Tag Archives: Cambridge

Traveling on a Runaway Bus

I’ve been asked to speak about the need to elect a progressive city council. Which—to do that—requires us to replace at least three of the folks shown in the photo below, ideally from the back row. (I’ll speak later about the criteria that leads me to say that)

City councilThree years ago, like most of you, I was totally ignorant of what was happening in our city. Totally ignorant of the city’s addiction to development, or the wheels that had been set in motion to virtually rubber-stamp any project that came before the Planning Board or our City Council.

But then I discovered a staggering fact. In the last few years, more than HALF the development projected for the next 20 years in Cambridge had either been built or permitted. Most of it without the guidance of anything I would consider real planning. 

Well, that woke me up and once it did I saw we were all traveling on a runaway bus with no one at the wheel. A bus that was throwing off passengers—my neighbors and yours—as we merrily careened on our way. 

Ever since I’ve been struggling, along with others, to grab the steering wheel and slow down the bus. I guess that’s why I’m here today.

If I can paraphrase from a far greater orator than myself…

Friends, neighbors, Cantabrigians, lend me your votes! 

I come to shake up the city council, not to praise them.

For the deeds these councilors do will live long after they’re gone.

As will their unfortunate zoning decisions—and lack of foresight—chip away at the foundations of our beloved city.

Make no mistake, we are now drawn to an epic battle to preserve all that is most precious to us in Cambridge—our quality of life, our economic and racial diversity, our sense of community identity.

The next city council election may well decide the future of our city; and whether there’s a place for any of us in that future. 

Many of us rail against the city council for their kneejerkreactions to complex issues. For the speed with which they approve almost any proposal that hides behind claims of protecting our most vulnerable citizens. 

No matter that their political war chests are brimming with donations from developers…

No matter that they vote for zoning changes that award millions to developers while potentially displacing the very people they profess to care about…

No matter that they have failed to insist on thoughtful planning for our city’s growth…

Most of these councilors voted down the Carlone Petition, the one tool they could have used to protect our city from misguided mega-developments like the Sullivan courthouse. 

And though they agreed to a Master planning process, they cynically placed it under the control of the very agency whose lax planning and arrogant behavior led to the outcry for a master plan in the first place.

That’s like sending a mugger out to protect his latest victim.

Over and over, they trumpet their concern for the families and poor people flushed out of Cambridge on a tsunami of development, but they never insist on an analysis of the real impacts of all this unbridled development.

And so I’m here today with two missions: first to call for right-thinking individuals to run for city council. We need candidates who will stand up to the pro-development cabal that threatens the fabric of our community. It only takes four votes to stop up–zoning and spot-zoning in its tracks. Just four votes to send proposed 19-story luxury towers back to the drawing board.

We believe we currently have three such enlightened councilorswho’ve shown they can see beyond the false arguments, who won’ttrade away our city’s future for a fast buck. (This time I direct your attention to councilors in the front row of the photo.)

Secondly, the Cambridge Residents Alliance will be endorsing a slate of candidates in the next election, and I humbly ask you to vote for that slate. Or at least not to vote for anyone in that photo who voted against the Carlone Petition, or who supports the status quo, takes money from developers, or naively claims the city is doing a good job planning for its future.

Your vote in the next City Council election may help decide who gets forced out of Cambridge, and who gets to stay.

That’s all I have to say…except I‘ll see you at the polls!

Thank you.

—————————————–

A recent speech of mine. I was asked to speak about electing a progressive city council at a recent forum on affordable housing put on by the Cambridge Residents Alliance (CRA). By progressive we meant men and women who would put the interests of the citizens of our city over the interests of developers and the Chamber of Commerce. For more information about the forum itself or about the efforts the CRA is making to protect our city and to advocate for those with too little political clout or who can’t advocate for themselves go to CambridgeResidentsAlliance.org.

THE DEVELOPERS’ REPUBLIC OF CAMBRIDGE

Something smells rotten in Cambridge.

The city is experiencing runaway development and explosive growth that critically endangers its character, diversity and quality of life. So say a growing number of city residents and neighborhood groups.

“Not so!” say city “planners” and “leaders” who, far from planning or leading anything, are goose-stepping to a tune played by Cambridge’s pro-development cabal.open space

“Not so!” say a majority of City Council members who consistently vote to allow unfettered development and who recently turned down an opportunity to take responsibility for projects too large (over 50,00 square feet) to be trusted to a Planning Board that never learned to say “No.”

Those same City Councilors cynically—or perhaps ignorantly— hide behind the urgent need for low- and middle-income housing to justify their support for developments that will spike local rents and most likely displace the people they profess to be helping.

If they truly worried about displacement they’d ask the Community Development Department or the City Manager to report on the net gain/loss of affordable units through the special permit process.

But why ask a question whose answer you don’t want to hear?

Or perhaps they realize what most of us already know— that we can’t trust any of the city’s administrators when it comes to dealing honestly with the problems of wide-scale unfettered development.

Can we trust Susan Clippinger, Director of Traffic and Parking, who has never found that a proposed development significantly added to traffic problems, not even in Alewife? Of course, in her rush to approve projects, Ms. Clippinger consistently resists the temptation to measure the combined impacts of developments.

Can we trust Susanne Rasmussen, Cambridge’s Director of Environmental and Transportation Planning, who publicly states “The amount of traffic on the street in Alewife has been pretty flat over the past 15 years.” This of course the same Suzanne Rasmussen who made a presentation to the Central Square Advisory Committee citing 40% available capacity on the Red Line during rush hour; who also cited “50% of residents within a ¼ mile of the T as having no cars.” I don’t dispute the numbers, only the fact Ms. Rasmussen neglected to mention her survey population included student dorms.

Can we trust a City Manager who responds to a groundswell of anger against the Planning Board by appointing new members, all of whom appear just as beholding to the development community as their predecessors?

Not exactly rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but close.

Can we trust a city council that no sooner agrees to a Master Planning process than puts it under the direction of the planning agency whose lax planning and arrogant behavior contributed to the public outcry for a master plan?

Speaking of Community Development, can we trust a planning agency that seems intent on ramming through zoning changes and creating de facto zoning policy? Brian Murphy, Assistant City Manager for Community Development recently announced to the city council that CDD would not put forth zoning recommendations developed by the K2C2 committees and would instead deal with zoning changes on a project by project basis, thus shutting out the council and the city’s residents from any hope of a coherent, transparent zoning process.

In the last four years, Cambridge has seen almost HALF the construction projected for the next 20 years either built or permitted. Far from creating a growing sense of community through our zoning process, we are growing our city chaotically, almost totally driven by market forces which, left to their own devices, will gentrify our city, expunge our racial and economic diversity and create something far different than the Cambridge we love.

Yes, something smells rotten in Cambridge. And if our “leaders” and “planners” have their way, the smell will only get worse.

“We tried to break up, but they wouldn’t accept that it was over.”

Dear Abby:

This is very painful to talk about, but I need some guidance. Last Tuesday a group of fellow Cambridge residents and myself tried to break off our relationship with our Planning Board, but they just wouldn’t listen. All evening we kept telling them they no longer held a place in our hearts, and that we felt betrayed by their falling in love with the developers they were supposed to protect us damaged heartfrom. But, alas, nothing we said seemed to penetrate the unfathomable depths of their minds. Our words were like cannonballs that turned into feathers on impact.

We told them we were sorry we had to break up; that we had loved them once and they had done a great job helping us recover from hard times. But hard times were over, speaker after speaker told them bluntly, and now we needed guard dogs to protect us from developers rather than lap dogs to lick their fingers.

Abby, we did our best to be sensitive to their feelings. We told them we still liked them and, rather than take away all their power to cram ugly, dense buildings into our neighborhoods, we were only going to take away projects 50,000 square feet or larger, which would then be subject to City Council approval. It was like saying we would still go out on dates with them, but they could no longer assume they’d be staying the night when the evening was done.

But apparently we were speaking to people who couldn’t understand our language. We would say, “You’ve done everything but roll over and play dead for developers, approving 49 out of 49 projects and never rejecting a single one.” To which they’d reply, “But nobody on the city council is qualified to make these decisions. We have a combined total of over 75 years Planning Board experience.” To which we would answer, “Yes, but you’re using that experience to undermine our quality of life, jam up our roads, and totally change the character and makeup of Cambridge’s uniquely diversified population.” To which they responded, “Yes, and the city council is just not qualified to take on those responsibilities.”

Abby, I wish I could have taken their little heads in my hands and shouted “Listen, folks, it’s over! We don’t love you anymore. We don’t even like you. It’s time we went our separate ways. And, please, take the Community Development Department, the Traffic Department and the City Solicitor with you!”

But it was all to naught, Abby. Not surprisingly they acted as though they would never let us go, voting against the Carlone petition and ignoring our pleas to be freed from this excruciatingly painful relationship.

Please, Abby, tell us what we can do to rescue ourselves and Cambridge from the grip of an overly possessive Planning Board while there’s still a Cambridge worth rescuing?

(signed)

Growing More Desperate Daily

————————————–

In case it’s not obvious from the essay, Cambridge is going through a period of runaway development aided and abetted (some of us believe) by a Planning Board seemingly dedicated to protecting the rights of developers, often against the wishes, rights and best interests of Cambridge’s current property owners. The Carlone Petition, initiated by City Councilor Dennis Carlone, seeks to strengthen the city’s vigilance against the approval of egregious large projects at a time when the city is undergoing a process to develop a Master Plan.

Ironically, this was the first petition in recent history the Planning Board firmly rejected. The score is now 49 to 1 and, in case you haven’t noticed, Cambridge is losing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alan Ladd in Cambridge, Part 1

Alan Ladd lights his cigarette. The smoke rises up in a lazy curl, lending a softness to his already soft and extremely handsome features.

“You understand?” he asks in that deep voice I’ve heard countless times nailing dozens of bad guys alan laddin dozens of movies. “Do I make myself clear or do I have to write it out for you?”

“I hear you,” I answer. “You want me to stand up for the little guy, the poor folks, the middle class families—those who’ll get run out of Cambridge once the developers get their way.”

“Yeah, just like I stood up for the homesteaders in ‘Shane’ when the wealthy cattle men wanted to push them out of the valley. If you don’t take a stand, I’ll come back to talk with you,” he threatens with that disarming softness that always presaged iron fists flashing or six-shooters firing. “And I don’t think you’ll enjoy that, Paul Steven,” he adds with a knowing nod. “You hear me, son?”

I’m sixty-seven years old and Alan Ladd calls me “son!”

“Yessir,” I answer, slightly cowed but inwardly rejoicing that Alan Ladd would take time out from his spiritual journey, wherever that might have taken him, to channel himself into my head and threaten me. Me!

Alan Ladd is threatening me!

“And don’t forget it!” he thinly smiles, looking up from under the brim of the black Stetson perched on the back of his head. That’s the way Alan liked to wear his hats. The way he looked best. And always that famous blond pompadour would rise in a handsome wave before disappearing into the darkness of the hat. “Otherwise I’ll have to express my displeasure like I did to Edward G. Robinson in ‘Hell Over Frisco Bay.’ Though, to be fair, I had the advantage then of a physical body and physical fists.”

Forget the fact that ‘Hell On Frisco Bay’ was filmed years after ‘Shane’, or that by then Alan Ladd had lost his matinee idol looks to the ravages of time and whiskey. Forget the fact I’m just a little guy in Cambridge, a writer with a small blog and a big mouth, trying to be the good guy who stands up for what’s right; attempting with my writer’s voice to battle 21st Century forces of unlimited wealth, unchecked greed, uncaring governments, and developers who believe their desires and insatiable hunger for profits should supersede the rights and well-being of others.

And forget the fact that Alan Ladd, whom I’ve idolized since he first outdrew Jack Palance in ‘Shane’ back in 1953, has been dead for fifty years.

Forget all that and concentrate on the fact Alan Ladd is turning on the heat in his softest, most threatening ‘Whispering Smith’ manner and focusing it on me.Alan W.S.

In a voice that comes out of his throat, Alan Ladd advises me to, “Stand up and speak straight. If you think those mugs from A Better Cambridge are talking through their hats, then say so.”

“It’s not that simple,” I protest. “I’m sure some of them actually believe they’re trying to create a better city by fighting for increased density.”

“Sure they are” he says softly, “but at what cost? If their goal were a better Cambridge, like their name says, they’d be angrily demanding the very master plan they keep pooh-poohing. They’d be demanding the city look at its traffic mess, its rate of accelerated development and then plan for what’s coming. They’d be fighting the courthouse, not cheering it on.

“That’s how you make a better Cambridge!” he concludes emphatically.

I feel the need to defend these adversaries. “They say they want to alleviate the housing crisis,” I explain, but Alan Ladd waves it off in a swirl of cigarette smoke; he’d heard that line before.

“Good try,” he quips. “But their goal is to make hay while the sun shines, Paul Steven, to get as much development approved while the city sleeps and before your Cambridge Residents Alliance starts blowing its trumpet too loudly to be ignored.”

“But some of them must mean well,” I argue, hoping to avoid being pushed into a confrontational stance by the one man I idolized since my youth because he never backed down from a fight.

“Look, they never mention the word ‘affordable,’” he continues, flicking his cigarette ash and giving me a sidelong glance, “It’s the ‘housing’ crisis to these guys, not the ‘affordable housing’ crisis. Big difference! They never saw a developer they didn’t like or a development they couldn’t support.”

“But what can we do?” I ask him. “Where are we headed?”

Grimly, Alan Ladd turns to me, murmuring under his breath as he straps on his six-guns, “For a showdown!”

TO BE CONTINUED.

Why We Should Scrap K2C2 and Start Some Real Planning. And do it NOW!

In case you haven’t noticed, the residents of Cambridge are fed up! They’ve had their fill of the city collaborating with developers and business interests to cash in on Cambridge’s rocketing real estate values at the expense of families, the middle class and the diversity that makes this town so special.

Fresh Pond/Alewife residents at the Tobin School

Fresh Pond/Alewife residents at the Tobin School

Something Brewing In Fresh Pond (in addition to more traffic)

Earlier this week at a meeting of the freshly-minted Fresh Pond Residents Alliance, 150 residents from the Fresh Pond and Alewife areas joined together to call for an honest response from our municipal leaders—our city managers, City Council and Planning Board—to what has become an almost non-stop and overwhelming tide of development. Development that has clogged roadways from one side of the city to the other. Development that has traded on Red Line proximity to justify the approval of more condos and apartments than the existing infrastructure can accommodate. Development that is changing the makeup of the city’s population, its rhythms, and its basic livability without anyone stopping to question where we’re going or whether we want to go there.

It was clear—to those newly gathered folks at least—the game needs to be changed. The old rules won’t work anymore. No longer can inclusionary zoning serve as a convenient excuse for up-zoning giveaways worth millions. No longer should we accept an anemic inclusionary zoning formula that results in far fewer affordable units than the numbers gentrification will ultimately displace. And no longer should our city councilors be allowed to hide behind that same inclusionary zoning argument while green-lighting developments that sacrifice the well-being of current residents to benefit affluent people who don’t even live here yet.

Jan Devereux

Jan Devereux

Let’s Talk About The K2C2 Planning Process

I came along too late to witness the K2 (for Kendall Square) part of the process, but if it was anything like C2 (for Central Square), it was flawed, biased and flagrantly disinterested in the participation of the affected neighborhoods. Without a single advisory committee representative from either the Cambridgeport or Area IV neighborhood associations, C2 pretended to seek resident input while aggressively pushing for increased densification and towering building heights.

K2C2 is a prime example of how not to plan for Cambridge’s future. The fact that a city planning department would submit recommendations for massive zoning increases without first studying the impacts of their recommendations is not only shocking, but unconscionable. To act as if decisions made concerning Kendall or Central Squares would not have consequences citywide—on traffic, public transportation and public safety—is an indicator of how hard the sponsors of K2C2 were working toward a desired outcome, and feared doing anything that might undermine it.

With inclusionary zoning, in its current formula, obviously a Trojan Horse for developers, there are fewer meaningful arguments one can make for continued over-development. So-called ‘Smart Growth’ quickly becomes Stupid Growth once you admit the Red Line is maxed out, or when new residents are asked to risk life and limb to access the ‘nearby’ Alewife station. Also stupid, if not downright criminal, is that NOBODY in charge in Cambridge, up till now, has asked for an honest look at what’s going on; or what’s coming down the road. Our Planning Board and City Council have approved thousands of new apartments and office units without comprehending the impact of their decisions or the context of growth within which those decisions are being made. Nobody apparently wants to discover, yet alone admit, that development is not just leading to gentrification, but is actually microwaving gentrification.

Microwave Gentrification 

In a report soon to be released by the Cambridge Residents Alliance, Richard Krushnic, Alliance member and an analyst with Boston’s Dept. of Neighborhood Development, projects over 22 million square feet of new commercial and residential construction in Cambridge between 2011 and 2035—half of which has already been built, permitted or begun the permitting process in just the last three years!*

No, you didn’t read it wrong—half of the construction anticipated between now and 2035 has been built, permitted or applied for a permit in the last three years!

The Need For An Honest Master Plan

Above all that construction noise, if you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of…change, though it may at first sound like angry raised voices. What’s happening in Fresh Pond and Alewife is happening all around the city. In East Cambridge, Central Square, Cambridgeport, North Cambridge, too. City residents are banding together to question the wisdom of recent decisions and ongoing policies. At the same time, newly-elected City Councilor Dennis Carlone is circulating a petition calling for a comprehensive citywide Master Plan, something the Cambridge Residents Alliance has been promoting for over two years. A Master Plan that calls for the input and support of the people most affected by such a plan, we the citizens of Cambridge.

If you want to give Cambridge a chance to grow without sacrificing its character, diversity and livability, sign Dennis’ petition. And plan to participate in the resulting process which, if done right, should finally provide a cohesive and integrated approach to growing our city while protecting our neighbors and our quality of life.

It may not generate untold millions for our city’s coffers or turn developers into millionaires, but it will result in a city we can all afford to love.

———————————————–

*These figures do not represent a citywide total, as they only reflect larger sized projects in the hot spots of Alewife, North Point, Central Square, Kendall Square and The Osborn Triangle. They do however account for half of the city’s projected 22 million square feet.