A better way for Cambridge
The City Council has passed or is poised to pass bold policies to install bicycle lanes, increase affordable housing and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Each is aimed at a serious problem and can be expected to make a measurable impact, but none can be expected to solve the underlying problem. They are slingshot policies, aimed at Goliath problems: meeting urban transportation needs with fewer cars and less fossil fuel, ending the regional shortage of affordable housing and halting and mitigating climate change.
Implementing them will require sustained work by city staff and many others, and it will take time for their impacts to be seen and measured. Our new city manager appears to understand the challenges and be prepared to lead the implementation. The City Council also has a vital role: to monitor, fine-tune and, if necessary, amend these new policies. This will require paying attention to relevant data and information and proactively engaging with residents, businesses and key stakeholders. Timely, candid communication will be necessary.
These practices are almost the polar opposite of those the council followed to develop these policies. It relied heavily on single-issue advocacy groups and city staff. It did little to engage with affected residents, businesses and others. It put out limited, and sometimes misleading, public information about the policies. And it needlessly divided the community.
The three new policies, for protected cycle lanes, affordable housing and climate-neutral building energy, are innovative and will have real effects on everyone in Cambridge, but they are not silver bullets. They will not solve our transportation problem, meet regional housing needs, mitigate climate change or even achieve rapid reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions.
Being first is a kind of leadership that other communities in the region and beyond might follow, and this would multiply the impacts of the initiatives. Enacting mandates and eliminating long-established reviews and regulations are only first steps, though. Other cities will only follow Cambridge’s lead if there is successful implementation that achieves desired benefits, mitigates negative impacts and maintains the support of residents who have to live with the results. For this we will need city councillors with broad vision to represent all of Cambridge and foster a sense community and balance among our diverse citizens and neighborhoods.
This fall the city is at a fork in the road. With 24 candidates competing for nine seats on the council in the election in November, voters have a clear choice between candidates who have been schooled in City Hall and the practices that have sown division and distrust and other candidates with broad experience in business, academia, civic institutions and government and who are committed to building trust, a shared sense of purpose and progress on our major challenges.
John Pitkin is on the steering committee of Cambridge Voters For Good Government and presiding officer of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association.
First, since the author is on the steering committee of the Cambridge Voters for Good Government, a reminder that they endorsed racist and homophobic candidates, namely Winters and Pasquarello. So if the author really wants to elect councillors with a “broad vision to represent all of Cambridge” I recommend unendorsing them as a good start.
Second, I believe Boston actually has the equivalent of our recent BUEDO greenhouse gas emissions reduction act? Pretty sure it predates ours, so we’re following _their_ lead. https://www.boston.gov/departments/environment/building-emissions-reduction-and-disclosure
Third, other towns and cities near us are actually following our lead on bike infrastructure, slower or faster depending on the city.
Arlington just approved new sidewalk-level bike lanes on part of Mass Ave, last Tuesday. Here’s the design: https://www.arlingtonma.gov/Home/Components/News/News/12347/225
Somerville’s new bicycle plan has schedules, including miles of key routes to be built by 2030, they’re getting closer and closer to the equivalent of Cambridge’s Cycling Safety Ordinance: https://voice.somervillema.gov/somerville-bicycle-network-plan
Boston is installing many separated bike lanes: https://www.boston.gov/departments/boston-bikes/better-bike-lanes
Cambridge Voters For Good Government has also endorsed the bigots Robert Winters and Carrie Pasquarello. It appears to basically be a CCC front group as all the other endorsees are the same including Joan Pickett who was part of the lawsuit that called to remove all protected bike lanes in Cambridge and stop all future ones despite the Federal Highway Administration proving they improve safety for people on bikes significantly.
If they aren’t a front for CCC they are just another reactionary and obstructionist group who claim they have been wronged when they don’t get exactly what they want at the expense of everyone else. They do not actually want “balance” they want to undermine long overdue progress in this city.
Info on lawsuit: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23706217-cambridge-streets-for-all-lawsuit-dismissal-memo-march-2023
FHA report: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-025.pdf
Between this op-ed by Mr. Pitkin, the other one by Vickey Bestor a few weeks ago (https://www.cambridgeday.com/2023/08/25/new-cambridge-voters-for-good-government-seeking-inclusive-evidence-based-decisions/), and their endorsement of Joan Pickett, it is becoming increasingly obvious that there is not-insignificant overlap between Cambridge Voters For Good Government and Cambridge Streets for All, the organization that sued the city to block the Cycling Safety Ordinance and to remove the quick-build bike lanes installed under said ordinance.
Mr. Pitkin was one of the original plaintiffs on that lawsuit, with Ms. Bestor and Ms. Pickett submitting affidavits in support. After the lawsuit was dismissed by the judge in March, Cambridge Streets For All appealed a month later, with Ms. Bestor and Ms. Pickett officially joining the list of plaintiffs. For anyone who wants to verify the above, please search the Middlesex Superior Court records for case # 2281CV02441.
In addition, Mr. Pitkin is listed as a member of the Cambridge Citizens Coalition’s Research and Consultation Team (https://www.cccoalition.org/who-we-are.html). The CCC is currently under fire for their endorsements of Carrie Pasquarello and Robert Winters; this has been covered in recent articles in the Cambridge Day and elsewhere. Cambridge Voters For Good Government has also endorsed both Pasquarello and Winters (in fact, their entire slate of 7 candidates has also been endorsed by the CCC), but seems to have escaped notice for now as they are newer and less well-funded.
Curiously, Mr. Pitkin disclosed neither of these affiliations in his article, despite mentioning bike lanes and obliquely referencing the above controversy (“candidates who have been schooled in City Hall and the practices that have sown division and distrust and other candidates” is clearly a jab at Dan Totten, another city council candidate who previously served as an aide to Councilor Zondervan, and was one of the first candidates to demand that Winters and Pasquarello be held accountable).
Forgive me for finding it difficult to take Mr. Pitkin’s call for “building trust” seriously given this serious lack of transparency.
The better way is also the only way. It takes a few years to heal the distrust and division in our City. It probably takes longer to elevate our political arena to one that can lead and innovate. John is correct; with a competent government, we will need a concerted effort to implement bold policies to install bicycle lanes, increase affordable housing, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings to make Cambridge a genuinely sustainable and livable city. We will also need all communities to speak the language of inclusion to make our city inclusive.
I am a city council candidate, running on “do both” rather than “either … or…” Please vote for me for a better way in Cambridge.
Hao Wang for Cambridge
https://haoforcambridge.com
“We will also need all communities to speak the language of inclusion to make our city inclusive.”
Is that why you are still defending Winters and Pasquarello‘s open bigotry.
All your group does is lie and claim others are lying when they point it out. Your entire electoral strategy is gaslighting the electorate. The fact that you are pretending to be pro-bike lane also really undermines the claims your group makes that they are being imposed on people. If they weren’t popular you wouldn’t be pretending to support them while actually trying to undermine them.
Hao Wang, you do realize John Pitkin was part of the lawsuit to remove every new separated bike lane in the city? When he says “successful implementation” he really means “destroy everything”.
Itamar Turner-Trauring, I don’t. What matters is that I am running, and I trust John and others will not ‘destroy everything,’ let alone I won’t allow it. We need to work together to find a way to make Cambridge not only the most bicycle-friendly city but also the most senior-friendly and business-friendly city. Let us do both, and say good bye to either or.
I care a lot more about what people have demonstrably done than what you trust they will do. Pitkin has attempted to have every separated bike lane in the city removed.
“We need to work together to find a way to make Cambridge not only the most bicycle-friendly city but also the most senior-friendly and business-friendly city. Let us do both, and say good bye to either or.”
These things aren’t in conflict. The only people acting as if they are are your fellow candidates endorsed by CCC and CVGG.
Bike lanes support local businesses according to every single study on the subject and safe bike infrastructure makes it easier and safer for seniors to ride, reducing their car dependency, and giving them a viable alternative for public transit. There are many people for whom it is easier to bike than to walk. This is even more the case with the proliferation of e-bikes.
Bike lanes are good for seniors and businesses, it is bad faith to pretend otherwise.
Bike lanes support local businesses: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line
Biking easier than walking for some people:
“For two out of three disabled cyclists, riding a bike is easier than walking, easing joint strain, aiding balance and relieving breathing difficulties.” https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jan/02/cambridge-disabled-people-cycling-rolling-walking-stick#:~:text=For%20two%20out%20of%20three,a%20bike%20to%20get%20around.
I’d just like to reiterate the bad faith of the actors here. Mr. Wang, I laud your commitment to a bicycle-friendly city and a local-business-friendly city, and hope you in fact fight for both of those goals. However, please understand that Mr. Pitkin’s statements of the same appear very clearly to me and to others and this thread to be bad faith, considering his involvement with this lawsuit to remove all separated bike lanes from the city, infrastructure that substantial research shows leads to safer outcomes for all on the road. In fact, this article is a good example of what I view as a typical version of bad faith by CCC and other associated actors; where they pretend to support transit, or affordable housing, or climate change, or safe roads for all, but in their actions oppose active efforts that are aiming for those precise goals. I can fully understand pushing the city to develop more initiatives to help support local businesses, or pedestrians, or seniors who may be losing their typical parking spot, amidst the extension of a separated bike lane network – it is certainly plausible and real that the transition will cause challenges, and we should be engaging around that. However, vehement legal and political opposition have been the actual position taken, masked behind a veneer of reasonableness. This is appropriately called bad faith
And yes, do want to reiterate the above point by Slaw, which is that bike lanes as a whole do not have negative effects on either local businesses nor seniors. I do think the transition, and how it is carried out, can come with some growing pains, and it is appropriate and important to work with both seniors and local businesses to make sure they are supported through the process – but ultimately safer infrastructure and a safer city will benefit all.
Kavish Gandhi, I love your last name, BTW. He is one of my heroes. I wonder how he differentiates genuine different opinions from bad faith.
Yes. I will fight for both a bicycle-friendly and senior/business-friendly Cambridge. We will not remove all bike lanes. I support necessary adjustments of the temporary lanes through genuine civic engagements. We should prudently expand our bike network, not reduce it. The way to build a sustainable bike network is to appeal to people’s support and build it with our hearts.
Mr. Paul Toner introduced piloting a shuttle program that alleviates the transportation issues caused by bike lanes. Vote him again if you agree because it is a way to do both.
Hao Wang for Cambridge
https://haoforcambridge.com
“alleviates the transportation issues caused by bike lanes.”
What transportation issues caused by bike lanes. You illustrate your true feelings when you presuppose problems that don’t actually exist.
“I support necessary adjustments”
Such as? This is all very vague. And it’s hard to take your nominal support for bike lanes here all that seriously while you echo the vague sentiments of someone on the record attempting to remove all of them (and who you continue to claim didn’t do that despite it being in the public record). What specific changes do you want to make to the existing bike lanes?
Repeated history of behavior constitutes bad faith, which is my take on CCC, as I outlined above. Further, as Slaw outlined, this person is on the record opposing all separated bike lanes, going so far as to file a lawsuit to that effect. I can comfortably call this article bad faith as a result. The reason I call it bad faith is that the author *pretends* to support a policy, while in their actions they show that they do not support anything like that. That is completely distinct from a difference of opinion, and relatively easily separable.
I also agree with Slaw; I’m not quite sure what transportation issues that bike lanes in particular cause. If you highlight a particular issue and then propose a both-and solution, I’m nearly certain I would support it
Kavish Gandhi, please read this letter below sent by a long-time city resident to highlight the transportation issue. You tell me what you think. Please feel free to call me too. My phone number is 6178991199. Thanks for using your name in this public forum. It takes courage. Hao
“I have just sent this letter to Cambridge Traffic Department. If you have similar experiences either in the immediate Huron Village neighborhood, or in other neighborhoods in Cambridge, I would urge you to send them both to City Councilors and to the head of the traffic department.
We have lived on Huron Avenue, between Appleton and Sparks since 1977. We live on the EVEN side of the street (234-236). We wanted to write to you to let you know that there is what I would call a stunning increase in traffic on several streets in this general area. We are not talking about just a few more cars. This is completely changing the livability of the neighborhood: it threatens pedestrians, bicyclists and other cars since these “pass-through” cars appear mostly intent on getting through this area as quickly as possible. It also makes it difficult for people to get in and out of their driveways. Crossing the streets can be dangerous for the elderly and people with young children.
We experience the following on every weekday:
1. Cars backed up on Huron all the way past our driveway and past Appleton street. We had been used to having a small back up each weekday around the time that the BBN school gets out on Sparks. Now, there appear to be three or perhaps four different time periods when cars are backed up in front of our driveway and beyond: the morning rush to some extent; when BBN gets out ; and most notably, the evening rush hour.
Cars appear to be coming from two places (not sure where they are originating from): a) so many more cars are coming from Brattle to Huron, via Appleton that I can sometimes sit for 5 or 10 minutes in my driveway waiting to get out. b) the remainder of the cars are coming down Huron already, perhaps from earlier cross streets.
There are NOT equivalent back ups on the “ODD” side of the street, so this does not appear to be a general increase in traffic in the area, but seems due to the fact that – for some reason – more cars are commuting through this area rather than perhaps staying on fresh pond parkway or other streets.
2. Cars backed up between Huron and Garden/Sherman intersection: Twice a week or so, I travel on Huron toward Sherman, and up Sherman to Ringe. This is another “space” that has become very congested in a way not seen previously. This one is clearly a result of the fact that Garden is no longer two-way. You can sit at the corner of Huron and Concord, and watch cars coming up Concord, and turning onto Huron toward Sherman. Even worse, because they have to wait “too long” to make that turn, cars are also entering that space from the short residential street that runs from the top of the Observatory to Huron. It now takes 3 to 4 lights or more to be able to make the turn onto Sherman.
3. Finally, the transit time up Sherman to Ringe has greatly increased. At the light on Ringe, one half or more of the cars are turning left – suggesting that something like Waze sent them this way to bypass the even slower traffic on Fresh Pond parkway. Some, but many fewer, turn right.
It is important for your office to know that this situation is being experienced by many Cambridge residents. It is affecting more than just one street, and I imagine more than just one area. I would like to hear that the City Council and your office, among others, are planning to study the situation and to find solutions. “
1) You dodged the question about what specific changes you would make
2) The problem of car traffic is not resolved by catering more to cars. In order to decrease traffic you have to make it possible to take other modes.
3) There is often an adjustment period after infrastructure changes before a new equilibrium is reached. The city says as such explicitly and is already studying this: https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/2022/gardenst/postinstallationdata/033023gardenstreetsafetyimprovementprojcetlocaltrafficanalysis.pdf
No surprise here in the comments. The same zealots making the same comments. Yawn.
@akcg You seem to appear in most discussions of bike lanes on here as well arguing against them or making a similar comment to the one you made here. What does that make you?
Picoplaff:
Your post alleges that I am part of a monomaniacal anti-bike lane cabal. You base this on my failure to disclose two specific affiliations and one credential. It would be far preferable, as I had hoped, for my assessment of the current state of our local government to be considered on its merits, but your anonymous post indicates that you and others may want to know more about my background, qualifications and motives for publishing this column.
Most recently, I served on the board of Green Cambridge for fifteen years, recently as vice president. During this tenure I was lead organizer of the 2009-2010 Cambridge Climate Congress that brought a representative group of a hundred citizens to City Hall for two days of hearings and deliberation, with the support of then Mayor Denise Simmons, the City Manager’s office and other city staff and endorsement of five previous mayors and the entire City Council. Three participants later became city councillors. It helped to mobilize climate action in several areas and represents a potential precedent for the citizen assemblies being discussed by the Charter Review Committee.
In 1997-1998 I was one of the lead proponents of the Cambridge Residents for Growth Management movement to limit the amount of commercial development, require review (and public notice) of large projects, and allow for more new housing in areas of redevelopment.
Before that I served on the Cambridge Board of Traffic and Parking (1974-1994) and as chair of the Cambridge Transportation Forum (1973-1975) which coordinated citizen participation in planning for the extension of the Red Line, from Harvard to Alewife, and other transportation improvements as an official advisory group to the City Council’s Committee on Transportation.
For the past fifteen years the singular purpose of my activism and civic efforts has been to leave the world a better place for my grandchildren’s generation. From 2008 to 2017 this meant climate action. Since then, it has also meant supporting democracy, democratic values and democratic institutions at all levels. Because of my background, I believe I can do the most good here, in Cambridge. This year, as a contribution to the discussion of charter reform, I co-created, with Robert Winters Cambridge Civic View: From Town Meeting to Plan E, a documentary on Cambridge’s first charters.
The rule of law is one of the basic principles of our democracy. Another is that the government, like the president, is not above the law. It can amend and revoke laws but it cannot do this by just ignoring them, as the president cannot declassify documents by wishing it. A 1961 law, still on the books, limits the City Council’s authority to make traffic regulations. The Cycling Safety Ordinance appears to violate this limitation. Also, the law provides citizens a right to appeal new traffic regulations to an independent Board of Traffic and Parking. In implementing the CSO the City has clearly deprived citizens on Garden and Brattle Streets of this right.
We can debate the best way to provide for safe cycling, cycle lanes and urban transportation policy, but there should be no debate, at least in Cambridge, about maintaining democratic norms and values. The suit I am part of is about more than bike lanes, much more.
“We can debate the best way to provide for safe cycling, cycle lanes and urban transportation policy, but there should be no debate, at least in Cambridge, about maintaining democratic norms and values. The suit I am part of is about more than bike lanes, much more.”
You clearly are not interested in debating it or in democratic values since you attempted to impose your will on the city via a lawsuit to remove all protected bike lanes. Suing when you don’t get exactly what you want from the democratic process is not what I consider a good example of democratic norms and values.
Fighting against bike lanes is also decidedly not leaving a better world for your grand children. You should frankly be ashamed of yourself as an environmentalist defending car centricity.
Wrong again, Slaw. I am a people-centric pedestrian and fighting for a better transportation policy as well as democratic values.
Your vast ignorance demonstrates that you are not a serious person.
John Pitkin, I am attempting to understand your position. It is very hard for me to understand engaging in a lawsuit that would, as an effect, cause the removal of all separated bike lanes that have to date been installed, if you indeed hold the values / policy positions that you espouse above or in the article. I have severe doubts about your legal interpretation, but let’s leave that aside. Instead, let’s discuss democracy. I have a vastly different understanding of both the process and the support behind the CSO: I in particular disagree with every sentence in this paragraph: “It relied heavily on single-issue advocacy groups and city staff. It did little to engage with affected residents, businesses and others. It put out limited, and sometimes misleading, public information about the policies. And it needlessly divided the community.” On the 3 issues that you identified, though I will certainly admit that none of the processes were perfect, I see a small but very vocal opposition (depending on the issue, the opposition is smaller or larger, admittedly), and a reasonable though not completely sufficient amount of engagement, process, and feedback. Finally, most importantly, I see a broad democratic (in the representative democracy sense) mandate, in that the councilors that we elected in resoundingly voted to enact these policies, and certainly in the AHO’s case (and I believe the CSO’s, though I’m possibly slightly mixing up timelines) had a mandate from the voters as part of the prior election to enact these policies. Your personal (or your neighbor’s) disagreement with those policies doesn’t automatically mean that there hasn’t been sufficient process or democracy.
Could you explain, from your perspective, why you didn’t take a more democratic approach yourself, where you attempted to convince people of your position, elect folks who agree with you, and work with other stakeholders to make the rollout of separated bike lanes, which it seems you partially support, successful for all parties? There is so much work that could have been done and could still be done to make the continued rollout as successful as possible – I was personally a Cambridge resident strongly in support and still strongly in support, though I do of course want to see work to continue to engage neighbors as the rollouts happen to make sure that all are supported through the process. By contrast, filing a lawsuit seems like the most adversarial possible step, which is what leads me to interpret your stated alignment with many of these positions as bad faith
Reviewing the record of the passage of CSO again, both 2019 and 2020 amendments, which I hadn’t looked into in a while, I am even more confident that I am accurate in stating that city councilors had a mandate from the voters to pass it, like with the AHO. It is very clear to me that this claim of anti-democracy is quite hollow as a result. A lawsuit to thwart the will of Cambridge voters seems significantly more anti-democratic.
I also have some issues with your framing of groups that you disagree with as “single issue advocacy groups.” That is an easy shorthand to use when you want to dismiss significant portions of your neighbors, who are deeply affected by this issue, out of hand. More accurate would be: “it relied heavily on the input of Cambridge residents who had been significantly affected by the lack of separated bike lanes for years” which has a much different valence
“Wrong again, Slaw. I am a people-centric pedestrian and fighting for a better transportation policy as well as democratic values.
Your vast ignorance demonstrates that you are not a serious person.”
You sued the city to remove all protected bike lanes. That is in complete contradiction to the values you claim to hold. You are not a serious person.
Mr. Pitkin:
Re: “monomaniacal anti-bike lane cabal” — Those are your words, not mine. Now, if Cambridge Streets For All had been successful in their initial motion to hide their names from the public record, perhaps “cabal” may have been the appropriate word to use here… but thankfully, transparency won out in the end.
Also, “alleges” implies that anything I said was unfounded, so I invite you to point out which part of my above comment is false. I do admit to one mistake: upon a re-reading of the judge’s dismissal of your lawsuit, it turns out Ms. Bestor and Ms. Pickett (as well as Mr. Hanratty, though he has not been endorsed by CV4GG, only the CCC) joined as plaintiffs in June 2022, much earlier than I initially thought.
In light of your stated history of climate activism, it’s quite puzzling that you so vehemently oppose the CSO, which is a key piece of how Cambridge can facilitate mode-shift away from the unfettered single-occupancy vehicle usage that is polluting our environment with greenhouse gases, harmful particulates, and noise, and renders a significant chunk of Cambridge’s limited land area unsafe and/or unusable for everyone else. And spare me the canned “I don’t oppose bike lanes, just how these ones were implemented,” as you do not and never have offered any workable alternatives to slowing down or outright halting bike lane installations.
But let’s set environmental issues aside for now since you claim the lawsuit was actually about democratic values and the rule of law. To be clear, I don’t actually believe this, given the paper trail of past op-eds by you and others attacking the CSO from every conceivable angle and continually switching arguments as each of the previous ones gets debunked. But as this comment is already getting too long, I’ll refrain from unpacking that.
The judge, who is more well-versed in the law than either you or I, determined that your complaint was without legal merit on every. single. point. He starts out with the 1961 law you make such a big deal about and concludes that the City is not in violation of it, contrary to your claim. Cambridge isn’t allowed to modify Mass Ave because it crosses into neighboring cities? False, and the judge actually calls your statements to this effect “bald allegations.” The CSO’s directives to the city manager encroaches on the traffic director’s authority? Nope. Bike lane installation and any associated parking removals count as traffic regulation changes that may be appealed to a traffic board? Wrong!
The judge goes on to reject your claim that the CSO violates the right to free movement, and also concludes that the CSO doesn’t violate your right as “concerned taxpayers” to enforce laws about the spending of your tax dollars since the CSO does not actually run afoul of state law.
Despite this utterly complete dismissal, Cambridge Streets for All has appealed the decision. I can only conclude that your definition of “the rule of law” comes with the rider “as I want it to be interpreted.”
As for democracy, it has been explained repeatedly that your framing of the CSO as some secretive measure passed under the cover of COVID lockdowns is blatantly misleading. As Kavesh Gandhi said above, the City Council was and is operating under a clear mandate from voters. If the CSO (passed pre-pandemic in 2019, with timeline update in October 2020) is truly as controversial as you claim, people could have expressed their discontent in the 2021 election cycle. Instead, 6 of the 7 incumbents who voted to pass the CSO were re-elected, and an additional supportive candidate was voted in (Burhan Azeem). The reality is that expanded safe cycling infrastructure has a broad base of support in Cambridge, which has been present for a very long time but grew with each preventable cyclist fatality. This includes the death of Amanda Phillips in 2016, which drove a redesign of Inman Square **that you also sued the City over.** If anyone is exhibiting a pattern of un-democratic behavior, it is you.
Side note: your odd attempt to draw parallels to national events (Trump claiming the authority to declassify nuclear secrets is somehow equivalent to Cambridge installing bike lanes over the objections of a vocal minority??) is rather ironic given that CV4GG has endorsed Carrie Pasquarello, who all evidence places firmly in the MAGA camp — with one hilariously relevant piece being that she liked a Marjorie Taylor Green tweet decrying the treatment of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists as unfair. Rule of law and democratic norms, indeed.
Finally, I assume from your mention of the documentary that you co-created with Robert Winters that you and CV4GG stand by your endorsement of him. I hope you don’t try to claim that the evidence of his bigotry was faked/”AI-generated” since Mr. Winters has openly admitted to much of the Twitter activity in question, as per his recent blog post: http://cambridgecivic.com/?p=9348. Not only does he admit it, he makes zero apology for any of it, unless you count, and I quote: “I’m sorry if anyone failed to appreciate my sense of humor (actually, I’m not really sorry).” So I also hope you don’t try to downplay this as a one-time “maybe he did something that lacked judgement,” as Cathie Zusy did, or “there may be some mistakes that have been made along the way,” as Paul Toner did.
In fact, doing so might get you into hot water with Mr. Winters himself, who goes on to write: “To all those candidates who have chosen political ass-covering and association with the Orwellian tactics of one angry candidate […], rest assured that I won’t be ranking any of you on my ballot this year or ever again.” If he somehow ends up on the council alongside Marc McGovern, Burhan Azeem, or any of the other candidates who denounced his transphobia and Islamophobia when it first came to light, I wonder if he’ll nurse a grudge against them for the whole term.
So, do you share Mr. Winters’ views, Mr. Pitkin? Or have you, like the rest of the CCC, decided that excusing his bigotry is acceptable collateral damage as long as he supports your platform?
To be honest, I’m expecting all of the above will fall on deaf ears. But I hope this comment will help anyone else who reads the articles by Mr. Pitkin, and by others affiliated with CV4GG and the CCC, to realize just how hollow their words are.
John Pitkin either lacks understanding or is being dishonest. His claims about transportation and about addressing climate change are contradicted by the experts.
It’s not surprising since ‘Cambridge Voters for Good Governance’ seems to be a misnomer. Good governance should prioritize people’s welfare, but this group, along with the CCC, appears to have a self-centered and unkind agenda, not aimed at helping others.
They endorse candidates that are racist and homophobic as long as they align with their self-serving agenda.
Furthermore, they misrepresent their stance on safer streets while supporting candidates involved in lawsuits against safety improvements.
Our political landscape already has too much deceit and negativity. We should support those who genuinely aim to help others, rather than those primarily seeking personal gain.
I hope people reconsider voting for Pitkin or anyone associated with ‘Cambridge Voters for Good Governance’ or the CCC.
The Cambridge Citizens Coalition candidates seem to be privileged individuals defending the status quo.
They resist safer streets to preserve driving and parking convenience.
They oppose affordable housing projects, prioritizing their preference for the city’s current state over the needs of many.
They are self-serving and are the last people we need running things.