Candidates get a change of format at CCTV, making room for dialogue (and quarrels)
The City Council Candidate Conversation at Cambridge Community Television in Central Square on Friday. (Photo: Marc Levy)
Cambridge’s City Council candidates value teamwork, collaboration and collegiality, though there is some strife among them, viewers learned from a Friday conversation.
The City Council Candidate Conversation was co-sponsored by Cambridge Community Television and Cambridge Day. The hosts were Niko Emack, a journalist, educator and student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and Marc Levy, editor of Cambridge Day.
The conversation looked much different from a traditional candidate forum. After asking a question, the hosts opened the floor to the candidates, letting them discuss and bounce ideas off of each other. The hosts’ questions also focused on candidates’ values and temperaments rather than on their policy positions.
Eleven candidates participated: councillors Burhan Azeem, Marc McGovern and Patty Nolan; School Committee member Ayesha Wilson; and challengers Peter Hsu, Joe McGuirk, Gregg Moree, Federico Muchnik, Dan Totten, Cathie Zusy and Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler, who previously served a term on the council.
From the start, candidates said they valued reaching across the aisle, especially during what many have called a polarized election cycle.
“The key is that you don’t hold grudges,” McGovern said. “We’re going to have some tough conversations. It’s not all going to be holding hands. It’s a question of what do you do after that – do you let that get in the way of working together? Do you let that get in the way of moving the city forward? I don’t think we do, for the most part.”
Adding to McGovern’s point, Sobrinho-Wheeler said that small disagreements draw outsized attention for council candidates because Cambridge residents have so much in common. “The small differences get magnified because we agree so much on the big things, but at the end of the day, there is a lot of common ground, and we can focus on that,” Sobrinho-Wheeler said.
McGuirk, though, said charged public discourse partly motivated him to run for council. He compared Cambridge’s polarization to that in Washington, D.C., and said it’s time for residents to start resolving some of their arguments.
“Sometimes watching public discourse, it did feel really divided,” he said. “The truth is that arguments are productive for revealing the source of our conflict. It is, ultimately, what we do after that that resolves it.”
Back-and-forth
On one of the conversation’s only policy-related questions, candidates sparred over the Cycling Safety Ordinance and the rollout of the city’s bike lanes.
Wilson said that, as a resident of Garden Street, she knew nothing about a bike lane until right before it was installed. “It’s causing a lot of disruption and stress,” Wilson said. “Across our city, we need to be doing a better job around communication and around process.”
The bike lanes conversation is about opportunity cost, though, and there is no solution that could satisfy everyone, Azeem responded.
“It is about tradeoffs. I think everyone in this room would love to save all of the parking, all of the protected bike lanes, and everything if you could, but politics is about how do you allocate the resources that you have. We have to make tough decisions. There is no perfect answer where everyone ends up being happy,” Azeem said.
McGuirk nodded along as Azeem spoke.
Nolan responded quickly, “I totally disagree in some ways because, as Ayesha said, it’s not either-or. That’s the problem: It’s been defined as either-or and totally polarized.”
Partway through Nolan’s response, Totten interjected, asking if those were the reasons she didn’t sign the bike pledge. At that point, a few of the other candidates interjected to disagree with Totten.
Nolan retorted, “I didn’t sign the pledge because it was polarizing. And I know you’re telling people I’m against it, but I have a solid record … Dan, you are totally bad-mouthing me on the trail, and I’m sick of it.” Nolan also accused Totten of campaigning negatively on multiple issues and of targeting her regularly.
“The pledge is a commitment not to vote to undo [the CSO]. So when somebody doesn’t sign the pledge, what I have to assume is that if that question is posed to the next council, they will vote to undo it,” Totten said.
“That’s bologna salami,” Muchnik responded.
Azeem agreed with Totten that pledges indicate how candidates will likely vote if elected to the City Council.
To watch the conversation, residents can find the full video on CCTV’s Vimeo page.
Find out which candidates support continuing to build safe, protected bike lanes here! https://www.cambridgebikesafety.org/election/
Regarding the bike safety pledge, just FYI, the actual text is pretty straightforward and emphasizes the importance of the role of city councillors in making sure these projects work for everyone:
“I support rapid implementation of the citywide network of protected bicycle lanes as mandated by the Cycling Safety Ordinance.
I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure the successful implementation of the ordinance, including voting in the City Council, advocating in the public realm, and connecting stakeholders to ensure a positive outcome for all in our community.
I will not vote for any proposal that weakens the ordinance or delays its timelines. Mass Ave is the most important street in Cambridge and needs protected bike lanes as soon as possible. I will not vote for any proposal that delays protected bike lanes on Mass Ave beyond the timeline of the rest of the ordinance. This should be done in a way that supports transit, improves pedestrian safety, protects the tree canopy, and enhances the business environment.”
Here’s the process for the Garden St project Wilson mentioned as “knowing nothing about”:
Postcards and flyers:
– In May 2022, the City sent postcards announcing the project to 3,500 addresses in and around the project area.
– In May 2022 they also put flyers out for residents on Garden St.
– In July 2022, they distributed flyers to residents along 21 streets in the area.
– In September 2022, they sent postcards to 4,700 addresses in the area.
The city attached signposts along Garden street and side streets about the public meetings, for the May, July, August and September meetings.
The city did individual notification to major local stakeholders.
There were emails on city mailing lists.
Finally, there were the public meetings mentioned above:
– May 24
– July 12
– August 9
– September 20 (online)
– September 22 (in person)
It’s really not clear to me what else the city could have done.
“Nolan responded quickly, “I totally disagree in some ways because, as Ayesha said, it’s not either-or. That’s the problem: It’s been defined as either-or and totally polarized.””
Patty can say this all she wants, it’s not true. At some point you have to make a decision, there is limited road space and you cannot accommodate everyone’s wishes. If she thinks everyone’s wants can be met, she should release a specific plan rather than making nebulous comments.
I was looking for this forum in real time. thank you for posting. Patty is right in that the “either-or stance” is still alive and well.
It is not only “I disagree with you”, but “I disagree with you and you are evil”. This is not helpful in municipal governance.
I also find it ironic that one candidate stated, “The key is that you don’t hold grudges… … do you let that get in the way of working together? Do you let that get in the way of moving the city forward? I don’t think we do, for the most part.”
In some cases, “moving the city forward” means an unyielding position by several. his “totally unapologetic” stances don’t allow for compromise or working together. I find that hypocritical. It is one giant board game.
Great event–thanks! Much more lively and informative than the usual formats
Patty and Ayesha have been great on the bike lanes–they support all reasonable configurations, but insist that they be reasonable and well thought out before construction.
Itamar–when you ask what else the city could have done on Garden St–they could have actually listened to the community. I was at several of the “listening sessions”. The city employees made it clear that they were not really listening, and were primarily interested in covering their butts after it was obvious they did not really consider impacts and alternatives that could have created great separated bike lanes without rerouting traffic in ways that harmed residents on side streets
Ah yes we should look into which candidates the bike lobby supports. I guess if you sign a pledge it doesn’t matter what else you do.
Once again Little Danny Totten came dressed as a ten year old and acted like one too. I am so sick of his temper tantrums and childlike outbursts. Cambridge voters MUST UNITE and NOT allow this petulant child a seat on “our” council.
@Itamar Turner-Trauring
There were also 2 listening sessions, 1 in November and 1 in December.
Thank you, Peter. Maybe in two years it’ll be even better!
I feel bad for those in this city who spend their lives in a constant fit of rage around bicycles.
@PaulD25 .You have no arguments,.so you attack the person? Someone is acting like a 10 year old and it isn’t Totten.
FrankD, I could write a list a mile long on my dislike of little Danny Totten, the petulant child on the council ballot. Beginning with his desire to defund the CPD, his irrational stance on bike lanes, his combative nature unwilling to allow another opinion beyond his own, his disparaging remarks on the Catholic Church, I can go on and on, but that is not your concern.
I will not vote for little Dan and I encourage others not to as well. #Tottenisrotten
Really enjoyed watching this one. The conversational format was great and much more useful for getting a sense of how well candidates would function and work together on the council. The other panel-style forums mostly resulted in candidates repeating the talking points already found in their campaign materials elsewhere, and didn’t reveal much new information besides how good someone is at public speaking. The hosts also did a great job of choosing interesting questions and moderating the fast-flowing conversation (despite this being challenging at times due to the large group). Hope this continues for future elections!
@PeterG: “listening” does not equal “implement every piece of feedback” because that would be impossible given the many conflicting needs these projects have to balance. Of course there’s always room for improvement, but I think the city has generally done a good job of responding to feedback and making adjustments where possible. The Garden St project website has a whole section on “Changes Since Installation” (includes added signage, signal timing adjustments, additional traffic monitoring/analysis) which belies your assertion that the listening sessions are just a sham process for the city staff to “cover their butts.” What actions, short of undoing the installation, would make you feel like you’ve been listened to?
Some examples from other projects of the city responding to community feedback: for the Brattle St project, a site walk with local residents was used to identify a chunk of side street where parking could be added to offset some of the removals on Brattle. And city staff did look into making the last section by Mount Auburn one-way to preserve more parking, as per several requests from abutters, but found that would hinder emergency response (again, balancing needs – just because they didn’t do it in the end doesn’t mean the the feedback was ignored). For the Main St project, as was mentioned in the above CCTV conversation, Totten and Wilson attended one of the early meetings and raised concerns that the city’s standard community engagement methods wouldn’t effectively reach residents of Newtowne Court, so the city added an open house event at the Pisani Center and did outreach in more languages. They also made significant adjustments to planned parking regulations in the project area to mitigate permit parking loss.
Thanks, picoplaff! Truth: We had far more questions we never got to, opting to let the dialogue flow.
I live next to Garden st and love the new bike lanes. There were online and in person meetings regarding it and I feel the city did everything to listen and suggest designs to keep as many people happy as possible. I’m looking forward to the entire bicycle network plan to be implemented as it will make non-car transportation around our city so much more safer for me, my son, his friends, and everyone.
PS: I have voted using the Cambridge bicycle safety voter guide, it even includes cross-endorsements from other organizations so I could rank the candidates using more information. Hope Dan Totten gets on the council, we need more climate champions during this global climate crisis
I also want to thank CCTV, Cambridge Day and Niko Emack. I thought the format was great. A refreshing change from the typical forum where candidates never get to engage with each other. Thanks for putting it together.
It was a pleasure! Thank you.