Riverside Residents Feel Left Out

Residents of the Riverside neighborhood complained to the Cambridge City Council this week that they have been “kept in the dark” while city leaders and Harvard officials held talks over a controversial rezoning plan for the area along the Charles River.

The rezoning—which is due for a city council vote by Oct. 28—comes in the form of two plans.

The first was created by the Riverside Study Committee, a neighborhood group spurred to action by their opposition to an art museum Harvard planned for their neighborhood.

Calling the study committee’s plan too “punitive” to Harvard, the city’s Planning Board created their own plan, which allowed for more flexibility and somewhat taller buildings.

At the first council meeting of the fall on Monday, Councillors David P. Maher and Brian P. Murphy ’86-’87, co-chairs of the council’s Ordinance Committee—which traditionally hammers out compromises on zoning petitions—pledged to reach a decision on the neighborhood rezoning before the Oct. 28 deadline.

But during the public comment period, residents expressed their anger that they were not informed about meetings between councillors and University representatives in recent weeks.

The study committee members said they learned on Monday that councillors have been meeting in small groups with representatives from the University’s office of community affairs, Harvard planners, and two architectural firms who have been hired by Harvard to plan the development of two sites in Riverside.

“We have the impression at the present moment that we’re being kept in the dark,” study committee member Phyllis Baumann said.

She called on council members to commit to passing the study committee’s petition, known as the Carlson petition, unless a better compromise can be reached, and to provide written information about the plans being discussed with Harvard.

“You have the power to represent our interests,” she said. “You simply have to have the guts to do it.”

According to study committee member Alec Wysoker ’84, he and five others met with Maher and Murphy last Friday but were not informed about ongoing talks with the University.

“We didn’t hear anything about the substance,” he said after the council meeting. “All we heard about was the process.”

Last month, Harvard submitted written opposition to both petitions, saying the restrictions on building height and density would prevent them from developing their land holdings in Riverside, including the current Mahoney’s Garden Center site on Memorial Drive, where the University now hopes to construct graduate student housing.

Since Harvard is the largest land-owner in the area, their objection means that either petition now requires the vote of seven out of nine councillors to be enacted.

At the council meeting, Councillor Marjorie C. Decker—a Riverside native and one of the council’s staunchest advocates for the neighbors’ plan—said she “saw potentially very interesting things” in Harvard’s presentation but was concerned that there would not be enough time left to discuss the plans with neighborhood residents.

“We should not lose the opportunity to really thoughtfully explore some of these things because the process has been flawed,” she said.

Maher and Murphy initially proposed

holding public meetings later this month, but Decker urged them to schedule the forums sooner.

“I’m very frustrated with the way the process is moving forward at this point. I would be ready to vote on the Carlson petition right now,” she said, to applause from the Riverside residents in attendance.

In addition to Decker, Councillors Kenneth E. Reeves ’72, E. Denise Simmons, and Timothy J. Toomey, Jr. have pledged their support of the Carlson petition, according to study committee members.

With council elections coming up in November, neighborhood residents have said that they will throw their election day support behind councillors who push for the study committee’s plan.

Maher and Murphy emphasized after the meeting that they want to develop a compromise plan that will receive the votes of the necessary seven council members—rather than moving the process along faster only to have the petition voted down.

“My hope is that patience will pay off here,” Maher said.

The ordinance committee chairs’ key goals are to ensure publicly-accessible open space near the river and provide affordable housing for neighborhood residents, Maher said.

He added that there is no “hard and fast proposal” from Harvard on the table, but rather a framework that councillors will continue to discuss.

“We have heard a lot from councillors about the importance of open space, community housing, and appropriate scale,” said Harvard’s Senior Director of Community Relations Mary H. Power. “We are discussing concepts at this point.”

She said that the University hoped to work with the neighborhood under the process set by the Ordinance Committee.

“I’m optimistic that we will find a way to address these interests and also meet the University’s development objectives,” Power said.

The councillors voted to hold a working meeting next Monday at 7:30, after the regular council session, to discuss the Riverside zoning petitions. A public comment meeting will be held on Sept. 18 at 6 p.m.

In a late order sponsored by Decker, the councillors also voted to direct the city manager to provide funding for an independent counsel to provide advice on zoning.

“It’s really important that we have an objective, independent voice,” Decker said.

Members of the study committee said they would wait for more concrete details on the plans next week before they would decide how to move forward.

“We have to wait and see what the proposals are, and then the neighborhood needs to form a consensus about what we think of them,” Wysoker said.

—Staff writer Jessica R. Rubin-Wills can be reached at rubinwil@fas.harvard.edu.