According to this press release posted on WickedLocalNewton, 12 residents have filed a “ten taxpayer” lawsuit against the city of Newton “seeking an injunction against the lease or sale of the city-owned Austin Street parking lot to Austin Street partners LLC for a mixed-use development.”
The group is alleging that the city did not follow provisions of the state bidding or zoning laws.
UPDATE: Here’s the court document
UPDATE: Here’s the Globe’s coverage, with a comment from City Solicitor Donnalyn Kahn.
Gail you beat me to it. I had to do a double take and make sure it wasn’t one of Jerry’s pranks.
of ffs! This development is just not that bad to warrant this type of hatred! Yes the city needed to have done a better job out front and it was a weird process, BUT COME ON it will have a bit of an impact while being built and somebody driving will have to walk farther or from a different location but IT WILL BE FINE when its done.
sheesh
Oddly, the WickedLocal piece appears to be written by the plaintiff, so it’s more of a press announcement than a news story. Here’s Ellen Ishkanian’s story from today’s Globe.
What a colossal waste of time, energy, and money. All because some small minded people can’t think outside of their own boxes.
This is the best news. Now we Newtonville residents will have an opportunity to hold our elected officials accountable. This is a very important process as people deserve the right to have a say in the future of their community.
Those who live in other parts of Newton take notice. I wonder how those in Newton Centre would feel if the city sold one of the parking lots in the centre built underground parking and a multi-storey apartment building on top.
West Newton and the Highlands could see development more also. Not a future I would support.
Colleen, you should wait and see how far this lawsuit gets before you get too excited. I’d be very supportive of an effort to revitalize Newton Centre. Walk in back of Walgreens sometime and look at the underutilized public and private space.
This is certainly an interesting development, but not entirely surprising. I’m sure that there are other legal maneuvers to come by just about everyone.
As far as Colleen’s comment regarding parking, I would argue that places like the lot in Newton Centre can and should be better utilized.
Take a look at this image of Newton Centre from 1964 in which a school occupies the land now used as a parking lot. https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:gb19g124q.
I’m not saying we should entirely eliminate the parking, but thinking about these spaces as part of the village fabric rather than simply accepting their roles as auto storage would help our future.
This is a surprising and gutsy move. What’s most surprising to me is that the lawsuit seems to involve a group of people that I don’t remember being previously involved in political activism.
Gutsy? More likely obstructionist, especially considering that I can’t recall a project that’s been subject to more process.
Also Charlie maybe you just haven’t been paying attention since you lost your seat on the board. Sarah Quigley has been trying to use legal tactics to halt this public process all along. And this is far from Atty. Guive Mirfendereski’s first legal rodeo vs. City Hall.
But no matter. Some residents in Ashland tried something remarkably similar this summer, alas with out success.
Here’s the key conclusion from the Ashland case…
Charlie, gutsy, please this is the height of NIMBYISM
It appears similar to a “Hail Mary” play in football: Down a touchdown, 3 seconds left in the game, toss the ball downfield 50 yards and hope for a near-miraculous score. A desperation play with time running out.
On extraordinarily rare occasions these plays work.
Whether one agrees with it or not, these are fellow resident who are clearly upset and are putting their actions behind their feelings. So yes, it’s gutsy.
As far as NIMBY goes… yes…it does seem like they don’t want the thing in their backyard. But vilifying your neighbors who disagree with you is really not conducive to a civil discussion.
Both sides should respect the other…even if you think the other side is tragically misguided.
Sadly, this seems to be about par for the course here in Newton.
Ms. Minaker, the ballot box is where you and those holding your rather selfish and antiquated views have the opportunity to hold you elected officials accountable. The courts should be reserved for cases where justice is truly needed. It is a shame common sense and a modicum of humility are so lacking.
Well said Elmo.
How often have we heard Charlie Shapiro, Colleen and others say the Austin Street project is being “shoved down our throats” What about shoving a frivolous lawsuit down the public’s throat, rather than allowing the special permit process and electoral process determine the outcome?
And may I add that we, the taxpayers, will all be paying for this frivolous lawsuit, Greg.
Last time I checked, the courts were part of seeking and finding justice when a party feels they’ve been wronged. If the suit has no merit, the courts will find as such. Nothing to be afraid of there.
The court might even find it frivolous, but they would be more qualified to use that term than any non-lawyer who posts to a blog.
Thank you to Gail for posting the court document.
@Charlie: Why not wait until the board votes before deciding they’ve been “wronged”? Austin Street could well be rejected but meanwhile our taxpayer funded lawyers have to spend time (and our money) now dealing with this.
@Native-
We have multiple full time legal staff at city hall and they’re really good at their job. Unless they feel they need to hire outside counsel or consultants to help them out, it takes time out of their day, but how would it increase the taxpayer cost?
@Greg- that’s an excellent question. When reading the complaint, it appears to be more about process rather than actual end use. What would be your guess?
No, my guess is obstruction. Or as Howard said, NIMBYISM
The court system is part of process. Period. You don’t like it (as many on this board has told me) then change it.
Guive is an experienced busy attorney and if you think he is taking a case just for the hell of it, then you are ALL out of your mind. The last time he went up against Donnalyn he beat her easily. I was told the judge yelled at her. This was the CPA case, which I am sure most on this board were also in favor of.
We need people testing boundaries.
Guivereneski vs Kahn …..Part II
The Mayor claims to have the ability of bringing both sides together and meeting commonground. Quite frankly, I haven’t seen this from him, but if he has it, maybe it’s time to sitdown with both sides and come up with a decision.
What you call NIMBYISM as derogatory term is essentially:
“…I like things essentially how they are, and if there’s going to be any change, I expect my input to matter. If not, you have no right to change my neighborhood…”
Yes, the courts are part of the process. I know that I’ve read in the past the argument that a hallmark of NIMBYism is that those who live in the community have the power while those who do not, simply lack it. By that I mean, those who do not yet live in the homes not yet built on Austin Street don’t have any power to fight back.
I know this argument has an conceptual bent to it, but stick with me for a moment. Let’s just look at the affordable units in that building. They don’t exist. Those filing suit, however, have the means of hiring a lawyer. Those who would move into those affordable units do not. Those who live within the bounds of Newton have the power to vote and, in theory, keep out housing they don’t want. Those who don’t yet live in the community do not. In a way, it’s up to our elected officials to speak for those who do not yet have that voice.
Also, we live in a republic, not a complete democracy. We don’t vote on every action, we elect people on whose judgement we rely. If we don’t like those people, our recourse is to vote them out. The Austin Street process has moved through multiple administrations and voting cycles, if people really wanted to make a change they would have (and, in some cases, have). We have that opportunity again in just a couple of weeks.
I’m not surprised at this in any way. In fact, I expected it. It is, as was said above, a “Hail Mary.” But in a way I”m heartened by it. It has the smell of desperation, and that only happens when a group believes it has no other hope.
Charlie, how about those of us like myself who live close to the site, but support the project. Seems to me that if the election has not yet been held, I don’t think your statement is accurate as of yet. It certainly doesn’t apply to me.
All that said, I was expecting this lawsuit. I certainly hope the city was as well. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the level of rhetoric used by the opponents of Austin Street would logically lead to a lawsuit if they didn’t get their way in the court of public opinion. Nor do I denigrate them for filing it, it is their right, even if I disagree with them and think it is a waste of money.
I’m not entirely confident that the city didn’t mess something up, although I strongly reject some of the insinuations in the filing. The filing felt like it was throwing the kitchen sink against the wall and hoping something broke through in the eyes of the court. Perhaps it did, especially considering the unique way the city handled the RFP process. We will see I guess.
I am very surprised by the timing. Why not wait until after the election to file? Didn’t they just cut off at the knees all of the anti-development slate of candidates? Strange.
This isn’t the CPA case in my opinion, but I’m not expert in either one. Perhaps someone else can weigh in regarding the merits of the case.
I am with Adam as a fellow Newton Centre resident. I would like to see our public spaces better utilized and a big open air parking lot is not a good use when we could have smart buildings a bit more variety of stores and more restaurants and entertainment. I would rather housing be built here than on wells ave. where there are no services or stores and everyone will need to drive everywhere.
I’m not surprised by this lawsuit. I don’t know their motive. I
do know that many residents of Newton were already surprised by the process at least a couple of years ago. No one but us political junkies knew that the 4 municipal lots were surplussed, knew that the vague wording of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan (changed yearly) would lead to putting housing over the municipal parking lots (if indeed they knew what it meant at all) or that the JAPG in 2011 recommended (and the BOA approved) “offering” the lot at a “nominal fee” to convince a developer to build there.
Or that when the time came to send out a RFP, it would just follow the old studies without taking into account that the price for land in Newton had skyrocketed so there was no need for a low price enticement to build a development, that Newtonville’s Village Center had begun revitalizing itself with new destination pubs, businesses and restaurants that brought more traffic and used more parking. Or would just ditch without consideration the plans that the NAC had for Walnut Street, it’s buildings, sidewalks, etc. Or take into account that the main thing residents wanted was that any new building should mimic some of the style of the older buildings.
Most people had no idea that “revitalizing” Newtonville, or indeed any of the village centers, would mean writing a new zone MU4 for the parking lot, having the lot surplussed and building a 5 story, square, modernistic building.
So when the 6 proposals were published most residents felt caught by surprise at their size, their design, the loss of parking and said so expecting to at least be listened to. But when the proposals were evaluated with seemingly no transparency, ASPartners was announced “the winner” with only vague explanations of why they were selected over the others, the Mayor went on record that the developer was selected but not the development, the questions grew. (This was puzzling to many because it was a Request For Proposals and not a Request For Developers so how could the submissions’ financials for the proposals be evaluated fairly.) But at least there was hope that a different design would be presented.
Then promised public input hearings weren’t held. Private, invitation only presentations were being held seeming to avoid actual public participation. The Mayor had already said he was working to streamline the development process bypassing the BOA when possible.
When ASPartner’s project was announced it hadn’t changed from the proposal and it was being touted as a joint City/ASP venture, City meaning the Mayor and staff not the BOA. (This is where the “crammed down throats” and “blindsided” came into play.) Residents were surprised, to say the least, that nothing they had said mattered, particularly the design that didn’t try to have a throw back Main Street feel and didn’t blend into Newtonville’s architecture, sense of place, neighborhood feel which had been the number 1 criteria. Unfortunately these people used the word “character” which set off a barrage of either misunderstandings or a calculated campaign to smear anyone who wanted something different. Name calling and shaming tactics were constantly used by those who didn’t want a discussion but blindly wanted the project completed.
All of this made a lot of people angry. I think the Mayor and his annoying supporters of anything he says or does are the main cause of obstruction and this lawsuit. At any time the Mayor could have approached these angry people and explained his process and admitted that it was actually the proposal he wanted and accepted. Obnoxious supporters could have been supporters who saw other viewpoints, approached them with dignity and stopped the aggressive name calling and shaming of concerned citizens who live here just like they do.
Maybe if this had been an open, honest process without a predetermined outcome and if the Mayor had not picked a proposal and pompously presented it as a savior but instead gently introduced housing and retail with an open mind to what the neuborhoid wanted, we might be in a different spot.
@Marti – Like
Jerry, it’s nice to know someone read it.
And so Marti, come election time, the lines are drawn.
If you like the mayors methods and objectives and and want to support them vote for Density Deb Crossley, Ted Hess Mahan, Susan Albright and Marcia Johnson.
If you are hopeful of change , want to keep village centers from becoming housing project centers, don’t want to exchange affordable housing for Mc Mansions, and disagree with the ongoing urbanization of the Garden city, Vote for Julia Malakie, Jim Cote, Brian Yates, Chris Pitts, Lynne LeBlanc and Jake Auchincloss.
And Marti, don’t worry, you are being read!
nice marti
Bill, I take each candidate as they come. I am not prepared to label half the alderman pro development and the other side anti. There are so many issues to contend with. I’m worried that we spend so much time patting each other on the back, we forget about the larger picture. Who do you trust to communicate with the constituents and do the aldermans work of paying for paving the streets, take care of our infrastructure, keep newton in line with opeb, etc. Everyone believes this is a one issue race, I don’t.
Bluprintbill, those are your inferences but not my implications. I just laid out my observations.
But concerning BOA elections, if you notice, the BOA were not involved in this process and those named do not necessarily agree with “the mayor’s methods.”
So I’m drawing no lines in this election with my observations.
(You like all of those “-tions?”)