My overly-complete Cambridge City Council rankings
It's time again for me to evaluate all the City Council candidates in unnecessary detail! I've got a ranked vote and I intend to use it to its fullest extent, which means I'm determining how to rank all 25 of the candidates. (The odds that this matters are minuscule, of course.) I'm pretty sure of the top five and the bottom five, but I will admit to a great deal of uncertainty about the fifteen in between.
You can get more information about the candidates from their platform pages on the Cambridge Civic Journal, this Cambridge Chronicle editorial, the advocacy group A Better Cambridge, and the Harvard Democrats.
#1. Leland Cheung
Leland has been a voice for change and also a voice of reason in his two terms in the Council so far. He has a positive, pragmatic vision for how to re-zone Cambridge in a way that supports the growing population, protects the environment, encourages walking and public transit, and supports local businesses and startups. The core of his proposal is to allow high-density, tall, mixed-use buildings around subway stops.
To be clear, there are multiple candidates with a vision like that, but when you ask people who are paying close attention to the race -- such as Mervan Osborne, a School Committee candidate who I talked to tonight -- they will refer to it as Cheung's vision in particular. A Better Cambridge (ABC), an advocacy group that I mostly agree with, gives him a perfect score.
Leland Cheung is very clear about the fact that Cambridge needs to expand, and the only direction it can expand is up. This has a group called the Cambridge Residents' Alliance metaphorically shitting bricks, and metaphorically carving the words "not in my back yard" into each brick, and metaphorically throwing the bricks they have just shat and carved. But they have no reasonable alternative. Leland is right.
#2. Sam Seidel
Sam Seidel is an experienced urban planner who has been on the city council before. He managed to achieve a high rating from ABC despite that he supported the Net Zero petition. This indicates to me that they must really like the rest of his platform.
Net Zero proposed a bad implementation of a good goal. It's clearly not going to happen in the form it was proposed, so it doesn't need to be the huge wedge issue that some are making it out to be. Sam Seidel's positions indicate to me that he wants to support Net Zero on principle, and if it can be turned into something feasible, he will be there to support it.
When we last saw Sam Seidel on the council, he was working on a plan to redevelop the area of Mass Ave between Harvard and Porter. I wonder if he stepped on a few toes in the process and that's what made him lose votes, but it sounded like a good project to me, because that area is an ugly waste of space that manages to be neither walkable nor drivable. It's clear that we can do better. Harvard Square is great. Porter Square is great. What the hell happened between them? I hope Seidel gets to return to this project.
#3. Janneke House
Janneke House is a new candidate. I found her Web page to be the first thing that seriously, clearly explained to me what was going on with Net Zero. Her positions are nuanced, and that's probably a good thing, although in some cases it leaves me unsure what she stands for. She has a reasonably high score from ABC. Tom Stohlman, an unsuccessful candidate who I supported in the last election, has been campaigning for her.
House ran as part of the "Clean Slate coalition", a slate of three candidates who have basically nothing in common. She is now wisely distancing herself from coalition-mate Dennis Carlone, who has been making robo-calls that spew nonsense comparing rezoning to Pearl Harbor.
#4. Minka vanBeuzekom
Minka has done a good job in her one term on the council so far. I appreciate her proposals for specific improvements, including creating a bike path alongside the infrequently-used Grand Junction railroad track. ABC believes that she won't support raising the building height limit, which leaves her out of a key part of the Cheung plan. However, from what I've seen so far, I trust her to raise her concerns in a reasonable way. She has an endorsement from the Sierra Club.
Minka is heavily involved in town-gown relations and aims to maintain a careful balance. I appreciate that she looks critically at MIT's expansion plans without going so far as to claim that MIT is an evil tentacle monster that's eating Cambridge. (Some other candidates basically do.) For example, as MIT expands its labs, she points out that she appreciates the additional jobs it brings, but is concerned that it's decreasing the available living space. She's pushing MIT to build more graduate housing to compensate.
#5. Jefferson Smith
Jefferson Smith is a new candidate. He worked in the Patrick administration, reforming the Department of Transportation to create cost savings and environmental improvements and other things that sound nice. He wrote an editorial advocating universal child care. He has an endorsement from the Sierra Club, and he seems so mild-mannered that he should be a superhero's alter ego.
Those are my top five votes, and the ones likely to matter. You might want to stop there, or you might want to read on, and skip to the bottom if you just want to get to the comic relief candidates.
#6. Marc McGovern
He managed to write a really boring and uninformative platform for Cambridge Civic Journal, but ABC gives him a perfect score along with Leland Cheung, and the Cambridge Chronicle also gives him an endorsement. I can't see anything wrong with him, so that's enough for my #6 vote.
#7. Dennis Benzan
A Cambridge native who focuses on equality, and particularly on creating opportunities for better STEM education in Cambridge public schools. He also has an endorsement from the Cambridge Chronicle.
#8. Tim Toomey
Just when I thought Toomey had nothing new to propose after two decades on the council, he's joining Minka in support of the community path along the Grand Junction Railroad. Instead of Net Zero, he focuses on our existing incentives for LEED certification. Sounds reasonable to me.
#9. Denise Simmons
I've had no problem with her before, I continue to have no problem with her, and ABC gives her a high score. The Chronicle gives her tepid approval, saying that she often takes a stand on issues too late for them to matter. The Chronicle also thinks her name is "Dennis".
#10. Kenneth Reeves
His platform is like a less interesting version of Dennis Benzan's. He proposes creating an Office of College Success, to ensure that Cambridge public school students are not abandoned the moment they graduate from high school. The sentiment sounds good, but I'm not sure what creating an "Office" actually accomplishes.
#11. Nadeem Mazen
I was inherently inclined to support Mazen because he created a unique business in Central Square (danger!awesome). He has a personal mission of teaching people to do awesome stuff. However, I'm now concerned that his positions on issues besides "lifelong learning", "local startups", and "pew pew lasers" are poorly thought out, and ABC read between the lines of his platform and gave him a very low score. He has apparently already conflicted with candidates I support.
He has explicitly not distanced himself from Dennis Carlone, his nasty coalition-mate in the Clean Slate. I'm also confused about his pledge to use part of his salary to hire "neighborhood advocates". How do you choose neighborhood advocates? Are they just people Mazen already likes? Is this cronyism on a really small scale?
He sounds like a cool person to meet. But I can't support him very strongly as a politician. I'm sure he's not trying to be a politician, but that's perhaps part of the problem.
#12. Luis Vasquez
#13. James Lee
#14. Mushtaque Mirza
They seem okay.
#15. Lesley Phillips
Everything I have read about her is mildly positive. This statement is nearly vacuously true. She doesn't seem to be campaigning very hard.
#16. Craig Kelley
Eh.
#17. Kristen von Hoffmann
I said I wasn't going to make Net Zero a big issue, but if advocacy for Net Zero in its original form is the centerpiece of your campaign, that doesn't leave much for me to work with.
#18. David Maher
His platform takes boringness to a shocking extreme.
#19. Elie Yarden
This guy rambles. I suppose he's allowed to because he's 90.
#20. Ron Peden
Who? He's on the ballot, but I don't think he's actually running in any real sense.
#21. Gregg Moree
In a way, I'm so glad he's still running. I will just quote the Harvard Democrats:
"Having run many times in past elections, Gregg has many strong views on Cambridge politics, including introducing hydroponic greenhouses and supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
#22. James Williamson
Imagine a world where every biotech company is evil, where MIT and Harvard are infections that need to be contained, and where additional living space is "unnecessary" because we just need to get those nefarious grad students out of the way.
Have no fear, James Williamson is here. He'll save the city from this highly-educated nightmare and create a shining new era where everyone in Cambridge can be as unemployed as he is.
#23. Gary Mello
He hates, hates, hates Plan E government, and wants to take it down from the inside if we would only let him.
#24. Logan Leslie
Right-wing Harvard douchebag. He supports "affordable housing", which he has redefined to mean "housing at the price the unregulated free market will bear", because the Invisible Hand will provide and if you can't afford that you're a lazy degenerate.
#25. Dennis Carlone
Dennis Carlone is everything wrong with politics. He's making robo-calls comparing the Central Square/Kendall Square planning committee to "Pearl Harbor". His flyers want you to be properly afraid of MIT, where "MIT" is written in a font usually reserved for advertising Halloween parties. He is the single chosen candidate of the Cambridge Residents Alliance, an organization devoted to NIMBY. His supporters have fought against the notion of using public transit more effectively by distributing photos of Tokyo subways at rush hour.
You can get more information about the candidates from their platform pages on the Cambridge Civic Journal, this Cambridge Chronicle editorial, the advocacy group A Better Cambridge, and the Harvard Democrats.
#1. Leland Cheung
Leland has been a voice for change and also a voice of reason in his two terms in the Council so far. He has a positive, pragmatic vision for how to re-zone Cambridge in a way that supports the growing population, protects the environment, encourages walking and public transit, and supports local businesses and startups. The core of his proposal is to allow high-density, tall, mixed-use buildings around subway stops.
To be clear, there are multiple candidates with a vision like that, but when you ask people who are paying close attention to the race -- such as Mervan Osborne, a School Committee candidate who I talked to tonight -- they will refer to it as Cheung's vision in particular. A Better Cambridge (ABC), an advocacy group that I mostly agree with, gives him a perfect score.
Leland Cheung is very clear about the fact that Cambridge needs to expand, and the only direction it can expand is up. This has a group called the Cambridge Residents' Alliance metaphorically shitting bricks, and metaphorically carving the words "not in my back yard" into each brick, and metaphorically throwing the bricks they have just shat and carved. But they have no reasonable alternative. Leland is right.
#2. Sam Seidel
Sam Seidel is an experienced urban planner who has been on the city council before. He managed to achieve a high rating from ABC despite that he supported the Net Zero petition. This indicates to me that they must really like the rest of his platform.
Net Zero proposed a bad implementation of a good goal. It's clearly not going to happen in the form it was proposed, so it doesn't need to be the huge wedge issue that some are making it out to be. Sam Seidel's positions indicate to me that he wants to support Net Zero on principle, and if it can be turned into something feasible, he will be there to support it.
When we last saw Sam Seidel on the council, he was working on a plan to redevelop the area of Mass Ave between Harvard and Porter. I wonder if he stepped on a few toes in the process and that's what made him lose votes, but it sounded like a good project to me, because that area is an ugly waste of space that manages to be neither walkable nor drivable. It's clear that we can do better. Harvard Square is great. Porter Square is great. What the hell happened between them? I hope Seidel gets to return to this project.
#3. Janneke House
Janneke House is a new candidate. I found her Web page to be the first thing that seriously, clearly explained to me what was going on with Net Zero. Her positions are nuanced, and that's probably a good thing, although in some cases it leaves me unsure what she stands for. She has a reasonably high score from ABC. Tom Stohlman, an unsuccessful candidate who I supported in the last election, has been campaigning for her.
House ran as part of the "Clean Slate coalition", a slate of three candidates who have basically nothing in common. She is now wisely distancing herself from coalition-mate Dennis Carlone, who has been making robo-calls that spew nonsense comparing rezoning to Pearl Harbor.
#4. Minka vanBeuzekom
Minka has done a good job in her one term on the council so far. I appreciate her proposals for specific improvements, including creating a bike path alongside the infrequently-used Grand Junction railroad track. ABC believes that she won't support raising the building height limit, which leaves her out of a key part of the Cheung plan. However, from what I've seen so far, I trust her to raise her concerns in a reasonable way. She has an endorsement from the Sierra Club.
Minka is heavily involved in town-gown relations and aims to maintain a careful balance. I appreciate that she looks critically at MIT's expansion plans without going so far as to claim that MIT is an evil tentacle monster that's eating Cambridge. (Some other candidates basically do.) For example, as MIT expands its labs, she points out that she appreciates the additional jobs it brings, but is concerned that it's decreasing the available living space. She's pushing MIT to build more graduate housing to compensate.
#5. Jefferson Smith
Jefferson Smith is a new candidate. He worked in the Patrick administration, reforming the Department of Transportation to create cost savings and environmental improvements and other things that sound nice. He wrote an editorial advocating universal child care. He has an endorsement from the Sierra Club, and he seems so mild-mannered that he should be a superhero's alter ego.
Those are my top five votes, and the ones likely to matter. You might want to stop there, or you might want to read on, and skip to the bottom if you just want to get to the comic relief candidates.
#6. Marc McGovern
He managed to write a really boring and uninformative platform for Cambridge Civic Journal, but ABC gives him a perfect score along with Leland Cheung, and the Cambridge Chronicle also gives him an endorsement. I can't see anything wrong with him, so that's enough for my #6 vote.
#7. Dennis Benzan
A Cambridge native who focuses on equality, and particularly on creating opportunities for better STEM education in Cambridge public schools. He also has an endorsement from the Cambridge Chronicle.
#8. Tim Toomey
Just when I thought Toomey had nothing new to propose after two decades on the council, he's joining Minka in support of the community path along the Grand Junction Railroad. Instead of Net Zero, he focuses on our existing incentives for LEED certification. Sounds reasonable to me.
#9. Denise Simmons
I've had no problem with her before, I continue to have no problem with her, and ABC gives her a high score. The Chronicle gives her tepid approval, saying that she often takes a stand on issues too late for them to matter. The Chronicle also thinks her name is "Dennis".
#10. Kenneth Reeves
His platform is like a less interesting version of Dennis Benzan's. He proposes creating an Office of College Success, to ensure that Cambridge public school students are not abandoned the moment they graduate from high school. The sentiment sounds good, but I'm not sure what creating an "Office" actually accomplishes.
#11. Nadeem Mazen
I was inherently inclined to support Mazen because he created a unique business in Central Square (danger!awesome). He has a personal mission of teaching people to do awesome stuff. However, I'm now concerned that his positions on issues besides "lifelong learning", "local startups", and "pew pew lasers" are poorly thought out, and ABC read between the lines of his platform and gave him a very low score. He has apparently already conflicted with candidates I support.
He has explicitly not distanced himself from Dennis Carlone, his nasty coalition-mate in the Clean Slate. I'm also confused about his pledge to use part of his salary to hire "neighborhood advocates". How do you choose neighborhood advocates? Are they just people Mazen already likes? Is this cronyism on a really small scale?
He sounds like a cool person to meet. But I can't support him very strongly as a politician. I'm sure he's not trying to be a politician, but that's perhaps part of the problem.
#12. Luis Vasquez
#13. James Lee
#14. Mushtaque Mirza
They seem okay.
#15. Lesley Phillips
Everything I have read about her is mildly positive. This statement is nearly vacuously true. She doesn't seem to be campaigning very hard.
#16. Craig Kelley
Eh.
#17. Kristen von Hoffmann
I said I wasn't going to make Net Zero a big issue, but if advocacy for Net Zero in its original form is the centerpiece of your campaign, that doesn't leave much for me to work with.
#18. David Maher
His platform takes boringness to a shocking extreme.
#19. Elie Yarden
This guy rambles. I suppose he's allowed to because he's 90.
#20. Ron Peden
Who? He's on the ballot, but I don't think he's actually running in any real sense.
#21. Gregg Moree
In a way, I'm so glad he's still running. I will just quote the Harvard Democrats:
"Having run many times in past elections, Gregg has many strong views on Cambridge politics, including introducing hydroponic greenhouses and supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
#22. James Williamson
Imagine a world where every biotech company is evil, where MIT and Harvard are infections that need to be contained, and where additional living space is "unnecessary" because we just need to get those nefarious grad students out of the way.
Have no fear, James Williamson is here. He'll save the city from this highly-educated nightmare and create a shining new era where everyone in Cambridge can be as unemployed as he is.
#23. Gary Mello
He hates, hates, hates Plan E government, and wants to take it down from the inside if we would only let him.
#24. Logan Leslie
Right-wing Harvard douchebag. He supports "affordable housing", which he has redefined to mean "housing at the price the unregulated free market will bear", because the Invisible Hand will provide and if you can't afford that you're a lazy degenerate.
#25. Dennis Carlone
Dennis Carlone is everything wrong with politics. He's making robo-calls comparing the Central Square/Kendall Square planning committee to "Pearl Harbor". His flyers want you to be properly afraid of MIT, where "MIT" is written in a font usually reserved for advertising Halloween parties. He is the single chosen candidate of the Cambridge Residents Alliance, an organization devoted to NIMBY. His supporters have fought against the notion of using public transit more effectively by distributing photos of Tokyo subways at rush hour.