Logan Affordable TOD Opponents Discuss Their Concerns, Proponents Clap Back

Rendering of the affordable TOD as seen from the Longman & Eagle sidewalk cafe on Schubert.
Rendering of the affordable TOD as seen from the Longman & Eagle sidewalk cafe on Schubert.

On Monday Lynda Lopez reported on a group called Logan Square Neighbors for Responsible Development. It launched as an LLC six days ago to oppose the current plans for a 100-percent affordable transit-oriented development on the Emmett Street parking lot, next to the Logan Square ‘L’ station. The next day I checked in with the people leading the resistance to the proposal, which currently calls for a seven-story development with 100 affordable units of various sizes. I also touched base with community leaders who have advocated for the development.

On April 24 at 6:30 p.m., there will be a community meeting on the project, which is being spearheaded by nonprofit developer Bickerdike Redevelopment Corporation and designed by Landon Bone Baker Architects, at Logandale Middle School, 3212 West George Street.

LSNRD was registered as an LLC by Josh Hutchison, the principal of 34-Ten Architecture, who in 2016 proposed an open air-market as an alternative use for the land. Hutchison and his wife Sarah Maxwell, a real estate broker with @properties, have lived across the street from the lot since 2012.

Josh Hutchison and Sarah Maxwell
Josh Hutchison and Sarah Maxwell

“Our big issue is that there wasn’t a standard [request for proposals] issued for the site,” Hutchison said. “We’ve been given one proposal.” He noted that the city of Chicago, which owns the lot, is planning to sell it to Bickerdike for $1. “It’s very problematic that citizens are expected to give up this very valuable and prime piece of land without any kind of competitive process involved.”

In 2014 the couple attended workshops, hosted by the Metropolitan Planning Council and then-aldermen Rey Colón, to brainstorm ideas for the lot, during which residents voiced support for building a development with 50-100 percent affordable units. “Yes, people wanted affordable housing, but they also wanted other things like public space, and they wanted a maximum of four or five stories,” Maxwell said. “Here we are at seven stories.”

The plans call for a wide, plaza-like sidewalk with seating on the northeast corner of the property. “A wide sidewalk doesn’t really qualify as public space in my view,” Hutchison said.

The couple also pointed to several other projects taking place in the area in the near future. About two blocks southeast of the lot, the former Logan Square Mega Mall site is being developed into the Logan’s Crossing development, with 220 apartments, 110 parking spots, and 67,000 square feet of commercial space, including a small-format Target store. About a block northwest of the lot, the former Pierre’s Bakery site will house a 60-unit building with four retail storefronts. And, as part of the Logan Square traffic circle redesign, the Chicago Department of Transportation plans to reconfigure the block of Kedzie Avenue next to the Emmett lot so that it intersects with Milwaukee Avenue at a right angle, instead of connecting with the circle.

The planned redesign of the Logan Square traffic circle. Image: CDOT
The planned redesign of the Logan Square traffic circle. Schubert Avenue, at the top of the map, becomes Emmett west of Kedzie. Image: CDOT

“It just doesn’t seem to make sense to rush a project of this size through so quickly without understanding the complications that are going to happen,” Maxwell said. “We take the Blue Line and we’re concerned about the impact on service. We’re concerned about sitting in traffic to get to our house because this wasn’t a well thought-out plan.”

Their Facebook page also states concern that the affordable TOD, which would include 20 parking spaces, would have too little parking “to support the community.” “There are are people who use [the Emmett lot] for monthly parking and we don’t necessarily have enough on-street spots to support that, so what happens to all those cars?”

The couple said they wouldn’t have a problem with reducing the height of the building, retaining some of the public parking, and adding some more public space, while keeping the project 100-percent affordable. However, they conceded that there might not be room for 100 units, including family-friendly ones, under that scenario.

I noted that many people might be tempted to label folks who are fighting plans for an affordable housing project across the street as Not In My Back Yard types. But the couple argued that the NIMBY label doesn’t fit. “There are close to 500 units of affordable housing within an eighth mile of our house,” Maxwell said, referring to apartments on the south side of Diversey Avenue with mostly Latinx tenants. “We really like where we live. We like the diversity. If we were opposed to affordable housing, we wouldn’t live here.”

“We’re not opposed to the project,” Hutchison insisted. “We’re opposed to the process.”

Aerial view of the building from the southwest.
Aerial view of the building from the southeast. Milwaukee Avenue is to the left, and the new block of Kedzie if to the right.

Juan Sebastian Arias, who manages housing initiatives for MPC, responded that maximizing the number of affordable units in the Emmett Street project is crucial for slowing the displacement of longtime residents as the neighborhood continues to gentrify. “Plain and simple, Logan Square is in dire need of affordable housing,” he said in a statement. “Escalating housing prices and unaffordable rents have exacerbated the already alarming rate at which Latinx families are being unjustly displaced. In fact, since 2000, over 20,000 Latinx Chicagoans have left the community.”

“Without intentional efforts to be a more equitable city, we will only exacerbate our existing inequalities,” Arias added. “Supporting affordable housing in Logan Square is one of the ways we can counter segregation and the inequalities it perpetuates.”

Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa
Alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa

Christian Diaz, lead housing organizer for the Logan Square Neighborhood Association, argued that, contrary to Hutchison and Maxwell’s claims, the evolution of the Emmett Street lot plan has been “a very democratic process.” He compared it to the MiCa towers, a mostly upscale TOD development neat Logan Square’s California Station in the neighboring 1st Ward. “About 300 people showed up to the community meeting for that project to oppose it, but [local alderman] Joe Moreno approved the zoning change for it anyway.”

In contrast, Diaz said, 35th Ward alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, who will make the zoning decision for the affordable TOD, “seems to have always followed the feelings of nearby residents, especially those adjacent to [project sites].” He noted that that the April 24 meeting was announced three weeks in advance, residents will have the opportunity to vote on the project at the hearing, and feedback will also be collected online and through other channels for another two weeks afterwards. “If most residents oppose this project, Alderman Rosa will also oppose it.”

As for Hutchison and Maxwell’s fears of a parking crunch if more spots aren’t built, Diaz noted that a Center for Neighborhood Technology study of parking demand in the area found that the Emmett lot is typically 70-percent empty. In response to their claims that the project doesn’t include sufficient open space, he noted that the building will include meeting rooms and a rooftop garden that will be available to community groups, and that the Kedzie reroute will create a new pedestrian plaza just south of the building.

Diaz added that he finds it a bit fishy that Logan Square Neighbors for Responsible Development calls itself a nonprofit organization on its Facebook page, when it’s actually registered with the state as an LLC. Hutchison responded that the group is currently in the process of setting up as a nonprofit.

Screen Shot 2019-04-16 at 3.54.18 PM

Ramirez-Rosa told me he’s not surprised that Hutchison has formed a group to fight the plan, “since he has opposed the use of the lot for affordable housing for quite some time,” referring to the architect’s 2016 open-air market counter-proposal. The alderman argued that during the community input process for the upscale Grace Hotel, which is coming to the northwest side of the traffic circle, there were no complaints about a too-short approval process. “So I think it’s a bit disingenuous that that people are now saying that this process is rushed.”

Regarding Hutchison and Maxwell’s complaint about the height of the proposed TOD, Ramirez-Rosa noted that MPC has endorsed the project as being in line with the community’s wishes as expressed during the workshop series. In response to the couple’s fears about traffic and parking, the aldermen said that Bickerdike has coordinated with CDOT on the planning of the project, and the Active Transportation Alliance is supporting it.

As for the argument that the project lacks a “public component,” Ramirez-Rosa said, “100 units of affordable housing near the Blue Line is a public benefit in itself.”

“It’s difficult for a project to cater to everyone’s desires,” Ramirez-Rosa added. “I think this is a well-balanced plan.” He noted that while some neighbors requested that the first level of the building be largely comprised of parking spots, that would have greatly raised the cost of construction.

The townhouses along Emmett street.
Rendering of the TOD looking southeast on Emmett street.

But he pointed out that, in response to a request from Logan Square Preservation, the side of the building that faces the single-family homes on Emmett will featured duplexed townhouses with three bedroom, two bathroom units and front yards. “I look forward to the day when the [townhouse] tenants will have a block club party with people from the single-family homes,” he said.

But right now, Ramirez-Rosa argued, Hutchison and Maxwell aren’t being very neighborly. “It’s a little disingenuous for people to put forward strawman arguments. If folks are opposed to 100 units of affordable housing being there, they should just say so.”

  • Carter O’Brien

    There are some inconsistent statements that the proponents should address regarding displacement. In every comment thread on FB, requests for transparency regarding how this project will actually directly serve Logan Square residents at risk of displacement (or recently displaced) are being met with wishy-washy generalities and a sidestepping of the question.

    So let’s get everyone on the same page here just regarding the law – is it possible to actually steer existing residents meeting the income guidelines into some fixed % of these units?

    If not, that’s not a dealbreaker for me personally, because lower income people by definition often move frequently and providing housing stability is a good thing, especially when kids and schools are involved. But we should all know, and the project should be described accurately by everyone involved.

    Second, what about residents whose income grows past the guidelines? Do they have to move in order to free up space for others in need? Should they?

    Third, I personally think some assurances that kids are going to live here are warranted. The # of bedrooms all by itself is fairly meaningless and deceptive if actual families aren’t in the larger units. We shouldn’t be subsidizing the characters from Friends here.

    These are the questions that I as a long term neighbor have, as I’m sympathetic, but Chicago doesn’t have the greatest track record on the transparency front when it comes to city finances, much less fairness when it comes to privatizing public assets.

    The parking/traffic concerns are just ridiculous. Induced demand applies here – if we want less traffic congestion and a more walkable neighborhood, less cars and less parking are how that happens. Yes, some of these residents will certainly try fighting it out for very limited street parking, but if they get no permit parking privileges – and they should not in a building promoted as a TOD – their options will be very limited, with the people that truly need parking looking for a garage space to rent.

    Although I am loathe to lend any weight to the NIMBY arguments here, I have been saying for years that the TOD movement has been shooting itself in the foot by not actually demonstrating what the vehicle ownership of their occupants are. This project could be a great opportunity to include urban planners and students from UIC, DePaul, NEIU, etc. in long term studies that meet scientific standards. I’d like to see data on this actually made a requirement of the transfer of the property from the public to Bickerdike.

  • rohmen

    I’ll start by saying I don’t know the full answer to the question I’m going to raise, but I know enough that it may be an issue. I think when you get into restricting new affordable housing to current residents, you could potentially run up against discriminatory housing concerns. While LS still has a large Latinx community, it has a much smaller (especially when compared to total population numbers in the City) number of African-American residents.

    I’m not sure what happens legally if the project starts limiting applications to only current residents of LS only with regards to HUD and FHA housing discrimination policies. Maybe it’s a non-issue, but I also imagine there’s a reason affordable housing developments typically don’t add geographic limits (at least that I’m aware of) on applications as well. I had the same concerns with regards to the Grace Hotel CBA that was agreed to, which required a certain percentage of employees be hired from LS alone (and what impact that would have on other, qualified minority applicants given the demographics of LS).

  • I think that because of Fair Housing laws, you cannot reserve housing for a particular population based on current or previous location. (However, it is possible to reserve housing for senior citizens.)

    What Bickerdike can do, and I presume will do, is contact its existing and former residents, and anyone on its wait list(s), to tell them that 100 new units are now open for application and that they can apply for it.

    I think the situation is similar to the John Pennycuff Memorial Apartments at Robert Castillo Plaza down the street near Armitage: It’s being billed as LGBTQ housing, but being queer isn’t a protected housing class in Fair Housing laws. The marketing as LGBTQ-friendly housing will serve as a way to deter queer-unfriendly people and attract queer people to apply for the income-restricted units.

  • Are you saying that Bickerdike should study and report out on the vehicle ownership rates of tenants in other buildings near train stations before the City sells Bickerdike the land?

  • Carter O’Brien

    No, I think the timetable for that would not be reasonable. I’m saying that some kind of tracking and reporting requirement should have been part of the TOD experiment all along.

    It would very much be in Bickerdike’s (and society’s) best interest to have some hard science supporting what is currently an untested and certainly unproven hypothesis. Transit advocates assume people living by L stops with less on-site parking will use CTA and not own cars and drive. That’s a hypothesis. Let’s prove it one way or the other so it isn’t a lightning rod of divisive debate for every bloody project.

    FTR, I’m not saying this as a nitpick, I’m saying this as someone who would like to see this entire debate be less anecdotal and subjective. If biking/public trans/ped advocates could actually demonstrate cause and effect and not simply correlation, I think people would be more prone to have faith in the system.

  • Carter O’Brien

    I think you and rohmen are almost certainly correct, thank you both for sharing additional insights.

  • dina

    “We’re concerned about sitting in traffic to get to our house because this wasn’t a well thought-out plan.”

    This NIMBYism is tedious and will be properly mocked by the next generation. You live in Chicago in a period of rapid climate change and income inequality. You shouldn’t be driving or trying to keep buildings small. We need affordable housing and denser housing, especially near public transit. We ALSO need good public spaces, but dense, affordable housing–not parking lots–makes them possible.

  • dina

    Here, let me Google (Scholar) that for you: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=46617591012968428

    See, e.g., Guo (2013, J Transport Geography) and Cullinane (2002, Transport Policy). Anecdotally, one reason I moved to Chicago and out of Hyde Park (to South Loop) was for the public transit access, which allows my husband and me to continue to be non-car-owners.

  • Carter O’Brien

    Your Google skills need sharpening. That is not a link to peer review studies on Chicago TOD projects. Re-read what I wrote, and please let me know if such studies exist, or link to the articles if those do.

    Google “most corrupt city in the United States” and “pay to play politics” if you don’t understand why especially in Chicago this matters.

    You can also check out Yonah Freemark’s recent paper for rather concrete evidence that TOD assumptions regarding zoning are not playing out as claimed in the real world: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1078087418824672?journalCode=uarb&

  • hakuna matata

    It’s fun to read about new, high density development in Chicago. A city that is losing population.

    It is the confluence of NIMBYism and cronyism run amok. Watching the pols and the assorted interest groups wrestle with each other make one shake their head. No wonder project don’t get done in reasonable time. Not to mention the costs of the process that get passed on to buyers.

    Far better from almost any perspective would be Tokyo or Houston style permissive zoning. Let developers develop to the highest use within reasonable and known constraints.

    And it’s not just in Chicago. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/04/california-affordable-housing-bill-sb50-single-family-zoning/586519/?utm_source=fbb

  • Gin Kilgore

    Just a quick though via memory not data and maybe this isn’t addressed to your parking question but I know of many bickerdike parking lots near and not so near train stops that are under under utilized. Carter you always bring up thoughtful open minded questions and I know they are being listened to as project proponents prepare for the meeting

  • Stan Quail

    I can’t stand CRR. His “you’re either with or against me” attitude reminds me of Trump.

  • Ellen Hayes

    Many concerns but one that I keep circling back to — how is Bickerdike finding the ‘affordable housing’ residents? Then, is it by lottery? By preference? By whim?

    This all sounds rather back-room-deal “Chicago Machine” which we are so in need of moving beyond.

    Why can’t Bickerdike provide more details? Asking for so much money from the city for a rather large (upward of over $30M) development that didn’t go through any RFP process is questionable. And this is before any shovel hits the ground.

  • Jeremy

    I don’t know the specifics, but it looks like the Department of Planning & Development runs the Affordable Housing program. I don’t see an application on their webpage, but people are probably referred there by charitable organizations.

    https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/affordable_rentalhousingresourcelist.html

  • paulrandall

    The only thing to be mocked is your arrogant attitude towards anyone with different ideas.

  • paulrandall

    Affordable housing for families is a great thing. But not in elevator buildings. Kids are hell on elevators and there is nothing worse than living 7 stories up when the elevators don’t work.

  • paulrandall

    If we take common sense measures to increase the amount of residential street parking, like limiting the size of loading zones, modifying curb cuts, combining hydrant locations with curb cuts we can squeeze 5% to 10% more parking spaces out of nearby residential streets. This will mitigate the impact of the loss of the leased residential parking for existing residents without costing much money. Of course the idea of adding parking are fighting words to anti car fanatics who would like a society where only the rich can afford to own cars.

  • Carter O’Brien

    I know lots of friends who grew up in high rises near the lake or downtown, I have never once heard elevator problems mentioned as a deal-breaker. If anything they are far better than on the top floor of a 3 or 4 story walk up. And this is where having an established and experienced organization like Bickerdike is a major plus, they aren’t going to skimp on elevator maintenance, this is core to their operations model.

  • Carter O’Brien

    Hi Gin – yes, I hope made clear that I don’t think it’s right for Bickerdike to have to jump through hoops nobody else getting TOD subsidies (TIF or zoning/density bumps) has had to.

    But I would think about this as a unique opportunity, we have world class universities here in Chicago and this is a really hot and contested topic. Chicago could show some real leadership if there were case studies other cities grappling with these challenges could point to. It would definitely also silence the people who are just so hung up on parking but otherwise support affordable housing/TODs.

  • johnaustingreenfield

    Keep the conversation civil, please.

  • dina

    I think “peer-review[ed] studies on Chicago TOD projects” is too high a bar. In my field of research (which has far greater impacts on well-being) we have to make policy decisions under less certainty than you are requiring for this project. People often assume the knowledge exists, but it doesn’t. And I study a major vaccine. Have to reason from multiple lines of evidence indirectly. That said, I totally respect arguments that this situation deserves special consideration.

  • dina

    My arrogance isn’t that comprehensive, but I apologize for the rant.

  • planetshwoop

    It’s even worse if you have to work with his office.

  • Nate Winters

    This project is a ridiculous scam on the taxpaying citizens of the neighborhood. How is spending $20 million of taxpayer money to fill 100 units of subsidize housing with people picked by lottery from other neighborhoods (where housing is much more affordable) a public benefit to the residents of this neighborhood in any conceivable sense? What about some public basketball or tennis courts that kids in the neighborhood could use?

  • Jeremy

    If it was announced this parking lot would be converted to public basketball courts, local residents would try to stop it due to noise concerns.

  • Lucius

    This looks like a totally appropriate infill project to me. I don’t understand the “we need public space” comment, there will be a big plaza across the street and an expanded park around the monument a block away. This block doesn’t need a “parklet” in the mix, it needs zero-lot line ground floor retail and housing or office above.

    Honestly some of the comments I’ve seen in the articles that have come out around this are so confusing. “I’m a neighbor, and I have trouble finding parking to go to the cleaners”. Why the hell are you driving and parking here if you’re a neighbor? If you are, that is the clearest analysis I’ve seen that parking is of no concern here and is, in fact, in excess of reasonable demand.

  • Carter O’Brien

    I think Freemark’s people is absolutely not a debate-settler so much as it is a warning sign that assumptions made in academic and planning sectors do not always play out as intended once they get put through the muck of uncertain behavioral variables in the real world.

    And I guess I wasn’t clear enough in that I am definitely not saying I think Bickerdike should be singled out here, just saying that as they are not a for-profit developer, they do have an opportunity with this project (or a future one) to contribute some real data to this larger debate by *testing* the hypothesis.

    But as for the bar to reach, it would be worth making the effort. We’re not talking about tax dollar/city assets chump change with these projects as one-offs. As was Everett Dicksen famously opined “A million here, a million there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.”

    I am fully on board with recognizing and exploiting CTA infrastructure. I have lived a 1/4 mile distance from an L stop my entire life with the exception of 5 years between Lathrop and Hamlin Park. I learned really fast what an annoyance it was to be dependent on the city’s two bunchiest and erratic buses to get east-west, and at least back then the bloody Damen bus stopped running on weekend evenings – which is right when everyone needed it, pre-ride-share. So when we went house hunting in 01, I literally put a 1/4 mile circle around a dozen or so train stops and we did not even look at any homes not in those circles. I am a pretty solid exhibit A regarding the underlying concept of TOD. But back to Freemark’s paper, I have never been sold on the stretch whereby TOD related zoning bumps were supposed to ease housing prices and rents as “competition diminished,” as it’s always been painfully obvious that such arguments are obsessing over widget-related supply curve concepts and are completely ignoring demand curve ones. New housing in a new bucket (luxury) = price increases. This of course should not have anything to do with this project, but it’s part of that larger issue of regaining public trust in what could and should be a thoughtful approach to planning.

    As for the air quality thing, I really don’t know. Air quality is awful in many very popular neighborhoods well served by transit, especially downtown. We have a ways to go as a society to start addressing “invisible” pollution.

  • Courtney

    There’s no reason housing AND a basketball court can’t be created.
    You know nothing of the lottery process and where these folks are coming from.

  • Courtney

    In the age of climate change and physical inactivity, the common sense approach would be to render the car as the last option for getting around. We should be prioritizing making it MUCH safer to bike in this city, speeding up our buses, and limiting on-street parking as much as possible. The future of life on planet Earth is at stake and you’re worried about parking? That’s why we’re in this mess. In 10-20 years when climate change will probably be much worse, we’ll be wishing we had done more to mitigate the effects.

  • Courtney

    Bickerdike is not “finding” the people, these people have gone through the proper channels through the city and/or state and elected to be part of the lottery system.

  • Austin Busch

    I think you will find moving the water main for the fire hydrant fairly costly, and disruptive to the neighborhood. It’s a lot of planning and digging for such a small benefit.

    Perhaps the cost could be balanced by charging an appropriate price to those who choose to use it? I’m sure residents would be happy to foot the bill if it means one or two extra spaces on their block.. /s

  • paulrandall

    Maybe you should ask someone who grew up in Robert Taylor Homes instead of the lakefront. One of the primary causes of elevator breakdown is vandalism by children. The easiest workarounds for this is by making sure that affordable public housing for families is located in walk up buildings with no elevators to maintain. Walkup building properly designed can achieve density of 45 units to the acre. Even with structured parking included.

    For this project architect Landon Bone Baker wisely included duplexed town homes for family housing. They won’t need elevators and those kids, hopefully won’t have access to the elevators serving the rest of the project.

    https://projects.bettergov.org/2018/trapped/neglected-elevators/

  • paulrandall

    Now that TOD buildings are coming on line I’d say the responsibility for a post occupancy assessment of vehicle ownership rates of residents in new buildings, built under the TOD ordinance falls to the MPC. They should do it because the new parking minimums in the ordinance were based on research they did and recommendations they made. I’d say this is essential.

  • Carter O’Brien

    I had classmates who lived in Lathrop Homes, Cabrini Green, and Sedgwick Gardens. I also used to carpool with a fella from Robert Taylor Homes back from UIUC. Elevator issues in CHA high rises were certainly a problem. But comparing this project to those situations? That says more about your biases than anything.

  • paulrandall

    Depends on where it is. And that’s not the only way to make room for more parking just the most expensive. City drivers already pay for the the right to keep a car in the city. Sticker taxes, RPD stickers, and gas taxes all pay for the streets everyone uses. Instead of reflexively throwing your hands up at the prospect of finding some new parking on the cheap, to replace part of what is being lost, try to approach the problem being created with an open mind. I surveyed the 6 blocks around a new building planned for Lincoln Park and was able to find at least 24 new spaces, an increase of 10%. If it gets rid of one of the neighborhood roadblocks to this project without impacting the design then why not take a look?

  • paulrandall

    Nothing about your approach that precludes replacing some of the lost parking on residential side streets through better organization of those streets. If you want the people who are paying most of the money for the streets to buy in to your argument then don’t completely disrespect them by dismissing the real negative impacts projects like this will have on them. Try to find solutions to problems that accommodate the needs of all community stakeholders instead of excluding ones you don’t like.

  • Courtney

    Actually, drivers don’t pay the true cost of driving. If drivers really want to fund the streets, a good .60-$1.00 increase per gallon of gas is needed. A tax per mile driven would be better.

    I really don’t care about the needs of drivers. I care more about the needs of EVERYONE who shares this planet who will be and is currently impacted by climate change. We cannot continue business as usual.

  • paulrandall

    Business as usual is characterized by attitudes like “I really don’t care about the needs of “……… (anyone who disagrees with me). If you want to build a coalition where all stakeholders buy in, then take a hard look at inclusive solutions that can accommodate the needs of more people.

  • Courtney

    Guess that whole climate change impacting EVERY living being on Earth just went past your head, huh?
    Quality of life on Earth > Parking

  • Lucius

    “mostly new Chicago residents”

    also, are new residents’ opinions less valid somehow? Exactly how long do i need to live in my neighborhood to be a full fledged member of the community? Is there a 3/5 clause or something I should be aware of when giving my thoughts about how we build a better city?

  • paulrandall

    It means that you respect the people in the place where you come to live.

  • johnaustingreenfield

    Well, I’m a so-called “anti-car fanatic” and I’ve been here 30 years.

  • Lucius

    respect is a two way street (and one that can exist even if we disagree whether there should be parallel parking along it!)

  • PeterG

    Has anyone discussing this been on the Blue Line lately? It’s sardine style all the time and way over any capacity it was built for. All these TODs should be stopped until space on public transport actually exists.

  • FredfromLogan

    Correct he is a liar and a racist. I personally witnessed his top aid make blatantly racist statements at a meeting. CRR’s response was that some other guy at the meeting was the real racist somehow because of Trump. Basically his program is bring his DSA friends in for meetings who don’t live anywhere near Logan and scream over anyone who has an opinion. Sadly even the DSA people don’t realize his only aim is to keep non-hispanic people out of Logan.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG