Comments for Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

Comment on Coming Soon to a Theater Near You – August 3, 2026 Midsummer Cambridge City Council meeting by Margaret Hines

Margaret Hines — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 18:23:18 +0000

Interesting that they’re planning to mandate energy audits for small residential buildings. Meanwhile, homeowners who did the right thing and installed solar panels, often to support electric heat pump conversions, are at risk of losing their investment if a building 3 times as tall is built 5 feet away. Despite 8 councilors initially agreeing to address this by amending the Multifamily Housing upzoning, solar protection efforts have gone nowhere.

This inaction sure isn’t going to encourage future solar projects.

It doesn’t help that CDD’s presentation for the 12/11/25 Housing/Health & Environment Committee meeting claimed that solar panels do nothing for the environment and only serve to reduce electric bills for rich people. And they slow-rolled the process for MONTHS by delaying this report.

Here’s a gem from the minutes:
“Jeff Roberts added that zoning can encourage solar, but it cannot control protective measures.”

Here’s what MGL 40A-9B actually says:
“Zoning ordinances or by-laws…may encourage the use of solar energy systems and PROTECT solar access by regulation of the orientation of streets, lots and buildings, maximum building height limits, minimum building set back requirements, limitations on the type, height and placement of vegetation and other provisions.”

Sure sounds like protective measures to me.

Comment on Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 671-672: July 21, 2026 by Robert Winters

Robert Winters — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 17:40:22 +0000

I also expect that the upcoming Nexus study (studies) will yield predetermined conclusions that are in line with the personal beliefs of the head of our new Housing Department. I used to generally trust the professionalism of those working in City departments, but the last few years have really eroded that trust.

All you have to do is look around at what other cities are doing. They seem to uniformly be coming to the conclusion that when the Inclusionary requirement is set too high, the result is that this stifles housing production – “affordable” and in general. A rational decision is now often made to build below the threshold over which the Inclusionary requirement kicks in – unless, of course, your project was on a very large lot and you were going to be over the threshold anyway.

My sense is that the Inclusionary requirement should probably be between 5% and maybe 12% for housing developments to be economically viable, but acknowledging this fact will require elected officials to lower their current unrealistic requirement. This will require honesty, integrity, and some measure of political courage – and my sense is that there’s not a whole lot of any of those qualities going around.

Comment on Cambridge InsideOut Episodes 671-672: July 21, 2026 by Margaret Hines

Margaret Hines — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 16:40:17 +0000

Don’t worry about the nexus study putting councillors in an awkward position about reducing the 20% inclusionary requirement. The conclusion of the study is clearly preordained, and there’s no way it will recommend less than 20%.

How do your friends advertise their short-term rentals that aren’t on AirBnB?

I would hope summer sublets are still not restricted by the ordinance since they’re for more than 30 days.

Comment on Last Call – June 22, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting by Robert Winters

Robert Winters — Sun, 21 Jun 2026 12:33:52 +0000

Regarding the latest legal opinion on resident parking eligibility, I believe the prior opinion is the correct one and that this will be borne out if anyone chooses to mount a legal challenge. A resident sticker allows you to park in resident-only spaces throughout the city. There is no rational basis for saying that only some residents may be eligible. I understand the reason why some residents want to restrict eligibility as a result of the recent ordinance change that new developments are not required to provide any parking, but there are plenty of older buildings (including mine) which have no parking, and I certainly would oppose any action that would restrict my right to on-street parking.

There has been a disturbing recent trend of legal opinions that cater to a slim majority of councillors.

Comment on Last Call – June 22, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting by John Harrison

John Harrison — Sun, 21 Jun 2026 03:11:29 +0000

What happened to the City Solicitor’s prior opinion that it isn’t legal to prevent residents of new buildings from getting resident parking permits? I guess equal protection under law isn’t as important as preserving privileges for existing residents at the expense of new residents. The latter obviously have no say in the decision because they’re not here yet.

Comment on Tripling Down – June 8, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting by FRED BAKER

FRED BAKER — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 14:48:14 +0000

To the S&S: Goodbye, Farewell and Amen.
So many excellent meals and times there, along with events hosted at the Ryles.
You were there for many of those, Robert, and no one ever left the table disappointed in anything.
We tend to believe certain elements of life are fixtures — they’ll always be there — and then they leave us.
Best Wishes to Aimee and Gary and the numerous others who made the S&S memorable.
-Fred Baker
former Inman Street resident

Comment on Tripling Down – June 8, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting by Barbara Anthony

Barbara Anthony — Sat, 06 Jun 2026 19:05:04 +0000

Thank you for all you do to help keep us informed. In one of the least transparent city governments in the state, your work is enormously important.

Regarding Order #5. There are indeed unintended consequences from the MFH ordinance that must be addressed, sooner than later. It is simply wrong and grossly unfair to make neighbors and abutters pay for damage to their property caused by developers under this ordinance. The destruction of trees on the property of others and the costs associated by such destruction should not be permitted at all. But since it is currently ok for a developer of luxury housing to kill the trees of neighbors, then at a minimum the developer should pay for this expense. In addition, the ordinance says 5 feet setback – it does not say excavation can be done adjacent to the property line – such excavation is sure to kill trees abutting the property and owned by neighboring residents.

Are those on the council supported by developers so immune to the concerns of actual citizens that they will permit this willful destruction with all its attendant expenses on the backs of existing residents. These unintended consequences or collateral damage issues are not going away!

Comment on May Day meets the FY2027 Budget – April 27, 2026 Cambridge City Council meeting by Liza Paden

Liza Paden — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 23:48:42 +0000

Wondering if the Garden Street Configuration will be evaluated, accidents, crashes, #s of pedestrians, bikes, cars, hours of those “trips”, as well as the impact on the Harvard housing which require deliveries.