There’s a shorthand — reflected in the TAB’s article and blog post on the opening of the Lower Falls bridge — to speak of opponents of the project as abutters. The bridge project, which includes the approaches from Concord Street in Newton and Washington Street in Wellesley, abuts just two or three single-family properties. Those abutters have been generally supportive of the project, as reflected in the decision not to put a fence between the approach from Concord Street and the abutting properties.
The opponents of the bridge are abutters, but abutters of the DCR-owned right-of-way as it extends from Concord Street in the other direction — towards Riverside. These abutters live principally on St. Mary Street and Baker Place, with backyards along the right-of-way. They don’t want the DCR to improve the right-of-way into a pedestrian path. Acknowledging the inherent risk of speaking for them, the abutters opposed the bridge project because they look at it as the first step towards an inevitable effort to complete the path from Wellesley to Riverside, which they oppose.
The bridge has independent value. It’s a real gem as it is. But, the trail abutters’/bridge opponents’ concerns are not without basis. There are lots of people, me included, who think that a rail trail will be a real neighborhood and city asset. Importantly, proponents of the rail trail include many trail abutters, like Kay Khan. And, the proponent ranks are going to grow as folks enjoy the bridge.
To set the record straight, the only use of the word “abutters” in our story is in a direct quote. To save you the effort of searching it out in the story, here it is:
“We were astonished at the outpouring of rage from a small number of abutters,” said Alderman Deborah Crossley.
Emily is technically correct. I didn’t mean to impugn Chloe, but I didn’t want to detract from my larger point by getting all specific about who actually used the word, in this case Deb. I heard the word used a few times yesterday in connection with the opponents.
Sean: I wonder if you have any photos of the previous bridge taken prior to reconstruction? I think it would be help people understand how cool this is.
I agree that the abutters who’ve opposed this are really opposed to connecting this bridge to a path that would allow walkers and bikers clear access all the way to the
Riverside T. That would be a wonderful enhancement and Rep Khan deserves credit for seeing the value in this, even though this trail would run directly behind her back yard.
Bridge pictures? A ton.
Go here to see one. I’ll scrounge up some more and post later.
Sean, just thinking out loud here: if the opponents ever decided to sell, is there a financial incentive for a potential proponent buyer to gain creative loan or financial backing; land banking, trust, etc.?
My concern isn’t the project which I know nothing about, but the continued derogatory language used to describe residents who believe it’s their right to express an opinion that’s not in agreement with city plans that directly affect their lives. This was disrespectful language for any elected official to use to describe any resident, and not the first time Deb Crossley has used such language to describe residents who oppose projects she supports. She should learn to edit her public comments about residents who have every right to speak out, even if they’re in the minority.
As to the question: who are the abutters? They’re people who disagree with the powers that be. Last I heard, expressing disagreement with the local, state, or federal government was one reason why we claim to live in a democracy.
Jane,
I don’t disagree that Deb could have put her comment more diplomatically, but you’re mistaken if you think that her comment was derogatory. First of all, she didn’t even describe any residents. She described their response to the project. That’s not a trivial distinction. And, she was completely accurate in her description of their response. There was a lot of anger from a group of people who opposed the project. And, by the way, there was, from that group, no shortage of derogatory language towards Kay and anyone who supported Kay in her efforts to convert the bridge. Really nasty stuff.
This is not a noble group of put-upon citizens standing up to power. It’s a group of well-off property owners trying to deny public access to publicly owned property.
There is some ten years of history behind this project. There is no need to whitewash that history. There was rage. Deb was surprised by it.
You’re on the wrong side on this one.
Sean-My point (written 4 years ago) was not project specific and my concern about how we treat people with whom we disagree has only grown in the intervening years. We’ve entered a period when every issue has a “wrong” side and a “right” side, when in fact there’s no wrong or right side to any issue – just a lot of gray in between. While canvassing for a candidate several years ago in Lower Falls, I ran into a very nice couple who were abutters to this project who didn’t feel comfortable speaking their mind at meetings. I didn’t hear “rage” about the project – I heard concern. No one in this city should ever be silenced. The rageful crew has taken center stage these days, but their rage shouldn’t be used as an excuse to silence reasoned disagreement.
In the last year (2015-2016), the entire country has lost a level of civility that was once taken for granted and it’s filtered down to the local level. No one can disagree with one of several subsets of Newton residents without being personally attacked. Make a mistake and you end up on someone’s FaceBook page. Attend a meeting where people disagree with your opinion, and plan to sit quietly or expect someone to yell at you. Express your opinion graciously, and expect to be overrun by those who are willing to call people on volunteer board “liars”. It’s not good.
So Sean, I don’t think I’m on the “wrong” side because I didn’t object to this project or even express an opinion about the project. However, I continue to be seriously concerned about how we communicate with one another about our differences and our inability or unwillingness to find common ground.
@Jane: Great Comment. Totally agree.
Jane, I agree with much of your point, except “there is no wrong or right side to any issue”. You don’t really mean that, do you?
I was talking about anger people express about common municipal issues and frankly, I thought that came through in my statement. I hear an acceptance of incivility and disrespect that appears to have filtered down to the local level from the national level. Obviously larger moral/ethical issues require a response.
Jane, we can’t blame Trump for this. Some people have been nasty about local issues in Newton for as long as I can remember. Property and traffic issues in particular seem to hit a nerve most easily. (Your suggestion that a public official made a “derogatory” statement, however, still seems unfounded) When the threats and outrage come from your own neighbors or is aimed at part-time elected officials, also members of our community, it is in some ways more disturbing that what happens on the national scene.
Adam – I agree that it’s more disturbing when the outrage comes from neighbors or local leaders. It goes to the heart of the question, “What kind of community do we want to be?”. My comments in this thread referred to a link to this 2012 thread in which I commented on the growing lack of civility, but they are hardly uniquely perceptive – you can read about this concern at all levels almost daily.
My main point was that the lack of civility silences the more residents than it empowers and has diminished our ability or willingness to find common ground on issues facing the community.