CAPTION: Grove Street resident Moying Li.

Historian and business woman Moying Li lives with her husband Paul Marcus on Grove Street She was the author of the Beacon Hill Civic Association’s 75th Anniversary publication, “Beacon Hill: The Life and Times of a Neighborhood.”
Now, Li has written a memoir, “Snow Falling in Spring,” recently published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. In it she recounts her disrupted childhood in Beijing during the Cultural Revolution.
Li talked with The Beacon Hill Times last week about her book and her life as an educated woman with her feet planted firmly in two cultures, Chinese and American.

BHT: Why did you write this book?

Li: I blame my husband. I’m a private person, but I shared my stories with my husband, and he told me they were unique. And after I finished the Beacon Hill book, I was in the mood to write more. When I finally began to write this book my memory flowed.

BHT: I was surprised in reading this book that, while you recount many dreadful events that happened during the Cultural Revolution, your feelings are not bleak. How did this happen?

Li: People always ask me, “why are you not bitter?” I agree with the Daoist philosophy. The world is like two sides of the same rice paper. Before the Cultural Revolution there was one group in charge, one ideology. While the Cultural Revolution brought pain and suffering, both good and bad happened. We’ve had 30 years now to mourn and transcend it. Without it China would not have matured. Because of it, the younger generation is willing and able to think on their own. We’ve been able to distill valuable lessons and go beyond it.

BHT: For three years, you were able to attend one of the most rigorous schools in China. How did that come about?

Li: At the beginning of the 1960s, China resumed relationships with other countries. Diplomats with good language skills would be needed. They tested us. I was nine years old when I became part of one of the first groups to be admitted. I expected to stay for 10 years. We were assigned the best teachers in every subject, and they instilled in us a sense of curiosity and fun and provided us with an [effective] methodology. I had only three years of this solid education, until the summer of 1966, when the school closed, and after that the schools were unsystematic and choppy. But I am very grateful for those three years.

BHT: How did you remember so well the incidents from your early years?

Li: We were encouraged to keep diaries and I acquired a habit of writing. I started with something like an Anne Frank diary. My father has a photographic memory, and while I don’t have that, I do have a good memory. I would also verify incidents with my relatives and friends.

BHT: What has happened to those friends and relatives?

Li: My grandmother passed away in her 80s after I had come to America. Both my parents are still alive and living in China. My mother is 76 and has been studying English. My father is 78. They are eager to read the memoir after it has been translated into Chinese.
My brother worked for the Chinese consulate in San Francisco and Vancouver and is now back in China. My niece, a Russian major, will graduate from the same university as my brother and me and will be a volunteer at the Beijing Olympics this summer. She hopes to be with the Russian archery team.
Most of my closest friends are from those early days, and they are all over the world. My cousin who was a member of the Red Guard is retired, since women in China retire at age 55. She never got a chance to go to college, but she did move back to Beijing.

BHT: You did not hold it against her that she was in the Red Guard.

Li: No. I adore that cousin, and she admitted she supported them wholeheartedly, but she just happened to be there at the right time. The Red Guard seemed awful, but if you look at it from today you realize they were teenagers and didn’t know what they were doing. Mao encouraged them. They were victims as much as the rest of the population. I was too young to be a direct participant.

BHT: Americans might be surprised at your deep grief when Zhou Enlai died.

Li: He was like Kennedy, in that at a particular time both men became symbols to many generations. He was a complex man like Kennedy. Zhou represented a rational voice. Even though he was part of Mao’s leadership circle, he tried to moderate the extremists. It was a quixotic kind of effort. His death triggered an outpouring of emotion that had been suppressed.

BHT: How did you view Mao?

Li: Like a lot of things in history, his legacy is mixed. He, rather than Chiang Kai-Shek, was the leader behind freeing China from a long history of colonialism. And he led the fight with the Japanese. He founded the People’s Republic of China. On the other hand, he also caused chaos and a disruption of the social order. I didn’t feel as deeply about him as I did about Zhou.

BHT: How would you characterize your relationship now with both China and America?

Li: I have been a U.S. citizen for 14 years. When I finished this book, I had spent 26 years in each country. My husband and I now run a private equity investment firm, Marcus Capital Management, Inc., that invests in a variety of Chinese industries from printed circuit boards to restaurants. So we split our time between the United States and China.
I’m more aware of the similarities of the two cultures. In negotiations I can read minds much faster than if I were of only one culture. But many tools are universal, and I was trained in American with an MBA, a master’s in psychology and a Ph.D in History. This multidisciplinary education is the biggest gift America has given me.

BHT: What do you see as the most promising aspects of life in China now?

Li: Everything. The economy is growing at 9 to 11 percent. It is unprecedented. America grew vertically, with the American Revolution, the Civil War, industrialization and technology. But China is growing horizontally, changing from an agrarian to a industrial society at the same time they are implementing a 40-hour work week and dealing with the latest technology.
It is stable, Everyone from [government] ministers to the cleaning lady wants stability. China needs a peaceful time to evolve. America has to pull off the idea that every country has to be like it. Each nation has its own path. Democracy may or may not work in China. The people must have the chance to find their own way.

BHT: What are the biggest problems?

Li: It’s not too different from America—the environment, an aging population, balancing what to preserve and what to build anew. China benefits from the support and sometimes the pressure from the international community.

BHT: How do you make time to both work in the investment world and write books?

Li: I have always tried to take Fridays off, and I work on the weekends and on planes—whenever I have a bit of time.

BHT: Do you have another project that you are considering?

Li: I’m thinking about another book that would coincide with the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. During the ‘30s, Japan and China were at war, and China was America’s biggest ally in the east. This story concerns that time and a legendary family, with a story few people know. The time I spend in China will allow me to do research.


The Boston Athenaeum will sponsor a talk about “Snow Falling in Spring” by Moying Li on May 3 at 11 a.m. The event is free and open to the public, but attendees must call the Athenaeum after April 15 for a reservation at 617-720-7600.

The move to limit the number of large events on Boston Common has taken a large step forward.
Mayor Thomas Menino told the Back Bay Sun last week that he agrees with Henry Lee, president of Friends of the Boston Public Garden, with Councillor Mike Ross and with officials from the Boston Parks Department, that too many events held on the Common is destroying the park’s infrastructure as well as its grass and the more fragile elements of its natural composition.
“I will not be allowing a large number of events on the Common in the future,” said Mayor Menino.
“Major events will still take place – but not as many, and not as frequently as in the past. The Common simply can’t take it. We need to preserve this park for the public use and I’m determined to do that,” Menino said.
The mayor was responding to comments made at a public meeting on the future use of the Common held last week at Suffolk University Law School.
At that meeting, Parks Department officials detailed how excessive public use is having an adverse effect on the Common.
Testimony was given that indicated the Common’s ground has been packed as solid as cement in some places due to excessive foot traffic.
“I am committed to maintaing the Common as one of the finest examples of an inner city park in the United States,” said the mayor.
Although the Parks Commissioner Antonia Pollak said the Common should no longer play host to large scale events, Mayor Menino said large scale events will continue to have a place on the Common.
“There won’t be as many large scale events, that’s all,” said the mayor.
Suffolk University Vice-President John Nucci, a former Boston City Councillor, agreed with the mayor.
“Mayor Menino is correct in his belief that large events must be curtailed on the Common. I think that’s a good start to bringing the Common back to its pristine look. Suffolk University will look to help the city in the effort to make the Common what it ought to be. The university feels a responsibility to be part of making the Common as good as it can be,” he said.
City hall will apparently be closely scrutinizing requests for permits use the Common for public gatherings.
“There were 1,000 events held on the Common last year,” said Lee. “The use has overwhelmed maintenance,” he said.

The Easter Bunny paid a visit to the Myrtle Street playground last week. Timothy Colledge was one of many children who enjoyed the Egg Hunt and the snacks provided by volunteer parents and Park Street Church.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation taught Advent School students about maple sugaring last week on the Esplanade. DCR’s brand new traveling Maple Sugar Exhibit teaches students about identifying and tapping maple trees, the history of maple sugaring, wood splitting and the evaporation process. Students also got a sample of pure maple syrup.

Are you legally permitted to occupy your roof deck? Have you sufficiently secured or alarmed your roof access? Condominium associations, apartment building owners and even individual unit owners must now answer these questions that have been raised by a new Boston ordinance that became effective in early March.

Is your roof deck legal?

Until the Boston Inspectional Services Department issued its Bulletin implementing the ordinance, many residents were concerned that use of most roof decks in Boston would be rendered illegal. The ordinance requires most roof decks to have a permit by the effective date of the ordinance, but ISD still has not established the procedure for permitting roof decks under the ordinance and, even if it had, it could not possibly have issued permits for most roof decks by the effective date.
ISD’s Bulletin interprets and implements portions of this rather poorly drafted ordinance to make it more workable. The Bulletin creates a certification process, like the similar one that has existed for many years for fire escapes, requires certification every five years. The deadline for initial certification of existing roof decks “previously permitted” through ISD is postponed by the Bulletin to June 30, 2009, at the earliest, or later depending on the Ward in which the building is located. The deadlines by Ward are:
Ward Deadline
1, 3, 5, 7, 9 June 30, 2009
2, 4, 6, 8, 10 June 30, 2010
11 through 15 June 30, 2011
16 through 22 June 30, 2012

Roof decks which were not built in accordance with a validly issued building permit are now illegal to occupy and must be closed off by a locked or alarmed door or hatchway in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance until they are brought into compliance.
One conundrum is that many owners or condominium boards may not know if their roof deck was built with a permit. If, for example, a roof deck was built at the time of a substantial renovation of a building, the permit itself may not be clear as to whether the roof deck was part of the permitted project. The plans submitted for the building permit may be difficult to access or it may be difficult to tell from the plans whether the roof deck was included in the project or built as specified. This may particularly be the case with older roof decks.
Certain roof decks are excluded from the certification requirement by the Bulletin. These include roof decks on owner-occupied one and two family structures and roof decks accessed through a single access point within owner-occupied units in larger buildings. Note that if a structure or unit ceases to be owner-occupied, any roof deck ceases to be legal if otherwise required to be certified.

Roof access restrictions

The ordinance requires that certain access points to roofs with illegal roof decks or no roof deck be restricted by means of a lock, if legally permissible, or qualifying alarm device. Access points which must be secured or alarmed include any doorway, passageway, hatchway or staircase through which any occupant has unimpeded access to the roof or illegal roof deck from the interior of the building.
Securing roof access with a lock may raise fire egress issues, and thus a qualifying alarm often is the better approach. Such an alarm must sound whenever the access door is opened and may not substantially impede the opening and closing of the door. The alarm device must have signage on or near it to warn users of the presence of the alarm, and may be deactivated with a key, code or other measure as long as it is designed to reactivate itself automatically within a reasonable time.

Penalties and liability issues

Fines of $300 for the first offense and $500 for any subsequent offense are included in the ordinance. Moreover, while the ordinance expressly does not create a presumption of negligence if it is violated, the new requirements do create some additional liability risk for owners and condominium boards if an accident were to occur. A violation of the ordinance may also have some effect on liability insurance coverage under some policies.
All apartment building owners, all condominium and cooperative associations, and individual unit owners who rent out units with private roof decks should determine immediately whether any roof deck to which occupants have access is legal to occupy or whether any roof access point needs to be secured by a lock or alarmed. Failure to do so and take appropriate action could have dire consequences.

David L. Thomas Jr. is an attorney and CEO of CityState LLC, a Boston area property management firm based with its offices on Beacon Hill.

Replace traffic signals with stop signs on Charles Street

The Boston Transportation Department proposes installing hideous 42-inch-high control boxes on Charles Street sidewalks at Revere, Pinckney, Mount Vernon and Chestnut streets.
This is a bad idea. It is a case of the goals of the historic district colliding with monitoring and maintaining traffic signals. The interests of the historic district should prevail. We can do better, as Ken Taylor of the Beacon Hill Architecture Commission, has said.
We support instead a plan put forth by the Beacon Hill Civic Association’s traffic and parking committee. More about that later—here’s some background.
BTD planners maintain that new, safer traffic signals that can be run only by these boxes are necessary. They say they no longer can maintain the old traffic signals, since parts are not available. All other traffic signals in Boston can be monitored electronically from City Hall and that, plus federal mandates, require new signals and the large unsightly boxes.
It’s puzzling, first of all, in Boston, America’s Walking City, why federal mandates that apply to Los Angeles, where no one walks, make any sense in Boston.
Moreover, there is some suspicion in the neighborhood that BTD officials are trying to speed traffic along Charles Street to relieve congestion elsewhere with these new signals. BTD says no. In any case, in Boston good traffic flow has more to do with the fact that the city does not enforce any rules that keep cars out of the intersections when the light is red. Employing that strategy, as New York City effectively does, would do more to improve traffic conditions in Boston than any other single act.
But the neighborhood’s objections to these boxes have little to do with traffic flow or enforcing ‘don’t block the box’ rules. These control boxes are simply big, ugly and a potential hazard on the narrow sidewalks of a historic district, the goal of which is to preserve the look and feel of an earlier day. They invite grafitti. In truth, these control boxes are inappropriate anywhere in Boston. They deface every neighborhood’s intersections. Unsightly examples have already been installed on the sidewalks near the Boston Public Garden and on the median on Cambridge Street.
BTD officials say they can’t make the boxes any smaller since heavy, long cables are part of the inner workings.
We say, go back to the drawing board. They could design specifications that require wireless or underground connections. Find out how European engineers keep these boxes from Paris intersections. As Commissioner Ken Taylor said at the last Beacon Hill Architectural Commission hearing, “The city of Paris would never allow such ugly items to litter its streets.” Neither should Boston.
Meanwhile, there is another solution on Charles Street, that the BHCA’s traffic and parking committee has suggested.
Do away with the traffic lights altogether, and replace them with stop signs or red-blinking traffic lights. After all, the traffic lights were not installed for Charles Street’s present condition, but are left over from the days when Charles Street carried a significantly greater volume of traffic that went the other direction.
We acknowledge that the intersection at Beacon and Charles streets, where there are 3,261 vehicles using it at peak afternoon times, needs traffic signals.
But the city’s own traffic counts show only 482 vehicles at Revere Street going in every legal direction at the peak period in the afternoon.
A stop sign or a blinking red light would allow vehicular traffic turning from the side streets to make an immediate turn when no traffic is coming down Charles Street, a common occurrence most of the time. It would stop traffic from speeding down Charles Street, a condition that occurs too many times as cars try to beat the next light. It might reduce traffic on Charles Street since those speeding cars might decide to go elsewhere.
Signs stating explicitly that pedestrians have the right of way should also be installed, since those signs tend to work.
To make everyone feel responsible, this kind of system should get a six-month trial period. Then let’s all take a look at the situation. We may be able to save the city the money it would otherwise spend on unsightly equipment that it never should have allowed to be designed anyway.