Dissatisfaction with the style and substance of recent City Council decision-making has produced a big field of candidates for local office – 24 for the nine slots on City Council and 11 to fill six spots on the School Committee – and led to the creation of Cambridge Voters for Good Government to promote civility and civic engagement.
“We believe that good government supported by engaged citizens is the key to a better city. With three open seats on the City Council, we aim to help elect candidates who share a commitment to openness, balance and accountability and can work in collaboration to meet the daily needs and challenges of our city,” said Mary Jane Kornacki on behalf of CV4GG.
The group, which includes members from different neighborhoods, calls for more transparency, civility and frank communication among elected and appointed city officials and the electorate. A website advocates for inclusive, holistic, evidence-based decision-making, saying, “the City Council has enacted ambitious infrastructure, economic and environmental policies without considering the practical needs and interests of too many residents and businesses. Instead of a forum for civil debate and rational consideration of diverse community needs, the City Council chamber has become a theater for heated arguments.”
Greater consideration of the connections between the environment, housing, transportation, livability, economic inequality and fiscal responsibility are called for by the group. An additional major goal is to engage more residents, including thousands who have voted only in national and state elections, to participate in local elections.
Endorsements of candidates for council will be announced in mid-September, the group said.
For information or to join Cambridge Voters for Good Government’s efforts, send email to goodgovcamb@gmail.com.
Vickey Bestor is a member of Cambridge Voters for Good Government.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
How many groups of anti housing anti bike lane anti everything do we need?
Yawn
This sounds wonderful: “good governance”, “inclusive, evidence-based decisions”…
until you realize it is written by somebody who literally sued the city to get their way, along with candidates Joan Pickett and John Hanratty:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22077340/070122-injunction-decisions.pdf
They don’t actually want ‘transparency, civility and frank communication’ or ‘inclusive, holistic, evidence-based decision-making’. They just want their way.
Don’t take the bait. The climate crisis is real, people are priced out of their homes causing stress and displacement, and our streets are less safe, because Vickey, Mary, Joan, and John think they know how to govern better than you do.
Most people in Cambridge actually do want to see progress on all of these important issues. If you are one of them, steer clear of these endless ‘neighborhood’ groups with vague names. They don’t actually care about dialogue or what our neighborhood needs, they just want their way.
Yes to more data driven decisions and engaging the diversity of local stake-holders. Glad to have another group in play. New ones who get thrown in the fire by adversaries often come out stronger.
Sad to see residents attacked for exercising their rights to redress abuse by government and doing so at their own expense. Since when are procedures aimed at protecting residents from unbridled abuse by a municipality so maligned?? To be sure, filing suit is/was a last resort, only after businesses and residents were not only unwelcomed at the table; they were devalued and dismissed by City Council. Say what you will, but Good Government is the aim of this group and Good Government is what is guaranteed by redress in court and why this process was ever guaranteed by this Commonwealth.
I find it refreshing to have a new civic group stepping up as another venue for voices. I find the first comment another attempt at intimidation and divisiveness, in its own right. I look forward to seeing what this group has to say. I don’t think anyone has said that climate change isn’t real, or housing isn’t real, or what their approach to bike lanes really is or the full story on positions. Perhaps the law suit was the only way to get Council’s (and lobbyists) attention because no one was listening to the people. I don’t know. This is part of the dialogue. But what I do recognize is forcing candidates to sign pledges supporting bike lanes at any cost doesn’t allow candidates to change their minds, tweak make deals or compromise as good representatives have to do. “If you don’t sign, we won’t vote for you”. It hog-ties our representatives by special interests.
For a long time we have seen policies voted through and THEN studied for feasibility. The wrong people are at the table and the crucial ones are ignored. The “idea” is more exciting than the actual implementation data with the goal of having Cambridge be “first”. This has to work for everyone. I would like to understand first before we have to waste time and money trying to fix the unintended consequences.
There will be many candidate panels around the city from different groups. Some groups have already drawn the Mason-Dixon line. I, for one, will try to attend as many as I can to hear stances on crucial ideas,issues, plans and goals by particular candidates, attitudes, self-absorbing language or if there are hints they play well with others. Lord knows several incumbents do not and even bully to get their policy voted through. Sometimes outside vs local money is in question. It has been about personal goals and not representing the people.
I don’t read this opinion above as a group of people knowing better how to govern than you do. I read it as an opportunity to hear other opinions and an opportunity to ask questions and get engaged. Only you are in the voting booth. All the more reason to do your homework AND VOTE.
This election is incredibly important to change the dynamics of the council with fresh solutions and ideas. There are many really smart, EXPERIENCED qualified people who are more familiar with certain topics than some of the incumbents- and I hope they are team players, look at data, statistics, OTHER Cities’ experiences before reinventing the wheel.
I look forward to ALL the panel discussions, even those with seemingly narrow platforms and goals first before a good representative of ALL. With three empty spots, citizens have an opportunity for fresh eyes and ideas both building on previous policies or finding solutions to problems while moving forward.
I do not think it fair to jump on a new group. Even those who support 12- and 15- stories of housing have good intention, but here we need to recognise that not all neighborhoods are the same.
“… steer clear of these endless ‘neighborhood’ groups with vague names. They don’t actually care about dialogue or what our neighborhood needs, they just want their way.” What does your neighborhood need? Do your homework before throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I want to thank Cambridgegent for calling out two city council candidates I support in this election, Joan Pickett and John Hanratty. They, along with others, had the courage to stand up to the bike lobby and represent businesses and residents who were not represented by many members of the current City Council.
Every lawsuit needs a remedy and, in this case, removing and stopping further bike lanes was the stated remedy. But Cambridgegent should note that Pickett in a recent Cambridge Day opinion letter stated clearly `The goal of that lawsuit was not to remove all separated bike lanes, but rather to cause the City Council to convene a belated community discussion, to show flexibility in implementation and design based on location and to develop mitigation approaches. This never happened’.
We are still waiting for that conversation. There seems to be a pattern with this City Council that they know better than any of the residents and businesses what is best for the city. Aren’t they elected to represent everyone? Well, many just don’t listen. That is why we need to change the City Council, so that businesses and residents are at the heart of every policy decision.
What a great idea! I’d like to start a citizen group as well: “Cambridge Residents for Policy Making with Bi-annual Input.”
We demand that the city hold bi-annual events where we gather input from all Cambridge residents over 18 years of age by choosing from among them residents that best represent their policy preferences. We encourage these prospective “representatives” to announce their candidacy ahead of time and make their policy preferences clear through written statements and events. Based on these stated preferences residents can make informed decisions on which of their fellow residents best reflects their own desires for our city. After this event we give these “representatives” two years to work together to enact policies that reflect the preferences of the residents that elected them.
Who is with me?
“They don’t actually want ‘transparency, civility and frank communication’ or ‘inclusive, holistic, evidence-based decision-making’. They just want their way.”
You just described every advocacy group/neighborhood group in the city. Mary Jane is a good egg I hope they’ve success this go around.
1. A low percentage of registered voters do not vote in our municipal elections. It seems that they “can’t be bothered.”
2. With nine at large councillors, there is no ability to have any one of them focus, and be accountable, to a specific geographical area of the city. I’m not aware that this is the situation in any other city of our size.
3. Ranked choice is a system that, in effect, eliminates votes.
The preliminary statements from the charter commission indicate that neither at large councillors, nor ranked choice, will change.
Therefore, nothing is going to change in terms of managing the city. The city manager/ at large council, will be the norm for at least the next forty years. And so… we will continue to have problems with our form of government.
The only thing that might possibly change things is a fiscal disaster. Few, including past and present councillors with whom I’ve spoken with, believe it will happen (in fact, one of them said he couldn’t be bothered looking at the city’s financial statements). I happen to be one of those few.
The city has become fat, dumb and happy because of the tax revenues from commercial real estate, mainly in Kendall Square. That is coming to an end, as office and lab space values peak or perhaps even start to decline. That seems to be the situation during the past year.
For a number of years, I’ve looked very closely at the city’s extensive financial report, including all the footnotes. The reports are complicated because of the standards of municipal accounting, but what the reports do show is that the biggest liability, post retirement pension and health costs, is barely covered in some years, and in others, if not for some accounting entries, not fully funded. And this has been at a time, during the last 14 years, when markets have been going up. The city has a large bureaucracy which seems to get bigger every year, and that liability keeps getting bigger.
And yet, the city continues to spend on frivolous things e.g. the deer sculpture in Inman Square, and can’t manage to build things without vast cost overruns i.e. two schools in West Cambridge, affordable housing with hundreds of million of dollars of overruns, and a cost per unit that is simply astounding. But, all this blithely passes without much notice.
Whether we agree with the writer of this opinion or not, what she wishes to happen, a well run city, is unfortunately, not likely to occur.
“with hundreds of million of dollars of overruns”
should have been ten of millions.
Hopefully we can get some leaders or organizations who bring folks together for true dialogue and compromise rather than extremes on so many sides.
I don’t know their policy proposals yet, but it strikes me that someone can be pro housing and pro bike lanes, without being pro overpriced and underplanned housing, or pro overpriced and underplanned bike lanes that may meet your definition of those things.
Hello Cambridge, you should fact check before posting. A quick search of Indivisible Cambridge shows Alanna Mallon and Elizabeth Liss as administrators. Your comment really struck a chord with me since I was asked to join and administer. The request was not from Suzanne Blier at all and her name never even surfaced. My understanding is that it is mainly focused on defeating Trump. https://www.facebook.com/groups/131025844070585/
Also, CV4GG was not recently formed; it had to change its name since “someone” stole the prior name and sent out bogus emails and postings using their name. Nasty truly.
By the way, how is the Cambridge Oathkeepers Pledge coming along? Which candidates have signed the Pledge? Why is it not publicly posted? I was sent a link many times to sign the petition and over and over when I clicked the link it had Suzanne Blier’s photo attached with a statement purportedly posted by her beseeching anyone to sign the petition. To be sure it was not at the behest of Suzanne Blier and that link is still being passed around.
Quite the word salad here, it would be better to just be honest with the voters. This is for the people who don’t support affordable housing, safer streets, and bold climate action. The reality is that this council has been extremely collaborative with most policies passing 7-2 at minimum. The discourse isn’t uncivil just because you don’t like the direction things are heading. In fact you will probably endorse the incumbents who have objectively been the least collaborative this term. Best to be honest about where you stand on the issues (you want a more fiscally conservative city council!) rather than misleading people with a nice-sounding word salad.
Patrick Barrett: We have no city plan and without neighborhood groups, we would be much worse off. Would we have so much green space in front of the library (much less the great new design without MCNA and Joan Pickett?; in Cambridgeport would we have Magazine Beach and the preservation of St Augustine Church without the CNA (and Cathie Zusy)? In Freshpond/Alewife where would we be without FPNA and Doug Brown?; in Porter Square, where would be without PSNA and Ruth Ryals? In Harvard Square, thanks in part to HSNA, we have great new designs for the Regency building, 57 JFK , and the Garage; in East Cambridge, without ECPT, the vast array of new developments would be far worse.
As to CCC and other Civic/Political groups, our efforts are only as good as the breadth and depth of our teams – and CCC has an extraordinary group of advisors, among these, Robert Winters and Federico Muchnik – both of whom, like Joan, Cathie, and Doug, have felt the urgency of a city in real crisis and are running for City Council. CCC has also just welcomed architect and former Planning Board member, Hugh Russell to our team. Patrick: we share many of the same concerns and vision and you are smarter and better than your attack of these groups implies.
HelloCambridge: Hiding behind anonymity to attack me, by name even though I am not mentioned in the op ed is weak. The same is true for CCC. Are we on a first name basis now? I have helped many groups in the city and will continue to do so. Indivisible Cambridge is not led by me, nor did I found it. As to the CCC mailed postcard highlighting the massive potential impacts of the citywide up-zoning proposal, AHO 2.0, had we larger sums, we would have mailed it to the whole city. Instead, we focused on voting groups particularly found in parts of the city identified with the three councillors not seeking reelection. These are hardly the wealthiest parts of the city, which at this juncture, based on increasing property values, would appear to include East Cambridge. Other than the date of the Council meeting to discuss the AHO, as far as I know, or have heard, the card contained no errors. Please get your facts straight before you seek to attack. Or, is this just another gas lighting efforts.
Dan Totten: We all support affordable housing, safer streets, and strong climate action. At $1 million a unit, the AHO-2.0 is outrageously expensive (market-rate housing costs half that to build, plus the land costs themselves). AHO 2.0 also will be terrible for the environment, causing more heat island impacts and (along with the proposed gutting of our longstanding preservation ordinance) likely also will lead to the cutting down of trees and the tearing down of existing sustainable housing (forcing more lower- and middle-income residents out of the city). Ending parking minimums, not only took away critical green spaces for trees to grow and kids to play, but it also has led to higher cost multi-million $ homes, and according to CDD, has made it more difficult for affordable housing developers to compete with market rate developers to purchase properties. As to safer and better designed streets, we all support this, along with a plan to evaluate the best way, block by block, to get all those who use the streets safely to where they need to go and in a timely way.
Yes, the current City Council is controlled by a super-majority of the pro-builder/pro-developer group members and their allies. But in all their years as a majority, please tell me, have housing prices here decreased? No? Has the transit situation improved? No? Have we saved more of our mature trees and added green spaces in our denser neighborhoods? No? Do AHO structures have to conform with the city’s green requirements? No. Are labs (by far the largest energy consumers) included in BEUDO? No. Note too: the neo-liberalism being pushed by this council does not work. Fiscal accountability and responsibility do matter. And, let’s be clear, this has been the MOST uncivil Council that I have seen since I arrived here over 30 years ago – not only incivility to each other, and to city staff, but also to the residents of the city.
I and many other residents have had enough! Time for a Change. Enough is Enough.
@MIghtyMouse, that Indivisible Cambridge group with Alanna and Elizabeth is a completely different group, there was a national movement about Trump as you said, a while back. This Indivisible Cambridge has the same name, but is a completely different group of people who are affiliated with Cambridge Citizen’s Coalition. It even still says it on their website as it loads, but here is an image of it:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4Yb6LOXQAAfa_h?format=jpg&name=medium
So it is a puppet group that is made by the same people so that it can have another arm and a different brand. Remember how Philip Morris became a tarnished brand and then they became ‘Altria’, or Comcast became ‘xfinity’? Once people become so sick of the toxic dust, these groups need to rebrand, and this is no different.
These links about Suzanne Blier and nasty emails from whatever the prior name of CV4GG was are all news to me. So please share the emails and links. I am curious to know where they came from.
@MC Resident/Joan, I would remind you that the lawsuit was literally to stop and remove the bike lanes, and was not to ’cause the City Council to convene a community discussion’ — there were two different lawsuits with injunctions to ask the state courts to stop these projects. So no, we should not let you/Joan recreate history, that is literally what she did with John Hanratty. They tried to tell the duly elected City Council and the citizens that elected them that they knew better, and they wanted their way, and would find a way to get it through the courts.
Luckily, both judges have already rejected these lawsuits as meritless — detailing that the arguments are without basis and that ‘the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits’.
As for ‘we are still waiting for that conversation’, all I can say is this was one of the two main topics in the last election, so the voters did decide last time to re-elect this supportive council. Is it possible you just don’t like what the voters chose, and you also just want your way over the voters and the majority? It sure feels like it.
Yes where is that list of the candidates who have pledged to support one of those single-issue interest groups rather than Cambridge as a whole?
Let’s not forget those who put us in this mess by abrogating their responsibilities to listen to the citizens of Cambridge while carrying water for the big outside money behind those groups. Remember who signed those pledges before the last election?
Yes! Another brilliant point. Let’s get rid of the insidious tentacles of Big Bike and Big Non-Profit Affordable Housing Developer!
Isn’t democracy about citizen participation? Why all the insults and negativity gross generalizations about peoples’ motives and positions. You can certainly add my name to the supporters of and participants in CV4GG. Now, I know this post will evoke the usual insults from some. But when citizens do not feel their voices are being taken seriously or when transparency in government is a struggle, our democracy still permits coming together to advocate and work for change. And no, this group is not against affordable housing or reducing emissions or tearing down separated bike lanes. But people want a say in how policies that impact their lives are shaped and they want outcomes that give some consideration to their views. In America, it’s called compromise and it is the way lasting change for the greater good is made.
Regarding whether this is a group that wants a more fiscally conservative city council, that, I guess, is supposed to be a bad thing, even if true. And as far as I can see, the new group has no statement on fiscal prudence but rather talks about democratic processes in all areas of government. Don’t all citizens want an accountable council with respect to the spending of public funds? Is that a bad thing?
I find it mildly amusing that there are some who wrap themselves in the mantle of liberal and progressive ideologies who are the first to attack the formation of a new citizens group which has the expressed purpose of strengthening democratic processes for all.
Well there you have it, ‘Vickey knows Bestor’ just admitted what this is all about:
“Remember who signed those pledges before the last election?”
Great way to “promote civility and civic engagement”. This isn’t actually about good governance, or balanced discussion, it’s about punishing those who have pushed for change on climate, bikes, and housing.
Cambridgegent: IndivisibleCambridge is NOT affiliated with Cambridge Citizens Coalition. It appears on the Sept 10 poster along with a number of other co-sponsoring groups with no affiliation with CCC. The same kind of collaborations are happening with other candidate forums – whether we are talking about neighborhood groups PSNA (and others), FPRA (and others), or specific issue-based groups around themes such as the environment: Green Cambridge and others. We feel it is an important benefit to the broader community when we work together – bringing more residents into these discussions. I am assuming many of these groups will be adding the poster to their websites. Here is the poster now up on the HSNA website: https://www.harvardsquareneighborhood.org/ The Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association and the East Cambridge Planning Team are also co-hosting this event. We welcome anyone interested in viewing the discussions. The moderator is President of the Boston League of Women Voters.
@williard
This is how the event is introduced on the HSNA website. That’s hardly a neutral description of the AHO amendment:
Questions of good design and architectural preservation are important to HSNA – and an important part of our mission. The current City Council will be voting September 11 to allow 12 and 15 story income-limited housing without parking, setbacks, or design oversight in Harvard Square as well as along key corridors, among these Mass Avenue, Mt Auburn Street, and Fresh Pond Parkway. While we all support more affordable housing, we need to have a smart plan for this. There is an election this November for City Council and a number of the candidates are interested in more thoughtful planning and government transparency. HSNA is a co-sponsor of the Candidates Forum on September 10 – see below.
@Williard, Indivisible Cambridge’s website is run using the same web application as CCC’s, so the story is falling apart. Unless there’s some vast left wing conspiracy, the two are related.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F4Yb6LOXQAAfa_h?format=jpg&name=medium
Check for yourself, because when you load the Indivisible Cambridge website on a desktop computer, you can actually see the words “Cambridge Citizen’s Coalition” come up. On a mobile phone, you have to pull down on the page to see the same text. Maybe Suzanne can clarify what is going on here?
Also, being a separate name on a poster doesn’t really provide actual evidence about whether the two groups are related. You can see why that is not actually convincing.
Do the folks involved in Indivisible feel any shame for stealing the name from an existing group? They are also confusing voters like MIghtyMouse, who thought this was the group run by Alanna. Or maybe that is part of the goal.
@Marc Levy, could you cover this finding? The fact that this is a sock puppet group sure seems slimy, and voters should know that the two groups are tentacles from the same animal.
I don’t consider referring to well-organized bicycle advocates as “the bike lobby” to be an example of civility. Given that this new group promotes civility and civic engagement, I’m sure they’d agree with me.
HSNA is also run by Suzanne Blier, so of course they are completely aligned with CCC. From their most recent newsletter opposing the AHO:
“HSNA’s MISSION
Part of HSNA’s mission statement focuses specifically on architectural preservation and design. HSNA leadership is very concerned about this possible up-zoning as well as design oversight and the way these issues are being pushed by the City. Some of our leaders are part of a broader citywide neighborhood action group, which is leading this fight.
Cordially, Suzanne”
Cambridgegent: interesting point. Funny! My guess is that some of the local volunteer groups are using the same tech person and maybe an outdated site was reused. Not very professional! But if you look at the CCC website and the large number of people who are listed on their advisory group, I can imagine lots of overlap and who they get to do tech. On MightyMouse and the Facebook page – thanks! I looked at that. It seems to have been out of commission for a while. It also seems to have been created by Allana Mallon when she first ran for City Council. Is it usual that political candidates create Indivisible groups? The other person is a Cambridge City employee. Unusual too? You seem to have a beef with CCC. Curious if they would ever meet with you if you reached out to them. Signed up for the newsletters.
Hello Cambridge: The Cambridge Citizens Coalition was formed in 2019 by neighborhood group leaders around the city who were fed up with what was happening, so yes, neighborhood group leaders across the city are involved in CCC – along with others. HSNA is a 501c3. We do not get involved in election campaigns – nor politics per se. Not all our policies or issues concern CCC or visa versa. Nor do their interests overlap, though we both support local businesses and good architectural plans. Yes design is important to HSNA – as it was to the old HSDF founded by Pebble Gifford. We acquired our non-profit status from them. Design and preserving our long standing sustainable architecture was important to them too. This is hardly unusual. I also happen to be an architectural historian and have published and taught about issues related to both this and urban planning (in Africa) including a book chapter on the future of the city.
On the AHO: Our shared view is that the Planning Board should continue to have design oversight of these structures – as they do with other large projects in the city. We also believe there should be far more oversight about costs and other considerations. $1 million per unit when market-rate housing costs far less. Come on.
Please also note that NO DECISIONS are made by HSNA or any other neighborhood group without Full Board approval. These are very much group efforts and decisions. You give me too much credit if you think I do this all alone – and you give too little credit to everyone else on these various groups. Many of us also have full time jobs which are very time-consuming. I do as well. We all care deeply about the city and its future which is why we take on these difficult civic roles and challenges. Want to grab a cup of coffee? My treat.
Cambridgegent, the Indivisible Cambridge group is one and the same. Perhaps players changed but you cannot simply adopt a name already used lawfully anyway. Perhaps the originators no longer were interested and like with many organizations others step up. The screen shot you are displaying is more like what I found with Suzanne purportedly promoting the Oathkeepers Bike Pledge. Trust me someone crafted that and sent it out and I have gotten it many times and even recently just a few days ago after they were asked to remove it. CV4GG definitely has a prior name and it was stolen and used in emails and posts with a contrary and mocking message.
To be sure, there are many techies on here and within ABC and CBS fully capable of corrupting anything and obviously fully intending to do just that.
I am not going to do screen shots for you. Obviously you know how to google and take screenshots. You don’t need me for that.
Suzanne that wasn’t an attack at all. A previous commenter took a swipe stating a common refrain that this group is angling for their own goals … which is perfectly valid and no different than any other group. The shift in politics is now these combating groups accuse the other of being anti this or that or worse … it’s political gamesmanship and it so boring and old. The politicians baiting groups should be seen for what they are; charlatans playing a never ending game.
@Suzanne, could you explain why CCC shows up when the Indivisible Cambridge website loads? People on this thread have been working themselves in circles trying to explain it…
@Williard, it just doesn’t add up, that would be more than a sloppy mistake, as the CCC website has been around for years. Why would this same IT person clone the CCC site, rather than any other site they’ve made in the last 5 years? It defies logic because it’s not logical. The site is hosted on a consumer platform called Weebly, which doesn’t even require a web developer.
It sure seems like you’re finding all sorts of reasons why a much less likely outcome is true… we’re getting deep down this rabbit hole, and the only reasonable explanation is that they are related groups.
All of the ‘hosts’ of the forum are related in one way or another… it’s just a bunch of sockpuppets pretending to be lots of different groups.
Here we go again with more NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) rhetoric from the same small group. Their agenda seems solely focused on preserving their own privilege.
In Cambridge, what we truly need are safer streets and more affordable housing. It’s important to prioritize the community’s well-being over narrow self-interest
Suzanne Blier, as an academic, you understand the importance of correctly stating facts. Yet we have to constantly correct what you’re saying. This sentence is literally the opposite of the truth: “Are labs (by far the largest energy consumers) included in BEUDO? No.” Yes. Yes they are! They are the main event! How do you manage to misrepresent the facts so badly all the time?!
Someone who sues the city to remove bike lanes proven by the federal highway administration to make the roads safer, as the author of this piece did, is not actually interested in “inclusive, holistic, evidence-based decision-making” and you should be honest about what you really want.
There are enough candidates lying in their introductions already in this race given the claims by Joan Pickett and John Hanratty that they only want a pause in bike infrastructure when they are on record suing the city to remove it all, we dont need more people misrepresenting themselves in office.
One more thing I need to respond to “Ending parking minimums, not only took away critical green spaces for trees to grow and kids to play, but it also has led to higher cost multi-million $ homes” You must be living in a fever dream. building parking costs hundreds of thousands of dollars it literally leads to higher cost housing and equating parking with green space is genuinely insane.
Cambridgegent – Someone else noted here I think that what likely happened is a web designer (shared by various groups) reused an older CCC site design. Most of the groups are all volunteer ones and not vary tech savy. Quinton – on BEUDO – I was told this information by Patrick Barrett. Happy to have him correct me. I am always happy to correct any errors. I hope you and others on your side would agree to to do this as well.
Hanratty, Pickett, and Toner are blatantly dishonest. They’re not interested in a constructive conversation; their true agenda is to eliminate bike safety infrastructure. They claim to seek a solution that benefits everyone, but their real aim is to let a minority override the majority’s will and common sense.
We can’t afford more deceitful politicians; there’s already an excess of that.
AvgJoe, Your last line explains exactly why Cambridge Voters for Good Government was created.
We are tired of the deceitful politicians who — as in the case of the CSO — create policy behind closed doors and ram major changes and timelines through in the middle of a pandemic without community input or any transparency.
No one — not Hanratty, Pickett, Toner or anyone associated with Cambridge Streets for All, — no one ever advocated for the elimination of bike lanes. The famous lawsuit sought a temporary injunction to bring some sanity, consensus, and transparency into a policy that impacts 100% of the city for the benefit of the tiny minority of mostly affluent, white cyclists, many who do not even live or vote in Cambridge.
So exactly which majority are you talking about? The majority of City Councillors who signed a pledge to a special interest group that conflicts with their oath of office to serve all the citizens of Cambridge.
@Vickey Bestor “no one ever advocated for the elimination of bike lanes” is just plain wrong. The lawsuit you were a part of asked the judge, as part of the temporary injunction, to remove all quickbuild separated bike lanes.
This is in the public record. Anyone can download a PDF with two minutes search. Here’s a screenshot from the statement of the judge who denied this: https://ibb.co/55kkC1j
It’s just as easy to find your lawyer’s statement asking all the bike lanes to be removed.
This has your name on it.
Either you’re part of a lawsuit whose goals you don’t understand, or you’re just publicly lying on the assumption no one will notice.
“No one — not Hanratty, Pickett, Toner or anyone associated with Cambridge Streets for All, — no one ever advocated for the elimination of bike lanes.”
This is an outright lie. Both they and you are on the record doing exactly that. It has been linked here several times already. You are shameless and mendacious.
“tiny minority of mostly affluent, white cyclists, many who do not even live or vote in Cambridge”
You are projecting so hard right now. It is car drivers who are the entitled and privileged minority here. back in reality, car drivers are wealthier than average and are a minority in Cambridge and “immigrants are twice as likely as US-born Americans to travel by bicycle. Those earning less than $35,000 and living in dense residential areas are more than 10 times as likely to travel by bike.”
“So exactly which majority are you talking about? The majority of City Councillors who signed a pledge to a special interest group that conflicts with their oath of office to serve all the citizens of Cambridge.”
The councilors who signed the bike pledge are being completely honest about their intentions, They support making biking safer and will say so openly. You, however are doubling and tripling down on clear and obvious lies to hide your true intentions. Again you clearly lack all sense of shame.