City councillors defer debate about taking a special-permit power of Planning Board
City councillor Dennis Carlone testifies at a Wednesday meeting of the council’s Ordinance Committee hearing his own petition to claim certain special-permit powers away from the Planning Board. (Photo: John Hawkinson)
City councillors never got to debate or seriously discuss a proposal Wednesday to claim special-permit power for big projects away from the Planning Board, despite their Ordinance Committee meeting for 3.5 hours.
The zoning change proposal by councillor Dennis Carlone was to be discussed by the committee, which consists of all nine councillors. But after three hours of public comment running 3-to-1 in favor, they lacked the energy to continue and adjourned until a to-be-scheduled meeting in August.
It was one of several meetings by different city government bodies on the Carlone petition. The petition is scheduled for a 90-minute public hearing before the Planning Board on Aug. 5. It got substantial public comment at the June 30 meeting of the full council when introduced, but the council chose not to discuss or debate it at that time.
Special permits let the planning and zoning boards allow certain structures and uses; the Carlone petition would change the city’s ordinance for one type of special permit – the Article 19 Project Review Special Permit required for most projects greater than 50,000 square feet. Unlike special permits that allow additional building height or changes to floor area or parking, the project review special permit “ensure[s] that new construction or changes of use in existing buildings are consistent with the urban design objectives of the city and do not impose substantial adverse impacts on city traffic,” the ordinance says. The Planning Board would still review a project and forward a report to the council before a decision.
The proposed change is one of several reactions to concerns with development in the city, including the city’s master plan process that began this summer; a committee to review Planning Board operations ordered by the council Monday; and the formation of the Fresh Pond Resident’s Alliance and Neighborhood Association of East Cambridge.
According to Carlone, the petition would apply to three contentious development projects now before the Planning Board: the redevelopment of the former Edward J. Sullivan Middlesex County Courthouse at 40 Thorndike St. in East Cambridge; the 75 New St. residential development at Fresh Pond opposite Danehy Park; and at 88 CambridgePark Drive, also at Fresh Pond, just opposite the Alewife MBTA station (formerly known as 180R CambridgePark Drive).
Carlone’s recusal
At the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting, vice mayor Dennis Benzan, who chaired the meeting, requested Carlone recuse himself from this hearing, which Carlone said he did “gladly.”
As councillors discussed how to proceed, Benzan repeatedly declined to call on Carlone, who raised his hand to speak.
Recusal of councillors from their own zoning petitions has not been Cambridge practice, nor is it required by council rules for either voting or debate. After the meeting, Carlone, a first-term councillor, said he did not understand the basis for recusal; “I don’t remember it before,” he said.
Benzan said the most important reason he requested recusal is “you cannot vote on your own petition,” and also said that Carlone’s position as committee co-chairman should mandate recusal.
Struggle to manage debate
The council struggled with a problem that has faced the Planning Board repeatedly in recent months: how to have an effective debate and discussion after many hours of public comment. The council did not succeed either.
The board has been criticized for a process that takes months when it adjourns a meeting without a decision, which means waiting weeks for another meeting to discuss an application. The council found itself in a similar position when debate began at 7:15 p.m. for a meeting that began at 4 p.m.
Mayor David Maher, noting he had obligations elsewhere, began by suggesting the committee merely forward the petition to the full council with no recommendation. That procedural step would postpone any action until the Sept. 8 regular council meeting. It would also discourage the council from debating the petition in detail, as the full council cannot discuss as freely as it can when it sits as the Ordinance Committee; the council will also have a heavy agenda for that meeting, as it returns after a six-week break.
Councillors Nadeem Mazen and Craig Kelley expressed concern about skipping committee debate. “There’s this undercurrent of anger,” Kelley said, and “we’re just going to inflame that more and make future positive discussions that much more difficult” by not debating the petition. Mazen is one of the 26 signatures on Carlone’s petition.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons initially sided with Maher’s proposal, but changed her opinion after Kelley and Mazen spoke. Simmons moved to keep the petition in committee, specifying that the meeting would not begin with public comment, but rather with the city planning and legal departments’ analyses of the petition.
Councillor Marc McGovern amended the motion to require the hearing to take place in August, rather than in September, over mild objection from Benzan.
More than 50 members of the public came to the meeting to speak, some leaving before their name was finally called. (Photo: John Hawkinson)
Public comment
More than 50 members of the public came to the meeting to speak. By rough count, 29 spoke in favor of the petition, 10 against.
Generally people who have opposed special permits for the three current large development projects spoke in favor of the petition; members of the Neighborhood Association of East Cambridge and the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance were particularly well-represented and vocal. People associated with developers, landlords, business interests and large institutions mostly spoke in opposition. Many speakers had left by the time their names were called, however.
Speakers on both sides of the issue repeated a common refrain: “The zoning for the city is broken,” in the words of Patrick Barrett, a Main Street landlord who opposes the petition. Barrett suggested the council would not be able to handle the workload the petition added.
Some public debate was concerned with politicizing the special permit process. Opponents of the petition feared monetary and other political interests would have increasing influence ondevelopment. Attorney James Rafferty, who regularly represents developers, cautioned the council that the law would not permit it to be “arbitrary and capricious,” but instead required adherence to the criteria of the ordinance; Rafferty suggested the law barred private (so-called “ex parte”) communications with members of the permit-granting authority. He opposed the petition.
Proponents took a different tack.
Nancy Ryan, of the Area 4 Coalition, responded: “Politicize means … debate, discuss, air, lobby, raise awareness, put on the agenda. That’s exactly what we want.”
“I trust you, our elected representatives, even more than I trust people who are not accountable to the citizens,” said Susan Yanow, also of Area IV. “If you don’t share the vision of the citizens, every two years we have a chance to let you know. You are accountable to us.”
Marie Elena Saccoccio criticized the Planning Board, saying: “Their vision of their role is extremely rigid; extremely narrow. I don’t think they even factor in discretion.”
Jan Devereux, of the Fresh Pond Residents Alliance, said the board had failed to consider cumulative impact from multiple projects in the Alewife area. John Howard, of the Porter Square Neighborhood Association, concurred, calling it “just doing Whac-a-Mole, one at a time.” Devereux reminded the room that the Carlone petition was only a stopgap, because it would last only until at the end of 2016.
“The task is to find out what [the board can] do well, and what they don’t do well,” said Steve Kaiser, a Cambridgeport resident and traffic engineer who favors the petition. “Can certain work of the Planning Board be better done by the City Council?” Kaiser asked. “How to make the Planning Board work better?”
Representing the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sarah Gallop favored the current project review process, highlighting the “extensive interactions with neighborhood residents, city officials, and the Planning Board” that MIT has had. Her counterparts from Harvard University were present at the meeting, but did not speak.
Residents who have interacted with MIT responded, with Carol O’Hare calling the institute a “captive citizen.If it does not accommodate concerns, it will suffer the consequences,” but warning that most developers would simply go elsewhere.
Mark Jaquith called the Carlone petition “an experiment worth doing.”
Community blogger and political watcher Robert Winters closed out public comment by calling the petition a “dreadful idea” and saying he was “adamantly opposed.” Winters compared the special permit process to “once upon a time” when there were rigid requirements in zoning with no review as long as a project met the written criteria. He asked the council to consider altering the special permit criteria written into the ordinance and pointed out that the council had still not adopted many of the recommendations from the city’s K2C2 study process for Kendall and Central squares. Those recommendations are stalled within the city’s planning department.
The Planning Board meets to consider the petition at 7 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall Annex, 344 Broadway.
This post was updated Jan. 15, 2015, to correct the spelling of the name “Saccoccio.”
The battle of the Planning Board petition is all about where the buck for granting special permits stops. It is being waged between those who want the decision-makers to be accountable to the people whose lives will be affected by decisions and those who are running as fast as they can from accountability because it’s too much work or some other nonsense. It exposes the reality that, just as the “zoning for the city” is broken, as Mr. Barrett puts it, so is city hall.
Congratulations to Nancy Ryan and Susan Yanow for not falling into the “politicize” trap. If to politicize is to attach political consequences, like losing the next election, to decisions that affect me and my neighbors, then I say let’s politicize it to the hilt. Petition opponents want nothing less than an environment of no risks, no consequences, no loss of jobs so that unelected decision-makers can be “objective”, and “unbiased”. That’s a free pass to write off how we citizens might respond politically to decisions that affect our interests. That’s not how equals should behave toward equals.
It boils down to this – in the event of adverse decisions, do you want the decision-makers to be accountable to you and your neighbors or not?
Rick,
If this grand change of power is to be used to hold the decision-makers accountable why is it then that the Carlone Petition’s proposed granting of special permit granting authority is set to expire after 2.5 years? If Carlone and friends cannot get more than one other councilor to vote for this petition, what substantive change do you foresee in the next two and half years where special permits are concerned? I question whether if the “trap” is so well laid you’ve no idea that you’re in it? This petition is a reaction, ill-timed, and out of step with the master planning process already underway. This petition is also not just about Alewife or the court house as the ramifications of passing are city-wide. The council can already amend zoning; giving them the ability to also grant section 19 special permits puts way too much power within that group. You should already be holding them accountable for the decisions they make in either zoning amendments or their inaction. It sounds to me like you already hold the council accountable, and I see no reason to also make the city at large suffer for any perceived slight among particular neighborhood groups. I want experts who understand the law, zoning, and have a background in design to be making decisions about buildings and density. What our planning board deserves is a zoning ordinance that makes sense, and provides the guidance they need to force development in the direction we as a city want; not what flimsy coloring book studies suggest we do.
What this really “boils down to” sir, is you’re upset, you’re reacting, and instead of working diligently on the real issue, you’ve decided, as many on both sides of this argument have, is that its far easier to muckrake and point the finger than it is to enact a real solution to a problem no one is denying. I mean no disrespect, but to say that all these people in government, don’t care, aren’t accountable, or aren’t doing their jobs is simply wrong. Our councilors are our neighbors and friends, and should at least be given that courtesy. That being said I find Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Yanow (even though she did try to down zone me…ha!) to be absolute delights and I respect our differences of opinion on this matter.
Patrick, thanks for your perspective on this subject. You make many constructive points.
1) In a democracy, a government of peers among and representing peers, all authorities should be accountable (answerable) at the polls for their actions. Obviously, that isn’t going to happen in Cambridge overnight so I am agreeable to taking it one step at a time. Mark Jacquith’s suggestion to pursue a 2.5-year experiment sounds extremely reasonable and practical. If it works well then it can be extended, something not unheard of in politics as I’m sure you are aware.
2) To push off implementing the petition now because it is “ill-timed” is to push it off indefinitely. When, in your estimation, would be the right time for implementation within your and my lifetimes?
3) If experts want to make decisions about what Cambridge will look like in the future, they should either run for city council or the system should let them be elected to the planning board, not appointed. There is no basis to presume that a city manager is any more qualified to choose board members than the electorate.
4) I didn’t say that authorities “don’t care” or “aren’t doing their jobs” but I did say that board members are not accountable. They aren’t but they should be. Who in his right mind would want a society where he couldn’t vote the person who misrepresented him out of office?
Not only does the planning board deserve a zoning code that makes sense but we the people deserve it. Why the council hasn’t already cleaned it up without urging is the question of the ages. One would think it’s a predominant part of the job. Maybe if the public forces the responsibility of making crucial decisions on the councilors – if necessary by raking as much muck and pointing as many fingers as can be righteously mustered – they will start doing the right thing for us all.
Rick,
Solid retort. I love experiments, but how would “the people” judge whether or not it worked? Typical in all debates there are always parties on either side. In typical Cambridge fashion the squeaky wheel is getting all the attention, but there are most likely at least an equal portion of citizens that are quite content. How should they be represented? Should they? I also fear that under the current zoning much of the outcome would continue to be the same; which is my point about Councilor Carlone’s chance about getting this petition through. I took issue with last week’s councilor order #17 for similar reasons. If these nine people can’t get it together then the “experiment” fails before it starts. If the zoning which currently guides the planning board isn’t changed prior to an transition, the outcome will continue to be the same.
Councilor Carlone, made mention of the standard of review at the ordinance meeting, and though he is correct in stating that the PB has much greater discretion, there is also the tendency to abuse this discretion where outcomes will seem arbitrary and without reason. That someone on the PB may have misspoke the law is not a good enough reason to suggest they don’t understand it. I also don’t believe hearsay has been used recently to successfully hang a bloke.
To push it off, is not to push it off indefinitely. While I do not agree that the city council should not be the SPGA, why can we not make a counter proposal through the master planning process? I would be more in favor of a neighborhood approach wherein developers by law would have to hold a series of meetings for abutters, members of general public, those with standing, and any interested party to explain their project and the relief sought in very general terms. I’d like to impart the notion that “special permits” really aren’t special nor should they be looked at as something novel or as developer slight-of-hand. Anyone falling under section 19 review will have two meetings to explain to the masses what they are doing, why they need relief (if any), and accept a few Q’s and A’s; then off to the planning board where people can then voice concerns in an educated manner.
Zoning, development, and planning is only part of what our council has to deal with. There are many more, and some would argue, more important issues at hand. Personally I would argue that they are all interrelated but I always teter on the edge of being burned as a witch as is.
Lastly, I disagree with you about the board not being accountable. Our council is paid handsomely. Assistants, swanky dance parties, free Toscaninis ice cream ; ) … you name it. The planning board is a group of volunteers, whose time is not mostly spent at 344 Broadway. Most of their work is in the field, grazing over plans most of us, including the council would not understand. In Cambridge the PB is a full time job. Many of these people are our friends and neighbors and are accountable to us in the same way. They need our help, not our bile. We should all be working together to force the council’s hand to do the one thing they can do….amend the damn zoning in this city! Its the one thing we all agree on, though we all don’t agree on the substance…it may be enough just to get us all to the table and get a 1/4 of what we all want. I’d love to sit at the table with the CRA, ABC, FPRA, The People’s Popular Front of Judea and whom ever else to hash this out and get something done that we can all walk away from 1/4 happy. Giving the SPGA to the council is a step sideways, not forward.
A few too many “nots” in there…but I think you get my point.
Patrick, I figured there was an unintended double negative there.
Maybe you should ask “the people” how they would judge its success or failure. Interests and criteria would differ.
The idea of a neighborhood-centric approach sounds promising, but your description only seems to extend the prelude leading to the inevitable planning board decision. How about those who actually live in a neighborhood and understand firsthand its issues could, just throwing out examples, with a supermajority plebiscite reject a development proposal? That’s more practical and democratic than expecting planning board members who don’t live in the neighborhood and don’t know its issues firsthand to make a decision that’s for the “greater good” but that could negatively impact that neighborhood.
Or, for another example, we could get rid of Plan E and re-institute neighborhood representation on the city council.
Proof reading…it’s definitely a flaw. However I thank you for your comments and in short time revealing how unwilling you seem to compromise. I’m just trying to educate those who care so they can ask meaningful questions and not walk away from the process feeling slighted or that the fix is in, not create a review board based on feelings and whim. If my choice is between plan e and a small group of activists randomly deciding what’s best for the city based on their blood sugar levels at any given time, I’ll take plan e. Property rights are a real thing, and should be respected. If you really wanted substantive changes for everyone you’d try to be more reasonable and focus on the law. I guess it’s more fun to simply shake ones fist and blame the other guy. Fortunately I know this rigidp immovable mentality is truly a minority view.
Patrick, of course property rights are real. What’s truly floored me in my firsthand experience with the development-city hall complex is the very strong message that those rights are apparently enjoyed only by the development industry. In the equation of what can be built where and possibly adversely affect already-existing properties, the rights of those who own and physically live in those properties seem mysteriously lacking.
The law is often an ass, Patrick, and it is legitimate when it acts like an ass to shake ones fists at it. And to clarify, those activists are mainly homeowners who aren’t trying to decide what’s right for the city, but to make the city do right by them.
Rick,
Just a couple questions/comments. I’m confused about whether you support a city wide plan on development or neighborhood planning? On one hand you have called for looking at how development impacts the entire city and then in these comments you seem to say that only people in the impacted neighborhood should have a voice. Does that mean that all the folks from West Cambridge and Cport who are now coming out to protest the Sullivan Court House should just stay home? Personally, I want an inclusive process and I don’t feel that you must live in a neighborhood in order to be impacted by what goes on there.
As far as the belief that developers get everything they want, I don’t think the developers feel that way. Look at Forest City. The plan for 300 Mass. Ave. took far longer than they wanted because of push back by the Council and community. They agreed to do things they never wanted to do. Do you think Leggett-McCall is getting everything they want at the Court House? How about the folks on New Street who have been before the planning board three or four times? My point is not to suggest that Cambridge is not development friendly, but these grand statements that suggest that everything is one sided just aren’t accurate in my opinion.
I appreciate the conversation and even though we may not be in agreement, you often give me pause and help me look at things differently. Thank you.
Marc McGovern
Rick,
The is the problem, and I think we may agree here. However, tonight for instance at the PB hearing on the petition, there were no city councilors advocating on his behalf. In the past I know Nadeem has, but the other seven haven’t said much, and none have ever expressed in interest in having SPGA power. Listening to arguments for the petition it was hard for me to distinguish what people were advocating for. I heard many state, including private citizen Carlone, that the council doesn’t know much about zoning…which begs the question: If they don’t know much about zoning, why should we allow them to grant section 19 special permits? Some argued that it would provide an education. Ha! It was also much ballyhooed the in the history of section 19 all 49 projects that have fallen under this zoning have passed. This is not true and everyone knows it. The intent of section 19 is not to thumb up or thumb down a project. It exists to allow developers to go beyond certain limits provided they exchange some community benefit. All of these parcels carry with a by right development, the purpose of section 19 is that we try to get something back beyond just the increased tax base. So I see 49 projects rejected until they met the requirements set forth in our own law. That is the purpose and intent of section 19 review. So in an instance the “non-political” debate is spun politically and the nonsense talking points are all I get hear ad nausea. I just pleased as hell though that the members of the planning board that spoke tonight did so, eloquently and raised all the issues I hoped they would. Whether the planning board is a quasi-judicial or quasi-executive branch, they do not make the laws, the council does; and with all due respect Mr. McGovern, you nine need to stop side stepping the issue. Bring back C2, lets bear hug the master planning process, and lets actually be the progressive city we all smugly think we are.
After listening tonight I know what you all want is form zoning, and a revision of our ordinance. I’m all for it. Anything less is a distraction and a complete waste of time.
The “zoning”
The Board says zoning changes are the solution. The re-zoning process is highly political, would take time, and ideally would be undertaken in the context of a citywide plan (which Marc Levy says is in danger of derailing before it begins).
What do we do in the meantime? Just live with the results of piecemeal planning and decision making that ignores cumulative impacts, when even the Board concedes that the 2005 zoning has failed the Alewife area?
Freshest Of Ponds,
Mark Levy is the authority on the master planning process because…? Additionally, the process is political because you and I and those in other camps turn the debate into a nightmare. We can do so much better. Making the council the section 19 SPGA won’t change anything that is currently at issue with the developments you don’t like. If it makes you feel better, a zoning amendment process will be no more politicized than the current climate around this…zoning amendment petition. The zoning “failed” Alewife because it worked too well, and didn’t force the hand relative to mixed use, which has historically eluded some developers. It can be fixed. Carlone has to work with eight other people; something I think he may have forgotten. I fear that unless we work to contain the vitriol the distractions will continue, the work you hate will go unabated, and we will be left to fight each other to the detriment of all.
She didn’t say I was an authority, and I don’t claim to be one. I posted an opinion piece here where I say why I think there’s trouble brewing in a process we all thought was on track. There are plenty of quotes from documents and the officials involved, and lots of context. See what you think.
Marc,
My main theme is that authorities need to be accountable for their decisions. Secondly, I do think that some kind of neighborhood accountability would be better than what we have. I’m all for Cambridgeport folks voicing opinions about or protesting the Sullivan Court House, but when it’s decision time should they carry the same weight as the folks who are now living in the court house neighborhood? I don’t think so. That power and responsibility belongs first and foremost to those who are directly impacted or their representatives. Cambridge is too large and diverse for every issue to be approached and solved holistically, a misconception that is partly due to the abandonment of ward representation and the adoption via Plan E of a city council that is 100% at-large.
You have your development experience and I have mine, and it’s not unique. The issue isn’t about who gets what they want but about getting even-handed treatment from the body that you expect to be even-handed.
Patrick,
A most interesting point: If the council doesn’t know zoning, why should we allow it to grant special permits? Let’s step back even further: If the council doesn’t know zoning, why should we allow it to pass zoning ordinances? We agree that zoning is broken. Assuming this beast didn’t spring fully-formed from the foreheads of our councilors but evolved over time with heavy reliance on “experts”, who’s going to fix it?
Rick,
To simply answer your question I would like a restraining order put in place between the city council and our ordinance…at least 100′ no closer. That being said, we both know this city loooooooves committees and studies, and hiring consultants so I think it would be natural to suggest that such an action committee be formed to restructure the ordinance; complementing the city-wide master planning process. Levy can be as pessimistic as he likes making somewhat sweeping conclusions from very limited information, but that isn’t terribly productive. If we really want this master planning process to be effective we all need to embrace it full on. Hire experts to help fill the gaps in our current plan, and adjust those nuances in the ordinance that anyone who knows how to swing a hammer are antiquated and regressive. Neighborhood review prior to PB presentations, eliminate FAR for basements, adopt the tenets of form zoning, re-write the use tables, create a separation between large scale buildings and one and two family houses, stop exempting those hideous 35’+ mechanical tops to large scale buildings, fix the lane requirements for on site parking, allow for a FAR of 1 for C-1,erase all commercial restrictions in BA-3, allow for the creation of denser residential structures in A and B zones,increase the FAR for residential within 500′ of a transportation node, require all mitigation fees to actually be used for infrastructure and the creation of below grade parking facilities in the densest parts of the city, force mixed-use development in our dense urban hubs as well as large scale residential developments, and increase the linkage/mitigation costs to roughly $9 and routinely adjust for inflation. There I fixed the ordinance, please send my $100k consulting fee to Area IV.
Patrick, There has been remarkably little “vitriol” at the hearings on the Carlone petition. The question remains: what can be done in the short term to save us more failures of planning? I don’t see the other Councillors rushing in to offer solutions.
Hmm. The policy order says we’re going to have a master plan process but the people ordered to do it say “Maybe we won’t.” The master plan is about development but the people in charge of it say “No it isn’t.” Seems legit!
Marc (admin), I see no such claim in the policy order that we’re going to have a master plan process.
It says in the first ORDERED, “City Manager…requested to engage…independent…design professional who will lead a community process beginning with a series of public meetings…”
And then that there be a report back (we have received a preliminary but not final report), after which the Council will consider a strategy and the Mayor will schedule a City Council+Planning Board+School Committee roundtable.
Where in there do we see the claim that there is going to be a master plan process? I think it all gates on the Council, and the cynical will suppose that those Councillors who opposed the master plan process got the order written this way for a reason.
Fresh Pond,
I agree with you that the arguments haven’t been overtly negative, however the campaign of misinformation is rampant. I am a little annoyed that people who definitely know how this process works are allowing their lesser informed constituents to make such nonsense arguments before the ordinance committee and PB. I’d love to talk about the zoning but people seem convinced that bumping our heads into the wall will yield a different result. To answer your question about existing developments, I’m not entirely sure. Certainly a continued robust campaign to understand the project(s) and bring thoughtful changes to the PB to help guide the result. Certainly if the PB denies a special permit, that doesn’t mean there is no project, so I would hope it would be the goal of the FPRA to engage constructively as opposed to hoping against hope the developers will walk away with hat and hand. Its either that or you move for a moratorium, or de facto one like many feel the Carlone petition contemplates.
John,
You may be right there. It is certainly something people can push their councilors on, maybe drum up some of that accountability everyone’s talking about.
I was hoping for more of a gap filling process, wherein we all realized that we in fact do have pieces of a plan that make up a whole, but that the underlying zoning needs to finally be tweaked to be more representative of what we need. Even if the city went through a master planning process there is no guarantee or obligation to follow up on it. I’d prefer to maintain my optimism.
Speaking of follow up, anyone have an idea where C2 was buried?
You look at four ORDEREDS and see no actual order for a master plan, I look at them and see lots of work being done for a master plan resulting from many hours of comment and debate toward that goal with nothing in any ORDERED saying “and then we’ll decide what to do.”
Not to mention, as some have pointed out to us, this text from the “Cambridge conversations” website: “Cambridge is preparing for a city-wide master plan process. Before the community launches into a multi-year master plan, we need a moment to talk, exchange ideas, and think about the best way to set up a process for the master plan. Community input has helped create momentum for a new master plan, and with City Council leadership, we are thinking about how this will unfold. The initial conversations are an open ended discussion to hear concerns, thoughts, and ideas about the master plan and master plan process.”
If the answer ultimately coming back from the mayor, some councillors and the city manager (and you) is “Hey, if you read really, really carefully, we never actually, literally promised it would happen,” that would turn me into twice the cynic people think I am. I would seriously question the value of elected officials and well-paid public servants who think it’s okay to make every effort to suggest something’s going to happen, only to say at the last minute, “We never said, ‘And thus a master plan will be done.'”
So far I’ve believed that Kathryn Madden and Iram Farooq need to reminded of the ultimate goal. You’re telling me that the mayor, the city manager and some unknown number of other officials are flat-out deceiving the city?
Virtually every member of the City Council stated that they supported a Master Plan. The only difference was how to go about conducting it. I have every confidence that there will be a Master Plan. I wish people would stop with the conspiracy theories and let the process unfold. I can’t speak for past Councils but this Council has been very responsive to what many citizens have asked for. Here is a brief list:
1. Residents called for the entire Foundry building to be used for community space; we did that.
2. The community called for the city to put up money to start the renovations of the Foundry; we did that.
3. Residents called for a Master Plan; we did that.
4. Residents called for New Street to be redesigned and made safer; we did that.
5. Residents called for us to work with the owners of the Fresh Pond Mall to make the parking lot safer; we did that.
6. Residents asked for us to use our leverage over parking at the First Street Lot to get the developers of the Court House to work more closely with the community; we did that.
As far as other Councilors not offering ideas; after hearing for months people say that the Planning Board has failed in their communication with the public, that the Planning Board rules and process need to be changed, that the community has no input into the planning board rules and process and that the community is left out of the development conversation until too late; I co-sponsored an order to look at all these issues and to create an advisory group made up of residents, business leaders and city staff to evaluate the Planning Board rules and process and make recommendations for changes by the Fall. This order will lead to real changes. Its not about making a statement, its about actually getting results.
I also wish that we can be more respectful of each other during this conversation. In the past it was the Council who yelled at each other, questioned each other’s motives and threw insults at each other; this Council doesn’t do that. We disagree but we do so passionately but respectfully. If people are upset with the Planning Board’s decision it doesn’t give them the right to insult these folks who are community members just like everyone else. They deal with the traffic as we do. They send their kids to the schools as wee do. They deal with everything in this community that we deal with and deserve to be treated with respect, as we all do.
So, I would disagree that this Council hasn’t done anything, and for the record it has been all members of the Council, not just one.
Marc McGovern
Marc,
How will you vote on the Carlone petition?
Rick,
I will not be supporting the petition. I am working on a statement that I will make at the meeting on the 27th.
Marc
Councillor McGovern (Marc),
Thank you for participating in this thread. We residents do appreciate that you and other members of the Council have put forth policy orders on the items of concern above. But, respectfully, each depends on longer term actions taken by others, some not entirely within the council’s control (the shopping center and New St’s design). And it’s great that you are solidly behind a master plan and an advisory committee. Thank you.
Still, the question remains: what can be done in the immediate short term to ensure that the largest category of buildings proposed (in Fresh Pond/Alewife especially) are the result of more contextually sensitive and forward-thinking urban planning decisions? Councillor Carlone is proposing an interim solution. What’s the alternative to seeing more mistakes built and regretting them for years to come?
Jan
The Pond that is Fresh,
What is Dennis’s solution? How would the results be any different? If you think political pressure would stymie the voting process then your real hope is, as Hugh Russell predicted; a moritorium. You also must realize that there is political pressure opposite your desire to halt the projects; New St. is a great example. So, with Carlone clearly alone in this regard how would the voting change? This is the inherent problem with reacting to something while its happening and looking 5-10 years ahead and trying to sculpt the future. Even if this petition passed, and the council voted as you’d like them, there is still a “by right project” at these locations. This is what some have alluded to at the various meetings. Would you rather input or none? I understand the frustration, but you and private citizen Carlone are wasting your time with this strategy. More importantly you’re wasting valuable strategic time to get something in the pipeline to help stymie the development most people are having an issue with; namely a redraft of various parts of the ordinance. Just think if what the effect would be if we worked together, drafted zoning amendments that MADE SENSE, brought forth a petition and actually got it passed?! However now we have the master planning process and in a brilliant political akido move that would make Steven Seagal cower in fear; we must wait … and thus by the power of the CRA and councilor Carlone & friends we are painted into a corner. The good news is that I think this latest publicized tussle with the PB and council is going to have a very positive effect and may surprise you.
There is a planning board walk about in Alewife tonight, that is great forward step on part of the PB, and I hope that the council goes along too.