Residents most directly affected by more closings for Riverbend Park say they’re forced into silence
Historically, community members were provided the opportunity to offer their perspective on city or state decisions that would impact them. Today, we the residents of Cambridge’s Riverside neighborhood who are most directly impacted by the closing of Memorial Drive on Saturdays are being forced into silence. We would like to offer our thoughts in response to recent news about Riverbend Park (“State agrees to new talks about Riverbend Park, suggesting return of Saturday recreation hours,” Aug. 18).
We want to first state that the neighborhood is not asking for officials to revisit the decision. In fact, our neighborhood – which for more than 50 years, since Harvard University’s unbridled expansion into Riverside and displacement of low-income residents, has been fighting to be treated with respect and dignity – has not been engaged in discussions on the matter at all. The closing of Memorial Drive results in incredible traffic backups along River Street and Putnam and Western avenues and compels motorists to increasingly speed down residential side streets and spread pollution within our thickly settled neighborhood.
Additionally, without our consent, the city stopped ticketing in the neighborhood on Saturdays for the closings, allowing nonresidents to park in Cambridge resident parking. Residents face significant challenges attending appointments, visiting family, going to church and running errands. Permitting these challenges to impact the same small neighborhood segment on both weekend days is incomprehensible.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the issue, it is impossible to ignore that blindsiding a neighborhood with this decision to benefit individuals who will not be impacted by the resulting traffic and pandemonium in Riverside is unjust.
We appreciate state Rep. Marjorie Decker working to ensure that our voices are heard and hope more elected and appointed officials engage us before making a decision that will significantly impact our quality of life. With a new city manager and DCR commissioner in office, we hope that the Riverside neighborhood will have a voice in these conversations.
Lawrence J. Adkins, Sheila Headley Burwell and Alan Dobson, Riverside
The only thing crazier then the idea that Larry Adkins is being “forced into silence” is what actually happened. Check out this video that shows how Rep. Marjorie Decker worked secretly behind the scenes to manipulate the whole situation.
https://vimeo.com/861729984
She set up a secret meeting so that the head of the DCR could talk to Denise Simmons and these couple people. Nobody else from the neighborhood was invited. They lied to the commissioner and said the whole neighborhood feels this same way. News flash… we don’t, and Larry doesn’t speak for the neighborhood. We are sick and tired of him pretending that he does.
These representatives lied and abused their power and it’s disgusting. Time to vote them straight out of office, and get some people who actually care about serving our community instead of the usual politics.
I’d like the author’s opinions about traffic during the work week in Riverside which I find to be far worse than any effects on Saturdays and Sundays from the closure. Traffic is often backed up down Putnam from Western all the way to pleasant, causing noise pollution and air particulates volumes to rise and making bike travel treacherous. Not an ideal corridor for taking my child to school.
Also three authors does not a neighborhood make. Maybe tone down the ownership a bit, or add some names to the byline.
From Streetsblog: “In fact, the City of Cambridge held three public meetings about Riverbend Park in 2022. One of those was a virtual meeting on Zoom; the second, on June 28, was held in Wheeler Park, adjacent to Memorial Drive; the third, on October 6, was held at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. School on Putnam Avenue, a three-minute walk from Riverbend Park.” and “residents at those meetings overwhelmingly supported keeping cars out of the park all weekend.”
Perhaps you do not speak for the whole community?
It is simply false to claim the community has not been consulted about the park. In reality the state put its finger on the scale to uphold the position of the authors of this piece in opposition to the clear majority of the community supporting the park. If the state has blindsided anyone it was by removing the park despite overwhelming support by the community and city government. The state lied to close the park and this framing is based on further lies (the community was consulted it just disagrees with you) in order to not have to make amends for that betrayal of the will of the people.
There is no evidence that the park creates traffic, in fact closing roads reduces traffic. Traffic issues in the surrounding community are better addressed by changing light signal timings than by eliminating the park.
Who exactly is forcing you into silence? Oh that’s right, nobody.
For the record I live in Riverside and do not feel “forced into silence” I’m not sure that is even possible for me.
While I like the riverbend park, what I find unacceptable is the city making decisions that have enormous neighborhood impact without engaging the people in those neighborhoods.
So while I disagree with you about the park, I heartily agree with you about the city and council’s attitude. Don’t forget to vote!
The problem is that your opinion is just flat out wrong. There is no “incredible traffic.” Get over yourselves.
@q99, I respectfully point out that there were 3 city led public meetings, (two in the neighborhood and one online — https://www.cambridgema.gov/StreetsAndTransportation/MemorialDrive), as well as 3 separate Riverside neighborhood community meetings which had the city’s transportation director, councilors, and various state rep and council staff. There was also a separate city-run public outreach survey which had over 1,000 responses (https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/riversidetransportationconversationengagementandfeedbacksummary.pdf).
Certainly the neighbors who love Riverbend also feel marginalized by the process, especially now that we know from the FOIA that the decision was based on misinformation (https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/07/26/emails-reveal-state-officials-flawed-excuses-for-taking-away-riverbend-park-access-in-cambridge). I guess I am left with the question: what would have constituted sufficient consultation and community engagement with all of the neighbors (both supportive and opposing) if 6 meetings and a survey wasn’t enough?
Maybe the better question, though, is can’t we do better by looking at this through a lens of ‘how do we make this work better for everyone’ rather than ‘who should be consulted and how many times’? Because it’s clear to me from having been involved in the process that most people are not where these three residents are — most neighbors want to respect those who are impacted, address the impacts through traffic mitigation, and to find common ground and compromise. Most of our councilors and state reps are there, too.
I will add, even as someone skeptical of the need to reopen the discussion (The city and community spoke clearly in support of the park and the evidence is all on their side that the park should stay open, so just reopen it rather than reopen a discussion the state biased in favor of the cars in the first place.) it is highly ironic to claim you are being silenced by the state reopening a discussion. This shows it clearly isn’t about being heard, it’s about getting what you want. A few people were clearly heard more than everyone else, particularly by Marjorie Decker and Rebecca Tepper, to close the park and they are now claiming they are being silenced by other voices being acknowledged in the conversation. Pretty shameful honestly.
I don’t understand the brouhaha when there are two possible simple solutions for all of us, drivers/commuters and residents in the Putnam/Western Avenue area.
1) a detail at the intersection during the busiest times of days,
2) a left arrow signal at the intersection for drivers coming from the south side of Putnam towards the north.
I have noticed a need for either in order for our schoolchildren to cross safely.
You’re not compelled to stay silent. The traffic isn’t as extreme as described; these residents are being hyperbolic. Who’s silencing you, and how?
Riverbend Park can be advantageous for all. These residents are acting self-centeredly and immaturely.