Are Cambridge politics dead? It's a fair question.
A politically progressive city, we're awash in money. I'm sure not every human service non-profit in the city feels that way, but by any reasonable standard, it's true. We spend more than almost every other community in the Commonwealth on the education of our kids. We're about to go through another phase of Community Preservation Act (CPA) allocations, which will pour more state money into affordable housing, open space and historic preservation (over $1 million for open space alone). The city just partnered with the Kendall Foundation to spend $70 million on building energy efficiency upgrades, a first for any city in the nation. The police department (along with the new commissioner Robert Hass) are planning the new police headquarters which promises to be a state of the art facility. Meanwhile, the new main library is finally under construction which undoubtedly will cost well in excess of the $66 million already approved by the City Council. Dollars are not what we lack.
But what has this money bought us? Does all this money mean that we really haven't got a reason to care about what the local elected bodies are doing? Are we so full of plenty that all "issues" fade to a background gray? Have our politics diminished as our comfort has increased?
It seems that way. Sure, there is the burning issue of off-leash dogs at Fresh Pond. As a dog owner (and a dog walker at Fresh Pond), and as someone who in a separate capacity cares about water and habitat resources in the city, I have a double interest in this question. But when Tim Toomey remarks that the dog medallion proposal turned out more people to a Council meeting than he could remember in quite some time, it makes you wonder. In contrast, it's budget season again. Were you aware that Bob Healy wants to spend $412 million on city operations for this upcoming fiscal year? And, in case you were wondering, he justifies the almost $15 million increase over the FY07 budget by stating that it "is largely attributable to a 3.0% cost of salary increase for employees, a 12.7% increase in employee health insurance, a 4.0% increase in employee pension costs, a 4.5% combined increase in Massachusetts Water Resource Authority and State (Cherry Sheet) assessments, a property-tax supported debt service increase of 15.1% and energy increases of 14.7%." It's nice to know where our money is going.
It’s a lot of money to spend regardless, and even more so in an election season. Yet, contrary to a time-honored city tradition, challengers haven't been crawling out of the wood-work yet (full disclosure: I am considering another run at the Council), and it looks as if the current nine Councillors can walk back into their seats. Usually, there is a flowering of opposition from across the spectrum, but not this year despite an unambiguous frustration on the part of many Cambridge residents about the politics of the city government as a whole and of the Council in particular. Meanwhile, the Cambridge Chronicle (my editor refers to it as the Cambridge Comical, but I won't play along with that) has been hammering away at Mayor Ken Reeves for quite some time now about his expenditures, credit card use and travel.
Still, the political "traction" of all this is negligible. Few seem to care. Even fewer vote. Have we thrown in the proverbial towel?
That can't be the case. Just ask any parent.
The twin (and related) phenomena of high housing costs and declining school enrollment are a vexing problem that have deep implications for the future of this city. That is a familiar story. Undoing that cycle is very difficult, but continuing to work on the performance of the schools is the more important of the two, since it is the one more directly in the control of city officials. Parents know this, and they want an unambiguous vote of support from all city officials for the public schools in this city.
The schools, it should be said, have much to be proud of, including the many excellent employees who teach and administer in them, and the wonderful children who populate classrooms throughout the district. CPS’s healthy food program was recently praised on the national CBS Evening News. Top administrators make claims of real improvement, especially at Rindge and Latin. Yet the pattern of declining enrollment and the "opt out" by many parents starting around the 4th grade continues to eat away at middle class participation in this crucial civic institution. Parents’ concerns are palpable and deeply and widely felt.
There are two places where the Council and the schools intersect. They are: budget review time (fyi, the schools have asked for $127.7 million for FY08, a 1.86% increase over this year’s budget), and the mayor (who serves as the chair of the School Committee).
Which brings me to the mayor. I think it’s safe to say that the Chronicle’s drumbeat isn’t going to change many minds about him. For Cambridge voters who’ve sat through at least one election, Ken Reeves is a known entity. But while we’re so focused on the mayor, we ought to take some time to think about underlying structural issues related to the mayoralty, the Council and the manager. Most often, the role of mayor is described as the city’s Promoter-in-Chief. At the same time, the city manager gets pilloried for Machiavellian control over daily workings within the system. This description seems too convenient and easy off the tongue. There’s more to be said about all of this, which leads me to my conclusion: Politics isn’t dead in Cambridge. There’s plenty to talk about. It’s just so exhausting and time-consuming to spend all that money.
