Radcliffe Quad residents can rest easy, at least for now. The ordinance committee of the City Council voted last night to postpone a decision on a proposal which would fine students who cycle through the Cambridge Common.
Members of the Undergraduate Council attended the meeting to voice their opposition to the proposed ordinance amendment which would levy a $50 fine on anyone caught riding a bike in the Common.
City Councillor Sheila T. Russell proposed the amendment in response to several complaints from elderly people, who have long voiced concern over bicycles careening through the public park.
"There is a degree of frustration among people who live around the Common--they feel attention should be paid and that the Cambridge Common should be for pedestrians," said City Councillor Francis H. Duehay '55.
Signs prohibiting bicycling in the Common have been present for years, but no ordinance exists to enforce the placards.
Undergraduate Council Chair Malcolm A. Heinicke '93 lobbied the city for a pathway through the Common, saying that "It would not take a great deal of effort to widen the paths" to accommodate both bikers and walkers.
The Undergraduate Council distributed flyers in the Yard yesterday opposing the proposed ordinance and urging students to attend the City Hall meeting.
Heinicke and Bicycle Committee member Rebecca Hall both proposed a bike path around the perimeter of the Common, if an internal route was deemed unacceptable.
Duehay said that a perimeter path was "potentially an idea that ought to be looked at," leaving the actual area Most of those who spoke during the hearing didnot express a desire to prohibit bicycling in theCommon altogether. Only three people spoke infavor of the ordinance in its present form. "Of course traffic is exasperating becauseHarvard has to put more students in Radcliffe[Quad]," said Thomas Synnott, a long-time ConcordStreet resident, who supports the proposed fine. "I am merely a neighbor who likes kids andHarvard students whose lives are in jeopardysometimes," he added. Banning bicycles would create a much greaterconfrontation--one between city drivers and thecyclists on Mass. Ave. and Garden Street, saidHeinicke. The streets around the Common are moredangerous than other Cambridge streets, saidAndrew J. Rubel, a member of the BicycleCommittee, a citizens group. "I think we can come up with a solution in thenext couple of months," Rubel said. "The ordinancewould cause more animosity." The Bicycle Committee invited the UndergraduateCouncil to join them and other people who live inthe vicinity of the Common in attempting to draftan alternative proposal before the City Councilreconsiders the amendment to the ordinance inFebruary. Duehay praised Heinicke and the other studentswho attended the meeting. "I welcome the involvement of the UndergraduateCouncil in the affairs of the city of Cambridge,"Duehay said. "I hope that this is only thebeginning." In other news, the Council also voted to tablea separately proposed fine of $100 on anyindividual who intentionally lets his or her dogswim in Fresh Pond. "All precautions should be in place to ensurewater quality," said Nancy E. Barnes, the managingdirector of the Water Department. Fresh Pondsupplies much of Cambridge's drinking watersupply. As the hearing progressed, attention shifted tothe maintenance of the fence surrounding thereservoir, rather than banning dogs who duck underthe fence to swim in the pond. Water Department personnel have authority toenforce existing laws regulating dogs, but lackthe training and enforcement capabilities to backup the law, said Deputy City Solicitor DonaldDrisdell. "There's no point in our spending a lot of timewriting a sensible ordinance if it cannot beenforced," said Duehay.
Read more in News
All That Glitters Is Not Marigolds
