Comments on: Midsummer Night’s Distraction – July 28, 2014 Cambridge City Council Agenda

By: Tom Stohlman

Tom Stohlman — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 16:36:13 +0000

Robert,

The wording of Order #17 is pretty clear. Why “make the special permit process more understandable and transparent to the public and look for opportunities to provide greater public involvement and engagement” if it ain’t broken?

The everyone I’m referring to is the City Council, the motion passed unanimously.

And yes, the Carlone petition addresses the membership being broken.

Massachusetts state law permits either the Planning Board or the City Council to decide special permits. The Council already decides Zoning Law.

Should the deciders be directly elected by the voters?

Or should the deciders be appointed by the City Manager who serves at the pleasure of the City Council, which is elected by the voters?

It really has nothing to do with the individual membership, but rather who decides the individual membership.

By: Robert Winters

Robert Winters — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:49:47 +0000

Tom – I don’t accept your statement that “everyone appears to think something is broken.” What is, I believe, more accurate is that most of the city councillors are tiring of the complaints of some organized residents who are making such claims. This is more of a public relations problem than anything else, and the suggestion to modify some procedures might not only address those perceptual problems but maybe even produce some better results. I know of at least one councillor who feels that some Special Permit criteria could stand to be modified, but that’s just a zoning idea and hardly a statement that “something is broken.”

I’m curious about your statement that “Part of the Council thinks it is the Planning Board Membership.” Care to be more specific? I understand that Carlone would simply like to dictate all the decisions himself. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mazen wanted to turn over all decisions to Occupy supporters or maybe have all decisions conducted via some Uber-like app. But who else has expressed dissatisfaction with the Planning Board membership?

By: Patrick Barrett

Patrick Barrett — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:28:22 +0000

Tom,

I think any alternative path to handing over site review to the city council is definitely in the realm of seeing things more clearly. However order #17 I fear will provide yet another target to scrutinize when opinion differs. I would think that as part of section 19 review it would be optimal for developers to bring their cases to the neighborhoods directly affected allowing for city-wide participation. I appreciate that the Mayor and others have chosen to stick up for the planning board, it is something that ought to be applauded in my opinion. Further, the zoning in this town is broken, ask anyone with a hammer, and unless substantive changes are made the planning board’s hands will always be tied behind their backs. As the olde saying goes, “Don’t h8 the playa, h8 the game.”

By: Tom Stohlman

Tom Stohlman — Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:13:51 +0000

Patrick, Order #17 was penned by the Councillors who Robert believes “see things more clearly”, in reaction to the Carlone petition. The good news is that everyone appears to think something is broken. You (Patrick) think it is the Zoning law. Part of Council thinks it is the Planning Board process. Part of the Council thinks it is the Planning Board Membership.

Robert’s suggestion is a good one and it already exists in the path to the Special Permit. Developers always consult with the CDD before proceeding. The smart Developers always consult with the East Cambridge Planning Team before applying for special permits in East Cambridge.

So which method will be “discovered” and embraced?

More of the latter, I hope. An ECPT meeting is more of a discussion and less of a lecture, and that’s the key.

By: Robert Winters

Robert Winters — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:38:10 +0000

I completely agree regarding the Planning Board. We are very fortunate to have such a qualified group of people serving in this capacity. Their decisions are generally fair and thoughtful. In my view, those who feel otherwise simply don’t like the outcomes – even when those outcomes are completely in line with all policies established by the City Council and the professional staff.

I don’t really see the need to appoint an advisory committee to recommend changes. It would be better if the City Council simply made their own recommendation to have a proponent first bring in a concept and solicit public input prior to coming in with a fully-designed development proposal. That would address 90% of the perception problems and maybe even yield better outcomes.

NOTHING will satisfy the self-serving characters associated with the Cambridge Residents Alliance, so it’s really a waste of effort trying to achieve the impossible. A little leadership from the majority of city councillors who see things more clearly would be appreciated. Stop letting the tail wag the dog.

By: Patrick Barrett

Patrick Barrett — Mon, 28 Jul 2014 15:53:43 +0000

I appreciate what I think order #17 is attempting to achieve, however those currently dissatisfied with the planning board not only wrongly vilify an educated group of volunteers they also wrongly credit this board with seemingly questionable results and not the broken zoning that guides them. Thus I fear such an advisory board will fall flat in the expectation that once we understand the process that this will somehow result in more equitable decisions. Or maybe we all just love committees and advisory boards more than actually going from point A to B?