The August hearing on the Community Preservation Act funding -- money that pays for many good projects in this city -- was a reminder that the public process leaves a lot to be desired in this city. The CPA, a state program that allows municipalities to get state matching funds on a local property tax surcharge, has been very generous to the City of Cambridge. No doubt about that. The city has had $47 million to spend since 2002 on the three main areas that benefit from the Act: affordable housing; historic preservation and open space. Of these, the biggest recipient has been by far affordable housing, getting close to $38 million over the same period.
While it's hard to argue with cash on hand for programs the city desperately needs, a good turnout in the Sullivan Chamber at City Hall in the waning days of August indicated that plenty of people wanted their voices heard before a final decision was taken.
As it turns out, many who showed up that night were there to protect the 80/10/10 split of the CPA funding. That's 80 percent for housing, 10 percent for historic preservation and 10 percent for open space. While the idea of local activism over an issue might have brought some nostalgia to those who remember when majorities actually mattered, this observer never felt there was much doubt as to the outcome of the recommendations put forward by the CPA committee. The spoils would be divvied up just as they had in past years, and the "public input" part of the program would at least give the public their opportunity to vent.
When I got up to speak, I brought up just this issue -- the process should be more open. It is impossible to come to a hearing, be handed a booklet prepared by the city, examine it's contents and develop an informed opinion about proposals you haven't had time to consider. It's public money that's being spent. It deserves to have some public input.
I feel that way particularly in relation to open space, an area I have taken an interest in and had concerns about for some time. Discussion of the open space proposals should have been broadened -- to clear up some of the confusion, and to develop a constituency -- a constituency that would have included the residents of East Cambridge, who've been clamoring for more open space for quite some time now. Had the process been more open, their concerns could have been addressed prior to the hearing. As it was, they could only expression their frustration.
Nevertheless, they came up with an interesting proposal. Having long felt overrun by the mammoth new residential development happening in the city, East Cambridge activists went against prevailing wisdom and asked that the 80/10/10 split not be held forever inviolable. Their thinking was simple, but intriguing. Vary the percentages on some years so that open space gets a little bit more than its minimum ten percent, and whatever is in excess could be spent on things like parks and playgrounds, something East Cambridge has been calling for with some determination for some time now. It's a creative approach that seems fair. A temporary blip upward in open space funding could end up really having an impact. If, say, open space received 12 percent of total funds, $250,000 would be available for the creation of active recreation space.
Having said that, I should add that I spoke in favor of the 80/10/10 split. I have for some time felt that the jobs/housing match is really the crucial element in understanding and guiding Cambridge's economic future. Even though housing prices are cooling statewide, someone said to me quite accurately that in Cambridge that means that a house stays on the market for 30 days instead of 10 days. A little longer on the market before a sale doesn't solve the fundamental problem.
CPA's benefits to the city in housing have been major: $38 million over four years, creating 443 units. The money turned over to affordable housing also leverages money. According to the city, $90 million additional housing dollars have been raised because of the availability of local money.
While those are good numbers, the ends don't justify the means. The issue shouldn't be simply how do we keep the gravy train running. People want to know how money is being spent, and they don't like it when no one asks them how it should be spent. While I was a candidate for office, I often heard this from people. I sympathized with their frustration, and believed (and still believe) that there are ways to make it more open. In the process, we'll make sure the Cambridge City Council is well informed about the important issue of spending people's money.
My summer reading has been The Power Broker, the comprehensive biography of the amazing colossus Robert Moses, who single-handedly shaped New York in the middle of the 20th century. He planned and acted with a studied disregard for public opinion. To him, projects were important, not people. While he could ride with relative impunity over the heads of New Yorkers, building roads and bridges and tunnels without regard to impact, his era is gone. With good reason. Let's make sure we here in Cambridge remember that governmental powers originate from the people.
