Cambridge City Council Election Guide

Rejuvenation of Central Square

I would like to see a citywide overhaul of how we go about our community engagement process - I would like to compel a more thoughtful, more deliberate effort consistent across all City departments that seeks to meet people where they are, bring them into the process, and truly strive to solicit input from the largest possible swath of our resident.

Study an automated metro line (an urban train line separated from car traffic) that could be constructed in Cambridge; potentially along the Grand Junction line, and began it's development and implementation.

Make housing affordable.

Implement the plan I've put forth for a free, frequent, reliable citywide shuttle running 6 am - midnight across the city, in place of the many disparate shuttles currently running - which means the cost would be the same as is currently being spent collectively.

I would push forward our city's exploration of a land value tax structure, a woefully unexplored progressive policy that can address a core flaw in our housing system and result in (1) lower tax burden on small-scale, individual resident owners, (2) greater affordability and stability for renters, (3) steep penalties for "parking money" in underused real estate like vacant lots and empty storefronts by investors, (4) less sprawl and more infill, (5) reduced inequality, and (6) more walkable, environmentally sustainable neighborhoods.

Housing is the biggest cost for everyone — we need more housing of all types.

Improve a triad of homelessness, substance use issues, and mental health crises in Cambridge.

I would pursue a social housing pilot by establishing a revolving loan fund and issuing a bond order of at least $50 million. Social housing has the potential to add hundreds of new homes across the city, including many that are deeply affordable. These projects are publicly owned, democratically controlled, and contain a mix of low-, moderate-, and market-rate units. This will ensure the sustainability of the affordability of our housing stock by leveraging government resources and not relying on real estate developers.

I would establish a citywide task force to address the homelessness and addiction crisis. This task force would bring together public health, housing, and public safety leaders to coordinate care, expand treatment access, and restore safety and dignity in our public spaces.

The most important project is implementing an all-of-government response to the Trump administration, which must leverage Cambridge's unique capacity for thought leadership regarding local resistance, and include both material support for those coming under attack, and policy to protect the dignity and safety of our residents.

I have been doing this since 1997 via the Cambridge Civic Journal.

If we can enhance our community engagement model in a way that is more consistent and broader in scope, I believe we'll have greater accountability and transparency.

I would explore how we can use technology to make our public comment and participation process more democratic and streamlined; some governments have had great success with an "everything app" that connects constituents with services and allows for participation in meetings and the legislative process beyond just waiting hours to give public comment during working hours.

It is very important that elected officials communicate with constituents, which is why I hold weekly office hours, produce a weekly newsletter, speak with the media and meet with people whenever it is convenient for them.

To continue to advocate for quarterly City Manager-led town halls and a more easily navigable City open data portal.

Build on work I've already done to increase a focus on accountability in all arenas of the council, which led to regular updates on SMART goals which are part of every plan I oversee, and a transparency in city operations and my own newsletters that are unparalleled.

I plan to improve accountability and transparency through powerful core reforms such as limiting the influence of money in our elections (through programs like democracy vouchers and decreased maximum donations, as successfully implemented in places like Boulder, CO), open and equitable public processes supplemented by more accessible reporting, and an approach called "flipped lobbying" wherein the city conducts more regular, proactive outreach to residents affected by impactful policy decisions to gather more representative input from all, not just the most politically vocal.

In my first term, I started tracking policy orders through my office so that people could see the progress at a glance. Later, we were able to formalize the process through the city. I plan to continue implementing similar initiatives using technology to make this information accessible for everyone.

I plan to improve government accountability and transparency by enhancing community outreach, communication with our voters and residents, public access and input to city resources, including improving our city website.

To be able to improve accountability, we need to work on transparency. The city’s Open Meeting Portal is difficult to navigate. Anyone should be able to find the agenda or recordings with ease. We need to upgrade our software to help with this transparency and accountability. Another way would be for council meetings to be streamed on YouTube which would allow residents to find timestamps, watch at their own pace, and share clips. I would also create a public comment guide translated into multiple languages and advocate for a 311 hotline so residents can report issues and get information quickly.

I would like to help improve the city government accountability and transparency by connecting city outcomes to residents’ priorities through regular reporting, open data, and two-way communication that keeps progress measurable and meaningful.

Improving more communication between residents and making sure that the public fully understands what the issues are; ensuring more language translation service and community culture services in the city to help out residents in need (different religions/cultures/backgrounds/age groups)

The foundation for accountability and transparency is setting meaningful and measurable benefits (goals) with a budget for policies and ordinances. Agreeing on and measuring benefits allows residents to understand how a policy affects them. 26 miles of bike lanes citywide is not a benefit (nor is 3000 more housing units). Bike lane benefits that residents understand might include reductions in pedestrian/cyclist/scooter injuries; increases in ridership; reductions in automobile traffic congestion; and minimized impacts on business/residential parking.

The most important reform would be public financing of elections, which would tilt power back into the hands of moderate and low-income people in Cambridge rather than well-resourced interests. We also need to increase City Council's analytical resources (by hiring specialized staff), so it can independently evaluate and oversee city policy and finances without reliance on interest groups or city staff for impartial assessment. We also need mandatory responses to public comment, term limits, and more.

Setbacks from rear and side property lines should be greater, and I the norm should be 3-4 stories rather than up to 6 stories except via Special Permit.

I was one of the people working to bring this ordinance forward, so I do agree with it.

Yes, I do, it re-legalized the vast majority of Cambridge housing stock that was illegal under the exclusionary zoning regime. I would focus my efforts on the execution of our housing goals, helping to ensure that all types of housing actually get built in the coming years, especially around our transit centers like Central, Harvard, and Porter Squares. I would work to remove blockages to housing construction, like weaponized Historical Commission and Neighborhood Conversation District meetings that have become tools of housing opponents rather than avenues for historic preservation.

I agree and support the multifamily ordinance. We need to build taller buildings. Cambridge is a small city geographically, and when you take out the property that Harvard, MIT own, municipal buildings and our parks, there is not a lot of land to build. The idea that we are going to solve our housing crisis by building two and three story homes, is just not realistic.

No. It will mostly encourage the production of luxury housing, environmentally problematic tear downs of existing housing stock, and displace the very people it was mean to protect. We must amend the MFH ordinance so that: 6 stories is no longer as of right and the min. lot size is larger than 5,000 sq. ft. balconies and a green roofs no longer satisfy the green open space requirement side and rear set backs are larger than 5 ft. some parking is required.

I voted for it since otherwise a far more extreme version would have passed, and I still support the Ronayne petition, which was far reaching, bold, and would have produced a lot more housing without the disruption and loss of open space and tree canopy that the current zoning may produce. I would keep many of the elements - in density, no FAR, lower setbacks - and increase setbacks and some differential heights, with a specific emphasis on requiring more middle income affordable housing.

Yes. Our current multifamily zoning ordinance, comprising our move to formally end exclusionary zoning city wide, is a huge win for renters, prospective homeowners, and anyone else who is not incredibly rich, yet wishes to have a hope of remaining in this city. Removing this crucial barrier to providing needed housing is—empirically and for the city as a whole—better for the environment, better for renters, better for local economy, better with respect to fiscal responsibility, and better for our most vulnerable populations.

I voted in favor of the multifamily housing ordinance. Before it passed, 85% of homes in Cambridge were non-conforming, so you couldn't even build a triple-decker or add a dormer. The ordinance was a result of careful compromise and ultimately passed with an 8-1 vote.

Overall no. Affordable housing is a topic near and dear to my heart, but whether the new multifamily zoning ordinance would be able to produce more affordability in established neighborhoods is questionable. On the other end, potential effects on renter displacement and negative environmental impacts are ignored in established neighborhoods. Therefore, in established neighborhoods, I believe any new buildings greater than three stories should require review by somebody that allows professional input by one of the city volunteer committees and no new project that does not add two plus new units should be allowed to incorporate the new up-zoning criteria.

I would have preferred the 3+3 option because it was projected to produce even more inclusionary units than what we ended up with. But, I believe we ended up in a reasonable place and I would not vote to undo it. However, I would support reasonable amendments that address environmental concerns and I want to make sure our inclusionary zoning percentage does not decrease.

No, I do not agree with the current multifamily zoning ordinance. It incentivizes demolition and large-scale projects without sufficient attention to neighborhood context, open space, or environmental impacts. We can expand housing more thoughtfully by increasing setbacks to preserve trees and sunlight, requiring height transitions near smaller homes, and adopting solar access standards to protect renewable energy potential. I would also strengthen demolition delay provisions and create incentives for developers to preserve and retrofit existing buildings instead of tearing them down.

No, I do not fully agree with the current multifamily zoning ordinance. The major issue is that it does not do enough to ensure affordability or protect existing residents from displacement. I would seek amendments that require clear affordability guarantees, prioritize moderate- and low-income households, and include stronger tenant protections to ensure that new development benefits Cambridge residents rather than accelerating housing insecurity

No. The ordinance puts housing density above all other concerns, does not create affordable housing, punts on urban planning, enriches developers at the expense of residents, encourages tree and green space removal, creates tall buildings that shade solar panels and gardens, raises the cost of housing because home buyers now compete with developers, congests already busy streets, and causes harm to unique, diverse neighborhoods. The multifamily zoning ordinance has no redeeming benefits. I would repeal the ordinance and restart with the original C-1 zoning ordinance, which could be amended to allow more incremental housing additions that fit the surrounding neighborhood.

I vehemently oppose exclusionary zoning, but I believe the multifamily zoning ordinance, as passed, needs substantial improvement. Folks below 50% AMI (earning less than $56,000 for a single-person household) do not earn enough to qualify for an inclusionary unit (those required to be set aside as "affordable" in buildings with more than 9 units or 4 floors). I would like to see units set aside for those below 50% AMI, which are the most housing insecure folks. I also believe parking, setback, and open space minimums can be determined on a neighborhood basis.

I never agreed with the basis for the so-called Affordable Housing Overlay. The City Council should focus more on new construction on undeveloped properties rather than on teardowns of existing properties. We should also help facilitate the rejuvenation of Central Square, other Squares and major corridors in such a manner that serves the adjoining neighborhoods - especially in terms of retail and amenities.

The Council should next prioritize a review of the inclusionary housing program to ensure it’s serving its intended middle-income population—those who already live and work in Cambridge. Due to regional housing pressures and the use of portable vouchers, many units are going to households better suited for CHA programs, who then struggle without adequate support. We’re also seeing troubling patterns of poor treatment by management companies toward inclusionary tenants, with limited City oversight or enforcement power. The program remains essential, but it needs reform to align outcomes with original intent and ensure fairness in both access and experience.

Squares and Corridors. We have a huge need for housing and can make a real dent in the housing shortage by building densely around transit. Hard-working staff at the Community Development Department released two petitions for rezoning these areas, and we're going to need a strong pro-housing council to get the rezoning ordinances passed.

We need to focus on the corridors and squares, where we can build taller buildings. I voted to support looking into social housing. We need to build on city owned lots.

On setting up a revolving housing production fund and granting seed money to the Cambridge Community Land Trust if they can produce a strong business plan. I fully support advancing social housing. The challenge: figuring out how to finance it.

Middle income and mixed income and social housing - which I brought to the council five years ago and was not supported, so it is heartening to see that now much of the council and the community recognize that middle income is crucial to our city's socio-economic diversity since we have lost middle income people over the last decade Furthermore, social science research is clear that economic mobility happens with mixed income housing — not with the further concentration of poverty that too much of Cambridge's affordable housing represents.

With respect to housing, the Council should next focus on addressing the numerous remaining unnecessary costs and delays that add often untenable burden to the process of creating needed housing. For example, all buildings more than 50 years old (a large and growing majority of all buildings in Cambridge) need explicit approval by a commission for any redevelopment. This is ridiculous. Also, our city should work to ease building height restrictions in locations that are walking distance to transit, which encourages sustainable transportation and allows homes where they are needed most.

I was the main sponsor of the AHO and the multifamily ordinance. There is still not much housing being built in Cambridge. Since the zoning was passed, only four new buildings have been proposed, but none have been able to start construction. The City should focus on ensuring that new projects pencil out and can move forward so that we can continue to address the housing crisis with concrete solutions, rather than theoretical wins.

I believe the Council should focus next on a plan that would allow our City to have adequate infrastructure to support the growth in population density, a mechanism that would address the potential public health concerns associated with the new multifamily ordinance, and a system that would truly create a win-win situation both for the City and the folks currently on our wait list for affordable housing.

As mentioned previously, the City Council should focus on social housing. We can build on successful models from Vienna, Maryland and Seattle. Social housing creates truly mixed-income communities, keeps every unit under public control, and allows funding to be “recycled” for future projects through a revolving loan fund. It would be a great use of city funds, and a great complement to Cambridge’s existing affordable housing strategies.

I think the Council should focus on reforming the housing ordinance to make it more equitable for families and sustainable for the future. We need zoning that encourages the right kind of growth—family-sized units, adaptive reuse, and environmentally efficient housing not just larger projects that maximize density. Growth must be paired with investment in public infrastructure, including east to west transit, water and energy systems, schools, and green space. Without aligning housing and infrastructure policy, we risk creating inequities and livability challenges that will be difficult to reverse.

creating more jobs in the Central Square/Alewife/Porter Square business corridor, so that the welfare of tax incentives/businesses/students/community can improve

The City Council made two large setbacks in housing policy. They need to fix these mistakes before moving onto other housing initiatives. Unfortunately, the City Council is rushing to complete Mass Ave and Cambridge Street up-zoning before the next City Council takes their seats. This is one more mess that will need cleaning up.

We need to substantially invest in social housing (mixed income, publicly owned, and tenant governed housing), as this is one of the only ways to ensure that housing is built for folks of moderate and low income. Cambridge must capitalize a revolving loan fund through its bonding capacity, using it to support social housing and issue loans (at interest rates that are far-below-market) for housing development that supports our affordability goals. We also need to build out our shelter capacity, quality, and variety (including sufficient dry shelters to meet demand), as well as support a Cambridge community land trust.

We should promote housing development in the major Squares and transit centers and in currently underdeveloped areas, but this should be done via Special Permit process that assures compatibility with existing patterns of development.

I do.

Yes. While I also support government-led housing efforts, such as social housing, we cannot tackle the housing shortage through this type of development alone. When you face a crisis like this, you need every tool available. That means allowing developers to build densely around transit without hamstringing the process through endless Historical Commission reviews, onerous height restrictions, or greenwashed solar panel regulations.

Yes.

We are incentivizing developers now by giving them height and eliminating FAR restrictions. We need to engage neighbors in considering where larger housing developments best fit and make them partners. Projects improve with community input--as of right development for large projects certainly streamlines things but is problematic.

I've promoted the zoning change in Alewife which led to a community involved process that led to a plan for a neighborhood develoment - with housing, retail and office/commercial/lab - that allows larger developments in that area. Whether the entire city should have unlimited dveloment as of right - no. Incentives should be used to get what is best for the community.

Yes. Enabling the development of more housing comprises a critical tool that must work alongside others to mitigate our affordability crisis.

Yes. To be clear, supporting more housing does not mean supporting nothing but 18-story developments in city corridors. I support all types of housing being built, including smaller projects like triple-deckers and fourplexes.

Yes along the main arteries of Cambridge, even larger than now, but with a review process.

I would prioritize the development of housing built by government resources. A successful social housing pilot requires zoning changes such that we legalize social housing in every neighborhood. There are candidates that want to incentivize for-profit developers by letting them tap into money from the Affordable Housing Trust, but I don’t support this. Those precious dollars should be used to create 100% subsidized units through the Affordable Housing Overlay, not to let for-profit developers off the hook from having to comply with our inclusionary housing requirement. I also believe in restricting biotech in areas where we want to incentivize housing.

I support promoting more housing, but not at the expense of thoughtful planning or neighborhood livability. Cambridge needs policies that create affordable, family sized, and sustainable homes, not blanket by right upzoning, that fuels demolition and speculation. I’d prioritize incentives for preservation, adaptive reuse, and projects that align with community goals for affordability and design. Growth should follow clear standards and infrastructure capacity, ensuring new development strengthens Cambridge’s long term resilience and diversity instead of undermining it.

yes I do

No.

I absolutely support building more affordable housing, and believe our city has not invested sufficient resources in this pursuit. I also want to ensure that new housing will lower rents for moderate and low-income Cambridge residents, rather than pushing them out of Cambridge in order to make upper-market apartments more affordable for the comparatively well-off (and recently arriving) folks. In addition to leveraging the power of a substantial revolving loan fund and building social housing, I believe in incentivizing construction in corridors and squares through a combination of zoning reforms and abatements.

I have always believed that the same standards should apply to all residential development without anything more than reasonable density bonuses for Inclusionary housing units, and all such developments should be done via Special Permit with appropriate review by the Planning Board.

We have to acknowledge that concerns about scale, traffic, and green space are often voiced most loudly by those already securely housed. While every project should be thoughtfully designed, the greater urgency is to meet the housing needs of those who have few or no options at all. Cambridge can’t afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the essential. We must continue to grow our housing stock, even in neighborhoods that feel change most acutely, because doing nothing deepens the inequities we were elected to address.

With any housing construction, there will be disruptions. I do not discount that, nor would I dismiss the concerns of neighbors who will be affected by the construction. But the flip side is that these are homes for real people. Homes for the homeless, the housing insecure, the rent-burdened. And when it comes to traffic, this is really a car problem, not a housing problem. We need to greatly expand our public transit, bike and walking infrastructure so that every year it gets easier to live in Cambridge without owning a car.

I think all of our neighborhoods have changed over time. We can't lock the city in the past. We have a housing shortage and given our lack of land, we simply have to build taller buildings.

Shadows from height, traffic congestion, loss of parking, the reduction of green space and the need for supporting infrastructure are real concerns and generally considered as part of good planning. It would be better if the City didn’t give a carte blanche to developers to build as of right without regard for the community’s broader needs. And there is a role for project review and the Planning Board! Most of our growth belongs along the transportation corridors and on underutilized sites that the Envision Cambridge plan specified. This would be less disruptive.

The impacts of the developments can be managed if we are committed to addressing teh long term impacts - starting the citywide shuttle I mentioned, ensuring that environmental justice is more than just a buzz word, but is part of any plan to ensure public health benefits of green space is in every project.

As mentioned, the inability for low- and middle-income people to affordably live in our city has been *the single most urgent issue* facing Cambridge, according to our resident surveys. Development does bring challenges and the city should strive to overcome these with practical tools, such as better regulation of parking, commitment to our Urban Forest Master Plan, and maintenance of our beautiful park and open space areas. We should balance concerns with thoughtfulness, care, and a commitment to honoring the most urgent needs of all our residents.

Most traffic in Cambridge is actually through traffic, not from residents. For example, many people commute into Cambridge for work or school. Having more housing to accommodate them may actually reduce stress on roads since they will be commuting shorter distances and have less need for a car. Most of our buildings have open space, it'll just be more high quality public space than before, since the zoning ordinance requires green space. Cambridge already has a tree ordinance in place. While some are upset by change, many are excited to have more neighbors.

The answer of this question is to really find the right balance among views of various neighborhoods, perspectives of developers, and the City's aim in representing and advocating for the most vulnerable populations in Cambridge that need housing. I would start by involving representatives of these stakeholders to a series of discussion, with an aim to increase affordable housing in the end.

They are not antithetical to each other. Building new housing without parking doesn’t automatically increase parking demand. The goal is to encourage car-free living, and many households are excited to make that choice. We can work with each neighborhood where there are developments to assess traffic, parking, and green space. When lots of affordable units are on the line, especially 100% subsidized housing, these kinds of tradeoffs shouldn't stifle progress on affordability. This would require us to be thoughtful in our planning process.

We can build more affordable housing while respecting neighborhood character, but that requires choosing developers wisely and creating a system that prioritizes community feedback. Too often, residents are asked for input after decisions are made. I support a more transparent process with early engagement, clear design standards, and accountability for affordability, sustainability, and open space. With thoughtful planning and genuine public input, we can grow in a way that strengthens neighborhoods and builds lasting trust.

have more community meetings & approvals as to what is currently going on with the welfare of the City; balance it by acknowledging the historical significance of the neighborhoods, the climate impacts and social welfare of the communities that surround it every day

The city has removed all consideration and recourse for current residents and neighborhoods. The current ordinances are not repairable. The City Council must reset its priorities to respect neighborhoods and their residents, who embody what is desirable about Cambridge. The city should must implement urban planning rather than the current approach throw all planning responsibilities to random developers.

We can have both housing and context specific accommodations for neighborhoods. For example, concerns about parking—especially from families, seniors, and those with limited mobility—are completely valid and can be accommodated through parking minimums. This might result in a slightly smaller percentage of total units built, but we can compensate for any losses, and then some, by publicly investing in building and subsidizing affordable units (through municipal vouchers, among other vehicles). The choice is not between building housing and accommodating neighborhood residents, but between truly investing in reducing inequality in Cambridge and fumbling around the margins.

Except for short-term emergency assistance, all such housing assistance should be done under state and federally-funded programs and not at the local level.

We have an incredible Office of the Housing Liaison, which supports those most at risk of eviction with support and intervention to salvage their housing, and I would like to see that department expanded; similarly, I would like us to expand on the work of the case managers at the Multi Service Center to provide more people to walk people through their housing searches.

Now that we've ended forced broker's fees, I would focus on 1) right to counsel in eviction hearings for tenants; 2) funding affordable units and building social housing, especially on parking lots or city owned land; and 3) expanding the HomeBridge (Financial Assistance for First-Time Homebuyers) program.

We need to strengthen tenant protections (although much of this will require state approval). I successfully advocated for money in this year's budget for additional housing vouchers, especially for unhoused residents. We need to continue to grow that program.

The City has extraordinary resources for those seeking housing. 15% of our housing stock is affordable and we provide a broad array of services for the unhoused. The Office of the Housing Liaison helps residents navigate opportunities, prevent eviction, and address difficult housing situations. The City is now looking into developing Social Housing. We should look into building inclusive living communities and encourage our universities to build more graduate housing.

Review our jobs and training and workforce development intiatives - since the higher the income peole have the more they can afford rents.

Beyond zoning, Cambridge should strengthen relocation and anti-displacement support for renters by expanding emergency rental assistance, creating a tenant relocation fund when buildings are redeveloped, and requiring advance notice well beyond the state minimums in the eviction process. Cambridge can also expand support for legal counsel during eviction proceedings. This investment would give tenants real protections to enable them to live with security and dignity.

I take a "yes, and" approach to dealing with the housing crisis. It's a huge issue and we need to do everything we can, from rental assistance to providing low-income assistance to providing missing middle housing. I support tenant rights to an advocate and have voted to do so in the past.

Food security, career opportunities, and education initiatives.

As mentioned previously, social housing, but there are other tools as well. I support the Cambridge Community Land Trust, expanding the municipal voucher program, and more wraparound services. Also, I believe in strengthening tenants’ rights and opening a new shelter modeled after the Transition Wellness Center, a shelter that was closed by the city this year.

Beyond zoning, the Council should focus on lasting affordability and housing stability. I’m open to exploring social housing models that keep units permanently affordable and community controlled, including mixed income developments on city owned land. We should strengthen rental assistance, homeownership support, and tenant protections for middle income families and seniors. Expanding legal aid and investing in energy efficient retrofits will help residents stay in their homes while reducing costs. True housing security means addressing both affordability and livability, not just where we build, but how we help people remain in Cambridge.

1. Housing affordability- focus on providing incentive to balance retail monthly rent costs 2. Providing more benefits for Mom & Pop stores to keep their storefronts open in the communities they serve 3. Giving college students at Harvard/MIT/Lesley University areas the option to home ownership & city residency if possible.

We need to take care of the working-class. Everything we've done has created a bigger gap between rich and poor in our city.

We need more robust tenant rights protections and an Office of Housing Stability, which could provide wraparound support in the housing process as well as advocate for tenant needs. We also need to invest in social housing, community land trusts, shelter, and municipal vouchers, as discussed above. And we need to establish a revolving loan fund for a wide range of affordable housing needs.

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

Answer: No

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

The 2020 addition of Broadway to the CSO should be rescinded. It is redundant and unnecessary and creates hardship for many residents along and near Broadway.

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

I support the goals of the Cycling Safety Ordinance and the creation of a connected, protected bike network. Safe bicycling infrastructure saves lives and encourages sustainable transportation. That said, the rollout must better account for seniors, people with disabilities, and small businesses — groups that can be disproportionately impacted when curb access and parking are removed too quickly or without adequate alternatives. We need a more collaborative implementation process that protects cyclists and ensures the network works for everyone who uses our streets.

I support every aspect of the CSO. I want to finish it as quickly as possible, then draft a CSO 2.0 that further expands and connects our separated bike lane infrastructure, especially north-south routes, and hardens our intersections, crosswalks, and other pedestrian areas.

We voted the timeline in high covid time - giving folks little time to adjust. The timeline is important to have - although the council needs to update it, and ensure that the community and city staff and cycling advocates are all included in working collaboratively on an update.

The CSO bike lanes are saving lives. I support its provision of protected infrastructure physically separating people on bikes from fast-moving traffic, reducing risk to physical safety. That said, the quality and appearance of some quick-build materials have raised concerns. Some barriers feel temporary or patchy, and critical areas like intersections are still vulnerable. We need to ensure high-visibility crosswalks, turn hardening, and permanent-feeling protections, especially in high-conflict zones.

I support the Cycling Safety Ordinance, which will hopefully be completed by next year. I think we should take a look at ensuring there is a north-south connection from Central to Inman.

Overall all currently proposed locations.

I support implementing the CSO without delay and would support installing north-south lanes across the city. Also, I want to work more comprehensively on road safety. This includes increasing shuttle service access for our elderly and residents navigating disabilities. I want to work on making sure dangerous intersections have proper designation for pedestrians and work to make the #1 bus free.

I support the Cycling Safety Ordinance’s goal of preventing injuries and fatalities, but the rollout should focus on the most dangerous intersections rather than meeting mileage targets. I would prioritize intersection redesigns that improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike, and strengthen communication with residents and small businesses before changes are made. I also support reforming the parking permit system to better balance access for seniors, people with disabilities, and low income residents while maintaining safe, connected routes.

I support expanding protected bike lanes, improving traffic calming measures, and ensuring safer street design so that cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers can all travel safely and responsibly.

The current bike lanes are unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians, with major problems at intersections. All real safety programs have components of training, measurement, certification, and enforcement. In addition, the current implementation does not account for residents' and businesses' parking needs.

I support the ordinance. In general, we need to improve safety at intersections, where the majority of accidents occur; clearer lights and signage could serve to reduce collisions. We also need much stronger traffic law enforcement across all modes of transport. We need to improve bike lane safety through raised lanes and hardier barriers. And we need a major educational initiative in Cambridge, for drivers of all forms of transport, regarding sharing the road, staying aware of a variety of potential road users, and exercising maximum safety. Finally, we need to introduce traffic calming measures in many of our neighborhoods.

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

The barely visible concrete barriers that have caused many accidents should be replaced with flexible barriers, and lane widths should have greater flexibility.

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

Answer: Yes

Answer: Yes

Answer: No

We must be honest that some residents (seniors, people with disabilities, and caregivers) don’t have the option to bike or take transit. For them, the loss of nearby parking is significant. We absolutely must build safer infrastructure for cyclists while planning carefully for those who rely on vehicles out of necessity. That means preserving key curb access, creating workable drop-off zones, and ensuring service providers can reach the people who need them. A safer city includes everyone, and although striking the most thoughtful balance here is unquestionably the most difficult path, it is also the most righteous one.

The barely visible concrete barriers that have causes many accidents should be replaced with flexible barriers, and lane widths should have greater flexibility.

I fully understand that the loss of parking is an issue. I wish our streets were wide enough to keep parking and build separated bike lanes, but most often we have to make a difficult choice, but data shows that bike lanes increase safety, and I vote for safety.

I would work harder to find parking for those impacted by the loss of parking. Some must drive. We must balance the needs of cyclists and drivers, while encouraging the use of sustainable transportation.

We need some more protected bike lanes - and we can implement while taking into consideration the specific places, neighborhood and streets. As we provide more convenient ways to transit the city, it will mean fewer cars. The Zero Emission Transporation Plan, whcih I oversaw, is a good place to start.

Parking and traffic are important to carefully consider and factor in when planning any bike lane implementation. As the Council has done in the past, we should consider provisioning alternative parking options where possible and appropriate and should additionally consider Donald Shoup-inspired smart metering to further mitigate both traffic and parking availability.

We passed a shared parking ordinance that will free up up to 3200 parking spots, which will hopefully address these concerns.

First of all, there needs to be more realistic and honest communication with different neighborhoods about potential impacts from construction of bike lanes. Then, flexible parking corridors must be enhanced, and if still not enough, additional parking garages or structures should be considered. Lastly, there should be regular parking and traffic studies to re-evaluate priorities as appropriate.

I believe that we need to strategize how to address the changes that might impact those with cars or other needs because this process might feel difficult when not adequately prepared to deliver on alternatives and support for the transition. For example, the city passed a policy to help open parking spaces from businesses. This alternative can help mitigate some of the fears that come with changes in our roads. Being able to share a set of resources is vital to ensuring that people feel heard while making progress.

The City must balance safety improvements with neighborhood access and parking needs. I would require better communication and planning before construction so residents and businesses know what to expect and have workable alternatives. Cambridge should explore neighborhood based parking permits, shared loading zones, and improved traffic management to reduce disruption. With thoughtful design and coordination, we can make our streets safer for cyclists and pedestrians without creating unnecessary hardship for residents, seniors, or small businesses.

I would balance safety with access by adjusting parking, improving traffic flow, and working directly with neighborhoods and businesses to minimize disrupt

New construction increases demand for street parking, and bike lanes remove parking. We need a realistic parking strategy that compensates for these trends to meet the real needs of residents and businesses. Currently, the city has no plan and seems to believe cars will magically disappear soon. New buildings should have parking minimums.

This concern can be mitigated by ensuring there are some parking considerations for new housing and development.

Answer: No

I have filled out endorsement questionnaires from some organizations that have presented them to me for consideration.

Yes, I filled out questionnaires for ABC, CBS, Sierra Club, and SEIU 32BJ and Local 888. I participated in the ABC Candidate Forum and the 32J Candidate roundtable night.

I sought the endorsement of A Better Cambridge and Cambridge Bike Safety.

I was endorsed by Cambridge Bicycle Safety.