TAB editor Andy Levin writes that “the proposal to convert the property at 70 Crescent St. to park space spits in the face of both history and justice.”
My hope is Real Property Reuse sends the proposal back to the full board unchanged.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Excellent editorial.
This is journalism ? Given his ajenda he should be running for office.
This editorial left out so many other sides of the story. It is a shame that Mr. Levin did not print the Letter to the Editor I submitted for this week’s TAB which detailed the extreme housing development that is currently taking place in this area of Auburndale. Within 1/2 mile radius of 70 Crescent, recent and current building plus those in the pipeline number 63 housing units MORE than the maximum build out calculated for this area by the city. Primary and secondary abutting properties to this lot have recently added 25,000 sq ft of new housing construction and lost nearly an acre of green space. Six additional market rate units (which would be priced around $700k) are more density than this jam-packed neighborhood can (or should have to) absorb. There is an existing house at 70 Crescent that could be converted to affordable housing that would provide the two units proposed in the Real Property Reuse discussions, without the cost of new construction, additional density, or lost potential open space.
As for a park spitting in the face of history and justice, omitted from Mr. Levin’s piece is that the concept of the park is a Turnpike Memorial, dedicated to those who lost homes to the Mass Pike. Many residents, including a family that still lives on Crescent St. who had their back yard taken by eminent domain, agree that a developer profiting from this land is a slap in the face. They would much rather see a park for all residents to enjoy and a space where school children can learn the history of the area.
As for doing the right thing, the city has made significant efforts to assist the Myrtle Baptist Church. In 1970, the city sold 32,000 sq. ft. of the land acquired back from the Turnpike Authority to the Church for a nominal fee. More recently, the city approved nearly $1 million in Community Preservation Funds to build Myrtle Village, seven affordable units across the street from the Church, of which at least a portion will house nice families associated with Myrtle Baptist Church.
Brava Elaine !
And Andy Levin,.. ” … Spits in the face of “,.. The citizens of this overburdened neighborhood .
I agree with Elaine, this area has been way overbuilt. People I know who live in that section overwhelmingly prefer a park to preserve some green space.
@blueprintbill
It’s an editorial – i.e. an opinion, not a new story
@ Jerry Reilly – “It’s an editorial – ie an opinion,..”
Who asked for his “opinion” !
A good editorial is based on accurate facts, and careful consideration of all sides of an issue. Andy Levin’s “editorial” is evidence of neither.
@Blueprint: You realize asking that makes you appear both naive and foolish, right?
I don’t think I was alone in asking for his opinion when I expressed my appreciation that GateHouse hired an editor for the TAB who cares enough about local issues to form an opinion.
@Gail. Having an opinion while presenting a balanced view of the facts is fine. But both this piece and the piece Andy Levin wrote on Austin St did none of that and were completely one-sided pro-development editorials. A newspaper should present both sides equally and let the reader make up their mind rather than taking such a strong position.
I agree that newspapers should do this but disagree that editorials should do that. And my view on that has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the position taken.
@Peter – I think the Tab NEWS coverage has been fair, accurate and balanced on these development issues (Austin & Crescent streets).
It’s not the job of an editorial to present both sides equally. The point of an editorial is to take a position and express an opinion, which we of course can choose to agree with or not.
It sounds like you’re suggesting that they shouldn’t write editorials
Just to clarify Ms. Arruda’s comment regarding the Myrtle Village Housing project on Curve Street. First it is seven units an addition of four to the three that already exist and secondary the residents will be selected through s lottery and it is very unlikely that members of Myrtle Baptist will be selected for all the units. Her statement is consistent with the misstatements being distributed by the supporters of the park only option.
I think editors should absolutely editorialize. But I think their opinions should be evidence-based. At the very least they would be more persuasive that way.
Peter and Blue, I couldn’t agree with you more. While it seems most of Andi’s editorials are just agreeing with articles from the Tab that he links, this one he is using as a pulpit. He has determined, along with a few others, that 6 ~$700 units and 2 affordable units of housing is the only “right thing to do,” and joins those trying to shame anyone who doesn’t agree. He adds that “many of these folks would prefer” the housing development. The voices from people who live there now say differently; they say the green space is going fast in their over built community, that isn’t through being built out yet.
Andy says:
“But the 70 Crescent St. issue is not about money. Instead, it is about a rare opportunity to at least partially correct a historical injustice.” People obviously have differing opinions on this, but I don’t see how continuing to build on every square inch of land in this community does anything but create more injustice by cramming it so full there is no room left to breathe.
“The issue is about doing what is morally right.” I don’t believe Andy or anyone else knows the “morally right” thing to do here. Both sides are coming from places of heartfelt belief about what is right. It is absurd to suggest that those who want a park are wanting something that is morally wrong!
Elaine Rush Arruda is not making statements “consistent with the misstatements being distributed by the supporters of the park only option” if there have been any.
She plainly says “Myrtle Village, seven affordable units across the street from the Church, of which at least a portion will house nice families associated with Myrtle Baptist Church.” She did not say “all” as in it is “very unlikely that members of Myrtle Baptist will be selected for all the units.”
Myrtle Village is 7 units.
She could have added “hopefully” to the rest, if she is not sure, but in many instances the proposed development of only 2 affordable units is pushed as homes for some of the same families when those would be a lottery too.
She did say this which is more important”
“Many residents, including a family that still lives on Crescent St. who had their back yard taken by eminent domain, agree that a developer profiting from this land is a slap in the face.”
There are points to be made on both sides. Plus, there is no guarantee that the development will be as stated.
What is wrong with a developer profiting, they take the risk and is compliant with the American capitalism system.
And that question/statement is not relevant.
@Jerry: It may not be the “job of an editorial to present both sides equally” but it is important to not misrepresent facts. The TAB editorial states that “The proposal, which calls for the Board of Aldermen to reverse its decision to surplus the property at 70 Crescent St. and adopt a plan to create park space at the site, has been sent back to Real Property Reuse for “more study.”
– That is simply a FALSE statement. If Mr. Levin had attended the meeting and/or listened to the audio recording of that meeting, he would have heard me, the Alderman who requested the item be recommitted, that the intent was to hold the item in committee so that the Real Property/Reuse Committee could continue it’s discussion of the RFP so that those who favor a park only proposal could understand exactly what the “housing plus expanded playground” proposal would look like. If Mr. Levin had listened to the debate, he would have heard that there are several different “opinions” about development of that site and that the Real Property/Reuse Committee has not voted out the criteria that will be contained in that RFP.
If the “morally right” thing to do is take advantage of “a rare opportunity to at least partially correct a historical injustice” then any housing component of the reuse of this land should be all affordable housing.
@Alderman Sangiolo: With all due respect this…
…sounds like “more study” to me. What’s the difference?
I meant to state – all the housing units should be affordable – with of course – a very expanded park component.
“all the housing units should be affordable”
If this is a condition of the board order, it would actually be a poison pill unless there is a considerable public subsidy that comes with it. But as part of the RFP process, the criteria should favor more than the minimum 25% affordable.
Fortunately, the city is so far behind on expenditures for affordable housing that there is a balance of $3.5 million available (over the past 5 years the city has created only 7 units of affordable housing using CDBG funds, not including 4 additional units to be developed as part of Myrtle Village on Curve Street). CAN DO, the Newton Housing Authority, or another developer of affordable housing could do all affordable units with that kind of investment. For instance, SEB created 10 units at Parkview Homes on Lexington Street–all affordable–using a combination of CDBG and CPA funding.
@Greg: They are not going to discuss the park proposal. They are only going to move forward with the discussion of the criteria for the RFP. That provides everyone with a vision of what they can anticipate for the reuse of the site. That’s the difference.
@Ted: I am in total favor of subsidizing the creation of affordable housing at that site and also subsidizing the purchase of the “modest” sized homes in this City that are being torn down by developers to create extremely large and expensive homes so that we can have true integration and mix of affordability in this City.
@Amy, that’s great. We can work on ways to maximize the open space and expansion of the existing playground while still addressing the housing needs of the city with this project. The chief planner and I visited a “net zero energy” development in Boston that included 4 affordable townhouses on a very small footprint which could serve as a model.
@Ted: Still not giving up on the total park project yet BUT would work toward ensuring that any housing that goes on the site, are all affordable units.
Fair enough, Amy.
Oh, SNAP! Dig George Lucas!