City Council Candidates Face Off in Forum

Promising to slash the number of city parking spaces and flashing dramatic maps of destroyed trees, 16 city council hopefuls vied for the votes of Cambridge’s large liberal contingent at a forum on the environment last night.

The forum, sponsored by the environmental organization cambridgegreen.org, brought a 40-strong crowd of tie-dyed clad, birkenstock-wearing residents and representatives from Cambridge environmental interest groups.

Six council incumbents and 10 challengers—an unwieldy crowd that necessitated two consecutive panels—broadcast their commitment to the environment.

In all, nine incumbents and 11 challengers are competing for seats on the council this November.

Several candidates pledged to discourage car use in Cambridge by cutting the number of city parking spaces and pushing for construction of more retail stores within walking distance of residential areas.

“We need to get people out of their cars,” said candidate Craig Kelley, adding that the city should “massively limit” parking in a planned residential development in North Cambridge.

Kelley even went as far as to suggest that the parking spaces at city hall for city council members be removed.

Some candidates, however, took a more moderate approach to the questions, reminding their listeners of economic and social constraints to environmental action.

“We cannot think for a minute that we are going to yank people out of cars,” said hopeful Ethridge King.

King stood alone on the first panel—comprised mostly of challengers—because of his more conservative approach.

The pro-environment rhetoric was dramatic, particularly on the first panel, with candidates suggesting everything from more zipcars to a new city employee to serve as Cambridge’s environmental czar.

“If the human world is going to survive, we have to live within our ecological limits,” challenger Laurie Taymor-Berry said.

“Without the environment, there is no us,” said council hopeful Aimee Smith, a member of the Green-Rainbow Party.

By far the most fiery candidate at the forum, Robert LaTremouille, best known for his long-running campaign to protect the city’s geese, directly attacked Cambridge’s city manager.

Boldly calling himself the city’s “zoning expert,” LaTremouille declared he had “the most experience defending the environment in the City of Cambridge than anyone else running for city council.”

“These people are doing exactly the wrong thing,” LaTremouille said of the council incumbents. “I’m doing exactly the right thing and I want to keep doing the right thing. Cambridge has a strikingly terrible city manager. Fire the city manager so we can get decent people in our government.”

When several candidates bashed rooftop mechanical devices for their polluting emissions, Mayor Michael A. Sullivan said some mechanical devices—like air conditioners—“save lives.”

“I don’t want ordinances saying ‘no rooftop mechanicals,’” he said.

Rather than making bold environmental claims or attacking Cambridge’s environmental situation, the incumbent candidates largely defended their own records and offered an optimistic view of the city’s environmental condition.

“Danehy Park is the nicest open urban space in the Commonwealth,” councillor Anthony D. Galluccio said.

In response to calls for more open space, several candidates—including Sullivan—argued that the city’s top priority should be protecting parks Cambridge already owns.

“We keep acquiring and never preserve,” he said.

Councillor E. Denise Simmons also tempered her support for open space by pointing out what she said was an equally-important need for affordable housing.

Karen Carmean of cambridgegreen.org, who organized the forum, said she was pleased with its results.

“I thought we really gave them a lot to think about,” she said. “I already saw some very concrete results.”

—Staff writer Claire A. Pasternack can be reached at cpastern@fas.harvard.edu.