor of new development and growing the tax base (which also kept residential property tax rates low). Everything changed after the demise of rent control (1994) though the political labels and voting patterns persisted for another decade or so.

Over the last decade we have seen the rise of new political associations and their associated candidate slates. The Cambridge Residents Alliance (CResA) arose largely in opposition to residential development proposals in and around Central Square. This led to the formation of an opposition group that later came to be known as “A Better Cambridge” (ABC) - initially in support of transit-oriented development, especially in and around Central Square. Some principal leaders in the ABC group were also affiliated with non-profit subsidized housing developers and, with the emergence of the national “YIMBY” movement, ABC shifted its focus toward such local initiatives as the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) which, for the most part, has further concentrated subsidized housing within existing properties owned by the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA) and other nonprofit housing developers. ABC has shifted more recently toward a general “densification” philosophy - promoting dense housing development (market-rate and otherwise) anywhere and everywhere rather than just transit-oriented development. “Smart Growth” has yielded to just “Growth and Density” - even at the cost of so-called “naturally occurring affordable housing” and any notions of historic preservation. [This is why I generally refer top ABC as “A Bigger Cambridge”.] The ABC attitude toward such things as “neighborhood conservation districts” (NCDs) can only be described as hostility.

Somewhere along the line, a counter-organization, the Cambridge Citizens Coalition (CCC), came into existence - largely centered around themes of limited growth, especially in existing, relatively established neighborhoods. They have also been solidly in favor of historic preservation where appropriate. In many respects, the new political dichotomy has become CCC vs. ABC, but it’s more complicated than just that. Reflecting current national trends, there has also been a relatively small but nontrivial growth in hard-left political identifications - primarily Sunrise Boston (not sure if they’re still around), Our Revolution Cambridge (ORC - an offshoot of the Bernie Sanders campaigns), and the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). These groups appear to draw support primarily among college-age and recent graduates of our local universities, and the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel crowd largely aligns with the DSA (as well as other national entities like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) - an offshoot of the “Answer Coalition”. I don’t know that there’s much value added to local government with affiliation to what are effectively fringe national political parties - and hate-filled ones to boot. The Cambridge Residents Alliance, comprised mainly of much older people, has effectively become the aged wing of the local DSA (though Our Revolution has a few aging Marxists as well).

Then there’s the bicycle crowd, primarily the well-funded Cambridge Bike Safety group. They really are the ultimate single-issue group - even more than ABC and its density-above-all focus. There are also counter-efforts such as Cambridge Streets for All (CSA) that has pushed back against the rather hostile revised Bicycle Safety Ordinance (2020) that mandates separated bike lanes that are sometimes reasonable but often arbitrary and problematic. Just as is the case currently in Washington, DC, some matters come down to just raw political power and influence - regardless of sense or effectiveness.

In an interesting twist, people who would have at one time been associated with the CCA and many “townies” who at one time been associated with the Independents, now find themselves (whether or not they realize it) on the same side of the current political dichotomy. They are all what the ABC affiliates would dismiss (with great hostility) as “Neighborhood Defenders” - a term taken from the title of what has essentially become the ABC bible. Preserving quality of life (“liveability”), maintaining adequate parking, tree protection, etc. are viewed in the ABC world much the same way that Robert Moses dismissed the views of Jane Jacobs.

Things line up (more or less) these days as (1) long-time residents (townies) and the CCC, (2) pro-development supporters (ABC), and (3) Leftists and anti-capitalists (who dislike group (1) as the local aristocrats and entitled “boomers” and remain uncomfortable with group (2) because development is associated with capitalists. The bicycle obsessives are less easy to categorize. There are also several small groups emerging (and likely centered on a candidate or two) such as the Cambridge Housing Affordability Organizers (CHAO - seemingly mostly Harvard affiliates) and the Cambridge Housing Justice Coalition (CHJC - very fringy and anti-capitalist) which align with the hard-left and rent control advocacy.

I just wish there was a clear “reasonable” political tent under which some of us could comfortably camp out. - Robert Winters

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

Foundry Advisory Committee Vacancy - deadline Monday, September 15, 2025