A candidate for City Council recently left a handwritten note at my door saying that they are talking with voters “about how we can stand up to the Trump administration and support the folks coming under federal attack.”
Here is my response.
Many Cambridge residents want to find ways to stand up to the Trump administration, and elected officials obviously have more powers and resources than others to do this. No question: this is an important issue.
If you are elected to the Council, I urge you to bear in mind that you will be a steward of local democracy and that the national authoritarian emergency does not excuse trends that emerged in Cambridge during Trump’s first term as president and continued during the pandemic and Biden’s presidency.
Our local politics are now dominated by hyperactive factions, and the City Council has enacted sweeping, top-down mandates that deal with the impacts on local residents and neighborhoods by ignoring them. Among the issues that affect residents are bike lanes, parking, trees, open space, zoning and neighborhood conservation.
Two essential features of democracy are civic discourse and equal consideration for the interests of all affected citizens. That they are disappearing is a sign that our city is not immune to the convenience of authoritarian solutions.
The result is a divided, weakened and less resilient community.
Local elected officials provide some protection against federal “attacks” inside our blue bubble, but they must avoid the temptation to see themselves as bold, heroic “strong men and women.” Instead, we need humble leaders who will use their positions to walk the talk by reinvigorating local democratic institutions and bringing the city together, starting in City Hall.
John Pitkin, Fayette Street, Cambridge
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.
Mr. Pitkin, could you please list these “sweeping, top-down mandates that deal with the impacts on local residents and neighborhoods by ignoring them”? I find it very weird that such bad things are happening here. Just a list of 3 items that were “swift”, “sweeping”, and “top-down”. Eagerly awaiting your response.
More hysterical gibberish about bike lanes from a perennial failed City Council candidate.
Not getting your way on every issue isn’t an attack on liberal democracy.
Pitkin sued when the council expanded bicycle infrastructure in 2022. A judge dismissed his case. He can plead his case in the courtroom and he can plead his case in the press. Disagreeing with him is part of the democratic process, not some slide into Trumpism.
The people we’ve elected disagree with Mr. Pitkin. We elected them because they disagree with him. People want safer streets. They want a place to live without being exploited to the very brink by landlords.
The system works even though he doesn’t like the outcome.
To paraphrase: “Elected officials making decisions I don’t agree with is authoritarian.”
Sadly, on some issues like the zoning and bike lanes there will always be strong opinions on either side that will not be reconciled. At some point elected officials have to make decisions and deal with the consequences from the electorate, like the decisions they made on multi-family zoning and the CSO. If you don’t like how the council voted, election day is right around the corner.
Wait. Let me get this straight. The guy who sues the city to block projects approved by elected officials is asking us to respect democracy?
Is this a joke or self-parody? I hope so, because the alternatives are worse.
John, the members of the council did not lie about their priorities. They did not get elected unopposed. They did not enact the changes without community input, and that community input did not by-and-large oppose the things that passed that you disagree with.
Not getting your way isn’t evidence of authoritarianism, it’s just evidence that your preferred outcome is less popular than you’d like it to be.
P.S., there was one instance of a very unpopular vote that was opposed by city professionals AND public commenters, and that was the vote to revert Garden Street to two-way traffic.
I see no reason to attack John for writing a personal comment. Does Cambridge not allow free speech.
With all the trees being taken down, mega structures ending up in quiet neighborhoods, and widening a park path to allow mopeds and fast moving bikes to run down baby carriages-there are still policies to fight in Cambridge.
Democratic norms have helped to protect the livability and integrity of Cambridge’s diverse residential neighborhoods since 1846 when three towns, Old Cambridge, Cambridgeport and East Cambridge, incorporated to create a city. Recent new policies on streets and residential zoning violate these norms, and residents of neighborhoods affected by them have no recourse but to oppose them.
Recent top-down mandates include the parking removals without appeal in the Cycling Safety Ordinance, AHO and Multifamily Housing Ordinances which upzoned residential neighborhoods citywide and curtailed Conservation District and Planning Board reviews, and the removal of parking minimums without review.
These policies are in stark contrast with those enacted between 1960 and 1990.
After a decade of being less considerate of neighborhood diversity and interests than previously, the city government has grown so out of touch with residents that it now has to prioritize “public engagement.”
@John Pitkin There is broad public support for zoning reform and more housing in Cambridge. Most residents are renters, and renters overwhelmingly support new development.
Your comments about “democratic norms” seem to suggest that only wealthy homeowners deserve a voice or a vote. Zoning reform was a democratic process. It was not undemocratic just the wealthy didn’t get their way, for once.
It’s hypocritical to claim the city is “less considerate of neighborhood diversity” when restrictive zoning has long been used to exclude the less affluent and people of color.
> These policies are in stark contrast with those enacted between 1960 and 1990.
That’s kinda the point.
If the City Council was so out of touch with residents, wouldn’t they have been voted out after the passage of AHO, CSO, and AHO 2.0?
AHO and MHO are hardly mandates, and calling the removal of parking minimums a mandate is laughable. Increasing the allowable uses of a site is not a mandate. Mandating a minimum number of parking, much of which goes unused, is a mandate.
Again, this isn’t authoritarianism, this is just the passage of policies that you don’t personally like.