In the ninth inning of the Cambridge City Council’s double-header of two very important meetings yesterday (September 18), Councillor Sumbul Siddiqui hit what is being characterized by some as the equivalent of a walk-off home run to wrap up months of heated debate over the First Street Garage Disposition and the future of the Sullivan Courthouse. Before unpacking my morning-after thoughts about the conclusion of yesterday’s episode of the long-running Sullivan Courthouse drama, I would like to thank both Councillor Siddiqui and Councillor Quinton Zondervan for their leadership on cannabis equity, which ultimately secured seven votes including my own in support of a two-year head start for state-approved Economic Empowerment businesses to open adult-use cannabis retail stores in Cambridge. Once officially adopted by the full Council — the vote is expected on Monday — this will make Cambridge the first city in the Commonwealth to use the full extent of its local permitting authority to prioritize social equity businesses.
However, I have mixed feelings about the way yesterday’s second hearing concluded, and I feel it is important to express them. I want to be clear that none of what I will say is personal; I respect and like Councillor Siddiqui, and we have supported each other on many issues this term. I look forward to working with her during the remaining months of this term, my last on the Council.
When our reconvened hearing on the First Street Garage disposition opened, the only councillor whose vote was still in doubt was Councillor Siddiqui. As the undecided swing vote she had considerable power, but I don’t think she used her leverage to its full advantage. I would like to explain why.
But first, I will quickly recap how the hearing’s ninth inning played out. Up to that point, during almost two hours of debate and questions to the staff, Councillor Siddiqui was mostly silent except for a question to confirm that the developer’s (LMP) response to the garage disposition RFP had indicated a willingness to return to the Planning Board to amend their 2014 special permit by reducing the required parking by 125 spaces (affirmative). She also asked rhetorically whether the market value of the Courthouse site had increased in the six years since LMP acquired it from the state; the developer said yes, but did not quantify the increase in value. Then finally she revealed what she would need to become the critical sixth “yes” vote on the garage disposition.
Her list of “contingencies” asked that LMP agree to:
The developer’s lead attorney, former Mayor Anthony Galluccio, barely blinked at these demands, which took me and others on the Council by surprise but did not seem to surprise him. His only counter-ask was that the additional payment to the Affordable Housing Trust be delayed until 18 months after the Courthouse redevelopment receives its certificate of occupancy. He also underscored that these conditions are subject only to the developer making its “best efforts” to secure the Planning Board’s approval to amend their special permit. A four-minute recess was all LMP needed to agree to these supposedly brand-new terms.
Within just a few more minutes the Council voted 6-3 not only to approve the disposition with these newly revealed and un-debated conditions, but to block future reconsideration of the vote. Game over. (To no one’s surprise, Councillors Carlone, Zondervan and I voted “no.”)
After months of authentic grassroots advocacy led by Rep. Mike Connolly with rallies, a door-knocking campaign, and a petition that gathered more than 1,250 signatures to reject the parking disposition outright in order to give the city the leverage with the state to negotiate an inclusive, community-driven alternative plan with affordable housing as its centerpiece, Councillor Siddiqui went to the brink and then folded our hard-won winning hand too quickly, even depriving the three councillors who had always demanded much more from the Courthouse redevelopment of any opportunity to improve her deal’s terms. It was the momentum built through the grassroots campaign to stand up to the expensive professional PR campaign waged by LMP that put Councillor Siddiqui in the catbird seat to even make these demands. She could have stated them as the opening bid on what she would need to get to “yes” without rushing us to a final vote last night. Seizing her own bird in the hand deprived everyone else of a voice, which sadly is pretty much the opposite of a collaborative and transparent community-driven process.
More affordable housing units are unquestionably a positive addition to the project, but the percentage of housing in the outsized building still will be less than 10% of the total space. During the 2014 Planning Board hearings for the project, LMP insisted that 24 units were all that would fit in the podium portion of the building and that housing would not be feasible in the tower portion. Nothing about the building’s structural constraints has changed; the Planning Board and the community must hold LMP accountable to following through on this new commitment to deliver all 48 affordable units on site.
Furthermore, the reduction in the required parking, which it seems possible the Planning Board could approve without even requiring a new traffic and parking study to update the original T&P study that is now six years old, will save LMP a substantial amount of money. By subtracting 150 spaces from their lease in the First Street Garage, LMP would save about $17.5 million over 30 years (that’s about half of their reported acquisition cost for the Courthouse). The approximately $49 million in guaranteed revenue to the city from the parking lease had been touted as a significant community benefit; Councillor Siddiqui’s bargain will reduce the value of that benefit by about 35%. And in a little less than six years, the additional $3.5 million payment to the Affordable Housing Trust will have been recouped through these windfall savings on the parking lease. Where those 150 cars will park if not in the city garage in spaces leased by LMP remains an open question. One might fairly ask if this grand bargain could, in fact, prove to be a net financial gain for LMP. But in their rush to close on Councillor Siddiqui’s unilateral deal, the majority of the Council deprived itself and the public of any opportunity to more carefully consider what was agreed to so readily by LMP. In her desire to tie up her deal with a neat bow and accept LMP supporters’ accolades for her power play, I think Councilor Siddiqui squandered the leverage the community had given her.
Councillor Siddiqui was right when she acknowledged that her choice to cut a deal with LMP would disappoint some people. I am one of them, and I am not alone. I hope we can all learn something from this experience. Time will tell what that lesson is.