Here’s a link to the statement of interest from Mark Development for a land swap involving the Newton Police Department. And here’s Mayor Fuller’s public response to the proposal and details about the original RFI
Here’s Mark Development’s statement of interest in the Newton Police Station land swap
by Greg Reibman | Jun 5, 2018 | Ruthanne Fuller, West Newton | 42 comments
The Statement of Interest is remarkably detailed including beautiful renderings. Very hard to believe this was put together in the 20 or so days that were allotted.
It’s impossible. I submit that it was his idea.
I think MD makes a bad assumption about Capt.Ryan park. This land is dedicated to Capt.Ryan war hero, not Police hero. But more importantly, I would HATE to see that beautiful park taken for a 5 story retail complex. I am not against developing the current structure into retail and some housing. The loss of the green space will be significant. The drawings are lovely but they don’t depict anything that seems to fit into the existing landscape…
So the post is from the Mayor so clearly she is advocating for this and I have no doubt she and Korff cooked this up together. Or even more likely he pitched it an now she is selling it.
They both know that the park is a non-starter. It is a negotiating tactic. The initial proposal is intentionally unacceptable so that we can have a farce of a negotiation. But my understanding was that the PD building was to be preserved, not shelled out with only the facade remaining. Ironic that we actually have a facade that the Mayor isn’t in the pocket of Korff. The more important question is whether the majority of the City Council is as well. I hope not.
I would counter that the mayor is pushing for all this new development simply because its the only tenable way forward to bring in commercial tax revenue to cover the 1Billion pension shortfall..
Seriously, what’s the alternative? pray the tax shortfall just away?
The due date for the RFI was only a little over three weeks from the issue date – much too short a time for any other landowner to prepare a response to the land swap. As such I question the mayor’s reasoning and am very disappointed in ignoring the process.
Fuller says she has concerns about the proposal and that it would require tough negotiations for it to work so at this point I don’t see her advocating it. In the beginning she said the park would stay and maybe receive an upgrade but that is obviously not what Korf has in mind. Clearly this proposal that removes the green area and adds a story to the historical police building isn’t what West Newton Square needs and the amount of money offered and the land swap won’t produce a police station for the future. I don’t even see where negotiating will produce a workable option.
There needs to be a study to determine the money required to build a state of the art police facility that will meet the city’s needs now and into the future, the amount of land needed to house it and it’s required parking, perhaps underground, and the best location. This decision should not be made by a developer but by professionals who know what they are doing.
Marti I agree with you completely other than the idea that the Mayor isn’t advocating for this. That why she posted this. But I agree we need to step back from this proposal and figure out what a new PD headquarters would cost to build. We also need to completely understand the value of the subject property .
Claire, exactly what did the mayor post?
@Marti This post is from the mayor
If you average out what the Weston and Watertown stations cost to build you will be looking at a minimum of 15 million dollars.
Claire, Mark Development’s response to the RFI was posted on the city website, as are all responses to RFIs and RFPs. The Mayor released a statement in response to the proposal saying she has concerns and “That’s not to say the whole undertaking is off the table, but let’s just say there’ll have to be some tough negotiating to get the proposal to a place where it makes sense for the City.”
That’s not advocating at all.
@Tricia, the post we are commenting on is from the Mayor. That IS advocating
You’ve lost me… You think the Mayor is posting on V14???? This post was *posted by* “Village14” and *tagged* “Ruthanne Fuller”
My bad Tricia! Thought it was posted by RAF. Was it posted by Greg? V14 isn’t a person
And remember there is nothing in the RFI that requires the former WN branch library (Police Annex) to be preserved, and the response says nothing about preserving it. This whole thing is nauseating. A city council that approved the ‘devil strip’ at the Orr Block, and a mayor that offers up these properties in a sweetheart RFI tailored and timed for the developer we’re supposedly trying to ‘get ahead’ of with the $500K no-bid Principle Group contract, have basically signalled to Korff that he can do whatever he wants.
Meanwhile the “public design week” for Washington Street has started, with no systematic public notice, like a postcard to every household, or water bill insert. I suspect the vast majority of the people of Newton, and even in the affected villages, have no idea it’s happening.
@Claire – Items that are posted by “Village14” are typically public documents without any particular individual’s contribution or opinion, that are posted by any of us.
I don’t understand why the mayor is rushing into this. Having an RFP with less than a month shows me she didn’t want alot of interest, because she had her hand picked person (who had renderings in his back pocket).
Parents of NPS have been fighting/begging/pleading for five years for a later high school start time.
Parents have asked NPS School Committee for full day kindergarten for 6 years.
If Newton School Committee can move at glacial speeds, why does the mayor want to sprint this one idea through? There is a happy medium between 30 days and five years. Lets have the leadership of this city (mayor and school committee) make timely (Not rushed) decisions.
Mayor Fuller – the citizens need a full fiscal report, and demand that you open the RFP for a longer amount of time. On the flip side, why don’t you give the school committee 30 days to implement high school later start times and full day kindergarten. Clearly, when you want to rush things, there is a rush.
This post is incorrect in that the mayor did not issue an RFD but instead issued an RFI (Request for Interest) which legally is very different. The posted link to the original “RFD” is actually a link to a Village 14 post about the RFI in which part of it is quoted and either the mayor is quoted in full or quoted partly with some commentary. It says in part:
This sets in motion an innovative proposal that could result in the City building a new police complex with open space and potential recreation fields in exchange for the current police properties in West Newton Square.
Addressing these issues on the current site in West Newton Square would require demolishing the historic building, something Mayor Fuller wants to preserve.
Instead she came up with the possibility to leverage the value of the West Newton police properties to provide an opportunity to greatly accelerate construction of a new police headquarters and recreational facilities that would otherwise be financially unattainable for many years to come.
Here’s the RFI: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/bids/inc/blobfetch.aspx?blobid=89570
According to the RFI, there are points listed that are the most desirable for selection to submit further. Some of these are listed below.
The following desired outcomes will be used while evaluating the proposals.
Size of parcel
Developable portion of parcel, or combination of new parcel and developable city owned parcel, at greater than 130,680 square feet. Parcels below this size will be evaluated to determine if they meet the Police programmatic needs.
Desirable Location for Police Complex Property is located on or adjacent to primary roadways and is located within the City in a manner that optimizes police response times.
Potential to Create New Open Space Provides an opportunity to create accessible, desirable, and meaningful new open space as part of the future Police Complex Project, or in a separate location.
Proposed Development Project Historically Preserves the Police Headquarters building located at 1321 Washington Street and Contains
Proposed development project serves to enliven the village center with new ground floor retail, includes new commercial space, and contributes to diversifying Newton’s housing stock. The project includes public open space, maintaining or replacing Captain Ryan Park in some capacity.
This is very rushed, and the push is very strong. Look at the two polls the city has posted for resident response, and you’ll see they are as loaded as the push-polls you get from the political parties, trying to get the response they want rather than what you really think. All the pretty pictures in the image poll come from the nice parts of urban areas, hiding the concrete canyon effect and few show much green space, or older buildings.
Is the city really trying to generate more tax income to solve a serious financial problem, as Bugek suggests? If so, that’s the wrong response. If the city cares about its future, it needs to take time to think this through much more carefully than is being done.
Questions from the above RFI.
How was the RFI marketed widely and why was a short time period given for a response? What’s the rush?
Primarily since the time to respond was so short, meaning probably only Korf was in a position to respond that quickly, why weren’t retaining both the police station building and the park written as requirements instead of just preferable? The only reason to write them as preferable would be if a wide range of SOI’s were expected.
Without professionals studying the cost of building a new state of the art police complex and recreational fields, the size of the land needed for the complex including parking and the best place to house them, this RFI seems premature. Why would this be left in the hands of a landowner/developer to decide?
Professionals have been hired to study Washington Street for development which Is a good step. Why would the city propose a deal such as this one without first having professionals determining the above?
I refuse to believe, at this point, that a behind the scenes deal was undertaken by our mayor. I do wonder what the heck she was thinking. This SOI is beyond negotiation for many reasons including the affordable percentage, the size of the parcel submitted for a land swap and the unrealistic amount being offered.
I’m totally against any of the proposed restrictions on development or a moratorium because the first two are permanent restrictions which are flawed and the moratorium will have consequences way beyond waiting just like any others have.
I do think the mayor and the city council should seriously way the efficacy of any special permits submitted for Washington Street before the study is completed. There must be a way to hold off on approvals without a formal moratorium being in place.
“RFP” changed to “RFI” above. Thanks Marti
@Greg
THAT’s your contribution to this thread? You seem to always have comments on development issues, but seeing some action that seems blatantly indefensible and overly favoring developers– you stay silent. Hmm.
PS People should know that I’ve been censored at V14 for roughly a year now by Greg. Without undertaking some unusual, time-intensive steps to post on the blog in order to circumvent the V14 filter that’s been placed on me (as I’ve done with this post), I am unable to comment on topics without each individual post being approved. Many haven’t been approved, including one for this thread, and I’ve frankly had enough.
People should know that Greg is censoring the discussion, and I can’t believe that I’m the only one.
Greg/Jerry, can someone speak to whether Paul is being censored or delayed in posting? I realize this is not my sandbox but I’m not understanding why that would be the case. While I do not always agree with Paul, I do think he should be free to post here and quickly and easily as everyone else.
Let’s clear this particular thing up.
As for this particular discussion, I’m on record that I agree with Marti and others. This RFI was poorly designed and executed. Here’s to hoping that the Mayor does better going forward.
I’ll note that I’m not as upset as Julia M. (I think the description of this as “nauseating” is a bit much) or Paul. Mayors make mistakes, seems like the overall community is calling her out on this particular misstep. Absent a forward step that destroys the park, ruins the historic building, or does any of the parade of horribles, I’m going to just view this as a floated proposal, and not give it more weight that it deserves. Sometimes a $%$# proposal is just a $%$# proposal. Circular file this one.
Some questions though:
1) Let’s here more from the Council on the state of the police station. Fire stations have gotten a lot of work this decade. Police next?
2) Would anyone WANT to site the police complex near Whole Foods? Is that site worth 7 million? What backs up that valuation?
3) West Newton seems to have a parking problem. What can the city do about that, especially in the evening and on weekends?
@Paul, I would like to know more about how you’ve been censored. Can you email me? ([email protected] and [email protected] are both public.)
Paul’s comments have been going into moderation for sometime now, after repeatedly calling a regular here a liar (not me, a private citizen who used to contribute regularly) and repeatedly being told that he was in violation of our commenting policy and should knock it off. We’ve had other complaints about Paul’s caustic comments from other outside participants as well.
I will only add: We thrive on differing views here. This site would be boring without them. In fact the reason we created this site is to provide a platform for robust discussion,. There is no censoring of folks because of different opinions. That’s why we exist.
@Greg
You aren’t really telling the truth. (Which is ironic given your rationale for censoring me.)
The person in question was not simply a private citizen, but in a public role at the time. My concern was the inconsistency between the statements made during her campaign, and the comments she made after her election which seemed inconsistent. I pointed out that inconsistency, using the verb “lie” but did not label her a “liar.”
This occurred in probably three threads over a week, not repeatedly. You mentioned that it violated the commenting policy once, not repeatedly. My behavior was singled out, while many similar “caustic” comments being made by many here at V14– to Emily Norton in particular.
You are welcome to clarify how my posts were different than the others. In my mind, its clear– you agree with the “caustic” comments to Emily, and mine you didn’t. Hence the censorship.
Folks should know that not only have posts of mine been censored, Greg has also removed posts of mine after they’ve been posted when I have used this approach for circumventing the filter– in fact, there is at least one thread where other commenters asked how my posts disappeared.
Finally Greg– many folks have complained about your posts– for years. I think your friends call it “snark” and others would use “caustic.” Claiming that as justification for censoring my posts, when you have free reign is pretty hypocritical.
This will be my last post on the topic, so no need to shut down discussion or hopefully remove this post.
PS If you think V14 is feels welcoming to diverse opinions, you’re sorely mistaken. Many regular posters with opposing points of view (to yours) have stopped.
Paul – Your anonymous posts are usually caustic or angry, but more importantly, they are often directed at certain individuals. I have been on your list of people you attack. I hope you can understand that such a situation is unsettling to those who post under their real names. For those who haven’t been the repeated target of Paul’s anger, lucky you. I’ll never know why I am because we don’t know who he is, but please understand that it’s disconcerting. I appreciate that there’s moderation of comments on V14. It’s lively enough as it is.
I would appreciate hearing from some additional City Council people on their current stance/assessment of this proposal
Paul, after being warned more than once you continued your attacks in ways that do violate the commenting rules – having nothing to do with your expressing your opinion – and were placed in moderation instead of being banned. In fact, I believe that circumventing the rules to bypass moderation should be another violation of the rules.
Why do you believe it is ok for you not to be required to follow the rules like everyone else and also to use a go around to post anyway – particularly just to use this post to act like you’ve been treated unfairly. That’s really privileged thinking.
And Julia, why encourage him?
Mark’s proposed parking ratio (spaces per housing unit) is way too high (1.7) for being next to bus & commuter rail. Newton has the highest parking ratio in the commonwealth for cities greater than 50,000 in population, and that’s mostly weighted by cars parked at homes outside of transit-oriented village centers. This perpetuates & worsens Newton’s car dependence.
The unreliable public transit is what perpetuates and worsens Newton’s car dependence. Most people are going to bring cars whether the building provides enough parking or not unless Washington Street has access to public transportation that goes beyond a traditional commuter schedule.
@Claire – A committee to review the proposal has been put together and it includes four City Councilors if I remember correctly – Deb Crossley, Lenny Gentile and Barbara Brousal Glazer and Jay Ciccone. I think they are meeting soon- late this week/early next week.
The Baker Admin has been an abject failure on transit, but he does not define our future. I’ll continue to advocate to realize our potentially excellent transit options along Washington St. The ward 2 & 3 councilors, Mayor Fuller and State Rep Kay Khan are also committed to and actively advocating for improving commuter rail and bus service.
I agree, but I don’t think we can expect people to reduce their cars until improved public transit is a reality.
Mmqc: do you have statistics to support your claim that most people will choose housing that does not support their desired number of vehicles?
Isn’t it possible for projects to market to a segment of consumers who prefer car share and other options?
‘“most people” will choose housing that does not support their desired number of vechicles?’
I didn’t say that, so no, I don’t have stats to back up a statement that I didn’t make.
Someone at our table at the visioning meeting Tuesday brought up a parking situation that occurred at a recent new development in Waltham. Parking spaces were for sale with the units. People chose not to purchase and instead chose to park on the street. The overnight parking ban will probably make that a moot point in Newton, but one way to discourage car ownership is through $$. I recall my sister’s condo in the back bay in the 80s had a deeded parking space that I think she paid 10000.00 for at the time.
I believe that Captain Ryan Park is or should be covered by the State Law or Constitutional Amendment that requires that any public parkland switched to anther use must be replaced. Is the Park so designated? If not,advocates should find out and begin the designation process.
I was on the Public Facilities Committee back in Neolithic times when the Station was renovated . One of the things that seemed optimal about the site was that its adjacent location to the Courthouse meant that people who had been arrested could be housed temporarily in the cells in the Police Station and then transported with little or no danger to the Courthouse through the existing tunnel. Does the tunnel and this arrangement still exist ? If so, how would safe transportation for police prisoners to the courthouse be arranged? The distance from Crafts Street to the Courthouse on Washington Street would seem problematic.
@Brian,
The tunnels were sealed off during the renovation of the police station 20 plus years ago.
To the Whole Truth,
Thank you for the information on the tunnels being closed. I can only attribute my ignorance on this score to my having avoided arrest by the Newton Police and trial before the Newton District Court in that period.
@Brian Yate – I guess TheWholeTruth wasn’t nearly so lucky. He/she seems to be very knowledgeable on the topic. Here’s hoping you continue to stay one step ahead of the law Brian ;-)
@Jerry,
Au contraire…..I fortunately lack first hand knowledge of this particular location. But I do know someone who know’s someone who does!