Re: Mayor Wu’s reforms on planning fall far short of campaign promises
Rodney Singleton
- Public works and what a capital plan looks like, bucking the idea that equity across neighborhoods is a poor excuse for not meeting at all.
- Transportation
- Development: Sending home rule petition H.4065 that strengthens harmful urban renewal powers back to the city council; A better ordinance to create a planning department in the city after decades; Article 80 modernization with real review reform that serves Boston's neighborhoods; Squares and Streets zoning that honors and celebrates a diversity of neighborhoods, because we recognize diversity as a strength, not a weakness; and what do we do with ZBA that doesn't serve and protect?
"Franklin Park was designated as a Boston Landmark in 1980. As a result, all changes to Franklin Park, including to White Stadium, which lies wholly within the park, must receive design review and approval from the Commission. Franklin Park is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In January of 2024, the City of Boston, as the owner and caretaker of Franklin Park, presented to the Commission proposed improvements with respect to only half of White Stadium (the Boston Unity Soccer Partners portion of the project), while taking the position that the other half of the proposed project to be carried out by Boston Public Schools was not within the Commission’s purview and therefore not subject to Commission review or approval. The Commission’s enabling legislation and established regulations expressly requires Commission approval of all alterations to Boston Landmarks. The Commission is legislatively required to review the entirety of the proposed project and the Commission’s enabling legislation prevents ISD from issuing a permit for any project that is a Boston Landmark prior to approval by the Commission."
Wu fires chief of city’s landmarks panel
April 22, 2024
In letter, board members say Wu administration ‘disregards’ their oversight role on projects
In a communication addressed to Mayor Wu that is rife with potential consequences for development in Boston, including the controversial renovations proposal at White Stadium in Franklin Park for parttime use by a professional soccer team, members of a city commission charged with overseeing historic preservation in Boston took sharp issue with her administration’s approach to a number of controversial projects, including the stadium plan, and warned that the city’s “disregard” for state laws governing the commission threatens to undermine its work.
The remarkable show of dissent by all 16 current volunteer members of the mayorally-appointed Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC) board was followed days later by the abrupt dismissal of the executive director of the panel, Rosanne Foley, a Dorchester woman who has led the group since 2015.
Foley, who was appointed to the post by former mayor Marty Walsh, was terminated last Friday, 12 days after the commissioners sent their letter.
Foley's dismissal came a week before her boss, Rev. Mariama White-Hammond, the city’s Chief of Environment, Energy and Open Space, had been set to step down. In a move last week foreshadowing an administrative shakeup in the department, Wu announced that White-Hammond, a Dorchester resident, would leave office on April 26 and be replaced by Brian Swett, who had worked as Boston's climate chief from 2012 to 2015.
As to the BLC letter sent to the mayor, it was dated April 9, and signed by chairman Bradford Walker, vice-chairman Justine Orlando and 14 other members, including Dorchester residents Jeffrey Gonyeau and John Amodeo.
“The Commission was created to protect the City’s historic resources and advance recognition, understanding and enjoyment of those resources,” the three-page missive stated. “We, the undersigned Boston Landmark Commissioners, have observed in recent years a disregard by the City of Boston administration for the Commission’s legislative mandate and established procedures and guidelines.
“We are concerned that this disregard may impact the Commission’s ability to fulfill its legislatively defined objectives and could create a public impression that the Commission’s mandates and processes do not apply equally across all districts and properties.”
The letter points to six specific concerns but leads that section with the city’s efforts to re-purpose White Stadium for use by the professional soccer team franchise. The commissioners say they have been presented with half of the $80 million renovation project’s scope, the part proposed by Boston Unity Soccer Partners for the stadium’s west grandstand and note that the Wu administration has taken the view that the city’s renovations to the east grandstand are not within the “purview” of the BLC.
“The Commission’s enabling legislation and established regulations expressly requires Commission approval of all alterations to Boston Landmarks,” the members wrote, noting that all changes to Franklin Park, including White Stadium, need BLC approvals under state law. “The Commission is legislatively required to review the entirety of the proposed project and the Commission’s enabling legislation prevents ISD from issuing a permit for any project that is a Boston Landmark prior to approval by the Commission,” they asserted.
Two other specific cases, including the Hotel Buckminster in the Fenway and City Hall downtown, were also cited in the letter as instances of “interference” from the administration.
In the case of the Buckminster, the commissioners complained that a 2023 petition to designate the Kenmore Square property as a historic landmark was going through the normal review process until someone from the city administration “instructed Commission staff to pull the Hotel Buckminster’s designation from the Commission’s agenda on July 25, 2023.”
The letter said they were not given a reason for the instruction, but noted that the “public impression” was that the owner of the property - who has proposed to demolish most of it and redevelop it into a 215-foot lab building - had made the request.
“The City administration lacks the authority to pull any item from the Commission’s agenda or insert itself in the Landmark designation process,” the members maintain.
The issues with landmarking Boston City Hall also confronted administration “interference,” the letter asserted, with a study report that was crafted by the landmarks panel. The members indicated the administration had told them to extend the comment period for the study report, which they did out of deference to the administration.
However, things took a wrong turn when the report was headed for a vote, they said.
“After the extended period of public comment closed, members of the administration directed Landmarks staff to not place the item on an agenda, and to make changes to the report, and wrongly claimed that the process of drafting a study report for City Hall was flawed,” the panel group told the mayor in their letter.
“The process with respect to Boston City Hall should not have deviated from the Commission’s standard practice,” they noted.
Other cases cited include the redesign of the Arborway roadway, adherence to the Article 85 demolition delay legislation, and appointments to the Landmarks Commission itself.
The members closed their communication to the mayor with this comment: “We do not believe that historic or cultural priorities should take precedence over the City’s other priorities, just that historic and cultural resources should be considered in line with applicable law, including the Commission’s enabling legislation and Article 85.”
Wu’s office, asked for comment on the letter by the Reporter on Monday, said it is still reviewing the request.
Alison Frazee, director of the Boston Preservation Alliance (BPA), said her organization received the letter and included it in their weekly newsletter, noting it “very much supports the contents of that letter and the concerns of the Landmarks Commission.”
“I think we have had concerns with other administrations in the city that did not prioritize historic preservation,” she said. “We are really seeing here unprecedented actions of this administration trying to interfere with existing processes or avoid them altogether and that is troubling.
“We have a lot of concerns about White Stadium and making sure the Landmarks Commission process is followed and adhered to as legally required,” she said.
Foley, who previously headed-up the Fields Corner Main Street program, has worked on historic preservation issues in the city since the 1970s and has been a leading voice in Dorchester’s arts and culture community for many years. In her Landmarks Commission role, she directed the city’s review of permits to demolish or preserve properties in Boston. The commission is also charged with identifying and protecting historic districts and select properties deemed historic by its members. Although it is funded and housed at City Hall, its rules are governed by the state law that authorized its creation in 1975.
Commissioners who signed the letter were not aware of Foley’s firing until contacted by the Reporter on Monday.
The BLC‘s next scheduled meeting will be held virtually tomorrow night (Tues., April 23).
Reporter executive editor Bill Forry contributed to this report.
***************
Dear Committee Chair Enrique Pepen and City Councilors,
My testimony strongly opposes the idea behind this hearing of considering potential ways for the city to provide direct support to civic associations. It suggests alternative indirect paths to pursue the desirable goal of helping civic associations better fulfill their missions and enhance the value which the city relies on and acknowledges in Docket #0189 that they indeed deliver. I recommend inclusion of these other paths in an expanded purview of this Docket. They would obviate substantial concerns about the harmful consequences for the effectiveness and value of the roles and the credibility of civic associations if they receive direct municipal support.
The purpose of this hearing as set forth in Docket #0189 is to explore providing funding for and directly providing technical assistance to civic associations, and provide or develop an outline of best practices for civic associations to follow to be eligible for this funding and technical assistance. I urge you to broaden the scope of this hearing or any subsequent meetings to consider a wider range of opportunities for the city to strengthen civic associations. There are ways to reinforce their capabilities that do not involve direct funding and technical assistance from the city. They include consideration of the impact of the city's policies, procedures and actions on the propensity and willingness of Boston residents to devote their time and efforts to the work of civic associations and initiatives to expand the skill sets which residents can bring to these efforts.
It may seem surprising that I, as Chair of one of the largest and best-known civic associations in Boston, the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay (NABB), should be testifying in opposition to the idea of direct funding. Who rejects offers of money and resources when they may be available, provided any attached conditions are reasonable? And even if NABB believes it can do without money or assistance from the city, do not other civic associations with far fewer resources at their disposal deserve and need to have access to this assistance?
My testimony provides answers to these questions. It explains why the situation in which civic associations may become significantly dependent upon city funding and resources could imperil their missions and impair the value they contribute to the city. It suggests ways in which the city can help civic associations without incurring the risks associated with direct municipal involvement in their operations and finances.
Risks and Foreseeable Consequences of Direct Support
Money is Power and Power can be corrupting. Civic associations are necessarily engaged in multiple interactions with the city. At different times and depending on what is at stake they may:
1. Partner with the city in the planning and implementation of municipal projects,
2. Act as independent checks and balances on the exercise of municipal powers based on the needs, wishes and opinions of residents they represent in a democratic spirit,
3. Offer alternative or competitive ideas or amendments to be considered along with the policies, ideas and plans that emerge from City Hall.
Civic associations can also provide invaluable additional information, insights, and expertise at low or even no cost to supplement the experiences and knowledge of city staff and what these staff can do with their own resources and/or with consultants it hires, who are not inexpensive. The STR (Short Term Rental) Ordinance spearheaded by then at-large City Councilor Michelle Wu is an outstanding example of this last role. ADCO[1] of which NABB was a founding member worked closely with her to provide information and insights into the effects of these rentals in eroding the housing stock of cities across the nation and abroad, to supplement and reinforce the justification and persuasiveness of the case for introducing this Ordinance in Boston.
The potential for undermining the value and roles of civic associations is greatest when they find themselves opposed in whole or in part to a plan or series of actions that the city is proposing. Recent events demonstrate that this is not a hypothetical scenario. It is one we are experiencing now. It has arisen on multiple occasions, especially, but not only, in connection with proposed reforms of the BPDA and its decisions and procedures. The evidence is there in the comments, written and oral, that have been submitted by members and leaders of civic associations in many public hearings and meetings, both municipal and on Beacon Hill. It does not take a profound understanding of human nature or of organizational behavior ( as in the admonition, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you") to recognize that the positions any organization takes and the decisions it reaches with respect to policies and proposals emanating from a significant source of funding and support are likely to be influenced by concerns about whether or how much criticisms or opposition to this benefactor, independently of the merits of these positions, may lead to reductions or even elimination of this support. In the case of civic associations, the pressure or incentive not to resist or object to plans the city presents, even if that is the conclusion of most of its members, could become hard to resist. The credibility of the association would be impaired. Its reputation and role as an honest, objective, and constructive broker devoted to the interests of its members would be damaged, possibly irreparably. If the municipal source of the support it receives falls into the wrong hands, the adverse consequences for the civic association of performing its duty and speaking its truths and conveying community opinions honestly to the city would soon be felt.
Fortunately, there are alternative funding and assistance schemes through which the city can reinforce the capabilities of civic associations, while obviating the risk that they will have the effect of undermining these associations’ roles and value. I will outline several (no doubt far from an exhaustive list) examples below.
How to Support Civic Associations, especially those representing historically underserved and poorer communities
All civic associations face challenges in meeting increasing demands for resources and expertise to keep up with changing technology landscapes, e.g., the exploitation of social media as channels for communication and information (especially given these channels’ lamentable propensity to propagate misinformation and foster hostility as well as their vulnerability to cyber attacks) and the challenges of tackling complex controversial issues related to the impacts of climate change and the consequences for our communities of major shifts in demographics and economic opportunities, as well as the persistence of glaring discrepancies and inequities within our society. NABB recognizes that the Back Bay has access to more resources and expertise within its membership and potential members, has accumulated greater experience in interacting and working with the city over 65 plus years, with some notable achievements, and covers a broader geography and number of residents than many other civic associations. Hence while it is important to find ways to improve and upgrade the capabilities of all civic associations so they can sustain and increase the value they deliver to residents and the city, reinforcing the capabilities of civic associations in historically underserved communities or neighborhoods is particularly important for achieving equity or fairness and justice within the city.
The city itself can play a significant part in strengthening civic associations. But to avoid the risks identified above arising from direct municipal funding and assistance, indirect measures should be pursued. These measures will benefit Boston more broadly than civic associations. For example:
1. Funding more, better, and affordable childcare services (which the city is already doing) enabling parents to not only work but also find time to participate in meetings of civic associations and of these associations with the city and with third parties such as developers and other groups.
2. Supporting learning and training courses on skills such as website and database design and maintenance and clean energy technologies and systems etc. to increase the resources and capabilities which civic associations can draw on from among their members and potential members.
Additional resources from the city should be directed to these initiatives and a broader set of recipients instead of delivering assistance directly and specifically to civic associations. These recipients would enhance the capabilities civic associations can draw on from within the pool of their members and potential members.
Furthermore, the city should consider what steps it can take to reduce the level of distrust between civic associations and the city which in my experience has been growing. A higher level of trust would encourage more people to be willing to devote some of their time and efforts to an active role in a civic association because they perceive that it can have a positive influence and impact on matters that affect their lives. The city should create Community Councils with more than a purely advisory role, for example related to the Planning Department that will be established according to the Planning Ordinance recently approved by the City Council. Unfortunately, a proposal along these lines for an amendment to this ordinance was not accepted. It is not too late to rectify this omission.
A common complaint among members of civic associations is that the procedures followed in public meetings such as those of the BPDA and other city agencies and Boards soak up enormous amounts of time with unreasonably little space afforded them to deliver their testimony. After a few attempts to participate they become frustrated and exhausted and decide they cannot afford the time and effort to continue. They may conclude that in some cases it is a waste of their time anyway because the Commission or Board involved is simply a rubber stamp for decisions that have already been reached. So long as these experiences and perceptions persist the value and effectiveness of civic associations will be impaired because the pool of civic-minded volunteers they can draw on for sustained commitments will be self-limited.
I note finally that the message emerging from multiple meetings since early 2023 on changes in zoning and the city’s development system is that the city is moving towards more centralized planning, downplaying the significance of neighborhoods. Centralization is not consistent with the goal of reinforcing the capabilities of civic associations. It threatens to undermine the diversity of its neighborhoods which is one of Boston’s most distinctive and attractive characteristics. Civic associations are by their very nature neighborhood-focused, although open to and increasingly aware of the value and imperative of cooperation between neighborhoods to address issues of citywide significance, from climate change to housing. This cooperation identifies common aspirations, concerns and problems and formulates solutions designed to fulfill these aspirations and mitigate or even resolve problems, recognizing the validity of the adage “strength in numbers.” In my experience these working relationships also foster a more profound appreciation and awareness of the diversity within Boston and how to adapt or find variations of solutions that respect and sustain this diversity. Centralized top down planning is likely to foster the adoption of homogenized solutions that suppress diversity, as if every fastener should be a nail whereas in some cases a screw or a bolt or even the use of glue may be better and more appropriate.
Civic associations will be weakened if residents perceive that the city is trying to diminish neighborhood voices and influence in the overall scheme of city planning and decision making. Why should they then bother to participate in the activities of these associations in interacting with the city Administration?
Conclusion
The scope of this Docket should be widened to examine all the ways (actions, procedures and policies) through which the city influences and hence can expand and reinforce the capabilities of civic associations, without incurring the risks of direct municipal funding and assistance which will undermine their credibility and effectiveness in delivering value to the city. Policies and procedures should be reviewed and if necessary modified to demonstrate the importance and attention the city pays to wishes, opinions, and ideas presented by civic associations. Funding programs for Boston residents that boost the capabilities and expertise which civic associations can draw on from among their pool of potential members should be emphasized, evaluated, and pursued. These programs should focus on areas where the city is already active and is seeking more ways to help expand the skillsets of residents that will be in increasing demand throughout our economy as well as by civic associations.
Thank you for your attention.
[1] ADCO, the Alliance of Downtown Civic Organizations was established to represent the combined voice of Boston’s downtown residents, covering downtown Boston’s nine largest residents’ organizations, from Back Bay to Chinatown, from North End to South End.
Chair, Neighborhood Association of the Back BayThank you Seth! Rodney, thank you so much for crafting this. It is inspiring.RuthSent from my iPhoneOn Apr 11, 2024, at 3:16 PM, Seth Daniel <sethg...@gmail.com> wrote:Hello all,We did really appreciate Rodney taking the time to work up the piece for the Dorchester Reporter. We are always open to others submitting pieces for consideration on citywide issues, or if Dorchester or Mattapan residents, neighborhood specific issues. For now, here's the link to Rodney's piece from our site if you'd like to spead it around. It also appeared in print today.Seth DanielDorchester Reporter - News EditorOn Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 2:59 PM elaffer <ela...@aol.com> wrote:I agree. Terrific piece. Hope it gets circulated more widely.ElliottSent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone-------- Original message --------From: Victor Brogna <vbr...@gmail.com>Date: 4/11/24 2:13 PM (GMT-05:00)Subject: Re: Mayor Wu’s reforms on planning fall far short of campaign promisesRodney,Please accept my compliments on a well-presented, clear and compelling letter. Your style and clarity are to be admired. The Ordinance should have been written by you.On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, 1:09 PM Rodney Singleton <rodne...@gmail.com> wrote:Mayor Wu’s reforms on planning fall far short of campaign promises
By Rodney Singleton, Special to the Reporter
April 10, 2024Rodney SingletonThe recent City Council vote on an ordinance to create a Planning Department within the city of Boston, with a proclaimed intent to sunset the powerful Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), recently known as the Boston Planning and Development Agency (BPDA), falls horribly short of delivering what Boston residents deserve. Allegedly part of the legislation promised by then-City Councillor Michelle Wu to rid the city of the agency responsible for flattening Boston’s Black, Brown, immigrant, poor and working-class neighborhoods, this ordinance is in fact a cynical rebranding of the BRA.
For all the harm the BRA has caused, Wu’s new agency is not weaker than it was; in fact, it is stronger. Given critical decision making that remains intact by keeping the BRA Board as our planning board, this agency can now exercise its powers beyond established urban renewal zones to the entire city.
While not part of the newly created Planning Department, the BRA/BPDA’s relationship with planning is compromised and conflicted because leadership of the intact BRA and the new Planning Department are the same person – Arthur Jemison, who is answerable only to Mayor Wu. Agency processes are less transparent, with no real City Council oversight and annual financial reviews done only after the fact.
Most telling, there is now no formal component for community engagement and input, making new development ripe for the very same abuse that laid waste to vast parts of Roxbury and the West End. With this new ordinance, moreover, the new agency is not sunsetting any time soon.
Most offensively, all of this “reform” was trumpeted under the patronizing, opportunistic but false branding of equity, affordability, and resilience.
If equity is so key to this ordinance – something Wu suggested in her 2019 white paper to sunset the BRA while pointing to the wealth gap – why are unchecked urban renewal powers that took what little equity Black, Brown, immigrant, poor, and working-class families had in their homes being kept?
This flaw in the new ordinance is either entirely missed or never adequately explained. In fact, it’s no different than the administration’s flawed plan to move the centrally located John D. O’Bryant school from Roxbury, where it meets students from very diverse backgrounds where they are and provides transformational STEM educational experiences, to West Roxbury. The lack of substantive community engagement, tone-deafness to real harm to the future equity of young people, and disrespect to a community is astonishing.
The disrespect and tunnel vision to pass this ordinance, and failure to be sensitive to obvious inequity playing out at White Stadium, helps make the case. Wu aims to give White Stadium to a private for-profit sports team in order to rehab and maintain a neglected city resource, displacing Boston Public School programming. Her plan raises the question: Would the city give Boston Common or the Public Garden over to private hands? No! But apparently, it’s okay to give White Stadium away because it’s in Boston’s neighborhoods of color and we can’t find the funding (the same funding, by the way, the Common and Public Garden receive).
The BPDA has carried out an extensive window dressing effort at community engagement and participation to create the illusion that there is a plan for Boston’s future that we have all bought into. Pop-in open houses, “Pint with a Planner,” surveys and endless talks with BPDA consultants every day of the week across Boston allow individuals an experience of sharing individual opinions, but without being heard.
As a community, through our neighborhood associations and organizations, we have not been engaged at the planning level. All the while, Mayor Wu’s clock is ticking, and still, there’s no commitment to substantively engage and learn from a constituency that bears the scars of past harms from flawed plans.
Two days after the official ordinance signing, April 4, marked 56 years since the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated while advocating for sanitation workers in Memphis, where he believed the struggle exposed the need for economic equality and social justice.
Giants in Boston like Mel King and Chuck Turner stopped a highway from being built through Roxbury. But in Boston recently, a voting bloc of four city councillors of color, Ruthzee Louijeune, Henry Santana, Brian Worrell, and Enrique Pepen, sided with the mayor and voted against their interests as Black and Brown folks of this city, and not protecting other Black and Brown folks from harm. History and future elections will be judge and jury.
Rodney Singleton is a lifelong resident of Roxbury, whose childhood home was taken by eminent domain during the urban renewal of the 1960s. He is an avid gardener, lover of open spaces, and six-time winner of Boston’s garden competition. A graduate of Boston Technical High (John D. O’Bryant) and Northeastern University, he is an electrical engineer who lives with his wife on Cedar Street.
