Work on a redesign of Cambridge’s Linear Park is set to resume after a court ruled Friday to deny an injunction filed by residents.
The residents got a temporary restraining order on the work with an Aug. 13 filing in state court, leading to an Aug. 25 hearing in court and Friday’s ruling.
The city will work with the contractor D’Allessandro on an updated schedule “now that the work can resume and will make every effort to temporarily reopen the path once the base layer of pavement has been installed,” said the Cambridge Department of Public Works in a statement on the project’s website posted after the ruling.
The park – a community path used primarily by walkers and bicyclists – will close for roughly a half-mile from Russell Field to the Somerville city line behind the bus yard on north Massachusetts Avenue, the city said. The work to widen the path is estimated to cost $7.2 million, including landscaping changes, additional seating and lighting installation and a new drainage system.
Injunction denied
The motion for a preliminary injunction on the project was brought before the court by a neighbor to the park, Charles Teague – supported by a group of plaintiffs – and had to prove that there was a likelihood of success on the merits of the claims; and that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction wasn’t issued.
Middlesex Superior Court justice Sarah Weyland Ellis ruled that the plaintiffs didn’t meet either burden. On all six counts brought forth against the project, none managed to prove a likelihood of success before the court.
The primary claim was that the park would be improperly converted into a “multimodal transportation corridor,” exceeding the scope of its easement agreement, but the court concluded that the city has no plans to expand access of Linear Park beyond pedestrians and bicyclists.
Other resident concerns were the project’s endangerment of mature trees in the park, including by digging at the root systems of mature trees, leaving them vulnerable to disease or death, and excavation near state Department of Environmental Protection disposal sites.
Siding with the city
The court said the city was taking proper precautions to preserve healthy trees “when possible” and that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to show the project would cause irreparable harm.
The city said its work will improve soil conditions, and that no activity would take place on the grounds of sites with hazardous material.
These arguments were accepted by the court.
Furthermore, “Cambridge has demonstrated it will suffer irreparable harm from an injunction,” the court found, as before the injunction request, a contractor was prepared to start work on the project scheduled for the fall.
The ban on work had already affected a city timeline and could push work into the winter, when onsite work would be impossible, and that this would further erode existing greenery as well as impose more cost on the city and the public, the court said.
Vow to keep fighting
In a press release after the hearing, Teague’s environmental advocacy organization Cambridge4Trees said, “the injunction was never the plan – success is almost impossible.”
“There was no choice,” the press release said, “as the city had started cutting down trees in the park instead of having the attorneys talk.”
While adding that further appeals would require a lot of additional legwork and substantial monetary support, the group still believes that “the new design is less safe.”
The group said the city arborist had trees cut down before work had officially begun, and pointed to an arborist’s affidavit as evidence of misleading assurances from the city. Teague said he fears more than 120 mature trees will be lost in the work.
In those affidavits, the city “threatens to cut down all trees in the park 6 inches diameter or less by declaring all those trees, some even older than 10 years, as ‘shrubbery,’” Cambridge4Trees said.
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.
That’s a stump from a dead tree – it’s dry and grey. Kind of hard to trust a tree group that can’t see that immediately.
I would have preferred to keep the trees if I’m being honest.
As expected, the lawsuit had no merit.
The claim that the city intended a “transportation corridor” is absurd, since it was designated as a pedestrian and bike path from the start. The supposed harm to trees is equally false, as the plans include planting over 100 new ones.
This frivolous case only wasted taxpayer money and shows that NIMBY opponents care less about the community than about protecting their own narrow interests and aesthetics.
This article gives Cambridge4Trees far more credibility than it deserves. Those unfamiliar with the Linear Park saga should read the comments on past articles for important missing context.
The last sentence is a classic example of this group’s misleading tactics: the city arborist’s affidavit merely stated that no healthy mature trees would be removed, and that beyond dead/diseased trees the only other removals would be some shrubs with trunks smaller than 6″ (the plans indicate this is just in one corner of the park). Yet Cambridge4Trees distorts this into the city supposedly threatening to raze ALL < 6" trees in the park and using the term "shrubbery" as a loophole to lie under oath about it.
The rest of C4T's claims are just as flimsy and the judge clearly agreed. Hopefully the project can stay on schedule despite the delay from this lawsuit…it's already bad enough that law department staff must waste resources on this when they already have their hands full with federal chaos.
Cambridge4Trees calls itself an environmental group, but “trees” seem to be just a pretext to oppose development. The group’s leaders have a record of fighting both housing and bike lanes. In fact, bike lanes appear to be their main target. Their lawsuit even accused the city of turning the park into a “transportation corridor.”
But let’s be clear: if you oppose bike lanes, you are not an environmentalist. More bikes mean fewer cars. Cars pollute, and that pollution harms trees.
I don’t think this was ever about stopping the removal of dying trees. Teague and Aster were party to the failed 2022 anti-bike lane litigation. I wish the Day would report on the membership overlap between all these cheery sounding groups that keep using our city.
I don’t think this was ever about stopping the removal of dying trees. Teague and Aster were party to the failed 2022 anti-bike lane litigation. I wish the Day would report on the membership overlap between all these cheery sounding groups that keep suing our city.
I’m disappointed by this decision. That path has been a welcome oasis for dog-walking on the many sweltering summer days we experienced this year. The value of trees in creating cooler, more livable spaces during a time of rapid warming couldn’t be clearer. I wish the city had chosen to plant more trees rather than spend millions widening the corridor for only marginal benefit to cyclists. Though it’s a short stretch, it means a great deal to those of us who live nearby. My dog and I, and I’m sure many others, will deeply miss the trees.
Sarah: I agree, and would guess Teague’s image is in fact not from August 13, as well as a dead tree… assuming it’s from Linear Park at all.
In contrast, the stump image submitted by Plaintiffs to Middlesex Superior Court for the Temporary Restraining Order, that plaintiffs dated August 13, shows two, much smaller, under 6″ sampling stumps: obviously not the Cambridge Day picture. The TRO was also submitted on August 13 and allowed on August 13, and no further project work occurred in August.
The sworn affidavit under penalty of purjury by Cambridge Tree Warden David Lefcourt on August 22 states **zero** mature trees will be cut for the project: only shrubbery and immature trees with diameter under 6″. He also states that two dead trees, well away from the path, need to be removed, regardless of if the Project moves forward or not.
Also notable that the Court finds Cambridge much more credible than the Plaintiffs!
I don’t believe that this is about trees.
When it comes to bikes or housing the same handful of Cambridge Citizens Coalition spin up short lived opposition groups.
For example, Care4Trees is run by CCC advisor Heather Hoffman. [0][2]
As previously reported in the Day[1], one of the plaintiffs, Madeleine Aster sued the city over bike lanes in 2022. Aster is an advisor to the CCC, along with fellow 2022 litigant Marie Saccoccio.[0]
Similarly we saw CARE Housing from Sara Nelson, a CCC board member. [0][3] As far as I can tell they’ve had no activity outside of a candidate survey, which they’ve declined to publish and a two slide decks they emailed to the council.
[0] https://www.cambridgecitizens.org/who-we-are.html
[1] https://www.cambridgeday.com/2022/11/10/judge-skeptical-of-bike-lanes-on-narrow-brattle-street/
[2] https://www.cambridge4trees.org/
[3] https://www.carehousingcambridge.org/who-we-are
Update: Cambridge4Trees hosts on it’s website a Zoning Petition, also signed by multiple Plaintiffs in this lawsuit (10 signatures required). The “Bakal Zoning Petition” will shortly be before the Planning Board and the Ordinance Committee.
Cambridge Community Development Department (CDD) Staff has analyzed the petition. CDD states it will “prohibit or severely restrict”: “Play courts such as basketball and tennis, including accessible play areas designed for people with disabilities, Accessible pathways that accommodate active movement such as bicycling, running and walking, Accessible plazas and seating areas that often require paved surfaces, Active and passive recreation that uses permeable paving materials such as stone dust, like Fresh Pond Reservation.”
CDD notes it will also result in potential litigation at MA Superior Court/MA Land Court, and create extensive delays.
http://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/ZoningDevel/Amendments/2025/bakaletal/20250923_CDDMemo_Bakal_etal.pdf