3 thoughts on “Council Round Up: Closing Little Greenough, Dispensary Moving, Public Arts Master Plan

  1. So the loads of open space (parks, bike/walking/jogging paths, a walking track, basketball courts, playgrounds, etc., not to mention canoeing and kayaking in the Charles) presently in and around Watertown and along the entire length (both sides) of the Charles River (with picnic grounds) from the Museum of Science to points west of Watertown are not enough, and so Watertown needs to shut down a connecting street?


    Are the present open spaces insufficient other than the desire of some people to copy the People’s Republic of Cambridge, which is really what’s going on here, let’s face it. Why not just attach Watertown to Cambridge?

  2. I hope the traffic studies are TRUTHFUL on the effects closing the street would have. When new big rental developments are proposed, the counts of traffic never seem to change or show that the traffic does increase, which we know is not true in many cases. People going east on Arsenal St. use this street to avoid the congestion at the next major intersection at Market St. On weekends when people have to run errands, I would think that street would be busier than during the week. I agree with Karen that we are often following what Cambridge does. I moved from Cambridge many years ago because of their policies and see them creeping into Watertown.

  3. Leave it to our esteemed town council members to even consider this nonsense. Closing off Little Greenough Blvd. (even if only for the weekends), is a waste of current infrastructure and resources.

    Denying access to motorists to an important and well utilized link between points north and south of here in order to accommodate the selfishness and desires of a small minority when there is already an existing network of cycling, jogging and pedestrian alternatives for them to enjoy is unreasonable. What more do they want?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *