I'm sure many folks in the tech/pharma space have found themselves in that spot. plenty of mass based startups have given locales overnight windfalls. Why should the burden on the mass education system fall on their shoulders? Just increase corporates taxes. What do you have against people keeping the money they earned?

​

I mean hell, anyone who bought property in cambridge in the 90s or even 2000s probably have seen their property value double. just because it passes the million dollar mark doesnt mean they should suddenly owe the state more money

It's crazy that the increased tax bill passed. Why not just vote to increase state corporate taxes instead? With some many schools per capita, surely people must have an expectation that they have a chance at a high income job. Or at least a chance at buying an expensive property at some point in their lives.

It's also wild that most people don't seem to understand this won't impact billionaires and the rich they claim to hate. This is just a tax on the upper middle class. So good job team. I'm sure the actual law will get all types of carve outs so politicians aren't impacted, but it would be nice if there was a windfall exception so that lottery winners, home sales, and just one time income spikes were exempt

Legit question (not trying to troll) but is the data for pedestrian/cyclist safety based purely on accidents at lights or specific to red light behavior. I ask because Cambridge has a ton of anti-car intersection where the pedestrian lights are only green when the traffic lights are also green, but the only direction for traffic is a turn (aka you are forcing cars into pedestrians due to lights). I'd be curious what the effects of safety are with these setups as well

But it's already illegal to turn right on red into a pedestrian. How does this change anything? Local laws that dont match the rest of the country don't help anyone. Better to add traffic easing at all major turns instead

I would love to see more community information about the participatory budgeting projects. Especially those that make the cut. It always feels crazy to me how much the "plant a tree" projects seem to cost and how often they're on the ballet, and would love to know what projects have been effective and which have not been as efficient.

At the very least, reddit would be a good place to source ideas for next year's projects. Personally, I want to see more dog parks and bike parking, but most of the projects seems more targeted to the underserved so I totally understand if those are low priority

God damn tourists, can't even figure out we have a mass transit system or buses. Good riddance 🙎

Blue bikes are a bane to any cyclist with half a brain. Any step forward in bikers safety or rights is set back 10 by them. I've seen a handful of cars drive the wrong way down the one way I live on, but you see cyclists and scooters do it daily. Acting like "we need infrastructure" is super bad faith. Most cycling infrastructure panders to the lowest common denominator. Raise the bar required for riders and I think we can get better infrastructure and more safety

Right, that's what we've all come to expect from r/Cambridge 😂

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section2

It's like cyclists should have to be licensed. It's crazy how many people are up voting you with no concept of the law

Are you mixing up passing someone with driving the wrong way down the road? Incredible. You realize it is legal to switch lanes to pass right? Or do you think traffic has to grind to a stop whenever a delivery truck makes a stop?

I too drive the wrong way down the road whenever I want. Who cares about laws, I do what's convenient for me

This other person seems to think people both need parking and increasing the population of Cambridge doesn't require more infrastructure. Which is it, do people need parking or not? Minimum parking requirements mean new development can accommodate parking. If you think people people don't want parking, then how am I "shutting the door behind me"? Especially since I'm the one who wants parking for them?

I mean, that goes both ways. I don't assume everyone is me, and neither does minimum parking requirements. I do assume that if you increase the population by X%, you will see an increased amount of people needing cars

Do you have an example of a recent project that required parking, and the building hit occupancy while the parking wasn't utilized?

Why people pay Cambridge rents/housing prices but then turn around and demand a massive apartment complexes is beyond me. Fuck off and go to Boston if that is what you want.

​

Keep Cambridge walkable and beautiful. Leave the massive housing complex's to the inner cities.

I mean, that is a good idea. Not sure why you think people are against a higher barrier to entry. I mean sure, it means parking is only available to the rich, but the bigger concern is that it's even available at all

I trust developers to build less revenue generating property as much as I trust rats to stay out of the trash. I suppose you think developers will create affordable housing all in their own for the good of the residents too

You didnt even address my question; if more people bring more cars, where do you expect them to park. There's plenty of parking in Cambridge? Where? I find more nights I cant even park in front of my house, and am doing laps of nearby blocks just to find parking.

i think you are mixing up two arguments. Yes, cities have finite space, and yes space should prioritze towards getting more people in and proving affordable housing. However, people also need to get in an out of the city, and so are usually going to need a place to park. Covering your ears and screaming "lalalalalala no cars ever" is not really an option, especially given the state of the T. therefore, if youre bringing in more people, just like you need extra electric grid and water/sewage resources, you also need to account for parking. otherwise, what are you expecting these people do?

​

where do you expect them to park, since you seem to think space shouldnt be wasted on parking?

Or because a city has finite space, and that's why the minimum parking requirements for new construction exists? Like, where do you expect a new few hundred people to park? Do you readily see street parking available on mass ave?

Does this include a provision that residents of those properties can't apply for parking permits?

Yeah I meant that. And i suppose by double fenced I mean, the entire park is fenced, and theres a dog park, so you can use that for whatever comfort level you have.

If you have access to a car, check out Honeywell Park. Fun fact, it is double fenced

Cambridge discloses the top 10 list of biggest tax payers, and it's who you expect. So there might be some correlation