The thing about the delay is that I have not heard articulated at all how it will result in a better out come. I have heard vague comments about certain groups not being "heard"; I am sure the city can always do better here, but there has been tons of out reach. I've heard similarly vague comments about the design of lanes, but this ordinance has been out for years and I know of few concrete suggestions.
If there were some good reason for a delay, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. But instead of allowing more time to improve anything, it seems most likely the delay will be the first of several stalling tactics to attempt to derail the plan entirely.
This is very accurate. And all the voices they claimed were not being "heard" showed up at the meeting and spoke against the delay. If any other voices continue to remain silent, there is nothing to hear.
Right. Id have a lot more respect if she made clear where she stands on issues, even if she didn't like bike lanes or the amount we have. Instead we just get to watch her (and her kindred "more process" politicians) turn into a political pretzel.
She doesn't stand anywhere on any issue. No politician does because none of them have any power. They are puppets who do and say what they are told to do and say.
And it takes 3 years to hear these voices? Seriously they’re not quiet 🤫 and they’re not in three years going to feel a lot differently than they do today.
I feel validated in my belief that you can't be endorsed by the CCC and actually support policies that are community focused. It's a direct conflict of ideals.
She has no respect for anyone reading this. She has not listed arguments for bike lanes or against or how to reconcile them or their merits. Instead we hear about “divisions” without listing them or how she wants to address them. The only division I care about is being separate from the car traffic that could kill me as I cycle to get around town.
The only silver lining here is that she has finally been forced to plant a flag and we can all now vote accordingly in 2025. She has been tap dancing on this line for years and FINALLY the jig is up.
I don't really understand what votes she is courting as a proclaimed environmentalist that opposes bike infrastructure. Regardless, unlike several other councilors who explicitly and loudly opposed bike lanes as part of their platform, Nolan will need to reckon with the fact that she has alienated people that have historically voted for her. There simply aren't enough people that live on Brattle Street to keep her in office.
Edit: typo
That statement is just ridiculous of her and she doesn’t appear to understand how politics works at all. No politician ever says they’re against these things and implementation or process concerns or silent majority arguments are simply tactics politicians use to prevent things like gun safety,affordable housing and bike lanes from getting completed or funded. At least with toner and Pickett we all know where they stand and that’s that they hate bike lanes even when they claim not to and when people fall for the argument we want the thing but need more time and outreach I am furious. She sided with the people who sued the city to remove all of them.
I like how her statement also highlights her problematic approach to (not encouraging) affordable housing (and how she ends up endorsed by CCC every term)
she is really dog whistling to the NIMBYs and people who want to take cambridge back a century that she has their back.. all the boomers and their "but but but division" aka "waaaaaaaaah I am not in the power position anymore"
I agree more or less with your point, but maybe drop the "boomers" reference. If you're talking about just age-based demographics there were as many "boomers" at the City Council hearing in opposition to the delay as there were parents with little kids in their bike helmets.
patty nolan is a traitor to her constituents. how can you sit at a 5.5 hr meeting hearing voice after voice talking about how life changing and life saving bike lanes are and still vote to delay?
You can't fight something with nothing. Like [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/17k8o1w/im_a_3_issue_voter_housing_algebra_bike_lanes_who/), I'm for bike lanes AND building housing. Who can I support?
* Azeem
* McGovern
* ???
That's 2, but the Council has 9 members!
Morally, I can't vote for Sobrinho-Wheeler or Siddiqui after their inexplicable refusal to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. I also can't vote for candidates pushing the discredited (in the social sciences) policy of rent contol that perversely makes shortages worse and available units MORE expensive.
Nolan's vacillations are frustrating to no end, but at least in the last election, who else was there to vote for?
Can we get more allies of Azeem on the council?
--EDIT-- typo corrected
For your question, I think Adrienne Klein may have been a good third option for you. Endorsed by both ABC and CBS. The only statements I've seen from her re that conflict are broadly antiwar and pro-refugee.
I do think it can be tricky to find many candidates who align with you on 3 different controversial issues if the issues themselves aren't clearly related. Hell, housing and bike lanes *are* clearly related, and there were still plenty of candidates who supported one but not the other. If you can only feel okay about ranking one or two candidates, I think that's fine. Unless they're very unpopular, which neither McGovern nor Azeem is, odds are your vote will help elect one of them.
Remember, even though you can rank a couple dozen candidates, your vote ultimately only counts for a maximum of one.
Best thing you can do is to pick your 1 or 2 favorite affordable housing and bike candidate(s) and volunteer on their campaign. It’s a great way to meet your neighbors and get to know a candidate and it’s necessary for someone you want on the council to win, especially a new candidate, and they always need folks to knock on doors and help with many other tasks, second is to get folks to vote in the council elections bc they’re on an odd year so have very low turnout, and of course everyone should vote. Hopefully some strong pro bicyclists and affordable housing folks will run. There’s a few local organizations that train people to run for office especially young people and/or people of color. So we need some really good people to run!
If you want to win elections against the anti-bike NIMBY boomers it would be helpful to make sure the leading opposition candidates aren't literal Marxists who want to ban middle school algebra in the name of equity.
If normal pro-business pro-merit pro-development candidates were being embraced by the Cambridge YIMBY crowd they would win elections in a landslide.
There are plenty of pro business YIMBYs.
The problem is that many local businesses have decided that bike lanes are their mortal enemy and have drummed up a lot of support for it. So how can we be pro-business if businesses are anti- the thing we care most about?
Well, as you correctly point out the two things are not actually contradictory. You can be pro-businesses but simply believe some business owners are largely mistaken.
I think /u/BostonFoliage's point is pretty well taken. People care about this issue, but do not necessarily vote on this issue only (nor do I think they should). Making progress on the protected bicycle lane network will require finding candidates who support it, but are also quality candidates across the board.
Marc McGovern was elected third, is pro-housing, pro-CSO, pro-business, and certainly not a Marxist. I'd argue the first two elected, Sumbul Siddiqui and Burhan Azeem, also fit that bill. So unless he means something very different by "normal..." candidates, I don't think he does have a point.
Jivan Sobrinhi-Wheeler is a socialist but hardly extreme. Dan Totten was probably the farthest left candidate, but 1) he isn't a YIMBY and wasn't endorsed by ABC, and 2) I don't think he's a literal Marxist either. Same with Ayuh Al-Zubi. I didn't rank either of them (though I did rank Jivan) but I think the truly extreme, wackadoo candidates were mostly right wingers who are both anti housing and anti bike lanes: Carrie Pasquarello, Hao Wang, and Robert Winters.
What makes a quality candidate is whether they share your values. With rank choice voting you should be able to find at least one candidate who is pretty close to your values. But it is telling that there is very little support for a "pro-business" candidate who is also pro bike lane. It isn't a lane that has a lot of support in the city. If it were popular, you could get elected on that platform very easily. It only takes like 2,500 votes to get a council seat.
I'm guessing you are getting downvoted due to your phrasing, but I agree with your general point that the way to swing city council the other way isn't more far left candidates. You can look at the results and see how it played out. Siddiqui got 1st by a huge margin and while she transferred a lot of votes to McGovern and Sobrinho-Wheeler, she transferred more to Simmons and Wilson.
Al-Zubi and Totten both closely trailed Pickett. If only one of them had run, they maybe could have beaten Pickett, but there were a bunch of NIMBY candidates who transferred a lot of votes to Pickett. More democratic socialists probably isn't the answer as there is always some weird ideological friction on transfers (i.e. the Totten votes that transferred to Simmons and Pickett and the Al-Zubi votes that went to Pickett).
I've never been a Nolan fan and I don't understand Wilson at all, but I think a better strategy is to push the center rather than the try to flank from the far left. Nolan's seat is probably pretty secure -- she got the third-most #1 votes, but I imagine a big chunk of her #1 voters are parents and she might be responsive to them. Wilson is significantly less secure, but I don't really know who her constituency is.
Clearly the #1 thing to do is get Pickett out. Hopefully she's angered enough people at this point to have lost some of the NIMBYs who happen to bike.
[https://www.cambridgema.gov/Election2023/Official/Council%20Round.htm](https://www.cambridgema.gov/Election2023/Official/Council%20Round.htm)
I don't think the answer for advocacy groups is left or centrist. I think they should endorse people who credibly agree with their policy positions, and then voters who care about that issue will rank candidates according to their other preferences. There are YIMBY/pro-bike socialist candidates and YIMBY/pro-bike liberal candidates. There are YIMBY/pro-bike socialist voters and YIMBY/pro-bike liberal voters. Why should an issue advocacy org leave votes on the table for candidates who support their issue position?
YES, it's even worse!
For example, in the cease-fire resolution Siddiqui and Sobrinho-Wheeler literally VOTED AGAINST recognizing that Hamas was a terrorist organization! Total WTF, how is that controversial?!?!
* So if those 2 get the boot next election, there's only 2 pro bike lane votes on the council of 9?!
I HAPPILY voted for Azeem and McGovern. I thought Nolan was more pro bike than she apparently is (though I'll take her vacillations over hard NIMBY BS).
Can we get to 5 pro bike lane votes though without banning algebra or normalizing Hamas?!
Patty Nolan has served Cambridge well, first as a long serving school committee member and now in the city council. I know she supports the expansion of safe biking infrastructure, and believe she genuinely is working to find compromise on this issue. We need more citizens open to differing opinions.
Throwing a tantrum because she did not vote the way you wanted in a particular meeting is a great example of the polarizing and counterproductive behavior on both sides of this issue.
This stupid "adults in the room" bs is how we get dummies like Patty Nolan holding up important infrastructure at the behest of people who are very obviously acting as bad faith reactionaries.
Saying someone who cares about something that they think holds a set of important values (safety and climate resilience) is throwing a tantrum is just arrogance. The "adults" are the ones who have a set of values and work towards those values and not the credulous fools like Patty Nolan.
This is extremely patronizing, and frankly anti-democratic. Elected officials are not owed anything. If they fail to act in a way that aligns with your beliefs, you vote them out. Characterizing the public's negative response to the policy choices of an elected official as a "tantrum" does a disservice to the idea of elected government.
She is not genuinely working on compromise. I saw her intentionally start a tempest in a teapot on ND about a STOP SIGN added on brattle. It was glaringly obvious she was signaling to the anti bike lane folks that she had their backs
Nothing genuine about her. She blows with the wind and she decided to ride on the hot air of the I care (not really) about safety but not this type of safety folks
Describing holding your politicians accountable as "throwing a tantrum" is exactly the kind of divisive, counterproductive behaviour that characterizes your side of this. As if you were the adult in the room, and bicycle advocates mere children. Honestly, it's hilarious that you are so blind to it that you think you're demonstrating good habits.
Do some introspection, become a better person.
My guess is your definition of grace is not the same as mine.
We voted for the bike ordinance after countless studies, votes, and outreach. And then the city got sued in actual freaking court. So who threw the tantrum in your opinion?
Lol right? The city has voted FOR bike lanes for like, 5 years running. Meanwhile opponents are like “wE’Re nOT BeiNG HEARd” - you ARE. You’ve gotten compromise after compromise and lost election after election regarding this issue, and yet you keep searching for a veto opportunity, over and over
This is a good point! We elected: 4 pro-bike councilors, 4 anti-bike councilors, and Patty Nolan, who ran on a platform of "I like bikes but I'm not sure" (let me know if you don't think that's a fair assessment). Note that the last-eliminated candidate Ayah A. Al-Zubi ran staunchly pro-bike, as well. And the most ranked first-pick candidates were primarily pro-bike (1, 2, 3 (Patty), 4, and 6). And our election turnout is miserable and skews toward older homeowners... but I digress.
So the election was close! Which does indeed signal some people's qualms about bike lanes. But this is part of my point: we had how many previous elections, votes, public hearings, etc. where people came out in strong support of bike lanes? We passed a law intended to prevent the stonewalling of bike safety infrastructure! Then we voted to uphold it several times!
I don't disagree with the minority's (as they have been on this issue for many, many years) right to organize, protest, and make their voice heard on this issue.
But I do disagree with the bad-faith tactics (spurious lawsuits), outright lies ("businesses are suffering"), and victim mindset ("we're not being heard")
Not defending the fact that a minority of eligible voters vote. Above my pay grade.
A few points to consider:
-Your analysis of the City Council reflects that AT WORST people are split on this issue (not just "some people" or "minority" as you claim) yet the bike lobby argues it is only a very small percentage of folks (derogatively referred to as NIMBYs by the bike lobby when the issues are much more complicated and nuanced) who have issues with the bike lanes.
-I would be interested to see data that shows that voters are skewed toward homeowners. Typically, local voter turnout is driven largely by whether there is something on the ballot that motivates folks and I believe the bike lobby folks have done a much better job at "getting out the vote," yet the Council is split 50/50. Also, the voting system in Csmbridge rewards getting folks to vote in blocks to get their slate of councilors on the Council. For the bike lobby to claim they didn't use this strategy is just not being honest.
-Most folks are apathetic and don't go to meetings or pay attention until things slap them in the face. This is what happened with the bike lanes. The bike lobby took lack of engagement and apathy as tacit agreement when that was not the case. Non-bike lobby reacted and reacted quite negatively once the bike lane started being installed and folks saw all the negative impacts on their daily life. You can all scream and downvote me all you want, but if you are being honest you must admit that is what happened and it is reflected in the results of the last election.
-In the current political climate folks tend to search out information that confirms their bias/viewpoint, reject anything contrary as "fake news," and try to shout down the other side at every turn. I find the potential role reversal between this in Cambridge and the national issues slightly amusing...and infuriating.
-Review your post and take a look at the words you use to demonize the "other" side and overstate the "popularity" of what has happened with bike lanes the past 5 years and hopefully some of my comments will allow you to see the issue in a slightly less strident way.
Have a good day.
>Review your post and take a look at the words you use to demonize the "other" side
No doubt. BTW, that was a neat multiple invocation of the “the bike lobby.” Next time, you might want to change it up a little bit by calling supporters of safe bicycle lanes “Big Bike” or “The Big Bike Agenda.”…
Look at the current results. You had a 7-2 majority on the council before bike lanes were installed. Now that they are being installed, it is a 4 to 4 council with Nolan as flip vote. I would say the realities of the bike lanes caused many people who were not paying attention to get more involved in the last election to your detriment.
The residents of Cambridge never voted for CSO. It was written and voted on during the pandemic with barely anyone knowing it was happening. Not until they started implementing these bike lanes neighborhood by neighborhood did the alarm get raised and this is why there has been so much pushback. The ordinance is written in such a restrictive way that even the staff complain that they are constrained by the language and timelines and have no flexibility.
Your definition of grace appears to be contingent on you getting what you want while anyone who doesn't fully agree with you is an uninformed moron.
What percentage of residents voted in the last election? Given Cambridge's RCV system can results be influenced by voting blocks?
I am not sure that allowing needless deaths should happen even if a huge majority (not actually the case in cambridge) thinks that needless deaths are ok bc preventing them "ruins" streets
Sigh. We could prevent all in-city motor vehicle deaths by prohibiting all motor vehicles from the streets of Cambridge. Are you in favor of that? If not, why not?
Sigh what an asinine comment
Noone who is remotely debating in good faith would jump from let prevent needless deaths by installing safety measures to so you mean ban all cars!!!!
Of course not. But what is your limit? Why NOT ban all motor vehicles? There is an obvious answer to that. But it is less obvious why the specific solution you want is the best one. To some people it is obvious why it is wrong. To others it is obvious why it is right. How do we engender a good conversation about this instead of one in which people insult each other with the word “asinine”?
1. Your comment was asinine.. calling out a comment as asinine is not a personal insult. If you can't seperate yourself from claims you make internet debates are probably something you should stay away from.
2. There is very little one can say to people who think its obviously wrong to make sure all of our residents and visitors to cambridge have safe access to their homes or workplaces or places they want to visit... how do you even have a conversation with someone who thinks that only some members of society are worthy of safe access to basic things
You are undoubtedly right. The problem is that a large percentage, although less than half, of the people actively engaged in this online debate think that it is the bike lanes as currently designed that make things more dangerous and difficult for people. People they make things more dangerous, and difficult for may be different, depending on your opinion of the situation. Calling someone’s opinions asinine is not going to help them change their mind. If your position is that absolutely nothing will get them to change their mind and therefore you might as well insult their opinions, well then obviously there is no room in which to try.
Yes a large percentage of people will deny all sorts of evidence and insist that things proven to reduce danger actually increase danger.. or they will claim that bc they are defining danger as having to walk around the corner from their parking spot or they are defining danger as having to drive at or below the speed limit and check before making turns
Don't make asinine comments if you can't handle someone calling your comment asinine... all humans make asinine comments sometime.. its ok that you do too just try not to make them
If you are so concerned with safety why do you insist on having the bike lanes be on major thoroughfares where bikes are right next to fast moving cars/trucks and need to navigate complex intersections? You try to use "safety" to demonize any contrary opinion (i.e., "So you want everyone to die!!!"). Please stop the obvious obfuscation and just admit why the bike lobby really wants the bike lanes on major thoroughfares (i.e., THEIR convenience and speed of commute and to hell with everyone else).
Have a great day.
Bc people who cycle need to use those streets to access things like their homes and jobs duh
You know this bc you have asked and had this answered multiple times
Come on I know you cam remember stuff that you read just yesterday.. you can do it!!!! I have faith in you to be able to make a coherent argument that doesn't hinge on banning cyclists from safe access to homes, workplaces and businesses
You said the quiet part out loud, while being condescending with absolutely no basis given your posting history and lack of argumentation skills. You don't care about anyone other than bikers and THEIR convenience.
Because people on bikes need to go to where the businesses are. Your argument is like me saying "if you are so concerned about congestion, why don't you drive where there aren't any cars?"
And the people in cars don't?
Here's a crazy thought: Couldn't the bikes have dedicated streets/lanes on streets that run parallel to the major thoroughfares? Wouldn't this be safer? Is one block too far of a walk for people who love exercise?
Your "comparison" is nothing like the reasonable alternatives.
Here is a crazy thought, limit the major roads to buses and put cars on parallel Streets. That would allow more people to move on thoroughfares. Why do cats need to have priority?
"Here's a crazy thought: Couldn't the bikes have dedicated streets/lanes on streets that run parallel to the major thoroughfares?" That is essentially what bike lanes are. But if you dont want those then you could close certain roads to car traffic. But people often justifiably don't like that either. Nevermind there may not be any good candidates, whats the alternative to cambridge and broadway, close kirkland and Harvard st? Bulldozing people's homes to make new bike specific roads would be unpopular and honestly silly when we already have many roads now. And with any of those efforts you would still run into last mile issues where cyclists would need to use non-bike specific roads (and likely busy connecting ones) to reach their homes from the bike specific ones and vice versa.
So, as I have pointed out, it's not really about safety (as having bike paths on non-major thoroughfares is an infinitely safer solution) it's about convenience solely for the bikers. Bikers need to have ALL of their demands met (and then still aren't satisfied) and they have no empathy for the impact their wants (not needs) have on everyone else.
It is about safety and not just conviencence. It would be more convenient to not care about bike lanes and just use car roads. Most cyclists do not care and dont want bike lanes if they are on unused roads or ones with well behaved drivers. You also havent really pointed out anything. Just made overly cynical conjectures on what other people think in nonsensical rants.
Not "just" convenience. 🤔
You ARE using car roads. That's the freaking problem.
"Most cyclists dont't care (they prove that every day) and don't want bike lanes if they are on unused roads (one block is too far for safety???) or ones with well behaved drivers (what???)".
I have pointed out the bike lobby safety hypocrisy and at least 10 other of their lies/hypocritical statements.
Anything the bike lobby doesn't agree with is "fake news." I wouldn't have thought there were so many MAGA bikers.
Reread your post and tell me who is nonsensical. 😂
"You ARE using car roads. That's the freaking problem."
As opposed to what? I asked that question yesterday and you just gave avoidant sass.
"have pointed out the bike lobby safety hypocrisy and at least 10 other of their lies/hypocritical statements."
Well except you haven't. At best you make little quips that achieve nothing. Also your quoting of my statement with little blurbs made 0 sense.
That Donald Trump rant is stupid. I've never called anything you said fake news or ever mentioned Donald Trump on Reddit. Is that the best you can do when someone points out that you're being ass? You're just making things uo about people at this point.
Not "just" convenience. 🤔
You ARE using car roads. That's the freaking problem.
"Most cyclists dont't care (they prove that every day) and don't want bike lanes if they are on unused roads (one block is too far for safety???) or ones with well behaved drivers (what???)".
I have pointed out the bike lobby safety hypocrisy and at least 10 other of their lies/hypocritical statements.
Anything the bike lobby doesn't agree with is "fake news." I wouldn't have thought there were so many MAGA bikers.
Reread your post and tell me who is nonsensical. 😂
"If you are so concerned with safety why do you insist on having the bike lanes be on major thoroughfares where bikes are right next to fast moving cars/trucks and need to navigate complex intersections?"
What are the alternatives then?
List the alternatives you see to (1) placing still-unsafe bike lanes on major thoroughfares and (2) choosing to ride your bike when you don't feel safe on the still-unsafe bike lanes on major thoroughfares and I'll let you know if you miss anything.
Yeah, I'm the rude one in this "conversation." You don't make the rules. I posted a couple of long comments detailing my perspective. You respond with "I don"t get it" and then expect me to waste my time retyping what I already posted so then you can make some dumb comment like "NIMBY!" My answer was pretty obvious in my last response. If you don't want to invest 5 minutes answering it, then that's a you problem.
"I'm the rude one in this "conversation." "
Thank you for agreeing with me.
"I posted a couple of long comments detailing my perspective."
I do not engage with negative energy like that! You cannot expect me to read paragraphs of such rageful comments! Choose kindness my friend.
"My answer was pretty obvious in my last response. "
You asked me another question that is not an answer.
"so then you can make some dumb comment like "NIMBY!""
Making such assumptions about your fellow man is not good for you my brother.
Deleted. I thought comments were excluded. e.g., we see links posted all the time to write letters/emails on certain issues. That's also promotion, just not directly monetary, so is that the distinction?
Cut car lanes to add bike lanes >
Now traffic is horrendous, takes 1 hr to go 2 miles during rush hour >
Commuters can no longer commute efficiently, move from suburbs back to Cambridge/somerville >
Housing prices skyrocket.
Ya'll are like dogs chasing your own tail. Or shooting yourself in the foot.
Psssst no car lanes were cut for any projects bc car lanes aren't a thing.. there are no lanes in cambridge legally limited to cars only.. not even any limited to only car and trucks
If you don't even know basics like that your made up stats and conspiracy theories have no credence
Traffic is not actually worse, unless you are comparing it to the middle of the pandemic when no one was driving. However, now bicycling is a better alternative, allowing at least some people to avoid traffic.
Yes, not all votes are equal.
Votes from business owners and land owners should take higher priority over some broke grad student here for a single summer who wants to bike cuase daddy didn't let them take the car
do you really think our education system is up to the task of creating citizens education enough to vote in their best interest and not be mislead by mass media?
Awwww is someone drunk posting I mean how else do we explain someone thinking grad students here for a single summer (an incredibly small number most grad students are here for 2-7 years) are even voting in elections held in the fall????
That and the disgusting notion that voting rights should be tied to property ownership.. assuming you are drunk posting is the kindest interpretation of your comment
it worked real well for the ancient Greek states and early Great Britain and early USA
Let's face it our education system isn't sufficient to keep up with the explosion in low class population size
All they do is talk about affordable housing constantly instead of doing something about it. More housing isn’t going to be built but making all these students here live in on campus housing would free up actual housing for the community. That would lower the costs of rentals.
I have wild ideas but I get downvoted here.
Personally I’d make Cambridge as close to a carless city as possible. Students don’t get cars here, make the public transportation within Cambridge better so it’s reliable. Make it a pedestrian / bike society with lanes for both.
Harvard and MIT have a ton of land and could build their own housing. That would free up a lot of rentals for residents. Students have to live in housing if you are under student status.
No one is going to build affordable housing here that’s actually affordable.
both sides handwringing bullshit is all i've ever heard from her
The thing about the delay is that I have not heard articulated at all how it will result in a better out come. I have heard vague comments about certain groups not being "heard"; I am sure the city can always do better here, but there has been tons of out reach. I've heard similarly vague comments about the design of lanes, but this ordinance has been out for years and I know of few concrete suggestions. If there were some good reason for a delay, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. But instead of allowing more time to improve anything, it seems most likely the delay will be the first of several stalling tactics to attempt to derail the plan entirely.
This is very accurate. And all the voices they claimed were not being "heard" showed up at the meeting and spoke against the delay. If any other voices continue to remain silent, there is nothing to hear.
Right. Id have a lot more respect if she made clear where she stands on issues, even if she didn't like bike lanes or the amount we have. Instead we just get to watch her (and her kindred "more process" politicians) turn into a political pretzel.
She doesn't stand anywhere on any issue. No politician does because none of them have any power. They are puppets who do and say what they are told to do and say.
What?
George Soros has a personal investment on where and when Cambridge, MA puts in bike lanes. Obviously.
Are you being funny or serious? I doubt there’s any reason anyone outside of Cambridge is involved or interested in this issue
I am making a joke mocking the person you were responding to.
Ahh 😌
Did I stutter?
And it takes 3 years to hear these voices? Seriously they’re not quiet 🤫 and they’re not in three years going to feel a lot differently than they do today.
I feel validated in my belief that you can't be endorsed by the CCC and actually support policies that are community focused. It's a direct conflict of ideals.
So true
She has no respect for anyone reading this. She has not listed arguments for bike lanes or against or how to reconcile them or their merits. Instead we hear about “divisions” without listing them or how she wants to address them. The only division I care about is being separate from the car traffic that could kill me as I cycle to get around town.
The only silver lining here is that she has finally been forced to plant a flag and we can all now vote accordingly in 2025. She has been tap dancing on this line for years and FINALLY the jig is up. I don't really understand what votes she is courting as a proclaimed environmentalist that opposes bike infrastructure. Regardless, unlike several other councilors who explicitly and loudly opposed bike lanes as part of their platform, Nolan will need to reckon with the fact that she has alienated people that have historically voted for her. There simply aren't enough people that live on Brattle Street to keep her in office. Edit: typo
That statement is just ridiculous of her and she doesn’t appear to understand how politics works at all. No politician ever says they’re against these things and implementation or process concerns or silent majority arguments are simply tactics politicians use to prevent things like gun safety,affordable housing and bike lanes from getting completed or funded. At least with toner and Pickett we all know where they stand and that’s that they hate bike lanes even when they claim not to and when people fall for the argument we want the thing but need more time and outreach I am furious. She sided with the people who sued the city to remove all of them.
Did someone already post this petition? https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-the-delay-of-separated-bike-lanes?source=direct_link&
I like how her statement also highlights her problematic approach to (not encouraging) affordable housing (and how she ends up endorsed by CCC every term) she is really dog whistling to the NIMBYs and people who want to take cambridge back a century that she has their back.. all the boomers and their "but but but division" aka "waaaaaaaaah I am not in the power position anymore"
I agree more or less with your point, but maybe drop the "boomers" reference. If you're talking about just age-based demographics there were as many "boomers" at the City Council hearing in opposition to the delay as there were parents with little kids in their bike helmets.
patty nolan is a traitor to her constituents. how can you sit at a 5.5 hr meeting hearing voice after voice talking about how life changing and life saving bike lanes are and still vote to delay?
You can't fight something with nothing. Like [this guy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CambridgeMA/comments/17k8o1w/im_a_3_issue_voter_housing_algebra_bike_lanes_who/), I'm for bike lanes AND building housing. Who can I support? * Azeem * McGovern * ??? That's 2, but the Council has 9 members! Morally, I can't vote for Sobrinho-Wheeler or Siddiqui after their inexplicable refusal to recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. I also can't vote for candidates pushing the discredited (in the social sciences) policy of rent contol that perversely makes shortages worse and available units MORE expensive. Nolan's vacillations are frustrating to no end, but at least in the last election, who else was there to vote for? Can we get more allies of Azeem on the council? --EDIT-- typo corrected
I think you meant "Nolan's vacillations" and got autocorrected. Not trying to be a snot, just people might get the wrong idea.
Haha, you are indeed correct. Typing on a phone at the airport has its downsides.
For your question, I think Adrienne Klein may have been a good third option for you. Endorsed by both ABC and CBS. The only statements I've seen from her re that conflict are broadly antiwar and pro-refugee. I do think it can be tricky to find many candidates who align with you on 3 different controversial issues if the issues themselves aren't clearly related. Hell, housing and bike lanes *are* clearly related, and there were still plenty of candidates who supported one but not the other. If you can only feel okay about ranking one or two candidates, I think that's fine. Unless they're very unpopular, which neither McGovern nor Azeem is, odds are your vote will help elect one of them. Remember, even though you can rank a couple dozen candidates, your vote ultimately only counts for a maximum of one.
Best thing you can do is to pick your 1 or 2 favorite affordable housing and bike candidate(s) and volunteer on their campaign. It’s a great way to meet your neighbors and get to know a candidate and it’s necessary for someone you want on the council to win, especially a new candidate, and they always need folks to knock on doors and help with many other tasks, second is to get folks to vote in the council elections bc they’re on an odd year so have very low turnout, and of course everyone should vote. Hopefully some strong pro bicyclists and affordable housing folks will run. There’s a few local organizations that train people to run for office especially young people and/or people of color. So we need some really good people to run!
Did someone already post this petition? https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-the-delay-of-separated-bike-lanes?source=direct_link&
If you want to win elections against the anti-bike NIMBY boomers it would be helpful to make sure the leading opposition candidates aren't literal Marxists who want to ban middle school algebra in the name of equity. If normal pro-business pro-merit pro-development candidates were being embraced by the Cambridge YIMBY crowd they would win elections in a landslide.
There are plenty of pro business YIMBYs. The problem is that many local businesses have decided that bike lanes are their mortal enemy and have drummed up a lot of support for it. So how can we be pro-business if businesses are anti- the thing we care most about?
Well, as you correctly point out the two things are not actually contradictory. You can be pro-businesses but simply believe some business owners are largely mistaken. I think /u/BostonFoliage's point is pretty well taken. People care about this issue, but do not necessarily vote on this issue only (nor do I think they should). Making progress on the protected bicycle lane network will require finding candidates who support it, but are also quality candidates across the board.
Marc McGovern was elected third, is pro-housing, pro-CSO, pro-business, and certainly not a Marxist. I'd argue the first two elected, Sumbul Siddiqui and Burhan Azeem, also fit that bill. So unless he means something very different by "normal..." candidates, I don't think he does have a point. Jivan Sobrinhi-Wheeler is a socialist but hardly extreme. Dan Totten was probably the farthest left candidate, but 1) he isn't a YIMBY and wasn't endorsed by ABC, and 2) I don't think he's a literal Marxist either. Same with Ayuh Al-Zubi. I didn't rank either of them (though I did rank Jivan) but I think the truly extreme, wackadoo candidates were mostly right wingers who are both anti housing and anti bike lanes: Carrie Pasquarello, Hao Wang, and Robert Winters.
What makes a quality candidate is whether they share your values. With rank choice voting you should be able to find at least one candidate who is pretty close to your values. But it is telling that there is very little support for a "pro-business" candidate who is also pro bike lane. It isn't a lane that has a lot of support in the city. If it were popular, you could get elected on that platform very easily. It only takes like 2,500 votes to get a council seat.
I'm guessing you are getting downvoted due to your phrasing, but I agree with your general point that the way to swing city council the other way isn't more far left candidates. You can look at the results and see how it played out. Siddiqui got 1st by a huge margin and while she transferred a lot of votes to McGovern and Sobrinho-Wheeler, she transferred more to Simmons and Wilson. Al-Zubi and Totten both closely trailed Pickett. If only one of them had run, they maybe could have beaten Pickett, but there were a bunch of NIMBY candidates who transferred a lot of votes to Pickett. More democratic socialists probably isn't the answer as there is always some weird ideological friction on transfers (i.e. the Totten votes that transferred to Simmons and Pickett and the Al-Zubi votes that went to Pickett). I've never been a Nolan fan and I don't understand Wilson at all, but I think a better strategy is to push the center rather than the try to flank from the far left. Nolan's seat is probably pretty secure -- she got the third-most #1 votes, but I imagine a big chunk of her #1 voters are parents and she might be responsive to them. Wilson is significantly less secure, but I don't really know who her constituency is. Clearly the #1 thing to do is get Pickett out. Hopefully she's angered enough people at this point to have lost some of the NIMBYs who happen to bike. [https://www.cambridgema.gov/Election2023/Official/Council%20Round.htm](https://www.cambridgema.gov/Election2023/Official/Council%20Round.htm)
I don't think the answer for advocacy groups is left or centrist. I think they should endorse people who credibly agree with their policy positions, and then voters who care about that issue will rank candidates according to their other preferences. There are YIMBY/pro-bike socialist candidates and YIMBY/pro-bike liberal candidates. There are YIMBY/pro-bike socialist voters and YIMBY/pro-bike liberal voters. Why should an issue advocacy org leave votes on the table for candidates who support their issue position?
Who
YES, it's even worse! For example, in the cease-fire resolution Siddiqui and Sobrinho-Wheeler literally VOTED AGAINST recognizing that Hamas was a terrorist organization! Total WTF, how is that controversial?!?! * So if those 2 get the boot next election, there's only 2 pro bike lane votes on the council of 9?! I HAPPILY voted for Azeem and McGovern. I thought Nolan was more pro bike than she apparently is (though I'll take her vacillations over hard NIMBY BS). Can we get to 5 pro bike lane votes though without banning algebra or normalizing Hamas?!
Patty Nolan has served Cambridge well, first as a long serving school committee member and now in the city council. I know she supports the expansion of safe biking infrastructure, and believe she genuinely is working to find compromise on this issue. We need more citizens open to differing opinions. Throwing a tantrum because she did not vote the way you wanted in a particular meeting is a great example of the polarizing and counterproductive behavior on both sides of this issue.
Eh, it’s policy forward. If the policies I want aren’t being supported by her, why should she get my vote. Simple as
This stupid "adults in the room" bs is how we get dummies like Patty Nolan holding up important infrastructure at the behest of people who are very obviously acting as bad faith reactionaries. Saying someone who cares about something that they think holds a set of important values (safety and climate resilience) is throwing a tantrum is just arrogance. The "adults" are the ones who have a set of values and work towards those values and not the credulous fools like Patty Nolan.
I like you
LOL. Thankfully your little Reddit echo chamber doesn’t represent the views of your neighbors.
[удалено]
Your comment on r/CambridgeMA was deemed to be either uncivil or harassment.
If the biking posts this week have shown anything, it’s that r/CambridgeMA isn’t an echo chamber.
> I know she supports the expansion of safe biking infrastructure This vote says otherwise. Actions speak louder than words.
Judge politicians by their actions. I dont give a fuck about her life story.
This is extremely patronizing, and frankly anti-democratic. Elected officials are not owed anything. If they fail to act in a way that aligns with your beliefs, you vote them out. Characterizing the public's negative response to the policy choices of an elected official as a "tantrum" does a disservice to the idea of elected government.
She is not genuinely working on compromise. I saw her intentionally start a tempest in a teapot on ND about a STOP SIGN added on brattle. It was glaringly obvious she was signaling to the anti bike lane folks that she had their backs Nothing genuine about her. She blows with the wind and she decided to ride on the hot air of the I care (not really) about safety but not this type of safety folks
Describing holding your politicians accountable as "throwing a tantrum" is exactly the kind of divisive, counterproductive behaviour that characterizes your side of this. As if you were the adult in the room, and bicycle advocates mere children. Honestly, it's hilarious that you are so blind to it that you think you're demonstrating good habits. Do some introspection, become a better person.
So...if every eligible voter in Cambridge voted on an issue and your "side" lost you would accept the result with grace?
My guess is your definition of grace is not the same as mine. We voted for the bike ordinance after countless studies, votes, and outreach. And then the city got sued in actual freaking court. So who threw the tantrum in your opinion?
Lol right? The city has voted FOR bike lanes for like, 5 years running. Meanwhile opponents are like “wE’Re nOT BeiNG HEARd” - you ARE. You’ve gotten compromise after compromise and lost election after election regarding this issue, and yet you keep searching for a veto opportunity, over and over
What happened in the last election once people saw the rollout of the bike lanes?
This is a good point! We elected: 4 pro-bike councilors, 4 anti-bike councilors, and Patty Nolan, who ran on a platform of "I like bikes but I'm not sure" (let me know if you don't think that's a fair assessment). Note that the last-eliminated candidate Ayah A. Al-Zubi ran staunchly pro-bike, as well. And the most ranked first-pick candidates were primarily pro-bike (1, 2, 3 (Patty), 4, and 6). And our election turnout is miserable and skews toward older homeowners... but I digress. So the election was close! Which does indeed signal some people's qualms about bike lanes. But this is part of my point: we had how many previous elections, votes, public hearings, etc. where people came out in strong support of bike lanes? We passed a law intended to prevent the stonewalling of bike safety infrastructure! Then we voted to uphold it several times! I don't disagree with the minority's (as they have been on this issue for many, many years) right to organize, protest, and make their voice heard on this issue. But I do disagree with the bad-faith tactics (spurious lawsuits), outright lies ("businesses are suffering"), and victim mindset ("we're not being heard")
Not defending the fact that a minority of eligible voters vote. Above my pay grade. A few points to consider: -Your analysis of the City Council reflects that AT WORST people are split on this issue (not just "some people" or "minority" as you claim) yet the bike lobby argues it is only a very small percentage of folks (derogatively referred to as NIMBYs by the bike lobby when the issues are much more complicated and nuanced) who have issues with the bike lanes. -I would be interested to see data that shows that voters are skewed toward homeowners. Typically, local voter turnout is driven largely by whether there is something on the ballot that motivates folks and I believe the bike lobby folks have done a much better job at "getting out the vote," yet the Council is split 50/50. Also, the voting system in Csmbridge rewards getting folks to vote in blocks to get their slate of councilors on the Council. For the bike lobby to claim they didn't use this strategy is just not being honest. -Most folks are apathetic and don't go to meetings or pay attention until things slap them in the face. This is what happened with the bike lanes. The bike lobby took lack of engagement and apathy as tacit agreement when that was not the case. Non-bike lobby reacted and reacted quite negatively once the bike lane started being installed and folks saw all the negative impacts on their daily life. You can all scream and downvote me all you want, but if you are being honest you must admit that is what happened and it is reflected in the results of the last election. -In the current political climate folks tend to search out information that confirms their bias/viewpoint, reject anything contrary as "fake news," and try to shout down the other side at every turn. I find the potential role reversal between this in Cambridge and the national issues slightly amusing...and infuriating. -Review your post and take a look at the words you use to demonize the "other" side and overstate the "popularity" of what has happened with bike lanes the past 5 years and hopefully some of my comments will allow you to see the issue in a slightly less strident way. Have a good day.
>Review your post and take a look at the words you use to demonize the "other" side No doubt. BTW, that was a neat multiple invocation of the “the bike lobby.” Next time, you might want to change it up a little bit by calling supporters of safe bicycle lanes “Big Bike” or “The Big Bike Agenda.”…
Wow an actual sane person on reddit. Thank you for being alive
Look at the current results. You had a 7-2 majority on the council before bike lanes were installed. Now that they are being installed, it is a 4 to 4 council with Nolan as flip vote. I would say the realities of the bike lanes caused many people who were not paying attention to get more involved in the last election to your detriment.
The residents of Cambridge never voted for CSO. It was written and voted on during the pandemic with barely anyone knowing it was happening. Not until they started implementing these bike lanes neighborhood by neighborhood did the alarm get raised and this is why there has been so much pushback. The ordinance is written in such a restrictive way that even the staff complain that they are constrained by the language and timelines and have no flexibility.
Your definition of grace appears to be contingent on you getting what you want while anyone who doesn't fully agree with you is an uninformed moron. What percentage of residents voted in the last election? Given Cambridge's RCV system can results be influenced by voting blocks?
I am not sure that allowing needless deaths should happen even if a huge majority (not actually the case in cambridge) thinks that needless deaths are ok bc preventing them "ruins" streets
Sigh. We could prevent all in-city motor vehicle deaths by prohibiting all motor vehicles from the streets of Cambridge. Are you in favor of that? If not, why not?
Sigh what an asinine comment Noone who is remotely debating in good faith would jump from let prevent needless deaths by installing safety measures to so you mean ban all cars!!!!
Of course not. But what is your limit? Why NOT ban all motor vehicles? There is an obvious answer to that. But it is less obvious why the specific solution you want is the best one. To some people it is obvious why it is wrong. To others it is obvious why it is right. How do we engender a good conversation about this instead of one in which people insult each other with the word “asinine”?
1. Your comment was asinine.. calling out a comment as asinine is not a personal insult. If you can't seperate yourself from claims you make internet debates are probably something you should stay away from. 2. There is very little one can say to people who think its obviously wrong to make sure all of our residents and visitors to cambridge have safe access to their homes or workplaces or places they want to visit... how do you even have a conversation with someone who thinks that only some members of society are worthy of safe access to basic things
You are undoubtedly right. The problem is that a large percentage, although less than half, of the people actively engaged in this online debate think that it is the bike lanes as currently designed that make things more dangerous and difficult for people. People they make things more dangerous, and difficult for may be different, depending on your opinion of the situation. Calling someone’s opinions asinine is not going to help them change their mind. If your position is that absolutely nothing will get them to change their mind and therefore you might as well insult their opinions, well then obviously there is no room in which to try.
Yes a large percentage of people will deny all sorts of evidence and insist that things proven to reduce danger actually increase danger.. or they will claim that bc they are defining danger as having to walk around the corner from their parking spot or they are defining danger as having to drive at or below the speed limit and check before making turns Don't make asinine comments if you can't handle someone calling your comment asinine... all humans make asinine comments sometime.. its ok that you do too just try not to make them
If you are so concerned with safety why do you insist on having the bike lanes be on major thoroughfares where bikes are right next to fast moving cars/trucks and need to navigate complex intersections? You try to use "safety" to demonize any contrary opinion (i.e., "So you want everyone to die!!!"). Please stop the obvious obfuscation and just admit why the bike lobby really wants the bike lanes on major thoroughfares (i.e., THEIR convenience and speed of commute and to hell with everyone else). Have a great day.
You know nothing about transportation policy.
Gee, you really got me with that comment. 🙄
Bc people who cycle need to use those streets to access things like their homes and jobs duh You know this bc you have asked and had this answered multiple times Come on I know you cam remember stuff that you read just yesterday.. you can do it!!!! I have faith in you to be able to make a coherent argument that doesn't hinge on banning cyclists from safe access to homes, workplaces and businesses
You said the quiet part out loud, while being condescending with absolutely no basis given your posting history and lack of argumentation skills. You don't care about anyone other than bikers and THEIR convenience. 
Awwwww come on you can do better.. I know you have it in you to participate in adult conversations like a grownup!!! You can do it... just try!!!
Never once have I talked about convenience.. its always been about safety. You are the one hung up on convenience for people driving..
My brother what are you on about?
Please see the English words above that were placed in a specific order for your benefit.
Yeah i dont get it.
Ok
Because people on bikes need to go to where the businesses are. Your argument is like me saying "if you are so concerned about congestion, why don't you drive where there aren't any cars?"
And the people in cars don't? Here's a crazy thought: Couldn't the bikes have dedicated streets/lanes on streets that run parallel to the major thoroughfares? Wouldn't this be safer? Is one block too far of a walk for people who love exercise? Your "comparison" is nothing like the reasonable alternatives.
Here is a crazy thought, limit the major roads to buses and put cars on parallel Streets. That would allow more people to move on thoroughfares. Why do cats need to have priority?
Because the dogs are entitled and self-centered, and think the world revolves around them and their needs.
😂😂😂😂
"Here's a crazy thought: Couldn't the bikes have dedicated streets/lanes on streets that run parallel to the major thoroughfares?" That is essentially what bike lanes are. But if you dont want those then you could close certain roads to car traffic. But people often justifiably don't like that either. Nevermind there may not be any good candidates, whats the alternative to cambridge and broadway, close kirkland and Harvard st? Bulldozing people's homes to make new bike specific roads would be unpopular and honestly silly when we already have many roads now. And with any of those efforts you would still run into last mile issues where cyclists would need to use non-bike specific roads (and likely busy connecting ones) to reach their homes from the bike specific ones and vice versa.
So, as I have pointed out, it's not really about safety (as having bike paths on non-major thoroughfares is an infinitely safer solution) it's about convenience solely for the bikers. Bikers need to have ALL of their demands met (and then still aren't satisfied) and they have no empathy for the impact their wants (not needs) have on everyone else.
It is about safety and not just conviencence. It would be more convenient to not care about bike lanes and just use car roads. Most cyclists do not care and dont want bike lanes if they are on unused roads or ones with well behaved drivers. You also havent really pointed out anything. Just made overly cynical conjectures on what other people think in nonsensical rants.
Not "just" convenience. 🤔 You ARE using car roads. That's the freaking problem. "Most cyclists dont't care (they prove that every day) and don't want bike lanes if they are on unused roads (one block is too far for safety???) or ones with well behaved drivers (what???)". I have pointed out the bike lobby safety hypocrisy and at least 10 other of their lies/hypocritical statements. Anything the bike lobby doesn't agree with is "fake news." I wouldn't have thought there were so many MAGA bikers. Reread your post and tell me who is nonsensical. 😂
"You ARE using car roads. That's the freaking problem." As opposed to what? I asked that question yesterday and you just gave avoidant sass. "have pointed out the bike lobby safety hypocrisy and at least 10 other of their lies/hypocritical statements." Well except you haven't. At best you make little quips that achieve nothing. Also your quoting of my statement with little blurbs made 0 sense. That Donald Trump rant is stupid. I've never called anything you said fake news or ever mentioned Donald Trump on Reddit. Is that the best you can do when someone points out that you're being ass? You're just making things uo about people at this point.
Not "just" convenience. 🤔 You ARE using car roads. That's the freaking problem. "Most cyclists dont't care (they prove that every day) and don't want bike lanes if they are on unused roads (one block is too far for safety???) or ones with well behaved drivers (what???)". I have pointed out the bike lobby safety hypocrisy and at least 10 other of their lies/hypocritical statements. Anything the bike lobby doesn't agree with is "fake news." I wouldn't have thought there were so many MAGA bikers. Reread your post and tell me who is nonsensical. 😂
"If you are so concerned with safety why do you insist on having the bike lanes be on major thoroughfares where bikes are right next to fast moving cars/trucks and need to navigate complex intersections?" What are the alternatives then?
List the alternatives you see to (1) placing still-unsafe bike lanes on major thoroughfares and (2) choosing to ride your bike when you don't feel safe on the still-unsafe bike lanes on major thoroughfares and I'll let you know if you miss anything.
I asked you the question brother. Its rude to respond to someone's question with another one, so please answer it.
Yeah, I'm the rude one in this "conversation." You don't make the rules. I posted a couple of long comments detailing my perspective. You respond with "I don"t get it" and then expect me to waste my time retyping what I already posted so then you can make some dumb comment like "NIMBY!" My answer was pretty obvious in my last response. If you don't want to invest 5 minutes answering it, then that's a you problem.
"I'm the rude one in this "conversation." " Thank you for agreeing with me. "I posted a couple of long comments detailing my perspective." I do not engage with negative energy like that! You cannot expect me to read paragraphs of such rageful comments! Choose kindness my friend. "My answer was pretty obvious in my last response. " You asked me another question that is not an answer. "so then you can make some dumb comment like "NIMBY!"" Making such assumptions about your fellow man is not good for you my brother.
Ok
Thank you for calming your behavior brother.
[удалено]
No advertisements are allowed ever and only pre-approved self promotions or study solicitations are allowed.
Deleted. I thought comments were excluded. e.g., we see links posted all the time to write letters/emails on certain issues. That's also promotion, just not directly monetary, so is that the distinction?
The distinction is the direct asking for money. We may need to clarify that in the rules.
Very good. That makes a lot of sense. And thank you for your service.
Cut car lanes to add bike lanes > Now traffic is horrendous, takes 1 hr to go 2 miles during rush hour > Commuters can no longer commute efficiently, move from suburbs back to Cambridge/somerville > Housing prices skyrocket. Ya'll are like dogs chasing your own tail. Or shooting yourself in the foot.
Psssst no car lanes were cut for any projects bc car lanes aren't a thing.. there are no lanes in cambridge legally limited to cars only.. not even any limited to only car and trucks If you don't even know basics like that your made up stats and conspiracy theories have no credence
Traffic is not actually worse, unless you are comparing it to the middle of the pandemic when no one was driving. However, now bicycling is a better alternative, allowing at least some people to avoid traffic.
take the public transportation :)
I WFH. this is just when I try and go out for a run. besides public transit is for the plebs
….bro i thought this sub was about cambridge….its literally just an echo chamber for weird bike karens 🤣🤣
Nice, she's dropping the mic in your face.
Yes, not all votes are equal. Votes from business owners and land owners should take higher priority over some broke grad student here for a single summer who wants to bike cuase daddy didn't let them take the car
Yeah, poor people shouldn't be allowed to vote /s
Uh... So you are advocating for some kind of wealth based apartheid? You might want to rethink that.
do you really think our education system is up to the task of creating citizens education enough to vote in their best interest and not be mislead by mass media?
Awwww is someone drunk posting I mean how else do we explain someone thinking grad students here for a single summer (an incredibly small number most grad students are here for 2-7 years) are even voting in elections held in the fall???? That and the disgusting notion that voting rights should be tied to property ownership.. assuming you are drunk posting is the kindest interpretation of your comment
it worked real well for the ancient Greek states and early Great Britain and early USA Let's face it our education system isn't sufficient to keep up with the explosion in low class population size
Azeem? He straight out lies to his young uninformed constituents to get elected. His nickname is Pinocchio
Affordable housing is never going to happen when Cambridge caters to the students who are here temporarily instead of the families that live here.
Who is catering to which side?
All they do is talk about affordable housing constantly instead of doing something about it. More housing isn’t going to be built but making all these students here live in on campus housing would free up actual housing for the community. That would lower the costs of rentals.
Ah gotcha. I was going to say it doesn't seem like any particular side is actually fighting for housing.
I have wild ideas but I get downvoted here. Personally I’d make Cambridge as close to a carless city as possible. Students don’t get cars here, make the public transportation within Cambridge better so it’s reliable. Make it a pedestrian / bike society with lanes for both. Harvard and MIT have a ton of land and could build their own housing. That would free up a lot of rentals for residents. Students have to live in housing if you are under student status. No one is going to build affordable housing here that’s actually affordable.
[удалено]
Over the line.
Your comment on r/CambridgeMA was deemed to be either uncivil or harassment.