Alewife Study Group > government > Sept. 16 1999, City Council candidates Search 

Candidate Questions on Citywide Development for September 16, 1999

- from Cambridge Residents for Growth Management

1. IPOP extension. The IPOP (Interim Planning Overlay Petition) is a temporary measure that requires Planning Board review of large (50,000 square feet or over) projects for traffic, design and other impacts. This puts some limits on large projects that would otherwise be built "as of right," without review, during the period when the Planning Board, Citywide Growth Management Advisory Committee and Community Development Department are studying permanent zoning changes. The IPOP will expire on October 1, but proposals for the permanent zoning changes are not yet complete. Although the Planning Board and Community Development Department at first opposed the IPOP, they now propose a 6-month expansion -- with new exemptions for dormitories and housing up to 150 units -- until long-term zoning changes can be made. Do you support the extension? (Note: This extension and a citizen petition - the Moot petition - for an unamended extension have been filed.)

Kathy Born

Yes

Jim Braude

Yes However, the sooner we have permanent zoning in place the more stable, understandable and fair the process will be for all parties.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson Yes

Henrietta Davis

Yes I support the extension, but don't believe that six months is adequate.

Marjorie Decker

In light of the planning process not meeting its goals ... I support the extension. However the extension is not a substitution for designing a framework of planning goals, outcomes, benchmarks and timelines. This needs to be an intensive process -- a charter that plans congruently for development traffic, open space, affordable housing. The charrette should consist of people from many neighborhood groups, ...city agencies and ...field experts. Issues regarding open space, development and affordable housing are often pitted against one another and need to be addressed in the same planning process.

Vince Dixon

Yes Prefer no exemptions, a permanent limit of one million square feet commercial citywide yearly, fifteen member Neighborhood District Elected Zoning Commissions in each neighborhood.

Anthony Galluccio

(Did not answer yes or no) I will consider this extension along with other proposed zoning changes.

Dottie Giacobbe

Yes I do support the IPOP and a 6-month expansion so that a comprehensive master planning process can be implemented. However, I do not support the exemptions....

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes The IPOP should be renewed [as is]. There is a legal question whether any amendments would provide a loophole for current developer projects....

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

Yes I support the recommendation of the Planning Board and the Community Development Department in the Extension of the IPOP. That time would give me the necessary time as a new councilor to review the policy further.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

No How many extensions of time will they need until people do not care any longer.

Alan Nidle

Yes

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

Yes It is imperative that we take the additional time necessary to put in place more comprehensive zoning which considers the City's growth and policies governing growth.

Erik Snowberg

Yes I support extending the IPOP without the exemptions for housing up to 150 units. I also think the IPOP should consider the energy efficiency of proposed large developments.

Michael A. Sullivan

Yes Although I did not support the original IPOP. A number of zoning reviews and consideration have been initiated towards long-term zoning changes. ... The extension will help...to complete this work....

Tim Toomey

Yes While IPOP may require additional steps for responsible developers, it has not stopped development. Only irresponsible developers need be concerned!

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes/No I would prefer the IPOP to be extended as is, but will take a close look at what is being proposed for exemptions.

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes Do we know what the "car policy" is regarding dormitories? 150 units may be too high. ... Any exemption for housing should [require] at least 25% affordable housing.

Robert Winters

Yes. However, temporary [measures] must not ...continue forever. I favor permanent changes that encourage residential development and concentration of commercial development in areas well served by public transit.

2. Permanent Zoning Reductions.. Many residents believe that rapid increases in commercial development and jobs for non-residents --on average over 80% of employees in new developments live outside of Cambridge-- add to the pressure on local housing, speed the turnover of the population, and escalate traffic congestion. In order to slow and control these impacts, do you support permanent reductions in the overall amount of commercial development encouraged by City policies and allowed by zoning?

Kathy Born

Yes

Jim Braude

While a balance must be struck, one way to address the problem of increased non-resident employment and resultant demands on the community, is to encourage locally and employee-owned businesses.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson Yes

Henrietta Davis

Yes Many commercial areas are currently zoned for too much development and should be rezoned or converted to housing.

Marjorie Decker

This question is unclear. I support long term comprehensive planning that addresses commercial and residential development. (see Q. 1)

Vince Dixon

Yes Prefer "Life Long Educational Ladder Contracts" to be established, to link long-term residency, employees, employers, and educational resources, in stabilizing partnerships.

Anthony Galluccio

Yes. I have consistently supported these reductions and will continue to do so where appropriate.

Dottie Giacobbe

No I do not support the current city policies ... I do ... support permanent reductions in commercial development until a master plan can be effectively put into force. This would allow all parties to be involved. City Council must take a leadership role.....

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes ... The City-Manager supported CDD has forgotten that it should be protecting the community..., not big builders.

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

No Commercial development is necessary if we are to build new schools, a new police headquarters, and a new public library and assorted other public facilities.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

Yes Cambridge is becoming a "Wall Street" for high tech business - no one lives on Wall Street. We are necklace of squares each unique and non replaceable

Alan Nidle

Yes

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

I am unclear how this can be done "permanently." I could better respond to a specific, commercial space reduction proposal.

Erik Snowberg

Yes and the commercial development we do encourage should have clear plans for employing more city residents and lessening the impact of development on the surrounding communities.

Michael A. Sullivan

No ...The issues that are addressed in this question should be answered during the IPOP review. For instance, we should require mixed-use development in commercial districts - ...housing, commercial, retail (of relevant size) and useable open public...space. 

Tim Toomey

Yes The madness of massive, uncontrolled development must be stopped now if Cambridge is to remain a livable city.

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes/No I agree with the premise of this paragraph, however, I want to see a reduction of large developments not those which encourage small business and affordable housing. I'd like us to move to a system like Santa Monica where development is controlled by districts according to a plan of lotteries and square footage and impact on the community.

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes

Robert Winters

Yes This is overdue. However, I support higher density of residential and job-producing retail and commercial development near ...transit, and other efforts to combat suburban sprawl.

3. East Cambridge Moratorium. Since May, 1997, the City has issued permits for over 2,000,000 square feet of commercial development in the area east of Windsor Street and north of Main St. Traffic studies for these developments project that they will bring nearly 20,000 new car trips into the area every day -- more than the number of cars now on Broadway. The Planning Board has said that the IPOP only controls individual projects, not the overall, combined growth of traffic and neighborhood impacts caused by numerous projects. Many residents believe there should therefore be an 18-month moratorium on further large commercial projects in this area in order to give the City time to change zoning to control the combined impacts of new development. Would you support such a proposal? (Note: A citizen petition - the Larkin petition - has been filed.)

Kathy Born

yes

Jim Braude

(Did not answer yes or no) The city must take into account the combined impact of all development on affordable housing, increased traffic and pollution, reduced open space and decreased racial and economic diversity.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson Yes

Henrietta Davis

Yes Overall planning is what is needed in order to assess cumulative effect.

Marjorie Decker

I support long term comprehensive planning ...[see Q.1]

Vince Dixon

Yes Prefer two-year moratorium; and a twelve-month commercial development suspension citywide.

Anthony Galluccio

(Did not answer yes or no)I will consider the proposed moratorium and am looking forward to these discussions.

Dottie Giacobbe

Yes I do support this proposal because we need an accurate infrastructural assessment and subsequent citywide planning process. Appropriately developed land must be a priority.

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes But it's kind of shutting the barn door after the horse has fled.... Zoning should ... consider the public benefit from large developments, and the regional traffic problems....

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

No We are riding high in a positive economy but this is not guaranteed to continue forever. ... We need a comprehensive development plan and we have to let all the parties know what the rules are beforehand.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

Yes We already have enough traffic through the city, this alone should be curbed - more traffic=less residential communities.

Alan Nidle

Yes Why 18 as opposed to 12? How is a "large" development differentiated from an acceptable one? In principle I am for the moratorium. As far as details, I am uncertain. 

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

Yes The mammoth proposals currently pending in East Cambridge ... do merit a moratorium to clarify overall potential impact.

Erik Snowberg

No The city should be adept enough to change zoning laws in order to look at the "big picture" quickly and efficiently. A moratorium is just an excuse for the city to further delay doing its job in regulating development.

Michael A. Sullivan

Yes I had originally anticipated offering my own proposal for a moratorium. It became more important after reading newspaper articles on MBTA plans.... I am concerned about the parameters of the proposal as it effects affordable housing and where lines are drawn.....

Tim Toomey

Yes The moratorium is necessary to study the adverse effects of commercial development in this area since 1980 and to allow for appropriate rezoning.

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes (The IPOP should be redesigned to encompass cumulative impacts.) But why not for the entire city?? And the changes in zoning should be determined not simply by "the City," but by the people of Cambridge in a genuinely democratic, neighborhood-based process.

Robert Winters

The better approach is to immediately initiate comprehensive planning processes in selective districts, especially in the industrial and commercial zones near Kendall Square [and including] open space acquisition ....

4. Housing in New Areas At present, residential uses in Office, Business and Industrial Districts are either prohibited or require a Special Permit from the Planning Board. Affected areas include Mid and North Mass. Ave., along Linear Park, and the railroad tracks in North Cambridge, the Alewife Quadrangle (north of Concord Avenue), along Portland Street, the area between Cardinal Medeiros Boulevard and First Street north of Binney Street, and North Point. The Community Development Department and Planning Board are recommending that the City Council allow residences as of right, without review, in these areas. Do you support this change in the zoning law?

 

Kathy Born

Yes

Jim Braude

Yes I recommend mixed use, sustainable development with new residential growth focused on increasing the affordable housing stock.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson Yes

Henrietta Davis

Yes I support relaxing regulation to encourage housing that would be 25% affordable.

Marjorie Decker

[no answer]

Vince Dixon

No The thirteen Neighborhood District Elected Zoning Commissions, in election districts resembling the thirteen neighborhoods of the city, should have primary zoning jurisdiction in their neighborhoods.

Anthony Galluccio

(Did not answer yes or no.) Considering the importance of increasing the housing supply the philosophy is on track but as of right may go too far.

Dottie Giacobbe

No I do not support the change in zoning laws because there needs to be a process for such instances. Community Development (Department) must work with communities in the development planning process.

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes [This] wording ...is too broad. ...[R]eview ...safety issues ,... pollution ...environmental hot spots, size ... related traffic issues, closeness to ...railroad tracks ... and production of truly affordable housing. I ...oppose "gated communities" for the wealthy in these areas, such as ...MIT/Forest City are proposing.

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

Yes Because of the tight housing market in Cambridge and the need to increase the availability of low and moderate income housing, I would support such a change.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

Yes More housing is essential, preferably of mixed incomes.

Alan Nidle

Not sure.

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

Yes In Cambridge, I support the creation of affordable housing by most means available including placing residential in commercial areas.

Erik Snowberg

Yes I encourage mixed-use development and the use of zoning to protect the existing housing stock from destruction.

Michael A. Sullivan

Yes This is exactly where we should be headed....

Tim Toomey

Yes Such residential developments must be of a size and density appropriate to the adjacent neighborhood.

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes/No We need affordable housing. If this would encourage more of that I think it would be good. Also, residential development generates less traffic and is more desirable than office development. ... I'm in favor of small scale housing development. Large projects need review. And I'm not convinced the special permit process really provides the kind of review we need!

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes. But again, this positive change should be linked to our crying need in Cambridge for truly affordable housing-for all income groups-not just {any?} housing.

Robert Winters

Yes I emphatically agree.... [Other] adjustments to the allowable density of residential vs. commercial ...may have to be made concurrently in order to provide the right incentives.

5. Linkage. "Linkage" payments to the Cityís Affordable Housing Trust Fund at a rate of $3.00 per square foot of construction are required for some commercial projects which get Special Permits. This rate is equal to the impacts on rental housing costs found in a study that was done for the City in 1988.

(a) Should the rate be updated in line with current impacts and market rents?

(b) Should linkage payments be required for all commercial projects?

5a 5b notes

Kathy Born

yes yes

Jim Braude

yes yes In a time of heavy demand for affordable housing, linkage should be a significant source of funding. I support A and B, as well as lowering the square footage threshold.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson     No comment [yes, the candidate actually said "no comment"]

Henrietta Davis

    Yes I'm in favor of increased linkage payments.

Marjorie Decker

yes no

Vince Dixon

Yes    Also the Cambridge Dividend Fund should receive half of all new construction tax revenues for principal; annual Cambridge Dividend checks to long-term residents.

Anthony Galluccio

Yes    To the extent legally permissible. The current economy should be taken full advantage of for maximum linkage.

Dottie Giacobbe

Yes    I agree that "linkage" payments need to be updated. This will allocate monies for [the] Affordable Housing Trust Fund that will be comparable with market rents and will assist in [the] housing crisis.

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes    It is a scandal that the linkage payments have remained so low for so long. ...[T]he linkage should be at least $10 per square foot....

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

Yes    I would favor a review of the city's linkage payment rates to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

Yes  Yes a.) If rent increases, rates of $3.00 / sq. ft. should increase.
b.) Linkage Payments should be applied to all projects.

Alan Nidle

Yes   B is a detail thing. Hitch linkage to large development projects.

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

    Yes Rate should definitely be increased. Linkage payments should be required on all commercial projects.

Erik Snowberg

    Yes Linkage payments should be updated once a year based on the Greater Boston Consumer Price Index. Every 10 years a study should be done to make sure those rates are on target.

Michael A. Sullivan

    Yes The city should implement a plan that would ensure that these funds would help maintain middle/working income families and individuals (in addition to those of low and moderate income)....

Tim Toomey

    Yes I would, though, exempt small, neighborhood based, commercial developments.

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes  

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes   b) Conceivably, modest, locally-based, neighborhood-friendly commercial proposals might warrant a waiver of some kind-if carefully designed.

Robert Winters

Yes No a) It should be permanently indexed to vary according to current conditions.
b) [M]any commercial projects of modest scale ... provide a benefit to the City.

6. Fantini-Maguire petition. Through the authority to grant Special Permits the Planning Board exercises influence and control over development. The Boardís members are now appointed by the City Manager. The Fantini-Maguire petition now before the City Council would start the process of shifting the power to appoint the Planning Board to the City Council instead. Do you support this proposed change?

Kathy Born

(Did not answer yes or no). I would need more information on if and how a City Council approved Planning Board works in other cities before I could take a position on this. I fear it could lead to just the kind of back room political deals and trades we want to avoid.

Jim Braude

Yes. To increase accountability across the board, the appointment power of the City Council should be broadened and the charter changed to create a strong, democratically elected mayor.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson No comment (yes, the candidate actually said "no comment")

Henrietta Davis

No. I support the Plan E system.

Marjorie Decker

No. I do believe the appointing authority should be removed from the city manager. The planning and zoning boards are policy and political boards. I would explore giving this power to the mayor, possibly with the approval of the Council ....

Vince Dixon

Yes But New Model Charter is more neighborhood friendly, fifteen member Neighborhood District Elected Zoning Commissions; Citywide Planning Commission [only for] appeals and policy making.

Anthony Galluccio

(Did not answer yes or no). I am very hesitant about substantial changes to Plan E without a full discussion (i.e., strong Mayor or Manager). Also, my concern is restoring political influence to these appointments would be a step backward.

Dottie Giacobbe

Yes This proposed change will be very beneficial to the voters. This would allow the City Council to have some power. However, the City Council must draft guidelines to preserve the interest[s] of the voters.

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes ....I collected the majority...of the signatures for this petition.... We need a more democratic city government, which would put term limits on people on the boards, and have them appointed by City Council (our elected officials).... The unelected city manager controls too much of the political decisions in this city.

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

Undecided I am willing to study the petition further. However, I am fearful that direct appointments by the City Council to the Planning Board would ... simply politicize the process even further.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

Yes More people=more ideas=more debate=best results, especially when the City Manager is often removed from the people

Alan Nidle

Yes Council should select re zoning and planning boards.

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

Yes It is, at best, unclear what the current criteria is for being appointed to the planning board. There is no current ability to impact the planning board's direction. Council votes would provide more democracy.

Erik Snowberg

Yes But I believe it should take 7 Councillors to appoint a member of the planning board in order to protect the rights of minority parties.

Michael A. Sullivan

At present I am not sure. I have concerns about politicization of the Planning Board....

Tim Toomey

Yes Minimally, to avoid holdover status, the Council should have appointing power if the Manager fails to appoint within 3 months of a term completion.

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes Although I'm not sure you would get a different mix on the Board. ...having a new city manager would be a more effective tool. Also, the process could be more open. ... Publishing the resumes of all applicants on the web and including what ties they have to the city-good idea. ... we need a planning board that is attuned to the needs of the neighborhood not developers.

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes It's a start, but only a start. I envision an elected mayor with limited power to make appointments subject to approval by an expanded council with some district-based members.

Robert Winters

No Authority to grant Special Permits is given to the Planning Board by the City Council when the corresponding zoning ordinances are enacted. The degree to which this mechanism is used should be periodically reviewed.

7. Citywide review. Development has greatest impacts on immediate neighbors. Should there always be citywide review of large projects, of 50,000 square feet or more, as under IPOP, for traffic, housing and other impacts, or is acceptance by the immediate neighbors enough?

Kathy Born

Yes

Jim Braude

Yes All development must conform to a comprehensive, citywide plan, but neighborhoods directly affected must be stakeholders in the development process.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson No

Henrietta Davis

Yes/No Acceptance by the immediate neighbors is not enough. Citywide interests should also be considered, especially vis a vis housing.

Marjorie Decker

Large development projects affect the whole city and should be planned and viewed that way. I am interested in exploring a neighborhood adjunct group as a part of the Planning Board, [as in] St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Vince Dixon

Yes/No Tricky Wording. The fifteen member Neighborhood District Elected Zoning Commissions should have primary review, citywide review only if on appeal.

Anthony Galluccio

A permanent, predictable [and] reasonable review of large projects has serious merit.

Dottie Giacobbe

Yes ...The decision should be made by all parties concerned. It should be a citywide process that begins in the community.

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes 50,000 square feet is too high.... It is regrettable that only...abutters have standing for most ...projects, leaving the community at large out of important development decisions....

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

No I believe the residents in the surrounding neighborhood should have input since they are the people the project has the greatest impact on, however, I do not think there should always be a citywide review of all projects.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

Yes Again, we are losing our neighborhoods and they make Cambridge unique.

Alan Nidle

No There should be citywide reviews as well as the views of immediate neighbors. ... but the citywide review should not supercede the view of the immediate neighbors.

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

No. Generally, I feel that the nearest neighbors should be heard from first-but given the {Bulfinch?} Development I think broader city interests should be considered.

Erik Snowberg

Yes There should always be a citywide review to make sure that we are always looking at the "big picture" - the welfare of the city as a whole.

Michael A. Sullivan

Yes There always needs to be a combination of both immediate neighborhood and citywide review. With more prominence paid to the immediate neighbors. [I am concerned] that a couple of neighborhoods have ensured that ...affordable housing [is] prohibited in their backyards ..., while other neighborhoods continue to step up to the plate. ...

Tim Toomey

Yes I have consistently fought for the right of neighborhood residents to have meaningful input into development in their neighborhoods.

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes There should always be large project review and no, immediate neighbors[' approval is] not enough.

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes qualified - I favor city-wide review of large projects, but not at the expense of the immediate neighborhood. Only significant, demonstrated, community-wide interest[s] should be allowed to "override" neighborhood objections.

Robert Winters

A Master Planning effort for the City as a whole is overdue. However, a common threshold of 50,000 sq ft [areas] may not be the right approach. It should depend on proximity to public transit, though this criterion might be fairly integrated into a citywide review mechanism.

8. Urban Ring. State transportation planners are making long-term plans for a new "Urban Ring" transit line that would run through Cambridge from East Somerville to Boston University and beyond. A favored route is through Lechmere and Kendall Squares. This could leave the Tech Square-Portland Street area without improved transit access. Do you think the City should work for a route that serves this area that is getting so much development?

Kathy Born

(Did not answer yes or no). I support the concept of bringing better public transportation to Cambridge in the form of the Urban Ring. However, this ought to be paired with a reduction in the amount of parking allowed near the Urban Ring.

Jim Braude

Yes Development must include a mass transportation plan that is environmentally friendly, reduces traffic, and provides increased access. The Urban Ring is a good start.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson Yes

Henrietta Davis

Yes A Mass. Ave. Station could help.

Marjorie Decker

Yes. The city should work to improve access and transportation.

Vince Dixon

Yes There should be a new Area Four Red Line station, at the corner of Main Street and Portland Street. The identity must be Area Four.

Anthony Galluccio

Yes

Dottie Giacobbe

Yes The City should provide a comprehensive plan for transportation to service this up and coming area....Transportation is key.

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

Yes ...Better transit would reduce vehicle trips and reduce ...congestion in neighboring residential areas.... We need more neighborhood input... not a state-imposed solution....

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

Yes This area of Cambridge has long been under served by public transportation.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

Yes Tech Sq. - Portland St. areas are just as important to the Urban Ring.

Alan Nidle

Yes

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

Yes. This is an excellent notion. The Urban Ring should include both Tech Square and Kendall Square.

Erik Snowberg

This is not a simple YES/NO question. The city should be involved with the Urban Ring in order to make known its opinion of the various potential alignments. The Urban Ring could greatly benefit Cambridge if it is designed and executed properly.

Michael A. Sullivan

Yes Public transit should be located where it is needed most. I believe that we should meet with the MBTA to ensure ...additional ...MBTA access....

Tim Toomey

Yes Mass transit should not be only for the benefit of the non-resident workers in large developments.

Katherine Triantafillou

Yes.

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Yes But not to serve this "development," but to genuinely serve the neighborhood! Area 4 and East Cambridge should have an important role in this discussion and any future planning process.

Robert Winters

Yes I ...support this new transit line. My preference [is] for an alignment that connected with Union Square, Somerville and the proposed Green Line extension to Medford.....

9. Please state your view of how, if at all, the Cityís policies on growth and development should be changed.

Kathy Born

I suggest a simple 3 step process to change our growth policy:
1. Decide how many residents, how many cars, and how many jobs Cambridge can support.
2. Set goals for diversity of income and class for the population, and goals for types of jobs.
3. Permit only projects which advance these goals.

Jim Braude

Policies on growth and development should conform to a long-term, master plan, emphasizing sustainability. Without such planning, traffic nightmares, permanently lost open space and unnecessary, destructive conflict result. We need to bring all parties-neighborhood and elected leaders, construction unions and developers-to the table now, not mid-crisis when all affected are at each other's throats.

Jeffrey Chase

[no answer]
Charles O. Christenson Civically active as a member of the Small Property Owners Association. I am a principal in the Cambridge Redevelopment Corporation and have been active in the rental property business since 1975. If elected, I will commit myself to issues like increasing the stock of affordable housing, regular and consistent evaluation of teachers, improving the amount of open space both in quantity and quality, relieving traffic congestion and improving the police role in community relations.

Henrietta Davis

More emphasis on housing; encourage neighborhood conservation, such as [Vickers] petition; emphasis on generating open space.

Marjorie Decker

The city desperately needs citywide comprehensive planning that addresses many and more of the issues addressed in this questionnaire. I do believe a charrette-like forum is the way to go -- not until we address various issues related to growth, development, housing, open space simultaneously will we have meaningful comprehensive planning. 

Vince Dixon

By adopting part or all of The New Model Charter (write for a copy) city government will be leadership as well as government "of the people, by the people, and for the people..." as President Lincoln respected, and we should as well. The stronger my vote, the clearer this message.

Anthony Galluccio

We need to establish long-term predictable review procedures. Reactionary zoning is often not well thought out. We need to give serious attention to increasing the housing supply, building graduate housing, and fashioning zoning to meet our employment and service needs.

Dottie Giacobbe

Acceptable levels of further development must be set by limitations of infrastructure. It makes no sense to continue to congest functionally obsolete roadways because of the inability to deny inappropriate developments. Moratoriums (may be) necessary to afford us the opportunity to tackle these issues... City Council must hold city administrators accountable to this task or simply replace them ....

Robert Goodwin

[no answer]

David Hoicka

City Manager, CDD,...Planning Board have all forgotten they should be working for the citizens... instead of big developers...Downzone the city, more requirements for affordable housing and linkage payments, extend the IPOP, better traffic management. Zoning should include more explicit community benefit requirement for larger (over 10,000 sf) projects....

Bill Jones

[no answer]

David P. Maher

I feel very strongly that an evenhanded approach is necessary when dealing with development issues. The city needs a comprehensive development guideline update that clearly delineates the community's expectations of developers, building requirements, and size limitations. We need a proactive policy that better serves the people of Cambridge, not the reactionary stance that has become the norm in Cambridge.

Daejanna Wormwood Malone

City policies often favor the "well oiled", money backed developers and advocates - we have forgotten the quiet middle class whose time and money is scarce. Their ideas and comments are important and should be heard because in most cases they are the ones affected by the changes in this city.

Alan Nidle

he city should enact a temporary moratorium on new development while it hosts a symposium on the issue, at which neighborhood groups and citizens and developers (potentially) could engage in planning for the future.

Helder Sonny Peixoto

[no answer]

Kenneth Reeves

There should be much more proactive/visioning work on how we want the city to develop. We need much better information on traffic impact and whether or not current congestion can be scientifically eased. Comprehensive zoning should be adopted at least every 5 years and should be reviewed at 3 year intervals. 

Erik Snowberg

Affordable housing, and creating jobs for low- and middle-income residents, should be the city's highest priorities when setting development policies. The city should also be looking at the environmental impacts and energy efficiency of proposed developments.

Michael A. Sullivan

A plan is needed which considers individual neighborhoods and citywide needs [and maintains diversity]. We must not simply attract development for the sake of touting low vacancy rates. Cambridge should be attracting and retaining responsible, reasonable and rational entities that are good neighbors and corporate citizens....

Tim Toomey

Well financed and connected developers will always win, despite strong opposition of neighborhood residents (e.g., Von Grossman, Vendetti), because developers have the total support of the current City Administration. This will only change with a new City Manager. Claiming to support neighborhood concerns on development while supporting the current City Manager is hypocritical.

Katherine Triantafillou

...We need a real plan on what the city should look like. We should have a simpler zoning ordinance that is easily readable and consistent. I'd like a system like Santa Monica-{curbs?} on development by districts which would enable staff to study carefully the impact of proposed development. Generally, less large developments and more affordable housing. More transportation planning that is pedestrian and bike friendly. We need to keep Cambridge's human scale!

David Trumbull

[no answer]

James Williamson

Crackdown on any and all major new commercial real estate "development" in the center city for at least a year! ... Promote truly affordable housing wherever possible within this framework (push the universities to house their students!) Identify and acquire suitable land for open space. Put the people in charge of the process ...

Robert Winters

The Planning Board, with Council support, must refocus its efforts toward planning and away from reacting to petitions. Residential construction should be given incentives in Cambridge and elsewhere in the metropolitan area in order to address the acute housing shortage that is dramatically affecting the ability to affordably rent or purchase a home.

Word limits: Questions 1-8, 25 words; Question 9, 50 words.


Contact the Alewife Study Group, North Cambridge Massachusetts, by email at information@alewife.org