“City lawyers were disappointed and surprised the Zoning Board of Appeals wouldn’t allow the developer of a Chapter 40B affordable housing project on Rowe Street in Auburndale to present a revised version of its project last year,” according to a series of text messages published in the TAB
The messages appear to show that city lawyers expected the city to lose its appeal of claims that Newton was city exempt from 40B under a 1.5 percent threshold, which is exactly what happend.
Umm, what is THIS about?!
“The text message exchange was part of an administrative record filed in Newton District Court Wednesday as part of a separate case – the city’s March 2015 firing of Murphy and subsequent dispute against him being deemed eligible for unemployment benefits. (Court records show the city terminated Murphy largely over a dispute about his ability to work while recovering from an injury.)”
Did we fire an injured person then deny him unemployment benefits?
These text messages support what I’ve been saying since the City asserted it had met the 1.5% 4oB threshold. Despite the City Solicitor’s professionalism and competence in most matters, Newton desperately needed an outside law firm with 40B expertise to represent us in this highly specialized and nuanced area of the law. If Mayor Warren really wanted to win this case, he would have brought in an outside law firm.
I think that the city lawyers only expected to lose at the Housing Appeals Committee which has a record of upholding appeals from plantiffs but to win in the Courts which are more evendhanded and actually seem to review the facts. The Planning Department presented the facts as they saw them on our compliance with the 1.5% threshold and made a persuasive case for a majority of the ZBA who overruled their Chair and invoked the threshold twice. The case cited in the story has the reverse vote (Chair in favor of appeal- majority against it.) Perhaps you can explain this discrepancy.
Do I assume correctly that the case in the story dates from a time when Attorney Murphy worked for city under Soliticitor Kahn’s direct supervisor? I am puzzled as to how an exchange between two attorneys working on the same side can be exposed to public scrutiny, and since there are only two more episodes of “The Good Wife”, I don’t think I ‘m get any useful insights there like I did on the issue of municipal regulation of drones
According to what I’ve heard, Attorney Dennis Murphy who was hired from outside had exactly the kind of 40 B expertise that Mike Striar says above that we needed to represent us in “highly specialized and nuanced ” field of law.
If I recall correctly, Brian, it was Murphy’s expertise that was the foundation of the City’s 40B immunity claim. A point of debate was the City’s characterization of several golf courses as un-developable. I personally believe that position was well supported in practice and the law. While I don’t know all the details of his departure, I’m left with the partially formed opinion that Murphy did good work, and the City fumbled the ball after he left. Nevertheless, I stand by my point that the Mayor should have hired an outside law firm. While Murphy had expertise, as an employee he lacked adequate and dedicated resources that could have successfully asserted the City’s complicated claim.