Phil Sego

Participatory budgeting is the city’s program that allows community members directly decide how to allocate a portion of a public budget. Each participatory budgeting cycle increases the amount of city funds to be disbursed; the current cycle allocates $2 million in city funds; $7.5 million has been allocated to date. Each time I’ve received the city’s participatory budgeting mailer, I’m struck that some are essential projects that unquestionably should be undertaken, some are feel-good projects, and a few that are superfluous. Some are ridiculously overpriced (a Tree/Garden Coordinator at $410,000 or 250 rat traps at $1440 each). Others are safety issues that the City should implement without question, like last cycle’s installation of high-visibility poles for fire hydrants. Upon reflection, I realize that participatory budgeting is a poor substitute for careful policy decisions. Participatory budgeting programs have gained traction in various cities around the world., Proponents o

Strengthening Cambridge: A Call for Transition from Plan E to a Strong-Mayor Form of Government   Cambridge, renowned for its academic brilliance and cultural diversity, stands at a crossroads in its governance. Since the adoption of Plan E in 1941, the city has evolved, and so too have the demands on its leadership. To better align with contemporary challenges and foster a more responsive and accountable municipal administration, it’s time for Cambridge to transition from the current Plan E form of government to a strong-mayor system. [1] [2] A Brief History of Plan E: In 1941, Cambridge adopted Plan E, a novel form of government aimed at combining the strengths of both city manager and city council systems. Under Plan E, the city council serves as the legislative body, while an appointed city manager oversees day-to-day operations. This structure was envisioned to mitigate the risks of political patronage and enhance efficiency by having a professional administrator at the helm1.

The City of Cambridge is considering implementing a municipal fiber optic internet system at a cost of $194 million. While everyone in Cambridge should have access to high-speed internet, this proposed plan is not the best solution considering the cost, the fast-paced technological advancements in the digital age, and the availability of other internet service providers in the area. Furthermore, the cost of implementing a municipal fiber optic internet system is exorbitant, and this investment could be better spent on other essential infrastructure or services.  There are numerous examples of municipalities that have faced significant financial challenges or cost overruns when implementing municipal fiber optic systems, including: Burlington, Vermont : In 2006, the city of Burlington launched a municipal fiber optic network, Burlington Telecom. However, the project ended up costing the city significantly more than expected, resulting in a financial crisis. The city's credit rat

Report Shows Municipal Broadband is Not Economically Feasible Each household could face thousands in costs or more , regardless of whether you sign up for it. After waiting for years, the City Council has finally been given a cost analysis for building a municipal fiber-optic cable system. This detailed analysis makes some serious errors highlighted below, and estimates a cost of up to $194 MILLION for installation. The analysis provided to the city uses old models, e.g. fully constructed municipal internet systems. One comparison used in the analysis is Chattanooga TN, but Chattanooga isn’t comparable – they installed their system 15 years ago. Technology didn’t stand still, and 15-years is ancient history in technology. If we had done this 15-20 years ago, it may have been a good idea. But Cambridge missed that opportunity. The report hypothesizes that the $70/month “average” for Comcast broadband would be the same as a municipal system. The report also theorizes that a munic

Ten ordinances to enact this session to combat climate change locally Cambridge had once been a Massachusetts policy leader – and example that led the way for numerous other cities and towns on human rights and housing protection. We have just gone through a summer showing us some of the ways climate change will affect us.   While there’s no way to avoid many of the consequences of climate change, we can slow its progression. Cambridge can become a regional and national model for how a city can combat climate change with forward-looking policies. We can once again be a policy leader by adopting these and other measures to take immediate action to ameliorate our impact on the planet and combat climate change. For most of these, there are numerous existing and successful “model laws” that could be easily adapted for our use. Many are inexpensive to implement.   While some of these would require permission from the state legislature requiring “home rule petitions,” these are usually r

Why is there so much support for development in Cambridge?  Much of it stems from a loophole in a 40-year-old ballot initiative. In the 1970s, America was in the midst of an economic downturn. Municipal tax revenues were falling as was personal income. Unemployment was increasing. The inflation rate was nearing an all-time high. Cities and towns struggled to pay for essential municipal services, like teachers, police, fire protection, and trash pickup. Throughout the United States, local governments began to increase taxes to make up for this shortfall. This led to a backlash from cash-strapped homeowners. In California in 1978, a tax revolt took hold, with voters passing a landmark law that severely limited the ability for municipalities to raise taxes. Dubbed “Prop 13”, this passed by a nearly 2-to-1 margin. In Massachusetts, leaders in the anti-tax effort created “Proposition 2½”, modeled on California’s tax-cutting measure.  Proposition 2½ was created by the Citizens for Limi