I am officially on the ballot for the Cambridge city council election on Nov. 3rd. Thank you to all who signed my nomination papers. To date 26 candidates have pulled papers, making the 2015 election potentially another record-setting field. Such a large field can be confusing to voters, so I will have to work twice as hard to raise awareness of what sets me apart and of the issues at stake.
Running a grassroots campaign puts me at a disadvantage when several of the incumbents are racking up thousands in donations from big real estate developers and their associates.
One incumbent reported receiving $5,000 this month from five individuals affiliated with Longfellow Real Estate Partners. The same councillor just received a $1,000 donation from an affiliate of the medical marijuana dispensary whose proposed location on Fawcett St the Council recently supported through a policy order co-sponsored by the same incumbent. None of these deep-pocketed donors actually lives in Cambridge, but all have or may soon have business before the council. Donations from special interests are not illegal, but they give the appearance of influence and the impression that the deck is stacked against the average resident.
Please consider making a donation to my campaign and help elect a councillor who will stand up for the interests of fellow residents over those of special interests. From now through the end of July, all donations of $25 or more will bring you a Devereux for Council tote bag. A supporter sent me this photo of her tote bag at the Cape Cod National Seashore. If you’re going to the beach this summer, take “me” along!
On Tuesday evening I attended back-to-back hearings on housing and development issues where my views differ from the majority of the Council’s. First, the Ordinance Committee voted to recommend increasing the linkage fee on commercial development to $12 per square foot despite the nexus study’s conclusion that the amount is only half of what will be needed to fund the demand for affordable workforce housing generated by anticipated new office development. The councillors congratulating themselves for voting a significant increase aren’t mentioning that the council neglected to raise the rate for 13 years during one of the biggest commercial building booms in the city’s history, depriving the Affordable Housing Trust of about $4 million in lost revenue. The idea that an even more significant increase in this one-time fee would send commercial developers running for the hills strikes me as unlikely.
The Volpe zoning discussion, which the Planning Board continued on Tuesday after its recent joint session with the Council, is another instance where I think our leaders should take a stronger stand than they have seemed inclined to so far. And now that the federal government’s RFQ has been released with a price tag of up to $500 million (even higher than the $300-400 million that the prior zoning scenarios were based on), some may use the higher projected cost to justify even greater increases in density and height and a further reduction in open space. As Steve Cohen of the Planning Board asked, why does the city feel it must re-zone the Volpe parcel to generate the greatest value for the federal government and a private developer? And without public access to their financial pro-formas, how can anyone know whether the city is bargaining hard enough for community benefits? Listening to both hearings that evening I wondered why it often feels as if a community-driven planning vision is a lower priority than the developer’s bottom line.
On Sunday afternoon I attended the third in a monthly series of “Race Matters” discussions at the YWCA. A diverse group of about 30 of us candidly shared our feelings about white privilege and internalized oppression. The next discussion will be on Sunday, August 16 at 3 pm at the YWCA.
No Comments