Every other policy priority - and, in fact, every process in our city - depends on equitably balancing the needs of all residents. Residents include not just those who show up to public meetings or who start petitions. They include busy parents, service workers, students, the unhoused, seniors, and others who simply don’t have the schedule, bandwidth, interest, or ability to initiate such participation.

To be clear: Public comment and other such channels are absolutely valuable. I fully believe residents should be able to use these to express their views. But those who do are simply not representative of our entire population. A process fully reliant on such measures is the antithesis of equity. It means the needs of our most time-strapped, politically inexperienced, and generally overburdened continually fall through the cracks of the system. Of course, included among these are our most desperately vulnerable.

This issue strikes at the core of what it means to have any semblance of a just community. It underpins every policy decision and government operation. There is nothing more pressing.

I intend to set aside some modest funding for a small internal research team. Its mission will be investigating ways to improve processes and services in our city. Its first task will be finding methods to gain timely, representative views into the true needs of residents for ongoing policy decisions of particular impact.

Minimal, yet strategic polling for such issues is one possibility. This might be done via phone or text. Such a strategy would put the onus on our government, and not on our busy populace, to initiate critical communication related to just those issues likely to deeply impact their lives.

In any case, I know there is a better way to incorporate crucial intel into our decisions. We’ll never reach perfection, but improvement is valuable. This is my background and I know it can be done. If we really do want equity in our city, there is no more urgent investment.

We need to get rid of money in politics. Political participation based on giving money to elected officials handicaps those of lesser means in pushing their priorities. Influence is instead concentrated among the wealthiest. The system also creates politicians whose time is spent calling up rich donors for hours on end and listening to their every thought and concern instead of constructing effective policy. Politicians, that is, who are inevitably more beholden to and who become more sympathetic with these backers.

Consequently, it is the opposite of shocking that policies benefiting the wealthy are realized at the expense of those benefiting anyone else. This increases the wealth gap, further disadvantaging the less wealthy in their ability to influence. The spiral ultimately results in crippling the ability for struggling people to have comparable political voice as well as deep neglect of their needs.

Let’s build a system that serves our people, not the highest bidder. Here in Cambridge, individual campaign contributions are capped at $1000 per person, per year. This is better than in many areas. However, we live in a reality where more than one in three Americans would have trouble paying an unexpected $400 expense, let alone a $1000 gift.

Also, there is no limit on what candidates themselves can contribute to their own campaigns. Nothing prevents a billionaire from plowing as much as they want, without limit, into an election that directly enriches their bottom line. Amazon already tried to do this in Seattle, injecting millions into a local city council election that would decide critical real estate priorities impacting their office headquarters.

Something similar can happen here. And why wouldn’t it? Cambridge contains research headquarters for every multinational tech giant on the planet. Not to mention our density of pharma giants. We must advocate to plug this loophole.

No, money raised by a candidate does not, in itself, guarantee victory. There are other factors at work. Money is just one necessary, influential piece. But it's not just about who wins elections; it's about who among us is able to run in the first place. In my time as a candidate, I've witnessed several prospective fellow candidates hesitate or opt out of running because they felt they didn’t have the personal funds or monied connections to be a viable contender.

This, in itself, is disgusting. There are few means for silencing an entire demographic more clearly disempowering than effectively barring some from holding public office. Or, at the very least, imposing substantial, unnecessary, and wholly discriminatory added barriers. If we ever feel disappointed by an unimpressive selection of personalities from whom we must choose our governors, councillors, and presidents, perhaps we should look at our system for getting elected. Our process filters out nearly all but heavily-backed partisans. That is simply reality.

Cambridge should model a better way. There are limits to what local government can do, given unfortunate federal court decisions about money as political speech. However, even if we cannot fully implement 100% public financing, we must do everything possible to restrict the impact of campaign donations. Reducing maximum donations and implementing laws restricting donors from immediately profiting through work with the city after large donations are two measures that should be pursued.

Cambridge is a vibrantly diverse community of inventors, artists, students, front-line workers, teachers, business owners, and more. Our staggering occupational diversity fuels our creative powerhouse. This vital diversity, however, can be drained when a booming local economy causes skyrocketing housing demand and prices. Market forces drive out all but the wealthiest who can afford to live here, who are then left with privileged access to our economic opportunities and resources. Both upward and downward spirals result, worsening inequality.

This is about equity and inclusion. It’s also about the ability of our city to function as a creative and innovation powerhouse. New ideas are a direct reflection of the community from which they are born. In a place like Cambridge where ideas have transformative and global impact every single day, inclusion in our city is akin to having a seat at the table in influencing ideas that may well shape our future.The social and scientific innovations in our city are simply too important to take shape in a gilded bubble, detached from the realities of ordinary people.

It is vital that a diverse community defines and envelops our creative and innovation industries, since all must be at the table as we continue to grapple with who, exactly, benefits from the innovation that takes place here. This is a core question, not just for the future of Cambridge, but for us all.

For these reasons, we need to make deliberate investments in affordable housing options in every area of our city. Policy mechanisms such as the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) and developments like the proposed 2072 Massachusetts Avenue affordable housing initiative are indispensable to realizing this vision. In addition we should also experiment with as many other promising policy mechanisms as possible to facilitate this end.

1. Abundant, Transit-Oriented Development

We need to support more housing in a way that encourages walkability, use of public transit, and minimal commutes. This enables the most efficient use of our very limited real estate and reduces traffic congestion. It also enables residents to better benefit from living and working here and facilitates a vibrant, healthy, sustainable, and accessible community.

Consequently, I would like to update zoning to allow small-scale multi-family housing like triple-deckers, four-plexes, and six-plexes in Cambridge, which would help provide flexible living options for families. I would additionally like to update height and setback requirements for new housing from its legacy standards to accurately align with current building norms, enabling appropriate density. We should especially focus development around major transit hubs (subways, bus, and bike hubs) to encourage sustainable transportation.

2. Prioritizing Affordable Housing Development

I supported and continue to support the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO), which makes it easier to provide affordable living options citywide. I also support affordable housing initiatives like the proposed 2072 Massachusetts Avenue development. I believe these enable continued accessibility of our city's rich opportunities to people of all walks of life, which speaks to our core values as a community. I believe we must additionally prioritize development of affordable housing options throughout our city through publicly financed social housing on underutilized city-owned lots, increased inclusionary zoning, and homeownership programs.

3. Addressing Homelessness

In among the wealthiest cities, states, and countries on earth, the state of our homeless community - especially during the pandemic - is unjustifiable. I support a housing first approach embodied by the Right to Shelter initiative that has already made significant progress in providing unused, non-congregate space to residents in need supported by federal grants.

4. Experimenting with Land Trusts

One approach to enabling more stable, affordable options in volatile housing markets is to separate the speculative value of land from the actual price of a house. The City of Cambridge can allocate public land for use by groups of individuals to administer as land trusts, where houses are rented out but the land itself is owned by these groups. Since the property’s price no longer includes the land, it can be sold or rented separately at considerably cheaper rates than on the open market.

5. Experimenting with Social Ownership/Limited-Equity Coops

Social ownership involves long-lasting organizations with an emphasis on cultivating social and community benefits rather than centering profit. Such programs deserve our consideration and should be supported by the city.

6. Student Housing

The city should negotiate with local universities to ensure they provide adequate housing for undergraduate and graduate students, which will alleviate pressure on the housing market.

7. Support for Tenants

I support ensuring every tenant has affordable access to legal counsel in housing court, which balances the field in negotiations with landlords during and outside of eviction cases. I would also like the city to explore investing in affordable mediation services. An efficient, easier-to-navigate application system for affordable housing, flexible loan options for those of low income, financial planning support, and accessible home ownership programs would also benefit tenants. I also support creating a public database of the rental market, which will facilitate transparency for both tenants and landlords.

8. Compensation for Board and Commission Positions

Right now planning boards and related groups are disproportionately wealthier, older, male, and longtime resident homeowners. This nonrepresentative background likely biases decisions related to new housing development in ways that do not reflect the overall preferences of the community. I support converting participation on such boards and commissions into paid positions to enable those of lesser means to participate, thereby adding diversity of perspective to these bodies.

High quality transit is critical for a functional, sustainable, and accessible city. We must actively invest in our growing transit infrastructure to encourage use and ensure safety.

1. Protected Bike Lanes

As a supporter of the Cycling Safety Ordinance, I support investing in a connected, balanced network of protected bike lanes. This ensures the safety of our many daily bikers whose numbers grow by roughly 8% per year, not to mention that of drivers and pedestrians.

As a non-car owner who relies on biking and walking as my primary means of commuting, shopping, and general transportation, I experience the dangers of our current infrastructure everyday firsthand. Creating strong and safe bike infrastructure will help our city reach its health, environment, and livability goals.

2. Encouraging Transit Use

Greater investment in busing, subway access, and walkability in addition to safe bikeways is critical. Additional city-provided busing in areas not well served as well as reducing barriers to using transit generally (for example, providing discounts and vouchers) can also contribute here.

3. Updating Blanket Parking Minimums

Cambridge’s scarce real estate means we must carefully balance competing community needs including housing, public resources, business requirements, and infrastructure. I support updating current blanket requirements for off-street parking for every new residential and commercial development. Unneeded parking provision results in waste of valuable real estate and building cost and results in yet more wasteful urban sprawl. However, we must take into account the needs of small businesses, who rely on accessible parking for visitors, as well as residents reliant on street parking.

I propose investing in reasonable third-party studies on appropriate parking needs by microdistrict based on current use of on-street parking, businesses, transit access, most likely demographics of new occupants, and other factors. This would help the city understand real parking needs at an appropriate scale, better serve our residents, and eliminate wasted space. Existing requirements do not do this, and I believe we can do better.

4. Municipal Sidewalk Shoveling Program

Snow removal is a matter of pedestrian safety and it's everyone's responsibility to share the load. Making snow removal a city service makes sense from the point of view of doing exactly that, from the taxpayer perspective. But it also has many logistical advantages: If one service takes responsibility for city-wide implementation, it can benefit from economies of scale and perform snow removal with much greater efficiency. Not to mention the nuisance for many residents who are out of down during blizzards who have to (1) realize there has been a blizzard in Cambridge and (2) independently arrange a service to perform snow removal for just their property. The amount of saved time, energy, and complication absolutely justifies such a program and would undoubtedly result in cheaper, more reliable execution and safer streets for everyone.

Our city is in need of programs that serve our young adults. The upsurge in gun violence is one symptom of this failure.

1. Investigating Causes

First and foremost, we need deliberate and targeted investigation of the causes of our recent upsurge in youth violence. This can inform potential programs that provide safe, supportive environments for young adults.

2. Programming

Additional programming for workforce and skills training as well as internships with local employers can tie our youth into their local community, hone marketable skills, and forge mentorship relationships. I also support otherwise encouraging our companies and businesses to formally hire more local talent.

Competitions and awards in an unprecedented variety of domains, sponsored by local businesses, are another way to encourage participatory learning, job marketability, self-esteem, and active engagement in the community. Inspired by the Congressional App Challenge, which invites middle and high school students to submit coding projects, the city can organize themed challenges that encourage our youth to submit projects in art, journalism, technology, science, cuisine, or other categories to be judged by local professionals in the field. Winners of these challenges can be publicly honored and all participants can be showcased, gaining them visibility to potential employers and mentors and inspiring others to become involved in such events.

Starting a new tradition of short creative performances by local public school students to begin each city council meeting is another way, not just to inspire and enliven our public meetings with local talent, but to engage more youth and families in community discussion.

Other programs to get students involved in public creative and service projects like community art, urban agriculture, and neighbor assistance can also help further community engagement.

3. Universal Pre-K

Although formally within the purview of the school committee, I support provision of universal access to pre-kindergarten, which puts kids on a path upward from the start and facilitates equitable educational opportunity.

4. Culture and Language Accommodation

Also formally within the purview of the school committee, I support more comprehensive efforts to translate important parental communications to the primary languages of student families, as well as any additional culturally tailored outreach, to ensure informed familial educational involvement.

Climate change is an existential crisis. Even at the local level, our city can take numerous steps to enact sustainable initiatives that model what it means to do our part.

1. Net-Zero Carbon Emissions

I support moving the city toward net-zero carbon emissions through taxing existing emissions from major contributors like large commercial developments as part of a local Green New Deal.

2. Tree Canopy, Permeable Surfaces

I support maintaining and growing our tree canopy according to the Urban Forest Master Plan to restore our much needed tree cover. I also support incentivizing permeable surfaces wherever feasible for driveways, parks, and other land areas.

3. Public-Private Partnerships for Local Environmental Innovation

As a vibrant hub of innovation, Cambridge also has the opportunity to partner with local research and innovation institutions to explore creative new ideas and sustainable technologies in urban agriculture, energy use, and infrastructure monitoring.

4. Green Space

Green Space is critical for mental and social well being, especially during our current pandemic. I support prioritizing areas for recreation and play. I also support the equitable provision of dog parks for our nonhuman residents.

Our city government has a unique structure called Plan E, which places the bulk of authority with our city manager, who is appointed by the council. While councillors are responsible for voting on policy changes, the city manager runs day-to-day government operations and most internal hiring.

The amount of concentrated power placed in our unelected manager has caused problems. The proposed feasibility study for municipal broadband, which would have cheaply clarified the costs and benefits of implementing public city-wide internet, is an example. After a vote in favor by the council the study was blocked from moving forward by the city manager.

Technically, the council can fire the city manager at any time with a majority vote; in practice, however, this is no small decision. Leaving the city without a manager can cause immediate logistical crises in the basic functioning of the city, especially if there is no named deputy city manager to smoothly fill in (as there isn't now).

To be clear, I take issue with the structure of our government, not any individual. We need a better system of accountability among our unelected officials that does not radically threaten the basic functioning of all city departments to operate. This issue extends well beyond the topic of municipal broadband, which simply illustrates the deeper challenges. We cannot allow the wishes of the public and their representatives to be able to be arbitrarily blocked. That is not a democratic process.

The recently proposed measures of required board appointment approval by the council as well as yearly reviews of the city manager are a start to getting at implementing more accountability, though I believe more is needed. At the very least, I believe real, meaningful, and practicable consequences for noncompliance by unelected officials are necessary. These might include legally enforced, predefined timelines for acting upon mandates by the council, for example. Switching to a system with an elected executive official is something we should alternatively consider.

I want the form of government that best serves our people. There are advantages to our "strong manager / weak mayor" system: Operations tend to be more efficient, since they are headed by someone who had to submit a resume detailing their relevant professional qualifications to run the operations of a city and judged on that basis, rather than a person tasked with being charismatic, rousing, and having wide popular appeal. And the theory goes that in a “strong manager / weak mayor” government like our own, operations, hiring processes, and most appointments are “depoliticized,” since they are led by a government employee who is not directly elected by the people.

However, I feel that, in reality, there is not one role in our government that is not political. There is not one role in life that is not political. Every person has an agenda, and if they are not directly beholden to voters then they are beholden to their own individual biases and political leanings. Concentrating undue power within a single human being is always an extremely risky and undemocratic structure. It is an acute liability to the stability of our city and to the wellbeing of our people.

Thus, I feel if we are to keep our current Plan E structure, we must enact greater measures of true accountability and a more balanced distribution of oversight as mentioned above. And switching to an elected mayor system is something we should consider.

Regardless of our decisions on charter reform, our current city manager is retiring this coming July 5. Until such time as we may or may not update our Plan E Charter, the council must choose a next city manager. As applicable, I will help choose a city manager who prioritizes transparency, inclusion, and community engagement and who is willing to collaborate closely with the council on forward-thinking initiatives.

Cambridge is a powerhouse of research, industry, and world-changing material innovation. We are home to world-renowned institutions like MIT and Harvard, a nearby hotbed of small but visionary startups dubbed the “most innovative square mile on earth,” a global biotech hub, and the innovation labs for every tech giant in existence. As a birthplace of the early internet and developments ranging from residential solar power to the Moderna vaccine, Cambridge originates ideas that radiate around the globe. I believe we should leverage the dynamism of our local innovation community in strategic partnerships for public benefit.

1. Innovation Lab

As mentioned earlier, I believe we should set aside modest funding for a small research and innovation team within Cambridge government. In addition to investigating ways to clarify public priorities, the team should experiment with and facilitate local partnerships enabling exploratory pilot initiatives in areas like smart infrastructure, new green technologies, efficient mobility, and more. This might be similar to Boston’s Office of New Urban Mechanics. Such cross-organizational partnerships have already proved valuable in initiatives like Cambridge RISE, our universal basic income-inspired local pilot.

We have so much innovative talent here in Cambridge. I believe there is untapped potential in leveraging this for exciting public initiatives that can model what is possible in other cities.

These past two years have been an unprecedented struggle for residents, families, and the local businesses that form the pillars of our community.

1. Grants and Relief Funds

Our city should continue to expand its support of local residents and businesses through grants and relief funds to ensure that doors stay open. We must also ensure that such recovery efforts are equitable and that none of Cambridge’s residents are left behind. The city should also continue to support and promote outdoor patios for dining during warm weather.

I support advocating for the provision of 24-hour voting, which involves instituting a 24-hour period during which residents with less typical working hours (e.g., service workers, artists, etc.) can vote in person in addition to existing regular and early voting options. The city should also advocate for automatic and/or same-day voter registration as well as extend no excuse vote-by-mail as an option indefinitely.

1. Five Star Voting

Cambridge’s ranked-choice voting (RCV) system is a substantial improvement over traditional voting. Nevertheless, the process of determining who actually wins in RCV is generally unintelligible to the average voter as well as bizarre in that it incorporates an element of random chance. This means that a vote recount of a perfectly valid RCV election result can produce a different electoral outcome in a way that is equally valid. So, although RCV certainly surpasses traditional voting, it doesn’t score points for transparency or accessibility to average people nor to public confidence in the final election result.

I propose advocating for “five star voting,” which involves simply rating each candidate out of five stars (with unrated candidates getting a default 2.5 stars). This way, we are free from worrying about similar candidates “splitting the vote” and have the benefit of a system whose result is both not subject to chance and easy to understand: Winners are simply determined by taking average ratings and selecting the highest.

A side benefit of this system is that elections could reveal more nuance in voter preferences. For example, we could see which candidates are most polarizing (rated most often either one or five stars) or most frequently unrated. This is actually of great public value, as it enables our government to better understand the revealed political and policy preferences of our populace and perhaps better respond to underlying needs.

I am not aware of anywhere that uses this system or that has proposed the concept before. In embracing our role as a forward-thinking city, however, I see no reason why Cambridge should not be first to test it, perhaps initially via informal polling. Perhaps we can inspire other governments - most interestingly, those dominated by our two major political parties - in which voting honestly for an independent candidate will no longer be a vote thrown away.

This advantage - also enjoyed by the RCV system - is impactful. In governments dominated by two major parties, opening the doors for third party candidates dismantles immense concentrations of power among party leaders. Currently, these leaders often dictate how all other members of their party vote, and, more often than not, they fall in line. Power is condensed into the hands of a few in a way antithetical to how the system should work, resulting in increasing partisan division and the conversion of many elected officials into sheep. We need more third party officials not beholden to such structures who are free to vote in line with their true beliefs. Only in this way can we enable democracy to function properly.

We need to perform a feasibility study to illuminate the costs and benefits of implementing city-wide public internet. The study on municipal broadband feasibility was blocked by the city manager against the vote by the city council, representing an example of our need for more accountability among unelected officials in respecting the wishes of the public and their chosen representatives.

Regardless of your views on whether we should, in fact, have municipal broadband, opposing a relatively cheap feasibility study of its costs and benefits is simply unjustifiable. In fact, it is nothing less than pulling the wool over the eyes of our people regarding the real facts. It also obscures and stagnates further discussion about the right strategy for providing equitable digital access to our people. This is an incredibly important issue - one that touches upon fundamental human rights to basic utilities that enable, among other things, access to critical health information, means to financial income, and access to education.

Comcast's internet monopoly in the area is damaging. Fundamentally, I see this within the context of our city’s urgent responsibility to ensure every Cambridge resident has affordable access to the internet. Frankly, I am agnostic as to the specific means by which we do this - whether through municipal broadband, investing in competition, subsidizing access, or otherwise. But I do believe that halting further study on the matter does nothing to benefit anyone.

The arts are core to the cultural richness of our community. I support the continuation of our public art initiatives, especially creative programs that merge the arts with cultural events, community building, climate preparedness, and city beautification.

Local art shows in the CambridgeSide Galleria Mall during the winter, for example, located within a bright, lush, heated indoor garden, would be a burst of fresh air to get us through these dark months while nourishing the soul. Themed events for each holiday that partner with local businesses and accompany larger community events could also be a great way to engage the community.

I fully support continuing investment in recovery efforts within the arts sector toward pre-pandemic wellbeing as well as ensuring the arts are actively included in long-term economic planning.

The function of public safety should involve an ongoing process of earned trust among residents, collective buy-in, and collaborative solution seeking. I support many of the ideas expressed in the recently proposed HEART Proposal related to delegating certain mental health emergency calls to social workers, thereby applying specialized expertise in this area and simultaneously enabling our police force to better focus on true public threats. I believe that, through ongoing conversations among citizen activists and city officials, we can effectively integrate these ideas into a community-driven model for safety in Cambridge.

In addition to these formal efforts, a safe community relies on the social connectedness of its neighborhoods. Neighbors who look after each other are neighbors significantly less vulnerable to a variety of dangers. I propose provisioning a community events liaison for each neighborhood responsible for exploring how best to catalyze organic, ongoing hyper local community events. The output of this exploration may be understanding the need to raise modest funding for food or venue, or to perhaps help facilitate outreach. Either way, I believe communities generally want to organize such events, and this resource can relieve any logistical hurdles.

We must invest in safe, robust, and sustainable water, gas, and utility infrastructure. In doing so, we must also respect the ongoing quality of life for our community. I support updating our guidelines for noisy roadside construction from a 7:00am to a 9:00am start time for the sanity of all residents.

Cambridge is a powerhouse of material innovation. We should be a trailblazer in social innovation as well. As we grapple with increasing inequality, public safety, and climate change, we must invest in all our people and in the fundamental processes and services that matter.

Our challenges are substantial. Yet we also benefit from nearly unparalleled and untapped diversity of ideas right within our borders and the local resources to achieve real improvement.

Cities are sometimes considered “laboratories of democracy,” since they are places where ideas are generated, tried, and evaluated. Often these bubble up to state and national levels, where they are implemented at large scales.

Let’s use our resources, engage our people, and leverage our political will to achieve truly exciting goals that effectively serve our residents. Things don’t have to be business as usual. This is our chance to lead.