The MAAB ruled against the City, which has until March 7 to explain how it intends to comply with State regulations.

The City attorney’s denial that MAAB had jurisdiction over the sidewalks did not go over well with the Board, so he withdrew that objection. He then claimed the City did not have records of sidewalk repairs because they were so minor; and as such, should not trigger compliance with MAAB regs. Days later, it turned out that the City did have records, after all.

The Board ruled that the complaints had merit and ordered the City to present a plan for compliance or request variances. Board member Myra Berloff noted that sixty days was a generous amount of time to submit variances, and that the City would also need to submit contracts and proposed construction dates.

The City has been wasting tax dollars on sidewalks which had to be reconstructed because they ignored disability civil rights laws. That’s why I filed a complaint with Cambridge Inspectional Services, and a series of complaints in Spring 2006—two years ago—with the MAAB.

MAAB—with the Department Public Safety—is charged with enforcing Chapter Eleven of the State Building Code, .   The City, instead of stipulating they would correct the faulty work, assigned an attorney to fight compliance. Almost before the ink was dry on the January 7 decision, the City filed a motion to reopen the hearings, claiming they hadn’t had enough time to submit records to the board, and only recently found them.

The “discovery” of the records was an interesting admission. In June, 2006 I had filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) that the City was unlawfully withholding those very records to avoid their use in MAAB complaints. In a sworn statement submitted to the MCAD, the City wrote that “It is the case that City controlled projects often times do not result in the generation of excavation permits and therefore the City does not keep records of all excavation permits for City controlled projects.”

The City’s motion to reopen the hearings cites MAAB’s decision not to accept jurisdiction over a sidewalk at Salem and Watson Streets. MAAB had been unable to determine jurisdiction because it could not determine when the City had done the temporary repair, or even whether the City had done it at all, since the City claimed they had no records of repairs at this location. The City interpreted the MAAB decision as proof that the Salem Street sidewalk and curb ramp are therefore compliant. [See the photo below.]  

Nationwide, in the last decade 60,000 people have been killed walking or riding wheelchairs in the street. One million have been seriously injured. 

Sidewalk access is a necessity of life for seniors and Persons With Disabilities to move around safely and be able to get to school, work, and participate in other basic social and civic activities. Failure to maintain the sidewalks according to State and Federal standards is unlawful discrimination based on disability and age—a violation of civil rights.

Since 1961, there has been technical guidance on making sidewalks accessible, and a series of updated mandatory requirements since that time. However, the City of Cambridge has continued to repair, reconstruct and maintain sidewalks in violation of both the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the State Safety Code. 

The City has even claimed that, legally, the public sidewalks are not a service provided by the City. As mandated by ADA, by 1993 the City should have completed a self evaluation of all programs, services and activities, and developed a transition plan to eliminate access barriers. A committee should have been formed to address this process, offering an opportunity for public comment. To date the City has not done this.

In October, 2005, the City Manager responded to a City Council request for an update on ADA compliance by implying that, of 3,940 curb ramps in the City, only 109 remained to be brought into compliance. “DPW together with the Commission for Persons with Disabilities will develop a plan to prioritize the repair of these noncompliant curb ramps over the next few months,” he said. 

In fact, neither the City’s Sidewalk Inspection and Minor Repair Program, nor its Pedestrian Ramp Survey, comply with Federal or State standards. This constitutes a pattern and practice of civil rights violation.

There is no sign that the City is about to stop these obvious violations of safety code and Federal civil rights law.

At the January 10th meeting of the Cambridge Commission on Persons with Disabilities (CCPD), Assistant DPW Commissioner Owen O’Riordan presented a Five Year Street and Sidewalk Plan for Improvements which doesn’t comply with MAAB regs or the ADA Standards. I objected vigorously to this plan and listed specific deficiencies. Not for the first time, my comments were omitted from the minutes of the meeting.

At the Feb 14th CCPD meeting I again objected to this noncompliant plan, and to the omission of my comments in the minutes of the previous meeting. When it was moved that CCPD endorse the DPW plan, someone asked City ADA coordinator Michael Muehe, “What does endorsement mean?” He answered, “We do not have veto power over this plan.”

One commissioner observed the DPW had done a lot of work on this [noncompliant] plan, then voted to endorse it.