East Cambridge in the Crosshairs

No historic neighborhood in the Greater Boston area has experienced the benefits and burdens of increased development like East Cambridge. While the commercial development boom greatly expands our real estate tax base, too often city leadership and developers can’t see past potential dollar signs and ignore negative impacts.  

As a long-term urban designer and architect, I am grateful to serve the city of Cambridge in a position where my skills enable me to promote good development and prevent exploitative development. East Cambridge has three proposed developments that will enhance the neighborhood if designed with care but will overwhelm this tight-knit community if done wrong.

CambridgeSide Mall Up-Zoning

When I authored and designed the East Cambridge Riverfront Plan in 1976-78, I wanted to build a thriving, mixed-use district along the Charles River that complimented and enhanced the historic, residential community.  CambridgeSide’s retail arcade was the linchpin of this plan. There are several aspects I advocated for that did not happen, as well as some unforeseen problems, such as the decline in popularity of malls, which makes revitalization of this land critical.

More than 25 years later a new zoning petition from New England Development offers us an opportunity to improve the project. There are many aspects to the proposed development that I like. Their proposal will: create mixed-use office and housing; relocate retail to First Street; enrich the Lechmere Canal as communal space and include affordable housing and community uses.

As is often the case, however, New England Development wants to expand their project well beyond what zoning allows. The proposed demolition of the above-grade parking garage and department stores will give them approximately 670,000 square feet to rebuild with, all within current zoning. New England Development wants to double that without explaining how it will benefit anyone besides themselves.

Every time we exempt a project from existing zoning our laws become less meaningful. We must use our zoning code to our advantage by implementing design guidelines to respect the urban design character and planned density of the neighborhood. The development team has reconsidered their proposal and will file a new petition in the near future. I will be very involved.

The proposed overdevelopment of CambridgeSide inspired me to ask the city to assess the increase in land value created by any up-zoning proposals so we can know what community benefits we should expect from exempting developments from our laws. If we are going to repeatedly violate our own zoning, the community quality of life should benefit.

East Cambridge Courthouse

The towering, vacant Edward J. Sullivan Courthouse is the sore thumb of EastCambridge.  From an urban design perspective, this 22-story structure in a three to four-story residential neighborhood should never have been permitted.  The community had no say because Commonwealth public use structures do not have to follow local zoning. 

After a decade of neglect and litigation, real estate developer Leggat McCall wants to privately develop the site, known now as 40 Thorndike Street, for primarily office/lab use.  They plan to purchase the building for $33 million, a windfall sale for the Commonwealth, but not for the neighborhood.

There are some positive aspects to the development. The developer will add 24 affordable units, create community space and will remove the ugly brutalism facades. There’s just one catch: they want a 30-year lease of 420 parking spots in the city-owned First Street Garage.

This was never a real option in my mind. The public and existing businesses use the garage, which is what a public garage is made for.  When I created the East Cambridge Riverfront Plan I located the public garage to serve the community.  This allowed nearby historic buildings without their own parking to be more easily redeveloped and the commercial district to thrive.

The developer’s need to lease Cambridge-owned parking presents the community with an opportunity to finally influence the future of this site. There are many ideas discussed in the community regarding affordable housing, reduction in height, open space and other community needs. None of these ideas can be realized, however, until we reject the lease for our garage. Only then we can enter into a true community dialogue for the future of these public properties.

Alexandria’s Development at Fulkerson and Binney

The proposed Alexandria up-zoning is another example of developer overreach that is, fortunately, being mitigated by community negotiation meetings, which I facilitated. The developer wanted to build a 120-foot building in a district that is zoned for 45 feet for commercial structures. To the credit of Alexandria, they agreed to work with the neighboring Linden Park community. The process is productive and the project design changed quite a bit, but there is still no final resolution. The development team agreed to extend discussions by refilling a modified petition with lower heights. I expect whatever comes of this development will be in keeping with our highest community standards of transparency and inclusiveness, as I expect from all developments.        


Too often the wants of the elite few are put before the needs of the many. The City Council is in an advantageous position where we can promote development without displacement and economic growth that enhances the community. I will continue to use my position to put the needs of residents before the wants of developers.

1 reaction Share

Affordable Housing Overlay Comments

The proposed Affordable Housing Overlay is the subject of much discussion and debate.  Zoning reform cannot be simplified as a hard no or an unconditional yes. The devil is always in the details, and as a trained and experienced architect and urban designer, I believe I am well suited to address the concerns of the overlay, to guide an ordinance that realistically promotes affordable housing, and to prevent the city from being sued.  

Every City Councillor is committed to addressing the affordable housing crisis.  We all agree on the goal but disagree on the current citywide AHO overlay draft. The present petition is deeply flawed and needs more work. It lacks any meaningful design review standards and process, nor ways to measure outcomes. It does not specify the actual increased densities proposed for affordable housing. 

Rather than a citywide scope as currently proposed, Cambridge should focus on the most buildable sites (where change is inevitable, and the greater number of units can be built) that more fully meet the needs of affordable housing families.  At the same time, we must ensure that new construction enhances, not overwhelms, existing communities. A broader vision is needed. This will require more work and more time as we find the most effective way to move forward. 

I proposed several amendments to address neighborhood concerns. As I write this several have already been voted down by a 5-4 margin.  The division on the Council is representative of the division in the community. I fear without these amendments we are opening the city up to avoidable lawsuits and poor development. 

Zoning is Law. We must remember that any approved zoning becomes our law. And any law must be carefully studied and thoughtfully developed.  Because this has not yet happened, preliminary discussions have created a great sense of uncertainty, confusion and anger among our residents.  We can – and must - do better.

City Development Policy Background: Since the 1970s, City policies focused almost exclusively on expanding commercial development in order to increase the tax base and employment opportunities, in part to make up for the loss of industry in the 1950s and ’60s.  As a result, the amount of commercial development in Cambridge continually outpaces new residential production. This planning approach creates a very strong housing demand from new employees with higher incomes who want to live near work and is compounded by unmet housing needs of expanding universities and the general increased interest in city living. 

This has led to housing cost (apartment rents and home purchases) increasing 2,000 percent or more over the last 40 years.  Many, especially the middle and working class, have been forced out of Cambridge.  

A More Realistic, Broader Approach:  Given the large amount of public financing and City Council/Staff involvement, any citywide petition resulting in denser construction must diligently balance community concerns with projected development.  The expanse of the proposed petition is precedent-setting, and no one wins if the matter goes to court. The goal should be to find an approach that works for everyone in a fair, balanced, transparent, and productive way. Residents want the opportunity to be a part of the larger community and to live in homes that fit into their neighborhood. 

A Different Kind of Zoning is Needed:  We must go beyond specific site zoning as outlined in the Affordable Housing Overlay petition and consider existing neighboring buildings’ context, including siting characteristics (setbacks, height, character, etc.) in order to create desirable development. Each neighborhood block is different, especially in commercial areas.  We must evaluate appropriate sites from a neighborhood-impact perspective and develop more appropriate heights and transitions.

We need to zone and build in context.  Well-conceived architectural and urban design objectives with a strong design review process are essential to ensure that new development (especially those significantly larger than their neighbors) reinforces and enhances the surrounding neighborhood, village center, or city square character.  The current plan as written does not allow for this. Ideally, the best overlay ordinance creates a scenario where each project within it adds to the civic confidence that the ordinance works. 

Preferred Site Locations:  We should focus on site opportunities where urban change is already inevitable and ensure that they are part of the greater area vision.  Whenever there is development demand, change almost always occurs on “Soft Parcels.” These are sites that are underbuilt (where existing zoning allows a larger structure), underutilized (vacant or unprofitable use), and/or one in poor condition (beyond saving). 

In Cambridge, parking lots and one-story (especially vacant) structures are the most prime locations for redevelopment.  We see this happening right now throughout the city. These are the areas that will almost certainly become luxury apartments if we don’t prioritize affordable housing there.

Furthermore, most people, especially residents without cars, want to live near needed retail, public services, and mass transit.   Many want to have the opportunity to be a part of an active community. Affordable housing should be prioritized in such areas. 

Overlay Design Consultation Objectives:  Design objectives, which determine the design and scope of any development, must be part of the zoning if they are going to have any consistent impact on development.  Separate guidelines, especially without a special permit-based design review process, (as proposed by the current petition), are ineffective because they are not enforceable.  

Implementation and Oversight:  As now proposed, The Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, the principal Cambridge funding source, seems to be the only design and implementation oversight group currently with any power.  They will be required to evaluate neighborhood design concerns, Planning Board design recommendations, and Community Development’s urban design staff comments and then decide whether the proposed building should be funded or not.  They must state what design changes will be incorporated in any proposed project seeking their funding assistance. No other group would have any control. This is overly taxing on the Trust and not a good balance of power.

Site and Non-Residential Space Ownership:  Instead, the city needs to utilize a trusted non-profit entity with proven experience in the development process and the ability to purchase property and possibly write down the land cost for public purposes.  This entity would oversee any non-residential first-floor uses, such as desired local retail, pre-kindergarten facilities, neighborhood library, etc. The remanding building rights would be sold to a local affordable housing developer - allowing the residential developer to focus primarily on the development of housing.  

In my view, the most likely candidate is the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority, which has a unique economic and development management position in the city with broad purchasing and planning powers.  This approach is essential to expanding affordable housing in Cambridge.

Embellishment of Public Domain:  The city, not the affordable housing developer, should be responsible for new sidewalks, trees sustainably planted and watered, street patching, streetlights, and utilities below grade to help offset public domain costs and, at the same time, improve street tree growth as well.  The city is not currently responsible and this needs to be added to an improved overlay petition.

More Funding: I fervently hope the City Council can eventually pass an Affordable Housing Overlay that promotes affordability, addresses neighborhood concerns and doesn’t open the city up to lawsuits. However, even a successful overlay will go nowhere without funding for affordable housing. I am proud of my work to secure an additional $5 million a year in city funding for affordable housing, but this is clearly not enough. Others on the council and in the city are doing their best to increase funding, and we still need to do better. Although Cambridge is by far the wealthiest city in the state with the greatest financial resources, our residents have the second lowest real estate tax payments in Massachusetts and one of the lowest in the country.  As many residents have stated, we can easily afford more for meeting our commitments. 

Bottom-Line Recommendation: I have proposed a number of specific improvements to the petition that will be discussed at today’s Ordinance hearing. However, it is clear to me that we are not ready, with too little time available, to fully modify the petition.  Let’s truly understand all implications, both positive and negative. Let’s get it right, and take the time we need to work on the intended goals and methods to assure that what we propose is feasible, equitable, transparent, measurable, and unifies us as a great City.

Add your reaction Share

Alewife Urban Design Comments

Recently the Neighborhood & Long Term Planning* Committee met to review the City’s
Envision Plan, including the proposed Alewife Urban Design Plan. My recommendations,
found on pages 2-5, include specific design refinements and additions to more directly
reflect City Council Goals (1-7 and 10 highlighted below) that relate to future planning and
development initiatives.
Any urban design plan and its resulting build-out affect the entire city and region either
positively or negatively. Just as opportunities should be maximized, constraints must be
fully addressed.

1. Increase access to affordable housing for all income groups.
2. Ensure that Cambridge offers economic and educational opportunity [in particular Pre-
Kindergarten programs] to all.
3. Deepen our commitment to sustainable use of energy and strengthen our capacity for
4. Expand and deepen community engagement [with necessary social infrastructure].
5. Develop more proactive, inclusive, and transparent city planning process.
6. Make it easy to move safely through the City, especially by sustainable modes of
7. Increase opportunities for all residents to enjoy the City’s open spaces.
8. Ensure that Cambridge remains an Innovation Hub that integrates businesses of all sizes into
a thriving ecosystem.
9. Improve Council’s capacity to collaborate more effectively, make better decisions, and
increase its accountability to the public.
10. Ensure City’s budget allocates resources responsibly and responsively.
11. Ensure Public Safety efforts reflect current and emerging challenges and opportunities in a
way that incorporates Cambridge’s core values.
12. Eliminate Bias within the City workplace and wider community.

Community Development’s updated plan, a significant improvement over the
previous Envision plan, incorporates many of the concepts highlighted by the Envision
community process and a number of City Council public policies. However, there are
unmet public policy issues and implementation aspects that need to be more fully
addressed including the Quadrangle’s isolation, lack of social infrastructure, housing
and transportation concerns, environmental needs, and as highlighted below.

1. Necessary Connections to Redline Station and Triangle: The Quadrangle’s
development viability and future livability are linked to the quality of its connections to
the surrounding area, which is presently minimal. The plan includes one pedestrian and
bicycle bridge over the railroad tracks. Unless this bridge incorporates a bus shuttle
system, public access will be greatly limited for at least 3-4 months due to winter weather.
Given the Quadrangle’s large size, a second bridge should connect to Smith Place, the
area’s logical main street. Two bridges increase the likelihood of a successful shuttle-bus
system linking the Red Line and Triangle to the Quad and nearby Cambridge Highlands.

2. Future Commuter Rail Station: The area's development will justify a regional
commuter rail station on the existing rail right-of-way. The most likely station location is
adjacent to and between the existing Fresh Pond Parkway Bridge and the city proposed
pedestrian [and shuttle] bridge. The station will provide the MBTA with at least one
significant air rights development. Both opportunities should be included in the plan.

3. Concord Avenue: A coordinated system of Concord Avenue traffic lights at two block
intervals are required for the Quadrangle & Environs to have safe and clear pedestrian and
bicycle access south to the adjacent Fresh Pond Reservation.


4. Use Projections: Cambridge’s past emphasis on commercial development over
residential development inadvertently helped create the current scarcity of housing
resulting in dramatic rent and purchasing cost increases over the last 20 years. Although
the City Council has emphasized a greater priority for new housing, Community
Development earlier presentations indicated a development goal of 60% commercial and
40% residential square footage, which match the 1990’s strategies for Kendall Square and
Cambridge Crossing. The most recent urban design plan appears to propose even greater
commercial (industrial/office uses) density than previously stated. What are the actual
square footage projections of each basic use as shown in the plan: residential, office,
industrial, institutional, public space, and roads and ways?

5. Social Infrastructure/Civic Needs: Local libraries, schools, and playing fields create a
social fabric and sense of identity that foster casual interaction in every Cambridge
neighborhood. The Envision process has also indicated a growing need for a new school
(800 students) and pre-Kindergarten facilities within ten years. However, the urban
design plan incorporates none of these civic necessities. Where will teenagers and
adolescents play safely after school? Where can they and the elderly go in bad weather? An
isolated neighborhood needs its own social resources -- or will fail as a community.

6. Congestion Reality and Its Relationship to Building Use Type: Given Alewife’s
serious traffic concerns and the planned emphasis on office development (which we know
creates 3 to 4 times greater traffic impacts than equivalently sized residential projects),
the city must plan and build with increased urgency and responsibility. This means
significantly increasing the amount of residential development and implementing the
necessary, major transit improvements highlighted above. Otherwise, area residents and
employees will neither easily enter or leave their neighborhood, nor feel part of the
greater Cambridge community.


7. Design Strategy and Detailed Calculation: The proposed plan consists of two
residential scaled open spaces (one appropriately at each side of Smith Place) and a
diagonally oriented linear park, which connects the proposed pedestrian bridge to
Concord Avenue at the Smith Place intersection. While these three public spaces show
well-designed intent, they are not an adequate amount and kinds of open spaces needed
for such a large district cut off from surrounding open space systems and playfields.
Furthermore, it appears that most of the planned commercial properties are not depicted
with adjacent open space as previously recommended by staff.
The greatest number of proposed trees appears to be street trees. What standards are
being considered to enhance street tree viability? Finally, what is the percentage of porous
versus non-porous coverage in the plan? Given the propensity for flooding, a greater
amount of water retention open space and tree cover is required.

8. Diagonal Linear Park: Most, if not all, successful linear parks are bordered at least on
one side by an active public access road, providing an informal means of security. The
Fenway in Boston is a nearby example for such a bordering public road. This could be a
low-speed, one-way road given the overly tight width of the proposed open space.
9. Green or Solar Panel Roof: Given the area’s environmental sensitivity, new buildings
should incorporate a green roof (water retention, insulation and communal needs) or a
solar energy system to offset the building’s negative impacts on carbon generation. A
community solar array would satisfy this requirement.


10. Street Pattern and Block Size: The proposed residential areas have an appropriate
fine-grain street pattern in the spirit of Cambridge. However, the northwest
industrial/office sector has supersized blocks (as large as 350’ x 1000’) that need to be
broken down in scale to integrate better with the residential blocks. Fortunately, the
drawn access right-of-ways through these large blocks can easily become public streets to
make this sector less office park-like and more urban, resulting in virtually the same
amount of development.

11. Retail/Main Street Location: All existing Cambridge retail districts are on main travel
roads with multiple intersecting secondary streets. Previous city presentations highlighted
Wilson Road (approximately 700 feet north of and parallel to Concord Avenue) as the
Quadrangle’s retail street. However, Smith Place with its direct connection/access to
heavily traveled Concord Avenue and the potential second bridge over the railroad tracks
to Cambridgepark Drive on the north, is a significantly more viable retail/neighborhood

services street with a greater number of street connections. Future buildings on Concord
at Smith Place should include retail to help announce this street to passers-by.

12. Alewife Square: This proposed public space located between Fresh Pond Parkway
and Danehy Park appears to be more like an office park green then a city square and
should be redesigned. An urban retail node and square should better reflect that intent.
There are excellent examples of similar, successful developments.

13. Scale of Development Adjacent to Sancta Maria Facility: Although it is appropriate
to have smaller residential development immediately abutting existing Cambridge
Highlands residences, Concord Avenue sites next to Sancta Maria (which itself is a buffer
to the neighborhood) requires a more dense/urban scale of housing similar to other
proposed buildings on the Avenue.


14. Public Works and Fire Departments: Both departments have lacked sufficient
facilities for years. City officials considered purchasing land in the northwest of the
quadrangle for a new Public Works center and Fire Department training center. Given the
large amount of land presently under control by a few key developers, serious efforts
should still be undertaken to incorporate these public needs. A district fire station should
be considered through negotiation prior to and during the Special Permit process.


A great opportunity exists in the Quadrangle & Environs and no one wants to repeat the
past mistakes of the nearby Triangle with its disjointed development, dead-end street
pattern, traffic congestion, insufficient public domain and lack of public activity. The most
current urban design plan is a major step forward, but needs to be more responsive and
enhanced. The above urban design recommendations will hasten the transformation of the
area to best reflect public goals and needs, which build on making Alewife a desirable and
memorable part of Cambridge.
15. Additional Questions: A number of important questions still remain. Who are the key
landowner/developers in the area and what land do they own? What are their stated
interests and plans?
What are the proposed Design Review Standards and Process? If the city does not lead the
effort, how will developers contribute to building all needed civic infrastructure and
Respectfully submitted, Dennis Carlone

1 reaction Share

Thinking Creatively About Affordable Housing

The issue of affordable housing is a complex and emotional one, and there's really no easy answer. But one thing I’ve learned, is that Cambridge has a strong collective will, and when we put our minds to something, we find ways to get it done.

This past week, the City Council voted to require that all new housing developments include 20% affordable units. While I fully support these efforts, I also recognize that this is only a part of the overall solution. It’s a single tool in our government toolbox.

To expand our efforts further, we must make affordable housing the number one priority in our city. That means thinking creatively about ways to support all residents but especially those in most need-- our lower income neighbors, our working families, our shrinking middle class, and our elderly citizens. 

In the video below (2min. 51sec.), I agree that raising the affordable housing rate to 20% is a critical and long overdue measure. But I also suggest other ways that our city remain affordable and welcoming to people of all economic backgrounds. In summary these actions include:

1. Reforming zoning to maximize affordable housing production in mixed-use districts (recent Central Square zoning was modified to require a minimum of 50% residential construction on any site to reach maximum buildout);

2. Limiting AirBnB (not sure what the generic term is) to only owner occupied units, not additional owned but unoccupied units (petition now before us);

3. Insisting long-needed university housing be built in near future (many MIT and Harvard graduate students live in former family apartments);

4. Increasing city budget allocation for Cambridge’s stated number 1 issue, the creation of affordable housing (previous budgets only include affordable housing funds generated by the Community Preservation Act and not City funds).

We can and must do better, much better.


1 reaction Share


Anyone who has spoken with me, or has attended a council meeting, recognizes that I value community. Protecting, building, and advocating on behalf of community, in all its forms, is what attracted me to politics, and still serves as my “north star” during any decision making process.

One critical aspect of fostering community is the actual placemaking process itself—that is, how we construct the built urban environment all around us. I would argue, that the council’s most powerful tool is our ability to affect the zoning code in order to mandate creating great public spaces, where all people are encouraged to congregate and share in each other’s lives.


Read more
1 reaction Share

Community Public Spaces

Like so many of you, I have observed and participated in the various protests that have emerged in the face of Trump’s policies and cabinet appointees. These protests, these physical expressions of our collective unease, take formation in different public places. As an urban designer and architect, I am reminded of just how important our places are in allowing citizens to organize and practice free speech. Of equal importance, and the basis of almost all my thinking related to council matters, is actually promoting real policy that creates community and allows it to thrive.

The Project for Public Spaces issued a statement (see below) about this issue and I wanted to share it with you all.

Read more
1 reaction Share

Lechmere T Station and Property Taxes

This past week, we bid farewell to current Cambridge City Manager Rich Rossi and welcome to the helm Mr. Louis DePasquale. Mr. DePasquale (or "Louie" as we call him around City Hall) is a long time employee of the city, having served in various fiscal management roles since 1975. I look forward to working with Mr. DePasquale in our efforts to keep Cambridge livable, affordable, and most importantly, focused on our neighborhoods.

The City Council also met this week to discuss, among other things, the city's property tax rate classification and the expected new buildout of the Lechmere T Station in East Cambridge.

The city has done an admirable job in keeping residential property tax rates extremely low. In fact, over the last four and a half years, while Cambridge has seen average home values increase by more than 57%, the residential tax rate has stayed roughly the same for a large majority of Cantabrigians. It's important to point out that two/thirds of all Cambridge residents are renters, and that part of the reason they rent is because they cannot afford to actually buy homes in the city. In efforts to help relieve this population of sky rocketing rents and further deal with our affordable housing crisis, I propose that we investigate ways to use tax dollars from a home's assessed value, to benefit those at the lower rung of the tax ladder. In the video below (4min 23sec), I request that we take a strong look at the residential tax classification system and ways that it can be improved in order to help the people who need it most.


The second piece of information that I wanted to share with you is about the planned buildout of the Lechmere T Station in East Cambridge. Due to unanticipated costs related to the Green Line Extension project, funding for the new Lechmere T Station is largely insufficient. The City of Cambridge is working with developers to bridge this financial gap but I think we need to do more. My fear, is that the new Lechmere T Station will look much like the Yawkey Way Station in Boston, which is a metal skeletal construction providing very little shelter from the elements like sun, wind, rain, and snow. Furthermore, it lacks any pleasing aesthetic quality. I understand the financial reality of the situation and am willing to accept it (albeit begrudgingly), but have requested that any buildout of the Lechmere T Station give the city the ability to make future improvements and enhancements. Considering the situation, I think it a reasonable request, and I look forward to getting it done in the future. In the below video (4min 49sec), I strongly suggest that the city "gracefully allow for the possibility" of making future design improvements so that our future T station may be first rate, just like the rest of our city.


1 reaction Share

Inclusionary Housing Study

While there are not any Regular City Council Meetings during the month of July, there still remain a number of important meetings taking place. This past week, the Housing Committee met to discuss the Inclusionary Housing Study completed by David Paul Rosen & Associates. The report contains in depth analysis and recommendations related to our current ordinance. Key findings of the study include: 

 Increases in market rents and sales prices have outstripped increases in income in recent years.
 Affordable housing created under the inclusionary housing provisions has become an increasingly critical source of new affordable housing as other mechanisms to expand the affordable stock have become more challenging.
 Strengthening the inclusionary housing provisions is necessary to maintain an adequate stock of affordable housing and preserve the socioeconomic diversity of the city.
 Inclusionary housing provisions may be increased to a certain extent without severely compromising the production of new market-rate housing. 

Below, I have included a video (10min. 37sec.) with my thoughts on the matter, including using special permitting and creative zoning to mandate for more three bedroom apartments; raising the "real" inclusionary housing rate to 20%; and limiting lab space especially around housing. 



2 reactions Share

Plastic Bag Ban Update

Most Cantabrigians favor thoughtful environmental policy that seeks to preserve and improve our natural surroundings. We know that parks, gardens, and the planting and maintenance of trees all contribute to the beauty, vitality and peacefulness of our city. These are places to reflect, have a picnic, kick a soccer ball, or simply to escape from the city for a while. But what is often overlooked or put on the "back burner" are environmental issues that may not pose an immediate risk but do in fact present longer term danger. For example, gas leaks in our community affect our air quality and potentially endanger our overall infrastructure; leaf blowers affect micro ecosystems, worker's health, and often times our own mental health; sourcing 100% renewable energy so as to curb our use of fossil fuels; and making new commercial construction be net-zero compliant, again, as a way to curb climate changing producing gases-- all of these issues need to be dealt with now if we wish to prevent more harmful damage down the road. 

Last term, my former legislative aide, Mike Connolly raised the idea of pursuing a Plastic Bag Ban. We quickly realized together that it would be a challenge, after all, it was an effort which had been undertaken by several previous mayors and councillors with limited success. Plastic bags were convenient, easy, free and did not pose an immediate harmful threat to the environment, however, they did have very severe and dangerous long term consequences. Plastic bags are typically made from a polyethylene which is not biodegradable. Instead of decomposing, the bags break down into small, toxic fragments called microplastics, which are consumed by animals and litter the ground. Ultimately, the toxins from these bags make their way back into our food chain. The purpose of the Plastic Bag Ban was to protect our waterways, reduce waste, and protect marine wildlife. It was our view that plastic bags should be regulated and restricted.

Read more
1 reaction Share

Medical Marijuana Dispensary & Municipal Lobbying Law

As Spring arrives, it's exciting to see the city come to life once again. I wanted to write about two recent issues facing the city. The first is regarding a medical marijuana dispensary. As most of you know, several years ago, Cambridge voted overwhelmingly (79%-21%) to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. As someone who recognizes the importance of natural medicines as well as a holistic approach to healthcare, I believe that the use of marijuana for those that suffer from certain conditions can be a necessary part of treatment and healing. The reason that approving a zone for such a dispensary is so challenging is because of the many federal, state, and municipal laws that are in place governing these kinds of things. The petitioner, Sage Cannabis (that company which has petitioned the city of Cambridge to re-zone a small parcel of land so that they may operate) has met every requirement asked of them and have gone out of their way to accommodate the city with our requests for information. I expect that Sage Cannabis will be a good partner to the city and for the many patients that are in need of this kind of medicine. I have met with the CEO on several occasions and my aide, Dave Mattei, has visited their headquarters in Milford, MA and we have both been very impressed with their level of professionalism. In the video below (1min. 31sec.), I briefly remark on the matter.

The second issue is regarding municipal lobbying. My friend and colleague, Councillor Jan Devereux sponsored a policy order which requests that all professional lobbyists (those individuals who represent business and labor interests, like real estate development companies, unions, or even medical marijuana dispensaries) disclose their campaign contributions, the names of their clients, the policies that they tried to influence, their compensation received, and the dates of their lobbying communications. There are many other cities that have implemented similar laws including Los Angeles, Chicago, Austin, Philadelphia, and San Francisco because it represents a level of transparency and openness which is important in government. Part of the reason that I sponsored a policy order related to campaign finance reform last term, and the reason that I cosponsored this policy order is because it allows us, as officials, to inspire a greater level of confidence in the democratic process, which for too long has been mired in pessimism and suspicion. I was joined in affirmative votes by Councillor Devereux and Councillor Mazen, to send this policy order directly to the City Manager, however, similar to that of my previous campaign finance efforts, this policy order was voted against, and rather than being sent to the City Manager, it was sent to the Government Operations Committee where it will likely receive little attention. Below is a video (20min. 28sec.) in support of the municipal lobbying effort.

2 reactions Share