Acting too late, or being all talk and no action. There is an estimated 5,500 units of housing on the way within the next decade or so, likely bringing the city quickly back to and past the peak population of 120,740 recorded in the 1950 census, and much of it is targeted for Central and Kendall squares, where it’ll be able to support lots of new retail, offices and institutional uses. That’s why it’s a good thing the city embarked on a red ribbon commission in Central and the so-called K2C2 process, so the city can be shaped thoughtfully and intentionally.
Except, whoops, development has been deluging city officials throughout the K2C2 process and has been handled largely as though the city already knows what it’s doing. The Forest City proposal near Central and MIT’s other massive, 26-acre development in Kendall, referred to as PUD-5, both drew complaints that they’d be shaping the areas for generations yet were coming ahead of an official decision on the months-long, $350,000 process. Development boosters have noted that the proposals are “in line with the K2C2 recommendations.” If we’re going to be using them to justify or guide current development, maybe councillors should, what the heck, vote on the recommendations and make them law. (Given how the council works, of course it was okay approving the Kendall Square zoning long before hearing from an MIT committee on the need for housing there.)
Cheung also worries that there’s a bunch of residential units being built where developers are making a de facto 11.5 percent of units affordable, when the figure is supposed to be 15 percent and some councillors (including Cheung) would prefer 18 percent. “The impetus is that we’re anticipating a lot of development in Cambridge within the next couple of years. We certainly don’t want to be caught having this come out after that development is on the way,” Cheung said in May.
Citizens have been complaining about the 11.5 percent trick for years, of course. And they’ve been sounding the alarm about the middle class being squeezed out for years as well, but the council has shown signs of the life on the issue only as recently as September (and then again in May, as though the September conversation never took place). The need for a policy on “community benefits” is another issue that flares up predictably every time development is on the table, whether it’s Forest City, Education First, Novartis or another zoning request, but an answer on how to ensure and disburse them fades away just as reliably. (And, of course, that issue about televising roundtables has been around since at least April 2012.) The Foundry building is another example of council fail, although in this case it’s slow-moving object meeting slowly yielding force in the form of the city manager.
Councillors express little sense of urgency when a crisis isn’t staring them in the face, but they also can’t seem to look ahead to a legislative need. In November, Cambridge had the largest voting majority in the county (and was among tops in the state) on letting medical marijuana dispensaries become law as of Jan. 1, beating the 63 percent of voters statewide by 10 percentage points or 16 if you eliminate those who didn’t vote on the initiative. Towns such as Melrose, Reading, Wakefield and Westborough managed to have laws and policies in place before Jan. 1; Cambridge barely roused itself in late December to vote to delay any policy-making until many months after the state set its rules. Despite their constituents’ obvious enthusiasm and embrace of the dispensaries, councillors also offered no comment when the city manager suggested three times that they not be permitted in the city at all.
But perhaps the most succinct example of the council’s lack of timeliness is its inability to handle Healy’s retirement. Kelley tried to get the council working on a policy two terms ago, in December 2010, before Sam Seidel was replaced by vanBeuzekom, and was forced to withdraw his motion in the face of hysterical charges of illegal and offensive ageism from other councillors.
Keep clicking these page numbers to see the rest:
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
Excellent article. I hope voters consider all these issues in November.