The city has spread misinformation about the project. Please read below for the facts, and email us if you have questions.
If the city chose Warfield, they must have a good reason, right?
How we wish this were true! But as we laid out in this opinion column, the city's decision was based on two factors: (1) An algorithm that put half of Warfield Place in the bottom 31% of streets; (2) A calculation that Warfield would be cheap. Yep, you read that right. Not traffic need (we get no through traffic) not complaints (the DPW admitted they haven't gotten any about our street), not resident desire (we overwhelmingly oppose it), and not the ADA (it's not a factor in the city's repaving selections).
Are the trees diseased?
No. Seven of the trees the city plans to destroy are 30-year-old Japanese Kwanzan cherry trees planted by one of our neighbors on Warfield. Both the city's arborist and an independent arborist estimate that the trees will live and bloom for five more years. Sure, they're older, but so are some of us! Why not let them live out the splendor of their natural lives? Replace them as they die.
There is no fungus or disease harming the trees. A few branches on the old Kwanzans died naturally, likely from the 2016–17 drought, and fungus now lives on those, which is normal and does not hurt the tree.
There are also three other trees slated for destruction: a younger Japanese Kwanzan cherry tree, a red bud tree, and a Montmorency cherry tree, all planted more recently by two other neighbors.
The city has provided no justification for killing these trees, apart from the DPW's desire to carry out a wildly unpopular repavement plan. Chopping down ten healthy, mature trees against residents' wishes makes no sense.
There is no fungus or disease harming the trees. A few branches on the old Kwanzans died naturally, likely from the 2016–17 drought, and fungus now lives on those, which is normal and does not hurt the tree.
There are also three other trees slated for destruction: a younger Japanese Kwanzan cherry tree, a red bud tree, and a Montmorency cherry tree, all planted more recently by two other neighbors.
The city has provided no justification for killing these trees, apart from the DPW's desire to carry out a wildly unpopular repavement plan. Chopping down ten healthy, mature trees against residents' wishes makes no sense.
Won't the city replant the trees?
The city's plan calls for killing nine mature trees and replacing them with two to three small saplings of 1" diameter. More recently, the DPW has said that they will "try to see" if they can plant more, but won't make promises, revise their plan, or let us meet with the tree warden. Removing ten mature trees at once will have devastating consequences for the street and the climate. With no shade, the asphalt will get hot enough to cause second-degree burns. The new trees will go on the opposite side (where the sidewalk is being ripped out), so they won't actually shade the new asphalt sidewalk. The city refuses to consider a different material, even though their Complete Streets ordinance and their Sustainability Plan call for other, porous, cooler materials.
Have you told the Mayor? I bet he'd listen.
We requested a meeting, and Mayor Narkewicz came to Warfield Place and met with us. Fifty neighbors showed up to voice their opposition to the plan. Zero people voiced support for the plan. The Mayor wouldn't budge. To be honest, we can't quite figure out why. On lots of streets, people are clamoring for repavement. We're begging for him to stop. He has the power to put the brakes on this. We very much hope that he will, but so far, he has not. Most recently, 18 of us spoke to city council. Our Ward 1 representative, Michael Quinlan, will not take a stand on the issue despite our reaching out to him numerous times.
Doesn't the city have to do this because of the ADA?
No. This is one of the ways that some members of city government have tried to obfuscate. The need for disability access was not a factor in their decision-making. (If it were, they would probably have chosen a street that actually gets people somewhere, such as the State Street extension, whose sidewalks are in much worse condition than Warfield's, and which leads to the bike path, downtown, Stop & Shop, etc.) But once the city decided to repave the street, they have to make the sidewalks ADA compliant. The width of the sidewalks actually complies with the federal ADA already. There are some cracks and bumps, sure. But nowhere near the terrible condition of other streets' sidewalks--streets that are actually thoroughfares. The DPW has admitted that the project is not motivated by accessibility concerns. If it were, they'd be focusing on a different street.
The city's plan also eliminates sidewalk access for two of our disabled residents, which will make it difficult for them to access their homes in the winter. We asked the city for a revised plan that will leave in tact the sidewalk on the opposite side of the trees. The city refuses, even though demolishing this "extra" sidewalk will cut off disability access and destroy our verge gardens.
The city's plan also eliminates sidewalk access for two of our disabled residents, which will make it difficult for them to access their homes in the winter. We asked the city for a revised plan that will leave in tact the sidewalk on the opposite side of the trees. The city refuses, even though demolishing this "extra" sidewalk will cut off disability access and destroy our verge gardens.
So you don't want the city to repave Warfield Place at all?
We would like the city to hit "pause" on this rushed, careless plan for now, and investigate better options. Many cities use new, permeable, sustainable surfaces that have cooler surface temperatures, allow for existing trees to remain, provide better accessibility, and help stormwater mitigation. Any plan to "improve" Warfield should be an actual improvement. An improved plan would be wonderful. But leaving the street untouched would be vastly better than the current plan. We would love to work with the city to improve their plan. So far, they have been closed to collaboration and will not listen to our concerns.
Can I see the city plan and what you think is wrong with it?
We are so glad you asked:
So what do you think is actually going on?
Pretty head-scratching, isn't it? We're a mixed-income street with mostly multi-family homes and we suspect that the DPW had some loose change for paving and wanted to pick a street where they could do a cheap, quick job and no one would complain. It's hard to imagine the city so flagrantly violating their own Complete Streets Ordinance and their own Sustainability Plan in a well-to-do area of the city. It's even harder to imagine them ignoring wealthier residents' letters to the Gazette, emails, phone calls, and City Council meetings.
If they really believed in this plan, it seems like they'd be willing to press pause and answer our questions about it, rather than trying to plow forward so hastily.
If they really believed in this plan, it seems like they'd be willing to press pause and answer our questions about it, rather than trying to plow forward so hastily.