Release of document trove about Riverbend Park raises questions on Decker account, DCR decision
Protesters of a state decision to restrict Riverbend Park to Sundays gather Saturday before a ride. (Photo: Tom Meek)
A trove of documents released Tuesday through a citizen’s public records request provides insight into the state government’s decision in April to stop closings of Memorial Drive on Saturdays to create Riverbend Park.
The documents show the inner workings of layers of state government struggling to come to a decision on what to do about the park. The most explosive details are outlined in a March 25 email addressed to Gov. Maura Healey and compiled by Rebecca Tepper, secretary of the Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs.
“This has become a political mess and we don’t need to get into the middle of it … No matter what we decide there will be blowback, but I think this is the right course,” Tepper writes in laying out a Department of Conservation and Recreation position for ending Saturday closings of Memorial Drive to car traffic. A state law enacted in 1985 calls for Sunday closings.
Tepper focuses on the interpersonal relationships and political machinations driving controversy surrounding the issue. “The extension of the park hours has a pretty tortured history and has caused Rep. Connelly [sic] and Rep. Decker, who represents the area of the city that includes the park, to have a falling out. Rep. Connelly is staunchly in support of the closure while Rep. Decker is staunchly opposed,” Tepper wrote in an email dated March 25, referring to legislators Mike Connolly and Marjorie Decker.
Decker’s prolonged absence from the public debate generated significant intrigue this year. In June, she finally spoke, telling constituents in a form email that she has “not ever publicly or privately advocated against Saturday closings. My goal for the past year has been for DCR to engage with impacted community members and elected officials.”
On Wednesday, Decker released a statement on Twitter strongly denying that she was ever opposed. “The email from Secretary Tepper does not, and never has, reflect either my current position, or any position I have articulated in the past. The fact is that I have never stated any personal opposition to the closure of Memorial Drive on Saturdays.”
On this front, Tepper’s memo either brazenly mischaracterizes Decker’s position, or it reveals an underlying truth. A person present at the meeting described it to Cambridge Day long before the state released Tepper’s memo; the memo seems to confirm the first account as accurate. Specifically, Decker was remembered as asking her colleagues to take no further action to open the park on Saturdays.
The public records request was made by Jake Walker, a lawyer and Roslindale resident. Reached by phone Wednesday, Walker said he filed the request in April “on a whim” after hearing about the debate around the issue and feeling that “there was more to the story.”
Factual inaccuracies
The release of the documents set off a firestorm of local politicians taking issue with Tepper’s memo as inaccurate on publicly available information. “The ‘neighborhood’ is not overwhelmingly opposed to the closure. Hundreds of Riverside neighbors signed a petition in support. So much wrong here.” said city councillor Marc McGovern on Twitter in response to a characterization in Tepper’s memo that those in the Riverside community do not want Memorial Drive closed to car traffic on Saturdays.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan took issue with Tepper’s claim that the council “reversed its support of the extension” last summer. “Contrary to the false claim in this document, the City Council never reversed its position in support of Saturday closures. The motion by Councillor Simmons to reverse course was tabled and then unanimously placed on file,” Zondervan said on Twitter on Tuesday, referring to city councilor E. Denise Simmons.
Zondervan’s recollection is correct. While there was debate on the council about what to do about Riverbend Park, the body never voted to request ending Saturday closings of Memorial Drive to car traffic. In decisive 7-2 votes on Feb. 27 and Apr. 24, the council affirmed its commitment to closing Memorial Drive to cars on Saturdays.
Finally, Connolly takes issue with Tepper’s assertion that the closings “create traffic issues and lead to more congestion into [environmental justice] neighborhoods.”
“To my recollection no evidence was ever presented to us in that winter meeting with DCR that would have supported the claim,” Connolly said when reached for comment on Wednesday.
The legal question
Besides claims of the legislative delegation and council being split on the issue, Tepper also points out a possible legal issue: “It is not clear now that the Covid emergency is over that DCR has the authority to go beyond what the statute [of 1985] provides.”
An email from DCR general counsel Tom LaRosa dated Feb. 27 says the opposite.
“Nothing in the Act limits or restricts DCR from expanding the hours or days of Riverbend Park. If DCR seeks to expand the hours/days of Riverbend Park and the associated closure of that stretch (or a more expansive stretch) of Memorial Drive, that should fall within DCR’s authority,” LaRosa writes in describing the agency’s powers on the issue.
Indeed, documents included by the department in response to the request for Riverbend Park shutdowns show officials communicating back and forth on a one-off shutdown of Memorial Drive for a movie shoot. “Is it fair to say that you should be able to work out the logistics with the movie people but you want to make sure the gov’s office is okay with the road shut down?” Tepper writes in an email dated March 13.
A question posed Tuesday to the agency via email about its understanding of LaRosa’s email and its statutory powers to shut down the stretch on Saturdays was not yet answered. DCR never supplied a comment after promising one.
The final word on what to do about Riverbend Park comes from Healey’s non-public email address starting at 3:41 p.m. March 27, as an aide to the governor notes that Tepper’s recommendations were originally sent to Healy’s public email address. “I’ll take a look now,” Healy writes at 7:18 p.m.
Just over three hours later, the final decision comes in: “The [lieutenant governor] and I talked and agree with your recommendation, Rebecca. This will be for the legislature to change if they want to change the law,” Healy says at 10:22 p.m.
This post was updated July 31, 2023, to show that state officials never supplied a promised response.
Decker lied, in my opinion.
Either Decker lied to the public or she lied to the governor’s team. Regardless this seems pretty bad for her.
Decker lied, the open street died.
Why doesn’t Decker want her constituents to know where she stands on this?
Who cares what Marjorie Decker did or didn’t say. The issue here is pretty clear: A well organized group of bicyclists have been advocating to keep Memorial Drive closed to cars on Saturdays, while it is already closed on Sundays. (One of their chief advocates evidently lives in, uhm, Roslindale…) Another group of apparently relatively well organized residents actually live right here in Cambridge, in an historically black neighborhood, are most directly affected by the closings, and have lobbied vigorously against the Saturday closings. The photo for this story illustrates well who the advocates for the proposed closings are. They have every right to so advocate. I happen to know Larry Adkins, a long time leader of the black community in Riverside, who I’ve heard speak out publicly against these closures. Though I understand some of the arguments for the closures on Saturdays, my sympathies are with the neighbors most affected by this – many of whom are evidently (and aptly) described in the released files as part of an “environmental justice” community – who just want to be able to get out of their driveways, at least on a Saturday. A rare instance of bicyclists not getting their way in Cambridge. I’m with Larry.
James Williamson (Candidate for Sanity and Cambridge City Council)
James,
Hundreds of Riverside residents signed a petition in support of the Saturday closure. I guess they don’t count because Larry has lived here longer?
I was born and raised in Riverside. My family has been in this neighborhood since 1918. I’ll put my Riverside roots up against anyone. Larry doesn’t speak for everyone in the neighborhood. Of course, his opinion matters and there were several community meetings where he vigorously expressed his views. The opponents even had a closed door, one on one meeting with DCF with Councillor Simmons in attendance. To say that they haven’t had a chance to express their views is just simply not true.
This also isn’t just about cyclists. I don’t bike, yet I often walk with my kids on Mem Drive. People roller skate, skateboard, walk etc. I know you have issues with bikes, you speak out against them often, so I’m not surprised by your stance.
There are many traffic mitigation efforts we could make. The most significant would be to change the light cycle on Mem Drive on the weekends. During the week, the light on Mem Drive is green for over 70 seconds, and the light on Western (crossing over Mem Drive) is green for about 30 seconds. That backs up traffic on Western. If that was switched on weekends, since no one is driving down Mem Drive, that would allow more cars to cross the bridge and free up traffic on Western.
I meant to say, “closed door meeting with DCR” not “DCF”.
The missing conversation is the most obvious, we the impacted and living within the belly of this beast still remain uninvited or notified about any sought changes, which will deprive neighbors from their personal and private longtime weekend free-time and lifestyles. It is amazing how false data documents can be made relative facts without the processes and/or procedures validation claiming area representation. When I poll this question neighbors responding to survey(s) everyone is puzzled. Since these small weekend closures entities have joined together for capturing Memorial Drive at all or any cost; Memorial Drive was for a year and more illegally invasions “Total weekend closures Saturday& Sunday.” The Administrations and powers to be during that time concealed and not enforced the law “to ensure compliance with Chapter 457 of the Acts of 1985 and to address the impacts on those on the surrounding neighborhood.” The Privilege individuals still does whatever they want when they choose to do so. As impacted neighbors abide Massachusetts laws, our elected (city majority) leaders, DCR & Officers, and appointed officials close an eye to roadway disruption accesses on behalf of a particular group. Too much behind closed doors meetings “These are only claims of meetings.” Individuals have a means of changing statements, passions, public tones, and facts as they know them once all parties are assembled for all to see. Oh, the digital recording is instant recall. We (the impacted neighbors) have always been a community of support and enjoy mixed vehicles: automobiles, bicycles, skateboards, vendor carts, infant carriages and a child rolling their baby carriage.
Two, three, or five minutes of speak at a meeting is not a conversation looking for a remedy. The same meeting’s model which pushed the instant City Council lie for weekend closures of Memorial Drive passed by majority of councilors; instantaneously following ex-Gov. Baker’s pandemic statewide release. Why is Riverside the only place hosting this total neighbor’s weekend closure intrusion? Any meetings with this subject should by digitally recorded and broadcasted vie Sullivan Chamber access. The law on the books should be fully enforced an any noncompliance should be followed with law enforcement and penalties. We only seek fairness, the laws on the books prior to this incident have remained the same and compliantly maintained as our community participation is a willing and able Cambridge longtime entity.
“Well organized bike cabal” otherwise known as your neighbors and voters.
Councillor McGovern – I appreciate some of the additional details you’ve provided in your post. However, as someone who complains often about being “misrepresented,” you do a pretty good job of misrepresenting me here. I am not “against [bikes]” (etc…) I am, first and foremost, FOR *rules* for bicyclists which are actually enforced. I am FOR a responsible – and holistic – approach to transportation policy (and infrastructure), within which bicycling plays a part, but not to the exclusion of everything and everybody else, especially not pedestrians, and public transportation. “Safety” is not just an issue for bicyclists – when so many of them routinely do whatever they please, endangering the rest of us, and – frankly – themselves; it is an issue for all of us. For me, though Larry is, of course, not the only voice or person who has an opinion, I suspect he is representative of a larger community who are typically ignored (if the experience of so many of the rest of us across the city is any indication.) I believe we ought to give priority to those who live closest to a problem. What to do about Memorial Drive is open to debate, but let’s be honest about what’s going on here and who’s promoting what. Bicyclists have no trouble being heard in Cambridge. I’d be interested to see the numbers on both sides of this particular controversy. But whoever seem to be better at utilizing “social media” would not be my criteria for making judgements about something like this. I lived at 33 Pleasant Street – two blocks further down toward the river than yourself – in the early 1970’s, and I never considered it to be part of Riverside. I know the city administration have a neighborhood map of “Riverside” configured to include what most of us think of as Central Square, but no matter – the traffic impacts of Saturday closures on Memorial Drive of greatest concern to me are those for the people who live within just a few blocks of the river, not a block from Central Square. In any case, it’s the substantive issue that matters here, not what Marjorie Decker – or anyone else – may or may not have said. Onward.
James Williamson (Candidato)
Stop speaking for and tokenizing other people when all you really care about is driving your car.
@[email protected]
Sounds like you are getting “Starlighted”
Cambridge don’t care about individuals.
@Poor Bono Publico people on bicycles have killed no one in Cambridge. Meanwhile several people on bicyclists have been killed by cars in the last few years alone, as have pedestrians. If anyone is “routinely do[es] whatever they please, endangering the rest of us, and – frankly – themselves” it is drivers.
That your primary focus is on enforcing rules on cyclists (and not drivers) rather than street improvements that give dedicated and specific space to all users is noted, as is your complete inability to recognize the real threats to safety in our streets. The concerns about safety by people on bikes finally being heard in Cambridge is a good thing, not something that needs to be rectified by more compromises with the automobile. That has been the status quo on this whole continent for decades and it is car drivers who are the privileged vested interest group in this context. Most people in Cambridge do not drive to work or to most activities, car drivers are wealthier than non-drivers statistically, and a car certainly costs a hell of a lot more than a bike.
If you really are serious about safety for all road users get real about what the problem actually because all you are actually doing is undermining safety improvements for bicycling. Cambridge residents have been polled about this and the vast majority support more bike lanes and would like to bike more if it was safer. Why aren’t you standing with them?
Slaw [??] – You evidently don’t know what you’re talking about. People have been killed by bicyclists, though mercifully not yet in Cambridge. A friend who was the director of the Somerville Public Library has told me of a friend of his who was knocked to the curb in Harvard Square and is now brain damaged for life. I know of other serious injuries, as well. I’m sure you don’t give a damn about that, judging from the know-it-all, arrogant tone of your remarks. I’ve investigated as carefully as possible the bike fatalities you mention. In the two best known and most often sited cases, the bicyclists were – sadly – doing something both completely unnecessary and extremely dangerous. In both instances, they were hit by *trucks*, not by evil “cars…” (Again, you evidently don’t know what you’re talking about.) Following the terrible and tragic death of Ms. Philips in Inman Square, bike lobbyists tried to block the release of video that showed the unfortunate circumstances of her accident. When the State Police released their accident report on the incident in Porter Square, bike lobbyists did whatever they could to attack the report the moment it was released, lest bicyclists be seen to share *any* responsibility for what they do. I don’t own a car. I mentioned “pedestrians and public transportation” explicitly, not (evil)”cars.” I get that it’s dangerous out there for bicyclists. Your own behavior is *part* of the problem. And not just for you, but for everyone else. There are other people in this world other than just yourself! Bicyclists aren’t the only people who matter. There would be a lot more sympathy and support for various forms of bicycle infrastructure if you all started obeying even the most rudimentary traffic (safety) laws. I know bicyclists who recognize the importance of these rules – for safety – for everyone. You’re evidently not one of them. Good luck out there. (Given the law of diminishing returns for comments on these articles, you’re welcome to reply further, but I’m likely moving on. As I said clearly in my comments, we need a more genuinely “holistic” approach to our transportation, and relevant infrastructure, policies than we currently have and our city administration should not keep making the mistake of acting like every square inch of our public realm – and “streetscape”- is simply just another “transportation corridor,” rather than a part of our neighborhoods and a larger community.)
Drivers of both cars and trucks (both are automobiles so the distinction you seem to think is crucial is more than arbitrary in this case) don’t follow the “most rudimentary of traffic (safety) laws” so why don’t you have the same outrage for dedicating the vast majority of our loadspace to them as you seem to have for bike lanes? Why do bicyclists have to be beyond reproach in order to deserve safe infrastructure? Why should the young kids learning to ride for the first time, or the mom with her kids on the back, or the disabled person who finds it easier to bike than walk not have safe infrastructure because you saw someone violate a traffic law once?
That’s also not getting into how treating bikes like cars at red lights makes them materially less safe and changing laws to allow bikes to treat red lights as stop signs improves safety for everyone, including pedestrians. Your approach is carceral and punitive though, focused on blaming bicyclists to get out of harder questions about infrastructure and policy, so it ignores that research. Just as you ignore that bikes are an infinitesimally smaller risk than cars and trucks on our streets.
Here’s the thing too, you made this about bikes. The open street is not only for bikes, it is more accessible as an open street to pedestrians, people in wheel chairs, roller bladers, skaters, etc. That seems to be a much more “holistic” approach than reserving the space exclusively for automobiles, wouldn’t it?
I would love for more road space dedicated to parks and gardens and other community uses and not simply for transportation as well, but if you look rationally at the current use of space it is space for cars that is preventing that not space for bikes, which is still extremely limited even in Cambridge. Again your sense of perspective is completely out of wack.
Sorry I have to add that it is truly incredible to me to oppose temporarily turning a street into a park space while lamenting “every square inch of our public realm – and “streetscape”- is simply just another “transportation corridor,” rather than a part of our neighborhoods and a larger community.” You the one who is holding on to how supposedly essential this transportation corridor is for drivers at the expense of community uses.
Decker’s claims are utterly untrue, trying to speak on behalf of people of color and the elderly. Give me a break! It’s evident you’re lying; just own up to it.
https://twitter.com/OustDecker/status/1684687667911413760/photo/1
Larry’s perpetual anger and constant yelling, much like James, make you both a perfect match. Your desires seem to be the only thing that matters to you. It’s selfish, considering many of us in Riverside appreciate having it open all weekend. You don’t care about what anyone else wants if isn’t what you want
Everyone seems to be centered on the closures as being their perceived problem with traffic in and out of memorial drive on Saturdays.
Having watched things for years, I believe the real causes are being ignored – Cambridge has been in a constant state of street reconstruction in the area from at least the Western Ave project onward and everything we warned the city about at various community meetings about traffic flow, narrow streets and non-coordinated traffic intersection signaling systems has happened.
Additionally the city population is growing back again from the drop during the worst of the Pandemic and developers are expanding the number of people flowing into and out of the city. The more people and businesses that come into the city or thru it the worse traffic will become, and the large number of people that dropped off using their cars to avoid the disasters of the MBTA in recent years from its poor maintenance is also affecting things.
As long as a push for development, taller buildings and bringing more people into the city is the focus of the city the more the traditional neighborhoods will be overrun.
The traffic jams and other problems continue, whether there are Saturday closings or not. We have streets that are torn up, and construction equipment delaying transit in Riverside and its neighboring Cambridgeport all week long.
The City is almost back to its peak population level that it has reached before (1950), and we are apparently the 2nd highest density of population City in Massachusetts. What we are seeing is growth pains.
I’m in favor of the Saturday park but I generally appreciate the sanity of pro bono here overall compared to entitlement of many fellow cyclists.
How is it entitlement by cyclists here? The park wasn’t exclusively for bicyclists, it was also better for pedestrians, people in wheel chairs, roller skaters, skaters, and people who just want to play in the street. How is it not the car drivers who feel entitled to having entirety of the street reserved for them at all times?
Please take the opportunity to visit it this Sunday. It is wonderful and eye-opening to see people of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities enjoy time together. The large majority of people are not on bikes.
Riverbend Park is plentiful and safe public open space in a part of the city which sorely lacks it. Congress is currently considering the the ‘Outdoors for All Act’ (S.448/H.R. 1065) which tackles exactly this challenge/opportunity. The goal is to ensure that our underserved communities have access to green open space within 5 minutes, as a matter of public health and equity. This is our opportunity to address this unmet need in Riverside, and it was incredibly successful in the last three years.
Thousands of people who live nearby signed the petition to keep it open all weekend, including ~1000 people from Riverside and Cambridgeport. Their concerns and needs are not being taken into account, and they have not been respected or constructively engaged in this process. Check out the map, particularly in the zoomed in box — there are many people who want it who live right in the core of Riverside:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/htop1nkcph0r28r/Riverbend%20Park%20Support%20Map.jpg?dl=0
Most importantly, this doesn’t have to be a win-lose situation. There are constructive solutions to address the problems which have been repeatedly raised:
https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/02/28/moving-past-the-debate-solutions-to-traffic-challenges-on-memorial-drive/
It is time for our legislators to do their jobs and take the lead on fixing this, and to stop working behind the scenes to score points in a game of political football at our expense. We can improve the situation all week (speaking exactly to the point raised by Unquiet Soul) with changes here. This would have been solved last season if instead of arguing back and forth about whether this was ‘worth it’ we figured out ‘how to make it work’.
Unquiet Soul–You are right, it is growth pains. We now have the same population as the 1950s when there were no two-income, two-car families. Many households have at least one member who drives to the suburbs for a job. 90% of the people who work at the tech hub come from outside of Cambridge.
To the advocates of closing Memorial Drive–Instead of asking the neighbors of Memorial Drive to bear all the burden, why don’t some of you try to get your own streets closed to traffic? Memorial Drive could continue with its regular Sunday closure and the rest of you could pitch in and donate your streets.