One of the benefits of my style of blogging is that I can sometimes be cross-inspired. In this case, the visit
to the Kennedy/Lincoln schools brought back a lot of old memories. But it's also a spectacular photo location. I visited the
site twice and may be back for more.
A crest over the front door (Harvard Street) of the Lincoln Junior High
The Kennedy school entrance sign
Inside the front balustrade of the Lincoln
Window hangings on the Kennedy school windows
One of two front entrances to the Lincoln
As I said, I'll probably go back and try to get more because it's a really interesting location. So if you
see me out there with a tripod and a rocket-blower around my neck, stop by, say hi, but please be aware that I am sometimes
under tremendous time pressure either by my schedule or by the light, so I might not have much time to chat.
Robert Penta Heats Up A Parking Problem in South Medford
If you were to move from, say, Somerville to Medford, you'd expect to have a much easier time parking, wouldn't you?
Well not if you move to South Medford in the old catchment for the Kennedy/Lincoln school complex. A few days ago, I received
a copy of a letter to Robert Penta from a concerned resident. I'm going to publish the letter and I did a little digging
to bring you the background to this story. Note, I've previously covered Robert Penta here and here.
This is the John F. Kennedy Elementary School on Harvard Street (photo from the Yale Street side). I know the building
well; I attended this school from 3rd through 6th grade. My mother also taught in the Kennedy School. The school itself has
been closed for a number of years as the city seeks a buyer for the property. That transaction provides a window to a problem
that exists in this community today: the availability of parking spaces. Here's the view of the other side of the schoolyard:
The Kennedy/Lincoln school complex hosted K-8 in two interconnected but self-sufficient buildings. The Kennedy school
housed K-6 and included its own gymnasium and stage. If memory serves me, K-3 were on the first floor and 4-6 on the second.
The Lincoln Junior High School was also a self-contained school with a theatre, cafeteria, indoor gym, library, vocational
classrooms (in the basement, of course) and use of nearby Tufts Alumni Fields for athletic practice. Long shuttered now,
it is slated to be sold along with the Kennedy school for conversion to a condo/affordable housing/studio mix-used residential
property.
Keep that line of cars fresh in your head as I show you the other property in the complex, the Lincoln Junior High School.
As you can see, there is a line of parking spaces running the length of the property (including both schools) on Yale
Street. At the time I took this picture, there were around 20 to 25 cars parked here. But if you walk the length of the run
and count the number of spaces (as I did), you will find that the capacity of this lot is more like 60 cars. The count cannot
be exact - it's not really lined properly behind the Lincoln and there are some other issues. But I believe it's between 55
and 60 cars with 60 being a realistic number. This is important because there is a lot of this going on:
These are some examples from Yale Street of the relative lack of driveway capacity. Not every house is like this, don't
get me wrong. But this is not a neighborhood where every house has a front to back driveway that can fit two to four cars. A
lot of residents have to park on the street. So these 60 parking spaces have probably been quite helpful to the community.
Perhaps that encouraged the conversion of units to rentals, but that's just speculation on my part.
OK, now the background is set. In the process of selling the property, that row of parking spaces (or the capacity it
represents) becomes negotiable between the city and the buyer. Some must be retained to support the community, right? This
is where Mr. Robert Penta comes into the story. He allows only 30 spaces for the site plan for the buyer. After what seems
to have been a vigorous debate, he allows ten more and calls it a compromise. By the way, let me point out a couple of nits in this news article, right from the opening line
...city officials this week gave their seal of approval to a proposal that would transfer the property to a Woburn
developer and give residents in the area additional parking.
The problem with this statement is that it is not additional parking, it's a net reduction in parking from the
situation today. There are 60 spaces today. The proposal calls for 40. That's a 33% reduction in the number of parking
spaces available.
Opposing resident’s opinions varied, as some wanted only 30 parking spaces, whereas others felt the city needed as
much parking as possible and suggested as many as 60 spaces.
This makes 60 sounds a little extreme, don't you think?
Anyway, back to Mr. Penta. He got YouTube'd taking a stand on parking in this neighborhood at a city council meeting
last week. You can watch the video below. I've transcribed it for you here as well.
My last comment is this. The old traditional South Medford neighborhood was made up of two family homes and they were
normally families - one, maybe two cars at the very most. Today, by today's standards between the absentee landlords and the
folks that are renting, there's multiple cars at those houses and it's like that throughout the entire city. But the city
of Medford should not be the accommodator to find parking spaces for people who are renting homes when in fact they are
transient. [applause by one person] They are transient. They're not Medford taxpayers. They may be paying the rent, but the
out-of-town landlord or the in-town landlord, he's paying the rent. --Robert Penta
Does anyone have any idea what Mr. Penta is trying to say here? Seriously, I've watched
this like eight times, transcribed it and I still can't figure it out. OK, pull up a chair, we're rolling with a line-by-line
look at this puppy.
The old traditional South Medford neighborhood was made up of two family homes and
they were normally families - one, maybe two cars at the very most.
So he's implying that back in the day, it was common for there to be only one car for
each two family home? I don't know when he's talking about, but every family I grew up around had a car.
Today, by today's standards between the absentee landlords and the folks that are
renting there's multiple cars at those houses and it's like that throughout the entire city.
This is where it gets confusing. There are two ways to interpret the first part about
the absentee landlords:
They don't live in Medford but they continue to keep cars parked at their Medford properties
They rent properties in Medford that cause people with cars to want to live in them
The conclusion is interesting too. There are just more cars per house everywhere in Medford.
So he's not just talking about South Medford anymore. He's generalized it. The underlying point is important. If there are
just more cars per house now generally, how is South Medford different from the rest of Medford? The answer is that South
Medford, in pockets like this one, has a lot more parking pressure than, say, the Lawrence Estates or Summit Road. I shouldn't
need to prove that, it's just obvious.
But the city of Medford should not be the accommodator to find parking spaces for
people who are renting homes when in fact they are transient.
This is the line that got Mr. Penta in a bit of hot water. Renters can't be generalized
in this way. Sure, there is the occasional party house of college students with four cars. But there are also families, working
professionals and so on. Furthermore, there are certainly homeowners that are more transient than some renters. For example,
I owned a house in Medford for about half the amount of time I rented an apartment in Somerville prior to buying. To generalize
renters as transient is a pretty harsh position to hear from the city government. It really sounds to me as if Mr. Penta does
not like transients, oops, I mean renters. If that's true, it's very disturbing.
They're not Medford taxpayers.
So a renter shouldn't expect help from the city because they don't actually pay the property
tax?
They may be paying the rent, but the out-of-town landlord or the in-town landlord,
he's paying the rent.
Huh? I'm assuming Mr. Penta meant to say 'tax' at the end of that, or it makes absolutely
no sense as all. If he did mean to say tax, it's still hard to figure out. The renter is dismissed, clearly, because they
only pay the rent, not the taxes.
All this seems to really be an aside from this unpleasant fact: the city has already
been providing 60 parking spaces to the community for some years now. By legislating a maximum of 40, Mr. Penta is reducing
the number of available parking spaces today. And if the issue is really about the composition of the residents, setting an
arbitrary reduction is not really helpful. If there is an anti-renter sentiment in the community then bring it out in the
open and let's all discuss it. That would be helpful.
Now this brings us to the letter. Kevin and Lori attended the city council meeting excerpted
above and had a strong enough reaction that they wrote this letter to Mr. Penta and subsequently asked me to publish it.
Dear Councilman Penta,
We attended the city council meeting on Tuesday the 25th, and we are extremely disappointed and insulted by your use
of the term "transients". We both attended the Kennedy Elementary and Lincoln Jr. High schools, and have lived in South Medford
for the past 39 years. We pay our excise and property taxes, and do not have children in the Medford public school system.
Moreover, like many property owners in South Medford, we do not have driveways to park in; therefore, we must park on the
street. Your characterization of all residents that park on the street as transients has to be one of the most misinformed
and demeaning statements we have ever heard from an elected official. We do not consider ourselves as transients, just law
abiding, tax paying citizens, who feel our City Council should and must assist in relieving the parking situation we face
on a daily basis. Before you make statements like this, maybe you should drive around South Medford, and take note of how
many homes do not have driveways for the owners to park in.
Furthermore, some of the residents who spoke last Tuesday evening in support of fewer parking spaces at the Kennedy-Lincoln
school site, whom you fully support, are the same individuals who allow their tenants to park on the sidewalk at the end of
their driveways. If parking is not a problem, then why do they allow their transient tenants to block the sidewalks rather
than park on the street? This causes a public safety issue, as residents in wheel-chairs, parents with children in strollers,
blind persons using canes as well as people walking their pets are forced into the street because they can not get around
these cars that are blocking the sidewalks. We have begun to call the police to have these violators ticketed, and we are
so glad to see that the Medford police take this public safety issue seriously, and have responded quickly to our calls. At
the very least, we feel our tax dollars are working for the safety of all our fellow residents in the neighborhood, rather
than just a few that you feel the Council should support.
Finally, there are on average more than fifty cars parked on the Kennedy-Lincoln school site on a daily basis, and
this number increases significantly during the winter months, when street parking is reduced to single side only. Prior to
lending support for fewer parking spaces for the proposed development of this site, as voted on by a majority of the residents,
you should have visited the site on an evening or weekend and counted how many cars are parked there. I would expect a member
of the City Council to make an informed decision, prior to determining how many parking spaces are appropriate for the residents
of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Kevin McNeil and Lori Ksiazyk
Now you have heard most of what I have to say on the topic. In telling this story, I have focused on the street-parker's
side, but there are many points of view out there. Given the opportunity, I'll blog those as well.
Use the feedback page if you have comments, feedback, corrections or opposing views.
Found 'em. The shovels, I mean. Ah, I forgot to tell you, in reference to my last story, that when I returned to find the branch broken, the shovels were gone. So I took a little look around and found a whole
bunch of stuff, including the shovels.
So now you want to know what else I found? Well, chairs. Chairs and a table. Empty beer cans, lots of them.
Most likely thrown over the favored shoulder upon completion from the aforementioned chairs after having rested on the aforementioned
table.
Some people. Specifically: cyclists, dog walkers, kayakers, motorboaters and anglers in boats.
Lots and lots of bugs (I took pictures of some of those).
A canoe.
Receipts from a weekend trip to a store for junk food and several corresponding empty wrappers fluttering
about.
And twice while I was there, I heard the squawking of Canadian geese and looked over to find them flying through
the sunset. This is the most interesting of the shots. Maybe not the best, but there's a lot going on.
Lower Mystic Lake just before sunset, from somewhere on the Medford side...
CAUTION: Do not take pictures of the sun (as shown above) unless you know what you are doing. Look, it's bad
enough to look into the sun with your naked eye. Don't put a precision optical magnifier in front of it - like a telephoto
lens - and then look through the finder at the sun. Not only can you really damage your eyes, but that strength of light can
damage the imaging chip in a digital camera as well.
In taking this photograph, I took a number of precautions to protect both my eyes and the camera. These included
not looking at the sun through the viewfinder, not putting my eye as close to the viewfinder, looking through the viewfinder
from an angle, only including the sun in the frame when actually taking a picture and so on.
Nine days ago, I did a quick shoot in the woods in the Mystic Lakes. Someone had hung a bunch of sand shovels
on a tree and I worked it over because I wanted a good black & white source print for some other work I'm doing. Then
I noticed a whole lot more going on than I had seen before. There was a rusty flip-top tab from an old can hung carefully
on the branch in front of the shovel. Shovel, new. Rusty flip-top tab, very old. Chances that it was hanging there
and someone hung the shovel while allowing it (deliberately or inadvertantly) to stay in place? Probably very low. And the
kicker is that up at the tip, there is a spiderweb strung up into the branches above. That's brand new.
The problem was that I didn't really see a combining theme, just a lot of juxtaposition of old and new and
so forth. So I picked the angle extremely carefully to include basically all the nearby elements keeping to a rule of thirds
kind of approach overall. I also bracketed focus a bit - things never looks truly accurate on the LCD. Out of this series
of exposures emerged this shot.
So as you can see, as a source for, say checking your printer, it's not too shabby. It's got a broad range with specular
highlights and shadows to black in it. It has a lot of different textures and shades, from detail to bokeh. But still, I didn't
see enough there to pursue it much beyond that.
Today I was back in the same spot though, and this is what it looked like.
This was not the only change in this neck of the woods. It was actually a bit strange. But I can't tell that
story without pictures, so maybe tomorrow if you are lucky. In the meantime, I will draw your attention to this: It's not
just that the branch has been further broken, it's also the eery absence of the vines. Whoever whacked that branch probably
hit the trunk of the tree so hard in the process they clean took off all the vines in the area (which may have been dead anyway,
I don't remember). I'm not making a value judgment here, I'm just trying to follow the photo.
