Council Updates, Traffic Woes, and More

Cambridge Police Department Policy Orders
At our council meeting on Monday night, we discussed two policy orders related to the death of Arif Sayed Faisal. The first was related to releasing the names of the officers involved in the incident before the state inquest is finalized. The second is related to a charter change to make our Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB) an elected body. Regarding the first policy order to release the names – had worked over the course of the last few weeks with my colleague, Councillor Toner, to submit amendments to the policy order which requested the City Manager to put forth a policy for the police department which would codify the practice of immediately releasing the names of officers involved in use-of-force incidents. I believe that having this kind of policy in place will yield greater transparency and will help our police department improve its work and its relationship with the community. I believe it’s important to have the policy in place first before taking action with regard to the January 4 shooting, but following months of protests, some of my colleagues decided to vote to apply this kind of policy retroactively. I would have preferred to wait for the results of the state’s inquest and the District Attorney’s report, but I respect the will of my fellow councillors. I am committed to working to bring more transparency and effectiveness to our police department and I am glad that the council decided to accept most of my amendments.

Regarding the second policy order to change our PRAB to an elected body, that policy order was voted down 8-1. Several of my fellow councillors and I had issues with the policy order and how it was brought forward. First, as I begin to think about the idea of an elected PRAB, I am not immediately convinced that having an elected body for police review would be the most effective or equitable way to set up the board. I worry about representation on the board – with an appointed body, the City Manager is expected to ensure that the board is representative of our residents and especially our underserved communities. And, the city council, due to charter change that I led and championed at the last election, now has to approve all appointments. In fact, we just approved some appointments – so I am surprised this idea was not mentioned at that time, just a few weeks ago. An election does not guarantee that. I have concerns about other communities that have moved to elected police review boards, like Detroit, where some critics say their board falls short of its reform duties. In fact, at least 3 members of Detroit’s Board of Police Commissioners are former police/sheriff officers, which in my view, is not appropriate for ensuring unbiased civilian oversight. Furthermore, I cannot support a home rule petition for a charter change that hasn’t been discussed publicly. As we did with the last charter changes, the proper way to consider changes to the PRAB is to include the community in the discussion. A meeting of the Committee on Public Safety appears to me to be the most appropriate venue and an excellent way to hold such discussion and to flush out the merits of the idea. There is a committee meeting on the PRAB set for June 7 – if this idea is urgent, such a meeting could have happened months ago. The entire ordinance establishing the PRAB could be reviewed in light of current circumstances, the culture, and changes over time in many areas related to public safety and community safety. I do not understand why we would put forth this one proposed change as a ballot initiative without a comprehensive, inclusive, and transparent discussion of the PRAB. I’m not fundamentally opposed to the idea of an elected review board, but it seems misguided to vote now to add a ballot question to amend the city’s charter without first discussing the details of what a proposal looks like.

Mass Ave Partial Construction – CSO Update
I’ve had a lot of folks reach out about the loan order for the Mass Ave Partial Construction Project and I wanted to share some of my thoughts about the CSO Update and the loan order specifically. I share concern about the expected cost of $50 million for the Mass Ave project. The city just issued an explanation of costs I had requested – please review. I asked many questions of the city about this cost – I wanted to note some of the important points that may be lost in the top line number. The $50 million is not only spending on bike lanes. The money will be spent on an array of other projects all related to road safety; including pedestrian improvements, better bike infrastructure, traffic signal improvements, utility work that will come up during construction, traffic calming, and also yes, more bike lanes. Some of these improvements will involve removing medians and ripping up underground infrastructure, which explains some of the high cost. Many of the improvements will be aimed directly at pedestrian safety. I have issues with the price tag – which I raised publicly. Too often we find ourselves paying a premium in Cambridge for services and construction that are much less expensive elsewhere – of course this is true throughout city operations, and I have constantly been advocating for better cost management in projects like these. I believe we can do better – although costs are rising for every project in the state.

Regarding the CSO Update and report– I am working to ensure that we have a community discussion about the impacts, and the effectiveness of the plan and implementation. I have consistently advocated for more attention to small businesses, residents who walk all while supporting the extension of a network of bike lanes throughout the city – necessary for safe transit. I have spoken up in our council meeting and in meetings with city administration. This report on the CSO was a timeline update, which is required by the ordinance. It is equally important to conduct a measure of effectiveness and impact. We need to understand how our CSO implementation has been at achieving our goals of reducing cars, increasing numbers of cyclists, driver/biker/pedestrian safety, and others. It will also be important to understand what we’ve learned since the CSO – and how to better implement – and any adjustments that should be made at this point on strategy or on implementation. I have also expressed loudly that we need to improve our communication regarding safety improvement projects. I am happy to report that my suggestions have been followed to some degree – we now are explicit that when we do these changes, it includes impacts on parking – something which was not mentioned before (!). The City needs to be even more transparent about what that means in terms of parking changes, traffic patterns, and timelines. These are all things I will continue to work with the City to improve. And I have also worked with my colleagues to have a committee meeting to address these questions and issues to talk through effectiveness measures.

Alewife Zoning Working Group
After nearly a year of meetings and review, CDD has delivered a report and a zoning proposal for the Alewife Overlay District. We will be discussing the report and the zoning changes at length, so there will be time to unpack all the details, but I am happy to see a zoning proposal which takes into account much of the work of the Alewife Working Group. What is gratifying about having this report and zoning proposal done is that it only happened because the council approved a moratorium on development – which I had sponsored – until zoning was done. After forty years of visions, we now finally have zoning language to review. It is not perfect, but it is a sign of a commitment to take action after decades of inaction on zoning in the area.

Geothermal System Pilot Program
Last summer, Cambridge applied for a grant through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) for their Community Geothermal Heating and Cooling Design and Deployment initiative to fund the design and eventual deployment of community-scale geothermal heating and cooling systems. Unfortunately, when the winners of the grant program were announced, the Cambridge proposal, which was for a community geothermal pilot in Strawberry Hill, was not chosen. Two weeks ago, I submitted a policy order, along with my cosponsors, Mayor Siddiqui and Councillors Zondervan and Azeem, to fully fund that project using City funds. The proposal as submitted was under $600,000 and would allow Cambridge to take a great step to invest in and benefit from a geothermal system in Strawberry Hill. In fact, the NetZero Action Plan and CCWG Recommendations both specifically call for Cambridge to fund and implement district energy solutions like this community geothermal proposal. I was proud to see that the entire council asked to be added to cosponsor the policy order. I will continue to work with City officials to ensure this project is enacted as soon as possible.