Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

October 18, 2010

Sign of the Times

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:41 am

Sign of the Times

Another marquee item on the civic landscape is the curious petition campaign to revoke recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to signage on commercial buildings. Most people didn’t even know there was a provision in state law to challenge a local ordinance via a petition campaign. The relevant part of the Mass. General Laws is Chapter 43, Section 42:

Section 42. If, within twenty days after the final passage of any measure, except a revenue loan order, by the city council or by the school committee, a petition signed by registered voters of the city, equal in number to at least twelve percent of the total number of registered voters, and addressed to the city council or to the school committee, as the case may be, protesting against such measure or any part thereof taking effect, is filed with the city clerk, the same shall thereupon and thereby be suspended from taking effect; and the city council or the school committee, as the case may be, shall immediately reconsider such measure or part thereof; and if such measure or part thereof is not entirely rescinded within twenty days after the date of the certificate of the registrars, the city clerk shall submit the same, by the method herein provided, to a vote of the registered voters of the city, either at the next regular city election not less than thirty days after said twentieth day, or at a special election which the city council may, in its discretion, call for the purpose, and such measure or part thereof shall forthwith become null and void unless a majority of the registered voters voting on the same at such election vote in favor thereof.

The petition described in this section shall be termed a referendum petition and section thirty-eight shall apply to the procedure in respect thereto, except that the words "measure or part thereof protested against" shall for this purpose be understood to replace "measure" in said section wherever it may occur, and "referendum" shall be understood to replace the word "initiative" in said section.

To the best of my knowledge, this provision has never been invoked in Cambridge. As a fan of democracy, it’s interesting to see it being put to use. On the other hand, most indications are that this has been little more than a bitter, well-funded campaign of retribution by one man – Philip "Terry" Ragon of Intersystems, a company which rents space in One Memorial Drive – a building that now also leases space to Microsoft. Cambridge voters would likely be out in front opposing the recent "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" decision of the United States Supreme Court that supposedly now facilitates the funding by corporate interests of major political campaigns. Yet this well-funded propaganda campaign by Intersystems and its agents brings barely a peep out of the Cambridge liberals. The inflammatory literature suggests that "Cambridge politicians are giving away our skyline to Wall Street." The literature refers to the amendment as "The Microsoft Amendment" and claims that it will bring "windfalls to wealthy landlords and out-of-state multinational corporations." I haven’t seen BS propaganda like this since the days of rent control.

The petition campaign appears to have successfully scaled the first hurdle of submitting sufficient signatures. With approximately 60,000 registered voters, 12 percent translates into about 7200 required signatures. The campaign reportedly has submitted in the neighborhood of 16,000 signatures. Many will likely be deemed invalid, but it seems probable that the threshold will be met. So what happens next?

Let’s be clear that the Cambridge City Council as a body was hardly deserving of a badge of courage in their 6-3 vote approving the amendments to the Zoning Code relating to signage. Councillor Davis did all she could to punt the matter before voting NO. Her rationale hardly came across as a matter of principle. Councillor Seidel gave every indication that he would be voting in favor of the amendment before doing a quick about-face and voting NO under the threat of political abandonment in next year’s municipal election. Councillor Kelley can always be counted on to vote NO in matters such as this, so his vote surprised no one. Among the six councillors who voted YES to approve the measure, there was a refreshing air of deliberateness – regardless how one might feel about the merits of the amendment. Councillors Cheung and Decker, in particular, were forthright in their statements and expressed great clarity in their view that the amendment was nothing like what the propagandists would have people believe.

It will be interesting, perhaps even entertaining, to see what happens next. The City Council could rescind their approval and, by doing so, look like spineless and incompetent political jellyfish. That may be their best option. On the other hand, they could let the storm pass and allow the measure to be placed on the municipal ballot in 2011 coincident with their reelection campaigns. Gone are the good old days of rent control trench warfare. We’ll have a municipal election dominated by propaganda about signs. There may be a $500 annual individual contribution limit for local candidates, but it will be sky’s-the-limit for a "Citizens United" type of campaign in Cambridge indirectly instructing misinformed voters who they should vote for based on one hopelessly overstated and relatively unimportant issue. Perhaps the safest option for the City Council would be to dip into the public trough and fund a special election on this single item safely segregated from next fall’s municipal election. In recent years, the Cambridge City Council has shown over and over again that incumbency protection is Job #1, so perhaps this is the most likely next step. — Robert Winters

Bill Walsh

Filed under: Cambridge government — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:39 am

Oct 17, 2010 – Bill Walsh

There’s a lot going on right now in the civic landscape of Cambridge. Anyone who has been around for a couple of decades will surely note the sudden death several days ago of former Cambridge City Councillor Bill Walsh, a man who made more than his share of friends and enemies over the years. Indeed, some of his best friends became his most bitter enemies, and some of his greatest adversaries became his closest friends. I am certainly not the person to write any definitive story of the man. Like many others at the time, Walsh was the lawyer in 1985 for the person from whom I bought my house, and I was able to witness up close the wild frenzy that was the offices of Ferraro & Walsh during those crazy days of real estate wheeling and dealing, condo conversion, and speculative deals that promised big profits on quick turnarounds. I was even invited to invest money in some of those deals, but I never did. Not only did I not have the money, I also understood that something that sounds too good to be true generally isn’t true.

My enduring sense of the man is as the janitor’s son who grew up on Hurlbut Street and who was less than welcome among the "lace curtain" crowd of the local Irish. He was even less welcome among the genteel Brattle Street crowd whom he disdained. Like many Irish-Americans in Cambridge, Bill Walsh saw his hometown of Cambridge as a place not so far removed from the days when "Irish Need Not Apply" was the rule, even though it’s unlikely that this was ever his own personal experience. Around 1990, he responded to a petition campaign to prevent the Commonwealth Day School, a very un-Yankee elementary school, from relocating to Brattle Street by making it into a personal campaign against the local upper crust. Bill, like many Irish-Americans, also saw politics as an essential tool for doing business and, perhaps, to even the score.

Though he ran successfully for a Cambridge City Council seat in 1985 and served until his sentencing for bank fraud in 1994, Bill Walsh’s first attempt at political office was when he ran for City Council in 1971 at the young age of 26. He finished 12th in #1 votes and was the next to last candidate counted out. His ballots primarily transferred to fellow Independent candidates Dan Clinton (who was elected) and Lenny Russell (who was the next and last candidate to be defeated that year). After his 1985 election, it could be said that Bill Walsh saw himself as the central figure among local Independents, political opposites of the now defunct but at the time very powerful Cambridge Civic Association (CCA). Of course, since the 1940s the central figure among Independents was Edward Sullivan, Middlesex County Clerk of Courts, former City Councillor, former Mayor, and the brother of City Councillor Walter Sullivan. Walsh was something of an upstart, but he did manage to galvanize the forces opposed to rent control like no one before him. The thing that defined Bill Walsh’s political role more than anything was his opposition to the rent control laws of the time.

Political players with the pro-rent control CCA hounded Walsh from the day he was elected to the day he went to jail in 1994. Some have suggested that these same political players dropped more than a dime or two to facilitate the prosecution. They were there most days at his trial. Ironically, the statewide passage of Question 9 in 1994 that ended rent control occurred soon after Walsh’s conviction and just before his sentencing when he was forced to vacate his Council seat. The CCA then began it’s own rapid descent into oblivion. Walsh’s political career may have gone down in flames, but his efforts helped bring the CCA to the edge of ruin and, without rent control as their defining issue, they came unglued. Bill Walsh may now be gone, but the CCA preceded him in death.

It is widely acknowledged that Bill Walsh resumed his real estate wheeling and dealing after his release from prison, though he largely acted through other agents and remained out of the public eye. Some current city councillors clearly benefited from their ties to Walsh in recent years, though no one has definitively proven anything illegal in these deals. Nonetheless, association with Bill Walsh in recent years has always raised a few eyebrows and suspicions. It was only during the last few years that his presence would be acknowledged at public events along with other former elected officials.

I still think of Bill Walsh as the janitor’s son who built his political and financial network by providing the means for working people to obtain property and wealth, but who was both reckless and somewhat unscrupulous in delivering those benefits. Perhaps his greatest violation was not any specific violation of law, but rather the fact that he left his friends in financial ruin when the speculative housing market soured in the early 1990s. Of course, anyone who chose not to see the Ponzi-like quality of some of Walsh’s schemes must bear much of the responsibility for their own financial losses. Some choose to blame Walsh for the changing demographics of Cambridge after rent control, but there’s more than enough evidence to suggest that this shift was already occurring and that the transition of Cambridge into the condo-dominated city it is today was inevitable. In any case, the passing of Bill Walsh is the passing of an era in Cambridge. — Robert Winters

Obituary: William Holland Walsh of Cambridge and Ogunquit, Maine suddenly October 15, 2010. Beloved husband of Mary Hayes Walsh. Visiting hours in St. Peter’s Church, 100 Concord Ave., Cambridge Wednesday 4-8pm. Funeral mass on Thursday at 10am.

William Holland Walsh of Cambridge and Ogunquit, Maine, Suddenly Oct. 15, 2010. Beloved husband of Mary Hayes Walsh. Son of the late William J. and Catherine A. (Holland) Walsh. Nephew of Donal Holland of Ballineen, Cty. Cork, Ireland. Funeral mass in St. Peter’s Church, 100 Concord Ave., Cambridge on Thursday at 10am. Relatives and friends kindly invited. Visiting hours will be held in the church on Wednesday from 4-8pm. Interment Cambridge Cemetery. In lieu of flowers please send donations in Bill’s memory to St. Peter’s School, 96 Concord Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138. In addition to serving as a Cambridge City Councilor for five terms, and serving the City he loved and his widespread constituency with tireless energy and enthusiasm; Bill had a very active law practice for many years. Although the firm, Ferraro and Walsh, was highly regarded for its work in the real estate field; there was no problem, big or small, that Bill did not take on, on behalf of his clients. His clients, many of whom became his friends over the years, were from all walks of life. Bill had great success both as an attorney and a real estate developer, but the true measure of his success was the degree to which he could help other people. Their success was his success. His good counsel, kindness, and caring touched the lives of countless people. He will be sorely missed but never forgotten.

August 15, 2010

Construction detour at Mass. Ave. and Alewife Brook Parkway

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,planning — Tags: , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 8:20 am

I attended a Livable Streets StreetTalk event on August 4, at which the city of Copenhagen, Denmark was praised for, among other things, always providing a good detour for bicyclists during construction projects.

Only a couple of days later, I got a report from a cyclist who had attempted to take Massachusetts Avenue across Alewife Brook Parkway (Route 16) , and found that the official detour was on Alewife Brook Parkway to Broadway in Arlington — circuitous, and Alewife Brook Parkway has to be one of the least bicyclist-friendly roads in the area. The detour apparently was in effect from 8 PM till 5 AM each night. I don’t know how for how many days this situation continued.

A quote:

It took over 5 minutes for them to stop the 16 traffic and let the Mass Ave traffic go…there are different people out there every day from 5 different agencies. I was not looking for special treatment, just direction when out there as to what the cops wanted me to do. I ended up scooting up the traffic for the last 2 blocks on the sidewalk (because of the lane closing) and waited with many pedestrians at the corner for an extended amount of time until they let the rest of the traffic go and did not try to give us a safe way to cross. I had to cross onto the sidewalk and then get onto the road further down. It took over 5 minutes for them to stop the 16 traffic and let the Mass Ave traffic go.

If Cambridge can’t get something as basic as this right…?

August 11, 2010

“Cycle track”: a sidewalk by another name

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 12:00 am

Paul Schimek submitted the following letter on August 10, 2010 to the Cambridge City Council’s Transportation, Traffic and Parking Committee. [Paul is the former Bicycle Program Manager for Boston and former MassBike and Charles River Wheelman board member.]

   As City planners race ahead with plans for a separate bicycle facility on Concord Avenue (and possibly elsewhere), some would argue that this is a giant leap backwards in terms of bicycle safety and convenience. Count me among the naysayers. – RW

"Cycle track": a sidewalk by another name.
August 10, 2010
Paul Schimek, Ph.D.

Cambridge has recently been promoting a bicycle facility dubbed a "cycle track." The cycle tracks that Cambridge is building on Concord Road and proposing on Western Avenue are simply wider than usual sidewalks created by narrowing the roadway and removing bike lanes. Once these roads are reconstructed, bicyclists will be forced off the roadway by vigilante motorists who believe that only cars are allowed on the narrowed roadway. Bicyclists using a cycle track instead of the road will need to travel much more slowly, and even then they will be less safe due to the greater risk of collision with pedestrians and motorists turning or entering at side streets and driveways. In fact, Cambridge rightly recognizes that sidewalk bicycling is dangerous and severely restricts it. A number of careful studies have shown that cycle tracks increase the rate of bicyclist collisions.

I would like to have Cambridge officials address the following questions about cycle tracks:

1. How is bicycling on a cycle track meaningfully different from bicycling on a wider sidewalk where bicycling is permitted?

Bicycling on cycle tracks has all the same concerns as bicycling on the sidewalk, none of which are solved by making it wider or changing its name:

a) Even though pedestrians will have a separate part of the sidewalk, they will continue to walk or stand on the bicycle part. Experience on Vassar Street shows this. Will the city issue tickets to pedestrians on the cycle track? Under what ordinance? Pedestrians are not permitted in bike lanes, because it is part of the "roadway," but there is no law prohibiting pedestrians in a cycle track or bike path. Pedestrians must cross the cycle track to get to and from parked cars and stopped buses.

b) At intersections, bicyclists will often be invisible to cars turning into or pulling out of side streets and driveways. Drivers are generally required to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks, but pedestrians must not enter the road so quickly that a driver cannot yield. This suggests that bicyclists cannot safely approach cycle track intersections at faster than walking speed.

c) Cycle tracks, like sidewalks, will be used by cyclists going in both directions. A bicyclist traveling on the left half of the road (or going the wrong way on a one-way street) can be ticketed. Under what law can (and will) police ticket "wrong-way" bicyclists on a cycle track?

d) A bicyclist on the roadway can move left (after looking and yielding) to avoid road hazards, overtake, prepare a left turn, or avoid right-turning motorists. A bicyclist on a sidewalk—or cycle track—can do none of these things because there will be a curb or row of parked cars separating the bicyclist from the roadway. Placing the cycle track at the roadway level instead of the sidewalk level does not change these facts.

For these reasons, the city advises bicyclists to stay off sidewalks:

"State law permits bicyclists to travel on sidewalks in the interest of safety except as directed by local ordinance. In general, it is more appropriate and prudent to bicycle in the street, and Cambridge is making every effort to making the city streets safe and comfortable for bicycling. However, it is recognized that there are times when sidewalk riding will be used, for example, with young children. Cambridge traffic regulations require that bicyclists on sidewalks travel at a walking speed and yield to pedestrians."
http://www.cambridgema.gov/cdd/et/bike/bike_faq.html#riding

The Cambridge Police Department states succinctly, "Cambridge discourages the riding of bicycles on sidewalks throughout the city and has provided bicycle lanes on certain streets."
http://www.cambridgema.gov/CPD/CommRes/bicycles.cfm?pv=Yes

2. Will bicyclists be allowed and encouraged to use the roadway instead of the cycle track?

Many bicyclists prefer using the roadway to a sidewalk–even a wider one—for all the reasons stated above. Forcing these bicyclists to use the sidewalk means delaying them significantly and increasing their risk of injury. Knowing that state law guarantees bicyclists the right to use the roadway, many will continue to use it. Will there be sufficient room for motorists to pass a bicyclist without changing lanes? If not are motorists intended to slow to bicycle speed if there is only one travel lane or if the passing lane is occupied? How will motorists know that bicyclists are allowed to use the road, given that they will see signs directing bicyclists off the roadway?

3. What design standard is Cambridge using for cycle tracks?

Cambridge has called the planned cycle track on Concord Road a "raised bike lane," but legally it is not a bike lane, since it is not part of the roadway. A "cycle track" would possibly be considered a "shared use path" under state and national design guides. There is no provision for a bike path that prohibits pedestrians, recognizing that doing so is impossible, and therefore a prudent design must consider their presence.

The Massachusetts Project Development & Design Guide says that "Shared use paths are facilities on exclusive right-of-way with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. Shared use paths should be thought of as a complementary system of off-road transportation routes for bicyclists and others that serves as a necessary extension to the roadway network. The presence of a shared use path near a roadway does not eliminate the need to accommodate bicyclists within a roadway" (Section 5.3.2.4). By contrast, Cambridge’s proposed cycle tracks will have significant cross flow and they will be created by removing adequate room for bicyclists from the roadway.

Noncompliance with engineering directives and design manuals could mean that Cambridge would be held liable by a court in the event of a lawsuit by an injured bicyclist or pedestrian.

4. What is the safety record of sidewalks and cycle tracks for bicyclists?

Cambridge recently completed a study of six years of reported car-bike collisions. What percent of these collisions involved bicyclists using a sidewalk, crosswalk, or sidepath? What percent were caused by motorists overtaking bicyclists in daylight? Several careful studies have shown that crash rates increased when cycle tracks were installed in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland, and other places. Has the city reviewed these studies? Does the city believe that the crash rate would decrease in Cambridge, even though it did not in these places?

Related topics:
Concord Avenue     Western Avenue

July 31, 2010

Aug 2, 2010 (Midsummer) City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 1:16 pm

Aug 2, 2010 (Midsummer) City Council Agenda Highlights

   The one and only City Council meeting of the summer takes place this Monday (Aug 2). As is often the case at the annual Midsummer meeting, the agenda features plenty of death resolutions (21) and congratulations (44) for a total of 82 Resolutions and 32 Orders plus 7 Committee Reports and 38 items on the City Manager’s Agenda. There are plenty of noteworthy items on this Agenda, so let’s get started.

   One potentially controversial (and politically juicy) item is a proposal from the City Manager (Manager’s Agenda #36) to raise the annual resident parking permit fee from $8 to $20 for 2011-12 and $25 for 2013 and beyond. As the Manager notes, the annual fee has been fixed by ordinance at $8 since 1992 (18 years) and was $4 per year from the mid-1970s until then. The proposed increase is quite modest when considered in terms of inflation and should be able to garner the necessary 5 votes to pass. By having the Manager propose the increase, the councillors can simply acquiesce with few, if any, political consequences.

   It’s worth noting that there’s also a communication from a group called the "Livable Streets Alliance" that loosely uses the term "sustainability" to propose that the permit fee should instead be increased to "$50 for the first vehicle, $150 for the 2nd vehicle, and so on." They would also have additional surcharges in some areas. This same group adamantly supports installing a "cycle track" on Western Avenue and reducing the number of lanes on the Longfellow Bridge to one lane in each direction. Thankfully, the City Manager has a better grasp of common sense and political feasibility. Needless to say, a parked car produces no greenhouse gases and does not contribute to global warming. A motor vehicle is not inherently an evil thing. They’re great for getting to the Blue Hills on weekends to enjoy the great outdoors.

   The City Manager was also quite busy in responding to City Council requests for information. The agenda features 20 responses out of 36 pending requests, including a report on "what barriers would prevent residents from raising chickens and what could be done to remove these barriers." That’s Manager’s Agenda #27.

   Perhaps the most significant business items on the Council agenda are three pending zoning petitions all of which are due to expire in early August. These are items #5, #6, and #7 in Unfinished Business. The Green Building/Zoning Task Force proposal (#6) will likely pass without objection, and the Boston Properties petition (#7) relating to the Kendall Square MXD District and the Broad Institute will also likely pass now that the necessary "mitigation" commitments have been extracted from the proponents. [Details in Committee Report #6 and Committee Report #7.]

   The City Council Orders should provide for plenty of speechmaking, controversy, and comedy. Here’s a sampler:

The Rain Orders:

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to report to the City Council on what safety plans exist to contain a city-wide disaster or to mitigate the impact on Cambridge of natural or man-made disasters occurring elsewhere in the United States or abroad.   Councillor Simmons

Order #5. That the City Manager is requested to direct the appropriate departments to investigate the problems that the heavy rains have caused the city and report to the City Council appropriate remedies.   Councillor Simmons, Councillor Toomey and Councillor Cheung

Order #13. That the City Manager report back to the City Council on summer rains and flooding, neighborhood stormwater systems and the proposed Wetlands Protection Ordinance.   Councillor Kelley

   It was, of course, inevitable that there would be a flood of City Council Orders in the wake of the recent rains. The damages sustained by some are a reminder that with homeownership comes certain risks and responsibilities, including the risk of water flowing into a basement or up through basement walls and floors. This is why people buy insurance, keep rainy day funds in the bank, and undertake preventive maintenance. Nobody wishes storm damage on anyone, but it is ridiculous when some people blame the City or demand restitution from the City for damage suffered from a freak storm. Perhaps we would all be well-advised to keep a few sandbags handy for any ground-level or below-grade entries to our property.

The City Website Orders:

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to direct the IT Department to present a plan within 2 months time for addressing an alternative Common Ground Web Content Management System to all departments currently approved to manage their own web pages.   Councillor Simmons

Order #22. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Director of Information Technology to arrange for a portion of the website to be dedicated to information for college students and development of a flyer that advertises the website.   Councillor Cheung

   Though pretty good compared to a lot of other cities (some neighboring cities actually contract out their web design and maintenance with out-of-state vendors), there is definitely room for improvement on Cambridge’s website. Perhaps the greatest problem is that many departments don’t have the internal talent to maintain their local sites. For example, I recently spent a good deal of time trying to get a more current listing of all the City boards and commissions. Some departments were completely up to date and some even sent me the information without having to ask. On the other hand, there are entities such as the "Kids Council" which hasn’t updated anything in ages, and when I requested the information from Executive Director Mary Wong, all she did was blame others for her inactivity. In an ideal world, every division in every City department should have the in-house expertise to maintain and make the best use of their web page(s). Alternatively, the City should install a simple-to-use content management system so that existing staff can take care of their page(s) without having to go running to the City webmaster for every little task. In the case of the Kids Council, the system should be simple enough for a 4-year-old to manage.

The "Story That Will Not Die" Order:

Order #12. That the Mayor is requested to convene a special meeting of the City Council in September 2010 to review the findings of the Cambridge Review Commission.   Councillor Kelley and Councillor Reeves

   This is the anticlimactic and overly expensive report that grew out of "The World-Shaking and Unforgettable Gates-Crowley Event" from last summer. Old news, but very handy for political campaigning or for selling books if your last name is Ogletree.

The Leland Cheung "Get Out the Vote" Orders:

Order #18. That the City Manager is requested to work with the Election Commission to develop a bi-annual program (once during fall semester, once in spring) that would allow Election Commissioners and staff to visit every student dorm in Cambridge to educate students on their voting rights and encourage them to participate in local government and state elections.   Councillor Cheung

Order #19. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the Executive Director of the Election Commission to produce a one page flyer that will be distributed to the universities via PDF that will provide voter information, summary of how we elect our local government officials and a fact sheet answering common questions about what reregistering in Massachusetts entails.   Councillor Cheung

   These Orders are all great and wonderful, but you certainly shouldn’t fault any of the other 8 city councillors for raising an eyebrow or two at Leland Cheung’s initiative to increase voter turnout in the demographic group that has and will again most likely benefit him in future elections. Perhaps Tim Toomey should advocate for a similar initiative among East Cambridge residents.

The "If the State Won’t Do It, We Will" Order:

Order #20. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads to draft our own station plan for the relocated Lechmere Station and to work with the East Cambridge community and neighborhood groups to advocate for the inclusion of Cambridge needs in the final MassDOT green line extension plan.   Councillor Cheung

   The Order is self-explanatory, but the basic notion here is that if a good all-around plan for Lechmere is put under the noses of state transportation planners, they might actually like it and act on it. That may be a better option than waiting for transportation planners to spend years on an inadequate plan that may not be favored by residents or other interested parties.

The "We Don’t Trust the Cambridge Health Alliance" Orders:

Order #27. That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to provide this City Council with appropriate notice of considerations, conversations and discussions he and his senior staff have regarding the City’s primary health institution.   Councillor Decker, Councillor Cheung and Councillor Reeves

Order #28. That the City Manager is requested to report no less than quarterly to the City Council about the conversations that have taken place about the Cambridge Health Alliance relative to service charges and other matters that impact our community.   Councillor Decker and Councillor Cheung

   I’ll let the councillors hash this one out, but it should be obvious to anyone who has been following the news that the Cambridge Health Alliance and other health care providers that were previously dependent on federal reimbursements and the state’s Free Care Pool have been struggling in the new world of mandatory health insurance and greater freedom in the choice of health care providers. Some councillors have railed against Cambridge Health Alliance officials for necessary cutbacks, but economic survival is a serious matter and elected officials should not be so quick to brush these concerns aside.
Related Story: Cambridge Health Alliance seeks buyer or partner (Boston Globe, Aug 13, 2010)

The "40B or not 40B, That is the Question" Order:

Order #29. That this City Council go on record urging its residents to vote no on 2 to preserve the affordable housing law.   Councillor Decker and Councillor Cheung

   This Order will likely pass 9-0, but it’s worth noting that Chapter 40B has often been abused by developers who threaten to build a 40B project as a means of ramming through other projects. Ideally, there should be a compromise that maintains the good aspects of this law but which limits the ability of developers to use it as a blunt instrument to leverage other large projects.

The "I Saw It On YouTube" Order:

Order #32. That the City Manager is requested to investigate with the MBTA the possibility of installing a long flat tube slide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4o0ZVeixYU) at a Cambridge MBTA station to add a bit of personality to a subway stop.   Vice Mayor Davis

   Have fun, boys and girls, and watch the video. – RW

June 22, 2010

Comments on Cambridge’s Western Avenue project

Filed under: Cambridge government,cycling,planning — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — jsallen @ 12:01 pm

This post contributed by John S. Allen

Note as of May 20, 2015: The document linked in the paragraph below is no longer on the City’s Web site. It has been retrieved from the Internet Archive.

Western Avenue is a major one-way arterial street, a truck and and bus route, the only direct route from the Central Square of Cambridge to Allston, Brighton and other points west. Western Avenue presently needs full-depth reconstruction, which also provides the opportunity to reconstruct sewers. The City of Cambridge has recently posted conceptual drawings showing three ways to reconstruct Western Avenue. These and additional information are posted on the City’s Web site.

View Google Map

Western Avenue is lined with typical Boston-area “three-decker” apartment buildings for most of its length. These date back to the early decades of the 20th Century. There are a few businesses as well. Between Pleasant Street and Memorial Drive, Western Avenue presently has two travel lanes, with parallel parking on both sides, except at bus stops and at the right turn lane before Memorial Drive. There is a bike lane for part of the way.

The construction of a Massachusetts Turnpike extension interchange just across the Charles River in Allston in the mid-1960s led to an increase in traffic on Western Avenue and on River Street, which carries traffic in the opposite direction. The much-despised Inner Belt limited-access highway – Cambridge’s equivalent of Boston’s Central Artery – was never built. Governor Francis Sargent vetoed its construction in 1971. It would have diverted traffic from Western Avenue, but it would have split Cambridge in half, just as the old Central Artery separated downtown Boston from the waterfront.

Western Avenue and River Street join at Central Square in Cambridge, but they diverge from each other toward the river. They do not form a convenient one-way pair for short trips.

Western Avenue presents a difficult problem of accommodating all interests, as an arterial lined with residences. Accommodating through traffic including trucks and buses conflicts with the interest of residents in safe walking conditions, in peace and quiet, and in on-street parking.

I am writing this to comment on three conceptual drawings which Robert Winters has sent me. These were posted on a Cambridgeport neighborhood e-mail list. I’ll make my own suggestions after discussing them.

Concept 1

Western Avenue, Concept 1

Western Avenue, Concept 1

Note as of May 20, 2015: The 2010 Cambridge Bike Trends report has been moved from its original location to a different location on the City’s Web site.

Concept 1 is the most conservative. It keeps the two travel lanes but has a bike lane and bulbouts on the right side. This design would presumably somewhat increase the appeal of the street to young and timid bicyclists. However, the bike lane, like most bike lanes in Cambridge, is in the door zone of parked cars. Cambridge’s recent report on bicycle trends showed that doorings amounted to 20% of all reported car-bicycle crashes, the highest percentage I have seen anywhere. Bicycle facilities that encourage riding in the “door zone” do nothing to resolve this problem and probably increase it. Educating cyclists to avoid riding in the “door zone” becomes more difficult when bicycle facilities direct cyclists to ride there.

Due to the total width’s being unchanged in the Concept 1 proposal, Western Avenue would remain suitable for longer-distance through bicycle travel at normal speeds for adults who make regular use of a bicycle. Shorter-distance neighborhood bicycling would not be encouraged because, as mentioned, Western Avenue is one-way and River Street does not make a convenient two-way pair with it for shorter trips.

The drawing shows a bus shelter. A bus shelter is nice in wet weather, but this one is shown on a long bulbout (at sidewalk level) in the no-parking zone currently occupied by the bus stop. With this arrangement, buses will have to stop in the right-hand travel lane and bike lane, blocking them.

The bulbout on the right side of the street shortens crossing distances for pedestrians – but the drawing shows no bulbout on the left side of the street, where there is parallel parking but no bus stop. Why not? At bus stops, there could be bulbouts on the left side only, resulting in the same crossing distance but still allowing buses to pull to the right and avoid blocking other traffic.

All in all: Concept 1 would only improve conditions for pedestrians and for people waiting for buses, and clear the way ahead of buses by blocking other traffic. Conditions would worsen for other motorists and for bicyclists.

Concept 3

Western Avenue, Concept 3

Western Avenue, Concept 3

Concept 3 shows a so-called “cycle track” – a bicycle path – at the right side of the street, located behind the bus shelter and parked cars. I use the quotes because the term “cycle track” has been used to describe various types of facilities. All they have in common is that they parallel roadways like sidewalks.

The “cycle track” would be fitted in by narrowing the travel lanes and eliminating the bike lane on the street. The drawing does not show whether the “cycle track” would be intended for one-way travel or for two-way travel. Two-way travel would occur in any case, because many bicyclists would perceive the “cycle track” as a safe facility, separate from motor-vehicle traffic.

Research on bicycle paths adjacent to streets in Germany, Sweden, Finland, the USA and Canada has shown alarming increases in crash rates above those for riding in the street, due to increased conflict with motor traffic at intersections and to conflicts with pedestrians and other bicyclists everywhere. These results have been confirmed in a recent study in Copenhagen. There are exceptions when the paths are very carefully engineered, with traffic signals to prevent conflicts and with adequate width, but this one does not meet those requirements. The “cycle track” as shown would be partially in the door zone on the right side of motor vehicles, and would be crossed frequently by motorists making turns into and out of side streets — with sight distance problems due to the parked cars; also by pedestrians getting in and out of cars, going to and from bus shelters and preparing to cross Western Avenue. People on inline skates and skateboards, and pedestrians overflowing the sidewalk, would also use the “cycle track.”

One effect of Concept 3 would be to discourage longer-distance through bicycle travel, and to encourage shorter-distance, low-speed bicycle travel by children and novice cyclists. This encouragement would be purchased at the expense of a higher construction cost, more crashes, increased congestion of motor traffic, and making future reconfiguration expensive. Also, it is very difficult to keep a “cycle track” at sidewalk level clear of snow and ice though winter; probably only a single sidewalk width would be plowed, as with the existing “cycle tracks” on Vassar Street; plowed snow would melt back onto the surface and refreeze. Transitions from street level to the “cycle track” typically also are difficult to keep clear of ice and plowed snow.

The bus stop in Concept 3 is just like that in Concept 1, but the travel lanes are narrower, making it even more difficult for other traffic to overtake stopped buses. Placing a cycle track behind a bus stop was shown in the recent Copenhagen study to lead to an increase of 17 times in bicycle-pedestrian crashes, and 19 times in injuries.

Concept 3 is at the very least ineligible for Commonwealth funding, and probably unlawful, because required signage would not comply with the Massachusetts Project Development and Design Guide. A procedure does exist through the Federal Highway Administration to legalize projects that are not within design standards, and to exempt non-standard treatments from liability. The procedure defines new treatments as experimental, and requires that research data be collected, so that non-standard designs may serve to direct the standards-setting process. That is very desirable outcome from the installation of non-standard treatments, of which Cambridge has not taken advantage despite its having installed a number of such treatments.

Concept 5

Western Avenue, Concept 5

Western Avenue, Concept 5

Concept 5 shows Western Avenue with a bike lane, only one so-called “car lane” and back-in angle parking on the left side. Vehicles would have to stop and back up to enter the parking spaces. The bike lane would not be in the “door zone”, because all the parking would be on the other side of the street, but buses would block the bike lane and the one general-purpose lane. Truckers making deliveries would block it for extended periods of time, as trucks would not fit into the back-in parking spaces. Other vehicles might just be able to squeeze by, it’s not clear, but even so, a reduction from two lanes to one would result in gridlock, absent a Cambridge Big Dig to divert traffic.

General comments

What happened to concepts 2 and 4? What did they show? Or does the City just like odd numbers?

I have put the term “car lane” in quotes. There is no such thing as a “car lane”, and it is odd for the City to use this term. Cars are not the only vehicles — there are also trucks, buses, motorcycles, motor scooters, bicycles, and yet others. All may use these lanes under Massachusetts law. However, narrowing the roadway and creating a separate bikeway, as in Concept 3, will recruit motorist animosity to chase bicyclists off the road.

The conceptual drawings are notable for what they do not show. They are far from a complete plan. Though there is some technical data on existing conditions in other documents which the City has provided, there is no analysis of traffic capacity and volumes or signal timing to go with the different concepts. Good decisions about street layout can not be made without this information.

It is clear, however, that all three options for Western Avenue would increase congestion, due to the placement of the bus stops. Option 3 would increase congestion further due to conflicts between cyclists and turning motorists. Option 5 would create congestion all day long.

Transportation reformers like to point out that building road capacity results in an increase in traffic. In practice, if demand exceeds road capacity, traffic does indeed increase — until congestion prevents it from increasing further. An increase in capacity may lead to development and make longer trips convenient. Cambridge is already a built-up area, and development has occurred elsewhere as the Turnpike has encouraged commuting to/from distant suburbs.

Western Avenue can’t comfortably accommodate all current uses. Reducing its capacity, as in the proposed concepts, isn’t going to solve its problems. Only draconian measures – extreme taxation of motor vehicles and motor fuel; a major build-out of public transportation to serve suburban commuters; removal of on-street parking from one side of Western Avenue, and/or a Cambridge Big Dig to provide an alternative route – would relieve Western Avenue of the competing pressures that have resulted in its intractable problems.

Removing parking on one side of Western Avenue would allow a contraflow bikeway behind a median barrier, so the street would be two-way again for bicycle trips. University Avenue, in Madison, Wisconsin, offers an example of such a treatment. I don’t think it would be as successful on Western Avenue, though, because University Avenue is much wider, making room for an ample with-flow bike lane and discouraging wrong-way travel in the contraflow bikeway. Another possibility if parking were removed on one side would be a bus/bike lane — but this would have to be policed with license-plate cameras, or else Massachusetts motorists would ignore it.

What can be done until/unless political will builds to make the needed changes?

If Western Avenue is to remain one-way, then the bus turnouts should remain. Bicycle accommodation on the left side of one-way roadways is not a new idea; it is common in New York City and has been used recently on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston. It might make sense here, and would avoid conflicts with buses. But then there is the issue of transition from/to the right side, and especially to get to the right of left-turning traffic before Memorial Drive and the Western Avenue Bridge. Traffic-signal timing and special (experimental) bicycle signals in the block before Putnam Avenue could ease the transition back to the right. A bike lane on the left side would still most likely be in the door zone, though there would be fewer door openings.

The simplest improvements, and those which can be done now, would be to leave Western Avenue with two travel lanes but to place shared-lane markings in the right lane and bulbouts only at the left side if there is a bus stop on the right. Strict speed-limit enforcement would be helpful, too. In the last block between Putnam Avenue and Memorial Drive, it would be helpful to remove parking entirely on the right side, so as to relieve congestion caused by the large volume of traffic turning from Putnam Avenue and the long red on the traffic signal at Memorial Drive. Perhaps the removed parking can be accommodated off-street, so as not to decrease the number of parking spaces, which are held sacred by business owners and residents. There appears to be space for parking around the city-owned generating plant in the last block before Memorial Drive. Synchronization of traffic signals also would be very helpful, as well as strict speed enforcement and a lower speed limit. These might be enforced by means of license-plate cameras if the objection to them as an intrusion on privacy can be overcome. Since when is speeding on a public way a private matter?

Comments on presentations

Now, some comments on presentations and meeting summaries from the task force studying Western Avenue:

Note, as of May 20, 2015: all three of the documents linked in this section are no longer online, or possibly have moved to different addresses. The versions now linked have been retrieved from the Internet Archive.

The April 15, 2010 presentation most addresses design goals: Notes on this presentation are also online.

“Pedestrian safety a main concern.” The cycle track option will decidedly worsen pedestrian safety.

“Design goals: safe, efficient pleasant” Choose any two as long as one of them isn’t “efficient”. All three of the proposed concepts would reduce efficiency.

Page 47 (page 8 of PDF): shows narrowed travel lanes and cycle tracks on a street that extends to the vanishing point in the background without any cross traffic or parking. The apparent goal of narrowing the travel lanes is to reduce travel speed and make the sidewalks more pleasant for pedestrians, though it’s unclear just where pedestrians would be going on this endless street without destinations. On a street with cross traffic and multiple, conflicting uses, narrowing the traveled way results in seriously decreased efficiency. Reduction in speed is best achieved by rigid enforcement, rather than by reducing efficiency.

Page 10 of PDF, lower left: shows a bus blocking the bike lane, because a bulbout has been placed at the bus stop, exactly what will happened with Concepts 1 and 3 for Western Avenue.

Page 11 of PDF: shows 3 different kinds of inconsistent and nonstandard markings for speed humps and speed tables.

Some notes on the public meeting summary from March 31, 2010:

goal #22, page 6 of PDF:

“Undertake reasonable measures to improve the functioning of the city’s street network, without increasing through capacity, to reduce congestion and noise and facilitate bus and other non-automobile circulation.”

Not achieved, all of the concepts increase congestion. Concept 3 produces gridlock.

Goal 23, page 6 of PDF:

“Encourage all reasonable forms of nonautomotive travel including, for example, making improvements to the city’s infrastructure to support bicycling and walking.”

The concepts generally improve walking conditions, though concept 3 drastically increases conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians and will predictably increase the crash rate.

Preliminary project goals, page 7 of PDF:

“Ensure corridor is safe for all users • Maintain adequate traffic flow • Reinforce residential character • Appropriate traffic speed • Improve conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit riders.”

None of the concepts furthers all of these goals. Achieving goals of reinforcing the residential character and improving bicycling conditions is particularly difficult.

Conclusion

Improving conditions on Western Avenue isn’t going to be easy. The City’s concept drawings show three plans which, at best, improve conditions for pedestrians, but which worsen them for motorists and which either effect little change or worsen them for bicyclists. Some alternatives are more promising, but any that are to effect major improvements are unlikely to be politically palatable until and unless the price of motoring gets much higher.

June 20, 2010

June 21, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 8:53 pm

June 21, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

This will be the last City Council meeting before the summer recess. Monday Night Live will return on Aug 2 (and then again on Sept 13) unless some dire emergency occurs. The agenda is brief but does have one contentious Order from Council Kelley (who seems to like stirring controversy of late) challenging the preference given to current residents applying for subsidized housing.

The zoning amendment relating to the Broad Institute’s proposed expansion in Kendall Square will also have to be passed to a 2nd Reading in order to be voted at the Aug 2 (Midsummer) meeting, five days prior to its expiration. In fact, this will make three zoning petitions to be voted (or allowed to expire) at the Aug 2 meeting (including two passed to a 2nd Reading on June 14). Here are some of the more noteworthy items on the June 21 agenda:

City Manager’s Agenda #7. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Number 10-46, requesting a report detailing issues of greatest importance that are before the Police Review and Advisory Board (PRAB).

There’s nothing particularly revealing in this report, but in the context of a former PRAB director’s effort to milk the City in court plus the Great Gatescapade last summer, anything even remotely related is potentially a hot topic. Expect one or more councillors to use this opportunity to branch out to several barely related matters before they head off for their summer vacation.

City Manager’s Agenda #14. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Number 10-76, regarding current tree related ordinances, state statutes and informal policies.

This is referenced not because it’s such an earth-shattering topic, but rather to point out that trees and dogs are topics guaranteed to bring out the passions in Cantabrigians. Parking is #3 on the list. I suppose one could conclude from this prioritization that Cambridge is a rather sleepy little village these days. Elsewhere they worry about unemployment, violence, and substance abuse. In Cambridge we lose our minds over dog parks, leaf blowers, tree removal, and finding a parking space. Count your blessings, I suppose.

Resolution #7. Congratulations to Susan Glazer on being appointed Acting Assistant City Manager for Community Development.   Mayor Maher

This past Wednesday was Beth Rubenstein’s last day on the job as head of CDD. It will be interesting to see how the focus of the department evolves over the next few years – regardless who gets the job permanently. The City rarely makes wholesale changes in any department, and the Community Development Department is well-staffed in such areas as housing (10 people), community planning (13 people), economic development (5 people), environmental and transportation planning (9 people), plus several others – 44 full-time positions in the FY1022 Budget. Regardless what kinds of policy Orders are passed by this or any previous City Council, there is great inertia/momentum associated with such a significant professional staff – many of whom have been there for some time – and changes rarely happen overnight.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to work with relevant departments to change Cambridge’s housing lottery system to eliminate the residence preference.   Councillor Kelley

This Order will die on an 8-1 vote. It’s not even clear that Craig Kelley will ultimately vote for his own Order. This does, however, bring attention to some of the paradoxes inherent in several City initiatives. For example, if you locate a wet shelter for active alcoholics in Central Square, this will likely lead to an INCREASE in the number of active alcoholics in the area (unless, of course, every town were to build a wet shelter – which will not happen). If you build it, they will come. Similarly, when Cambridge takes the initiative to build “affordable housing,” the number of people seeking this housing in Cambridge will inevitably go up, not down. One can speculate that the residential preference might cause an increase in demand for this City-sponsored housing among existing residents in excess of the rate at which new housing units can be added to the supply.

If Councillor Kelley is bothered by the preference given to current residents in subsidized housing, perhaps he should also file an Order regarding the numerous well-educated and able-bodied activists who somehow manage to get subsidized housing in Cambridge. Why get a job when it might jeopardize your cheap housing?

Order #3. That the City Manager is requested to organize a forum forecasting future housing needs for older Cantabrigians that incorporates a panel of housing experts.   Vice Mayor Davis, Mayor Maher and Councillor Simmons

This is a worthwhile goal, but would this be additional subsidized housing on top of existing programs, or should there be a shift in existing resources toward elderly people who might really need the housing in resource-rich Cambridge?

Order #2. Cancellation of the June 28, 2010 City Council meeting.   Vice Mayor Davis

Rarely does a City Council Order get unanimous sponsorship prior to the meeting. This one did! Early summer vacation! Please note that of the 17 City Council committees, 8 of them have yet to meet and only 1 of these 8 has any meetings scheduled.

Order #11. That the City Manager be and is hereby requested to identify areas in need of additional bike racks and the feasibility of installing long term “bike sheds” or “bike lockers” for storage of commuter bikes near metro stations.   Councillor Cheung

The City can start by clearing out the many bicycles that have been locked and not touched for months in Central Square. That would free up quite a few locations for locking up a bike. Let’s hope the City doesn’t start cracking down on the harmless practice of locking bikes to parking meters. Rarely does this cause any obstruction or inconvenience and it greatly increases the available lockups in business districts. — Robert Winters

June 14, 2010

June 14, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Filed under: Cambridge government,City Council — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 1:58 pm

June 14, 2010 City Council Agenda Highlights

Tonight’s agenda is dominated by the disposition of several zoning-related matters. There’s also a potential time-sink in Councillor Cheung’s Order regarding the legislation recently passed by the Massachusetts House regarding illegal immigration. The Order does not just “disapprove” of the legislation, it “condemns” it. Here’s what we have, starting with the proposed amendment regarding conversion of buildings from Institutional to Residential use (which was initiated by the advertised sale of buildings by the Jesuits and the questionable suggestion by Councillor Toomey that these should be purchased in order to densely pack subsidized housing units onto the sites – Mar 22 Order #1, Apr 5 Mgr #11):

City Manager’s Agenda #6. Transmitting communication from Robert W. Healy, City Manager, relative to a Planning Board recommendation on the City Council Rezoning Petition to Modify Section 5.28.2 Related to Buildings Occupied by Institutional Uses. [The Planning Board does not recommend adoption of the Petition as filed.]

Committee Report #1. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Sam Seidel and Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chairs of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on May 6, 2010 to consider a proposed amendment to Section 5.28.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the applicability of Section 5.28 to structures that may have been built for residential use but have been in Institutional (religious, educational, governmental) use for at least ten years.

Committee Report #2. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Jr., Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a meeting held on June 9, 2010 to continue discussion of a proposed amendment to Section 5.28.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the applicability of section 5.28 Conversation of Non Residential Structures to Residential Use to include structures that may have been built for residential use but have been in Institutional Use for at least ten years.

There were significant issues raised at the committee hearings about this proposal and the Planning Board gave the idea a “thumbs down.” This proposal was primarily a reaction to the apparent sale of these buildings to Harvard University. The spirit of the proposal was similar to the rhetoric that accompanied the allocation of CPA funds toward historic preservation at Shady Hill Square, i.e. the insincere statement that subsidized housing should be built in the tonier parts of town as an act of class warfare against a perceived elite. There are also elements of resentment growing from the frequent siting of such projects in places like North and East Cambridge. In any case, zoning amendments should ideally not be proposed just because you’re pissed off.

Committee Report #3. A communication was received from D. Margaret Drury, City Clerk, transmitting a report from Councillor Timothy J. Toomey, Co-Chair of the Ordinance Committee, for a hearing held on June 9, 2010 to continue discussion of a petition by the City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance in accord with the recommendations of the Green Building Task Force to encourage energy efficient buildings.

With a positive Planning Report and now an Ordinance Committee Report, this will presumably be passed to a 2nd Reading and ordained later this month. The zoning change would only affect new construction and large scale renovations.

Charter Right #2. Charter Right exercised by Mayor Maher on Order Number Six of June 7, 2010 requesting the City Manager to confer with the Community Development Department and Boston Properties to report back to the Ordinance Committee of the City Council on June 9th, 2010, on whether the ground floor retail proposed by Boston Properties would be of the size and nature suitable for a grocery store, convenience store, or small foodstuffs boutique.

This matter was hotly debated at the previous meeting. There are numerous issues at play such as whether the proposal would effectively kill the possibility of new housing in the Kendall Square MXD district. Councillor Cheung’s Order #6 from last week was actually far more comprehensive than I had originally noticed and included a provision for what was arguably commercial rent control for “upstart local entrepreneurs”. Another significant issue was whether there was any guarantee of the long-term tenancy of the Broad Institute at this site, a new local institution with “favored nation” status. As is often the case, allegations of quid-pro-quo political contributions by the developer/owner have been made but not substantiated.

Order #1. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads and report back to the University Relations Committee the feasibility of the City creating a “Welcoming Packet” for new students, distributed by the universities with information on public services, Cambridge history and culture, and a calendar of civic events.   Councillor Cheung

This brings back recollections of a similar Order in 2000 from former Councillor Jim Braude calling for a “welcome wagon” for new residents. (Order #6, April 24, 2000). Here’s an summary of the ensuing conversation a decade ago.

Order #2. That the City Manager is requested to confer with the appropriate department heads on the feasibility of instituting a five cent per disposable bag fee, collected by the City that would in turn be put aside into a fund which purpose is to buy canvas bags wholesale and distribute them to Cambridge residents.   Councillor Cheung

Nanny government. Reusable canvas (or any other material) shopping bags are what everyone should use, but they’re plentiful and cheap and already distributed at all sorts of events. Cambridge residents don’t need to be taxed or subsidized for such trivialities, especially when they are already so freely available.

Order #3. Opposition to the amendment that was passed to the budget bill regarding immigrants.   Councillor Cheung

It’s interesting that the primary point made in opposition to this state legislation is that it is unnecessary because it adds little more than what is already required of those seeking to take advantage of taxpayer-funded services. Is so, why the strong condemnation? It’s worth noting that Councillor Cheung’s Order focuses on all the contributions of immigrants to this country, but the proposed legislation is not about immigrants. It’s about illegal immigrants, i.e. those who are residing in Massachusetts but have not adhered to existing laws. Councillor Cheung’s Order also correctly challenges the practice of creating policy through budget amendments, but the federal government does this routinely. The Order correctly points out that there may be substantial costs associated with enforcing the proposed legislation. In any case, be it Arizona or Cambridge, it’s ridiculous that the inability of the U.S. Congress to address these matters causes individual states to take such actions. Regardless of party affiliation, spines appear not to be part of anatomy of U.S. Congressmen and Senators. – Robert Winters

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress