Tag Archives: over-development

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.

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.

Cambridge Residents Alliance Releases Its Platform For a Livable, Affordable and Diverse Cambridge

As a member of the Cambridge Residents Alliance, I’m proud to present our platform for a livable, affordable and diverse Cambridge. Developed over the course of many months, these common sense guidelines and suggestions can help you—and your neighbors—crystallize your thinking about how to plan for development that preserves the character, charm and community of our beloved city. UnknownAt the same time, these guidelines present a positive vision for how to grow Cambridge in ways that inflict minimal damage to its diverse makeup and livability. As for affordability, we believe there are ways to grow our city and increase its density without adding fuel to the fires of gentrification and rising rents. We respectfully offer this resident-centric and neighborhood-centric blueprint to help guide all of us as we debate the future of both Central Square and the City of Cambridge itself.

Cambridge is at a tipping point. The city is facing more than 18 million square feet of recent and possible new development. We can make choices that support a well-planned, healthy city for present and future residents or we can rush headlong into commercially driven over-development. The city is experiencing the rapid growth of high-tech and bio-tech companies and the construction of huge market-rate and luxury housing complexes. If development continues at this pace and scale, it will continue to drive housing prices up, increase traffic congestion, burden our infrastructure, threaten our environment, and push long-time families out of the city. The hope that our children will be able to buy or rent a home here will disappear.

We are calling on city agencies and elected officials to slow down the process, carefully study the citywide and cumulative impact of all new zoning proposals, and work with neighborhood organizations to make wise decisions about our future. Regarding Central Square, the next major target of developers, we ask that city officials respect the historic blue-collar and mixed-income character of the surrounding neighborhoods and the strong sense of community developed over many decades. New development should be on a human scale and designed to protect and reinvigorate the economic diversity that made Central Square what it is today.

The Cambridge Residents Alliance is a network of individuals and households dedicated to preserving and improving the quality of life of all Cambridge residents by ensuring that development in our city enhances the livability, affordability and diversity of our neighborhoods. We submit the following proposals to the public and city officials as the basis for a citywide discussion of the future of our city:

Housing

The need for additional affordable housing* (see definitions we’re using at the end) is of primary importance, especially because so many low- and middle-income people are being forced out of Cambridge by rapidly rising rents and housing prices in recent years, due in part to MIT and commercial expansion. The primary function of Central Square should not be that of a “bedroom community” for  high-tech Kendall Square workers, if building expensive new units for those workers continues the trend of replacing one population with another. The economic and ethnic diversity of our community has already been eroded by market forces and faces even greater challenges in the coming years.

Preserving existing affordable housing is just as important as creating new affordable housing. We call on city officials to:

•     Protect public housing in the city, especially Newtowne Court and Washington Elms, as massive Kendall Square development looms around them.

•     Each year, seek all possible means to extend the affordability of those housing units throughout the city that carry affordability requirements which are about to expire. Affordability should be extended “in perpetuity.”

We reject inclusionary zoning as the primary way to develop affordable housing by including a small percentage of affordable units in large towers of market-rate housing. In fact, those developments have a ripple effect on surrounding neighborhoods, driving rental prices up and leading to a net loss from the city of residents who need affordable units.

We support construction of new affordable housing, even when that means some increased density, with its pressures on traffic, transit, and infrastructure. We want more focus on affordable housing as the primary goal of certain developments. For example:

City-owned parking lots along Bishop Allen Drive and in Cambridgeport are important to the future of Central Square. We propose that they be used solely for affordable housing and open space. The city should:

•     maintain ownership of the lots, rather than selling them to private developers;

•     work with non-profits to develop 100% low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing on some parking lots;

•     require that the height of new construction be low- to mid-rise, in keeping with the neighborhood;

•     retain at least one quarter of the total Central Square parking lot square footage as attractive open space;

•     replace any removed public parking with equivalent public parking that is affordable to low- and moderate-income residents within the Central Square overlay district.

A significant increase in density and height can be brought about in Central Square by development on a human scale that stays within the limits of the current zoning law. Current zoning allows heights of 80’ with special permit and FAR of 2.75. We support some increase in housing density, achieved by building to heights and FAR allowed by current zoning and, in some cases, by increasing FAR.  We do not support buildings of 14, 16, or 18 stories, and certainly not the 285-feet towers proposed by one developer. Tall towers would not be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhoods and would significantly degrade the quality of life. We feel that micro-unit housing, which has been proposed for some of these towers, is not a priority for Central Square at this time.

Cambridge needs to encourage or require more middle-income* family housing, especially three-bedroom apartments. We support expanding the city’s limited equity first-time homeownership program, which includes middle-income families, to increase such housing. We do not support public subsidy of middle-income rental units. We could accept a modest increase in density in exchange for the inclusion of middle-income units, if 100% of them were 2- and 3- bedroom units, and 75% of them were homeownership units.

We call on the city to explore innovative funding mechanisms for low-, moderate-, and middle-income housing. We propose the following measures:

•     Use surplus commercial tax revenues to build affordable housing as well as to lower property taxes at the end of each year.

•     Increase the inclusionary zoning formula to require that 25% of all units in new developments be affordable*, rather than the current 15% of base units in new developments. (Do not increase the allowed density bonus.) Of this 25% — 20% of the units should be set aside for low- and moderate-income residents and 5% should be for middle-income families. All the middle-income units should be family-sized, two or three bedroom units.

•     Add a requirement that all proposed new 4 to 9 unit buildings come under the inclusionary zoning law, using a proportional rate depending on the number of units.

•     Ensure that any increase in density must benefit the community in addition to the property owner. If the increase does benefit the community, any up-zoning should require a contribution of $50/sq ft (or more) to the Cambridge Affordable Housing Trust, instead of $10/sq ft. as in Kendall Square.

We call on the city to require that MIT, an institution with a $10 billion endowment, provide dedicated housing on land it already owns for the majority of its 5000 graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who do not currently live on campus. Their search for affordable housing puts tremendous pressure on the housing market in Cambridge, driving up rents and reducing available apartments.

We support changing the zoning ordinance to limit tall rooftop mechanicals. We propose that rooftop mechanicals above 10 feet or 20% of the roof area should count in the calculation of a building’s height and FAR.  Renewable energy components should be exempt from this new limit.

Traffic and Transportation

We are greatly concerned by the lack of a realistic and accurate traffic and transit plan to deal with the combined impacts of Kendall, Central, Alewife, and NorthPoint developments, which are predicted to bring at least 50,000 additional car trips per day and 50,000 additional transit trips per day into the city, according to city and state consultants. We urge the city to adopt a policy of planning for transportation before approving new zoning that allows more development.

•     The city should conduct a traffic study around Central Square that includes bikes and pedestrians. The study should state the number of vehicle trips per day that key streets can sustain, without a) causing waits of more than three light cycles at an intersection or b) transforming a 10-minute trip under non-rush-hour conditions into a 30-minute trip at peak times. The study should highlight the Mass Ave-Prospect St. intersection.

•     The city should develop a plan to deal with the existing and future traffic bottlenecks in the Central, Kendall, NorthPoint, and Alewife areas. The plan should insulate residential neighborhoods from commuter traffic trying to divert around bottlenecks.

•     The city’s transit analysis should reflect the actual crowded conditions that Red Line and bus riders already experience, and accurately predict new Red Line and bus capacity that would be needed for any new development dependent on public transit.

•     The city should make development decisions based on these realistic traffic and transit assessments.

 Retail

Development policy should encourage affordable stores in Central Square that meet the daily needs of community residents for groceries, clothing, hardware, medicines, stationary, and other necessities, and for affordable quality restaurants appropriate for family outings.

Open Space and Community Space

We need to maintain neighborhood environments in which people can see the sky, breathe clean air, cross streets safely, and children can have open spaces in which to play. A significant amount of public space in Central Square should be devoted to some combination of parks, playgrounds, outdoor markets, pedestrian walkways, urban agriculture, public art and other open air uses. The city should encourage a private developer to include an indoor market space as part of a proposed commercial or residential development in Central Square.

Sustainability

Net Zero: We support the Connolly Zoning Petition and “Net Zero” efficiency standards for the future development of all large buildings in the city. The city’s reports state that over 80% of greenhouse gas emissions come from daily building operations. To avoid the worst possible effects of climate change such as catastrophic flooding, frequent blackouts, and dangerous air quality, we need to reduce our carbon emissions and broaden our notions of sustainability.

The Connolly petition restricts the use of fossil-fuel based energy in new developments larger than 25,000 sq. ft. by requiring mitigation plans and periodic reporting of energy usage. To reach the net zero standard, developers may take advantage of design efficiencies, on-site generation of power, and off-site purchases of renewable energy. All of these steps have been shown to be feasible and economically viable right here in Cambridge.

More broadly, we embrace an expanded definition of what it means to be sustainable. We recognize that reuse of existing structures is often more efficient than new construction. We affirm that there are natural and practical limits to growth and call for design that allows for equitable access to sunlight and open space. We believe that climate adaptation, ecological water flow, urban agriculture, and civic engagement are all vital elements to the sustained livability of our city.

Ethanol trains: We are extremely concerned about the safety hazards of transporting ethanol on trains through Cambridge and other adjoining dense urban areas. Permitting such transport would also expand the use of corn ethanol, which consumes nearly as much energy to produce as it yields; farming corn for ethanol releases enormous amounts of nitrous oxide (from fertilizer), a greenhouse gas more than 200 times more powerful than CO2.

Updated and Comprehensive Master Plan 

Individual zoning proposals are now being considered piecemeal, without regard for the impact of other proposals. More than 18 million square feet of new development (in the Kendall, Central, NorthPoint, and Alewife areas) has either been built since 2010, is underway, or would be allowed under new up-zoning proposals if passed.

•     Cambridge needs an updated and comprehensive Master Plan for growth and development over the next 20-30 years – one that includes an accurate and complete analysis of the combined total impact of all major up-zoning proposals on housing prices, traffic, transit, infrastructure (water, sewer, gas, electric), the environment, and sustainability – before approving any major up-zoning petitions. We need an environmental impact statement that addresses air quality, noise, and other potential impacts.

•     According to state law, a Master Plan includes: goals and policies set by an interactive public process; a land use plan that relates density to the capacity of services; housing for all residents; economic development; protection of natural & cultural resources; open space and recreation; current and future services and facilities; transportation; and an implementation schedule and costs.

•     We strongly oppose allowing the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority to control any land in Central Square. Cambridge Redevelopment Authority control would take away the ability of the public to interact with elected, accountable officials in decisions about land use.

•     We call on the city to observe a one-year moratorium on the passage of any large-scale up-zoning changes while a city-wide plan is developed and published, and the neighborhoods have time to absorb and debate these proposed changes.

•     We support a genuine and open “community-led planning process” in which participants are not appointed by the City Manager, and meetings are not led by the Community Development Department.

 Definitions

*“Affordable” housing means below 80% of Area Median Income. The City of Cambridge says 80% of AMI for a family of four is $75,520; for other family sizes, see http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/housing/resourcesandadditionalinformation/housingprogramincomelimits.aspx

*Middle-income is defined as 80-120% of AMI.  Cambridge says for a family of four, 120% of AMI is $113,280.  However, Cambridge provides assistance to households with up to 100% of AMI to buy homeownership units. Cambridge says for a family of four, 100% of AMI is $94,400.  The Cambridge Residents Alliance supports providing homeownership assistance for families with up to 100% of AMI.

Contact Us! 

The Cambridge Residents Alliance can be reached

by mail at: PO Box 390422, Cambridge, MA 02139

by email at: [email protected]

or visit our website at: http://www.CambridgeResidentsAlliance.org.

 

 

Cambridge Changes Name to “Expect Delays!”

delays 3Expect Delays!, MA (formerly Cambridge, MA): In a surprise move for which there is no historical precedent, and therefore no protocol for approval of such a measure, the Cambridge City Council voted in executive session to change the city’s name from Cambridge to Expect Delays! The vote was approved overwhelmingly in a conference call attended by all nine councilors. The unusual telephonic executive session was held because seven of the council’s nine sitting members had been tied up in traffic on city streets, four of them literally for days.

“I think I was hypnotized,” City Councilor Minka vanBeuzekom said, explaining why she proposed the name change. “I was sitting in my car on Western Avenue for three days stuck in traffic and staring at an electronic sign that kept flashing Construction Ahead followed by Expect Delays!”

Other members of the City Council were stuck on other roadways staring at signs that also warned Expect Delays! and apparently lashed out in anger and frustration.

Craig Kelley, the only council member who rides a bicycle to council meetings, was also the only dissenting vote. “Don’t get me wrong,” he explained, “I believe Expect Delays! is a suitable name for a highly congested city that’s about to approve widescale upzoning that will bring in thousands of additional cars and commuter trips. I just need more time to think about it.”

Two other unusual council votes were recorded in the unprecedented executive session: first, that a new city hall would be built and quartered in the Alewife section of the city, in keeping with the attitude of acceptance and surrender so neatly embodied in the name Expect Delays! And, in a surprise informal vote, councilors indicated that Susan Clippinger, longtime director of the city’s Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department, should be appointed City Manager once the current city manager’s contract runs out, or once she is able to reach Alewife by car, whichever comes first. None of the councilors would comment whether this was a reward or punishment for services rendered.

New road signs welcoming travelers to Expect Delays! were ordered for all major thoroughfares entering the city. Unfortunately they are being delivered by truck so no one can estimate how soon they’ll arrive.

Assuming they ever get here.