I think we need an all of the above strategy that combines policies that foster much greater housing construction of all types with all the tools in the toolbox for preventing displacement. I'd recommend the affordable city by Shane phillips, which I think does a much better job of articulating this case than I could!

Still evil - it's just never worth it

Even if a bar took a fake, most places on new years sell tickets and are very much sold out.

I really think you're in the wrong here - that just suggests you can pass to the left, either in lane or using part of the left lane on a road with at least two lanes in the same direction - it doesn't seem to me to override the rule that you can't pass in the oncoming lane unless the centerline is dashed.

It's not legal to switch into the oncoming lane when there's a solid yellow centerline? It's almost as if in some circumstances everyone flouts the rules because it's convenient , and we're all fully capable of understanding when nuance is appropriate

Cars drive in the opposite lane to pass me on a bicycle all the time, regardless of whether there's a dotted centerline. Because it's convenient! And not a huge deal if you don't pass too close (although usually you'll end up feeling silly when I pass you at the next light)

I do get pretty frustrated when I see it (I don't think the anti-bike people need any ammo) but think it's somewhat forgiveable when

A. It's protected and the other direction doesn't have a bike lane

B. Crossing the road is dangerous (something like 28) and you're only on it for a short time.

I never do it personally, but I get why someone might.

Over 40% of Cambridge residents work from home. Many more are perfectly fine walking, biking or taking the T to work. The idea that it should be illegal to build apartments that cater to this majority doesn't make any sense. There's plenty of housing in Cambridge with off-street parking for those who would like it.
Parking minimums don't provide free parking - they just bake the cost of parking into the rent and everything else. They're not even primarily about "choking out" car usage - it's somewhat confusing I get it but it's a housing policy first, not a transportation policy.

I feel like you're mistaking parking minimums (the city demanding a certain number of parking spaces per apartment) and the concept of providing parking in general which would still totally be legal and likely to happen in some form, just not required