Citizens, stop blaming each other in Inman; yet again, it’s City Hall policy you’re angry at
In the proposed Inman Square redesign, as city councillor Quinton Zondervan put it Monday, a “decision to divide Vellucci Plaza sadly has also divided the community” – neighbor against neighbor as well as environmentalists and advocates for pedestrians and bicyclists, groups that are traditionally allies.
Much of the division is about the trees that will be torn down, and much of the division could have been avoided with a better city response to anxious residents – not just now, but at almost any time over the past dozen years.
We’ve been here before, with all the big projects coming forward for permitting and zoning relief and tearing the city apart for months at a time through the disregard of city officials, who shrugged at the unbalanced explosion of units in Alewife; decided privately to ignore the performatively public processes of reimagining Central and Kendall squares; and clung too long to the myth that there was a citywide master plan when we really had a confusing jumble of documents.
The city claims to be preparing with great resolve for the ravages of climate change, yet there’s been a tremendous loss in tree canopy – especially among the city’s mature tree stock – that we will rely on to scrub poison out of the air, cool us from multiplying extreme heat days and absorb floodwaters from the land. Trees are being taken down without warning or debate by the city, the state, by Eversource and by private developers. The scrawny ones planted in scant replacement have struggled and frequently died, leaving us even further behind.
It’s this that turns every announced tree removal into a flashpoint. It’s this that has neighbors, environmentalists and bicyclists unnecessarily clawing at each other’s throats.
There’s nothing new even in this very specific issue. A policy order from city councillors all the way back in May 2010 channeled the anger and frustration of residents over watching decades-old, seemingly healthy trees be chopped down with little clear reason or explanation, and that order asked for an accounting back to 2005. “We are losing our mature tree canopy at too fast a rate,” landscaper Carolyn Shipley warned then – one year into a five-year period in which we now know Cambridge went on to lose a full 7 percent of that canopy.
Led by Zondervan before he was a councillor, the Green Cambridge group alerted the city manager in an Aug. 15, 2016, letter of the creation of its own Cambridge Trees Advisory Committee, formed because “our city trees are not doing well,” and asked the city – buttressed by an online petition with more than 100 signatures – to also form a task force. That took on an even more formal cast with a City Council policy order Feb. 13, 2017, calling for a tree task force.
The first meeting of that task force is Tuesday, which is 22 months after a task force was suggested by residents and 16 months after it was ordered by the council.
It’s a pattern by now familiar to residents from an affordable housing problem arising since the end of rent control a quarter-century ago, and with an arts economy problem obvious at least since the Deborah Mason School of Dance was forced out of the city in 2012: There is no impending crisis so large and obvious that a bit of municipal mismanagement can’t drag out into full-blown catastrophe. Residents asking for help by pointing out a problem, whether it’s light pollution or corruption on the License Commission, is more likely to be taken as an act of aggression when not treated as some kind of delusion.
The city’s failure to act and its lagging and sometimes lame response to public outcry are what result in the citizen-written zoning proposal in Alewife and its ensuing conflict, as well as the many hundreds of emails that inundate city councillors over the course of debate about Inman Square – indeed, it drags out debate: Residents have good reason to think they’re being ignored, and no reason to trust the city will act in good faith or take action before it’s too late. There have been three city managers with long experience and deep roots here, yet City Hall keeps making the same disastrous mistakes over our most serious issues, acting like its residents are crying wolf right up to the moment the wolves are at the door.
On Monday, city officials at least finally revealed how they planned to make up for the four honey locust trees lost from Vellucci Plaza: adding $50,000 in mitigation for a total 178 percent replacement of the caliper inches being taken away.
The city continues to ignore, for dubious reasons, that Harvard plants mature trees. Very simply, if Harvard can do it, Cambridge can do it.
Zondervan said Monday that he plans to suggest steps for more robust, citywide tree protections, despite the task force he called for finally getting underway.
But he has already identified a big part of the problem.
“Because our tree canopy is in peril, the mature trees in Vellucci Plaza have become symbolic of our sometimes callous disregard for the importance of trees and nature,” he told the city manager and other officials. “I’m hoping we can take some steps to heal that rift.”
“We will need to improve our community process, [but] a better community process doesn’t mean more community meetings. It means better listening and hearing what is really being said. The next time a project requires a reduction of tree canopy, it should be spelled out from day one how we’re going to make up for that canopy loss,” he said. “It shouldn’t require this level of advocacy for us to respond.”
Great piece, Marc. Beyond the specific tree canopy issue, this article speaks to a much larger issue, which is the City’s overall approach to and contempt for citizen involvement. Historically, the City deals with citizen concerns and ideas with the following toolkit of tactics: Ignore, Deny, Defer, Marginalize, Minimize, Politicize, Study, Water Down, and, finally, Co-opt. More than any other factor, this collective reliance on debunking good faith ideas rather than embracing them is most responsible for the exceedingly long timeframes and lackluster results associated with many City efforts in the public domain.
For every City success (the new composting program is a good example), there are numerous other efforts that go nowhere, take too long, or don’t actually solve the original problem (the Kiosk, Central Square, maybe Envision Cambridge).
As an example, a single toilet installed for Cambridge Common cost too much, took more than 15 years to approve and build, has been beset with ongoing problems, and, worst of all, didn’t actually accomplish the original goal of providing convenient facilities to park and playground users. Meanwhile, in the same time period, New York City envisioned, designed, and built the Highline.
In the end, if the City spent less time trying to control the conversation, they might recognize much sooner what citizen efforts often represent: good ideas worth supporting.
The largest tree cutting plan coming up is for the oasis of trees at 55 Wheeler in the Quadrangle on the floodplain, just where we need the most trees to protect all the residents who will move there. 55 Wheeler St. at Alewife behind CVS of Fresh Pond Mall, the subject of the Cambridge Day headline photo which has large trees in a general highly barren area of Cambridge Park Drive by the electrical station. These old, mature beautiful trees are up for grabs by the new owner’s designs. We will need to strengthen the ordinance tremendously and not have interpretation and permitting all in the hands of David, Arborist or CDevelopment. All companies whether leaving their property or not MUST not be able to sever their trees to avoid a city required tree report. There are many loopholes in so much, that objective committees are needed for general work of the city. An alternative city govt. might be considered which would try to shore things up a bit for livability.
See also: Municipal broadband.
Quite right. But the article was getting so long.
Marc, you have hit the nail on the head. Excellent opinion. Thank you.
Not only does the city not listen to the residents, they also don’t listen to the councilors. Craig Kelly voted against the Inman design because it is a bad design for bike safety. He knows because he rides a bike, as he has for many years, all over Cambridge, and more, and knows what works for the safety of riders.
The city council was railroaded into approving the design because it had taken too much time. As Jan Devereux said, “We have other things to work on.” A perfect example of how badly the city works, equating the value of a final decision, not on the merits of the decision, but on how much time was spent in reaching it.
What everybody else said. The fact is that city employees are not automatically either smarter or dumber than the rest of us. They vary because they are human.
I was especially offended by the commenters at the City Council meeting who dismissed everyone who didn’t think this plan was the greatest thing since sliced bread as ignorant because “experts” wrote it. I will remind everyone that an “expert” to whom the City paid more than a million dollars in legal fees assured us that the City would prevail in the Monteiro case. Yes, some people who comment are nincompoops, but some are professionals speaking about their area of expertise. Others are people who have thought about a particular issue and may well have a point of view that we ought to listen to. Some experts are good, and some aren’t, and, in this city, some have a really good idea what conclusion they are expected to reach, no matter what they might think if they were asked the question in a vacuum.
We have a lot of people in this city, both on and off the public payroll, who know a lot, care a lot and have something to say that the rest of us should listen to. Yes, there comes a time to make a decision based on the best information that we have at that point. But the last fifteen years or so that I’ve been paying attention has brought me to the conclusion that there’s too often a hidden thumb on the scale, and that’s done us no favors. I’m tired of thinking about it is a really bad reason for doing anything (as is an increase in the tax base, for that matter), if that’s all you’ve got. We stand for things that we’d decry anywhere else. It’s time for that to end.