CCC PRIORITIES 2024-25

CCC looks forward to working with every Councillor, city staff member, resident, and business across the city to help our city government achieve the following policy or process changes. This can be a year of real progress for the city.
                                                                                   6 Top Priorities

Better Government: Speed responses to public records requests; require clerk (or others) to publish votes with initials on city website during Council and other public meetings; publish weekly meeting calendar; add more separation between Councillors and judiciary committees (BZA, Cambridge Historical Commission, Planning Board); limit House Doctor (our “in house” pre-approved contractor projects) to below $500K.

City Finances: 5-year plan to keep city fiscally sound; more upfront detail on development proposal costs; maintain low residential and commercial property taxes.

Environmental Issues and Climate Resiliency: Annual City updates on climate change results; published plan for new infrastructure; enact Urban Forestry Master Plan; improve environmental impact studies re climate goals.

Housing: Support the rights of tenants against unfair evictions, lease terminations, and rate hikes; encourage adoption of Senate bill S684 providing legal counsel; add financial incentives for property owners to add units to existing homes and keep rents below market rates for non-family for a fixed time period; allow multifamily zoning citywide without unduly increasing property values and impacting green space; create citywide design review committee; promote city purchased land for housing (land trusts) and lease land to developers; add regular independent reviews of tenant concerns and building upkeep; provide a single anonymized list of housing applicants and update annually.

Neighborhoods: Provide more local meeting places and encourage more neighborhood groups citywide; host annual city council meeting with neighborhood group leaders; address long term vacancies (homes and local businesses) by adding escalating fee structure. Do annual review of ISD requests and completions. Simplify and speed up responses to street light outages etc.

Transportation and Infrastructure: Traffic camera use for better counts citywide and consider violation tickets like DC; address best practices for safest bicycle, scooter, skateboard use; Modified broadband for city square open spaces and both low income and senior housing.
 
                                                               CCC 6 Top priorities (Detailed)
 
Better Government

1. Require speedy responses to public records requests. Require an annual reporting of anonymized list of these requests, with receipt and response dates, number of appeals, and outcomes.
2. Require clerk staff (and/or others) to publish timely votes (during the event) on city website with individual voters’ initials for major public city meetings: City Council and its committees plus judiciary boards (BZA, PB, CHC).
3. Publish an integrated weekly public meeting and social event calendar: a city website with timely       

             information on Council and School Committee votes and City decisions, e.g., contracts awarded, 
             major purchases. Use the City-wide mailings to highlight policy changes, including zoning and
             financial issues.

1. Avoid the appearance of impropriety by discouraging elected officials from communicating with or speaking at the city’s judiciary board (BZA, CHC, PB) meetings
2. To encourage more competitive bidding on non-emergency spending, limit the use of House Doctor (our “in house” pre-approved contractor list) only to projects (individual or serially linked) costing less than $500,000 in total. Report yearly to City Council the approved House Doctor projects and the recipients of these funds.

 
City Finances

1. Develop a five-year plan to keep Cambridge fiscally sound re the softening tech sector, varying interest rates and other factors.
2. Require more detailed analysis of new development proposals and city initiatives to ensure the City meets climate change needs as spelled out in the Envision plan, while also addressing new costs to make sure new projects are adequately funded to succeed.
3. Maintain what affordability is left in Cambridge by keeping the tax rate as low as possible. Higher taxes equal higher rents and displacement; high taxes on commercial properties also stimulate redevelopment.  

 
Environmental Issues and Climate Resiliency

1. Provide annual City Council updates to the public on the City’s efforts to combat the “Big Three” of climate change – extreme heat, stormwater flooding, and coastal and riverine flooding. 
2. Create and present in a public forum a plan for where infrastructure will go. Annually convene a meeting with Eversource that is open to the public. Inform residents annually of increasing electrical capacity needs and proposed infrastructure sites as we increase the electrical grid to meet future demands.
3. Enact the Urban Forestry Master Plan to protect our dwindling mature tree population and create more tree shade to combat heat islands, especially in our denser neighborhoods.
4. Evaluate and address the impact studies for environmental and sustainability issues re. building and infrastructure projects before the BZA, Planning Board, Historical Commission, and City. Improve these to meet climate goals.

 
Housing

1. Support the rights of tenants against unfair evictions, lease terminations, and rate hikes. Encourage adoption of Senate bill S684 providing legal counsel. Provide other material, bureaucratic, or advisory help to tenants as needed.
2. Provide financial incentives for property owners to add units to existing homes and keep rents below market rates for non-family tenants for a fixed time period. 
3. Allow multi-family zoning city wide; repurpose existing buildings, prioritize appropriate height and setbacks with neighboring structures as well as affordability and retaining or increasing green spaces and trees. Discourage enlargements if new housing for non-family members is not being added. Consider limiting unit size to 1500 SF for ½ the units in larger projects. Support historic preservation where feasible.   
4. Create a citywide design review committee for new buildings that fall outside municipal boards and commissions and/or add a citywide plan for neighborhood conservation districts to provide design input.
5. Promote more use of city funding and city land to build affordable housing. Lease the land to developers.
6. Do a full independent audit of our affordable housing to ensure the structures are well maintained by their developer/management company. Simplify (unify) and yearly update the city’s affordable housing list and present this unified anonymized list to Council. Add a yearly affordable housing goal.

 
Neighborhoods

1. Encourage neighborhood groups throughout the city by offering meeting spaces, access to City employees and advice.
2. Host an annual meeting of all neighborhood groups at City Hall or a larger venue such as the Central Library or Senior Center at which they present to Councillors their work and issues.
3. Simplify and speed response to citizen concerns like street light outages, dead tree limbs, potholes.
4. Create a plan of escalating fees on local business and homeowners to address vacancies by creating a yearly sliding vacancy fee structure. Apply building permit fees to ISD (Inspectional Services Department)  to provide prompt service. Require a yearly review of ISD requests and completions. Consider providing city financial support or tax reduction for important local business amenities needed for neighborhood well-being.

​Transportation and Infrastructure

1. Employ traffic cameras for better counts of all the users of our streets – including the thousands of commuters who pass through Cambridge every day on their way to work. Consider adding speeding or turning violation tickets like in DC.
2. Research and implement best practices to encourage the safest use of motorized bikes, scooters, skateboards, etc.
3. Continue to encourage electric car usage through public/private charging stations.
4. Broadband: Consider a more moderate plan with public access in our major squares and for residents of our low income and senior housing; seek help of large employers to support this.

The City's Charter Review Committee presented an outline of its proposed. Support for a Strong Mayor system of late has a 9 to 5 majority. Unlike Boston and other progressive cities which have a partial ward-based Council election system, ours would continue to be citywide. The current proportional representation system would be retained.  Lowering the voting age to 16 is proposed as is allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections. One of the more unusual proposals is the creation of a Citizen's review committee, which would have the power to bring items to Council and require a vote. This piece of the proposal has come by way of Poland, and members would be selected based on city demographics, further shifting power to younger city residents (including students at our three plus universities or post-docs here for a very short period of time). A number of members of the committee have been missing from various of the meetings so the actual support for some of the items remains unclear. Also relatively few residents have attended these meetings or supplementary ones set up to inform the public what is happening.
​
Charter Review Website: https://www.cambridgema.gov/charterreview
Contact the Charter Committee here: [email protected]

Timeline:
December 5 Meeting
December 19 Meeting
Zoom Link to attend these meetings: [email protected]
December 31, 2023: The committee plans to submit its report. 
This report then will be taken up by the next Council. Following their vote, this will go to the state house, and come back to Cambridge for a vote. ​

, This was a really important election. The Harvard Crimson has done a good overview of it! HERE

In this election as in previous ones, the transfer votes are key!  Looking at the round-by-round vote shift, it looks like there were much clearer patterns of votes transferring between candidates of the same slate than in years past. City-wide  "slates" (sets of endorsements) were very important this year as in previous ones. Significantly in 2023 Sumbul Sumbul (the current Mayor) received only 3,000 votes (circa 1,000 she could transfer down); last election (in 2021) she received 4,000 votes (2,000 of which were  transferred down). This year, like last year, her extra votes were key to getting other members of her "slate" elected - most notably Marc McGovern.

Here is a list of those elected. CCC candidates indicated in purple; incumbents are indicated with an (I)

CITY COUNCIL (in order of election):

• Sumbul Siddiqui
• Burhan Azeem
• Marc C. McGovern
• Patricia M. Nolan (I)
• Paul F. Toner (I)
• Jivan G. Sobrinho-Wheeler
• E. Denise Simmons
• Ayesha M. Wilson
• Joan F. Pickett

SCHOOL COMMITTEE (in order of election):

• Rachel B. Weinstein
• Elizabeth Clark Polner Hudson
• David J. Weinstein
• José Luis Rojas Villarreal (I)
• Caroline M. Hunter
• Andrew King

What this points to more directly is the enduring power of incumbency in Cambridge elections through ranked choice voting in both the school committee and city council elections. And when two out of three of the "open seats" are filled by CCC candidates that is something to be truly celebrated!
​
Transfer votes clearly mattered this year as they did in past elections. ​SEE CHARTS BELOW.
Both Ayesha Wilson and Joan Pickett were elected in the 17th round. 
Cathie Zusy lost in the 15th round; Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler was elected to council in the 15th round as well.

The 2023 Cambridge Bicycling Data Report is out. You can also read it HERE. The array of graphs shown  here are from this report. You can also view the citywide data itself HERE  The good news is that the number of children riding bikes is increasing. But there are a number of other problems highlighted in this report

One concern is that the city has not done the kind of data collection, analysis and reporting that is helpful to understanding how our bicycle policy is working and not working. The City's current approach to collecting bicycle activity is insufficient to provide a precise number. Indeed the City currently has only one location that counts cyclist activity  24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year and that site is in Kendall Square (with a largely younger population). By comparison, Portland Oregon has over 70 sites that measures activity 24/7/365.

Those who seek to show the positive side of this report often offer as key takeaways the view that. 1. People in Cambridge are biking more (23% increase in recent years). 2. Car ownership per household in Cambridge has steadily declined since 2000. 3. Bicycle crash rates and the number of serious injuries continue to decline and a reduction in bike riding on sidewalks.

The report also does not address an array of other information that the 2023 Bicycling Data Report reveals including considerable unfortunate news for the city.

Most importantly the data shows that: 1) the number of people driving alone in cars has increased 23% since 2018 (counter to the aims of our Envision Report goals; 2) transit use is down 30% in the same years; 3) carpooling is also down 32%. While there is an increase in bike ridership the rates remain stunningly low (at about 9%, up from c.7%).

Stated another way, the "23% increase" in Cambridge resident bike riding commuters  corresponds to an increase of just 1.6% of all Cambridge resident commuters (9% is a 23% increase from 7.4%) over the course of a DECADE (from 2007-2011 to 2017-2021).
So too, cycling counts (and thus BMTs) have DECREASED by ~5% from 2019 to 2022 (~22k vs ~21k) despite an approximate doubling of the number of miles of separated bike lanes (~5.5 mi in 2019 to ~11.5 mi in 2022.

The increased single driver car traffic coupled with fewer transit users and fewer traffic lanes, means that not only are people spending more time driving to where they need to go, but also a key part of that time is likely in increasingly clogged up streets adding to environmental harm. In addition as we will see, there remain MAJOR gaps in bicycle use in the winter months, during which time many fair weather cyclists are likely using their cars.

What the bicycling reporters generally also leave out is the vast differential in bicycle use between warmer summer months and cold and icy winter months. December, January and February when  bicycle usage falls way off in Cambridge. In the winter months, those few cyclists who usually ride bikes to work, the doctor's and the grocery store, instead must find another transportation mean - most likely cars since public transportation use is now way down. During the winter months, the streets are critical for Cambridge residents and workers getting to work and other activities by car during the long  winters months. During these winter months, car parking is also critical.

Much the same lower bicycle ridership in the winter months can also be seen in another included graph. What is clear in Cambridge is that we still need vehicle lanes in the cold winter months, even if, averaged out (including many students and tourists) the number of riders is slightly up.  And based on the separate blue bike data  significant part of the increased bicycle use during the summer months is due to increased area tourism.

The city has spent an enormous amount of money on building out our bicycle infrastructure. As the below map shows, most of the city has nearby bicycle lanes now, with peak bicycle counts coming from several hubs - Kendall Square, Inman Square and North Cambridge (the latter near the Arlington/Somerville line). The question is how many more separated bicycle lanes we should add, and how many more critical car  parking spaces the city should remove.

Another issue that remains is where ride shares (uber/lyft)  fit into this data. With the streets increasingly clogged and street parking harder and harder to find, those wealthy enough to use ride shares may likely are increasing this usage especially if there are time constraints or one needs to go where public transportation of simply walking is not a possibility. The data report does not appear to be addressing the wide share issue effectively.

The  business visitor data on bicycling use is also revealing. The percent of those who visit these businesses by bike remains small, probably even smaller when we analyze this data on a month by month basis. Inman Square the only one of these without a subway station does best. But no business can do well if one if  clients who must arrive by car are decreased significantly. 75% to 85% of one's former business is not enough to keep the door open. What also would be important to know is which types of businesses tend to do better than others in this situation. My guess is that it would be restaurants and bars which tend to be open when other businesses (and needed car traffic) are closed.

While there is positive news about bicycle crashes (and the severity of these)  what also is clear is that there remain key areas of risk, especially in the most widely used areas of the city - North Cambridge, Kendall Square, Central Square and Harvard Square. And while the number of bicycles riding on sidewalks is said to have decreased, we are provided with no data on prior crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians on sidewalks (or streets). Nor are we seeing data on the impacts on e-bikes and or e-scooters.

While it is good news that the bicycle injury rate appears to be significantly down, particularly for incapacitating injuries, the graphs make no accounting of the fact that during COVID vehicular use was also down. To really see what the before and after differences are we would need the COVID year indicator included in the graph much as was done for bicycle use and monthly bicycle use in the other graphs. One also wonders why e-bikes and regular bikes are not separated out in the data since in other cities (like NYC) this has been an important safety factor. And, based on the dates selected, it is not clear how much of the safety changes are due to the separated bike lanes as opposed to other factors including greater awareness of the importance of bicycling and vehicular safety by the city and by the bicycling advocacy group which is very active on social media and neighborhood list serves.  It is noteworthy too that much of this data is based on self-reporting by bicyclists (who have been actively making this data publicly available), yet we have no comparable data on "no injury" or "possible injury" or "non-incapacitating injury" by pedestrian groups or individuals or even self-reporting by individual drivers or groups of drivers. It is great to see a 4.4% drop in incapacitating injuries between the selected years but here too further questions come up. Why these years; why compare  an 8 year period (from 2004-2012)  with a 7 year period (from 2015-2022), and since there are so few such situations of serious harm (a plus), it would be important to address them on a case by case basis regarding   time of day, time of year, location, helmet use, and other factors.

In the end, the 2023 Cambridge bicycle data report while important, also reveals an array of  disappointments. What we see here, run counter to our Envision Goals of decreasing vehicle use. Instead we find that car use is up and public transit use is down. While we can't blame all the public transit woes on the city, it is not clear if the city did enough to keep critical transit routes in play in the recent metro shift in plans. Moreover what we also likely are seeing in this report is that some of the residents and workers  most impacted here are lower and middle income individuals who need their cars to make a living. There are similar issues in play for many seniors and disabled residents. In the end we not only need far more city bicycling data (and a better presentation of the findings) but also a more holistic approach to transit in the city.

Yes, more children are riding bikes (a positive) but many of their parents appear to be still driving regularly for various reasons and need our streets to get where they are going and securing parking. Moreover, some 40% of Cambridge residents work from home (likely among our wealthier residents) and we have no evidence that they are letting go of their cars and bicycling where they need to go. So while this report is welcome, hopefully the next one will come with a far more complete set of data (24/7/365 throughout the city) and better reporting of it. And, in the mean time, since reducing vehicle traffic in the City is a key goal of the Envision report it is clear that adding a large infrastructure of bicycle lanes to date has not so far factored positively in this.

       JIMMY TINGLE CCC CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS (2023)
 
               SCHOOL COMMITTEE CANDIDATES  

Elizabeth Hudson: HERE
 
José Luis Rojas Villarreal: HERE
 
Robert “Bobby” Travers HERE
 
 
 
                  CITY CANDIDATES (more interview links to follow)

Doug Brown: HERE

John Hanratty: HERE

Federico Muchnik: HERE
 
Carrie Pasquarello: HERE
 
Joan Pickett: HERE
 
Paul Toner: HERE
 
Hao Wang: HERE
 
Ayesha Wilson: HERE
 
Cathie Zusy: HERE

Here is a link to all the Jimmy Tingle interviews  Cambridge City Council and Cambridge School Committee Candidates for 2023.
 https://www.jimmytingle.com/meet-the-cambridge-candidates-for-2023

On October 1, 2023  4:30-6:30 CCC held its first candidates event at the Mid-Cambridge home of Sara and Larry Berman - the site of many important campaign launches.

The  images and text below were posted by Mandy Lee on Next Door (and are republished here awith her permission.

Stopped by the Cambridge Citizens Coalition endorsees introduction event [this] past Sunday.

Every candidates/endorsees showed up except Ayesha [Wilson who had a prior conflict]). I have the pleasure to meet some of them. Everyone took turn to give a short pitch, why they run and what they stand for and care about. It was a delight to see everyone bring different background and expertise to the table. They are long-time Cambridge residents and know the issues of their constituents well. I would say there really are no wrong choices here. I may not agree with some of the voting records of Patty's (one of the incumbents) but at least she acknowledged and was frank about them. I live near Central Sq in Mid-Cambridge so I would definitely give Joan Pickett (mid-Cambridge) and Cathie Zusy (Cambridgeport) my vote. They understand the pressing issue of the safety and drug problem in the Square, the overlay up-zoning plan, and the lack of support for senior and businesses with the dramatically change in traffic and parking conditions. I am also very impressed by John Hanrraty (Porter Sq, Avon Hill), his knowledge about clean energy and green tech, which I am passionate about.

I am Asian American. And I am very pleased that a dedicated and hands-on candidate like Hao Wang would have a chance to represent many of the Asian residents, whom I think are serverely under-represented. Didn't get a chance to chat with Federico, Doug, Carrie, and Bob. I will look out for another event to go to find out more. But based on their short introductions, I would feel very comfortable circling them in. Last by not least, I am delighted Paul Toner was there. It is not a surprise why so many of my neighbors love him and say vote them all out (the current city council) except Paul. I don't know how exactly whom I would vote for or in what order just yet.

But I can tell you right now whom I would absolutely not vote for: Dan.... For 20-30 minutes [at the] beginning of the meet and greet, there was an angry [...group], summoned by Dan, screaming, protesting, trying to drown out the meeting. I don't know what the beef was about as I came late. Regardless, I find this tactic and intimidation appalling and repulsive. You may not like a candidate, or what they stand for. You resolve it in a civil manner, and not by verbal assault. It achieves little except completely turning off voters. I can just imagine him being this confrontational at the council, representing a few radical activists, instead of working and compromising with other people who happen to have different opinions and backgrounds for the general population.

[Ed. note: The small protest wasorganized by the above mentioned candidate, someone who has been  endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)  and Our Revolution, leaders of which were part of this effort to derail the event.  This small group of protestors left well before the candidate presentations. The best reporting of the event was done by  the Harvard Crimson]. Prior to this event this same candidate boasted on social media that he had turned down CCC's endorsement of him; no such endorsement occurred. Councillor Denise Simmons has called for more police security at Cambridge polling places around the city during this election in part as a result of these kinds of incidents: HERE.

In response to some of the noise in play this election we also want to take this opportunity to reaffirm who we are:

WHO WE ARE...Cambridge Citizens Coalition (CCC) was founded by local neighborhood group leaders and is led by them along with other local civic activists and residents dedicated to smart development, thoughtful city planning, good governance policies, sustainability, housing affordability, and the preservation of our trees, green spaces, and historic architecture.  CCC stands with the LGBTQIA+ community’s fight for equality. We are committed to ending anti-LGBTQIA+ violence, bullying, and discrimination, and to ensuring that LGBTQIA+ individuals are treated with dignity and respect in their communities, their workplaces, and their schools. CCC believes in nurturing growth and positive change for individuals and communities alike. We stand with and advocate for equity and social justice for indigenous communities, people of color (BIPOC), those with disabilities,  others who have been marginalized and individuals practicing every religious faith.

This statement is posted at the top of the main page of our website.  For the most part we stay clear of social media.

In 2021 CCC published a First Year Report on AHO 1.0  - its impacts, successes and failures: HERE​

Rarely do we get to see direct impacts of our AHO (Affordable Housing Ordinance) zoning regulations in such a direct way as in the building project now in play at 1627 Mass. Ave.  This AHO development comes to the Planning Board for discussion (no approval necessary) on July 18, 2023. This project (see the center photograph above) engages a stunning historic home that most recently was part of Lesley University's campus. The larger project is a perfect example to compare the impacts of different modes of affordable housing in Cambridge: pre-AHO affordable housing  (Frost Terrace top left), AHO 1.0 (top center), and the proposed AHO 2.0 (citywide AHO amendment - above right images). The pre-AHO Frost Terrace affordable housing complex works well by integrating the new design with the older building and adding facade detail and interest to the new structure. It also incorporates core (required) AHO design criteria unlike 1627 Mass. Ave.  City Council will likely vote to approve AHO 2.0 at the August 3 full council Ordinance Committee. It could then come up for Council final approval votes at some point between September and October. The citywide and neighborhood impacts will be sizable, made worse by the fact that without any real design oversight (Planning Board or other), even the ordained AHO design criteria of AHO 1.0 may not be followed. Builder- and developer-aligned Councillors are now a Super Majority on City Council, a group that also includes the Mayor. They appear to have the votes to support this radical, vastly out-of-scale AHO amendment.

​Lets look at the differences more closely: