Opposition to an ordnance proposing the establishment of the Planning Department in the City of Boston (Docket #0257).
Rodney Singleton
Councillor Colleta,
If you were to visit where my childhood home once stood in the early 60s now, you’d find a field of dreams with patches of grass and dirt – the result of unchecked urban renewal powers, meant to address blight.
A proposed planning ordinance (Docket #0257) is built on those same, strengthened unchecked urban renewal powers that leveled my home and so many others, but now rationalized to address resiliency, equity, and affordability. History teaches us we should never rationalize unchecked power.
Gone is the opportunity for fostering a truly inclusive and transparent planning that all of Boston could get behind, where a lack of community engagement not only undermines the needed democratic process to realize our shared future, but also risks entrenching a planning system that fails to represent the diversity Boston boldy and proudly claims!
So real BRA/BPDA planning, and development reformation is in question. Have we just created a more formidable monster? We don't trust the newest incarnation of the BRA/BPDA.
And trust and openness is how we failed from day one with the BRA. The ordinance suffers from a lack of transparency, reminiscent of the old top down autoritain BRA that took too many homes building wealth in Roxbury, almost ran a highway through Roxbury, and obliterated the West End. The community must know how public funds are being spent. This ordinance doesn't spell that out.
Too often trust, or lack of it, plays out beyond this ordinance as a day in the life of decisions made without us: from calling a meeting to discuss housing a population in need at the Cass, when the decision has already been made; to an appointed school committee; to moving O’Bryant STEM resources from Roxbury to West Roxbury; to White stadium being given over to private hands, and no community engagement helping to decide or negotiate community benefits; to the old Shattuck hospital site, where change of use is a moving target with no community guidance; to running a center bus lane down Blue Hill and Columbus Avenues in a rush to spend down federal dollars, over thoughtfully engaging a community as to what transportation infrastructure is really needed; to not making bold enough moves on city contracting, recognizing there is a strong linkage between how the spend is shared with Black and brown firms in the city and housing affordability; to retaining and strengthening BDPA powers of urban renewal that historically nobody trusted and still don’t, all the while weakening community engagement with new zoning.
If we’re being honest the mayor's best work was the white paper she published as a city councilor that proposed ending the BRA. In that paper she cited the staggering income/wealth gap of Black Boston (That was no typo: The median net worth of black Bostonians really is $8), which resonated with the core of black and brown Boston and ushered in a groundswell of support. Finally, we thought we had a mayor that understood real equity for all of Boston and was committed to delivering it.
Issues of trust are still with us, getting worse and we have less of a voice to articulate what our vision is of where we live. And that lack of trust undermines any constructive conversation we try to have with the city about our own future – we must live the city’s future, which is not crafted by us for us. Moreover, city council oversight, the community's elected voice has noticeably been snubbed out of this ordinance as well -- again more centralized, unchecked power, taken from representatives democratically elected by the constituency of Boston's neighborhoods. We don't live in Russia!
The Wu administration’s motivation for keeping and strengthening unchecked urban renewal powers focuses on resiliency, equity, and affordability, with the idea that such powers may be required to affect appreciable change.
But did the Wu administration ever ask what resiliency, equity, and affordability meant to Roxbury and other neighborhoods of color in Boston?
Truthfully, climate resiliency is way down on the list of priorities to communities struggling to make their way. That’s not to say the word and what it means is a lost concept. It’s not. Struggling communities must be resilient to survive.
And survival is necessary when public policy fails to drive real equity, because real equity is about building human capacity that enables all of us to live out our highest potential. It’s real equity that grows a city to greatness, where we’re all contributing.
But we’ll never get there if we don’t seriously level up equity, by committing to all communities having a say in our shared future. Worst yet, we don’t see that building more and more dense affordable housing serves to warehouse our dreams, aspirations, and potential, often pushing communities into survival mode, because we failed at becoming a more equitable city.
We can always survive, but it’s better for all of us that we thrive. But to thrive, that field of dreams with patchy grass and dirt must be made whole, for us, and by us. This can only happen if this ordinance is amended and restores trust, transparency, a community voice, and elected voice.
Thanks for listening.
Regards,
-Rodney Singleton
44 Cedar Street
Roxbury, MA 02119
(617) 417-5471 (cell)
[Your Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
[Recipient's Name]
[City Councilor]
[City Council Office]
[Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]
Dear [Recipient's Name],
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Boston regarding the urgent need for democratic accountability in our city's development process. As our elected representative, I urge you to take action to address this critical issue.
It has become increasingly clear that the current system, particularly the existence of the BRA/BPDA as a self-funded entity, undermines transparency and sidesteps public oversight. By avoiding City Council scrutiny and evading transparency requirements, the BRA/BPDA operates without the necessary checks and balances that ensure accountability to the residents of Boston.
The ramifications of this lack of oversight are significant, as evidenced by the unchecked power wielded by the BRA/BPDA in decisions affecting our communities, including the demolition of homes and entire neighborhoods. This is unacceptable and threatens the well-being of our city's residents.
To realize a more equitable and sustainable system for planning and development in Boston, I urge you to support the abolition of the BPDA and the transfer of its functions to city agencies directly accountable to the public. It is imperative that we prioritize transparency, community input, and the protection of our neighborhoods in all future development decisions.
As our representative on the City Council, I trust that you will champion these necessary reforms and advocate for the best interests of all Boston residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your leadership on this issue.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
critical improvements:
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my significant concerns regarding the current draft of the Planning Ordinance (Docket #0257). While the intentions behind this ordinance may be well-meaning, it currently stands as a missed opportunity for fostering a truly inclusive and transparent urban planning process. A lack of adequate community engagement and transparency not only undermines the democratic process but also risks entrenching a planning system that fails to represent the diverse needs of our community.
Main Concerns:
Transparent Financials are Essential
The ordinance currently needs more transparency in the financial mechanisms of city planning. The community must have full access to detailed information regarding the allocation and expenditure of public funds. I propose an amendment to ensure that all financial operations related to city planning are conducted with complete transparency, allowing public scrutiny and participation.
Need for City Council Oversight
The draft conspicuously omits the crucial role of City Council oversight, a gap that poses a significant flaw. The City Council must be integrally involved in planning to adequately represent the public interest and serve as a checks and balances mechanism that needs improvement. This inclusion will guarantee that planning decisions are made democratically, with the Council providing necessary oversight.
Clarification on Financial Agreements
The ordinance is ambiguous regarding its stipulations on financial agreements, particularly the Memo of Agreement (MOA) on financial transfers. To avoid any potential for undue influence and ensure that these agreements reflect the true interests of the community, it is crucial to explicitly state that the City Council must play a primary role in drafting and approving these agreements.
Given the outlined concerns, I strongly urge the City Council to either delay the adoption of the ordinance in its current form or reject it outright until these critical issues are addressed. Our collective responsibility is to prioritize a planning process that champions transparency, accountability, and community involvement. Let us take this opportunity to revise the Planning Ordinance (Docket #0257) to ensure it facilitates a democratic and inclusive approach to city planning.
Thank you for considering these urgent concerns. I look forward to seeing the City Council take decisive action to improve our city's planning processes for the betterment of all community members.
Dear City Council,
I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the Planning Ordinance (Docket #0257). While the ordinance aims to enhance city planning, it currently lacks mechanisms for community engagement, transparency, and oversight, effectively continuing the status quo under the guise of progress.
The ordinance in question does little to shift Boston from a development process controlled by authorities to one that genuinely benefits and involves the community. This shortfall underscores a significant missed opportunity for fostering a democratic, transparent, and equitable approach to urban development.
Our Concerns and Suggestions for Amendment are:
1) End the Overreach of the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA): We advocate for a decisive move from authority-driven decisions to a community-centric development process. The unchecked powers currently held by the BRA hinder our community's ability to influence development, leading to decisions that often do not align with the needs for equity, affordability, and resilience. Ending these powers is crucial for enabling genuine community participation in development decisions.
2) Mandate Separation of Planning and Development Functions: To eliminate conflicts of interest and enhance decision-making transparency, separating our city government's planning and development functions is essential. Such a separation will ensure fair decisions, supporting equitable growth across all neighborhoods.
3) Ensure Financial Transparency and Enhance City Council Oversight: Transparent financial management and meaningful community engagement are vital for the city's development projects to truly benefit its residents. It is imperative that the city's spending is made transparent and that the City Council exercises robust oversight over development projects to ensure they serve the broader community's interests.
4) Abolish the Current Authority Structure: Achieving the objectives above requires a fundamental change in governance structure—from an authority-led model to one where planning, development, and public facilities are governed by dedicated government departments. This change is necessary for transparent, equitable, and community-engaged city planning and development.
Given these critical issues and the potential for the current ordinance and the Home Rule Petition to perpetuate existing problems, I urge the City Council to delay or reject the ordinance in its present form. Our city's governance should prioritize transparency, community involvement, and equity, particularly in development. I trust that the City Council will act in the best interest of all Boston residents to ensure these principles guide our city's development strategy.
The Planning Ordinance allows Boston to make development transparent, equitable, and community-focused. These urgent reforms are needed to prioritize residents' voices in urban development. The City Council has the opportunity to create an inclusive, resilient Boston. This Planning Ordinance does not accomplish that, and The Council should act accordingly.
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my significant concerns regarding the current draft of the Planning Ordinance (Docket #0257). While the intentions behind this ordinance may be well-meaning, it currently stands as a missed opportunity for fostering a truly inclusive and transparent urban planning process. A lack of adequate community engagement and transparency not only undermines the democratic process but also risks entrenching a planning system that fails to represent the diverse needs of our community.
Main Concerns:
Transparent Financials are Essential
The ordinance currently needs more transparency in the financial mechanisms of city planning. The community must have full access to detailed information regarding the allocation and expenditure of public funds. I propose an amendment to ensure that all financial operations related to city planning are conducted with complete transparency, allowing public scrutiny and participation.
Need for City Council Oversight
The draft conspicuously omits the crucial role of City Council oversight, a gap that poses a significant flaw. The City Council must be integrally involved in planning to adequately represent the public interest and serve as a checks and balances mechanism that needs improvement. This inclusion will guarantee that planning decisions are made democratically, with the Council providing necessary oversight.
Clarification on Financial Agreements
The ordinance is ambiguous regarding its stipulations on financial agreements, particularly the Memo of Agreement (MOA) on financial transfers. To avoid any potential for undue influence and ensure that these agreements reflect the true interests of the community, it is crucial to explicitly state that the City Council must play a primary role in drafting and approving these agreements.
Given the outlined concerns, I strongly urge the City Council to either delay the adoption of the ordinance in its current form or reject it outright until these critical issues are addressed. Our collective responsibility is to prioritize a planning process that champions transparency, accountability, and community involvement. Let us take this opportunity to revise the Planning Ordinance (Docket #0257) to ensure it facilitates a democratic and inclusive approach to city planning.
Thank you for considering these urgent concerns. I look forward to seeing the City Council take decisive action to improve our city's planning processes for the betterment of all community members.
Rodney Singleton
Councillor Colleta,
If you were to visit my childhood home's former location in the early 60s now, you’d find a field of dreams with patches of grass and dirt – a consequence of unchecked urban renewal powers, meant to address blight.
A proposed planning ordinance (Docket #0257) is built on those same, strengthened unchecked urban renewal powers that leveled my home and so many others, but now rationalized to address resiliency, equity, and affordability. History teaches us we should never rationalize unchecked power.
Gone is the opportunity for fostering a truly inclusive and transparent planning that all of Boston could get behind, where a lack of community engagement not only undermines the needed democratic process to realize our shared future, but also risks entrenching a planning system that fails to represent the diversity Boston boldy and proudly claims!
So real BRA/BPDA planning, and development reformation is in question. Have we just created a more formidable monster? We don't trust the newest incarnation of the BRA/BPDA.
And trust and openness is how we failed from day one with the BRA. The ordinance suffers from a lack of transparency, reminiscent of the old top down autoritain BRA that took too many homes building wealth in Roxbury, almost ran a highway through Roxbury, and obliterated the West End. The community must know how public funds are being spent. This ordinance doesn't spell that out.
Too often trust, or lack of it, plays out beyond this ordinance as a day in the life of decisions made without us: from calling a meeting to discuss housing a population in need at the Cass, when the decision has already been made; to an appointed school committee; to moving O’Bryant STEM resources from Roxbury to West Roxbury; to White stadium being given over to private hands, and no community engagement helping to decide or negotiate community benefits; to the old Shattuck hospital site, where change of use is a moving target with no community guidance; to running a center bus lane down Blue Hill and Columbus Avenues in a rush to spend down federal dollars, over thoughtfully engaging a community as to what transportation infrastructure is really needed; to not making bold enough moves on city contracting, recognizing there is a strong linkage between how the spend is shared with Black and brown firms in the city and housing affordability; to retaining and strengthening BDPA powers of urban renewal that historically nobody trusted and still don’t, all the while weakening community engagement with new zoning.
If we’re being honest the mayor's best work was the white paper she published as a city councilor that proposed ending the BRA. In that paper she cited the staggering income/wealth gap of Black Boston (That was no typo: The median net worth of black Bostonians really is $8), which resonated with the core of black and brown Boston and ushered in a groundswell of support. Finally, we thought we had a mayor that understood real equity for all of Boston and was committed to delivering it.
Issues of trust are still with us, getting worse and we have less of a voice to articulate what our vision is of where we live. And that lack of trust undermines any constructive conversation we try to have with the city about our own future – we must live the city’s future, which is not crafted by us for us. Moreover, city council oversight, the community's elected voice has noticeably been snubbed out of this ordinance as well -- again more centralized, unchecked power, taken from representatives democratically elected by the constituency of Boston's neighborhoods. We don't live in Russia!
The Wu administration’s motivation for keeping and strengthening unchecked urban renewal powers focuses on resiliency, equity, and affordability, with the idea that such powers may be required to affect appreciable change.
But did the Wu administration ever ask what resiliency, equity, and affordability meant to Roxbury and other neighborhoods of color in Boston?
Truthfully, climate resiliency is way down on the list of priorities to communities struggling to make their way. That’s not to say the word and what it means is a lost concept. It’s not. Struggling communities must be resilient to survive.
And survival is necessary when public policy fails to drive real equity, because real equity is about building human capacity that enables all of us to live out our highest potential. It’s real equity that grows a city to greatness, where we’re all contributing.
But we’ll never get there if we don’t seriously level up equity, by committing to all communities having a say in our shared future. Worst yet, we don’t see that building more and more dense affordable housing serves to warehouse our dreams, aspirations, and potential, often pushing communities into survival mode, because we failed at becoming a more equitable city.
We can always survive, but it’s better for all of us that we thrive. But to thrive, that field of dreams with patchy grass and dirt must be made whole, for us, and by us. This can only happen if this ordinance is amended and restores trust, transparency, a community voice, and elected voice.
Thanks for listening.
Regards,
-Rodney Singleton
44 Cedar Street
Roxbury, MA 02119
(617) 417-5471 (cell)
