I couldn’t help but note the irony when Board President Scott Lennon announced at today’s inauguration that the new chair of the Land Use Committee is Marc Laredo. He replaces Ted Hess-Mahan, who you might recall, ran for mayor while simultaneously running for reelection to his alderman at-large seat. Part of Hess-Mahan’s reasoning behind hanging onto his alderman seat while campaigning for a better gig was that without him — or someone who knows as much as he does — chairing Land Use or working in the administration, the proposed redevelopment of three city properties could “go to hell in a handbag.”
I can only speculate as to why this replacement took place. Lennon doesn’t make big moves easily and there has to be something behind this. I doubt it’s because Hess-Mahan proved himself unworthy in the job.
I’ve always thought Hess-Mahan did a good job as Land Use chair. Ted certainly agrees with me. Perhaps that was the problem? It’s never a good strategy to tell your colleagues — or your leadership — that you are indispensable. If I thought an employee had created a situation where he or she was the only person who could do the job, the first thing I’d do is train somebody else. Laredo has been on the committee for two years and he’s a capable guy. Maybe Lennon took the job away from Hess-Mahan because of his ego?
But that doesn’t sound like reason enough.* Is Ted somehow being punished for running for mayor? Did he anger his colleagues? Is there something else going on behind the scenes?
*I will ask Scott, but I’m certain I won’t get an on-the record answer. I looked for both Scott and Ted after the inauguration ceremony but they both left quickly.
Hess-Mahan was appointed vice-chairman of Real Property Reuse, an ad hoc committee. In other leadership change news: Deb Crossley has replaced Anthony Salvucci as chair of Public Facilities. Congratulations to Marc and Deb.
By all accounts THM did a terrific job as chair. Scott and the Mayor were in the same class at NNHS (I think), unless THM voluntarily gave up the seat, it wouldn’t surprise me if this wasn’t payback for running. If this is true, they both are willing to jeopardize the good of the city for pettiness. Too bad.
Clearly it was payback – What qualifications does Laredo have for this? Evidently Lennon is positioning himself for the next Mayoral Election – or maybe taking over sooner if Warren decides to run for higher office.
@Joanne: Well for one, he’s a lawyer (just as Hess-Mahan is). He’s also chaired the School Committee, which means he’s had experience overseeing public meetings and juggling constituencies with varied interests. And I’m pretty sure he was on Land Use last year.
None of that takes away the political intrigue surrounding this.
What class Alderman Lennon and Mayor Warren were in at Newton North is irrelevant. Yes, it would be petty if Scott penalized Ted for running for mayor but I doubt it’s that simple. I suspect it has to do with Ted and his colleagues.
From all comments Ted has done a good job at chairing the land use and my understanding is that he has done a great job in streamlining the process. Why would you take that away for an unknown entity? We’ve got some serious projects ahead and it will be extremely interesting if this move proves detrimental towards those projects. It clearly doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t reflect well on this administration. IMHO.
Tom – Why do you think it reflects anything about this administration? It was a decision by the president of the Board of Aldermen. If he succumbed to pressure by the mayor, that reflects poorly on Scott as a leader. That’s why I don’t think this is about Ted’s decision to run for mayor. But it may be about Ted’s behavior while he ran for mayor. Or maybe it’s something else.
Gail, If there was pressure coming from the Mayor, it shows a vindictive side of him most people haven’t seen, yet. It is Cohen-esque and has no place for running a city. It poorly reflects on him and his administration.
It also shows that Scott lacks leadership and is willing to jeopardize the well-being of the city. It doesn’t reflect well on anyone.
From my perspective, as someone with a bit of knowledge about real estate investment and development, Ted Hess-Mahan did an outstanding job as Chair of Land Use. But I’m sure Scott Lennon must have had a darn good reason for replacing him. Scott would never sacrifice the good of the city, just to play petty politics… would he? So the right thing for President Lennon to do, is just be honest, and tell the public why he made this change. I think he owes that to the citizens of Newton, and it’s a good test of his honesty and openness.
A lot will be going on in the Zoning and Planning Committee this year. There is a lot on the plate there … why is no one commenting on the contribution that THM would be making to that committee? I do think Alderman Laredo has potential of doing well as Chair of Land Use. I don’t think the City will suffer.
Greer –
I haven’t seen any full committee rosters. At the inauguration yesterday, Alderman Lennon only announced committee chairs and vice chairs. This is the first I’ve heard of Alderman Hess-Mahan serving on Zoning and Planning.
Maybe Alderman Laredo will do a great job, maybe he won’t. But the question is, why make the change? It just smells a little bit like politics. I would think it’s in everyone’s interest for President Lennon to clear the air. The important thing is that the public be best served, by the person who can do the best job.
Mike – I’ve emailed Alderman Lennon. I’ll post his response when he replies.
Of course, it smells like politics. We’re talking about leadership positions. Serving the public has many job descriptions, some of which we don’t see. We don’t know how he gets along with his colleagues and leadership, or how people at City Hall feel about him. He spent his whole campaign saying that the turnover at City Hall made it such a horrible place to work. Maybe department heads didn’t appreciate that. Or maybe it wasn’t true and City Hall employees didn’t appreciate him speaking for them.
And…not everybody thinks he did such a good job. Remember, the Lower Falls residents who claimed the Riverside public hearing process was “fatally flawed”? According to this Wicked Local Newton story, abutters filed an appeal in Land Court, claiming, among other things that,
I would also throw out the possibility that it was obvious to Scott that this is Ted’s last term, and it made sense to replace him now.
So, Tom, I think jumping to the conclusion that it was vindictive is premature.
Gail,
My feeling is all politicians are the same. It might be unfair, but they will spin the truth anyway they can to get out of trouble. Even if THM had some troubles, I need tangible proof. I don’t trust any of these people as far as I can throw them. I know you do, thats fine.
Being Chair is like being a ref of a ball game. Whenever you make a decision one side wins and the other loses. The tangible proof is in the pudding and that the city was working well with Ted as the chair. If there were so many people complaining about not asking questions during a meeting and they blamed Ted for it, why didn’t we hear questions about it or letters in the Tab about it while he was running for Mayor? People had opportunity to voice their displeasure about his leadership while he was in office, but didn’t. This is vindictive.
Tom – I’m certain that I heard complaints about the Land Use Committee. I don’t know if I read them in letters to the editor or on one of the blogs or heard about them in conversation. I probably shrugged them off as NIMBY-related, which they may have been, but it was unfair of me to make assumptions or invalidate the abutters’ concerns even if there were NIMBY issues.
That doesn’t mean I’m saying Ted did a bad job. I’m saying that, contrary to your claim, not everybody thought he did a good job, and I think that you are rushing to the conclusion that this is vindication because it’s the answer you want. I suggest we wait until we have more information.
Also, Tom, if all politicians are the same, does that mean if you had been elected mayor, you would have immediately begun “spinning the truth” anyway you could to get out of trouble?
As I heard it, there were changes in four of the six standing committee leadership positions: Public Facilities, Zoning and Planning, Land Use, and Programs and Services. Scott Lennon does not have a vindictive bone in his body.
It is not at all unusual for changes in committee assignments to change from term to term, and for chairs and vice chairs to move about.
Apparently when that happens we must assume the prior chair had done a bad job?
And new additions/deletions to/from the board influence things too, as each committee must have one rep from each ward.
There may be some interesting possibilities for Ted on the Real Property Reuse committee. It looks like Newton Centre is on the agenda for this upcoming term. Ted’s success with making Chestnut Hill and Riverside projects a reality may bode well for maximizing the potential of current city assets.
Now I am happy to see political intrigue unfold but Land Use may be running smoothly and Ted needs a new challenge.
Below is Alderman Lennon’s emailed response to a question about why he replaced Ted Hess-Mahan with Marc Laredo as chair of the Land Use Committee. I have his permission to post this. He said a lot more than I expected.
Gail,
Lets face it, politicians tell people what they want to hear. The reason why you thought the Mayor’s innaugeration speech was so good was he said what you wanted to hear.
As far as you’re direct question is concerned whether I would spin or not, I can’t answer that question until I’m in their shoes. In my lifetime I have played with the truth, like anyone else. I don’t go around believing every word and dought on every word any of these pols say. There is very often a hidden meaning behind the words they speak.
As far as my claim, I said anyone I talked to, that isn’t everyone in the city…only people I have heard from…I never heard a negative comment on his job performance. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t any, as I didnt take a citywide poll :).
I am willing to hear Scott out, I hope he addresses this. Barring that I am willing to wait until this plays out, too. It still doesn’t make sense to me, but a whole lot of stuff that happens in this city doesn’t make sense to me, either.
WOW, what a thoughtful, thorough response from Scott!
For such internal board matters, I don’t particularly feel we need or are entitled to know the micro picture. There is a quasi employer/employee relationship here that deserves discretion.
But what Scott lays out sounds so much like how I would have imagined and expected Scott to conduct himself.
Shame on those willing to excoriate him with little information to work with.
I have to commend Scott Lennon for what appears to be a frank assessment of the decision process. There was a lot less “spin” then one may expect.
@Tom, sorry I guess we can’t pin this one on Setti.
I found Scott’s honesty admirable and refreshing and told him that it was a great first campaign move!
I agree, Dan, that we don’t need to know details, but I think we have the right to know the politics behind decisions. I wasn’t second guessing Scott’s decision, just wanting to understand it. Since learning about the assignment change, I realized that I’d been saying that Ted was a good chair of the Land Use Committee, but the only reason I thought that was because Ted and Mike Striar told me that all the time. I had no idea if they were right.
I appreciate the long, thoughtful response from Alderman Lennon and have been sad to see how quick people are to assume the worst.
Gail, my criticism wasn’t aimed at you at all. There was nothing wrong with asking the question.
To the contrary you were asking folks not to jump to conclusions.
A thoughtful and respectful response from Ald. Lennon – a stand up guy we’re lucky to have as a city leader.
What Dan said in his three comments.
Thanks, Gail. I appreciate your soliciting Alderman Lennon’s thoughts on the matter, and I’m entirely satisfied with his response. We’ll see how it goes with Marc Laredo in the Chair.
I would think one of the committee’s top priorities would be pushing back the developer who’s proposing the large apartment building on Wells Ave. In my opinion, the ability of the City to stop that project will tell us a lot about the leadership capability of Alderman Laredo. Parents of children who will be attending either Countryside or Memorial-Spalding, should be keeping a close eye on that proposal.
Leaving the merits of this project aside, I would think the committee’s top priority should be to give every project a fair, lawful review.
Nor do I think any city or town should intentionally set out to “make things very difficult” for any developer. If you don’t like a law, change the law.
Mike, my (very limited) understanding of the 40B regulations were that a developer could side step nearly all of a town or city’s zoning regulation if their project met the 40B guidelines.
If that’s the case, how would you see the aldermen being able to affect that project? I do agree that there will inevitably be a serious impact to Countryside and/or Memorial Spaulding if that project goes forward.
@Jerry– Great question. You’re exactly right. 40B allows developers to side step local zoning ordinances. Which is how you end up with an apartment building in an office park.
But cities and towns do have the ability to make things very difficult for a 40B developer. For example, my partners and I spent 10 years jumping through hoops to get a 40B permit at Rattlesnake Hill in Sharon. The Town fought us at every turn. They made it so difficult, that even after the State granted the permit, we decided to sell the project to another developer. Here we are 8 years later, and the Town is still fighting the company that bought the project from us. They have yet to put a shovel in the ground. That’s the way Newton should deal with these large scale 40B projects. Tell the developers up-front that they’re in for a battle. And fight the project at every turn. Traditionally that’s not been the approach in Newton. A lack of resolve under the Cohen Administration to fight Avalon on Needham Street, overwhelmed Countryside with more than 60 new students. We cannot afford to repeat that mistake.
While this is a nice response, do you honestly believe that if there was a political slant on his choice he’d come out and say so. Excuse me for not gushing at what these people say. What is Scott’s vision that Ted doesn’t meet up with?
Well thanks Scott, all us bloggers appreciate your effort to write on the blog. I hope Mr. Laredo will feel as generous as you in the future. Land Use is a powerful committee.
If you and Ted differed on vision for the city, I am all ears for you to briefly outline for the readers your vision for Newton.
Perhaps Ted was too much of an independent thinker for your idea of what is best for Newton.
If you read what Scott wrote carefully, he says they differed in their vision of how the committee should be run which is different from differing over their vision for Newton. He could have thought (or heard complaints from committee members) that Ted was too autocratic or not autocratic enough in how he ran the committee, or rushed things through or didn’t go quickly enough, or …
I’m sorry but I don’t agree that the BOA President needs to explain his committee choices. Voters elect the board members but the board caucuses to choose the president and VP. Then the President gets to decide how to utilize these 23 others resources to the best advantage of the city. That includes selection of committees for aldermen to serve on and the chairs and co-chairs.
To the extent Scott got reelected, there must have been consensus that he did OK with this last time, so I believe he’s earned the right to structure things however he sees fit. If it doesn’t work this time around, he’d probably not get to be president next time.
We are not entitled to know his every thought as to how we arrived at his layout, in my opinion..
Prior to hearing from Alderman Lennon, I emailed Alderman Hess-Mahan asking why he was no longer chair of the Land Use Committee. Here’s his response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz8RjPAD2Jk
Yikes. Did Alderman Lennon also strip Alderman Hess-Mahan of his ability to post his own comments on Village 14?
And, if so, Tom do you think the mayor is behind this?
Greg –
To be fair, Alderman Lennon didn’t post his own comment either.
I thought Ted played this very well.
@Gail: Oh so now we’re being fair? Geeze, this blog is going downhill fast!
Dan nailed it. They work at the pleasure of the President of the Board. No explanation necessary. However, kudos to Alderman Lennon for his very honest comments.
As his “quote” to Gail illustrates, Ted Hess Mahan has publicly maintained his good humor through everything.
I’m sure that he will serve the people of Newton as best he can, regardless of titles.
@Greg– “If you don’t like a law, change the law”? Why is it not okay to just work within the parameters of the law, in order to effect the outcome? I’m not proposing anything illegal. Just suggesting the City use every available means to slow down the process and reduce the profitability of the Wells Ave project, in order to make it less attractive for the developer. Remember who our elected officials work for. The residents of Newton, not developers. Alternatively, we could start building more modulars right now at Countryside and Memorial-Spalding. Because that’s what’s gonna happen if this ill conceived project gets built.
Come on Mike, we know you’re not talking about working within the parameters of the law, you’re talking about throwing red tape at something as way to thwart the law. That’s not the way good governments should work.
Alderman Hess Mahan is someone I respect particularly because he is an open door to the inner workings of government. His postings for the last several years on blogs have included his thoughts as well as detailed links to documents that interested observers like me could not otherwise get easily. I would think his next move would be pointed to the Statehouse. If there was any remark I didn’t agree with in his local participation it’s where he suggests that he does what’s good, not what’s popular. In a micro-sense of participation, what’s popular is good or else we walk away. And we can in Newton.
Ald Hess Mahan is also a man of basic good (wry) humor and a class act. (I don’t know of the chair-elect or of the BoA pres since are not involved w the blogs as Ted)
I agree with Hoss that Hess-Mahan’s willingness to explain any issue or thought process at great length is a real service to our community. Of course I hope –and expect — he will continue to do that.
@Greg– Was Avalon on Needham Street reflective of the way good government should work? There are a few modular classrooms attached to Countryside School that indicate it was just the opposite. Sorry, I’m opposed to developers using a loophole law to trump local zoning laws in Newton. And I expect local officials [like new Land Use chair, Marc Laredo] to do his level best to preserve the intent of our local zoning laws.
No Avalon was reflective of bad government which put road blocks up preventing Stop & Shop from opening there.
I can only speak from being a petitioner in front of the Land Use Committee, but I have to say that I found Alderman Hess-Mahan to be an effective meeting manager and very much on top of the subject matter.
While dealing with City Hall can be a frustrating experience for those of us who are not initiates, I have gained an appreciation for all the work that all our aldermen put in, which they do on top of their day jobs. I trust that THM will continue to use his abilities to our collective benefit.
One question that comes to mind is the Austin St. development. Ted differed with the Mayor on how to develop the parking lot area. Could that have been the issue that led to his dismissal?
Actually I believe Alderman Hess-Mahan was critical of the way Mayor Warren was conducting the process. I’m not sure either person signed onto any particular “way to develop” the parcel.
I’m glad that Colleen mentioned Austin Street, because it gives me a chance to throw in my two cents on that project. The City is nuts to consider developing that parking lot, without first assessing the impact its absence might have on Pike air-rights development. I’ve heard that the market across the street is looking to expand. That building is built on air-rights, and is perfectly positioned for a platform expansion. The City could be looking at a spectacular development by combining all the land based and air-rights parcels into a singular comprehensive plan. It’s truly a once in a generation opportunity that is being overlooked.
What Mike Striar Said.
And really does the Mayor think that removing that parking lot from Newtonville Village/stores/senior center is going to be a good thing?
Actually, Joanne, I believe that is exactly what he thinks. It has been an underutilized parking lot for a long time [perhaps because folks park in Shaw’s lot instead?].
Anyway, if done properly, it has the potential to revitalize Newtonville in positive ways, There are lingering questions about replacement parking for sure and i know citizens are pushing aggressively on that issue to make sure that’s adequately addressed.
I live right on the edge of Newtonville Square, yet I see this as potentially a net positive.
@Mike, do you have any reason to believe there was no discussions with Shaw’s about plans for the area? I believe there was., but Shaw’s wasn’t clear on what it wanted to do.
@Dan– Shaw’s is not clear what they want to do, because the City has not defined the process for further cultivation of air-rights. If the process were defined, there would be developers lining up with proposals from Newton Corner to Newtonville. Look how many proposals the Austin Street lot alone brought forward. Then look at “The Street” or “Chestnut Hill Square” to understand how much growth can be generated by using a super market as an anchor. There are hundreds of developable acres over the Pike. It’s the largest developable space left anywhere in Newton. But developers need to understand the rules, before they can submit proposals. The Austin Street lot could play a substantial role in an air-rights development project, by allowing an expanded footprint on ground based soil. That combination of an air-rights and ground based site, dilutes the cost of the platforms over a larger area, making development more financially attractive.
But isn’t the real problem with your proposal Mike?
According to industry experts, the price of building a deck alone can cost anywhere from $750 to $900 per square foot, compared to $250 to $300 per square foot for a normal land-based development, including property acquisition and foundation work.
Is there really a magic bullet for that?
It’s a matter of supply and demand, Dan. Do you know anywhere else a new mall could be built in Newton? How about a new hotel, office tower, or performing arts center? The “magic bullet” is to make air-rights financially feasible by allowing the buildings more height, and incorporating ground based construction as part of an overall development plan. It’s worth noting that multi-level parking garages carry the same costs you’re attributing to air-rights platforms. Have developers stopped building multi-level parking garages? Of course not! The only reason we don’t see more air-rights development in Newton, is because the City has not defined the process.
Mike,
Approach Mayor Warren with this. When he first got elected he was in favor of this (I can’t say what he is now), but maybe you can take the lead in the process. I looked into it (with the Mayor’s permission and you in mind) and talked to a person (I can’t remember his name) and after the conversation determined that it would take a structure 7-10 stories high for a developer to turn a profit and Newton would never go for a 7-10 floor development. I shouldn’t have made any assumptions like I did. Why don’t you pick up the ball.
Hi Tom– I don’t think Mayor Warren, or new Land Use Chairman, Marc Laredo have much interest in air-rights development. Any major construction is always going to be controversial, and most politicians are afraid it will cost them votes. That’s why Mayor Warren turned down the free fire station in Newton Centre. I think it’s going to take a new mayor who comes into office with air-rights development on their agenda.
Dan – anytime I have gone over to Newtonville and needed to park – the parking lot was pretty filled. So where are all those cars going to go?? Because I dont think that the Supermarket is going to allow all the cars that now park in that lot to park in their parking area. What about the seniors that go to the Senior Center?
And Mike Striar – any thoughts of you running again for Mayor? We need someone that gets it and understands Business. Because if not all we are going to end up with is 40B developments that will cripple the city and only make the developers rich.
Mike,
First, you’ve got my vote.
Second, I approached him and he was open to it. We actually talked about you (unfortunately, you were busy with other things…can’t remember what) and he wanted you involved, because he recognized this was your area.
When I started looking at the numbers, it was me who felt the numbers didn’t work, not Mayor Warren. Maybe you can pick up the ball and have a discussion with the Mayor about it.
I understand what you’re saying about him, but you never know, he might surprise you. If you know it can be done, maybe it’s worth having a discussion with him.