Lawsuit over Inman Square arrives in court, first asking whether it can even proceed there
Attorney Olympia Bowker talks with John Pitkin, a plaintiff in a seven-resident lawsuit against the city over an Inman Square redesign, on Wednesday at Boston’s Land Court. (Photo: Kim Courtney)
The first question to be decided in seven residents’ lawsuit against the city over an Inman Square redesign: Whether the Land Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
The residents said in a lawsuit filed in May that the city circumvented a public process required by zoning law when it implemented a redesign and reconstruction of Vellucci Plaza in Inman Square, a project that faced a protest attended by around 40 people January for the removal of trees without a public process. The project, initially to cost $3 million, rose in June to $7.9 million.
Plaintiffs John Pitkin and Sara Mae Berman attended a Land Court hearing Wednesday before recently appointed Judge Diane Rubin with attorneys Olympia Bowker and Nathaniel Stevens from the law firm McGregor & Legere in Boston, as well as four supporters. Attorney Megan Bayer appeared for Cambridge’s Law Department.
The city has begun construction to restructure the square’s traffic pattern, and public open space around it. Although Bayer acknowledged that the city would have to comply with the zoning ordinance if it were to construct, for example, a building, she argued that a public way is not addressed directly in the ordinance and that state law gives the city the right to lay out and relocate a public way without being subject to it – thus the Land Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.
Bayer also acknowledged, however, that City Council approval is needed for the project to relocate Hampshire Street, which she said would occur after the project is complete.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Bowker argued that the zoning ordinance provides for mandated protection of open space, and that the construction required certain procedures to be followed, which the city circumvented. State law gives the Land Court jurisdiction over the issue because the city has made itself subject to the zoning ordinance, and no exemptions apply, she said.
Rubin questioned whether the small size of the public space would affect whether the city has to follow the procedures in the ordinance, and what the harm would be to residents if the city were to complete construction and then seek, but fail to get, City Council approval due to lack of public support. Why couldn’t the city then just dig everything up and rebuild the park where it was? the judge asked.
The size of the public space has no impact on the fact that the ordinance applies, Bowker said, and getting council approval after construction is complete is too late. A public process should have taken place before trees were cut down and construction began, she said.
The cost to the city of following procedures laid out in its own laws is minimal, Bowker said. The city is simply trying to avoid a layer of protection that it put in place itself.
Rubin took the matter under advisement for a decision at a later date.
I ride through Inman Square and it is a daily hazard. Amanda Phillips died in 2016 largely due to a dangerous intersection that mixes car and bicycle traffic. The people who care about half a dozen tress over the personal safey of myself and other residents can go rot.
Your view, tagusove, of the lawsuit is completely wrong. The purpose of the lawsuit is to prevent 7million dollars being spent to create a new intersection that is more dangerous than the one that currently exists. There is no battle going on between trees and the safety of residents.
I’ll take the opinion of a professional engineering consultancy, city council approval, and public review process over what some random person on the internet says. The first sentence of https://saveinmansquare.com/ literally leads with “Four large honey locust trees in Vellucci Plaza are gone”. I suspect these people care more about their tree canopy than their fellow humans.
People who delay and litigate on a project like this have blood on their hands. Why deflect about the cost? When people put the safety of myself and children at risk, it’s personal. These people can go die.
The sentence you cite is given as the first item in a series of updates: “Four large honey locust trees in Vellucci Plaza are gone, Eversource is doing utility work in the streets, and the City has selected Newport Construction to do road work, but the Campaign to Save Inman Square is continuing!” It was chronologically the first of those three things to happen. It cannot be reasonably taken as a sign the group cares more about trees than about human life — and if you have followed the debate, you should be aware that people who oppose the project are not convinced it is safer. Do you really think saying “These people can go die” is a reasonable response for litigation arguing that city staff skipped a legal requirement for the project? It’s hardly a radical argument, and the City Council has done exceptionally stupid things before. It’s not a body that’s exactly known for its fortitude or collective intelligence. I have examples.
I will admit that my phrasing is inflammatory, and I appreciate the admin willing to admit the comment despite my understanding of his opposition to the redesign. I don’t actually mean my last sentence, but want to highlight that human lives are at stake.
The single issue that matters to me is that the redesign reduces the risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and driver’s. Everything else including disturbance to local businesses, tree aesthetics, and even travel speed is secondary. It’s possible that the redesign is same or worse, but the weight of evidence with professional engineering, extensive public input, and city council supports the assessment that the redesign is safer. A democratically elected city council is the main mechanism to express the desire of constituents.
Sure, there’s a right to file a lawsuit, but I hope the code gets dismissed quickly and work proceeds immediately.
Sorry Marc and Judy. After sleeping on it, I went overboard with my comments. I probably spend too much time bantering on Reddit where anonymity in a large social media crowd rewards extreme comments. I do support the Inman Square redesign, but it’s not right in a local community forum to push the rhetoric to 11. We all want to see progress with Cambridge.
I certainly appreciate you taking the time to think about it – and always urge people to think of online discourse as being like talking face to face. But you can rest easy in one regard: There’s no injunction in place against the Inman Square work, and the construction goes on.
A court is where this disagreement belongs. That’s what courts do, they settle disagreements. From the very beginning it was obvious that this was going to end up in front of a judge. It will be settled at some point, possibly following several appeals, but ultimately the court will settle this.