Last week, the Cambridge City Council adopted new Rules that will further limit public participation at Council meetings. That is exactly backwards.
One of the most common frustrations expressed since the Multifamily Housing Zoning Ordinance was adopted is that residents feel their concerns are not being heard. Yet on June 8, eighty-nine Cambridge residents signed up to speak on proposals intended to address the ordinance’s negative impacts, and their speaking time was reduced to one minute each.
If residents believe their voices are not being heard, the answer is not to provide less opportunity for public comment. The more consequential and controversial an issue becomes, the more opportunity residents should have to be heard—not less.
The City Council should adopt a simple principle. If a meeting is expected to continue beyond 10 p.m., the first evening should be devoted primarily to public comment, allowing residents their full speaking time. Council deliberation and voting can continue the following day after councillors have had time to consider what they heard.
Public comment is not a procedural obstacle. It is one of the few opportunities residents have to place their concerns, experiences, and expertise directly into the public record before decisions are made.
Good government is not measured by how quickly a meeting ends. It is measured by whether residents believe they were given a meaningful opportunity to be heard before decisions are made.
Young Kim / Norris Street, Cambridge
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.
This really doesn’t matter in the sense that, in effect, residents aren’t heard. We have a City Council that has nine at large councilors, again, in effect answerable to no one. We have 11 wards in Cambridge. We should have a councilor for each ward. However, the attempt to change even minor things in the City Charter, went nowhere.
We don’t have mayor who is responsible to all citizens.
Until we change these two things, we will continue to have a city where the government officials are responsible to no one.
I would make one correction. The “public record” is where our hopes, dreams and comments go to be ignored. When I speak at a city meeting, I hope that the people I’m nominally speaking to, such as the City Council, will find what I say helpful and shape their vote accordingly. Sometimes it even happens, as with Ahern Field, and I make sure people know that we noticed.
However, the people I know are listening are the other members of the public, especially the other people making public comments. Just sending an email “for the public record” does nothing to communicate with my fellow residents because they won’t see it.
The City Council tried to take over all of our neighborhood organizations a few years ago. They wanted to tell us whom our members could be, maybe even had to be, and how we were allowed to conduct our business. They didn’t succeed, but I doubt that most of the ones who tried understand even now why their actions were so abhorrent. It’s the same impulse fueling shutting down public comment, whether actually or effectively–that letting us be part of the conversation gets in the way of their obviously superior dictation to us what is going to happen. If we don’t overtly worship their divine wisdom, they can’t be bothered to listen. It’s so familiar.
That’s why so many of us are overjoyed about Ahern Field. Little that we’ve seen prepared us for being heard. I welcome that with open arms and a full heart. I hope to see lots more of it. But being heard starts with the opportunity to say something where other people will hear it, both potential allies and the people who’ll be making the decision.
Is there any way to view the emails that are submitted as public comment? Until recently, council meeting agendas just showed the subjects of public emails, which often (but not always) let you see which side the commenter was on, but didn’t provide the substance of their point from the email body.
However, with the switch to the awful new primegov system for meeting documents, I can’t figure out how to see even the subjects.
Let’s be pragmatic. A healthy democracy can value public comment while still setting firm time limits. Longer speaking times favor the most organized and well‑resourced factions, and turn meetings into endurance contests many residents cannot attend.
Fair but finite limits on oral comment, combined with written testimony and other channels, can actually expand who participates while still preserving time for councillors to deliberate and make clear decisions in public.
Unlimited or extended comment time builds in structural bias. Meetings are already disproportionately attended by older, higher‑income homeowners who live near proposed projects and are more likely to oppose development.
Exploiting long hearings is a standard tactic. Privileged people can sit through multi‑hour meetings. Others cannot.
Reasonable limits, paired with robust written testimony, are a more democratic way to hear from the public at large.
We need a better barometer than some residents “feel” they have not been heard. There is always going to be a subset of people that “feel” they weren’t heard no matter how much public engagement occurs, so long as they don’t get their desired outcome.
It’s better to evaluate it objectively, by looking at what the process actually was and asking if it was adequately engaging the community. At the end of the day, the zoning passed well before November’s elections, which didn’t end up in a council that would undo the zoning. Sometimes, certain positions are just less popular among the people.
Maybe it’s the fact that the same people get up at every meeting, speak on every issue, and for the maximum amount of time. It’s the look at me syndrome it’s become monotonous. And yes, if you think Councilors are sitting there listening, I have a bridge to sell to you.