ik1nky t1_je61nhq wrote

I don't think he's the guy to say this. He was asked 2x at the press conference if he had Healey's full support including increased funding if needed. The first time he didn't answer the funding portion, the second time he said he would not use funding as an excuse and would work with what he has. It's hard for me to read that as anything other than Healey telling him that he will get no more funding for operations, which is reflected in her budget.


ik1nky t1_jckc47x wrote

> not to be pedantic, but I hate when people say "return cash to homeowners". Like, no they dont. what they do is not raise tax rates, and offer a tax incentive to not rent out your house. Returning money would be like what the Mass did last year when they sent us a check.

That's not accurate to Cambridge. We not only don't raise the rate, we lower it every year so that your amount paid doesn't increase. We're not even limiting that increase to inflation or any other factor, just saying no increase. There's no need to constantly cut taxes, we can and should pay for nice things.


ik1nky t1_jckahqx wrote

They haven't figured out the exact financing for it yet, but the majority will likely be bonded out over a few years and those bonds paid back over their terms. Cambridge has plenty of free cash, for example, we regularly return cash to homeowners($22 million last year) as we can't decide what else to do with it. It's also likely that we also get some contributions from private partners.


ik1nky OP t1_jbclvbj wrote

They never removed the board, they just forgot about it for a few decades. The traffic board would not have any say over a city ordinance anyways, they only have a say on road rules and regulations i.e. parking fines. Furthermore, the new traffic board will only serve as an advisory group, they'll have no direct power.


ik1nky t1_jaalzg8 wrote

That's about the going rate in the area, but if you're able to drive outside of the city, it should get significantly cheaper.


ik1nky t1_j6j1yfv wrote

You seem to have a grudge against YIMBYs that you're making part of all of your comments. But you're continually misstating YIMBY beliefs. YIMBY is not "build anything, anywhere". Some YIMBYs believe that, while others do not. Look at how prevalent the idea of Japanese zoning is in the YIMBY world or missing middle zoning. None of the YIMBY organizations in MA(Abundant Housing MA, ABC, Somerville YIMBY, etc.) that I know of are pushing for build anything, anywhere.

> 2) is anti-YIMBY. “We don’t start from the premise that adding housing is a negative,” said Driscoll. “That doesn’t mean build anywhere, any how, any size.” If you're anti-YIMBY, be happy about that.

Kim Driscoll is famously a YIMBY.