Cambridge elections, 2013
tl;dr: I'm voting for Leland Cheung. And some other people, but I can't say who for sure yet because it's complicated.
(By now I've decided; see my updated post.)
Elections are this Tuesday in Cambridge, and this year is going to have a very interesting city council election. There are two open seats, and there are an unprecedented 25 candidates hoping to claim them. (Well, okay, seven of them are hoping/expecting to keep the seats they already have, but you know what I mean.) The largest example of proportional representation in the US (there's not much competition for that title, unfortunately) is even larger this year.
There are interest groups aligning behind various sets of candidates. There is a set of three challengers who have coordinated their campaigns, calling themselves the "Clean Slate", despite the fact that they appear to have nothing in common.
There's been a citizen petition called Net Zero which has gotten everyone's attention. It would create a zoning law requiring that all new developments in Cambridge produce no net emissions of greenhouse gases. It seems to be a deliberately divisive proposal that puts advocates for the environment and for affordable housing directly at odds with each other.
For the clearest explanation that is not "the other side are monsters who want to destroy Cambridge or possibly the entire planet", I recommend reading Janneke House's position.
I am, for once, having a lot of trouble figuring out who to vote for. I think I'll defer somewhat to A Better Cambridge, an interest group who has actually been sorting out the issues, and grading the candidates on criteria that I believe I mostly agree with. Here are their results. I wish I had more details about how they turned their criteria into up or down ratings, given that I doubt any of the candidates would claim to be opposed to things like "open and constructive community engagement".
One person I know I'm voting for is Leland Cheung. This is the third election in which I've supported him, and I'm happy to see that he got a perfect score on the A Better Cambridge rubric.
Right now he's pushing for a change in zoning that lets us have more mixed-use retail and residential buildings around subway stops, instead of, say, enormous banks that serve as a palatial abode for like three ATMs. This sounds like a win for nearly everyone, and it helps the environment by making public transit more effective. (Notice that this is kind of in opposition to Net Zero, because it requires making re-zoning easier, not harder.) He's got credibility on this kind of thing because he pushed to expand Hubway from Boston into Cambridge. Apparently he also set up a curbside composting thing that starts next spring.
I am dubious of Marc McGovern, even though he also got a perfect score. If his positions are so great, why is his platform page so dull and non-committal?
I've been telling people I intend to vote for Nadeem Mazen. My reasoning was this: he's the founder of danger!awesome, that place where you rent lasers, and I appreciate someone who says "You know what Central Square needs? Lasers." and starts a business to make it happen. This is a guy who seems to be heavily involved in his community, and it makes me think that his plans for the rest of Cambridge may be similarly awesome (and, perhaps, favorable to interesting startups).
However, A Better Cambridge would have me believe that he's opposed to Leland Cheung on nearly every issue. But I can hardly see any evidence of this in their campaigns. They both sound like people I want to vote for. Why can't I find out what the big wedge is between them?
Mazen is also part of the "Clean Slate", with Dennis Carlone and Janneke House, and I don't know if that means anything. Janneke House seems like someone I would conflict with in personality if I had to meet her, but again, I appreciate her ability to explain what the hell is the deal with Net Zero. She might move up several places on my ballot just for that. Dennis Carlone, on the other hand, manages to lower my opinion of him with every piece of his campaign literature I see. If Mazen, House, and Carlone have anything actually in common with their campaigns, I'd like to know what it is.
I know that I can safely rank Leland Cheung, Minka vanBeuzekom, and Sam Seidel high on my ballot. But the first two of them are incumbents, and Sam Seidel has also been on the council before, he just happened to lose in '11. What I don't know yet is how to rank the newcomers.
If you want to try to decide for yourself, most candidates have made their platforms available on vote.cambridgecivic.com.
Summary of how Cambridge works
Cambridge has an interesting form of government that it calls "Plan E", intended to prevent party politics and corruption. The people elect nine members of the City Council, using the Single Transferable Vote method, where you rank candidates in preference order and the winners are intended to proportionally represent the voters' preferences. The councillors elect a mayor from among themselves, dooming the winner to two years of shaking hands and posing for photos and doing nothing important. They also appoint a City Manager, who actually runs the city, and has the commendable qualification of not being a politician.
For its high quality of life and financial stability, Cambridge considers itself a "model city" for other cities to emulate, so of course you will find no other city in the world that is run similarly to Cambridge.
(By now I've decided; see my updated post.)
Elections are this Tuesday in Cambridge, and this year is going to have a very interesting city council election. There are two open seats, and there are an unprecedented 25 candidates hoping to claim them. (Well, okay, seven of them are hoping/expecting to keep the seats they already have, but you know what I mean.) The largest example of proportional representation in the US (there's not much competition for that title, unfortunately) is even larger this year.
There are interest groups aligning behind various sets of candidates. There is a set of three challengers who have coordinated their campaigns, calling themselves the "Clean Slate", despite the fact that they appear to have nothing in common.
There's been a citizen petition called Net Zero which has gotten everyone's attention. It would create a zoning law requiring that all new developments in Cambridge produce no net emissions of greenhouse gases. It seems to be a deliberately divisive proposal that puts advocates for the environment and for affordable housing directly at odds with each other.
For the clearest explanation that is not "the other side are monsters who want to destroy Cambridge or possibly the entire planet", I recommend reading Janneke House's position.
I am, for once, having a lot of trouble figuring out who to vote for. I think I'll defer somewhat to A Better Cambridge, an interest group who has actually been sorting out the issues, and grading the candidates on criteria that I believe I mostly agree with. Here are their results. I wish I had more details about how they turned their criteria into up or down ratings, given that I doubt any of the candidates would claim to be opposed to things like "open and constructive community engagement".
One person I know I'm voting for is Leland Cheung. This is the third election in which I've supported him, and I'm happy to see that he got a perfect score on the A Better Cambridge rubric.
Right now he's pushing for a change in zoning that lets us have more mixed-use retail and residential buildings around subway stops, instead of, say, enormous banks that serve as a palatial abode for like three ATMs. This sounds like a win for nearly everyone, and it helps the environment by making public transit more effective. (Notice that this is kind of in opposition to Net Zero, because it requires making re-zoning easier, not harder.) He's got credibility on this kind of thing because he pushed to expand Hubway from Boston into Cambridge. Apparently he also set up a curbside composting thing that starts next spring.
I am dubious of Marc McGovern, even though he also got a perfect score. If his positions are so great, why is his platform page so dull and non-committal?
I've been telling people I intend to vote for Nadeem Mazen. My reasoning was this: he's the founder of danger!awesome, that place where you rent lasers, and I appreciate someone who says "You know what Central Square needs? Lasers." and starts a business to make it happen. This is a guy who seems to be heavily involved in his community, and it makes me think that his plans for the rest of Cambridge may be similarly awesome (and, perhaps, favorable to interesting startups).
However, A Better Cambridge would have me believe that he's opposed to Leland Cheung on nearly every issue. But I can hardly see any evidence of this in their campaigns. They both sound like people I want to vote for. Why can't I find out what the big wedge is between them?
Mazen is also part of the "Clean Slate", with Dennis Carlone and Janneke House, and I don't know if that means anything. Janneke House seems like someone I would conflict with in personality if I had to meet her, but again, I appreciate her ability to explain what the hell is the deal with Net Zero. She might move up several places on my ballot just for that. Dennis Carlone, on the other hand, manages to lower my opinion of him with every piece of his campaign literature I see. If Mazen, House, and Carlone have anything actually in common with their campaigns, I'd like to know what it is.
I know that I can safely rank Leland Cheung, Minka vanBeuzekom, and Sam Seidel high on my ballot. But the first two of them are incumbents, and Sam Seidel has also been on the council before, he just happened to lose in '11. What I don't know yet is how to rank the newcomers.
If you want to try to decide for yourself, most candidates have made their platforms available on vote.cambridgecivic.com.
Summary of how Cambridge works
Cambridge has an interesting form of government that it calls "Plan E", intended to prevent party politics and corruption. The people elect nine members of the City Council, using the Single Transferable Vote method, where you rank candidates in preference order and the winners are intended to proportionally represent the voters' preferences. The councillors elect a mayor from among themselves, dooming the winner to two years of shaking hands and posing for photos and doing nothing important. They also appoint a City Manager, who actually runs the city, and has the commendable qualification of not being a politician.
For its high quality of life and financial stability, Cambridge considers itself a "model city" for other cities to emulate, so of course you will find no other city in the world that is run similarly to Cambridge.