Will Reason Prevail? – June 16, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Penny FarthingThis week’s agenda is dominated by several City Council Orders meant to address (or navigate around) the contentious issue of whether the proposed separated bicycle lanes, removal of most of the existing parking, and loss of curb access should proceed on Broadway as currently mandated by the Cycling Safety Ordinance. This is not really a matter of safety so much as political clout. Some straightforward analysis using the current registered voter list indicates that those who want the street reconfiguration to proceed as planned are approximately 25 years younger than those who have signed the petition opposing the reconfiguration. It is also anecdotally clear that there is also a large gap in socioeconomic status. Basically, young professionals are well-represented among those wanting to remove the parking, and those in opposition include far more seniors, people with mobility issues, and people who need their motor vehicles for work and chores.

Those objecting to the loss of parking and curb access tend to be less tech-savvy and more working-class than those who insist that there be no modifications to the current language of the Cycling Safety Ordinance. These are not just people who live on Broadway. Many people on the streets near Broadway also want a change to the current plan. Many people in The Port neighborhood have signed the petition opposing the current plan. Very few people were aware of the plans when the Cycling Safety Ordinance was amended in 2020.

The underlying question right now for city councillors is basically: “Who do you actually represent?”

According to the most recently available campaign finance reports, the Cambridge Bike Safety Independent Expenditure PAC had $15,426.53 (end of 2024), and they have been actively fundraising since then. They even advertised that donations would be matched by an unnamed source. During the 2023 Municipal Election cycle, they raised $36,501.13 and spent $29,519.41. I expect similar receipts and expenditures this year. In comparison, those opposing the current plans for Broadway have no formal organization and no bank account.

Here are the items I found interesting on this week’s agenda:

Bicycles, Parking, Curb Access

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the 5th Annual Cycling Safety Ordinance Report and Awaiting Report Item Number 25-3, regarding update on the status and timeline for the completion of the Grand Junction Multiuse Path. [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the submission of the Parking Impact Report. [text of report]

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to require the Department of Transportation to study parking utilization of the broader neighborhood & provide parking alternatives before building Broadway bike lanes.   Councillor Zusy, Councillor Toner

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to suspend implementation of Broadway bike lanes.   Councillor Toner, Councillor Wilson, Mayor Simmons

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Department of Transportation to evaluate adjustments to meter enforcement hours on Broadway Segment A, designating 25 spaces as residential permit parking overnight to increase overnight parking access for residents.   Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler

Order #6. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to work with the Cambridge Department of Transportation to study the feasibility of modifying non-resident parking permit fees for households in within the Broadway Segment A project area, including offering a discounted rate structure for permits that are requested by residents with low- income residents.   Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Azeem

177 Communications – most in opposition to the plans to remove most of the parking and curb access along Broadway.

I will simply note that Orders #5 and #6 seem like pure evasion of the real issues raised by residents in The Port neighborhood.

Zoning, Housing

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to PO25#25 regarding a zoning petition on maximum unit size. [text of report]

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $1,000,000, from the Federal Grant Stabilization Fund to the Grant Fund Housing Department Other Ordinary Maintenance account to support a municipal housing voucher grant program which will fund rental housing vouchers to be offered by the Cambridge Housing Authority (CHA). This appropriation will allow for City staff to work with CHA in FY26 to transition these households to a City-funded voucher as soon as possible. The program is anticipated to cost approximately $1,000,000 annually. [text of report]

Boards, Commissions, Control Freaks

Charter Right #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment Sarah Holt, Emily Oldshue, and Ruth Webb and the reappointments of Marie-Pierre Dillenseger, Donna Marcantonio, and Peter Schur to the Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. [Charter Right – Nolan, June 9, 2025] (CM25#146)

Charter Right #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Nondita Mehrotra, and the reappointments of Constantin von Wentzel, Heli Meltsner, McKelden Smith, Theresa Hamacher, and Freweyni Gebrehiwet to the Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission. [Charter Right – Nolan, June 9, 2025] (CM25#147)

Charter Right #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Florrie Darwin, Scott Kyle, and Michael Rogove and the reappointments of Chandra Harrington, Joseph Ferrara, Elizabeth Lyster, Yuting Zhang, gavin Kleespies, Paula Paris, and Kyle Sheffield. [Charter Right – Sobrinho-Wheeler, June 9, 2025] (CM25#145)

On the Table #6. That the City Manager is requested to explore with the Government Operations Committee whether the functions of the Peace Commission may be improved and enhanced by bringing them within another City Commission or Department, such as the Human Rights Commission, and report back in a timely manner. [Charter Right – Simmons, May 19, 2025; Tabled June 2, 2025]

It will be interesting to hear the basis for the objections by Councillors Nolan and Sobrinho-Wheeler to these otherwise routine City Board appointments and reappointments.

Federal Updates and Budget Impacts

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.

Infrastructure – Doing what you can within the bounds of what is physically possible

Charter Right #4. Policy Order urging Governor Healey, the MBTA Board of Directors and General Manager Phillip Eng to amend the MBTA Alewife Station Complex redevelopment RFP to include as a priority eliminating untreated Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) sewage in our neighborhoods by incorporating green and gray infrastructure as central components of the project. The order further calls on the MBTA to collaborate with the MWRA, DCR, DPH, the City of Cambridge, and the community to address this public health threat. [Charter Right – Simmons, June 9, 2025]

Additional comments and details to follow.

Follow-Up Memo on Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Concerns Under MBTA Communities Act Compliance - by Patrick Barrett

Patrick Barrett

To: Cambridge City Council
From: Patrick W. Barrett III, Esq
Date: June 11, 2025
Subject: Follow-Up Memo on Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Concerns Under MBTA Communities Act Compliance

“Liberal legalism – and through it liberal government – had become process-obsessed rather than outcomes-orientated. It had convinced itself that the state’s legitimacy would be earned through compliance with an endless catalog of rules and restraints rather than through getting things done for the people it claimed to serve.”
— Abundance

Introduction
The above quote from Ezra Klein’s book “Abundance” describes more apply than I ever could the current state of affairs in the City of Cambridge in nearly all aspects, but no more acutely than in Cambridge’s zoning and housing policy. While intended to address housing affordability, the City’s focus on procedural compliance (“Policy”), reinforced by a flawed Economic Feasibility Analysis (“EFA”) to gain MBTA Act certification, a weak and deeply flawed nexus study three years overdue that was “forgotten,” and continued misleading data presentations, has undermined effective outcomes, revealing a paper thin veneer of a housing market held up by labs, hubris, and wishful thinking.

• This is an update from a memo I issued a few weeks ago to clarify a few points made previously (EFA) and to put into public view some exciting updates from our friends at CDD and new legal actions across the country. I also read Klein’s book … not too shabby.

Violates the MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A)
The MBTA Communities Act mandates multi-family housing as-of-right with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, suitable for families and without age. EOHLC guidelines permit up to 10% affordability at 80% AMI without an EFA, while higher percentages, up to 20%, require a robust EFA demonstrating financial viability. Cambridge’s 20% affordability requirement, applied citywide since 2017, lacks a credible EFA, by using weak anecdotal data without citing sources, project addresses, or any specific material fact about the projects used to set policy. On June 27, 2024, the consultant issued a report to the Housing Committee wherein it stated, “No scenario is financially feasible under existing market conditions” and “Higher density does not overcome financial barriers in current market.1” He was quick to retract this in an email dated September 17, 2024 where the consultant states, “Based on the original EFA analysis and these economic conditions, I conclude that both rental and ownership housing development projects of different sizes that conform to the densities, dimensional requirements and minimum parking requirements under as of right zoning in the qualifying district can be feasibly developed2 with Cambridge’s existing inclusionary zoning requirements.” No calculation, no attachment, no underlying data to support this conclusion other than the email equivalent of a thumbs up. The consultant’s email cites improved interest rates, cap rates, and investment return thresholds as the basis for his conclusion. On June 27th, 2024, the avg interest rate hovered at 6.89%. This dipped by 69 basis points on September 17th, 2024 in anticipation of the federal reserve’s rate cut, and the current interest rate as of this writing is 6.89%. Cap rates between September ’24 and May ’25 have only increased and, given the risk associated with construction, tariffs, and other regulatory hurdles that exist in Cambridge, investor thresholds have only become more stringent (see also: The Bank). However, since CDD likes bar graphs, let’s deliver the information in a form they are accustomed to:

Mortgage Rates, Cap Rates and Investment Returns

Basing housing policy on razor thin margins, whether we accept the consultant’s assessment or not, is not sustainable and sets the city up for confrontation where the only answer is either to dig in on failed policy or reassess. Did a mere two months change all that?

Misleading Representation of Inclusionary Housing Production

Inclusionary Housing - Cumulative

Presented on May 12th, 2025 the Director of Housing issued the above chart in his report on inclusionary housing production. (COF 2025 #813) The cumulative graph of IHP units from pre-FY99 to FY24 (above) suggests robust production, with FY24 as the tallest bar (~1,400 units). Spoiler: the FY24 tallest bar in the graph is where the least amount of “inclusionary housing” was permitted (zero actual IZ units).

This presentation is highly misleading. The cumulative format obscures annual trends, exaggerating recent progress by aggregating all prior units. In FY24, the only cited projects are 121 Broadway (99 units, project-specific zoning via contract or Planned Unit Development, not IZO compliance) and 8 Winter St (3 units, amending permit but not approved), resulting in zero permitted inclusionary units under the 2017 IZO revisions yet presented to the Cambridge City Council as the highest bar in a continuum of success and growth. Of the 20 developments from FY18-FY24 (524 IHP units, 3,227 total units), (4 projects: Mass & Main, 50 Rogers, 165 Main Street, 121 Broadway; 229 units) involve project-specific zoning, not standard IZO, and (12 projects: 305 Webster, St. James Place, 249 Third Street, 201 & 203 Concord Turnpike, 14-16 Chauncy Street, Charles & Hurley, 95-99 Elmwood, 151 North First Street, 212 Hampshire Street, 3-5 Linnaean Street; 144 units) are pre-2017 IZO projects exempt from the 20% mandate due to prior permitting or PUD special permits. Projects listed as “IZO with 2017 Revisions” include errors: 47 Bishop Allen Drive (23 total units, 3 IZ units) is part of Mass & Main (project-specific zoning, not IZO), and 8 Winter St is not yet underway and in the process of amending their plan set. After corrections, only four projects (50 Cambridge Park Drive: 55 units; 55-Wheeler Street: 99 units; 605 Concord Ave.: 7 units; 1055 Cambridge Street: 3 units; 164 IHP units over a 6 year period) comply with the 2017 IZO, comprising just 31% of IHP units, far below expectations for a 20% mandate. This data confirms the 20% requirement has not driven significant inclusionary production, and the City’s graph misrepresents the program’s effectiveness and raises serious questions regarding the viability of inclusionary zoning as a housing strategy.

Analysis of Economic Feasibility Assessment
The City’s reliance on the EFA produced in 2023 to support the 20% mandate is misplaced, as the analysis is so deficient it fails to meet EOHLC requirements for a comprehensive, transparent, and current EFA. Its outdated assumptions, lack of methodological rigor, and failure to use a sustainable economic model or account for the ordinance’s impact on smaller projects make it functionally equivalent to the absence of an EFA. Key points include:

• Outdated Cost Assumptions: The Consultant’s EFA assumes a uniform land acquisition cost of $87,000 per unit across all project sizes (small: 15 units, medium: 42 units, large: 49 units), based on three unspecified projects4, failing to account for economies of scale or market variations. The 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates (DRA) Inclusionary Housing Study5, which informed the 2017 increase from an effective 11.4% to 20% set-aside, estimated land costs at $50,000–$170,000 per unit, with smaller projects at ~$150,000-$170,000 and larger projects at ~$50,000-$80,000. Consultant’s $87,000 per unit land cost, applied uniformly in 2023, is implausible given the consultant is using a lower land basis than used in the Rosen study. The EFA’s lack of transparency about data sources and its failure to adjust for 2023 market conditions further undermine its credibility. Even if a larger project could procure land at or below $87,000 per unit (I know of at least one), the 20% mandate remains economically infeasible due to higher costs of debt (8.5-10.8% vs. EFA’s 8.25%), equity requirements, construction costs ($400-$525/sq ft vs. EFA’s $350-$375/sq ft), and mitigating factors such as increased utility costs (e.g., electricity up 38%, natural gas up 67%), permitting delays, and new zoning requirements (e.g., Article 22, tree protection, climate resilience adding 10-25% to costs). Additionally, the EFA assumes no parking costs for all projects, including condos, despite market demand for parking in for-sale condo developments. The market typically requires 0.5-1 parking spaces per unit at $50,000-$100,000 per space. This omission underestimates costs by $500,000-$2,500,000 for a 15-42-unit project. These flawed assumptions inflate Consultant’s projected returns, as shown in the table below, which compares EFA returns with recalculated 2025 returns using current market conditions ($120,000-$200,000/unit land, $400-$525/sq ft construction cost, 9.65% lending rate, 5.3% cap rate, $13,000/unit operating expenses, $75,000/space parking for condos). The 2025 returns, significantly below developer expectations (7% ROC, 15-20% IRR for condos), confirm the mandate’s infeasibility. For example, the recalculated 5.62% IRR for a 42-unit condo project is far below the industry-standard 15-20% IRR for levered condo developments, making it unacceptable to developers and investors.

Project EFA ROC EFA IRR Actual ROC Actual IRR
Small Rental (15 units) 5.72% 9.42% 3.55% Negative
Medium Rental (42 units) 5.84% 11.60% 4.05% Negative
Large Rental (49 units) 5.56% 6.55% 3.88% Negative
Small Condo (15 units) N/A 26.24% N/A Negative
Medium Condo (42 units)    N/A 28.44% N/A 5.62%

• Comparison with Director of Housing Contribution Rate: On January 23, 2025, CDD Housing Director Chris Cotter proposed increasing the IZ monetary contribution rate from $450/sq ft to $534/sq ft, based on $195,475,665 in subsidies for 366,298 sq ft of affordable housing across three projects (52 New Street, Jefferson Park Federal, 430 Rindge Ave). In contrast, Consultant’s EFA assumes construction costs of $350/sq ft for rental projects and $375/sq ft for condos (podium and stick-built), underestimating 2025 costs by 14-37%. This discrepancy inflates Consultant’s projected returns, making the 20% mandate appear more feasible than it is. Cotter’s $534/sq ft is wildly below the loss developers incur on inclusionary units which adds to the confusion of how Cambridge assesses proportionality impact. The number is derived from a gap in funding and not related to any nexus between the development and its impact on the City.

• Construction Costs Underestimated: The EFA’s $350/sq ft (rental) and $375/sq ft (condo) assumptions are significantly below 2025 market rates of $400-$525/sq ft, skewing return calculations and overestimating project viability.

• Unrealistic Financial Metrics: The EFA assumes a 5% cap rate and 8.25% lending rate, but 2025 cap rates are 5.3% for Class A/B and 5.3-5.8% for Class C (CBRE data), and lending rates are 8.5-10.8%, reducing NOI and valuations, especially for smaller projects. The Consultant does not distinguish between classes of building and assumes a uniform cap rate of 5%.

• Density Bonus Assumptions Flawed: The EFA assumes density bonuses (e.g., 15 units from 11 for small projects), but the 2025 zoning reform eliminated most bonuses in high-density zones (e.g., Central Square), undermining feasibility. Only a two-story increase in C-1 zones remains and its value is dubious. In most cases the extra stories are required for viability, so the “bonus” is more coercive than remunerating.

• Neglect of Smaller Project Impacts: The EFA’s scenarios (15-49 units) do not adequately address smaller projects or projects with existing structures, which face much higher per-unit costs. Using just three unnamed projects of similar size with no background data significantly limits the value of this analysis. It is the equivalent of saying “lots of people say…”

• Utility and Operating Costs: The EFA assumes $10,000/unit operating expenses and minimal utility cost increases, despite 2025 data showing electricity up 35%, gas up 65%, and heating oil up 50%, reducing NOI with more impact on lower unit buildings.6

• Conclusion on the EFA: Consultant’s EFA, with its reliance on anecdotal assumptions (e.g., $87,000/unit land, $350-$375/sq ft construction, no parking costs), inflated returns, and lack of transparency, would not withstand scrutiny under EOHLC guidelines, effectively leaving Cambridge without a credible EFA to justify the 20% mandate. The recalculated 2025 returns, including a 5.62% IRR for a 42-unit condo project (vs. 15-20% industry standard), and the City’s misleading FY24 data (zero 2017 IZO units despite the cumulative graph’s tallest bar) highlight the mandate’s infeasibility.

Legal Vulnerabilities

• Unconstitutional Takings: The 20% mandate lacks proportionality, failing the Nollan/Dolan/Koontz/Sheetz test, relying on the outdated and inaccurate 2016 Rosen report without the required 2022 nexus study. Removing density bonuses would exacerbate this by increasing the exaction’s burden without justified impact assessments.

The Supreme Court determined in a quartet of rulings that governments cannot burden homebuilders with costs for problems they do not create. How does building more housing make housing more expensive? (see: Rosen’s nexus study). Taken together, those cases established that permit conditions for new construction must be proportional and directly related to its impact. Anything above and beyond is an unconstitutional property taking. Now that Sheetz has “kicked open” the door allowing for Nollan/Dolan heightened scrutiny for government exactions, developers and homeowners are taking note and, in the case of the Pilling, winning.

Revisiting Rosen (The Nexus)
In 2016, Cambridge issued a nexus study produced by David Rosen and Associates. Key findings included:

• Affordability has declined markedly in Cambridge since the inception of inclusionary zoning program.7

• Increased migration of high wage earners due to increased commercial growth in Kendall Square.

• Increased migration leads to decreased diversity and “continued decrease in proportion of lower-income residents if current trends continue.” 8

The “nexus” between residential development requiring an exaction of 20% is tied to the growth of the commercial sector. The result, and an odd conclusion in my opinion, is that because commercial development draws in more people who make more money and therefore can buy out existing homes in the city of Cambridge and displace existing residents, the City decided to levy the highest tax on the development of homes that would ameliorate displacement. The report uses exaggerated cap rates (4%) to reverse engineer viability and presents an outcome that was politically preordained. Rosen does try to backtrack slightly and states, “If the inclusionary housing provisions become so onerous as to make new residential development problematic, then new affordable units will not be created. As Cambridge looks to update the Zoning Ordinance, the city will need to balance these concerns.” 9 Hence the 5-year reassessment Cambridge declined to initiate or, to paraphrase CDD, just plumb forgot.

Conclusion:
Inclusionary zoning in Cambridge is at best a mixed bag. It is not certain whether it ever worked as advertised and certainly from 2016 on it has not. The City has asked small to midsized developers to play a game that the largest and most capable developers were and still are largely exempt from. Further, the lack of a defendable EFA, the “whoops” moment of forgetting to update the nexus study, the lack of follow through on any of the non-punitive recommendations within the Rosen report, and the long history of cutting deals with large developers ($5.7M paid in 2020 to remove a 25-unit obligation Biomed inherited and Special Permit PUD exemptions in perpetuity for Cambridge Crossing and other groups in 2016) all leave Cambridge vulnerable to legal challenges, as we saw in 2020 with Arnold Circle, a case that predates Sheetz. In my opinion, if you agree to build inclusionary units as part of your project at anything above 11.4% of gross area, you are a committing your capital and risk to a scheme that the City makes very few well capitalized groups commit to and, further, is likely a violation of the takings clause of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Notes:
1  Multifamily Zoning Analysis
2  Email Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:39:17 PM “Cambridge EFA Analysis” Attached Hereto.
3  Attached
4  EFA_Scenario Analysis Model Results (attached)
5  Rosen Nexus Study (2016)
6  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
7  Rosen pg 6
8  Id. 38
9  Id. 56

Sources:

Comments?

City Reaches Agreement with the Harvard Chabad

City SealJune 13, 2025 – The City of Cambridge is pleased to announce that it has reached an agreement with the Harvard Chabad to resolve the dispute currently before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This matter involved strongly held views from multiple perspectives. City officials carefully considered these perspectives in light of applicable local and Federal law.

Following a thorough mediation process overseen by U.S. Magistrate Judge Page Kelley, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

We recognize that this resolution may not reflect the preferences of all residents. However, we have concluded that the laws involved mandate the authorization of a new building for the use by the Chabad.

We anticipate that the new facility will serve the worship needs of its congregation and positively contribute to the broader Cambridge community. The City remains committed to supporting a diverse and inclusive community that respects its legal obligations and the rights of its residents, neighborhoods, and institutions.

Editor’s Note: This was one of the two items discussed during the City Council’s Executive Session on Monday, June 9. [Reference - Harvard Crimson] The other item involved the Vail Court property (Bishop Allen Dr. and Temple St.) that the City sized by Eminent Domain in September 2016. No information is publicly available re: the status of that dispute.

Things To Do (or not do, thanks to the rain) — June 14-15 Weekend (click on image for details)

Event Update: Due to weather concerns forecasted Saturday morning and early afternoon,
the 250th Anniversary of the United States Army event at the Cambridge Common
will be postponed to Monday, July 7 (start time TBD).
250th Anniversary - US Army

Fresh Pond Day is CANCELLED due to expected rain.
https://www.cambridgema.gov/news/2025/06/selectcambridgeeventsplannedforthisweekendpostponedduetoweatherconcerns
On the other hand, there are now conflicting reports that it will be going ahead as scheduled.
I frankly don’t know which to believe.
Fresh Pond Day 2025

Things To Do — June 21-22 Weekend (click on image for details)

Riverfest 2025

How Harvard Lost the JFK Library

June 7, 2025, Harvard Crimson, By Anwen Cao and By Stephanie Dragoi and Abigail S. Gerstein

Summer Shack in Zippy the Pinhead today! (June 6)

Zippy - June 6, 2025

Summer Shack

Mixed Bag - June 9, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

Last week’s meeting cleared most of the leftovers out of the back of the legislative fridge. Here are some of the remainders and some new additions:City Hall

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a request to move to Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation known as Said S. Abuzahra, Trustee of Equity Realty Trust, et al. v. City of Cambridge (Mdsx. Super. Ct. C.A. No. 2017- cv-2459); and strategy with respect to litigation known as Lubavitch of Cambridge, Inc. v. Jim Monteverde as member of the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals et al. (Land Court Docket No. 24 Misc 00622), John W. Toulopoulos Trustee of the Toulopoulos Realty Trust, et al. v. Lubavitch of Cambridge Inc. et al. (Land Court, Docket No. 24 Misc 000528), and Lubavitch of Cambridge, Inc. v. Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeal and City of Cambridge.
Convened in Executive Session 8:34pm-9:52pm 9-0; Placed on File 9-0

Keywords: (1) Vail Court, (2) Dover Amendment

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-24 regarding a critical drought status report. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, Owen O’Riordan, Zusy; Placed on File 9-0

The entire report is quite interesting, but the current status is: On May 20th due to continued above average precipitation, the State Drought Task Force held a special mid-month meeting, and the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs downgraded the drought level for the Northeast region to Level 0-Normal.

Manager’s Agenda #5. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the submission of the Zero Waste Master Plan. [text of report]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan, McGovern, Recycling Director Michael Orr, Zusy, Wilson, DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins, Simmons, Siddiqui; Placed on File 9-0

This is not just about recycling. The only comments I’ll make right now are that I’m still in the skeptical camp regarding rigid mandates and a possible Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program for waste disposal, and that everyone should understand the difference between advocacy and implementation and public acceptability. Most of the people involved in producing this and other proposals are advocates. It is the job of elected representatives to weigh advocacy vs. public acceptability. The matter of separated bike lanes, loss of parking, and the rigidity of the current Cycling Safety Ordinance come to mind.

Getting Board & Commissioned

Manager’s Agenda #6. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointments of Florrie Darwin, Scott Kyle, and Michael Rogove and the reappointments of Chandra Harrington, Joseph Ferrara, Elizabeth Lyster, Yuting Zhang, Gavin Kleespies, Paula Paris, and Kyle Sheffield to the Cambridge Historical Commission.
Charter Right - Sobrinho-Wheeler

Manager’s Agenda #7. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment Sarah Holt, Emily Oldshue, and Ruth Webb and the reappointments of Marie-Pierre Dillenseger, Donna Marcantonio, and Peter Schur to the Half Crown-Marsh Neighborhood Conservation District Commission.
Charter Right - Nolan

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment of Nondita Mehrotra, and the reappointments of Constantin von Wentzel, Heli Meltsner, McKelden Smith, Theresa Hamacher, and Freweyni Gebrehiwet to the Avon Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Commission.
Charter Right - Nolan

On The Table #4. That the City Manager is requested to explore with the Government Operations Committee whether the functions of the Peace Commission may be improved and enhanced by bringing them within another City Commission or Department, such as the Human Rights Commission, and report back in a timely manner. [Charter Right – Simmons, May 19, 2025; Tabled June 2, 2025]

Manager’s Agenda #14. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a revised draft of the “Eastern Cambridge Community Enhancements” Zoning Petition. text of report]
pulled by McGovern (along w/Committee Report #2); comments by McGovern, Nolan; Referred to Petition as Amended by Substitution 9-0; Placed on Unfinished Business 9-0

Committee Reports #2. The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on May 20, 2025 to discuss two Zoning Petitions. The first Petition was by Mushla Marasao, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Sections 5.28.21, 8.22.1, 8.22.2, and Table 5.1. The second Petition was by BMR-320 Charles LLC c/o BioMed Realty, L.P. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance in Article 20.000 with the intent to create a new overlay district called the East Cambridge Community Enhancement (ECCE) Overlay District. The Ordinance Committee voted favorably to forward the BioMed Realty Zoning Petition regarding the ECCE Overlay District, with proposed amendments from BioMed dated April 18, 2025, to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. [text of report]
pulled by McGovern along w/Manager’s Agenda #14; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0; Petition Passed to 2nd Reading as Amended 9-0

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to determine whether the City Council can revoke an already approved curb cut application if said application was incomplete due to applicant failure.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, Toner, McGovern, Azeem, Nolan, Simmons, City Solicitor Megan Bayer; Order Adopted 6-1-0-2 (Toner - No; Wilson, Simmons - Present)

One week the City Council is in near unanimity regarding delegating curb cut approvals to City staff, and now they want to know how and when they can rescind curb cuts. Go figure.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with the City Clerk, the Information Technology Department, the Law Department, and any other relevant departments to draft an ordinance establishing the City of Cambridge Electronic Records Archiving Policy.   Mayor Simmons, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Toner, Councillor Zusy
pulled by Zusy; comments by Zusy, McGovern, Simmons (shoutout to Barbara Carrera); Zusy added as sponsor 9-0; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

This is important. Just like those old 8-track tapes, cassettes, vinyl records, and even CDs and DVDs become obsolete, the preservation of public records (often in perpetuity) needs to be addressed - especially in an historic city like Cambridge. There needs to be delegated custodians of these records and best practices for preservation, chain of custody, authenticity, integrity, and ease of public access. This is especially true in this age of electronic record-keeping.

Order #3. Policy Order urging Governor Healey, the MBTA Board of Directors and General Manager Phillip Eng to amend the MBTA Alewife Station Complex redevelopment RFP to include as a priority eliminating untreated Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) sewage in our neighborhoods by incorporating green and gray infrastructure as central components of the project. The order further calls on the MBTA to collaborate with the MWRA, DCR, DPH, the City of Cambridge, and the community to address this public health threat.   Councillor Zusy, Councillor Siddiqui, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson [photos]
pulled by Nolan; comments by Nolan w/concerns re: lack of specificity in Order - has a Substitute Order (not acted on); comments by DPW Commissioner Kathy Watkins w/concerns re: Order (98% reduction in CSO for Charles River, 85% CSO reduction in Alewife), notes extensive work by City - complex projects w/complex trade-offs, cost effectiveness, feasibility, Order is too prescriptive, notes plans for storage at Sherman St./Bellis Circle; Zusy comments; Amended (Zusy); Charter Right - Simmons

Note: Though I appreciate the intention of this Order, I have some questions about whether the proposed solutions violate the Laws of Physics.

Charter Right #1. That the exception language in Chapter 2.129.040 Section J of the Cambridge Municipal Code be revised with language clarifying that Cambridge city employees shall not participate in federal immigration enforcement operations and that the sole role of Cambridge city employees during any action by ICE is only to protect public safety and not to assist or facilitate the work of ICE. [Charter Right – Toner, June 2, 2025]
Comments by Toner, City Solicitor Megan Bayer (ICE agents not required to provide name or badge number), City Manager Yi-An Huang (ICE has been notifying local law enforcement), McGovern (add as sponsor), Wilson (add as sponsor), Zusy, Sobrinho-Wheeler (wants CPD to not do traffic enforcement or crowd control and only address public safety, refers to ICE arrests as “abductions”), Siddiqui, Nolan, Simmons (w/concerns about some of the directives in this Order, risk of escalation); [McGovern, Wilson added as sponsors 9-0]; Order Adopted as Amended 8-0-0-1 (Simmons - Present)

This is all well and good, but I have a hard time envisioning Cambridge Police aggressively challenging the actions of ICE employees, taking badge numbers, or doing anything other than simply keeping the peace in a delicate situation involving different law enforcement agencies.

Charter Right #2. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to ensure that there is full open access for all users to Linear Park from Westley Avenue as an additional community access point. [Charter Right – Toner, June 2, 2025]
Comments by Toner, Nolan, Owen O’Riordan, Transportation Director Brooke McKenna, Sobrinho-Wheeler (w/absurd comparison with Brookline St.), Zusy (concerned about Linear Park being transformed into a “transportation corridor”), McGovern (w/amendment), Siddiqui, Azeem (if opening of gate proves problematic, can always close it again), Wilson (struggles w/lack of consistency of City Council); Amendment Adopted 9-0; comments by Simmons (Who would operate the gate every day?); Sobrinho-Wheeler curiously connects this matter to Multi-Family Housing issue, bristles at notion that single-family homes are being given favorable treatment; Order Adopted 5-4 as Amended (BA,MM,PN,SS,JSW - Yes; PT,AW,CZ,DS - No)

248 Communications - mainly calling for a STOP in the planned installation of separated bike lanes and massive loss of parking on Broadway.

The subtext of both of these matters is how to balance citywide and legislative priorities against legitimate local concerns. In recent years, the trend has been toward the former - often leading to the perception that city councillors and City staff don’t really listen to the residents of the city. That has increasingly become my perception, and that’s a real shame.

Up in Smoke

Unfinished Business #5. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk, relative to Chapter 5.50 CANNABIS BUSINESS PERMITTING. [Referred to Ordinance Committee Mar 17, 2025; Passed to 2nd Reading May 19, 2025; Eligible To Be Ordained June 9, 2025] (ORD25#5)
pulled by McGovern; Ordained 9-0

Unfinished Business #6. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to Zoning Petition to remove the repackaging prohibition as a City Council Zoning Petition. [Passed to 2nd Reading May 19, 2025; Eligible To Be Ordained June 9, 2025] (ORD25#6)
pulled by McGovern; Ordained 9-0

Committee Reports #1. The Government Operations, Rules, and Claims Committee held a public hearing on Friday, May 1, 2025 to discuss the 2025 City Manager’s Annual Goals and Review Process. [text of report]
Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Comments?

City Departments Moving to 689 Massachusetts Ave

June 3, 2025 – Several City departments are relocating from 51 Inman Street to 689 Massachusetts Avenue. These departments will be closed to the public on Friday, June 6, and Monday, June 9, and plan to reopen at their new location on Tuesday, June 10.689 Mass. Ave.

Departments moving to 689 Massachusetts Avenue:

City staff can be reached via email during the transition.

Election Commission Schedule:

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.Alphabet Soup

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

War Chests - Possible City Council Candidates
OCPF Bank Reports - June 5, 2025

Setting the Table - June 2, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting

We’re now into the last month of regular City Council meetings prior to the summer break and, more significantly, the official start of the 2025 municipal election season. Nomination papers will be available at the Election Commission office (moving to 689 Mass. Ave.) starting Tuesday, July 1 with a minimum of 50 valid signatures due no later Thursday, July 31 at 5pm. This is traditionally the time for table-setting, i.e. introducing Orders and Resolutions or casting votes meant to signal your indispensability as an incumbent councillor – or having others affix lead weights to your campaign via association with an unpopular stance on a hot-button issue.

As for this week’s agenda, the most significant order of business is the adoption of the (amended) FY2026 Budget and related Loan Orders. Here are the items I found somewhat interesting/significant this week:

Manager’s Agenda #1. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a Federal update.
pulled by JSW; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang (YAH), City Solicitor Megan Bayer, PN; Placed on File 9-0 (vv = voice vote)

These updates have become perhaps the most interesting part of City Council meetings this year as the City of Cambridge sits in the crossfire between the current federal administration and our local universities, related grant-funded interests, and often reckless immigration enforcement and other actions.

FY2026 Budget and Loan AuthorizationsCoins

Manager’s Agenda #2. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to a proposed increase in the FY26 budget of $1 million that would create new municipal vouchers and supportive services for people who are unhoused and a $5 million free cash appropriation for a Federal Grant Stabilization Fund. (CM25#133) [text of report]
pulled by MM; comments by City Manager Yi-An Huang (YAH), Asst. City Manager for Human Services Ellen Semonoff, AW, Housing Liaison Maura Pensak, DS, SS; YAH emphasized three matters that may have local repercussions - (1) Federal Reconciliation Bill, (2) State Budget (wait and see), and (3) Federal Continuing Resolution coming this fall that may greatly affect such things as Section 8 voucher funding; Placed on File 9-0

Manager’s Agenda #3. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to following amendments to the FY26 Submitted General Fund Budget. These amendments to the Budget reflect changes requested by the City Council based on feedback and discussions during public hearings on the FY26 Operating and Capital Budgets that took place beginning on May 8, 2025, through May 15, 2025. (CM25#134) [text of report]
pulled by PN along with M4, M5, UB8 (FY2026 Budget), UB9-17 (Loan Orders), Committee Reports #1-4; comments by most councillors; note that this will result in a revised 8% tax increase; Referred to UB8 9-0

“These increases will bring the total FY26 Operating Budget to $992,181,320, an increase of $36,596,970 or 3.8% from the FY25 Adopted Budget. The projected tax levy to support the FY26 Budget is $678,659,850, an increase of $50,271,097 or 8% from the FY25 tax levy. The actual tax levy will be determined in the fall as part of the property tax and classification process.”

Manager’s Agenda #4. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the establishment of a Federal Grant Stabilization Fund. (CM25#135) [text of report]
pulled by PN; Adopted 8-0-1 (JSW Absent)

Manager’s Agenda #5. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $5,000,000, from Free Cash to the Federal Grant Stabilization Fund. Funds appropriated to and held by the Federal Grant Stabilization Fund will be expended to help address the funding gaps resulting from the actual or anticipated loss of federal funding for programs and services that benefit the most vulnerable Cambridge residents. (CM25#136) [text of report]
pulled by PN; Adopted 9-0

Unfinished Business #8. Transmitting Communication from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the FY2026 submitted budget and appropriation orders for the General Fund, Water Fund, and Public Investment Fund. [Placed on Unfinished Business, Referred to Finance Committee – Apr 28, 2025]
pulled by PN; General Fund Budget ($928,578,370) Adopted as Amended 7-2 (SS, JSW - No, with specious reasoning); Water Fund Budget ($13,602,950) Adopted 9-0; Public Investment Budget ($41,204,770) Adopted 9-0 [Total Adopted FY2026 Budget $992,181,320]

Unfinished Business #9-17. Loan authorizations totaling $109,936,000
pulled by PN; UB9-12 Adopted 9-0; UB13-17 Adopted 8-0-1 (JSW - Absent)

Committee Report #1. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on May 8, 2025 to review and discuss the City budget covering the fiscal period of July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. [text of report]
pulled by PN; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #2. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on May 13, 2025 to review and discuss the School Department budget covering the fiscal period of July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. [text of report]
pulled by PN; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #3. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on May 14, 2025 to review and discuss the City budget covering the fiscal period of July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. [text of report]
pulled by PN; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

Committee Report #4. The Finance Committee held a public hearing on May 15, 2025 to review and discuss the City budget covering the fiscal period of July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026. [text of report]
pulled by PN; Report Accepted, Placed on File 9-0

It is worth noting that of the four Finance Committee hearings on the FY2026 Budget, Councillor Azeem skipped three of them entirely and only remotely participated in the other hearing. Showing up for work is apparently not a high priority.

Manager’s Agenda #8. A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 25-18 regarding vacant store fronts. (CM25#139) [text of report]
pulled by PN; comments by PN, PT, AW, Melissa Peters (CDD), SS, DS, CZ, BA; Policy Adopted 9-0 (vv); [Note: It is expected that this matter may also come up at the scheduled June 23 meeting of the Econ. Dev. & Univ. Relations Committee]

There is a related hearing coming up on Monday, June 23 at 1:00pm: The City Council’s Economic Development and University Relations Committee will hold a public hearing inviting representatives from the 23 long term vacant properties (defined as has been vacant for more than five years) on the record, to share updates on their tenancy efforts, short and long-term plans, and to provide the community with an opportunity to weigh in on this important discussion.

Order #1. City Council opposition to the expansion of Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Wilson
pulled by PN; Order Adopted as Amended 9-0

Order #2. That the exception language in Chapter 2.129.040 Section J of the Cambridge Municipal Code be revised with language clarifying that Cambridge city employees shall not participate in federal immigration enforcement operations and that the sole role of Cambridge city employees during any action by ICE is only to protect public safety and not to assist or facilitate the work of ICE.   Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Nolan
pulled by PT; comments by PT, JSW; Charter Right - Toner

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant City departments to provide a legal opinion outlining, in light of current zoning including the most recent Multifamily Zoning Amendments, the ability of Cambridge to regulate institutional and religious uses in C-1 residential districts and what state and federal law allows in terms of local restrictions, if any, for institutional and religious uses.   Councillor Nolan, Councillor Azeem, Vice Mayor McGovern
Order Adopted 9-0

Yet another example of the City Council’s current “Break it, then (maybe) try to fix it” philosophy of governance.

Charter Right #1. That the City Manager is requested to explore with the Government Operations Committee whether the functions of the Peace Commission may be improved and enhanced by bringing them within another City Commission or Department, such as the Human Rights Commission, and report back in a timely manner. [Charter Right – Simmons, May 19, 2025]
Comments by City Solicitor Megan Bayer noting that this involves an ongoing personnel matter; Substitute Order by Simmons, amendments to original order proposed by JSW, PN; comments by DS, JSW, PT, BA, YAH, AW, PN, SS, CZ, MM; Tabled 9-0 referencing proposed amendments by DS, JSW, PN [Note: Sobrinho-Wheeler’s hostility to Simmons Substitute Order noted - he clearly wants to focus primarily on the Police Review Advisory Board (PRAB); most other councillors open to a general review of all City boards and commissions]

I will simply refer you to my comments on this for the May 19 City Council meeting.

In the Queue - Ready for Adoption

Unfinished Business #6. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to amend certain subsections of the Affordable Housing Overlay, Section 11.207 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. [Passed to 2nd Reading – May 5, 2025; Eligible To Be Ordained May 26, 2025]
pulled by MM; Ordained 9-0

Unfinished Business #7. An Ordinance has been received from City Clerk Diane P. LeBlanc, relative to amend Articles 5.000 and 20.000 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance. [Passed to 2nd Reading May 12, 2025; Eligible To Be Ordained on or after June 2, 2025]
pulled by MM; Ordained 9-0

225 Communications - primarily in regard to proposed separated bike lanes and removal of parking along Broadway.

A preliminary analysis of those writing in opposition to the proposed Broadway bike lanes vs. those who want them to proceed without delay indicates about a 25 year difference in their respective median ages. Basically, this is a case of the wishes of young professionals being given far greater priority by current councillors than is given to older residents - most of whom have legitimate concerns about being able to park near their homes and to have curb access for a variety of reasons.

Resolution #1. Happy 80th Birthday wishes to Henrietta Davis.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Zusy
pulled by CZ to be added as sponsor

Happy birthday, Henrietta!

Resolution #7. Condolences to the family of Nancy Williams Galluccio.   Mayor Simmons, Councillor Siddiqui, Councillor Toner, Vice Mayor McGovern, Councillor Wilson, Councillor Nolan
pulled by MM; MM, AW, PN added as sponsors

I was very sorry to hear of Nancy’s passing. My sincere condolences to Lo, Lissa, and Anthony on the passing of their mother - someone I have known and respected for more than three decades. - Robert Winters

Comments?

City SealElection Commission Moving to 689 Massachusetts Ave

May 30, 2025 – The Cambridge Election Commission office is moving. They will be open to the public at their new office at 689 Massachusetts Ave starting on Wednesday, June 11. The Election Commission office will be closed to the public from Friday, June 6 through Tuesday, June 10 but they can be reached at elections@cambridgema.gov during that time.

Check out the latest episodes of Cambridge InsideOut: Tuesdays, 6:00pm and 6:30pm on CCTV

If you would like to be a guest (or co-host), let me know. - RW

Next Live Shows on CCTV: Tuesday, June 17, 6:00pm - 7:00pm. I am planning to produce some shows independently - on the City Charter, in particular. I may start by doing a show or two on how to operate the tabulation software we use for our PR elections.
Episode 647 (Tues, June 3, 2025 at 6:00pm) [materials] [audio]
Topics: 2025 Municipal Election Updates, nomination papers available July 1; Random Observations and Alphabet Soup - some history of Cambridge political dichotomies and more; “defining the issues” in the most self-serving ways; Cambridge Reasonable People Organization?; Taking a long, hard look at City Boards & Commissions		 Episode 648 (Tues, June 3, 2025 at 6:30pm) [materials] [audio]
Topics: Review of City Boards & Commissions, sunset provisions for all non-regulatory boards; Technical Working Committee for the Computerization of Cambridge Elections (TWCC); Adoption of the Amended FY2026 City Budget and Loan Authorizations; anticipating fallout from reckless federal policies; candidates readying their campaigns; the problem of City-funded campaign aides for incumbents; addressing vacant storefronts; carrots vs. sticks; turning dysfunctional properties into functional properties; Dover Amendment and City Council miscues - break it and maybe fix it later; Broadway bike lane controversy - dirty, mean tactics of Cambridge Bike Safety
Episode 645 (Tues, May 20, 2025 at 6:00pm) [materials] [audio]
Topics: Reflections on 70 years on Earth - 47 years in Cambridge, Mayoral Proclamation; Ranked Choice Voting and limited PR elections for Boston - how it came to be; Review of recent City Council actions and discussions; Cambridge Charter Home Rule pending - relatively few changes from current Plan E Charter; dilemma of when to report a controversy; 2025 municipal candidates emerging - Candidate Pages; opportunities to serve of Boards and Commissions; sunsetting/redefining discretionary Boards, e.g. Peace Commission (Cambridge Commission on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Education); civic unity; the problem of single-issue advocacy; controversy of firearm replacement, activist payback, DSA organizing; ARPA funding expiration, RiseUp successor		 Episode 646 (Tues, May 20, 2025 at 6:30pm) [materials] [audio]
Topics: Cambridge Charter Home Rule Petition - big assist by Law Department, restoring citizen petitions, leaving out poison pills - just like Somerville; AAA bond ratings; Nexus studies for Incentive Zoning and for Inclusionary Zoning; reconsidering Linkage, Inclusionary requirements; Barrett letter; deaths Pebble Gifford, Robert Campbell, Doane Perry; thankless job of being head of a neighborhood association; bicycle lane controversies, reckless plans and policies, bullying by Cambridge Bike Safety group, Broadway as route for emergency vehicles; Harvard Square - Gerald Chan properties, MBTA tunnel innovative ideas; retirement of Diane LeBlanc, Owen O’Riordan; Kathy Watkins to be Deputy City Manager; Budget Hearings, new reality of limitations, shifting of tax burden from commercial to residential, extra heavy burden on single-, two-. and three-family homeowners - Claire Spinner memo; TWC, vouchers, RiseUp, municipal broadband not so fundable; federal updates and clarity of City Manager Yi-An Huang, City Solicitor Megan Bayer, Police Commissioner Christine Elow; federal targeting of Harvard, MIT and downstream repercussions
Episode 643 (Tues, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:00pm) [materials] [audio]
Topics: Grace - Black Churches in Cambridge, Cambridge Museum of History and Culture; Multi-Family Upzoning, unintended consequences, housing for upwardly mobile young professionals, real estate vultures descending, AHO 3.0 anticipated; Rezoning for Squares and “Corridors”, the noblesse oblige of ABC; Bike Lanes and loss of access to homes; City Manager contract extension; public safety and CPD use of drones, ACLU elitism		 Episode 644 (Tues, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:30pm) [materials] [audio]
Topics: Politics of zoning petitions and ballot questions in municipal elections; Sanctuary Cities, virtue-signalling, choosing what is a “marginalized community”; potential loss of federal funding and ripple effects, tax implications; broker fees, junk fees, fueling hostility between landlords and tenants, illegality of limiting housing unit size; DSA nutcases and control freaks; City Hall and Frederick Hastings Rindge inscription; Cambridge Charter - process and particulars
Complete list of all episodes (2013 - present)

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Council on Aging Board

May 12, 2025 – The Cambridge Council on Aging (COA) is seeking interested individuals to serve on its board to help advocate for important issues impacting older adults (residents ages 60 and older).City Seal

The purpose of the COA board is to:

Promote and encourage existing and new services and activities intended to enhance and improve the quality of life of older persons in the city; Advise the City Manager on all matters pertaining to the welfare of older adults who live in Cambridge ; Advocate for older adults in Cambridge . Board members also support COA/ Senior Center staff with community outreach for services, benefits, activities and programs available to older adults.

Applicants must be Cambridge residents, age 60 or older. The City of Cambridge is committed to advancing a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Committee members must have the ability to work and interact effectively with individuals and groups with a variety of identities, cultures, backgrounds, and ideologies. Women, minorities, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply.

The Council on Aging meets virtually via the Zoom platform on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, 9:30-11am.

For more information about the Council on Aging, please contact Susan Pacheco, Executive Director of the Council on Aging at 617-349-6220 or at spacheco@cambridgema.gov.

The deadline for submitting applications is Monday, June 16, 2025. Applications can be submitted using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/Apply. A cover letter and resume, or an overview of relevant experience, can also be submitted during the online application process. Paper applications are also available in the City Manager’s Office at Cambridge City Hall, 795 Massachusetts Avenue.

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

Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee - deadline extended to Mon, June 23, 2025

Cambridge Public Planting Committee - deadline Mon, June 2, 2025

Cambridge’s Council on Aging Board - deadline Mon, June 16, 2025

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance - a letter from Patrick Barrett

Date: May 1, 2025Patrick Barrett

City Manager Yi-An Huang
Mayor E. Denise Simmons
Members of the Cambridge City Council
City Hall
795 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Subject: Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203)

Dear City Manager Huang, Mayor Simmons, and Honorable Members of the City Council,

I write to highlight critical legal and economic flaws in Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (Section 11.203), which mandates that 20% of residential floor area in developments with 10 or more units be dedicated to affordable units. While the City’s affordability goals are laudable, the ordinance’s non-compliance with state law, reliance on outdated economic assumptions, failure to meet procedural mandates, and disproportionate impact on smaller developers demand immediate action. Specifically, I address: (1) non-compliance with the MBTA Communities Act; (2) failure to conduct a required nexus study by April 2022; (3) reliance on the outdated 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report amidst changed economic conditions; and (4) legal vulnerabilities under recent judicial precedents.

1. Non-Compliance with the MBTA Communities Act
The MBTA Communities Act (M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A), enacted in January 2021, requires MBTA communities like Cambridge to establish a zoning district of reasonable size allowing multi-family housing as-of-right with a minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, located within 0.5 miles of a transit station, without age restrictions and suitable for families. Cambridge, as a rapid-transit community, was required to submit a compliant zoning ordinance to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) by December 31, 2023. We have been certified compliant however we are not in compliance with our own zoning requirements and lack a valid economic feasibility analysis (EFA). This opens the question of the validity of certification and what if any standards are being met in certification. If Cambridge is to be an example to other towns currently fighting the MBTA Communities Act we must, at a bare minimum, be in compliance with our own laws. Further the 2025 Multifamily Housing Zoning Amendment eliminated most of the “bonus” density awarded to inclusionary projects as a financial offset. This was done without a corresponding nexus study which would have been required to show the impact of removing bonuses anticipated by the Rosen report.

The February 2025 zoning reform, allowing multi-family housing citywide up to four stories (six stories for inclusionary projects on lots ≥5,000 sq ft), aligns with Section 3A’s density and as-of-right requirements. However, the 20% affordability requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines, which permit up to 10% of units at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) without an economic feasibility analysis (EFA). Higher percentages, up to 20%, require an EFA demonstrating financial viability. Cambridge’s blanket 20% requirement, applied citywide without a recent EFA, is not in compliance, as it clearly does render projects economically infeasible without significant cross collateralization as seen in 121 Broadway, and is particularly onerous given rising costs since 2016.

2. Failure to Conduct a Required Nexus Study (Section 11.203.2(c))
Section 11.203.2(c) mandates that the City “initiate a reevaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement at an interval of no more than five (5) years” to assess the percentage of affordable units, income eligibility, and program effectiveness. The ordinance was amended in April 2017, increasing the requirement from 15% to 20% based on the 2016 Rosen report. The first reevaluation was due by April 2022.

No evidence indicates a comprehensive reevaluation occurred. The 2018 Inclusionary Housing Report, documenting 258 units completed or under construction, is a progress update, not a nexus study. The Community Development Department’s (CDD) ongoing monitoring (1,200+ units since 1998) and the 2025 reform do not fulfill Section 11.203.2(c)’s mandate. This procedural failure undermines the ordinance’s legitimacy, as the City cannot justify the 20% rate’s proportionality under Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024), which requires legislative exactions to be tailored to project-specific impacts. Non-compliance suggests arbitrary policymaking, exposing the ordinance to legal challenges.

3. Outdated 2016 Rosen Report and Changed Economic Conditions
The 2016 David Paul Rosen & Associates report recommended increasing the inclusionary requirement to 20%, contingent on four conditions to ensure economic feasibility. The report’s economic assumptions are outdated due to significant changes by 2025 in interest rates, land costs, construction costs, utility costs, capitalization rates (cap rates), and new zoning regulations not anticipated in 2016. Most conditions remain unmet, exacerbating the ordinance’s adverse impact, particularly on smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units.

Analysis of the Rosen Report

• Interest Rate: The report assumed a blended interest rate of 4.5–5.0% for construction and permanent loans reflecting 2016 market conditions. By 2025, interest rates have risen to 8.5–10.8%, increasing debt costs.

• Land Cost per Unit: The report estimated residual land costs at $50,000–$170,000 per unit for multi-family developments (6–300 units), with smaller projects at higher costs (~$150,000–$170,000) and larger ones at lower costs (~$50,000–$80,000). By 2025, land costs have escalated to $150,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% increase), requiring ~$200,000/year additional NOI at a 5.0% cap rate, unfeasible without higher rents or incentives.

o Disproportionate Impact: Smaller-scale projects of 10 or more units but under 200 face greater economic barriers under the 20% inclusionary mandate compared to larger or incentivized projects permitted under the 15% mandate (December 2016–June 2017), such as 425 Mass Ave & 47 Bishop Allen Drive (completed 2018 by Twining Properties), 195-211 Concord Turnpike (completed 2018 by Bozzuto Group), and more recent projects like 121 Broadway which levered outstanding commitments, increased density, and funding from the CRA. Market Central, including 47 Bishop Allen Drive, leveraged a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) granting ground floor area exemptions, an FAR increase to 6.5, a special overlay re-mapping, and height increases to 195 feet from by-right 55 feet and special permit 80 feet, enabling affordability via retail (15,400 sq ft) and residential revenue (Link, Watermark). Atmark Cambridge used mixed-use revenue (retail). Smaller projects lack such advantages, facing:

• High Land Costs: ~$200,000–$250,000 per unit (47–200% higher than 2016), increasing financial burdens.

• Rising Construction Costs: Up 50-60% since 2016, straining budgets for projects without economies of scale.

• New Zoning Costs: Article 22 (2018, amended 2023), tree protection (2019), and climate resilience (2021) add 10–25% to costs ($1.5M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft).

• Removal of Density Bonus: The 2025 six-story bonus for lots ≥5,000 sq ft is absent in high-density zones (e.g., Central Square) or insufficient to offset 20% mandate costs without density bonuses.

• Permitting Delays: Community meetings (Footnote 37) and environmental reviews add $20,000–$50,000, disproportionate for smaller developers. As-of-Right projects subject to Article 19.50 averaging roughly 7-12 months and 11 – 20 months if a 19.23 special permit is required.

• Construction Costs: The report assumed stable prices (~$200–$300/sq ft). By 2025, costs have risen nearly 40% due to supply chain issues, labor shortages, and inflation.

• Utility Costs: The report implied 2016 utility costs. In 2025, costs have risen significantly, reducing NOI:

o Electricity: Up 38% (22.5 to 31 ¢/kWh), increasing monthly costs by $150/unit, reducing NOI by $14,688/year for 12 units.

o Natural Gas: Up 67% ($1.50 to $2.50/therm), reducing NOI by $14,400/year for 12 units.

o Heating Oil: Up 52% ($2.70 to $4.10/gallon), reducing NOI by $10,800/year for 12 units.

For a 12-unit project, a $39,888 NOI drop lowers value by ~$864,000 at a 5.0% cap rate, hitting smaller projects harder.

• Cap Rate Comparison: The report implied cap rates of 4.5–5.0% (Class A/B) and 5.0–5.5% (Class C). In 2025, cap rates are 4.8–5.3% (Class A/B) and 5.3–5.8% (Class C, CBRE), driven by higher interest rates and costs. A $1M NOI project at 4.5% (2016) yields $22.22M, but at 5.0% with $43,200 NOI drop (2025), yields $19.12M—a 14% valuation drop, worse for smaller projects with higher effective cap rates (~5.5%).

Additional Post-2016 Zoning Changes
Since 2016, Cambridge adopted regulations not anticipated in the Rosen Report, increasing costs:

• Article 22 - Sustainable Design and Development (2018, amended 2023): Mandates LEED certification and net-zero readiness for projects over 25,000 sq ft, adding 10–25% to costs ($6M–$12M for 50,000 sq ft per BXP reports) and $10,000–$50,000+ in application delays not including costs to carry.

• Tree Protection Ordinance Enhancements (2019): Requires tree permits ($100–$500/tree) and replacements ($500–$1,500/tree), adding $5,000–$20,000 and $10,000–$30,000 in delays.

• Climate Resilience Requirements (2021): Mandates flood-resistant designs, adding 5–15% to costs ($1.5M–$5M for 50,000 sq ft) and $20,000–$50,000 in delays.

• Elimination of Minimum Parking Requirements (2022): Saves $500k–$2.5M by removing $50,000–$100,000/space, but most for sale condo buildings seek to add parking not remove it thus the bonus only truly applies in a rental scenario.

These changes increase costs by 10–25%, offsetting parking savings and rendering the 20% mandate unfeasible for smaller projects without density bonuses.

Four Conditions for Raising Inclusionary Requirement Outlined In Rosen
The Rosen report outlined four conditions to support the 20% requirement:

1. Increased Density Bonuses: Recommended citywide FAR bonuses.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 2025 six-story bonus (lots ≥5,000 sq ft) is limited or absent in high-density zones, unlike Market Central’s PUD concessions. Removing density bonuses further undermines feasibility, likely requiring a new nexus study and opening to challenge the current ordinance.

2. Flexible Requirements for Smaller Projects: Suggested tiered percentages (e.g., 10–15% for <20 units).

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. The 20% mandate is uniform, deterring smaller projects. It is not clear that 10% works for smaller projects (10 – 20 units) based 2025 conditions.

3. Streamlined Permitting Processes: Advocated faster permitting.

o 2025 Relevance: Partially Met. As-of-right zoning and parking elimination help, but community meetings (footnote 37), special permits through Article 19, Small Project Review in Article 19.50, environmental reviews, and traffic and parking mitigation add massive delays.

4. Periodic Reevaluation: Required reassessments every five years.

o 2025 Relevance: Not Met. No 2022 reevaluation occurred, leaving the 20% rate unadjusted despite cost escalations, removal of bonuses, and passage of the MBTA Communities Act.

The unmet conditions and outdated assumptions (4.5–5.0% interest rate vs. 8.5–10.8%, $50,000–$170,000 vs. $150,000–$250,000 land cost, 40% construction cost increase, 20–136% utility cost increases, 4.5–5.0% vs. 4.8–5.3% cap rates) make the 20% mandate infeasible for smaller projects, especially without density bonuses.

4. Legal Vulnerabilities

The ordinance faces legal risks:

• Unconstitutional Takings: The 20% mandate lacks proportionality, failing the Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz test, relying on the outdated 2016 Rosen report without a 2022 nexus study. Removing density bonuses would exacerbate this by increasing the exaction’s burden without justified impact assessments, risking due process violations.

• MBTA Communities Act: The 20% requirement exceeds EOHLC guidelines (10% without EFA, 20% with EFA). Without bonuses, a new EFA is needed to prove feasibility, or the ordinance risks non-compliance with Section 3A.

5. Recommendations

To address these flaws, I urge the City to:

1. Reduce the Inclusionary Housing Requirement: Lower to 10% without an EFA to comply with M.G.L. c. 40A, § 3A as an emergency measure for the next three years.

2. Initiate a Nollan/Dolan/Sheetz-Compliant Study: Conduct a nexus study per Section 11.203.2(c) to justify exactions. Require CDD act immediately and limit time to completion.

3. Explore Returning Development Bonuses: Direct the Cambridge Community Development Department to create bonuses that anticipate the 2025 multifamily housing change including but not limited to fast tract permitting, removing Article 19, scaling inclusionary with tailored nexus studies per Sheetz, and any other potential bonus to offset the exorbitant burden IZ zoning places on residential development.

Cambridge’s housing leadership is commendable, but the ordinance’s flaws undermine its effectiveness and legality. Please work to rapidly address the issues raised herein to address the urgency of the housing crisis we are in and to ensure we do not further encumber ourselves with ineffective counterproductive regulations.

Sincerely,
Patrick W. Barrett III

Comments?

Members Sought for Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee
Application Deadline Extended to 6-23-25

Apr 24, 2025 – Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang is seeking new members for the Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee, a five-member board established to review applications for new Commercial Parking Permits.City Seal

The Commercial Parking Control Committee is established pursuant to Chapter 10.16.030 of the Cambridge Municipal Code. Committee members will be appointed by the Cambridge City Council and initial appointment will be for a term of 1-3 years and will be eligible for reappointment.

Applicants must be Cambridge residents. No person shall be appointed to the Committee who has a financial interest in commercial parking in Cambridge.

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

Members of the Commercial Parking Control Committee should be able to:

The Commercial Parking Control Committee will meet on an as-needed basis (at least biannually) based on submission of applications for Commercial Parking Permits. Members must review applications and application materials prior to each meeting they attend. Recent changes in city regulations establishing Flexible Parking Corridors have lowered barriers to the establishment of Commercial Parking, and we anticipate a renewed interest in Commercial Parking Permits. For more information on Flexible Parking Corridors, visit https://www.cambridgema.gov/streetsandtransportation/flexibleparkingcorridors.

Under the provisions of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, meetings are usually required to be in person, although the Commercial Parking Control Committee may meet remotely under the temporary Open Meeting Law provisions.

Applications to serve on this committee can be submitted by Monday, June 23, 2025, to City Manager Yi-An Huang using the City’s online application system at Cambridgema.gov/Apply. A cover letter and résumé or applicable experience should be submitted during the online application process.

Just in case you were interested…

The City Clerks and City Managers of Cambridge (revised Mar 18, 2025, includes Managers’ contracts)

The Mayors of Cambridge since 1846

Plan E Cambridge City Councils - At A Glance (Mayor in bold)

Plan E Cambridge School Committees (and Mayors) At A Glance

Coming up soon (more details here):

Mon, June 16

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

Tues, June 17

3:00pm   The City Council’s Housing Committee and the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee will hold a joint public hearing to discuss draft zoning recommendations for Cambridge Street and Massachusetts Avenue.  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

Wed, June 18

11:00am   The City Council’s Transportation and Public Utilities Committee and the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning, Public Facilities, Arts and Celebrations Committee will hold a joint meeting to help define a study, including its focus, areas of consideration and expected outcomes to identify service gaps and potential improvements in the public transit and shuttle network in the city. This discussion will build on Awaiting Report 2025-23 dated 4/10/2025 (really Manager’s Agenda #5 of Apr 14, 2025 that was in response to City Council Order #4 from Mar 24, 2025).  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

5:30pm   Cambridge Election Commission  (Zoom)

I. PUBLIC COMMENT

II. MINUTES

III. REPORTS

1. Executive Director’s Report

2. Assistant Director’s Report

3. Commissioners’ Reports

IV. ACTION AGENDA

Old Business

- Municipal Election, November 4, 2025

New Business

 

Mon, June 23

1:00pm   The City Council’s Economic Development and University Relations Committee will hold a public hearing inviting representatives from the 23 long term vacant properties (defined as has been vacant for more than five years) on the record, to share updates on their tenancy efforts, short and long-term plans, and to provide the community with an opportunity to weigh in on this important discussion (PO25#49).  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

Mon, June 30

5:30pm   City Council meeting  (Sullivan Chamber and Zoom)

Catching Up on the (Official) Cambridge NewsCity Seal

GIS Data Download Updates (June 3, 2025)

Water Rescue from the Charles River (June 2, 2025)

Cool Off This Summer: Cambridge Waterplay Features Are Now Open (June 2, 2025)

CALEA Accreditation Public Portal for Cambridge Police Department (June 2, 2025)

Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day Tuesday, June 10 (June 2, 2025)

Center for Families Family Fun Day on June 28! (June 2, 2025)

Safer Homes, Safer Communities Gift Cards for Guns Event on June 7th (June 2, 2025)

Kendall Square Construction Projects (June 1, 2025)

City of Cambridge Awards $23,800 to Local Businesses through Cambridge NITES Grant Pilot (May 30, 2025)

Election Commission Moving to 689 Massachusetts Ave (May 30, 2025)

Zoning Centennial Chapter 4 (May 29, 2025)

Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang Seeks New Members for the Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee. Application Deadline Extended to 6-23-25. (May 28, 2025)

Officer William Simmons is a recipient of 2025 Outstanding City Employee Award (May 27, 2025)

Almost Done!: A CLC Student Prepares to Earn Her High School Equivalency Credential (May 27, 2025)

Avoid Contact with the Alewife Brook and Charles River in Cambridge Due to Potential Harmful Bacteria and Other Pollutants Until May 25 (May 23, 2025)

EZRide Expands to Midday and Weekend Service Public Launch Event Scheduled for June 3 (May 23, 2025)

Revamped Daily Police Log Now Available as Open Data (May 23, 2025)

City of Cambridge Implements Police Body-Worn Camera Program (May 23, 2025)

CPD Hosts Community Stakeholders Event (May 22, 2025)

Public Works Announces 2025 Commissioner's Award Winners (May 21, 2025)

City of Cambridge Department of Veterans Services Memorial Day Weekend & MA250 Observance Events (May 20, 2025)

Recognizing Emergency Medical Services Staff for their Critical Community Contributions During EMS Week May 18-24, 2025 (May 20, 2025)

Cambridge Drought Status Downgraded to Normal Conditions (May 20, 2025)

Cambridge Kiosk Visitor Information Center and Community Gathering Space Reopens in Harvard Square (May 20, 2025)

EMS Week - May 18-24, 2025 (May 20, 2025)

City of Cambridge Closures and Service Information for Memorial Day Holiday (May 20, 2025)

2025 Outstanding City Employee Awards (May 19, 2025)

CPD Recognizes Police Week (May 19, 2025)

Fire Headquarters Reconstruction Progress Report (May 19, 2025)

Company To Conduct Vehicle Testing in Cambridge and the Greater Boston Area Starting May 19 (May 15, 2025)

Drafts Available for FY26 One Year Action Plan and NRSA (May 14, 2025)

Current Board Vacancies: Council on Aging, Public Planting Committee, Cambridge Commercial Parking Control Committee (May 13, 2025)

FY2026 HUD Grants Public Comment Drop-In Session (May 13, 2025)

Upcoming Traffic Changes on Broadway beginning June 6 (May 13, 2025)

Start a Career as an Early Childhood Educator (May 12, 2025)

Cambridge Drought Status Downgraded to Level 1 - Mild Drought (May 9, 2025)

New Affordable Rental Housing Opportunity (May 9, 2025)

Members Sought for Cambridge’s Council on Aging Board (May 8, 2025)

Cambridge Celebrates the 2025 Legacy Business Award Winners (May 7, 2025)

Register for Recreation's Summer Youth Street Hockey League! (May 7, 2025)

Document Shredding Event Saturday, May 17 (May 7, 2025)

Cambridge Community Safety Department Community Assistance Response and Engagement (CARE) Team (May 7, 2025)

Register for 2025 Recreation Summer Basketball Leagues! (May 6, 2025)

RIT Refresher Training (May 6, 2025)

Firefighters Memorial Sunday - 2025 (May 6, 2025)
Firefighters Memorial Sunday is scheduled for Sunday, June 8, 2025.

GIS Data Download Updates (May 6, 2025)

Massachusetts Names City of Cambridge a Climate Leader Community (May 5, 2025)

Cambridge - Northeastern Police Academy Completes Run to Officer Sean Collier Memorial (May 5, 2025)

Reduce Trash this Spring with the Move-Out Waste Reduction Pilot and Free Store (May 2, 2025)

CPD Marks Autism Acceptance Month During April (May 2, 2025)

Partial Roadway Paving Enhancements Scheduled beginning May 5 (May 2, 2025)

RPP Submit your photos and artwork for the 2026 Resident Parking Permit! (May 1, 2025)

Cambridge Fire notes 20 years of Paramedic Service (May 1, 2025)

Comcast Rise Grant (May 1, 2025)

Local Walks/Hikes – Boston Walking Meetup Group (BWMG), AMC, DCR, etc.

Boston Walking Meetup GroupSun, June 15. Fresh Pond Sunset Walk. [BWMG] Meet at 6:00pm (EDT) at intersection of Huron Ave. and Aberdeen Ave., Cambridge. Boston Walking Meetup GroupSun, June 22. Fresh Pond Sunset Walk. [BWMG] Meet at 6:00pm (EDT) at intersection of Huron Ave. and Aberdeen Ave., Cambridge. Boston Walking Meetup GroupSun, June 29. Fresh Pond Sunset Walk. [BWMG] Meet at 6:00pm (EDT) at intersection of Huron Ave. and Aberdeen Ave., Cambridge.

If you would like to walk and talk (history, civics, politics, mathematics, or anything else), I am almost always on the Fresh Pond Sunset Walk every Sunday (see above). - Robert Winters

Stories from the Archives: The History of Voting In Cambridge for African Americans and Women
hosted and written by Alyssa Pacy, Archivist at the Cambridge Public Library; produced by Peter Levine, CCTV

The Cambridge City Charter: From Town Meeting to Plan E (premiered May 15, 2023 on CCTV Channel 9)

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

Plan E Cambridge City Councils - At A Glance (Mayor in bold) — Comments?

Plan E Cambridge School Committees (and Mayors) At A Glance — Comments?

In case you were wondering about how to make Cambridge’s PR elections independent of how the ballots are counted…
Election Method Comparison – STV/Cincinnati vs. Fractional Transfer – 2021 Cambridge City Council Election (posted Jan 15, 2022)

Cambridge City Charter References

original proposed 1846 Charter
(this is not the same as what was passed
and sent to Cambridge voters!)		 1846 Charter
(approved by Legislature and
Cambridge Town Meeting)		 1846 Charter w/amendments
through 1890 appended
(as approved by Legislature and voters)		 1891 Charter
(as approved by Legislature and voters)		 1915 (Plan B) Charter
(as approved by voters)		 1940 (Plan E) Charter
(as approved by voters)
M.G.L. Chapter 43: CITY CHARTERS
M.G.L. Chapter 43B: HOME RULE PROCEDURES
M.G.L. Chapter 43C: OPTIONAL FORMS OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

Featured recent stories in the Cambridge Chronicle (the paper of record) - with some comments:

Cambridge ChronicleIf you would like to subscribe or pick up a free paper copy at various sites, I encourage you to do so. It really is The Paper of Record - even if it is currently understaffed and in need of rejuvenation. What we really need is a summit meeting of all Cambridge news providers, including CCTV and Cambridge Municipal TV, to figure out a long-term plan. We absolute need to get Gannett to the table to talk about any long-term plans they may have and if and when the Cambridge Chronicle might be restored to its former role (dating back to 1846) as an essential source for news and features about Cambridge (as opposed to regional feeds of little or no relevance to the people of Cambridge).

A new food hall is coming to the Cambridge mall. Here’s what restaurants it will have (Oct 22, 2024)

Head of the Charles Regatta weekend rowing event in Cambridge (Oct 18, 2024)

Poll tests statewide support for MBTA Communities Act. Its results may surprise (Sept 26, 2024)

Harmful bacteria found in the Charles River? Here’s what to know. (Sept 24, 2024)

Voter’s guide: How to vote early in Massachusetts. What you need to know (Sept 22, 2024)

Julie Wormser starts Oct. 1 as Cambridge’s first chief climate officer (Sept 18, 2024)

Decker beats MacKay in Democratic primary recount for State House seat (Sept 13, 2024)

Recount Sept. 12 between Democrats contending for Cambridge state rep (Sept 12, 2024)

Cambridge state representative race may require a recount (Sept 4, 2024)

Massachusetts Ballot Questions 2024: MCAS, medical psychedelics, more (Sept 4, 2024)

Porter Square Books plans move to larger space in Cambridge (Aug 27, 2024)

Cambridge Brewing Company announces closure. Here’s are the details (Aug 20, 2024)

Cambridge artist Elizabeth Rawls spends her retirement free motion quilting (Aug 14, 2024)

Who were Cambridge’s 25 top paid municipal employees in 2023? We have a list (May 23, 2024)

Cambridge city, school employee salaries for 2023: Searchable Database

Cambridge Public Schools (official website) Cambridge School Committee website
School Committee Meetings School Committee Members & Subcommittees
The Unofficial Guide to School Choices for the Cambridge Kindergarten Lottery

HOW TO BREAK A POLITICAL MACHINE

pictures added Mar 27, 2021 scanned from original magazine
[Collier’s Magazine, January 31, 1948]
Comments?

THE MUNICIPAL SITUATION IN CAMBRIDGE

A Paper read at the Annual Meeting of the National Municipal League at Chicago, April 28, 1904
by Henry N. Wheeler, President of the League
preceded by a Program of the Work of the League for 1904
[original PDF]

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes on CCJ Forum

Cambridge InsideOut currently airs every first and third Tuesday at 6:00pm and 6:30pm with producers/hosts Robert Winters and (sometimes) Patrick Barrett. We will have other guest hosts as well. All shows are posted on YouTube after broadcast.

[complete list of shows - with links to YouTube videos (and now audio too!)]

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 647-648: June 3, 2025 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 645-646: May 20, 2025 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 643-644: Mar 4, 2025 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 641-642: Feb 4, 2025 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 639-640: Jan 7, 2025 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 637-638: Dec 17, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 635-636: Nov 19, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 633-634: Nov 5, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 631-632: Oct 15, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 629-630: Sept 17, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 627-628: Sept 3, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 625-626: Aug 6, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 623-624: July 2, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 621-622: June 18, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 619-620: June 4, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 617-618: May 21, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 615-616: Apr 16, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 613-614: Mar 19, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 611-612: Mar 5, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 609-610: Feb 20, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 607-608: Feb 6, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 605-606: Jan 16, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 603-604: Jan 2, 2024 (solo w/Robert Winters)

Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 63 and 64 with Glenn Koocher
We had a great time doing these shows with the man who invented the original Cambridge InsideOut - Glenn Koocher.

Cambridge InsideOut on CCTV during 2013-2014 featured co-hosts Susana Segat and Robert Winters.
Cambridge InsideOut on CCTV during 2015-2022 featured co-hosts Judy Nathans and Robert Winters.
Cambridge InsideOut on CCTV during 2022-2023 featured co-hosts Patrick Barrett (sometimes) and Robert Winters.

History - Kendall Square and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority

MBTA Role in Cambridge Center Project – Kendall Station Urban Initiatives Project, 1979-1989 (Feb 13, 2014 by Thad Tercyak)

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project: Six Pivotal Episodes (June 8, 2013 by Thad Tercyak)

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project, Initial Years, 1963 to 1982 (July 12, 2012 by Thad Tercyak)

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Area – Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (Apr 5, 2012)

Open for Comments - CCJ Forum

List of all CCJ Forum posts (2009 – present) – reverse chronologically with author’s name (originally Aug 14, 2022 - updated automatically)

Follow-Up Memo on Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Concerns Under MBTA Communities Act Compliance (posted June 14, 2025)

Will Reason Prevail? – June 16, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted June 13, 2025)

Mixed Bag – June 9, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted June 6, 2025, updated June 11)

Random Observations (June 3, 2025)

Setting the Table – June 2, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted June 1, 2025, updated June 3)

Blurring the Lines – May 19, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted May 19, 2025 and updated)

Current City of Cambridge Board and Commission Vacancies (updated May 12, 2025)

Merry Month of May – May 12, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted May 11, 2025, updated May 13)

Cinco de Mayo – May 5, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted May 5, 2025, updated May 6)

Urgent Legal and Policy Concerns Regarding Cambridge’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (by Patrick Barrett, posted May 2, 2025)

Budget Season – April 28, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted Apr 28, 2025, updated Apr 29)

The Proposed New Cambridge Charter – For Better or Worse – April 14, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted Apr 14, revised Apr 17)

Tending the Garden (Street) – April 7, 2025 Cambridge City Council meeting (posted Apr 4, 2025, updated Apr 8)

Switching from Cable TV (originally posted May 23, 2024, updated Apr 1, 2025)

Cambridge Municipal Election News – 2023 (originally posted Oct 25, updated periodically)

Plan E Cambridge School Committees (and Mayors) At A Glance (originally posted Jan 21, 2022, updated Jan 1, 2024)

Plan E Cambridge City Councils At A Glance (originally posted Jan 21, 2022, updated Jan 1, 2024)

Municipal Election Voting Comparison: 2021 vs. 2023 (and then some) (posted Dec 16, 2023)

Voter Success and Number of Candidates – Cambridge Municipal Elections (updated Nov 26, 2023)

Alice Wolf: 1933-2023 (posted Jan 28, 2023)

Completing the Square [originally posted June 11, 2013]

On Love and Elections (Dec 26, 2022 by David Goode)

Sheila Doyle Russell – City Councillor, Mayor, and Friend (posted Dec 13, 2022)

ADDRESS OF THE MAYOR UPON THE FIRST ORGANIZATION OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT – 1846 (posted Dec 11, 2022)

HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE – Rev. Lucius Paige, 1877 – INDIAN HISTORY (posted Nov 25, 2022)

Election Method Comparison – STV/Cincinnati vs. Fractional Transfer – 2021 Cambridge City Council Election (posted Jan 15, 2022)

A few observations on density (posted Feb 16, 2021)

The Advent of PR in Cambridge (Nov 10, 2013)

Completing the Square (June 11, 2013)

On becoming a True Cantabrigian (Dec 29, 2012 by Glenn Koocher)

April Fools’ Day - 2022 (and here)

April Fools’ Day - 2017 (and here)     April Fools’ Day - 2016 (and here)

April Fools’ Day - 2015 (and here)     April Fools’ Day - 2013 (and here)

The Advent of PR in Cambridge
originally published in the Cambridge Civic Journal on Feb 12, 1998

Central Square Advisory Committee 2011/2012 Recommendations (Nov 28, 2012)

Introduction: Memorandum from the Central Square (K2C2) Advisory Committee 2011/2012 on its Final Recommendations
Full Report (reformatted in HTML) Goals
Public Places to Build Community Public Places elements
Retail, Cultural and Non-Profit Diversity Housing
Connecting People to the Square Foster a Sustainable Future for Central Square
Leverage Future Private and Public Investments Definition of Central Square Districts
Zoning Recommendations Transfer of Development Rights
Transportation Recommendations Location Specific Issues
Comments?

The Neverending Study of Central Square

Aug 11, 2012 - While preparing to write a series of essays on Central Square, I put together the following list of Central Square studies culled from a variety of sources. I have originals for most of these. If you know of any others, please let me know. - Robert Winters

Feb 1980 - CDD report entitled “Central Square - Commercial Area Revitalization District”

June 1980 - CDD booklet entitled “Facade Improvements” with focus on Central Square

Apr 1983 - “Central Square Report” produced by City Council’s Central Square Subcommittee (study began in 1980 or 1981)

1987 - A report produced in 1987 about a Subcommittee that allegedly built on the 1983 report (may be same as Central Square Action Plan)

Nov 1987 - Central Square Action Plan

1989 - Draft Central Square Development Guidelines

May 1993 - Results of the “Mayor’s Forum on Central Square”

Oct 1993 - Report by the Committee to Promote and Enhance Central Square Now!

Aug 1994 - A Study of the Visual Images and Signage of Central Square (CDD)

May 1995 - Central Square Improvements Project, Master Plan Report

May 1995 - An Urban Design Plan for Central Square (executive summary)

May 2001 - Summary Notes from “A Conversation about Central Square”

Feb 2000 - The Gibbs Report, Central Square Commercial Market Study - Executive Summary (June 30, 1999)

Oct 2004 - Central Square, Cambridge - Rising Fortunes at a Regional Crossroads (Rekha Murthy)

Dec 2004 - Reviving a Traditional City - Central Square, Cambridge, gets a facelift (Rekha Murthy)

June 2005 - Street Media: Ambient Messages in an Urban Space - a photographic analysis of Central Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Rekha Murthy)

2009 - CDD Central Square Customer Intercept Survey Report

2011 - Central Square Market Profile

2011 - Red Ribbon Commission Study Report

2012 - Goody/Clancy report and recommendations

2013 - K2C2 Final Reports (Dec 30, 2013)
K2C2 areaThe final reports for Kendall Square and Central Square are now available for download. Zoning discussions based on the recommendations of the K2 and C2 Advisory Committees, which are encapsulated in these reports, will continue in 2014.

Kendall Square Central Square Planning Study (K2C2)

Central Square Final Report 2013 Part 1, December 2013 (K2C2)

Central Square Final Report 2013 Part 2, December 2013 (K2C2)

Kendall Square Final Report 2013 Part 1, December 2013 (K2C2)

Kendall Square Final Report 2013 Part 2, December 2013 (K2C2)

This comprehensive planning effort guided by stakeholder advisory committees, City staff, and a team of multidisciplinary consultants led by Goody Clancy, developed a vision and master plan for Central Square, Kendall Square, and the area South of Main Street (including the Osborn Triangle) connecting the two squares. Both final reports are divided into two parts; in each case you will need to review both parts to read the entire report.

2024 - Central Square City Lots Study

FYI - Current Rules and Goals: Cambridge City Council & Cambridge School Committee

City Council Rules 2024-2025 (as amended Mar 25, 2024)

City Council Rules 2022-2023 (as amended Nov 21, 2022)

City Council Rules 2020-2021 (as amended Oct 26, 2020)

City Council Rules 2018-2019 (adopted January 29, 2018; provisionally adopted for 2020-2021 term on Jan 6, 2020)

City Council Rules 2016-2017

City Council Rules 2014-2015 (adopted January 7, 2014, amended Feb 10, 2014 to reflect revised Council committees)

City Council Goals - FY2018 (current, adopted Oct 16, 2017)

City Council Goals - FY2012-2013 (adopted Dec 13, 2011)

City Council Committees (for the current term)

School Committee Rules (Adopted January 1, 2018; Revised June 19, 2018)

School Committee Rules (adopted January 7, 2008)    School Committee Goals (adopted October 7, 2008)

Civic Infrastructure - 2009

June 7, 2009 - Once upon a time there was a civic organization in Cambridge known as the Cambridge Civic Association (CCA). It was formed in 1945 out of several organizations that had been existed through the 1930s and that had lobbied the state legislature to create the Plan E Charter option (1938) which featured a city manager form of government and proportional representation elections for city council and school committee. These reforms were central to model charter reform movements active in the United States from the early 1900s. The central theme of the CCA in its early days was “good government” in the sense of being anti-patronage and for professionally managed local government. This changed with the introduction of rent control at the end of the 1960s after which the CCA shifted leftward and became permanently lashed to the mast of the rent control vessel. Though the CCA still exists on paper (I believe), it rapidly declined after the statewide abolition of rent control (late 1994) and essentially disappeared a decade later (early 2005).

I bring up the ghost of the CCA today only to point out that when it was created it had some very admirable goals. Here’s the original Mission Statement of the CCA:

Purposes: This association is formed for the following purposes:

  1. To promote businesslike, honest, and efficient conduct of local government, open to public scrutiny.
  2. To induce residents to take an active interest in the affairs of the City of Cambridge.
  3. To encourage and support the candidacy of men and women seeking election to public office and to support intelligent, wholesome leadership in public affairs.
  4. To assure that the best qualified persons are appointed to positions in the City government after consideration of all qualified candidates.
  5. To promote among the citizens of Cambridge equitable distribution and benefit of public services and equal opportunity for economic security, education, and social advancement.

These are pretty good founding principles for a civic organization and I’m tempted to say that some should be incorporated into the recently adopted City Council’s Goals for FY2010 (adopted Feb 2, 2009). In fact, of the 22 current goals, the only one that comes close is: “An increased level of recruitment and opportunities for membership on boards and commissions.” The current Council goals emphasize things like “fostering community” via block parties and such, though one has to wonder if the City should be promoting these activities or just getting out of the way so that people can foster community on their own. The goals also seem to put some emphasis on developing “successful nightlife campaigns” while mentioning nothing about promoting ordinary “daytime” economic activity that supports the everyday needs of residents.

One founding principle of the CCA that fell into disuse over the years is listed above as #3: To encourage and support the candidacy of men and women seeking election to public office and to support intelligent, wholesome leadership in public affairs. Indeed, I can personally testify to the fact that in its dying years the only reason the CCA made endorsements at all was because the CCA-endorsed incumbents wanted the benefit of having an advertised CCA slate of candidates that would help secure their reelection. There was precious little effort to recruit new candidates or to support them. Today, the benefits of incumbency are greater than ever. The cost of political campaigns have become absurdly high and most of the incumbents now have (City paid) staff who are inevitably political appointees who directly or indirectly assist in the reelection efforts of their bosses. The deck is increasingly stacked against challengers. Furthermore, the salary and benefits for elected councillors are now so sweet that it is unlikely that any of them would ever want to move on to another job.

With this background in mind, I would like to encourage all Cambridge residents to help level the playing field by finding out about this year’s challengers for seats on the Cambridge City Council and the Cambridge School Committee. This is not meant as a dig against any particular incumbent as much as an appeal to support the challengers in what is a difficult and laudable effort. Please see the Cambridge Candidate Pages for the current list of expected candidates. Then use your own judgment - don’t expect me or anyone else to do it for you.

Speaking of this year’s municipal election, there are some activists who are now expending great effort to attack the City Manager and most of the current City Council. That is not nor has it ever been the intention of the Cambridge Civic Journal or its editor. Candidates are now being seduced by financial promises from one angry fellow with a Brattle Street address and a basketful of grudges. Former CCA Executive Board members from its darkest and most manipulative days are oozing up from the civic swamp trying to at last make good on their failed campaigns of the early 1990s to oust city manager Bob Healy.

It’s entertaining to watch people who have primarily earned disrespect in their civic efforts try to capitalize on the recent Monteiro jury decision as a means of realizing their decades-old vendettas. Conveniently forgotten in their recent letters to Cambridge’s “oldest weekly newspaper” are the many achievements of City Manager Bob Healy, the strong financial position of the City, and the recent 8-1 vote of confidence bestowed upon Mr. Healy in granting him a three year contract extension. Also missing in this testimony is the fact that virtually all affirmative action in the hiring of employees and department heads has taken place on Mr. Healy’s watch. These letters also fail to divulge how long these writers have been carrying their jealousy and anger toward Mr. Healy for actually orchestrating progress in Cambridge while the best they could ever do is snipe from the sidelines. - Robert Winters

This Old Land of Cambridge - The true story of the geological history of Cambridge - by George Ehrenfried
Sadly, George passed away (Jan 5, 2010) at the age of 96. He led many a geology-themed hike with the AMC Local Walks/Hikes.

Selected City of Cambridge References:

Plan E Charter (Cambridge’s city charter)

Acts of 1921, Chapter 239 as amended (establishment of Cambridge Election Commission)

Mass. General Laws Chapter 54A (governing Cambridge’s PR elections)

Pen Portraits of Prominent People - by Henry J. Mahoney Editor, Cambridge Sentinel - 1923

This book was published c. 1923 and features very witty one-page “pen portraits” (with photo) of prominent Cantabrigians of the day. I’ll be adding names alphabetically as time permits. There are 182 portraits in the book.

It comes to mind that there may be some value in expanding these profiles to other prominent Cantabrigians who arrived on the scene after 1923, including prominent Cantabrigians of today. With this in mind, I extend the invitation to any and all who may wish to contribute their own “pen portraits” of Cambridge people. Contributions do not necessarily have to be in the style of Mr. Mahoney. Inclusion is, as always, subject to the erratic discretion of the editor.

Special thanks to Karen Welch for sending me the book. - RW

Political History of Cambridge in the 20th Century - by Glenn Koocher (Nov 2004); edited by Robert Winters (July 2006)
[An alternate edit of this essay appeared, along with many other valuable essays, in a centennial volume to be published by the Cambridge Historical Society in 2007.]

Which People’s Republic - by Bill Cunningham (1999)

Cambridge School Volunteers is looking for people who can give one to two hours per week to help students in the Cambridge Public Schools, grades K through 12. No experience necessary. Call 617-349-6794 or e-mail csv@cpsd.us for more details.
 
Robert Winters
Robert Winters, Editor
Cambridge Civic Journal
(about me - updated!!)		  
Philosophy of the CCJ Editor		  

faces
The Cambridge Civic Journal is an independent newsletter of civic affairs in the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It is published as a public service by Central Square Publications. All items are written by Robert Winters unless otherwise noted. [Of course, I do sometimes forget.]

Thoughts for these times:
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal

“This is our fucking city, and nobody is gonna dictate our freedom. Stay strong.” -- David Ortiz

“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” – Plato

Subscribe to the Cambridge Civic Journal.
Specify in your message whether you wish to receive each new e-mail version or if you wish to be notified when the online versions are available at this web site. Under no circumstances will the subscription list be made available to any third party.

“The Number One thing I would emphasize is that journalists and bloggers would do well to see themselves as partners in the provision of information and that each can benefit greatly from the other. I’ve never seen this as a competition. It is especially true these days that local papers and young journalists are not very well-versed in the communities they serve. Much of the institutional memory has either died out or been bought out.” – Robert Winters, mathematician and creator of the Cambridge Civic Journal, an online publication about Cambridge, MA (rwinters.com)

Jorkin: “Come, come, Mr. Fezziwig, we’re good friends besides good men of business. We’re men of vision and progress. Why don’t you sell out while the going’s good? You’ll never get a better offer. It’s the age of the machine, and the factory, and the vested interests. We small traders are ancient history, Mr. Fezziwig.”

Fezziwig: “It’s not just for money alone that one spends a lifetime building up a business, Mr. Jorkin…. It’s to preserve a way of life that one knew and loved. No, I can’t see my way to selling out to the new vested interests, Mr. Jorkin. I’ll have to be loyal to the old ways and die out with them if needs must.”

Scrooge: “I think I know what Mr. Fezziwig means, sir.”

Jorkin: “Oh, you hate progress and money, too, do you?”

Scrooge: “I don’t hate them, sir, but perhaps the machines aren’t such a good thing for mankind, after all.”

Memorable scene in “A Christmas Carol”


the known universe
http://rwinters.com

Welcome to the Peoples Republic     Please don’t feed the Narcissists