MAAB holds hearings re City of Cambridge sidewalks at Erie St, Pearl at Decatur St, Green at Hancock St.

I filed several complaints against the City of Cambridge for repairing, reconstructing, sidewalks in violation of both State Safety Code and the ADA. The City replied by assigning an attorney to defend the indefensible. Spending our hard earned tax dollars to fix the sidewalks wrong. The City tried to deny the Access Board had jurisdiction.

The photo above and the two below are snapshots of the site visit the Access Board conducted in the face of the City's stonewalling. Please see state law on this...

Chapter 30A: Section 11B. Studies of state boards, commissions and authorities; notice to city or town affected
Section 11B. All state boards and commissions and the governing boards or bodies of all such authorities which conduct a study affecting or relating to the use of an area of a city or town shall notify the mayor or city manager, if any, of the city and the presiding officer of the city council, or the chairman of the board of selectmen of the town, of the study and shall invite their participation therein. No determination shall be made and no results of the study shall be released to the public until such notification has been given with a reasonable opportunity to participate in it.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/30a-11b.htm

Click on the photos to enlarge so you can see the site report.

The hearings will be held at the Mass Arch Access Board

One Ashburton Place, Boston MA

21st Floor...use the high rise elevator, second bank of elevators

One Ashburton Place is on top of Beacon Hill, around the block from the state house...take red line to park, walk up Park st, take right, then left along the side of the State House, then take a right at end of the block, and right across the street is One Ashburton Place.

Erie St at 3pm-3:30pm

Pearl at Decatur St at 3:30pm-4pm

Green at Hancock St at 4pm-4:30pm

Hope to see you there.

Quick fix crosswalk disapears during snow storm

The photo above shows the city of cambridg's quick fix of the Intersection of Pearl and Decatur street running up to the public hearing schedualled by the Mass Arch Access Board for the complaint I filed. The City has covered over the original crosswalk markings and added new markings, masking serious compliance issues.

The photos above and below, taken December 23rd, 10 days after the snow storm and 3 weeks after the fake crosswalk fix was executed. It shows that the sidewalk markings are already disapearing.

The photo above, Dec 27th, and the one below, Dec 31st, show more wearing away of the phony crosswalk, and of course, folks have no idea what to do with the heavy street snow the City plowed into the curb ramps that the abutters had previously shoveled. These photos were taken after the major snow removal opperation on Pearl St.

Your tax dollars are paying for this useless and unlawful work.

Should We Oppose The Use Of Ethanol As Fuel?

Hybrid Taxicab Hearing – The Cambridge License Commission will hold a public hearing on a proposal to establish a Cambridge hybrid taxicab program to be called “Cambridge Clean Air Cabs.” The hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 8, 6:00 pm, in the Basement Conference Room of the Lombardi Building at 831 Massachusetts Avenue. The proposals includes a commitment by Whole Foods Market to provide grant funds for $15,000 in 2007 and $15,000 in 2008 for grants of $5,000 per taxicab medallion to owners who convert to a hybrid vehicle and a hybrid taxicab medallion auction, the proceeds of which will be used to provide grants of $10,000 per medallion for conversions to hybrid vehicles. The License Commission is responsible for the issuance of hackney licenses in the city.

Should we oppose the use of ethanol as fuel when we mandate Hybrid Taxis? There has been quite a bit of research on this issue. Please do a google search for ethanol unintended consequences, and check it out.

Here are a couple I found of interest...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0727/p09s02-coop.html
http://www.uschambermagazine.com/content/070717.htm
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=291

Opposition To City's Motion for Reconsideration Submitted

Cambridge Mayor Ken Reeves and City Councillor Decker want to ban dogs, all dogs, including guide dogs for the blind, from public meetings In City Council because, they claim, the presence of a guide dog is a direct threat to the health of Councillor Decker, and is equivilent to the health threat of the presence of cigarrette smoke.

This issue has been previously reported on my blog, http://fromtheport.blogspot.com/.

http://fromtheport.blogspot.com/2007/02/will-city-of-cambridge-move-city.html

On Oct 16th, 2006, I agreed to change my seat because Councillor Decker had stoped taking her meds due to allergy testing the following morning. On Oct 30, 2006, when I arrived for the city Council meeting I went immediately to the agreed on seating. 45 min into the meeting, Councillor Decker interrupted the meeting, and, without calling for a recess, told me I had to leave the meeting or she would have me removed. The reason? She was not taking her allergy meds due to testing the following morning.

The Chair, who is Mayor Reeves, blamed me for interrupting the meeting. Please note, I do not have the power to call for a recess myself. He called for the police to have me removed. Then Councillor Decker then returned to her seat and called for a recess, which Mayor Reeves granted.

In the interest of time, please see wnat transpired in the story at From The Port. briefly, I filed a disability discrimination complaint with Mass Commission Against Discrimination, MCAD, after it was reccomended to me to do so by an important and well respected leader in Cambridge. The City responded with a Position Statement, and I had to write a Rebuttal. I submitted my rebuttal in spring 2006, it is 60 pages and an additional dozens od documents in exibit as evidence.

The photo above is my rebuttal.

In Oct 2007 the Commission issued a finding of Probable Cause and set a date for a settlement. If the parties can settle, then a hearing can be avoided. However, the City responded with a Motion For Reconsideration of the probable Cause Finding, early November. I have just submitted my Opposition on Jan 2, 2008.

At issue is wether or not the presence of guide dogs, service dogs, can be considered a direct threat equivilent to cigarrette smoke.

So, what do you all think? This is not being decided by legislation, public opinion nor a vote by City Council. It is an action by tw0 people, mayor ken reeves and Councillor Decker, who believe that the presence of service dogs in a public meeting is dangerous to the health of people. It is somewhat frustrating that the same councillor does not see leaf blowers as a health threat.

We await now, for the decision of the Commission on this motion. I will keep you updated as best I can.

City of Cambridge's ADA Self-evaluation given reprieve In City Council Monday night!

The City of Cambridge was required to conduct a Self-evaluation by the Department of Justice, as spelled out in Public Law 101-336, the Civil Rights Act of 1990, otherwise known as the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Section 35.105 Self-evaluation.
(a) A public entity shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modifications of any such services, policies, and practices is required, the public entity shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
(b) A public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments.
(c) A public entity that employes 50 or more persons shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection:
(1) A list of the interested persons consulted
(2) A description of the areas examined and any problems identified; and
93) A description of any modifications made.
(d) If a public entity has already complied with the self-evaluation requirement of a regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilition Act of 1973, then the requirements of this section shall apply only to those policies and practices that were not included in the previous self-evaluation.

EFFECTIVE DATES

Requirement
1. Designate a Responsible Employee as ADA Coordinator 1/26/92
2. Provide Notice 1/26/92
3. Establish Grieveance Proceedure 1/26/92
4. Conduct Self-Evaluation completed by 1/26/93
5. Develop Transition Plan completed by 7/26/92
6. Complete Structural Changes completed by 1/26/95

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF COMPLIANCE PROCEEDURES

Three-Phase Process

Phase I: Planning for compliance
Phase II: Conducting the self-evaluation
Phase III: Implementing modifications

The three phases are not chronologically distinct. Phases II and III, in particular, overlap extensively. Discriminatory policies, practices, and procedures identified in the self-evaluation should be modified as soon as possible, even before the self-evaluation is completed.

On Monday evening the City Council, on a voice vote, referred the City Manager's report back to City Council, re requesting that the City's ADA Self-evaluation be placed on the City's web site, to next year's City Council and placed the matter on unfinished business.

Thanks to everyone who is helping with this.

Senior Computer Lab closed most of the day

The Computer Lab at the Senior Center in Cambridge, MA. has two rows of computers, making a total of ten. We have three printers.


This photo was taken at 1:12pm, after several folks came in to the lab, only to be disapointed because it was closed. IE, not staffed. The pool room ajacent to the computer lab is open, however, as staff need not monitor the pool tables.


The hours of the city of Cambridge's Senior center computer lab are quite limited. Currently they are Mon: 9am-12 and 3pm-5; Tues: 1-3pm; Wed; 1-4:15pm; Thurs: 9-11:15am; Fri: 1-3pm; and Sat 9:30 -11:15am. Actually, they are sometimes cut short, because, in most cases it is volunteers who staff the computer lab. Sometimes the lab time will be cancelled without notice, whit seniors who arrive, expecting to be able to check their email, without access. Total schedualled hours this week = 16 1/4 hrs!!!

The Sr Center is closed Friday afternoons, which we used to have access to the computers from 1-4;30pm. There are schedualed computer classes on some mornings: this week for 1 1/2 hrs on Wed and informally on Friday morning.

The computer lab at the Sr center is a great resorce and provides acces to the web, email, education, keep in touch with family across the country, and world wide, access to City Council meetings, and other city services and programs, information, entertainment, photography, etc. We have 10 computers, which are usb capable, and 3 printers, one blk and wt, and two colour. This is truely a wonderful recorce, but....

What a shame that it goes to waste most of the time. Out of a possible 48+ hours, the lab is available less than 1/3rd the time. I have many times observed seniors come to the center expecting to be able to use the computers, only to discover the schedual on the black board, showing when the lab is open. Most folks are surprised, and have expressed frustration. But seniors don't want to complain, they don't want to be a burdon.

Perhaps the city could solve two "problems" with one program? Why not employ youths part time one afternoon per week each, to keep the lab open, and provide quality employment for students with computer skills? why not seek a private partnership to "fund" this worthy effort? gee, how much could it cost? Lets see, @10 per hour, from 2pm-5pm, that is 3 hours, 5 days a week, that would be, oh my, $150.

Would providing the necessary resorces to staff the Senior Center lab fully, so seniors can access the computers even as folks who play pool have access to the pool tables be such a burdon to the City of Cambridge? Are we that poor?

Is Cambridge Really the Most Walkable City??

The Cambridge Chronicle has a story on their web site, see link below, reporting about the "survey" done by the AARP. However, as yopu can see in my comments, it is not the survey done by the AARP that is relevant, but the survey done by the Mass Architectural Access Board that counts. The City of Cambridge has been maintaining or sidewalks in violation of Mass State Safety Code for years, and we have been paying for this faulty work.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/homepage/x1633042978

Here is the comment I left on the Chronicle's blog...

The City of Cambridge has been ignoring both the Mass State Safety Code and the Federal Standards mandated by the Americane With Disabilities Act of 1990 for years now. Even after
I, and others, complained to the City in writing, and in testimony at various hearings, the City continued to reconstruct and maintain the sidewalks in violation of regulations and standards.

Many folks fell and suffered serious injuries during this period of trying to get the City to repair and maintain the sidewalks legally. The City, even with injured folks coming to City Council meetings to testify, continued to defy all laws governing how sidewalks should be reconstructed or maintained. Therefore, last year, March 2006, I began filing a series of Mass Safety Board complaints with the MAAB. In order to review such complaints, the MAAB must determing jurisdiction. To do that they request information from the City, namely, the date and permitting records for the most recent alterations of the sidewalk complained about. When a City allows a sidewalk to be dug up, and concrete or bricks removed, and a new surface to be installed, a permit should be issued. These records, when they are kept by the City of Cambridge, are kept by date and not be location, making it exceedingly hard to "find."

However, it seems that the City of Cambridge never issued permits for the illegally repaired sidewalks, because, as was explained to me, "We paid for it out of the minor repair budget." I was told that because they used the minor repair budget, the alterations didn't trigger compliance with safety board regulations. However, the City is wrong. It is the extent of the work performed, and not the budget that was used to pay the contractor that is at issue. After all, why would the Taxpayers want to pay millions of dollars to fix our sidewalks, and do the work wrong, so pedestrians safety was still a problem?

In spite of the City's failure to issue or "find" permitting information, I was able to supply the Safety Board with enough factual information, including photos, so the Board was able to determing jurisdiction in half the complaints I filed. The City continued avoid the issue, and finally the Safety Board came to Cambridge and surveyed the sidewalks in question. Result? Many outstanding violations. Although the AAPD may be wellmeaning, they may lack the expertise, and the knowledge of safety standards, and access standards required by both State and Federal Law, therefore, it is not the AAPD survey that is important, but the survey conducted by the MAAB that is relavent.

The MAAB ordered the City of Cambridge to fix the bad sidewalks by december 1, 2006, and provide photos, or a plan to prove the violations were corrected, or impossible to correct. To date, the City has not complied with the MAAB's orders. I will update folks on this issue on my blog, at http://fromtheport.blogspot.com, or my All About City Council blog at http://votekathy.blogspot.com.