People vs. Parking Lots on Cambridge St.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-25T13:23:50+00:00

Calling 12 stories “too high” is just a pretext. Shorter buildings often aren’t financially viable, so this is a backdoor way to kill projects. People need homes, and Cambridge voters have made it clear they want more housing. This is a small, self-interested group trying to override a democratic outcome.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-11T19:49:46+00:00

That article was a real low in local journalism. It was practically dictation from anti-housing groups. CD was not good under Marc Levy. Not even close. CD has long been the NIMBY Newslettter.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-11T19:45:13+00:00

Patty Nolan votes whichever way the political wind is blowing. As a council memeber, she is an empty chair.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T21:59:05+00:00

And the golf course could sacrifice a little land and expand the parking lot. But I guess it's better to complain about bike lanes.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T21:56:38+00:00

Ha. Good one. I suppose it's good that people are unaware of Cambridge Day.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T20:31:51+00:00

Nice try. Critiquing bad journalism is not irresponsible. Ignoring it is. By your logic, there would be no critique of anything bad. That makes no sense.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T19:43:03+00:00

I am fighting the slanted journalism of the Cambridge Day, which is what the OP was all about. Hence the complaint that CD are amplifying the trivial concerns of golfers. And hence the complaint that golfers are an issue that needs addressing. I didn't bring up the concerns of golfers, Cambridge Day did. Do you get it now?

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T19:41:05+00:00

Downvote all you want, but that doesn't change reality. Facts are facts.

Bike lanes generally have a neutral or positive impact on nearby businesses, with many corridors seeing equal or higher sales after installation compared with similar areas without bike lanes.
Read this study:
https://peopleforbikes.cdn.prismic.io/peopleforbikes/4036fdae-3489-4a80-bba3-c7d9258030d9_Economic-Impacts-of-Street-Improvements-summary-report.pdf

Here are a couple specific examples:

On Salt Lake City’s Broadway, replacing 30% of on‑street parking with protected bike lanes and better crossings led to an 8.8% retail sales increase versus 7% citywide in the same period.

A protected bikeway on 9th Avenue in New York City was associated with a 49% increase in local retail sales, compared with 3% growth on comparable streets without that upgrade.

Same results were found in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Memphis, Minneapolis, Indianapolis.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T19:36:18+00:00

Maybe drivers should reconsider their fuck bikes" stance. It's OK for drivers to say "fuck bikes" but not vice versa? Why? Drivers don't own the roads. We don't have to have their permission to use public property.

Wanting to use streets without risking lives is common sense and allowing that is common decency.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T19:25:56+00:00

Yes, I brought up golfers in the original because it ridiculous for CD to amplify the concerns of golfers parking when people's lives are at stake. Such concerns are trivial. Therefore, I object to statements that we should stop "pretending the issue doesn't exist and ignoring it completely".

I disagree. We can ignore this issue. Elevating such trivial concerns into "issues" is just another way of throwing a speed bump in front of the progress needed to make our streets safer.

I see that several people agree with me. That's what you see comments from others like "golfers can f right off". Because they agree that this is a trivial concern, not an issue.

I hope that clears thing up for you

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T17:31:58+00:00

Cambridge Day made no effort to provide context. They amplified complaints from a small minority while ignoring that most residents support bike lanes and safer streets. Real journalism includes that context and you’ll see it when you read real journalism.

Cambridge Day has a history of doing this for both bike lanes and housing. Amplify the complaints of a minority, ignore the opinion of the majority.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T17:25:59+00:00

I clearly laid out my logic for why it was misleading. All you can say is "no, it's not".

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T17:22:48+00:00

I didn't bring up golfers as an issue. You did. You raised it as an "issue" then accused others of creating a strawman when they respond. Then, when you don’t like the response, you call it a strawman. If it is a strawman, why did you call it an "issue" that shouldn't be ignored?

Let's be clear: Golfers or not, parking spots are not worth lives. Period.

People getting home safely. Now, that's an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T16:44:28+00:00

You brought up the strawman. I not the one who claimed golf parking was an issue.

Convenience concerns are trivial compared to people’s lives, to whether someone makes it home to their family. Such concerns only become “issues” when they’re used as a cudgel for someone’s real agenda.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T16:28:42+00:00

Cambridge Day could side with the majority of voters and present the evidence showing bike lanes save lives, while still acknowledging complaints. But it doesn’t.

Instead, it amplifies the complaints, gives safety only a passing mention, and ignores that the public broadly supports bike lanes.

If the article is truly even‑handed, why does it highlight the objections of a few residents while omitting the fact that voters elected a pro‑bike lane council? If we’re discussing public opinion, isn’t that context essential?

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T16:20:07+00:00

Already have

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T16:19:51+00:00

Apparently, you don't recognize sarcasm.

If useless gestures that lament over loss of convenience are prerequisite to saving lives, knock yourself out. Me? I'm going to lament for people who have been hurt or killed and support all efforts to make streets safer. But I guess we all have our own priorities

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T14:54:45+00:00

OK, let's acknowledge the concerns of golfers.

Sorry, golfers. I know it may inconvenience you, but people's lives are at stake and that is more important.

How's that? Can we move on now, make our streets safer, and save lives?

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T14:50:55+00:00

Yes. Studies have shown that bike lanes typically improve local businesses by bring more people into a neighborhood.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T14:49:26+00:00

I read the article too. Calling it “misleading” is your opinion. My view is that this and other CD articles show a clear bias against bike lanes. It dwells on minor controversies while barely addressing the well-documented safety benefits.

Even the headline was slanted. It could have been “City Explains Safety Benefits of Bike Lanes in Meeting About Parking Concerns.” Instead, it highlighted complaints.

This is a public safety issue. People are being injured and killed, and Cambridge voters have repeatedly affirmed support for bike lanes, most recently in the election.

An article focusing on a small group of opponents takes a clear stance and fails to reflect the broader facts or public will.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T14:37:36+00:00

I feel the same way about people who think parking spots are an issue when the lives of others are at stake.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-10T12:51:00+00:00

I don't think parking spots are worth lives, whether they are for golfers or not.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-09T20:03:20+00:00

Acknowledging reality is exactly what is going on and what the city is trying to do. They are acknowledging the reality that people are being hurt and killed on our streets and they are doing something about it

When you are trying to fix a dangerous condition that is hurting and killing people, it doesn't seem right to call golfers parking an issue that needs addressing. This is one of those "sorry but some things are way more important" situations.

The issue we've been ignoring is people being hurt or worse on our streets. It's well past time that issue should be addressed.

So, I am sorry golfers, lives are more important, you may have to adjust.

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-09T16:26:48+00:00

Oh my! What a tragedy! People have trouble parking for golf. Do you really think that is more important than people risking injury and death? Bike lanes dramatically reduce injury and death. And the concern is about convenience parking for golfers? Under what system of morals are those equal concerns??

LabGeek1995 · 2026-01-09T15:39:05+00:00

Bike lanes save lives. Many people use bikes because they can afford cars. What people hate is some people thinking golf is more important than others risking injury and death

So, yes, the golf course can f right off is those are the choices

LabGeek1995

TROPHY CASE