Tag Archives: gentrification

Where is the Woodworth Report?

Many of us have been questioning whether the fast-tracking and approval of Mass & Main would destroy more affordable housing than it would create in the surrounding community through its gentrifying impacts. Now, we learn there is a report, The Woodworth Report, that the city refuses to release which might shine some light on just that issue.

This is all so terribly sad—and infuriating. Especially if the report that the Community Development Department insists on keeping from the council and public turns out to validate what everyone has been shouting for years, that THE BUILDING OF LARGE MARKET-RATE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN PURSUIT OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IS ESSENTIALLY A TOOL FOR THE ECONOMIC CLEANSING OF OUR CITY.

Why our city council would even vote on, much less approve, a single up-zoning petition without knowing the answer to this critical question takes us right back to the destructive impact of big money on councilors’ deliberations—like the almost $21,000 received to date by six of the seven councilors who voted to approve up-zoning for Mass & Main. Some time ago, Steve Kaiser, traffic advisor to the Cambridge Residents Alliance, asked one of the CDD leaders why they hadn’t studied certain traffic bottlenecks (I think) and was told that if they did there would be no new development allowed. My memory of the interaction is sketchy but the point stands out clearly in my memory. One way to force the Woodworth report out of CDD, whose DNA and civic mission is to facilitate new development, would be for the city council to threaten to hold back any approval for zoning changes until they see the report. Something highly impossible with the current city council, given the Unity Slate’s relationship with developers.

How many families will be forced out of Cambridge because of the direct impact of Mass & Main? It’s time we started questioning why certain city councilors would approve a development that, aside from the questionable value of its inclusionary units, is clearly too massive and out of keeping with the human-sized scale and rhythms of Central Square. It’s time we voted in city councilors who will fight to protect our residents instead of sacrificing their welfare to the forces of greed and mindless calls for increased density.

It’s time the Community Development Department started thinking more about preserving what we have rather than chasing after what we don’t need.

And it’s also time they released the Woodworth Report!

THE ECONOMIC CLEANSING OF CAMBRIDGE, Part 2

Money, Money, Money: The Three-legged Stool Of Cambridge’s Mad Dash Towards Gentrification

cambridgeOnly in Cambridge would a city invest $350,000, two years of hard work and untold citizen hours in a planning study for Central Square then abandon it abruptly—without explanation—in favor of the piecemeal development the study was meant to eradicate.

Only in Cambridge would all this happen behind closed doors with most of the city’s governing body totally unaware of why the C2 study was abandoned.

Only in Cambridge, as if by coincidence, would a developer come along at the same time and propose spot-zoning for a development that greatly exceeds the controversial height and FAR limits originally proposed by the C2 committee.

Only in Cambridge would most of the City Council almost immediately start wagging their tails to welcome this new development which claims to offer a large percentage of mixed income units when it actually offers fewer lower income units than required by law.

Only in Cambridge would this development be put on a hyper-fast fast-track, once again without the agreement, knowledge or understanding of most of the city council.

And only in Cambridge would the claim of increasing the stock of affordable housing so blithely excuse and obfuscate a bald attempt to wrest millions of additional profits for a building that will have two main impacts on its neighborhood. Those impacts being, first, its luxury unit pricing will send a ripple of rent increases into the outlying area, ultimately chasing out more lower income people and families than it will ultimately house. And secondly, its massive size and scale will block the sky, gin up the winds and wall off the Area IV neighborhood from Central Square while serving as a precedent-setter for future development.

Only in Cambridge can developments that drive out today’s residents in favor of wealthier future residents be foisted on its populace as an emblematic savior of those most vulnerable citizens.

Only in Cambridge can a housing shortage throughout the metropolitan Boston area be used as a shield for gentrification in our city, as if building more units in Cambridge could ever reduce the area-wide demand that reduces Cambridge to the status of a desirable Boston neighborhood.

And only in Cambridge could city councilors whose campaign chests are filled with donations from developers and related business interests get away with failing to look beyond the false assertions of developers and pro-development city agencies.

What we need right now in Cambridge are three commitments on the part of our city councilors…

  1. TO REFUSE any donations from developers, their employees or relatives, or from anyone whose business is directly involved with development, and that includes lawyers who represent developers.
  1. TO REFUSE to vote for a single up-zoning petition until the city manager forces the Community Development Department to provide metrics that quantify the impacts of gentrification. What value does it bring to our city to receive 11.5% of inclusionary units in a development if it turns out we are forcing out more people than we are housing?
  1. TO LEASH the dogs of development. It’s time to turn down the heat on rampant development. Laws and regulations that were enacted fifteen years ago to promote development have succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations. Those laws are now fueling the fires of gentrification and displacement. City boards and agencies such as the Planning Board, the Community Development Department, the Traffic Department, and the City Solicitor must all be given a new set of marching orders, more in line with protecting our city rather than offering its jewels to the highest bidder. In effect, we must take down the FOR SALE sign visible to anyone coming into this city we all love.

 

——————————

Click here to view THE ECONOMIC CLEANSING OF CAMBRIDGE, PART 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Councilors Make Bold Bid To Save ‘Feeding Grounds’ For Endangered Developers!

Last Minute Order of Maher, McGovern, Benzan A Brilliant Move                                                   To Kill A Meaningful Master Plan!

Cambridge, MA — Fearing the ecological and financial damage an honest Master Plan might bring to the already threatened Cambridge Hawk, a developer species known for flying tight circles around the City of Cambridge, veteran City Councilor David Maher, and two freshman councilors, Dennis Benzan and Marc McGovern, proposed a policy order they hoped would deflate and defeat a rival call for a Master Plan.       hawk

That rival Master Plan, as proposed by councilors Dennis Carlone, E. Denise Simmons and Nadeem Mazen, would have threatened the status quo of microwave development in the city, as well as the security and livelihood of the vulnerable developers.

“SAVE THE DEVELOPERS!” resounded throughout the staid, marble-floored corridors of City Hall, as the Maher proposal was introduced. Aside from consigning the process to an endless succession of motivation-killing meetings, the Maher proposal would put responsibility for the Master Plan in the hands of the Cambridge Community Development Department (CDD), whose concern for the prosperity of Developers has been proven repeatedly. Most recently in the CDD’s pursuit of 16- and 18-story towers for Central Square.

The Maher Proposal refuses to acknowledge the high level of public unrest and dissatisfaction with current development policies, pretending residents are merely disturbed over ” recent projects.” With an unstinting blind eye to the realities all around, the Maher proposal seeks to preserve “a sensible approach” to future development (read undiminished).  It completely ignores resident outrage at the clogged roadways and, most notably, the city’s lack of honest planning.

But the most important element in the proposal is the way it will derail the Carlone proposal and keep residents from speaking their mind to the City Council on April 7th, at 5:30PM. Just as important, it will leave the Cambridge Hawk once again safe to hunt for his meal ticket in our city.