The USPS is required by the Constitution and avails itself from longstanding cultural understanding that the founding fathers thought it important and that a well run postal service is a matter of national pride.

Of late the libertarians in this country have decided even that shouldn't be, although the Constitution limits most acts of sabotage against it.

Godspeed

The stipends make it slightly more tempting, but many of us younger folk work hard all day and have families to take care of in those hours outside of work. The system is so perversely set up as to be depressing.

The city council can not appoint or remove them, but it does have the ability to make these people useless by reforming the zoning code.

Not sure why you were downvoted, but I think many of us appreciate your work Marc.

I appreciate your zeal but Cambridge does a lot of things right relative to the rest of the country.

Memorial drive is a disgrace and the capitulation to handful of people over the entire city is inexcusable, but we’re much better than the alternatives.

People bend over backwards to pretend it’s ok so we can all go on with our lives

Where?

I have a friend who lives in Stuy Town in Manhattan. All her adjacent neighbors are 80+ year old widows in 2-3 bedroom apartments. The word “all” Is not an exaggeration.

One of these neighbors gives her cat an entire bedroom. In Manhattan.

I don’t think the policy in nyc has been a smashing success

Have you ever been inside a “luxury apartment”? I assure you they are not very nice.

And the poster you are replying to is correct. City housing values were massively depressed by social, cultural, and economic forces in the 1950s-1990s.

Cities became desirable to live in again and prices went back up, but they kept going up because the population increased but no homes were built in the interim.

Maybe don’t make sweeping assumptions about people then?

I work in biotech and we are putting down roots and planning on starting a family in the city. Don't paint us all with a brush.

Point #2 has been debunked, repeatedly, in large scale statistical analyses performed by numerous different groups around the country. So no, I am not "aware" of it because it isn't true.

​

#1 - it discourages development of new homes. it leads to people living in homes that no longer suit their needs (elderly widows living in 3 bedroom apartments in Manhattan being the common and infamous example). it doesn't help the people already displaced or needing a place to live near their work. It is an exclusionary policy.

​

#3 - So "luxury" housing is OK just as long as you get it first?

​

#4 - Maybe. Who is paying for that and how?

#5 - Every policy that tries to help group A over group B inevitably screws over anyone who falls *just* outside the aided group and isn't really a member of the other group. People earning $1 over an income maximum are no better off than people inside the maximum, yet they are excluded from the program.

​

"Market rate" renters/buyers are humans who need a place to live, too. And to claim that they don't have just as much of a right to live in your neighborhood as you do is to make the same mistakes that got us in to this mess in the first place.

They make up .7% of the dwelling units because there are so few of them, because of the zoning laws. Cambridge is only ~6.4 square miles. That area is not trivial in the slightest.

To say that "Cambridge is denser than its zoning allows" makes no sense to me, because Cambridge's zoning has nothing to do with whether the city is too dense or not. The zoning laws were explicitly implemented to drive certain demographics of people out of the city. The city can and should become marginally denser than it currently is, and in some areas (west cambridge) much denser.

Of the development areas you list, those developments had to go in front of BZA or get special zoning petitions from the city council in order to get built. I promise you it was not easy.

​

Yes, other towns are worse than Cambridge is. But Cambridge is already dense with a culture of apartment buildings, however the zoning code (not just household/lot caps) make building new apartments impossible without variances.

​

Pretty much every "beloved" triple decker in the city violates the zoning code.

Yes, but grading the greater Boston area on a curve like that is a poor idea.

​

There is so much low hanging fruit in Cambridge for completely inoffensive upzoning (3-5 stories by right) that would maintain the city's character and provide thousands upon thousands more homes.

Cambridge's dimensional requirements make virtually every multifamily structure in the city violate the city's zoning code and have to go in front of the BZA, by design, even if multifamily housing is technically "allowed". And it is 100% intentional. So yes, it is egregious.

Cambridge’s situation is particularly egregious IMO. 6000sqft minimums on SFH in some parts of the city.

Given that driving has repeatedly been held to be a privilege and not a right, I am not sure I would put much stock in that argument. Courts would almost surely hold that local and state governments have a legitimate interest in monitoring and tolling vehicles.

​

An odometer reading would be the most fair, indisputable, and easily implemented change though. That would have a nice effect of encouraging less sprawl.

​

Throw in a weight tax and I'd be happy.

There is over 100 years of precedent giving the government incredible powers to regulate vehicular traffic, for reasons ranging from public safety to pollution. Zero chance of a 4th amendment challenge to any toll or tax.

Adding tolls to pay for maintenance would have benefits. Perhaps the biggest for highways would be that it would remove a lot of power the federal government has over the states.

The drinking age being 21 in every state is not even a "law" in the traditional sense. The federal government instead simply says that if it isn't 21, they will take away all of a state's highway funding. They do this for many things.

​

I also think that private passenger vehicles should pay the real cost to use the incredibly expensive and destructive infrastructure that highways are.

There is one in Davis Square that I don't know the name of. They meet by the T stop around 6PMish.

​

I urge you to be extremely cautious jogging on sidewalks. Drivers, particularly when turning right, do not look for people (especially if they are coming against traffic) and rarely stop at stop signs.

Yea. I would like a bus that goes straight from Cameron to Porter to Harvard lol but I doubt it Will happen

I hope this data supports extending the bus lane all the way to Porter, so least. Traffic tends to clear after that

Honestly he is a friendly and chatty guy, and seems like a good human being. I think if he wants his business to succeed he can’t live in the past, which is what all these businesses are trying to do. Despite me liking him in general, I don’t get my hair cut there lol.

No, it’s funny