FW: BC IMP meeting last night
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Eva Webster
Sep 10, 2008, 5:17:29 PM9/10/08
to BC_Neighb...@googlegroups.com, ABRA Group, AllstonBrighton2006
I sent the following letter to Kairos Shen, the City of Boston Chief Planner.
-------------------------
Dear Mr. Shen:
Many thanks for your willingness to meet with Brighton neighbors of Boston College last night. I write this note partly in reaction to Daina Selvig’s bitter message to you today and Mike Pahre’s accusatory posting on his blog, but also to comment on what transpired in the meeting, as I intended to do in any case — because I think that there are some essential lessons that should be learned from that night.
I write this message not as a “friend” of BC (I do not at all consider myself to be in that category; my feelings about BC are measured and neutral now, but there were times when they were negative, and who knows what future developments may bring). I write as a devoted long-time neighborhood activist who would like to finally see the BC IMP deadlock we are currently in to go away. This process has been weighing heavily on many, many people, and is beginning to impact our collective productivity and ability to stay on top of our lives. We need an end in sight to what is turning into a near-torture for all involved.
First, I commend you for making yourself available last night, and for your graciousness while facing a group of mostly disgruntled people, many of whom were new to the process -- after 2 years of the process being in place and NUMEROUS opportunities to attend well-advertised meetings. (Not surprisingly, some of those newcomers expressed very rigid opinions, not as well informed as I, for one, wish they were).
I find the scolding that you came to meet with us “too soon” without merit. This meetings was a good-will gesture on the BRA’s part, and should be appreciated as such. Naturally, the BRA — through their attendance in many previous community meetings, through observing postings on the Boston College Neighbors Forum, and from reading many comment letters that poured in throughout the summer to meet the original comment deadline — had an opportunity to measure the temperature of the public on BC IMP issues, and draw conclusions from that, before deciding how to proceed.
Likewise, I find the complaint that blames the BRA for having met with BC officials, including Father Leahy, before the end of the comment period without merit as well. Anyone familiar with the development process in the City of Boston knows that the BRA has meetings with proponents of major projects, as they should. Additionally, BC being a major employer and one of the most important educational institutions in the state, deserves such consideration.
Another issue that strikes me as being blown out of proportion and unreasonable is the point that since BC did not provide written and publicly available answers to some aspects of the BRA’s scoping document, the whole Master Plan should be rejected. I am sure that many of those gaps can be, or have already been filled in direct discussions between the BRA and BC.
It appears that the negative tone of some of your critics is based on the belief that the BRA can somehow change BC’s position on where it should or should not build certain structures. Those critics forget that BC, like any property owner in our society, cannot be forced to initiate construction where they don’t welcome it, nor can the municipal government deny their right to develop their property in a reasonable manner and with proper mitigation.
Every institutional development that happens in any city or town anywhere, has certain impacts on abutters and the surrounding community. To expect that BC’s neighbors should have no impacts whatsoever in the aftermath of BC’s inevitable development, or that they should be given an opportunity to endlessly stall the process is UNREASONABLE.
Nevertheless, a few people (I know of only three or four) have called on the BRA in their comment letters to reject the BC Master Plan — while many more others asked that the Plan be approved in one form or another. The BRA also knows that it is not in the interest of the City as a whole to reject the BC Plan. No side (including BC) is willing to budge. In this climate, it is impossible for all parties to discuss any practical and detailed aspects of the IMP, or plan for mitigating potential impacts.
So the BRA has arrived at the reasonable conclusion that in order to break the impasse, and to be able to start analyzing and discussing each and every project in detail, and to TEST certain unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS that some critics have made, the BRA will phase approval of different projects, starting with those that are least controversial.
Considering the only other possible alternative — the approval of the entire IMP as is — one would think that all neighborhood people would see it as good news. After all, a more detailed process with respect to each proposed structure offers an opportunity to zero in on the negatives, and deal with them accordingly. However, to see it this way, people would have to be willing to COMPROMISE, and some of us do not want to compromise at all. And to that, I say — such people are UNREASONABLE.
It was easy to notice that in last night’s meeting. When in my comment, when I stood up, I tried to focus people on the need for 100% student housing, I got booed by some people. I could not believe my ears — this is after the issue of 100% student housing was strongly endorsed by everyone at every level, at every step of the process (even in the 500-signature petition that was recently circulated).
So to hear any opposition to that made me realize that the people who constituted perhaps half of the audience last night are NOT in fact representative of the entire community. They are a narrow faction that is trying to protect a narrow interest -- “we don’t want any dormitories close to us, and the hell with thousands of other Brighton residents who have to live with unsupervised dormitories in privately-owned houses on their streets — we don’t care about them — and the hell with all the negative impacts that BC rentals have on Brighton’s housing stock”. And that is UNREASONABLE.
The fundamental problem with last night’s meeting, and likely with all the other meetings that the BRA may conduct regarding BC IMP in the near future, is that at this point they can only attract nay-sayers, because the vast majority of people who understand that the Plan needs to be fine-tuned (but overall it is something that is palatable to this neighborhood) no longer see a reason to participate in this seemingly endless, torturous process.
Those of us who have always been in favor of BC housing 100% of students -- how can we be expected to still have to lobby for that necessary goal? Where is an end to this nightmare? How can we ask our neighbors to keep asking for this goal when everyone knows that this is BC’s goal, the Task Force’s goal, the Elected Officials’ goal, and the City’s goal — and people have already expressed their wish for it countless times. Who are we supposed to mobilize against right now?
Now, the BRA may possibly abandon that critical goal just because someone doesn’t want a REASOANBLE modestly-scaled dormitory in the central part of the Brighton Campus that, with proper design, they would not even see from their house? This doesn’t make any sense.
The City of Boston planners must be able to zero in on what is right for all of Brighton and the City. Housing undergraduate students in university-controlled housing is indisputably a goal that CANNOT be abandoned or compromised. If BU or Harvard wanted to expand without planning to house their undergraduates, we wouldn’t stand for that. So why is it even contemplated with respect to BC?
If we continue having meetings like the one last night, it will create an impression that the nay-sayers in those meetings speak on behalf of the entire community (as Daina Slevig’s message also insinuated). This is simply not true.
Allston-Brighton has about 70,000 residents. Even assuming that only 10% care about BC IMP enough to follow the process, and only 50% of those are willing to come a to a meeting — we should have had 3,500 people in last night’s meeting screaming in opposition. That was not the case. If you subtract BC people, the elected officials and their representatives, some reporters, and a Newton person who came as and observer, we had no more than 50-60 people — and not all of them agreed that your proposal to proceed was bad.
I saw a fair number of people who I know for a fact are willing to accept the current Plan with some caveats -- but as long as we can’t make a leap to talking about specific projects, those caveats, and other good ideas offering creative solutions cannot even be brought to the table.
As for myself, this morning I got some messages, both by phone and email (like the one pasted below) from people who agree with my position.
I’m sure that the BRA has received many moderate comment letters that echo the general sentiment of this message. Mr. Shen, please don’t let the BC IMP process be hijacked by people who speak from the extremist standpoint that is not representative of the community as a whole.
I know many people who do not like the idea of dormitories on Shea Field (abutting the Reservoir), but we understand the need to compromise, and reluctantly accept them in order to achieve a compromise. Other people need to do the same. Everyone has to give something so we can move ahead with this Plan.
Here are some benefits that BC does bring to the community:
These are the kind of things we need to keep in mind — while we also try to address possible negative impacts. They have to be real, well-defined impacts though. (A mere fear that students living in dormitories will “destroy” the neighborhood cannot be taken seriously.)
Sincerely,
Eva Webster
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------
Dear Mr. Shen:
Many thanks for your willingness to meet with Brighton neighbors of Boston College last night. I write this note partly in reaction to Daina Selvig’s bitter message to you today and Mike Pahre’s accusatory posting on his blog, but also to comment on what transpired in the meeting, as I intended to do in any case — because I think that there are some essential lessons that should be learned from that night.
I write this message not as a “friend” of BC (I do not at all consider myself to be in that category; my feelings about BC are measured and neutral now, but there were times when they were negative, and who knows what future developments may bring). I write as a devoted long-time neighborhood activist who would like to finally see the BC IMP deadlock we are currently in to go away. This process has been weighing heavily on many, many people, and is beginning to impact our collective productivity and ability to stay on top of our lives. We need an end in sight to what is turning into a near-torture for all involved.
First, I commend you for making yourself available last night, and for your graciousness while facing a group of mostly disgruntled people, many of whom were new to the process -- after 2 years of the process being in place and NUMEROUS opportunities to attend well-advertised meetings. (Not surprisingly, some of those newcomers expressed very rigid opinions, not as well informed as I, for one, wish they were).
I find the scolding that you came to meet with us “too soon” without merit. This meetings was a good-will gesture on the BRA’s part, and should be appreciated as such. Naturally, the BRA — through their attendance in many previous community meetings, through observing postings on the Boston College Neighbors Forum, and from reading many comment letters that poured in throughout the summer to meet the original comment deadline — had an opportunity to measure the temperature of the public on BC IMP issues, and draw conclusions from that, before deciding how to proceed.
Likewise, I find the complaint that blames the BRA for having met with BC officials, including Father Leahy, before the end of the comment period without merit as well. Anyone familiar with the development process in the City of Boston knows that the BRA has meetings with proponents of major projects, as they should. Additionally, BC being a major employer and one of the most important educational institutions in the state, deserves such consideration.
Another issue that strikes me as being blown out of proportion and unreasonable is the point that since BC did not provide written and publicly available answers to some aspects of the BRA’s scoping document, the whole Master Plan should be rejected. I am sure that many of those gaps can be, or have already been filled in direct discussions between the BRA and BC.
It appears that the negative tone of some of your critics is based on the belief that the BRA can somehow change BC’s position on where it should or should not build certain structures. Those critics forget that BC, like any property owner in our society, cannot be forced to initiate construction where they don’t welcome it, nor can the municipal government deny their right to develop their property in a reasonable manner and with proper mitigation.
Every institutional development that happens in any city or town anywhere, has certain impacts on abutters and the surrounding community. To expect that BC’s neighbors should have no impacts whatsoever in the aftermath of BC’s inevitable development, or that they should be given an opportunity to endlessly stall the process is UNREASONABLE.
Nevertheless, a few people (I know of only three or four) have called on the BRA in their comment letters to reject the BC Master Plan — while many more others asked that the Plan be approved in one form or another. The BRA also knows that it is not in the interest of the City as a whole to reject the BC Plan. No side (including BC) is willing to budge. In this climate, it is impossible for all parties to discuss any practical and detailed aspects of the IMP, or plan for mitigating potential impacts.
So the BRA has arrived at the reasonable conclusion that in order to break the impasse, and to be able to start analyzing and discussing each and every project in detail, and to TEST certain unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS that some critics have made, the BRA will phase approval of different projects, starting with those that are least controversial.
Considering the only other possible alternative — the approval of the entire IMP as is — one would think that all neighborhood people would see it as good news. After all, a more detailed process with respect to each proposed structure offers an opportunity to zero in on the negatives, and deal with them accordingly. However, to see it this way, people would have to be willing to COMPROMISE, and some of us do not want to compromise at all. And to that, I say — such people are UNREASONABLE.
It was easy to notice that in last night’s meeting. When in my comment, when I stood up, I tried to focus people on the need for 100% student housing, I got booed by some people. I could not believe my ears — this is after the issue of 100% student housing was strongly endorsed by everyone at every level, at every step of the process (even in the 500-signature petition that was recently circulated).
So to hear any opposition to that made me realize that the people who constituted perhaps half of the audience last night are NOT in fact representative of the entire community. They are a narrow faction that is trying to protect a narrow interest -- “we don’t want any dormitories close to us, and the hell with thousands of other Brighton residents who have to live with unsupervised dormitories in privately-owned houses on their streets — we don’t care about them — and the hell with all the negative impacts that BC rentals have on Brighton’s housing stock”. And that is UNREASONABLE.
The fundamental problem with last night’s meeting, and likely with all the other meetings that the BRA may conduct regarding BC IMP in the near future, is that at this point they can only attract nay-sayers, because the vast majority of people who understand that the Plan needs to be fine-tuned (but overall it is something that is palatable to this neighborhood) no longer see a reason to participate in this seemingly endless, torturous process.
Those of us who have always been in favor of BC housing 100% of students -- how can we be expected to still have to lobby for that necessary goal? Where is an end to this nightmare? How can we ask our neighbors to keep asking for this goal when everyone knows that this is BC’s goal, the Task Force’s goal, the Elected Officials’ goal, and the City’s goal — and people have already expressed their wish for it countless times. Who are we supposed to mobilize against right now?
Now, the BRA may possibly abandon that critical goal just because someone doesn’t want a REASOANBLE modestly-scaled dormitory in the central part of the Brighton Campus that, with proper design, they would not even see from their house? This doesn’t make any sense.
The City of Boston planners must be able to zero in on what is right for all of Brighton and the City. Housing undergraduate students in university-controlled housing is indisputably a goal that CANNOT be abandoned or compromised. If BU or Harvard wanted to expand without planning to house their undergraduates, we wouldn’t stand for that. So why is it even contemplated with respect to BC?
If we continue having meetings like the one last night, it will create an impression that the nay-sayers in those meetings speak on behalf of the entire community (as Daina Slevig’s message also insinuated). This is simply not true.
Allston-Brighton has about 70,000 residents. Even assuming that only 10% care about BC IMP enough to follow the process, and only 50% of those are willing to come a to a meeting — we should have had 3,500 people in last night’s meeting screaming in opposition. That was not the case. If you subtract BC people, the elected officials and their representatives, some reporters, and a Newton person who came as and observer, we had no more than 50-60 people — and not all of them agreed that your proposal to proceed was bad.
I saw a fair number of people who I know for a fact are willing to accept the current Plan with some caveats -- but as long as we can’t make a leap to talking about specific projects, those caveats, and other good ideas offering creative solutions cannot even be brought to the table.
As for myself, this morning I got some messages, both by phone and email (like the one pasted below) from people who agree with my position.
------ Forwarded Message
From: Gregg Lebovitz <gr...@lebovitz.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:07:13 -0400
To: <evawe...@comcast.net>
Subject: support
Eva,
I just wanted you to know that I fully support your efforts and believe
that you have represented our community is the best possible fashion. In
case it is not said often enough, thank you for your work and contributions.
Best Regards,
Gregg
------ End of Forwarded Message
I’m sure that the BRA has received many moderate comment letters that echo the general sentiment of this message. Mr. Shen, please don’t let the BC IMP process be hijacked by people who speak from the extremist standpoint that is not representative of the community as a whole.
I know many people who do not like the idea of dormitories on Shea Field (abutting the Reservoir), but we understand the need to compromise, and reluctantly accept them in order to achieve a compromise. Other people need to do the same. Everyone has to give something so we can move ahead with this Plan.
Here are some benefits that BC does bring to the community:
- BC wants to preserved a very substantial green space buffer along Lake Street, keep the large “orchard” area undeveloped; ditto for the Foster Street Rock.
- BC wants to take BC student renters out of the neighborhood (this is huge for improving Brighton’s quality of life and reputation as a good place to live).
- BC wants to establish a mortgage assistance program for their faculty and employees to make them purchase homes in Brighton, which will help the neighborhood’s real estate, and decrease these people’s need to drive to work (thus easing our traffic).
- BC wants to continue and improve an effective CAP program that helps reign in unruly students until dorms to house them get built.
- BC wants to build a museum/fine arts center right off Comm. Ave., which will definitely enrich our neighborhood.
- BC wants to continue funding a number of worthy community causes (e.g., Brighton Mains Streets).
- BC Police force supplements our overextended Police.
- BC helps local schools in Brighton.
- BC provides a number of scholarships to Brighton residents (though I’m not crazy about this because it only benefits some lucky individuals, not the entire community).
- BC takes excellent care of their properties.
- BC permits Brighton residents and groups access to some of their facilities.
- Having BC in the neighborhood makes the area safer, which attracts the middle class.
- BC provides jobs to people who work in higher education and educates thousands of udergraduate and graduate students.
- With the current economy being very shaky (a real possibility of a long-term recession), building BC IMP projects will put food on the table, and pay rent/mortgage of many working people.
These are the kind of things we need to keep in mind — while we also try to address possible negative impacts. They have to be real, well-defined impacts though. (A mere fear that students living in dormitories will “destroy” the neighborhood cannot be taken seriously.)
Sincerely,
Eva Webster
------ End of Forwarded Message
joh...@comcast.net
Sep 10, 2008, 8:16:38 PM9/10/08
to AllstonBrighton2006
Eva, I agree with you 100%. That said, you want dorms anywhere because
it will get students out of your neighborhood. Let's be honest. You
bought a nice home not knowing that it was in a student neighborhood.
You and Alex Selvig made the same mistake. Now we have a conflict.
Two activist with the same problem. Noise. Both have it and you can
get rid of it with dorms. Alex has it and is afraid that the dorms in
the lower campus will not solve his problem. The problem Brighton has
is the local pols. None of them have the ability to negotiate with BC.
I have always said that if somebody wins nobody wins.
John Thompson
> > To: <evawebs...@comcast.net>
> Brighton Mains Streets).
>
> * BC Police force supplements our overextended Police.
>
> * BC helps local schools in Brighton.
>
> * BC provides a number of scholarships to Brighton residents (though I¹m not
>
> * BC permits Brighton residents and groups access to some of their
> facilities.
>
> * Having BC in the neighborhood makes the area safer, which attracts the
> middle class.
>
> * BC provides jobs to people who work in higher education and educates
it will get students out of your neighborhood. Let's be honest. You
bought a nice home not knowing that it was in a student neighborhood.
You and Alex Selvig made the same mistake. Now we have a conflict.
Two activist with the same problem. Noise. Both have it and you can
get rid of it with dorms. Alex has it and is afraid that the dorms in
the lower campus will not solve his problem. The problem Brighton has
is the local pols. None of them have the ability to negotiate with BC.
I have always said that if somebody wins nobody wins.
John Thompson
> > Subject: support
>
> > Eva,
>
> > I just wanted you to know that I fully support your efforts and believe
> > that you have represented our community is the best possible fashion. In
> > case it is not said often enough, thank you for your work and contributions.
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> > Gregg
>
> > ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
> I¹m sure that the BRA has received many moderate comment letters that echo
> the general sentiment of this message. Mr. Shen, please don¹t let the BC
> IMP process be hijacked by people who speak from the extremist standpoint
> that is not representative of the community as a whole.
>
> I know many people who do not like the idea of dormitories on Shea Field
> (abutting the Reservoir), but we understand the need to compromise, and
> reluctantly accept them in order to achieve a compromise. Other people need
> to do the same. Everyone has to give something so we can move ahead with
> this Plan.
>
> Here are some benefits that BC does bring to the community:
>
> * BC wants to preserved a very substantial green space buffer along Lake
>
> > Eva,
>
> > I just wanted you to know that I fully support your efforts and believe
> > that you have represented our community is the best possible fashion. In
> > case it is not said often enough, thank you for your work and contributions.
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> > Gregg
>
> > ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
> I¹m sure that the BRA has received many moderate comment letters that echo
> the general sentiment of this message. Mr. Shen, please don¹t let the BC
> IMP process be hijacked by people who speak from the extremist standpoint
> that is not representative of the community as a whole.
>
> I know many people who do not like the idea of dormitories on Shea Field
> (abutting the Reservoir), but we understand the need to compromise, and
> reluctantly accept them in order to achieve a compromise. Other people need
> to do the same. Everyone has to give something so we can move ahead with
> this Plan.
>
> Here are some benefits that BC does bring to the community:
>
> Street, keep the large ³orchard² area undeveloped; ditto for the Foster
> Street Rock.
>
> * BC wants to take BC student renters out of the neighborhood (this is huge
> Street Rock.
>
> for improving Brighton¹s quality of life and reputation as a good place to
> live).
>
> * BC wants to establish a mortgage assistance program for their faculty and
> live).
>
> employees to make them purchase homes in Brighton, which will help the
> neighborhood¹s real estate, and decrease these people¹s need to drive to
> work (thus easing our traffic).
>
> * BC wants to continue and improve an effective CAP program that helps reign
> neighborhood¹s real estate, and decrease these people¹s need to drive to
> work (thus easing our traffic).
>
> in unruly students until dorms to house them get built.
>
> * BC wants to build a museum/fine arts center right off Comm. Ave., which
>
> will definitely enrich our neighborhood.
>
> * BC wants to continue funding a number of worthy community causes (e.g.,
>
> Brighton Mains Streets).
>
> * BC Police force supplements our overextended Police.
>
> * BC helps local schools in Brighton.
>
> * BC provides a number of scholarships to Brighton residents (though I¹m not
> crazy about this because it only benefits some lucky individuals, not the
> entire community).
>
> * BC takes excellent care of their properties.
> entire community).
>
>
> * BC permits Brighton residents and groups access to some of their
> facilities.
>
> * Having BC in the neighborhood makes the area safer, which attracts the
> middle class.
>
> * BC provides jobs to people who work in higher education and educates
> thousands of udergraduate and graduate students.
>
> * With the current economy being very shaky (a real possibility of a
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages