Citizens Coalition urges votes for council slate that rejects developer money in shaping policy
This Nov. 5 election will define the future of the city.
The Cambridge Citizens Coalition was formed in May by neighborhood leaders concerned about the city and its direction. We selected a slate of impressive candidates representing diverse viewpoints, demographics, renters and owners, and districts. Our Action Fund slate of eight candidates is made up of Dennis Carlone, Craig Kelley, Derek Kopon, Patricia Nolan, John Pitkin, Ben Simon, Nicola Williams and Quinton Zondervan. (See CCCSlate.org for bios and candidate core issues).
All share core values with the coalition and the need to get big money out of city policy. Consistent with this all, the endorsed candidates have agreed not to take donations from developers and others doing commercial business with the city; incumbent members on a slate from the A Better Cambridge Action Fund benefit from donations from developers and the building trades averaging more than $7,000 per candidate – money that benefits their whole slate. The CCC-AC slate incumbents also are supported far more by local Cambridge donations (70.8 percent) than the A Better Cambridge incumbent slate (53.6 percent) that depends on outside money. Cambridge policy should be by and for Cambridge residents.
Our coalition was founded around the proposed Affordable Housing Overly plan that would remove current citizens’ rights of legal appeal, weaken Planning Board design oversight and bring potential loss of mature trees, open spaces and local businesses. There are far smarter, more equitable ways to address affordable housing and the underlying problems of gentrification that push out African Americans and other residents.
The controversial Affordable Housing Overlay came within one vote of passage by the two-thirds supermajority standard. All incumbent members of the A Better Cambridge slate (Alanna Mallon, Marc McGovern, Sumbul Siddiqui, E. Denise Simmons and Tim Toomey – the council’s majority) voted doggedly at committee meetings for the overlay; all three coalition incumbents (Carlone, Kelley and Zondervan – plus vice mayor Jan Devereux, who is not running for reelection) opposed the overlay after the council majority opposed key amendments to safeguard green spaces, improve design criteria and ensure more citizen engagement.
If Gov. Charlie Baker’s proposal to change zoning votes from a two-thirds supermajority to a simple majority succeeds, deeply flawed proposals such as the overlay will succeed.
Every single election vote matters. It will help determine if the city embraces developer-driven policies and politics or refocuses on Cambridge residents.
We encourage residents to vote for the coalition slate for a more responsible City Council majority!
Suzanne P. Blier, for the Cambridge Citizens Coalition Action Committee
Let me see if I got this right. Legislation that would of helped people, mostly poor, get a home didn’t pass because people (who have homes) couldn’t or wouldn’t find a compromise?
Someday, maybe not in my lifetime. The poor will rise up, organize and hold do nothing politicians accountable.
Yet, many liberals get on their soap boxes and complain about Trump and Congress. This is why Trump won and has a real chance of winning again. Liberal Democrats could care less about the poor outside of talk.
Actually, Emmanuel, you do not have it right. CCC-endorsed Councillors offered dozens of amendments in the hope of shaping the Overlay into a plan that all could support, and CCC members have spoken out in favor of numerous other measures to improve affordability for renters. Alas, those proposals were voted down by the developer-backed Councillors. Many of those interactions were reported here in Cambridge Day
Actually, Peter G. (Whomever you are behind your anonymous i.d.) You don’t have it right and reading comprehension isn’t what it used to be.
I’ll make it more simple. Politics/politicians used to be about compromise. Or, work on the problem (a.k.a. legislation) until a solution could be reached/found. The 9 involved, all of whom have homes and many from very privileged backgrounds. Are now actively campaigning and many blaming everyone else but themselves for failing the thousands of people in desperate need of a HOME (i.e. they’re supported by developers ect. ect. blah, blah, blah). Again, outside of political rhetoric.
Politician is the only job/career I can think of that can keep their job based on doing little to nothing and then blame someone else for their failures. People like you, support this Bazaar behavior cycle after cycle. Or, blame someone else as your doing.
I blame all 9 for failing poor people who simply want a HOME. I could care less what political organization they belong to or which do nothing political organization supports them. It doesn’t get the thousands of people on the waiting list a home.
The whole, developer money argument is nothing but an excuse. Otherwise, what your saying is that the politicians who don’t take money from developers are for sale. Meaning, I can’t take developer money because I’m for sale and if you donate money to my campaign, I owe you. It’s a ridiculous argument and excuse.
Emmanuel – I attended nearly all of the meetings on the AHO and there were some 44 give or take amendments put forward by Councillors trying to improve it enough to make it a viable plan. Nearly all these amendments were voted down by the Council Majority members – whether they addressed the need to retain open space for trees, viable design guidelines, or protection of tenants – including small businesses. There are far SMARTER and better means to promote affordable housing here, including by looking at some of the roots of gentrification and addressing tenant protections. The City Council majority has had years to do this work but have not. It is time for new leadership. We need a more equitable housing plan, one that is citywide and is not developer driven. Hopefully in the new council we can help to shape this discussion. Note at the same . time that CCC-AC has a number of other critical issues we will be addressing. I urge you (and others) to visit the CCCoalition.org website and read more about who we are (view our Board of Directors and our Advisors). You will see that many of us have long been active in our neighborhoods and in doing volunteer work in the city.
Yet, with all the candidates and talk/excuses about who does or does not take developer money. We still have no legislation!
Must be me. Expecting politicians to do more then say what they’re gonna do. You know, get shit done. How dare I expect politician’s to do more. How stupid and unreasonable of me.
All the political organizations do in Cambridge is talk and support their candidates. I get it, politicians need people/groups to believe they matter so they’ll endorse them. Campaign for them. Raise donations for them. While many thousands of people on the housing lists wait for a home. It’s ok, you and I have a home right. Politicians have a home. We can just debate it to death while the people who are paid well to get it done, don’t and always find a way to blame someone else. Or find some excuse why they failed to do what there paid to do.
After all, they all SAY they care about the poor.
Emmanuel,
Recognizing your frustration and anger, I suggest, as Suzanne did, that you check out the CCCoalition.org website, where there’s a lot of informative information about the AHO and what I consider to be the sound reasons it wasn’t adopted.
You might learn something more than you already knew or thought about this.
Just since the AHO was tabled affordable housing projects were announced from Just A Start, New Street (thanks to Councilor Devereux) and inclusionary units in Alewife.
Cambridge has, and will continue to, build affordable housing for those who need it without the AHO.
We need to stop allowing this one zoning proposal to divide this city.
I agree with Emmanuel Lusardi.
The goal should not be to all 9 people who think exactly alike to the board. We talk a whole bunch of diversity in our city, but when it comes to diversity of thought, we start throwing each other under the bus. The job of the elected politicians to to compromise, and get stuff done!! Done blame others and the public saying so and so did not agree with me/us. You want diversity – that is diversity. There is nothing wrong with being rich or coming from a privileged place. The problem is not coming to an acceptable agreement.
BTW..I love this statement from Emmanuel. Well said…
“The whole, developer money argument is nothing but an excuse. Otherwise, what your saying is that the politicians who don’t take money from developers are for sale. Meaning, I can’t take developer money because I’m for sale and if you donate money to my campaign, I owe you. It’s a ridiculous argument and excuse.”
Many of the 40 or so proposed amendments to the AHO touted above had nothing to do with zoning and nothing to do with housing. Some were “poison pills” aparently intended to make affordable housing more expensive, which is directly opposed to the AHO’s purpose. I attended many hours of Ordinance Committee meetings on this issue and noted that a good number of these off-topic or anti-housing amendments received only one favorable vote or were withdrawn when it was apparent that almost no one, including the Councilors opposed to the AHO, would be recorded in favor.
The CCC likes to claim that they are in favor of affordable housing. Fighting vigorously against even a modest attempt to change the city’s anti-affordable-housing zoning regulations is not consistent with that claim.
“ If Gov. Charlie Baker’s proposal to change zoning votes from a two-thirds supermajority to a simple majority succeeds, deeply flawed proposals such as the overlay will succeed.”
This endorsement of minority rule is astonishing in its honesty. Thank you, Suzanne, for making it clear what you think of the will of the majority.
Off topic but related. This group is censoring comments on social media critical of the candidates on their slate by simply deleting the critical comments. I understand deleting rude, abusive and threatening language but censoring criticism wreaks of Trumpism.
I have to question any organization that does this and seriously question any candidate endorsed by such a group allowing such authoritarian actions by not calling it out.
Emmanuel Lusandi You are incorrect. The only person censored was someone who attacked Elizabeth Warren viciously. She is not on our slate fo City Councillors. Our rules are that people have to be polite. No one else has had any comment removed.