Central Square dirt inspires renewed calls for businesses to take more responsibility
The gist of Monday’s talk about Central Square’s persistent grubbiness: It’s better than it used to be, but that doesn’t mean much. And the city is looking to the square’s businesses to make the difference.
The official response to an order filed last month by city councillor Minka vanBeuzekom was a long list of things already being done by the city in Central – 32 bullet-point activities in eight categories gathered by Acting Public Works Commissioner Owen O’Riordan that included cleaning by mechanical street and sidewalk sweepers or hand crews seven days a week, twice-daily emptying of the Big Belly solar-powered trash compactors, steam cleaning of some alleys once a month and the creation of hotline phone numbers for graffiti, broken sidewalks and rat problems.
“I’m not sure [these things] happen the way they’re planned to happen. But assuming that they do happen, it’s not enough,” said vanBeuzekom, a resident of the square who explained that she’d walked through the square just that afternoon taking pictures of persistent graffiti, gum on sidewalks and trash can interiors in need of cleaning. “I think we need to evaluate whether we need to put more resources on or whether there needs to be a follow-up crew to check that things have really been cleaned up the way the administration wants it to be cleaned up. There’s a disconnect somehow between what the plan is and what actually happens.”
Despite comments from two other councillors coming between vanBeuzekom’s remarks and his own, City Manager Richard C. Rossi replied to her directly.
“The city puts a very high priority on Central Square and applies a great deal of resources, and I don’t know that I’d agree there’s a disconnect. I would take a bit of exception to that,” Rossi said.
In fact, he reported recently walking through the square himself and being struck by how good it looked.
Better in general
There was actually general agreement the square looked better these days – but that there were some intractable problems spoiling the effect. For instance, the problem of dropped cigarette butts was called likely to drag on until more sidewalks were switched to wire-cut bricks, which fit together smoothly and form a solid flat surface, and the traditional bricks-and-mortar style brick was left behind with its tendency to trap cigarettes and other litter in its grooves. The use of wire-cut bricks – such as in front of the Central Kitchen restaurant – makes it easy for shopkeepers to sweep, as property owners are responsible for keeping their portion of the sidewalk clear.
Gum was another literally sticky issue, with Mayor Henrietta Davis noting that smashed, blackened gum made an otherwise clean area look dirty.
Councillor Ken Reeves agreed. “It’s better today, but Central Square will never be clean until we address the gum issue,” he said.
The councillors gave an informal order to Rossi: A machine that removed gum from sidewalks was “one for the list” of purchases to make.
Gum-removal machine aside, there is a limit to how much the city can do, Rossi said.
“As I think about resources, I can’t just think about Central Square,” he said, listing other parts of the city needing equal attention. “The effort and attention paid to it is pretty incredible … it’s always going to be a challenge, but it’s only get better if more and more people take an interest. That’s something we’re going to be working on.”
“We absolutely have to get more engagement and commitment from the business community,” he said.
Looking to businesses
One solution is the formation of a business improvement district, in which property owners get together to pay for services – such as cleaning – beyond what city government provides. Reeves said he hoped “the magic of the Rossi administration” would convince Central Square businesses to form one, as the developer Forest City had formed one among the businesses of its University Park just south of Central Square.
Nighttime businesses were already being urged this month by the License Commission toward forming a joint fund to hire more police to keep order among the crowds and lines waiting outside the area’s late-night clubs and bars.
An informal business group may be in the works. Until it closed last spring to make way for a grocery store and food court, the Clear Conscience Cafe was the regular meeting place for an ad hoc Central Square improvement committee brought together by cafe owner Daniel Goldstein. Those meetings, which gather business owners and city and police officials for two hours every other week, have just been restarted at Toscanini’s ice cream by landlord Patrick Barrett, according to Deputy City Manager Lisa C. Peterson.
Councillor Leland Cheung suspected there was still a role for elected officials to play, and he lobbied successfully for his fellow councillors to send the issue of Central Square improvements to his Neighborhood & Long Term Planning Committee – because vanBeuzekom’s initial assessment of the situation had some validity.
“There does seem to be a disconnect between the expectations people have versus what they see in reality around them,” Cheung said.
It’s a little surreal to read a lengthy discussion of the challenges facing Central Square that somehow omits to mention, even once, the CASPAR shelter at 240 Albany Street. I would hope that, at the very least, it was addressed in the Council’s discussion.
Public Works says they’re attending to 32 items, and doing their best to keep Central Square clean and tidy. City Manager Richard Rossi protests that, “As I think about resources, I can’t just think about Central Square.” But the Council – as well as the Red Ribbon Commission, the K2C2 committee, and area residents – have persistently identified the poor condition of the area as a burden on local businesses, a deterrent to families that wish to make use of the square, and a stain on the city.
It’s a complicated problem. But there’s simply no question that a prime driver of these issues is the presence, on the outskirts of Central Square, of one of just two shelters for those actively abusing drugs and alcohol in the entire Commonwealth. CASPAR’s ESC at 240 Albany St houses up to 107 people each night, and moves more than a thousand individuals through its doors over the course of the year. Although incorporated as a nonprofit, almost all of CASPAR’s $3.3m budget comes from government grants. The Cambridge Health Alliance foots the bill for an on-site clinic. The police department’s wagons spend their evenings ferrying CASPAR clients from various sites around the city, where they’re trespassing or causing disturbances, to the shelter. There are two officers designated to liaise with Central Square’s homeless population (and they do a wonderful job). Many of their colleagues get called in to make arrests, for crimes petty and grand, of CASPAR residents. And when they’ve gone off psychiatric medications and decompensated, or found passed out on the sidewalk, we send one Pro ALS ambulance, one fire truck, one CFD EMS squad, and perhaps a police car or two, to assess them and transport them to Cambridge Hospital. The shelter alone costs ~$900k each year. But these ancillary costs, tallied up, are simply staggering. There’s no question that the city is shelling out millions each year to house, police, and treat the current and former residents of CASPAR.
Maybe it’s money well spent. But I have yet to hear Richard Rossi tell the council that, when allocating assets, he isn’t sure if spending tens of thousands on each CASPAR client is an efficient allocation of resources. In that context, at least, he seems to understand that the most difficult problems deserve the most sustained application of effort. But if the city is willing to spend all these millions on CASPAR, it’d be nice to see it start to chip in some lesser sums to start cleaning up behind its clients. It’s not the thousands of commuters passing through Central Square each day who’re littering the square with their cigarettes. Tag along at the next Clean Up day, and look under the benches and along the ledges. Many have their own, distinctive patterns. One bench may have a few dozen Marlboros, smoked down to the filters, wedged like mortar between the surrounding bricks. The next brick ledge may be home to scores of American Spirits. It’s the same folks return to the same spots, day after day. It’s a handful of offenders who account for the vast majority of the filth in the square.
The burden of CASPAR isn’t evenly distributed across the city. CASPAR’s location means that almost all of this takes place in Central Square. Its defenders are quick to point out that this population would exist with or without the shelter, and still need to be addressed. That’s…partially true. Some CASPAR clients are lifelong Cambridge residents. Most aren’t. And the shelter’s location in Central Square centers this population here. If the shelter were relocated to, say, Union Square, some of its residents might still come to Cambridge, but the headaches and costs of caring for them would be borne more substantially by Somerville. Or – here’s a thought – imagine if the city were to acquire one of the mansions off of Brattle Street, and lease the land to CASPAR. Why not? The green grass, shade trees, and quiet calm would undeniably provide a better atmosphere for CASPAR’s clients to rest and recuperate. That’s a residential area; CASPAR is a residential facility. A perfect match, right?
It is, frankly, insulting to have the Public Works Department trumpet its efforts to cultivate “a sense of pride and stewardship” and to “emphasize businesses responsibility.” Huron Street’s retail corridor isn’t cleaner than Central Square because its residents have more pride, or its retailers more responsibility. It’s cleaner because the city has concentrated its homeless population in general – and those with active drug and alcohol dependencies in particular – in Central Square. That was a deliberate policy decision. It could be altered tomorrow, by relocating the various shelters and service centers to some other portion of our city, or outside of its borders. But if the city doesn’t intend to do that – and indeed, there are good reasons not to do so – then the city and its residents owe a little more to Central Square and its communities.
The BID is a non-starter. It’s a double tax. First, local merchants face the added costs and diminished foot traffic imposed by the presence of CASPAR – costs not faced by their peers in other neighborhoods of the city. Then the city’s going to turn around, and ask that they tax themselves to clean up the mess? That’s not just absurd; it’s outrageous.
So what’s the answer? If the city is going to impose unique burdens and costs on Central Square, it also must provide unique, offsetting services. Central Square needs to be cleaned more often, and more thoroughly. It needs stepped-up law enforcement. It needs a heightened commitment from DPW to repairs. And it deserves more of these services, funded out of general revenue, than Cambridge’s other neighborhoods. Rossi is quite simply wrong here. If he’s got a dollar to spend on maintenance, Central Square deserves it first.
Does that seem unfair? If any other neighborhood would like a similar infusion of city resources, it’s welcome to step forward, and volunteer to host CASPAR. Somehow, I’m not holding my breath.
To the extent that I am involved in this issue, (not all that deeply) I have a different impression of the homeless situation in Cambridge. I suggest that you, the readers, if you have the time and energy to get involved or want to learn more first-hand about the homeless situation in Cambridge, that you talk with someone, say, at the City’s Multi-Service Center. They are involved with helping the homeless.
http://www.cambridgema.gov/dhsp/programsforfamilies/multiservicecenterforthehomeless.aspx
Or attend some of the meetings of the city’s Senior Policy Group on Homelessness, or check the minutes of the recent City Council N<P meeting on homelessness (the Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee).
Rather than blame the litter and dirt in Central Square on the homeless, please consider the approximately 15,000 Red Line daily commuters using the Central Square station, as well as thousands more using the many bus lines that go through Central Square. Could not some of those passengers drop litter as they pass through? Even residents of the Central Square area might be responsible for some of the litter as they patronize the retail or fast food establishments in Central Square. I’m not sure why all of the blame for litter is being put on the homeless.
Not all the homeless are useless drunks, at least according to the folks at the city’s Multi-Service Center.
Also, to clear up any misunderstandings, there are just as many homeless in Harvard Square and spread among other city squares as there are in Central Square.
Further, it was stated at the recent N<P meeting on homelessness that a very small percentage of homeless in Cambridge use the CASPAR shelter. According the CASPAR website, the shelter on Albany Street accepts only residents of Cambridge and Somerville. The shelter provides counseling, employment opportunities, case management and treatment referrals.
There was no policy decision to locate The CASPAR shelter near Central Square. The shelter is on MIT-owned land, by the way. The previous poster also had it wrong about who can use the shelter. First of all it is for people who are active alcohol or drug users, BUT according to the CASPAR Website, they must be residents of Cambridge or Somerville.
There are no stashes of certain brands of cigarettes in the grooves of the brick areas in Barron Plaza mentioned in an earlier posting. How ridiculous. Why wait to tag along with the DPW when they clean up Barron Plaza? Why not pick up some litter as you pass through the square? Hey, it is better to light one candle than curse the darkness. The earlier poster was throwing a lot of darkness at us in his posting and did not offer any positive ideas or even show willingness to volunteer with any programs addressing these problems. Would that poster be willing to pick up some litter and light one little candle rather than blame all of the litter on homeless people, anonymous to the writer? How do any of us know if those cigarette butts were not tossed by some lawyer on the way to the Red Line, or some waiter in one of the local restaurants, or anyone else passing through?
The bit about the police picking up drunks and driving them to the hospital or the shelter? Well, please come up with the data first before writing the obviously inflated numbers quoted. Does the data show that this occurs every night? How often does it occur and what are the real numbers?
It is important to remember that one should be suspicious of claims made in print that have not been proven by studies or real data.
By the way, the Cambridge Health Alliance is not a city department, so no need for taxpayers to worry.
Heading Home and HomeStart are helping the homeless find housing every day. There are shelters for families as well as for women with children leaving an abusive situation. Those are not advertised.
The CPD has assigned two officers to work with the homeless around the city and one of them, Officer Helberg, stated that most of the people seen in Barron Plaza in Central Square are not homeless. Officers Helberg and Price have established friendly communications with many of the homeless and have found housing for some and continue to seek housing for others.
It would be great if more residents got involved in picking up litter and helping the homeless… and some places where there are plenty of volunteer opportunities include: the Women’s Center on Pleasant St., On The Rise, at 341 Broadway (corner of Inman), LIFT (617-591-9400) the East End House, the Margaret Fuller House, the Senior Center, Heading Home, Inc.(http://www.headinghomeinc.org/), Youth on Fire, or just talk to a homeless person. Also, Spare Change holds fund raisers to help their programs to employ the homeless http://sparechangenews.net/content/who-we-are. Consider giving to that organization and be sure to buy a copy of Spare Change News from a vendor in Central Square.
Community Counts:
Thank you for your detailed response. But as I read it, I couldn’t shed the feeling that you were actually bolstering my basic points.
There are three separate questions here. The first is whether Central Square is worse off than Cambridge’s other neighborhoods – dirtier, with more refuse, and filled with higher numbers of individuals who may deter residents and visitors from using its shops, restaurants and facilities. If it is, that brings a second question – what is the source of Central Square’s distinctive liabilities? And then, once that source is properly identified, can we start to talk about how that should be remediated.
You wanted statistics? Sure. The census of Cambridge’s homeless population last year counted 537 individuals on the street or in shelters and transitional housing, and a further 424 formerly homeless individuals in permanent supportive housing. This population is not, in point of fact, evenly distributed throughout the city, and neither is it evenly distributed among its squares. It is highly concentrated – along with the shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and support services – in Central Square itself.
But, as you correctly note, many homeless individuals are hard-working, law-abiding, longtime local residents who have fallen on hard times and are in need of our compassion and support. Others have wound up in Cambridge, for one reason or another, and need a helping hand. For most, their period of homelessness will be relatively brief, and many will be able – with healthcare, job training, or other assistance – to move up the ladder from transitional housing to supportive housing and back into the general population.
That’s precisely the reason I didn’t write in general terms about ‘the homeless.’ I wrote in very specific terms about one small subset of the homeless – the population served by CASPAR. (And when CASPAR says it serves Cambridge and Somerville, it means it serves people who happen to be in those cities. Which is tautological – if you’re at their door asking to be let in, then you’re already in Cambridge. It’s one of two wet shelters in Massachusetts, and there are precious few in adjacent states. Functionally, it serves a population from a very broad geographic area who can’t find services anywhere else.)
According to the Cambridge Police Department’s 2012 Annual Crime Report, the homeless population of Cambridge accounted for approximately 0.5% of the city’s population, but for 14.5% of arrests. But that masks the full extent of the issue, because the report notes that the overwhelming majority of these arrestees “have been habitual, chronic offenders in Cambridge.” Over the past five years, there have been 22 robberies involving homeless individuals – 15 of them in Central Square. There were 26 indecent exposure arrests, focused on Central. There were 21 aggravated assaults in 2012 alone, and 13 of them were in Central Square. They almost all involved “two homeless individuals who are known to each other and are in an inebriated state.” There were 18 instances of shoplifting, split between Harvard and Central. There were 7 arrests for disorderly conduct, mostly in Central. There were 37 arrests for public drinking or drug use, mostly “concentrated around the Central Square area.”
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. To make it into the Crime Report, conduct has to be so egregious that it provokes an arrest. Many times each day, patrol officers encounter individuals drinking in public, and simply force them to empty their bottles or containers down the nearest drain. Or they respond to complaints of trespassing or disorderly conduct, and resolve the situation by warning away the offender, or having them admitted to 240 Albany. Or they separate two homeless individuals who are shouting obscenities at each other, or fighting. When an officer refers someone to the CASPAR shelter, and the patrol wagon is dispatched to pick them up and transport them there, it doesn’t show up on the daily log or the annual crime report. But it happens several times, every day – and even more frequently in inclement weather. It is a rare day indeed when no resident of 240 Albany Street is called in as a ‘man down’ on some Cambridge Street, discovered to be dangerously intoxicated or otherwise in need of emergency medical attention, and then transported to CHA. You want hard statistics? On these incidents, they’re not publicly available. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t happening.
Many of the costs are born by Cambridge taxpayers at large. The city kicks in a $5m annual subsidy to CHA. We pay for the officers, the firefighters, and the vehicles who respond to reports of criminal conduct and medical emergencies. When officers are left with no choice but to make an arrest, the costs get even higher.
But let’s revisit the initial questions. Is Central Square worse off than Cambridge’s other neighborhoods? Undeniably. Everyone else pays a small portion of the tab. The crimes and misconduct of the population served by CASPAR are densely concentrated in Central Square – concentrated, in fact, to such an extent that Central Square typically records more homeless arrests in each major category than the rest of the city combined. It’s also – your protests notwithstanding – filled with more refuse and dirt. I hadn’t thought that was contested. Kendall, Harvard, and Porter also have commuters, shoppers, and local residents. Sure, some of them litter. But they don’t look like Central. I’m not blaming ‘the homeless.’ I’m blaming the small subset of chronic offenders with longterm histories of substance abuse served by CASPAR. And more broadly, I’m blaming the concentration of emergency shelters, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, and service agencies in and around the square.
Again, I’m not suggesting that we shutter these facilities, or leave this population unserved. What I’m saying is that when a city elects to concentrate all of its facilities serving this population of chronic offenders and abusers in a single neighborhood – and, as a direct and demonstrable result, that neighborhood experiences higher rates of crime, of littering, of vagrancy, of disorderly conduct, and of other undesirable effects – then the city is morally obligated to devote a higher percentage of its other resources to the neighborhood in question, in order to remediate some of the damage it has done, and to offset some of the costs it has imposed. It cannot simply ask local merchants to chip in to cover its own tab, or condescendingly lecture local residents on the importance of neighborhood pride. It needs to pay the bill itself. Is that really so very controversial?