Cambridge’s City Manager, Tom Carroll, resigned Monday over what he says is a lack of progress in changing the direction advanced by the Cambridge Waterfront Development Inc. (CWDI) for Cambridge Harbor. Mr. Carroll is the second City Manager to leave under this City Council in less than 3 years. So, what is CWDI and what are the problems?
CWDI is an independent non-profit agency set up in 2018 and funded by the City, the County and the State. The members of the board of CWDI were appointed (not elected) by the three entities. The purpose of CWDI is to oversee the development of the approximately 35 acres of land where the old hospital was on the Choptank River. By creating a single entity such as CWDI, the City, County and State allow developers to deal with just one agency instead of having to deal with the three different governmental entities. This idea has been used all over the US to develop areas but usually agencies such as CWDI hire experienced, professional development companies. CWDI is trying to develop the property on its own.
Our CWDI wants to set itself up as a permanent organization to handle all real estate, tax issues and maintenance in its area of control – very much like becoming a city within a city. CWDI is setting up funding streams using increased real estate taxes to pay for employees’ salaries and maintenance operations. This area of the City could have different codes and rules made by an appointed group and not by elected City officials. CWDI would have a separate maintenance organization, separate equipment to maintain its properties and a separate marina which it will operate.
Our CWDI wants the City, County and State to put up over $50 million for infrastructure – sewers, electrical, streets, parks, parking lots, sidewalks, and public art, etc. before any companies have committed to the project. The City would have to take out a huge loan of $33 million to net $22 million and would have to wait at least 30 years, if not more, to get paid back though increased taxes. It is estimated that the City and County would, with interest, pay $60 million over the life of the loan (or $2 million a year between the governments).
Keep in mind that even after the taxpayers have put up $60 million over 30 years for the Cambridge Harbor project, CWDI would, under their current proposal, still have a funding gap of millions. They would need to seek funding from other public subsidies or come back to the City for more funding to close this gap.
Our CWDI has an additional problem in that there is not enough “economic value” (taxable land) to make the project work financially for the City. CWDI has set aside almost the entire waterfront from the bridge around to the Richardson Museum for nonprofit use. In addition, they are planning to put the “Y” in the premier spot on the site. (CWDI states that there is no deal with the Y but if you follow the money, CWDI has spent $5,000 on plans for developing the old “Y” site and the “Y” has spent $47,000 of the City’s ARPA funds on plans for the CWDI site).
Our CWDI is very guarded with its information. It refuses to give the City pertinent information and is not cooperating with the City. Therefore, we now have two amphitheaters being planned, one at the Packing House and one at Cambridge Harbor. The City will also have two marinas – the old City Marina, which is not full and needs a lot of work, and now a new proposed and taxpayer-subsidized marina at Cambridge Harbor. It seems like there could be better coordination for multi-million-dollar projects like marinas and million-dollar projects like amphitheaters in a small City like Cambridge.
Our CWDI does not provide the public with minutes of its meetings, detailed budgets or the details of its plans. CWDI has been in existence for over 5 years and has yet to announce one private company committing to the site. Therefore, the City is being asked to develop the site with no tenants in sight. It could be a very lonely, expensive place.
There seem to be major problems with the CWDI, and the public does not know enough to make a fair assessment because the information needed is being held tightly. I can only assume that if the City Manager finds it so troubling that he feels he needs to resign, then the City Council should take action and lay out the issues to the citizens.
What can you do? Contact your City and County Council representatives and tell them to withhold any funds until all the issues are worked out in open sessions. Enough of this closed-door decision-making – let the light shine in and let the citizens know what is going on.
Chuck McFadden is the president of the Cambridge Association of Neighborhoods.
Jay Corvan says
Amen Chuck. This is what’s needed, a rethink and a new start. . We have seen this process go from bad to worse. And still the same people on the Cwdi board were there for four years when the parks company from Annapolis pretended to want to develop the property , resulted in nothing. It was pretty clear to anyone looking when all
Parks was going to do was flip the property and it’s development rights to another developer. Parks never showed plans , they didn’t have any, and continued with the opaque process that is so stifling to public projects. All this ended in another fiasco.
These kinds of projects need extreme public participation, And they need to go slowly. They need open design meetings and “ Charettes” to invite ideas and get the public to Buy into the process. The last time this happened was in 2004 in waterfront 2020 with open process with hundreds of participants. It was a raging success.
Years ago a group conducted a survey which asked what people wanted. Most all the replies were parklands and open spaces. People were Leary of a master developer. The survey was called operation destination Cambridge. This questionnaire was as close to public participation as the city ever got to asking its citizens what they wanted, and it was private citizens , myself included, who had to go out and ask. We found that what people wanted was a mix of open space parklands and working waterfront access. Much like Annapolis has managed to do very successfully. We must remember that job creation for building is not the same as jobs that promise continued economic development. Cambridge is a prime place for highly skilled water related jobs. Tourism cannot promise the same economics. Plus it’s proven that residential development costs the city and commercial Pays, known fact.
Development of public property needs transparency. As an urban planner, the most successful projects I’ve seen come when there is full participation. I suggest that the city starts over ( again) creates a professionally designed master plan from a very high quality urban designer , in an open public forum process, divides the property into smaller areas that are developed within the scope of the master plan and an accompanying pattern book to regulate design , abd move that direction.
Cambridge wants to grow but it needs to be careful not to bite off more that it can chew.
Open space and its waterfront are its most character defining features. If one large developer comes chances are it’s going to be low end commercial. The risk is too high for any high end developer and the price point in Cambridge is too low to attract good developments yet. Better to sit on the property as parkland and wait for the right project, or incremental projects to come along.
In the meantime developing a working waterfront park would be an exceptional asset to the city. Use Belfast Maine as an example of how a city linked transportation , tourism , And working waterfront jobs to retain the rural character of the waterfront.
If we trade this waterfront site for anything other than the charm and grit Cambridge is known for we will be sorry we moved too fast. Jay Corvan architect.
Mark Laurent Pellerin says
I am not a resident of Cambridge or the County but have had an keen interest in both — as a real estate appraiser, a fellow Shore dweller, and as a boater. About 30 years ago, I was asked to value a marina proposed to be built at front of the hospital and on what would be hospital owned and, thus, developer rented land. I analyzed and studied the property and the proposal(s) and then conveyed my ideas to its would-be developers. I then had a horribly ugly and excruciating discussion with them about it. They weren’t happy that I’d said their proposal would not make great financial sense for 2 huge reasons: wave attenuation needs/costs and more than uncertain slip demand (or where were 50 to 100 new boaters and boats gonna come from ?). I don’t think they had thought hard or long about either but it was the first time I’d become placated with someone saying, “They only wanted to shoot a messenger, any messenger and for their failings”. I really thought I might never get over it but I did. I was brave enough to again bid on appraising the site yet in-the-whole and just as the hospital was about to become rubble. I did not win that job and felt very peculiarly glad for not winning because I sensed I might not have good or needed access to the property or its principals. In fact, I was cut short with a very fundamental question I had about some small aspect of my appraisal. These letters make me now want to rejoice and say “Thank you…lucky stars!” Nonetheless, I do hope for the best for Cambridge!