A fair but partial account of the Cambridge Citizens Coalitions’ activities since 2019
As summer gives way to fall in an odd and odd-numbered year, campaign season is upon us in Cambridge.
The Cambridge Citizens Coalition has endorsed candidates again this election, but the anti-housing organization is suffering from a greatly diminished standing from when it burst onto the scene two years ago, thanks to its own actions. Half of the incumbent councillors running for reelection declined to fill out CCC’s candidate questionnaire to seek its endorsement this year, and several new candidates who did respond indicated that they would not accept CCC’s endorsement if offered. In many cases, the cold shoulder is due to CCC’s conduct over the past two years, which has seen it or its leaders involved in spreading disinformation, fighting against affordable housing projects, and making racially insensitive remarks or moves on the public stage, among other misdeeds.
Perhaps as a result of CCC’s actions, and candidate reactions to those actions, CCC’s 2021 slate includes only four candidates, down from the eight it endorsed in 2019. The slate includes two incumbents, Patty Nolan and Dennis Carlone, alone with two non-incumbents, Nicola Williams and Dana Bullister.
CCC’s Cambridge City Council slate for 2021
Endorsements go two ways. Not only do groups endorse candidates, but candidates endorse groups by accepting a group’s endorsement. By accepting CCC’s endorsement, and in some cases, CCC’s PAC money, these four candidates are legitimizing the near constant stream of lies and toxicity that has emanated from CCC over the past two years. Candidates can reject endorsements, and any candidate with publicly-minded values ought to reject CCC’s endorsement or risk being associated with CCC’s inexcusable behavior. Candidates should also consider not participating in CCC’s candidate forum on Sunday, unless they plan to show up to condemn CCC’s actions. CCC is not going to reform so long as it is treated as legitimate by candidates.
But even more importantly, don’t vote for candidates who accept CCC’s endorsement, as their willingness to consort with CCC tells you everything that you need to know about their character. This isn’t about issues. There are bigger groups in Cambridge that do a better job fighting for CCC’s positions without resorting to CCC’s tactics. This is about conduct. This isn’t about what we advocate for, but how we advocate.
To illustrate some of what is wrong with CCC, I’ve been asked to provide an accounting of the anti-housing group’s more egregious actions, and will do so here over the next few days. I and others have tweeted about most of these items over the past two years, but I believe this will be the first time it appears in one place.
CCC is not a movement, it’s a small group of mostly western Cambridge homeowners — First, a little background on CCC. Founded in 2019, the Cambridge Citizen’s Coalitions was launched into service as a front for a small group of mostly older white homeowners to fight the Affordable Housing Overlay. No matter what they say they’re for, their origin story is fighting affordable housing in order to prevent people less fortunate than them from moving into Cambridge’s wealthiest neighborhoods. Once founded, the group quickly raised and spent tens of thousands in large dollar donations that it then poured into the 2019 City Council election in support of a slate of candidates who were running against the AHO.
As you can see in this map of CCC donors up until the month before the 2019 election, CCC is not a mass movement. Rather, it is a small group almost entirely centered in Cambridge’s affluent western neighborhoods, home to most of Cambridge’s single family zoning and mansions, marked by the blue dots.
Compare that to a map of A Better Cambridge’s donors, marked as red dots, up through the same date. ABC can claim to have supporters across the city, in every Cambridge neighborhood (excepting, of course, the Harvard dorms and Mount Auburn Cemetery).
ABC and CCC are not the same, though they are often described as being mirror images of each other. Not only does ABC enjoy more public support, it does not engage in the kind of actions that we’ll discuss below.
CCC’s Primary Tactic is Producing and Distributing Misinformation — During CCC’s fight against the AHO in the summer of 2019, the group produced and distributed a large number of highly misleading and downright dishonest flyers about what the AHO would supposedly allow if passed in order to frighten residents into opposing it. Christopher Schmidt, who was himself a core proponent of the AHO and fully conversant in its content, diligently catalogued and debunked their false claims. Their flyers featured misleading graphics and false claims about specific provisions of the AHO. (Much more here)
We’ve seen this tactic played out over and over again, and you will see more examples below.
CCC’s Founder Made Baseless Unsupported Allegations that the Mayor Rigged Public Comment Ahead of a Council Vote — In the fall of 2019, CCC leaders opposed the proposal for a developer to redevelop the Sullivan Courthouse in East Cambridge. Following a contentious Council meeting where the public had a chance to comment on what action the Council should take, CCC’s founder and prime mover, Suzanne Blier, published a blog post on CCC’s website alleging without evidence that then-Mayor McGovern had rigged the order in which commenters were allowed to speak based on whether they supported the proposal or not. She also baselessly alleged that those of us who supported the project were provided with a “special URL” with which we could sign up to speak. As someone who worked on that campaign and distributed the signup link in question, I can assure you that the link I provided to supporters we were organizing was the normal link that is always available to sign up to comment at Council meetings. There is no “special URL”. Even CCC advisory board member Robert Winters agreed that Suzanne was lying.
CCC Took a Donation from a Highly Problematic, Racist Author and Then Published Him — During the debate over the Affordable Housing Overlay, long-time Cambridge resident Fred Meyer caused an uproar when he wrote a February 2019 Op-Ed in the Cambridge Chronicle warning that adding more affordable housing in Cambridge would invite “strangers” to our city and turn it into “The Bronx.” No one could mistake his racist and xenophobic dog whistles, and Meyer’s name was essentially crossed off any list of respectable political allies.
Except for CCC’s list, that is. When CCC began fundraising in the summer of 2019 to block the AHO, Fred Meyer was a founding donor. Meyer also donated to CCC endorsed candidates Quinton Zondervan, Patty Nolan, and Dennis Carlone. Patty even defended Meyer’s racist rhetoric online. Candidates and organizations can and do reject donations all the time when they don’t want to be associated with a donor. No one did here, despite Fred Meyer’s racist opposition to the AHO.
Undeterred by his willingness to dabble in racist stereotypes, CCC went on that same month to even publish Fred Meyer and feature his work on their blog. Providing further insight into Fred Meyer’s thinking, he has since gone on to defend the legacy of the undeniably racist Louis Aggasiz, who considered Africans and Europeans to be different species. He followed up his pro-Aggasiz Op-Ed with a, I kid you not, a pro-Aggasiz poem which included the lines, “Though Agassiz made.…ONE HUGE mistake…That doesN’T [sic] mean HE…wasN’T [sic] First-Rate!”.
CCC’s President Deceptively Misrepresented Academic Sources — As part of the debate over the East Cambridge Neighborhood Conservation District, CCC president Suzanne Blier, a Harvard professor who knows how to cite an academic paper properly, published an Op-Ed in Cambridge Day in which she cited several academic papers in blatantly misleading ways, sometimes cherry picking sentences to provide an impression that was the direct opposite of the study authors’ intent or presenting caveats or questions for future inquiry as conclusions.
“Suzanne says: ‘The Memphis, Tennessee, study on historic districts wraps up saying that there is “not sufficient evidence to conclude that districting itself causes higher prices or greater price appreciation.”’ This quote has nothing to do with Memphis, but comes from the last sentence of the conclusion paragraph of a 2003 report prepared by the New York City Independent Budge Office (IBO).
“And it isn’t actually the conclusion of the paper, it’s a caveat presented after the conclusion. The entire conclusion paragraph reads: ‘IBO found clear evidence that after controlling for property and neighborhood characteristics, market values of properties in historic districts were higher than those outside historic districts for every year in our study. Although the results for price appreciation during particular sub-periods are mixed, for the entire 1975 through 2002 period properties in historic districts increased in price at a slightly greater rate than properties not in districts. Finally, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that districting itself causes higher prices or greater price appreciation.’
“SPB deceptively chopped out the parts that hurt her argument showing that districting increases property values, and instead presented a caveat as a conclusion. Remember, she’s a tenured Harvard professor. She knows what she’s doing here.”
Misusing academic sources like this, implying that a source says one thing when it in fact says the opposite or something altogether different, is a major breach of professional ethics.
Continued in Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.
