Cambridge committee directs city staff to draft ordinance to require signage or window treatments for vacant storefronts; legal limits on fines noted

The Cambridge City Council’s Economic Development and University Relations Committee on [date not specified] directed city departments to draft ordinance language aimed at reducing the visual and public-health impacts of vacant storefronts across the city.

Chair Toner opened the public hearing by asking the Community Development Department (CDD) and the law department to explain current vacancy conditions, past efforts and the city’s legal authority to require registration, window coverings or leasing contact information for empty ground-floor commercial spaces.

Pardis Safari of CDD told the committee that the city’s vacancy database (updated twice yearly) showed 109 ground-floor storefronts classified as vacant in the most recent survey, and that 46 percent of those had been vacant for two years or more. Safari described city efforts to address vacancies—retail zoning changes in 2021, temporary outdoor dining rules, public-space improvements, grants for storefront improvements and a SiteFinder program to connect entrepreneurs with space—and outlined a prior policy proposal that would require property owners to register vacancies, post lease/contact information and keep windows covered with clean paper or artwork.

“If a property owner does not do these things, then we could fine them $300 per day for each storefront in violation,” Safari said while describing the earlier proposal’s enforcement approach. She cautioned that the city cannot regulate based on property ownership and that any targeted requirement would need to be carefully tailored to avoid imposing disproportionate burdens on small local owners.

Megan Baer of the law department advised the committee on legal constraints. Baer said municipalities may impose fees tied to the cost of a service but cannot levy taxes without state authorization, citing Emerson College v. City of Boston as a precedent for distinguishing lawful fees from unlawful taxes. She also explained that noncriminal disposition (Chapter 40, Section 21D) provides a mechanism for daily fines up to $300 per offense, with a ticketing process and appeal to district court.

"A registration fee has to be related to the cost to the city of administering that ordinance and that program," Baer told the committee, adding that a fine for noncompliance must be rationally related to the harm the violation causes and that higher penalties or different enforcement tools could require a home rule petition to the state legislature.

Council members pressed staff for specifics: how many current vacancies would meet a proposed threshold, whether municipal properties would be exempt, how enforcement would work in practice, and whether a short timeline (90 days) or longer (six months or two years) should trigger registration or penalties. Committee members and business association leaders agreed that many property owners already cooperate with pop-ups and window art but that structural barriers—existing long-term leases, costly tenant fit-outs, building code constraints and the differing financial capacity of REITs versus small landlords—complicate enforcement.

Denise Gilson, executive director of the Harvard Square Business Association, and Michael Monastine, president of the Central Square BID, urged the committee to prioritize engagement and assistance as well as accountability, noting successful examples of owners and associations working with community groups to activate vacant storefronts.

A member of the public, MJ Pullins, described long-term neglect at a multi-storefront plaza, alleged mold and water management problems that harmed adjacent small businesses, and urged stronger accountability and clearer transparency about charges and remediation.

After discussion, Vice Mayor McGovern read draft language asking the city manager to direct appropriate departments to draft policy or ordinance language to ensure vacant storefronts are kept in safe, clean condition—options included placing clean paper or artwork in windows, posting leasing contact information and registering vacant properties—and to report back to the committee before the summer recess. The committee voted 5-0 to approve the policy order and request the draft language.

Next steps: CDD and the law department will prepare draft ordinance/policy language per the committee’s direction and return to the committee (staff requested roughly 90 days, or before summer recess). Baer noted that an enforceable fine requires an ordinance and that any fee charged at registration must be tied to administrative cost; any effort to seek penalties beyond Chapter 40, Section 21D could require state action and is unlikely to receive easy legislative approval.

The committee adjourned after the vote.